ptrowskiGot Helix? Premium Member join:2005-03-14 Woodstock, CT |
ptrowski
Premium Member
2008-May-6 11:27 am
Sigh....Surprise surprise.... Anyone who thought they actually wanted this to work in the interest of the consumer was sorely mistaken. | |
|
| |
jt45
Anon
2008-May-6 1:52 pm
Re: Sigh....this does work in your favorite. by stopping illegal downloads your speed on the internet service will increase. you dont like it because you download illegal content. how about you pay for the product and service you want. stop downloading illegal content | |
|
| | ptrowskiGot Helix? Premium Member join:2005-03-14 Woodstock, CT |
ptrowski
Premium Member
2008-May-6 2:10 pm
Re: Sigh....It works in my favorite? Never heard that phrase before.
I don't download illegal content. It affects Vuze, a perectly legal use of P2P. There are also plenty of perfectly legit uses for P2P.
But I guess you just forgot about those. | |
|
| swhx7 Premium Member join:2006-07-23 Elbonia |
to ptrowski
The big ISPs are trying to set up a situation where they offer a sterilized, commercialized p2p service, and ban all other p2p. The trick is implying that all other p2p (other than their approved service) would exist only for copyright infringement. This would make the customers of each ISP a captive market with the ISP having a monopoly on its subscribers' p2p needs; and it would contrive a phony excuse for traffic discrimination (opposite of network neutrality). Of course the proposition that all p2p other than the ISP-approved services is illegal, is a big, deliberate lie. In reality, internet subscribers may prefer to use something other than the ISP-managed p2p for many good reasons:
- The people at the other end of the connection choose to share on something other than the ISP's service.
- Preferring not to pay an extra fee to the ISP.
- Well-justified distrust of closed-source applications.
- Avoiding monitoring and filtering.
Stopping copyright infringement is only the excuse the ISPs give in public for monitoring and filtering. But if they get the power, they'll use it for political censorship, political spying, price-gouging, unwanted marketing, "fishing" for blackmail material on behalf of government, and other abuses. | |
|
| | |
Re: Sigh....Excellent post. Good to see some people aren't so easily hoodwink-able! | |
|
| | |
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-May-6 11:37 am
Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptiveWhy not involve consumer advocates in the process from the ground up? ... My guess is that once they've polished up a proposal, they can bring the plan to consumer advocates, who'll look unethical if they suggest that illegal P2P traffic should be treated equally. I think your guess is pretty good. Because if involved from the beginning, these consumer advocates would push for hands off all traffic - even illegal traffic. And that plays to their usual anti-corporate bias and their usual advocacy for stealing music and movies. | |
|
| openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2008-May-6 11:48 am
Re: Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptiveNot to mention that nothing productive comes from those types of discussions and the "consumer advocates" will leave the table pouting because they can't have their way on a network that doesn't belong to them.
The alleged illegality of some of the content that's distributed through P2P is really irrelevant unless you're a member of some of the trade groups that may be realizing losses. IMO, this is a bigger push to control P2P types of applications and what goes on the ISP's networks. What this most likely means is the demise of P2P. The question is, what will replace it and how will ISPs deal with the new threat? | |
|
| | TechieZeroTools Are Using Me Premium Member join:2002-01-25 Lithia, FL |
Re: Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptiveIn other words...money talks, BS walks. | |
|
| | KylemaulLovin' My Firefox Premium Member join:2001-03-30 Puyallup, WA |
to openbox9
said by openbox9:...push to control P2P types of applications and what goes on the ISP's networks... I read this as "My (P2P) way, or the highway" AKA Stifling competiton, development, innovation, privacy, neutrality, et. al... If I had more than two thumbs, they'd all be down at Concast over this. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to FFH5
I love how "consumer advocacy" translates to "anti-corporate bias" in your mind. You are just so cute and cuddly sometimes. | |
|
| | |
Re: Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptivesaid by TScheisskopf:I love how "consumer advocacy" translates to "anti-corporate bias" in your mind. You are just so cute and cuddly sometimes. Second that. | |
|
| |
factchecker to FFH5
Anon
2008-May-6 12:03 pm
to FFH5
said by FFH5:And that plays to their usual anti-corporate bias and their usual advocacy for stealing music and movies. Which is some how worse that your usual anti-consumer, corporations do no wrong stance ? To say that consumer advocates _advocate_ file sharing of copyrighted materials because the oppose ISPs playing content censors and copyright police is like saying that people who support the first amendment rights of organizations like the KKK advocate racism and hate. All that does is serve to cloud the debate and stear the dicussion away from the facts and into BS political and social commentary. | |
|
| |
Not TK to FFH5
Anon
2008-May-6 12:07 pm
to FFH5
Sir, you are a liar unless you can provide one single piece of evidence that Free Press has advocated for stealing music and movies, or that they have ever said illegal content should be protected from network management.
