 |
 | 
Phoenix Gold
Hypocrite
join:2001-11-24
Faulkton, SD
clubs: | Re: Not a suprise I'd make sure i wasn't a customer of your ISP. | |
|
| | 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI | Re: Not a suprise said by bremerton:
I'd make sure i wasn't a customer of your ISP.
Did you even read the article? :P
--
Nightfall - »www.nightfall.net | |
|
| | |
Phoenix Gold
Hypocrite
join:2001-11-24
Faulkton, SD
clubs: | Re: Not a suprise yea, i read it. My point was that given a choice in a free market i wouldnt choose your service, or any service that did this. | |
|
| | | | 
Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
| Re: Not a suprise So what are you going to do when the gluttonous warez/mp3 thieves force ALL ISP's to do it to some degree legally and economically... start and fund your own ISP?
Things don't moderate very soon... it will happen one way or another.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
Terminology or acronyms have you confused?? Use Glossary tool at upper left/mid of page. | |
|
| | | | |
Phoenix Gold
Hypocrite
join:2001-11-24
Faulkton, SD
clubs:
| Re: Not a suprise "So what are you going to do when the gluttonous warez/mp3 thieves force ALL ISP's to do it to some degree legally and economically... start and fund your own ISP?"
I pay $260 a month for my DSL, its safe to say i would switch providers if they started blocking ports on my service. Im paying for my fair share of BW already, if they start trying to tell me what i can do with it then i wont give them my $.
And maybe if the MPAA and RIAA spent a little time trying to find a way for me to get content in the manner i prefer, they would get some of my money every month. But as things are now they dont even have a product to offer me, let alone one that compares to the ones that are free.
[text was edited by author 2002-04-18 01:47:32] | |
|
| | | | | |
Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
| Re: Not a suprise Well sounds like you are on a business class connection which is a whole other story where you are paying for large bandwidth use.... the MAJORITY are paying just $49 for a residential service which is designed for on demand use... not the 24/7 full bore file transfering that all too many do.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
Terminology or acronyms have you confused?? Use Glossary tool at upper left/mid of page. | |
|
| | | | | | | dyehard$
join:2002-02-17
Phoenixville, PA | Re: Not a suprise (( the MAJORITY are paying just $49 for a residential service which is designed for on demand use... not the 24/7 full bore file transfering that all too many do.)))
allways on meens we can have it on 24 7 if we want so there | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
| Re: Not a suprise Always on in no way means always full bore... just means it is always available for use on demand without connection. (Though with PPPoE that is not really the case often)
Of course if you all WANT to have FORCED limits imposed just keep it up. Personally I would rather see moderation, and things staying at a reasonable price, without limitation for the OCCASIONAL power use.
I certainly will be PO'd about a price rise that essentially forces everyone to subsidize the gluttony of a few.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
Terminology or acronyms have you confused?? Use Glossary tool at upper left/mid of page. | |
|
| 
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·VOIPo
| said by Nightfall:
I make sure P2P file sharing, and other bandwidth intensive apps are banned/blocked on my network here at work. I would do the same thing if I worked at that ISP.
Let's differentiate between work and home use Internet for a moment. I certainly have no problem banning access to P2P file sharing services at work, as it:
(1) Is company-paid and supplied bandwidth, giving them the right to ultimately control what it is used for, and
(2) Isn't job-related or productive use of the Internet connection.
It's a cost-saving measure to some extent, and I really don't think it's necessary to download MP3s all day at work. Heck, that's not what I'm being paid for.
Now, on the other hand, when I the user am paying an ISP my hard-earned money for service, I expect to be able to determine what I do and don't do. I've paid for bandwidth and service; that's how my DSL line was sold to me. Telling me I can't use file sharing applications on my home connection is tantamount to telling me I can't start a VPN session to access my computer at work, telling me I can't connect to an FTP server to download a document, and telling me I can't run an email server on my home network.
Assuming that other ISPs were available in my area, I certainly wouldn't choose one that blocked my ability to do anything on the Internet, even if I had to pay more money.
And I disagree with placing caps on how much data can be downloaded per month too. The service I buy already has a certain speed it's capped at; if the ISP is unwilling/unable to support people using an all-you-can-grab connection at those speeds, they should either close their doors or upgrade their network. (Again, I have no problem putting my money where my mouth is)
Hopefully not all ISPs will implement download amount caps. While I'm far from one of the "vampires" mentioned in the article, I still use the Internet on a daily basis from home. And I still download files, sometimes large ones. And I use my DSL connection for full-screen remote control of office computers once I've connected to work through their VPN resources. I don't know how much data is transferred as a result of my being connected to the Internet 24/7, and I don't want to keep track of it either. And I'm willing to pay for this luxury.
