 |  | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Who decides what's reasonable? By thier advertising campaigns, they seem to be actively pursuing bandwidth hogs and encouraging it. | |
| | | | 
braynes
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Waterville, ME | "But the bandwidth hogs won't be happy no matter what they do."
So what are they(you) the bandwidth Pigs?
Bruce | |
| | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Hopefully most readers will recognize your post as a bad caricature of the actual issues, but I want to clear away some of the nonsense in case some readers might be led astray.
said by LiamJunket  :The EFF - their idea of reasonable is anarchy. Anything goes because they have never met a corporation that they don't hate.
So according to you, neutrality advocates favor a situation where one person's internet access doesn't work right because the neighbors are free to use all the bandwidth, and there's no way to control this unless ISPs can selectively sabotage certain parts of a subscriber's communications and charge third parties for not having their access to subscribers squashed? Nice try, but no one will believe such obvious distortions.
said by LiamJunket :The company network engineers - hey what do they know, they only have to satisfy the majority of users. But the bandwidth hogs won't be happy no matter what they do.
Anti-neutrality people are a one-trick pony: their only argument is trying to confuse the neutrality issue with the different issue of "bandwidth hogs". Unless neutrality is abandoned, they wail, the internet will be overloaded. Promoting this fallacy is the only ammunition they have and they just repeat it over and over in many variations.
If ISPs need to restrain the amount of bandwidth a customer uses, or the amount of total traffic the customer sends and receives, they can do so without violating neutrality. They can set tiers of service; they can set caps and charge more for going over the caps; they can disable or restrict a customer's account if he/she breaks the rules.
This alleged issue of "hogs" has nothing to do with network neutrality. Neutrality means the ISP shouldn't be looking inside your traffic to suppress certain kinds of uses, or making it slower depending on where it goes or comes from.
A neutrality rule is like the government saying, if there's too much traffic on the roads, you won't be allowed to drive six cars at once (assuming you could do that) - but as long as you're not adding more than your share, you're free to drive a red or blue car, or go north or south.
Anti-neutrality is like a rule that only Toyotas can go straight through while Chevys must be sent on long detours; and you may go the short way to Walmart but have to detour before getting to the farmers' market. There may be some pretext of preventing overcrowding, but anti-neutrality doesn't serve that purpose and really has a different agenda. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| "Just like the FCC's policy statement (pdf), which insists consumers are "entitled to run applications and services of their choice" except in cases of "reasonable network management"
If this was the case, then servers would be allowed too.. and they aren't. Any time the government uses the word "Reasonable" in ANY law or rule, then it was a waste of time and money writing it and the paper it's on is worthless. One person's definition of "reasonable" is not someone else's. The ONLY way to make that word work is to define "reasonable" so then why use the word?
So, basically, what I see is that if they don't allow servers, it's reasonable to believe that P2P applications would fit that definition of reasonable network management. | |
| 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| 3 out of 4 Lawyers Surveyed... That CNET story is such a tortured piece of crap. I had to read it 3 times this morning before I finally figured out what CNET was trying to say.
Basically, two lawyers are disagreeing with two other lawyers about what one of the bills say.
And the bill they're arguing about basically mandates that the FCC make rules -- and those will have the details to argue over.
The good news is that three of the lawyers support Network Neutrality, and two of them say that Markley's bill should have MORE teeth in it than it currently does. The third says it fine.
The fourth lawyer is anti-Neutrality, but even he says that Markley's bill would cover the situation based on application discrimination.
--Robb
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. | |
| bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| Let the Market Decide Let folks pay more to service providers who offer net neutrality, if any are willing to do so. If none are, then that is clear and convincing evidence that the market is unwilling to pay enough to make net neutrality profitable. In that case, if enough people want it, let them raise taxes and have government provide it. If enough people don't want to raise taxes to have a government-provided net neutrality, then accept that it isn't something that enough people value as much as those who want it. | |
| |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Let the Market Decide said by bicker :Let folks pay more to service providers who offer net neutrality, if any are willing to do so. If none are, then that is clear and convincing evidence that the market is unwilling to pay enough to make net neutrality profitable. Network Neutrality has been profitable for nearly 20 years, now.