Shame on you. | |
|
| |
asdfdfdfdfdfdf to FFH5
Anon
2008-May-6 1:07 pm
to FFH5
Saying consumer advocates will be disruptive is just a biased way of saying that consumer advocates will seek to enhance the interests of their own constituency and that those interests are different from the interests of most of the industries participating.
Of course its true that negotiations are always more difficult if you truly try to bring together all the different interests involved, rather than only bringing together a subset of interests that start with agreement on basic philosophy.
I applaud them for bringing some companies that develop p2p apps into the fold. They admit, however, that they only want to bring in other competing interests after they have reached a consensus, as to tactical approach, with those who largely share their interests. Obviously one only goes on the offensive at the point at which one has built an army of alliances that can overwhelm those with competing interests.
One should remain suspicious given the vastly disproportionate power of the isp and content provider interests involved and the clear intent to exclude the influence of broad public sentiment.
"their usual anti-corporate bias"
Call it whatever you like. The interests of corporations are generally well looked after in this society. There are other interests that are generally less well tended to. The internet did not begin with corporations and the internet is not simply the sum total of corporate interests. There are many non-corporate and non-commercial interests that are part of the network of networks. There are key corporations who would like to dominate by using their control over choke points on the network. There are others, like myself, who are content to let corporations utilize these networks for their agendas but are not content to let particular corporate interests dominate the development of the internet. We are in the middle of a process where socially disruptive technological developments are being tamed and absorbed by status quo interests to minimize their disruptive nature. Non-corporate interests are not nearly as easily coordinated or well organized as corporate interests. Corporations, being top-down hierarchical structures have an advantage here. This doesn't mean those non-corporate interests are illegitimate. I don't think it is evil to want a counterbalance to offset that advantage. | |
|
FLengineerCCNA, CEH, MCSA Premium Member join:2007-06-26 Deltona, FL |
Another nice move by ComcastThe proposal arrived two days before a planned network neutrality hearing in Stanford
Yea ok, sounds like they couldn't find enough seat warmers this time. What better way to put off getting in trouble by claiming you are working on the problem two days before the hearing. Last time Comcast hired uninterested by-standards to fill the seats. | |
|
| SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
Re: Another nice move by Comcastsaid by FLengineer:The proposal arrived two days before a planned network neutrality hearing in Stanford I think it's funny that people reference the "net neutrality" meeting at Stanford without noticing Stanford's own policy towards P2P: From a networking perspective, Stanford suffers under current file-sharing because of the resources it eats up. The people at Networking Systems want to help limit Stanford's liability under the DMCA, but aside from this concern, they also want to provide a reliable network for all users. Therefore, Networking Systems has limited the amount of network resources that may be used for file-sharing. The purpose of the cap is to make the network usable for schoolwork and other important activities. It is not to punish the students-- faculty and staff share the same restrictions--but rather to improve the network for everyone. Source: »rescomp.stanford.edu/inf ··· #network | |
|
| | FLengineerCCNA, CEH, MCSA Premium Member join:2007-06-26 Deltona, FL |
Re: Another nice move by ComcastNot an ISP.
Most companies prohibit the use of P2P period. Stanford's network is nothing more than a huge private network. Now I wonder what Stanford's view would be if their ISP just decided to thottle P2P traffic for them without an option. | |
|
| | | SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
Re: Another nice move by ComcastThey buy capacity from carriers who have completely different (ie, realistic) bandwidth pricing structures.