--
"Objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are." - Meat Loaf, Bat out of Hell II | |
|
| |
Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
| Re: Not a suprise said by clrankin:
if the ISP is unwilling/unable to support people using an all-you-can-grab connection at those speeds, they should either close their doors or upgrade their network.
Interesting the third OBVIOUS thing isn't there... that bandwidth hogs actually PAY their way, rather than the "normal moderate users" the services are designed and priced for, subsidizing the hogs, or being penalized because of the hogs behavior.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
Terminology or acronyms have you confused?? Use Glossary tool at upper left/mid of page. | |
|
| | 
alanhdsl
Premium
join:1999-10-09
Phoenix, AZ
 ·Qwest.net
| said by clrankin:
And I disagree with placing caps on how much data can be downloaded per month too. The service I buy already has a certain speed it's capped at; if the ISP is unwilling/unable to support people using an all-you-can-grab connection at those speeds, they should either close their doors or upgrade their network. (Again, I have no problem putting my money where my mouth is)
I guess the key question is, how much are you willing to pay for a premium service? I'm sure New Zealand Telecom would be delighted if you bought them a trans-Pacific OC-192.
ISPs usually structure their prices based on average usage, but they've discovered a handful of users are way outside that. So they either spread the costs to everyone, or they just ding those using the bandwidth. | |
|
| 
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
| Corporate networks are one thing (most block much more than just P2P); we're talking about an ISP blocking its paying customers from using P2P apps. This is no different than cable and ILEC-owned DSL providers disallowing servers (most independent ISPs don't care), C*x and C*mc*st blocking VPN, even if noncommercial, on "residential" service, etc. -- policies with which which I completely disagree, especially if customers are paying by bandwidth used instead of a flat rate, or are subject to bandwidth caps.
Also, more than likely there's something in NZ (copyright, etc.) law that makes ISPs there uncomfortable with allowing P2P to go on, unlike in the US.
-SC
--
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ | |
|
| |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| Re: Not a suprise said by roamer1:
Corporate networks are one thing (most block much more than just P2P)
Yep. I'm not exactly sure what's blocked here where I work. And to tell you the truth, I'm not really interested in trying to find out. 
said by roamer1:
we're talking about an ISP blocking its paying customers from using P2P apps. This is no different than cable and ILEC-owned DSL providers disallowing servers ... C*x and C*mc*st blocking VPN ... -- policies with which which I completely disagree, especially if customers are paying by bandwidth used
I agree 100% here too. This is one of the big reasons I dropped my cable modem with Cox and went with DSL from an independent company that doesn't care what I do with my bandwidth.
--
"Objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are." - Meat Loaf, Bat out of Hell II | |
|
| bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| You need to come and replace the loser dude who's our network admin where I work. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING is blocked on the network... Kazaa, Napster, Morpheus, all of them! And they wonder were all the pipe went...
--
Java?! HA! Real programmers still use C and C++. -- www.fluorine.org | |
|
jmargel
join:2001-03-07
Northumberland, PA
| This won't stop anything.. pfft... if the users dont use the bandwidth, spamming companies will use it up for their ads & junk mail.
More bandwidth is used for that trash than p2p could ever use.
If ISPs want to save bandwidth, quit selling their damn users email addresses, and start going after the spammers! | |
|
NKVD4
join:2001-01-11
Chico, CA
| Everything else Then the gaming bandwidth or FTP stuff, VoIP, or any other heavy use of the internet.
P2P may use a lot if the end users want to use it heavy enough but lets not pick on one thing and call it the axis of evil. Lots of other things use up bandwidth also.
I would not use your ISP either just for the fact that you want to say what I can and cant do with my internet connection... thats why I quit my old ISP for the same thing.. If you can block P2P then whats next. | |
|
| 
Nero534
join:2001-10-12
South Bend, IN | Re: Everything else I know I dont allow that kind of network traffic at my office, I am a System Admin at my office, and I dont allow that kind of stuff on my network eaither. | |
|
jmargel
join:2001-03-07
Northumberland, PA
| isp Nero.. im the director of IS here as well. Work & home are TWO different things. I won't allow it at work either, not only for bandwidth, but for legal purposes. I'm not gonna be liable for someone else's file sharing.
If my co-workers wanna do p2p at home, I can careless. But p2p is not affecting bandwidth in a negative way. That's why most ISPs have bandwidth caps. | |
|
jmargel
join:2001-03-07
Northumberland, PA
| One other point.. Bandwidth is not a tangible object, like oil or gas. We can NEVER run out of it. You just have to build more lines & add more routers, etc..