It's only recently that ISPs have decided for themselves what you may access and how fast they will let you use your bandwidth to access it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. | |
| | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Let the Market Decide If net neutrality was still the best approach, then the ISPs wouldn't be moving to another approach. | |
| | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Let the Market Decide said by bicker :If net neutrality was still the best approach, then the ISPs wouldn't be moving to another approach. Best for whom? | |
| | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Let the Market Decide Best for their owners, of course. Remember, cable companies are profit-making companies, NOT government agencies. | |
| | | | | 
johndoe303
join:2003-01-01
Boca Raton, FL
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by funchords :said by bicker :If net neutrality was still the best approach, then the ISPs wouldn't be moving to another approach. Best for whom? exactly. bicker, big business it talking. now shh! It's all about the money, try not to forget that next time. | |
| | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| Re: Let the Market Decide It is all about the money, regardless of who's talking. After all, if it wasn't, then you wouldn't have a problem paying for fractional T1 service to your home. The only difference is that it is your money versus their money. And if your retirement funds and other investments happen to invest in those companies, then it is your money versus your money. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| 20 years is a long time, not to mention, in 1987, there wasn't much of an internet is any at all so that 20 year statement is an over exaggeration.
Now, the markets are shifting and as more and more people want to dump everything on the internet. This DOES have a dramatic impact on the last mile providers - not to mention the backbone - so this changes everything BIG time.
Cut to you - the end user. Are you willing to pay more for that internet connection? You should! If you are not only getting the "typical internet" use out of it, but you're not getting telephone, video services, getting a telephone service , and anything else that can be tossed on it, you think you're going to continue getting that for very long at $14 - $50 a month? That line just became MUCH more valuable.
Look at it from the provider's point of view now. You have all sorts of businesses making big profits from the use of the internet because their model is so much cheaper, thanks to those people that have built networks and connected them to each other (this, the INTER-net) and in order for this system to remain stable, capable, and working, it's the NETWORKS that have to invest the billions of dollars into the network all the while the end user consumer wants less and less of a bill.
Just remember, there ARE two sides to the story.
As brick and mortar is shifted more and more to the internet, it also means that more of that infrustructure cost goes with it. It may be just a little cheaper to do it on the internet, but as more and more people do it, the more and more cost shifts.
And, before ANYONE says "yea, but... these people are paying their own internet fees each month to offer their service" remember this.. 1) they are not required to maintain a level of service and quality on their speeds as the last mile is and 2) it's the last mile that will carry the largest burden because it's the last mile that must be everything for everyone... not the "service" such as vonage or netflix online. | |
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| New Network Neutrality Laws May Do Little Umm, that's what a realistic group of individuals around here have been saying for quite some time now. I guess if CNET says so, then it may finally lend credence (not that CNET is the shiny penny of technology journalism) to the fact that Net Neutrality legislation won't be the great savior that some believe it will be? | |
| 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| What is 'reasonable' Reasonable, according to the dictionary is "agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical"
If the operator was interrupting your phone calls, and saying "I'm going to hang up now", would we stand for that? NO. Because it's not a reasonable judgment. Why does comcast get to do EXACTLY that just because it's a computer talking? If all your web pages timed out, because comcast was forging RST packets for that, would anyone stand for it? NO. Because it's not reasonable.
Reasonable is providing WHAT THEY ARE ADVERTISING. If the ADVERTISE 20mb/sec, then you should EXPECT to get 20mb/sec. If they CAN'T PROVIDE IT, then DON'T SELL IT. Simple enough concept to understand.
Maybe it's time we look very closely at what they are advertising, and THEN what the ACTUALLY provide, and punish them for selling under false pretenses. If you bought a honda civic with the expectations of getting 40mpg, and only got 10mpg, you would most certainly go to the dealer to get your money back. If you paid the plumber to fix your pipes, and he didn't fix them, then you wouldn't pay him. If Comcast is advertising ALWAYS ON internet, and you CAN'T ALWAYS USE IT, then why should they get a free pass for false advertising?