Similarly when you sign up for Comcast you are buying attachment to their private network that has upstream connections to carriers. | |
|
| | |
| | |
to SpaethCo
You realize that the fact the meeting is held at Stanford Uni has no relevance to the meeting, they can hold it in a hotel, high school gym, banquet hall, night club, sports stadium, theater, etc. | |
|
| | | SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
Re: Another nice move by ComcastClearly you didn't watch any of the coverage of the event, where Lawrence Lessig (Stanford law prof) had an entire PowerPoint presentation dedicated to highlighting Standford as a cradle for Internet innovation, citing the birth of Google and Yahoo!, among other things.
Barbara van Schewick (also from Stanford) gave a presentation mid-way through the hearing stating that investor fears that P2P-like apps would be throttled have resulted in at least one project that she was aware of being denied funding.
It was more than just a random venue, Stanford faculty presented at the event. | |
|
| | | | funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
Re: Another nice move by ComcastIn agreement with you -- I'm pretty sure that FCC Chairman Martin is on the record saying that he held the second hearing because Lessig requested it. | |
|
TitusMr Gradenko join:2004-06-26 |
Titus
Member
2008-May-6 11:47 am
Flip-floppersI think Comcast has proven beyond any doubt that they are the Walmart of ISPs -- | |
|
| N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano Premium Member join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs |
N3OGH
Premium Member
2008-May-6 12:57 pm
Re: Flip-flopperssaid by Titus:I think Comcast has proven beyond any doubt that they are the Walmart of ISPs -- B.B.BBut, I thought they were the BMW???? | |
|
| TechieZeroTools Are Using Me Premium Member join:2002-01-25 Lithia, FL |
to Titus
Good products at cheap prices? | |
|
FLengineerCCNA, CEH, MCSA Premium Member join:2007-06-26 Deltona, FL 2 edits |
I am with the Consumer AdvocatesI don't download illegal P2P files so don't for a second claim I am bias. I posted this a long time ago... If the ISP is allowed to block your traffic because they suspect that it is illegal files, then I expect to see toll both operators armed and ready to stop someone if they see a joint in the passenger's seat. There is absolutely no difference there.
If comcast is having trouble providing users with a 2Mb upstream speed, then stop selling a 2Mb upstream speed. OH WAIT, it has nothing to do with upstream speeds does it? They are slowing upstream speed because they know 99% of their customers won't complain about it as apposed to downstream speed throttling and by throttling upstream speed it reduces the same about of backbone traffic. | |
|
| wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY 1 edit |
Re: I am with the Consumer Advocatessaid by FLengineer:I don't download illegal P2P files so don't for a second claim I am bias. I posted this a long time ago... If the ISP is allowed to block your traffic because they suspect that it is illegal files, then I expect to see toll both operators armed and ready to stop someone if they see a joint in the passenger's seat. There is absolutely no difference there. I dont know how it is in Florida, but coming into and out of NYC (specifically the MTA managed facilities) the toll booth operators are police officers with guns and handcuffs. They WILL arrest you if the see drugs on your seat! | |
|
| | FLengineerCCNA, CEH, MCSA Premium Member join:2007-06-26 Deltona, FL |
Re: I am with the Consumer AdvocatesHAHA, gotta love NYC. The point is still valid, that toll booth operator is a law enforcement officer and should arrest you. Comcast is not a law enforcement agency. | |
|
| | | |
jt45
Anon
2008-May-6 2:12 pm
Re: I am with the Consumer Advocatesyou are right they are not a law enforcement agency but they do have the right to stop people from using their network for illegal content. it would be like me renting your home to sell drugs out of it. i am sure if you found out you would want to kick me out. should i throw a fit because you are not a law enforcement agency and you dont have the right? i think not. you own the home so you have the right. | |
|
| | | | FLengineerCCNA, CEH, MCSA Premium Member join:2007-06-26 Deltona, FL 1 edit |
Re: I am with the Consumer AdvocatesYou would win a lawsuit against me if my reason was "I THINK he is dealing drugs". If I went in your rental and snooped around to prove it, that would be illegal as well unless I had a legal reason to go looking in your home. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: I am with the Consumer AdvocatesLegal reason to look in your home, are you subletting and violating occupancy rules since there is too much foot traffic to the apt?