So there is no limit to the amount of bandwidth that could be available to the public. | |
|
| CyberNation$
join:2001-12-08
Los Angeles, CA
| What is the cost of Bandwidth? said by jmargel:
Bandwidth is not a tangible object, like oil or gas. We can NEVER run out of it. You just have to build more lines & add more routers,....So there is no limit to the amount of bandwidth that could be available to the public.
How exactly does the amount of bandwidth used by a provider's members cost that provider more or less money? If I understand it correctly the provider has infrastructure that has a maximum capability of how much bandwidth it can supply. Let say for the sake of example that by using its state of the art flux capacitor it can supply up to 1.21 gigawatts equivalent of megabytes of bandwidth.
If I understand things correctly it doesn't matter whether at any given moment that the users are using 1/2, 3/4 or all of the bandwidth that provider can supply. The cost is essentially the same regardless of usage.
If this is not so perhaps in lay terms and concisely someone could explain to me how bandwidth usage has a significant cost to the provider.
--
The DSLR power and procedure of locking or blocking threads is sometimes badly abused.
[text was edited by author 2002-04-17 22:17:47] | |
|
| | 
ariesguy
join:2001-01-30 | Re: isp It appears as if they're buying the bandwith they use from another company. The more they use, the more they have to pay. Just my guess. | |
|
| 
TZi
k1L0
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| Re: isp said by jmargel:
So there is no limit to the amount of bandwidth that could be available to the public.
While there is not theoretical limit, there is definitely an economic one.
Case in point:
You could have all the bandwidth in the world if you wanted to, but then again would you be willing to pay for an OC-192 connection... I don't think so. Somebody has to pay somewhere, and unless that person is you, don't expect to have unlimited anything.
--
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt. | |
|
|
Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
| said by jmargel:
One other point.. Bandwidth is not a tangible object, like oil or gas. We can NEVER run out of it. You just have to build more lines & add more routers, etc..
Uh, lines, routers, servers, aren't physical tangible objects?... can't have the bandwidth without them and they are costly... or are you volunteering to fund the country's infrastructure from now until forever so the rest of us can have free bandwidth?
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
Terminology or acronyms have you confused?? Use Glossary tool at upper left/mid of page. | |
|
| jmargel
join:2001-03-07
Northumberland, PA
| What i'm talking about is like natural resources, which one day eventually dry up. One day there will be no more oil, gas or natural resources that we need to survive.
Bandwidth in itself is not a tangible object. Yes you need equipment to create the bandwidth, but the amount of bandwidth you can create has no limits. | |
|
Jeff Brantley
@maritz.com
| Why does it cost so much to blink a light a few billion times a second? Maybe the problem, then, is that bandwidth SHOULDN'T cost so much.
Yes, it would take an effort on all internet companies starting with the owners of the OC-192s FIRST and working down from there to get the prices down. But with how greedy everyone is with bandwidth and being able to charge so much for so little real overhead, it won't work.
The "conservation of bandwidth" argument hurts my head. | |
|
| 
martissimo
join:2001-12-01
Las Vegas, NV
clubs:
| Re: Bandwidth too costly have you noticed how many articles you see each month about large fiber laying companies going bankrupt?
they are allready forced into selling bandwidth pretty low just to compete with the companies who purchased pre-laid fiber from bankrupt companies for a song and can afford to undercut their prices. | |
|
| | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: Bandwidth too costly said by martissimo:
have you noticed how many articles you see each month about large fiber laying companies going bankrupt?
What makes no sense is that there are government subsidized oil and power companies but no government subsidized networks? With all the government BS (esp. from the Bush Administration) crying about broadband deployment being so slow, its about time something was done. Start with expanding the regional infrastructure (all Cities > 25,000 with MANs), etc. and then push it the customer. Talk is cheap, real work isn't. Truthfully, if my taxes actually went to useful pursuits like network expansion, science, etc., I might like paying them more... 
--
Java?! HA! Real programmers still use C and C++. -- www.fluorine.org | |
|
|
TZi
k1L0
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| said by Jeff Brantley:
Why does it cost so much to blink a light a few billion times a second? Maybe the problem, then, is that bandwidth SHOULDN'T cost so much.
Yes, it would take an effort on all internet companies starting with the owners of the OC-192s FIRST and working down from there to get the prices down. But with how greedy everyone is with bandwidth and being able to charge so much for so little real overhead, it won't work.
The "conservation of bandwidth" argument hurts my head.
Even if you deferred the expense of all the assets including cables, repeaters, routers and infrastructure over a 30 year period, it would be cost prohibitive for most ISPs to have "unlimited" amounts of bandwidth.
Furthermore, having a bunch of OC-192 fiber circuits up and running isn't of any use unless you connect it to someone else's network, which costs money. Then figure in the government tariffs and cost of maintenance, and you can see why bandwidth is so expensive.
If it were as simple and cheap as just lighting up a bunch of dark fiber, we'd all be bandwidth rich.