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: What is 'reasonable' And that's your definition of "reasonable"...
Let me tell you mind.. it's REASONABLE for ME to expect that I can get my email, surf the internet, compete in an online auction, trade stock, and other wise 'use the internet' with out any slow down all the mean while as other users are abusing the TOS and operating P2P/Servers on the line.
I, personally, find it REASONABLE for Comcast to "hang up" on those people that are 'abusing' the network by running their throughput at full capacity on a damn near steady basis.
And for the record - the "always on" argument was settled back when the dinosaurs still surfed the internet. "Always On" means that it's there are ready to use.. you don't have to click anything to start it up, etc. It doesn't mean that you can keep the pipe filled to max capacity 24/7/365.25 ... that would be "all you can use" which it isn't.
Also, that 40MPG - which is set by the government standards, if you really read that sticker, you wouldn't use that analogy. "UNDER OPTIMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, your vehicle CAN get "XX" amount per gallon."... The plumber.. again, close.. but the plumber doesn't guarantee that he will fix your problem, but he WILL guarantee his work.
So.. to get back to Comcast.. they are selling "always on" internet.. so I guess you're getting what you paid for.. huh? Since they are advertising UP TO speeds, and you get there, then you ARE getting what you paid for, right? You should only "EXPECT" what they state in the terms of service which serves as the entire agreement governing the "service"... not a 30 second ad (unless SPECIFIC TERMS are stated in the ad - which they don't.. you will notice it DOES say "see terms for details") However, since you said "IF" then I will cut you some slack. Maybe it's time for you to actually look at what they are advertising. | |
| | | jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| Re: What is 'reasonable' Personally I think we're missing the point on broadband advertising. Take comcast, whom you are referring to.
Their current web ads say:
"This is the ideal service for those who frequently recieve large files, watch video clips or movies,work from home, play online games or download photos." (see »www.comcast.com/Corporate/Explor···&pos=Nav Pure Broadband Speed).
What does that mean to you? Does that imply that moving large files around frequently is *not* what they expect you to do? Heck, what about the threatned VPN breaking? They advertise it for working from home!
We all know what they mean, but to have this discussion, we have to look at *what they say*.
Then they have sections on video and music. They are obviously promoting youtube and Napster style use there... And they wonder why more and more people are using more bandwidth? Well, they're doing what they are told the service is *for* in the *advertising*!
Now, they do have small print disclaimers about how speeds are not guaranteed. But *no where* do they have disclaimers on *how much* music or movies or photos you can download in a month, until you search way beyond their advertising into their notoriously vague TOS. | |
| | | | 
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
| Re: What is 'reasonable' Also, they sell speed in tiers. If I am paying for say the 8/768 tier for $60mo, the next lowest tier is 6/512 for $50, and I barely get 4/378, they would be charging me for a service they are not providing. Since they clearly price it by speed available.
If I buy a Civic that gets "up to" 40mpg, but I only see 15mpg, that means there is something wrong. Sure, it DOES state "up to" but when you use the mpg (or download speed) as a major selling point, it better be damned close or its false advertising. If they say "This new Civic (cable broadband) gets 5mpg better than the new Camry (dsl)" while in real world testing the Camry outperforms 90% of the time, then its a false statement.
BTW, I am not advocating either a Toyota or a Honda, I was just using that anaology to state a point.
And before you try to pic apart the analogy, think about it for a second, try to understand the jist, not take it literally. | |
| | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by jp10558 :Personally I think we're missing the point on broadband advertising. Take comcast, whom you are referring to. Their current web ads say: "This is the ideal service for those who frequently recieve large files, watch video clips or movies,work from home, play online games or download photos." (see » www.comcast.com/Corporate/Explor···&pos=Nav Pure Broadband Speed). That took so long to load, I thought the page was dead.
Attached is the part of this flash ad that he's talking about...
...Comcast's Flash Ad...