Even if the initial look was illegal, the person who saw it illegally can tell the cops they saw it, then cops get a warrant and search the place legally (and launch an investigation into you and wiretap you), and then you goto jail. Only if you get rid of the drugs between the 1st (illegal) look and legal investigation/search warrants will you get away with it.
Even without a search warrant, cops can still search anything with probable cause since its an emergency and the opportunity will be lost if they have to get a warrant, even over your protests (you can't stop a cop from searching you, only protest it, only useful in a civil rights lawsuit later). | |
|
| | | | | | |
ipickedaname
Anon
2008-May-7 5:11 pm
Re: I am with the Consumer AdvocatesYes, but where is your probable cause to snoop on my connection to determine whether my P2P is legal or not?
Try: FISHING EXPEDITION! | |
|
| SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
to FLengineer
said by FLengineer:If comcast is having trouble providing users with a 2Mb upstream speed, then stop selling a 2Mb upstream speed. Shared bandwidth is an actuarial science like insurance. When claims are higher than predicted the insurance companies raise rates. If the insurance companies feels you are filing excessive claims they can cancel your policy. Broadband providers are just following a very similar strategy. Everybody should be able to hit their max provisioned speeds at some point, but there's no way for everyone to max out their connection at the same time. | |
|
| | •••••••••• |
| openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
to FLengineer
said by FLengineer:If the ISP is allowed to block your traffic because they suspect that it is illegal files You assume ISPs are blocking P2P because of illegal content. Unless they're getting kickbacks from the content owning trade groups, my guess is that ISPs are minimizing the impact to their networks. | |
|
| | ••••••
|
DrexBeer...The other white meat. Premium Member join:2000-02-24 Not There
1 recommendation |
Drex
Premium Member
2008-May-6 12:17 pm
Oh I'm just a billGotta love the Schoolhouse Rock "I'm a Bill" graphic. | |
|
|
Charlie Douglas
Anon
2008-May-6 12:55 pm
ComcastComments & Trackbacks Karl I just posted this comment on the article you are sourcing from. Janko - Comcast has not abandoned the idea of a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. We fully support the DCIAs effort to build a coalition of ISPs, P2P companies, experts and others to develop a set of P2P Best Practices and encourage you and others to read the press release they put out last week at » www.prweb.com/releases/2 ··· 0024.htm. The fact is, Comcast and Pando took the first step in calling for a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities and the DCIA is an ideal forum for the entire industry to collaborate and develop some best practices. We look forward to working with the DCIA and others on this important initiative. | |
|
| ••• |
|
Well time for a change.Interesting.... I just upgraded to 16/2 so I will be able to hit the limit faster. I have 3 kids, wife and myself using computers at my house all on the web a lot. I think I will just downgrade my comcast service...shut down my comcast tv, comcast phone, comcast dvr and comcast internet and use the money to by a dedicated non-comcast line. I have not ever been contacted, so I don't know if we are over the limit...but 250G seems low. | |
|
| a333A hot cup of integrals please join:2007-06-12 Rego Park, NY |
a333
Member
2008-May-6 10:17 pm
How's this...Why don't ISP's just pass the damn packets and let the gov't take care of the goddammed legality of those said packets? Since when did the **AA's and the ISP's turn into the new police? Last time I checked, my tax dollars already pay for the gov't to take care of the DMCA. I don't need the **AA's/ISP's to play uncle sam/Big Brother. That's what the NSA is for, ya know..
Do we have a deal? | |
|
| funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
to searcher61
Re: Well time for a change.said by searcher61:Interesting.... I just upgraded to 16/2 so I will be able to hit the limit faster. I have 3 kids, wife and myself using computers at my house all on the web a lot. I think I will just downgrade my comcast service...shut down my comcast tv, comcast phone, comcast dvr and comcast internet and use the money to by a dedicated non-comcast line. I have not ever been contacted, so I don't know if we are over the limit...but 250G seems low. I think you replied to the wrong thread. | |
|
|
Kim in Seattle
Anon
2008-May-19 2:52 pm
email troublesI have just been told by Comcast that they have a nation wide glitch and my emails won't be delivered to yahoo, hotmail, and msn. The supervisor suggested I call all those servers and ask them to unblock me. As if it me, kim, who has been blocked not Comcast, the server. Has anyone here heard this before? Desperate in Seattle. | |
|
|
|