--
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt. | |
|
DJStarfox
join:2000-07-05
Orlando, FL
·Embarq
| I agree that people at work should not be file sharing because it's very expensive in terms of bandwidth and time. When it comes to a home connection, I say leave it be because it's in the privacy of your home.
What is criminal is if you charg people $0.10 for every .mp3 they download from your P2P server. I think there's a big difference between potential income ("lost sales") and actual income. | |
|
|
martissimo
join:2001-12-01
Las Vegas, NV
clubs: | Re: Blocking P2P the whole argument of stopping p2p programs by ISPs will baically be moot for a home isp... all they will do is encrypt their transmissions, sure in a work environment they have the right to decrypt that stuff, but a home users ISP doesn't. | |
|
| |
martissimo
join:2001-12-01
Las Vegas, NV
clubs:
| Re: Blocking P2P on a side note about the possible implications of encrypted p2p programs, is the interesting tidbit that they could actually fall under DMCA protection as encrypted technology, would be funny to see em get shot down in court because of the law they pushed so hard for | |
|
|
Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
| said by DJStarfox:
What is criminal is if you charg people $0.10 for every .mp3 they download from your P2P server. I think there's a big difference between potential income ("lost sales") and actual income.
Sorry the act itself is criminal, money has nothing to do with it, except to make a penalty more severe. You are still distributing property you have no right to beyond your personal use. Stealing is stealing whether or not you ultimately sell or give away the booty.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
Terminology or acronyms have you confused?? Use Glossary tool at upper left/mid of page. | |
|
|
alex4life
Alex4life
Premium
join:2001-06-22
Delta, BC
| Banning P2P is total crap. At first, my thoughts were "well, it's illegal anyways, it was bound to happen" but then I realized and remembered that it's not the P2P that's illegal, it's the sharing of copyrighted files over that P2P program that's illegal. So this is total crap. If a company can't provide enough bandwidth for their customers, they shouldn't be in business. Also, I think that once you sign up, everything should be static. Your price should stay the same, your caps should stay the same, any bandwidth limits or anything else guaranteed at your purchase time should be maintained for as long as you own the service. I think that putting caps and limits on should be an ISP violation of the terms of service.
--
"Nothing fits better than a dead man's shirt" -Jimmy James | |
|
|
Hayward
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
| Re: Bandwidth stuff said by alexthepsycho:
but then I realized and remembered that it's not the P2P that's illegal, it's the sharing of copyrighted files over that P2P program that's illegal. So this is total crap.
Problem is from a usage point of view... sharing you photos with grandma, and other legitimate uses are a drop in the bucket... it it the warez and mp3 traders that are overwhelming everything.
I agree wrong to kill ALL P2P, but if the HOGS can't at least control themselves... not a real unexpected reaction.
Trading a few files here and there is one thing.... 27/7 GB level nonstop traffic (that many just here have bosted of) is quite another.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
Terminology or acronyms have you confused?? Use Glossary tool at upper left/mid of page. | |
|
| | 
NeoGeo64
Premium
join:2001-09-22
Leesburg, GA | Re: Bandwidth stuff File sharing will always be around... I, myself, stay connected for weeks at a time on BellSouth's DSL service, transferring 20+ GB a week, up and down.
Then again, bandwidth is cheap. I don't live in New Zealand. | |
|
BILL43
@Dial1.Houst
| I INSTALL HI SPEED INTERNET FOR A ANNONOMOUS ISP......WE HAVE A GUY THAT NETWORKS PUTERS FOR OUR COMPANY AND THE ISP DOSENT MIND ONE PRICE FOR ONE MODEM......THESE PEOPLE WHO UNCAP THERE MODEMS CAN GO THRU ANOTHER ISP THEY HAVE DEREGULATED SO THAT THERE CAN NOT BE A MONOPOLY FROM THE CABLE COMPANY.....BUT LETS FACE IT MOST PEOPLE HAVE CABLE TV THE SIGNAL COMES THRU ON THE SAME LINE THEY PAY 50 BUCKS AND UP FOR THAT .....AND THEY WANT 50 FOR THE INTERNET......ITS A RIP OFF .....THE CABLE COMPANY I WORK FOR IS LOWERING THERE PRICE TO 25 .....THE REASON THEY CHARGE SO MUCH IS THEY SAY YOU CAN GET RID OF YOUR SECOND PHONE LINE....BUT BASING YOUR PRICING ON THAT RATHER JUST MAKING A DECENT PROFIT SUCKS.....THE COMMUNICATIONS BUSSINESS AS A WHOLE IS RIPPING US OFF BIG TIME.....I KNOW I HAVE 2 CELL PHONES AND A REGULAR PHONE | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