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. | |
| SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| This Just In: FCC NN Policy A Giant Steaming Pile Just like the FCC's policy statement (pdf), which insists consumers are "entitled to run applications and services of their choice" except in cases of "reasonable network management"
Thereby clearly demonstrating that the FCCs approach to NN is to punt. Wasting the time, resources and money of all involved. We could get a more coherent policy from a bowl of jello. | |
| amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| I'm no programmer But what about this from the EFF article?
"In other words, ISPs could become an omnipresent adversary that developers have to constantly worry about when writing their code."
Wouldn't that pretty much mean that they're (trying to) change the internet for what they believe is in their best interests?
The other thing I still don't get is why not just keep improving capacity?
Sure, cable networks are generally shared and not as individualized as, say, DSL, but surely there are ways to actually allot a certain DEDICATED amount of bandwidth to each location.
If they could figure that out, and have the capacity to do it, then there would be no excuse for even having to bother with so much "management."
Do we hear about this much from DSL users? Gee, I wonder why not. Maybe it's because such a network is already prepared for users to actually use their bandwidth as they see fit.
Here's an idea, stop with all the little nudges in speed and fix the freaking networks such that ALL users can expect their connection to run full blast as often as desired.
...I think they call that FiOS in some circles  ...
If companies can afford all this new shiny network equipment for faster speeds, more fiber, more routers, more switches, more everything - why even bother spending all this time, money, and trouble to BLOCK things? Oh, that's right, it might actually make sense. Nevermind.
So instead, we have this fight for "neutrality" and I'm starting to think it'll only end up being worse than things are now no matter what the outcome.
For now, the cat (Comcast) and mouse (people) game continues.
Personally, I don't use bt much. Live shows on occasion and such, but even then it's rare.
If you take what bt was created for (sharing many lossless audio files, which combined are larger than your average youtube clip...), what it's now being used for, and what it could someday be used for, it's really a great idea. If it didn't already exist, I'm sure somebody, somewhere would've created something similar anyway.
I'm also pretty sure that somewhere there's already work being done on something else like it that's hopefully more friendly (doesn't try to use a billion connections at once...), more reliable, easier to use, and cannot be disrupted by things like fancy overpriced disruptor machines..... | |
| | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: I'm no programmer said by amungus :Do we hear about this much from DSL users? Gee, I wonder why not. Maybe it's because such a network is already prepared for users to actually use their bandwidth as they see fit. [...] Here's an idea, stop with all the little nudges in speed and fix the freaking networks such that ALL users can expect their connection to run full blast as often as desired. ...I think they call that FiOS in some circles ... [...] If companies can afford all this new shiny network equipment for faster speeds, more fiber, more routers, more switches, more everything - why even bother spending all this time, money, and trouble to BLOCK things? Oh, that's right, it might actually make sense. Nevermind. And therein lies the rub. You nailed it. It's not that providers haven't already arrived at your conclusions. The fact of the matter is that they want to be gatekeepers of thet Net and decide for the users everything we see and everything we hear. They have realized long ago that the Net is a powerful medium and they want to control it as is the wont of every mega corporation in America.
They have been slowly but surely edging towards a federally blessed, wink and nod "policy" (See also FCC) that allows them to have their cake and eat it too. In other words, if it's going to cost $$$$$, then the providers find a reason not to have to supply it (bandwidth), or, insert other reason here (See also Verizon/AT*T/Comcast censorship et al).
