B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Uh, that's complete baloney. The Register article seems to be based, entirely, on a completely false premise and assertion -- that the EFF "agrees" that some sort of bandwidth restrictions (over and above the contracted bandwidth) are acceptable and/or necessary.
"It is true that some broadband users send and receive a lot more traffic than others, and that interfering with their traffic can reduce congestion for an ISP," they write. Which leaves them, ultimately, only quibbling over the methods the cable giant uses. "Interfering with their traffic can reduce congestion" is similar to saying "shooting bullets at your neighbors' heads reduces wait times at the local supermarket".
It's simply an observation -- it doesn't mean the writer agrees with it! What a stupid, stupid false premise for the article, and how strange of you to endorse it with such vigor.
Yeah, so today's "top talker" on the network is BitTorrent traffic; tomorrow it might be something you value. If ISP's don't want to provide the bandwidth they're selling at the price they're quoting, they should stop offering the service. Everything else is a load of crap.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
·
·
RE: Dismantling a Religion: The EFF's Faith-Based Internet