You see things as clearly as you do because if you, or I, or anyone else for that matter ran their personal business the way the U.S. government does, then we'd all be bankrupt, living on the street, in prison or all of the above. | |
| | | 
Piggie
I Actually use Windstream
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Orange Springs, FL
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
·Windstream
| Re: I'm no programmer said by SilverSurfer :said by amungus :Here's an idea, stop with all the little nudges in speed and fix the freaking networks such that ALL users can expect their connection to run full blast as often as desired. ...I think they call that FiOS in some circles ... [...] If companies can afford all this new shiny network equipment for faster speeds, more fiber, more routers, more switches, more everything - why even bother spending all this time, money, and trouble to BLOCK things? Oh, that's right, it might actually make sense. Nevermind. And therein lies the rub. You nailed it. It's not that providers haven't already arrived at your conclusions. The fact of the matter is that they want to be gatekeepers of thet Net and decide for the users everything we see and everything we hear. They have realized long ago that the Net is a powerful medium and they want to control it as is the wont of every mega corporation in America. They have been slowly but surely edging towards a federally blessed, wink and nod "policy" (See also FCC) that allows them to have their cake and eat it too. In other words, if it's going to cost $$$$$, then the providers find a reason not to have to supply it (bandwidth), or, insert other reason here (See also Verizon/AT*T/Comcast censorship et al). These two posters totally get it. All these other little side arguments are moot to a large degree.
The companies that really have a bandwidth limit are the ISPs, limited by their local WAN. But the backbone providers that started the argument toward a filtered network are so over built still, they just are trying to recover looses and never let the telco stock crash of 2000/2001 ever happen again.
They throw out little bones words like "Bit Torrent" and let the public argue about that, laughing their collect butts off all the while you argue about it. Meanwhile, they own the FCC and do what they want while the public is distracted on nonsequter conversations.
PS: If you haven't noticed the entire spectrum of the Oligarchy now running the United States operates with this philosophy. The same manipulation of the public has been used by a list of fascists and dictators through out history. If whose names I list most will label me a black helicopter watcher, not someone that studied history.
--
| Speedstream 4200 Modem - 3m/384 plan | W98-W2KSP4-XPSP2 - All AMD | Buffalo WHR G54S with OpenWRT WR0.9 | 3 downstream switches feeding 6 total clients (no wireless) | Including the Data port on the side of my pork belly | | |
| | jmallory
join:2005-11-02
Clawson, MI
| said by amungus :The other thing I still don't get is why not just keep improving capacity? Sure, cable networks are generally shared and not as individualized as, say, DSL, but surely there are ways to actually allot a certain DEDICATED amount of bandwidth to each location. It's easy, here's now. Let's assume you share your cable connection with 150 other users. We have 39 mbits/sec on that connection (assuming QAM 256) so let's divide that by 150 and set the modems cap for ... .26 mbits/second (or about 256 Kbits/sec).
That is why you don't do it that way. All networks are oversubscribed to some extent, that is just good network design as you know not everyone will be hitting it full blast all the time. It is even more extreme on the upstream side. If you are on a new upgraded system you can use QAM 16 on the upstream and get about 10 mbits/second. Divide that by 150 and you end up with .074 mbits/second or about 74 Kbits/second. That is why the modems are capped at certain rates so that not one user can use all the bandwidth but if you even have 5 users using the full 8 mbits/second, you have basically saturated the network. It is even worst on the upstream side (and why most Cable ISPs don't want you running a server.) | |
| | jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| Personally I prefer having my slow 1Mbps that my provider treats as a problem if my speedtest is less than 1000kbps. Oh, and they don't send me letters if I max it out all the time. I can use what I pay for, and they make sure I get it.
It's not that I wouldn't love 6Mbps, but I much prefer the provider setting a reasonable, achievable service for the money than all the tricks and scams cable seems to do. | |
| 
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| Lack of net neutrality Is just license for ISP to charge twice to delivery the same content and give preferential treatment to their own brands.
Customers ALREADY PAY for the connection and delivery of content.
Providers are always looking to double dip whether it's this crap, or bogus "recovery fees"...it's all the same bullpoop. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: It's forgery. Wow.. that's pretty reaching there... | |
| bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | If they (ISP's) don't watch out they will end up shooting themselves in the foot, get enough people ticked-off at them and they will be controlled by government regulations. | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| some more facts 1. there isn't any "bandwidth crunch" - this is FUD pushed by the incumbents and equipment providers (cisco, sandvine)
2. even if there was, the simplest solution is.....more bandwidth! I have yet to see any convincing evidence that adding capacity is overly expensive or even more expensive than buying that cisco or sandvine "traffic management" equipment
I bet if there was a competitive market, there wouldn't even be a "bandwidth crunch". I am supremely confident that if the U.S. had a competitive broadband market, we would never see the words "network neutrality" in print again | |
| informpage
Never Be Satisfied
join:2003-07-09
Forest Hills, NY
| Bandwidth Hogs Why do people attack people who use their bandwidth to the full extent? If that taxes the system, then sell a product that can be supported, don't offer unlimited d/l, don't offer speeds you aren't prepared to back up.
If I buy a product define the limits and then leave me alone. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Bandwidth Hogs Is it even necessary to go there?? oh sure..
You're the poster child of those that aren't taking the time to pay attention, assume a lot, and then make arguments on baseless information/date.
Where is this "unlimited" advertisement you speak of? Where is the "all you can use" advertisement that you speak of? Where is this "full extent" clause you speak of that says you're allowed to push it wide open 24/7? In fact, while we've been talking about the word "Reasonable" as people want to defend it, maybe it's time to play the devils advocate for a moment. Cocmast defines your service as "typical residential use".. Can you please demonstrate where it's "Reasonable" to think that "TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL USE" is to push the service 24/7 wide open? or as you say, it's "full extent?"
If you come back with a defense to that, then just be warned that you are also going to be digging one hell of a grave for your argument as well as many others that people here have trying to pin the ISP as a bad guy.
The one thing that is true in this nation is that you gotta pay to play. If you want more, you're going to pay more - it's how it works. A real moment here.. it's people like you who think you're a pioneer in some kind of fight for people in which you THINK you're going to make things better for people and score a victory, which in fact are going to do more harm for the masses under your own selfish desires.
by pushing this envelope so you can have what amounts to a business type use service is you will rock the boat so hard that EVERYONE will pay/suffer in the long run. Billing by the byte is what you will wind up with.. AND/OR a VERY expensive "unlimited" service which will be priced out of the reach for many people anyway.. ultimately, this will cause people to conserve and watch heavily their internet use which could also have some serious impact to ALL on line.
It's people like you that are opportunistic abusers. You like to take a good service with a pretty damn good terms of service and you want to be 'unreasonable' and find each and every way to push harder and harder and harder until you are slapped across the face AND HARD.. You have a residential line for about $40 a month but you want to argue every point to run it like a high volume commercial service and cry foul when you're taught a lesson.
The fact is that, a guess, 95% of the people who use these residential products are MORE THAN HAPPY and MORE that satisfied that they are receiving the value they were sold on the internet they have.. but the remaining 5% are going to make every effort to screw it up for the masses.
The terms of this product HAVE been defined... so I assume they can now leave you alone.
The ball is in your court.. I'm more than ready for your reply. | |
| 
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| NN Does Not & Will Not Address BT Prevention
What many ISPs such as Comcast are doing is enforcing the terms of service their residential customers have agreed to abide by.
1) not to use the service for running/operating/hosting/etc. servers.
2) not to provide the service to third parties.
Some people apparently think it is their bit torrent downloads that are being throttled. But in fact it is the up stream of the person who is hosting and serving that bit torrent content on a residential service that is being throttled.
So download away, but do not blame your ISP for the content providers inability to properly host their content on a business service that permits operation of servers.
| |
| |
See 25 replies to this post | |
chris123
join:2002-07-23
Highland, IN
·AT&T Midwest
| No caps here I've used all the bandwidth I want on ATT dsl for years and never heard a single complaint from them. Why is it that one provider (comcast) makes such a beef about upgrading their infrastructure?
--
see my SBC Review @ »Review of AT&T Midwest by chris123 | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: No caps here said by chris123 :Why is it that one provider (comcast) makes such a beef about upgrading their infrastructure? Oh I dunno.. because you don't look very hard and keep up with the news more?
Cox is doing this.. others are as well. And, it was SBC/AT&T that started the whole "we want to add a third line of billing" to the whole debate as well.
See, companies like AT&T love to play games with their billing and other practices. They sell you a product for $14.95, place a ton of terms and hurdles in your way.. then try to go after the areas of the internet for more money, spark up these NN law debates, sling mud at cable (who has, by the way, refused to play these same games with pricing) and make it Comcast's issue.
You'd have to be blind not to see through this.
Comcast hasn't made such a "beef" about upgrading their infrustructure. On the contrary, Ed Whitacker had numerous times. By large, comcast has more bandwidth to the consumer than AT&T does.. and probably will. To compare AT&T to comcast is a joke. | |
| | | jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| Re: No caps here I think the point is AT&T is selling what they can provide, and aren't sending nasty letters to customers or randomly shutting down their connections.
I maintain that if comcast would just sell what their infrastructure could support (be that via caps, lower speeds, something else) rather than selling the world and cutting off customers who take advantage of that service... | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: No caps here said by jp10558 :I think the point is AT&T is selling what they can provide, and aren't sending nasty letters to customers or randomly shutting down their connections. No - they have other issues. AT&T won't sell static IP addresses on residential accounts any more. They will lock you into contracts with usually lower speeds than cable and other things. That's what makes DSL and Cable different.. Cable also is a different technology and has a set of it's own limitations the same as DSL having limitations like distance and speed.
I maintain that if comcast would just sell what their infrastructure could support (be that via caps, lower speeds, something else) rather than selling the world and cutting off customers who take advantage of that service... Why should they? They actually ARE selling what they can.. a residential service. Let me say this.. when ever you start to have node slowdowns, the culprit is usually a hog.. it's usually someone running a server and running their service wide open 24/7.
Remember our short term resident YouTube friend who was on a mission to "get comcast" and "expose them" after he was cut off for using too much BW? (I guess he got far with that...) He is a poster child for why your nodes slow down. He's the guy that many people come to complain about their slowdowns, yet people turn around and defend him.
Cable puts a term in the agreement and state things, very clearly, that there are no servers allowed. They also define the service as a "typical residential use" service, yet people work full strength to redefine what residential service is by what a few % of people want to use it for and then cry foul.
You did say something right, but I'll twist your words. "... customers who take advantage of that service"... "take advantage" is right. This is no different that those that run a business from home, use a residential line, get shut off when caught, and then say "well, I'm using it in my HOME, how dare they".. it's not where.. and not what you say you're using it for as an excuse.. it's the type of use and patterns that they define the service as. It's not new.. if you don't know that, then it can be said that one is not taking the time to educate themselves on what they have.
I don't want my speeds lowered, caps placed on me, higher rates, or "something else" placed on me simply because a small, and I do mean small, percentage of people want to "take advantage" of a service beyond what it was intended for while setting their own definitions in the mean time.
And, to be honest with you, no, AT&T is NOT selling what they can provide. They, unlike cable, give a VERY wide range of speeds to cover. For example, the 1.5/384 line is really a 385 to 1.5 down service and UP TO 384 line. A 3.0/512 line is really a 1.5 to 3.0 line. Wow! If they get you AT LEAST the 1.5 or evev 1.6, then they've met the speed tier they sold you. That's a pretty large margin there.
Also, they don't even get you that 1.5 because they charge YOU the overhead in the speeds. A 1.5 line would get you no more than about 1.2mb service at best minus overhead. A PRO/PLUS to cable is that they tend to over provision the cable modem (a 6mb will be set for 6.6) to compensate for the over head. Node conditions will cause slow downs from that, but at least that's something favorable for cable.
The fact is - they are two different products and it's KNOWN that there are different quarks about each service. The same can be said about satellite vs cable vs fiber vs IPTV. Yet, people continually try to compare them as they should be equal - they aren't. You can't say "at least AT&T doesn't.. " wanna bet? They have it in their TOS agreement that they can.. the fact they don't - that often - doesn't mean they can't, or won't. If they didn't want the option, it wouldn't be in the TOS. Think about that one... | |
| | | |
|
|
New Network Neutrality Laws May Do Little
Who decides what's reasonable?
