Agency seeks public comment as first step in deciding how far Internet service providers can go before they transcend "reasonable network management" and run afoul of federal policy.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Given the pattern that repeats itself ad nauseam, I'd like to see people quip occasionally, "I'm from a big corporation and I'm here to get government handouts and suck consumers dry without even paying my already low income taxes." A recent study shows that most corps don't pay *any* income taxes! For link and my $0.02: http://akramsrazor.typepad.com/islam_america/2008/08/yeah-those-liberals-dont-understand-the-economy.html
When you sign up for an ISP (like Comcast) they advertise a certain upload speed and a certain download speed. They should be held to honoring this committment. Degrading P2P is violating that committment.
I suspect that Comcast uses this tactic to garner money from the record companies. In Vonage's case they used this tactic to 'convince' (strong arm) their customers to pay extra for IP phone service.
The government exists to do what business won't (in a pure market economy). Our market economy is far from pure. This article is 'case in point'...
Really, I think that Comcast is being a whiny baby and violating the agreements that people have with them when they are forging reset packets to clients...... maybe it's time that Azureus and the other Bittorrent client makers found out a way that they can tell if a reset packet is forged or not.
Comcast does have the right to limit someone's internet speeds in order to keep from degrading other people's service, HOWEVER..... let's be blunt: Comcast is really doing this to save on Gigabyte-costs and to deter people from using their service to the full extent they should be able to, NOT for consideration of other customers.
Network prioritizing is a necessity, and p2p should have a considerably lower priority. I like my bandwidth. I even use p2p from time to time.. lower priority really doesn't seem to affect it.
Not to say reset packets are wrong, but as far as anything besides that goes, Comcast is in fact on the money.
If you really don't like Comcasts moves, go to Qwest(Or what ever other alternative you see fit. No ones stopping ya.
It has everything to do with Comcast needing QOS to guarantee all the real time services it charges for.
Heck, even the people who WORK for Comcast who I know, realize that this is not QoS, and they are the people who take care of Comcast's network.
They realized that this falls SQUARELY on the issue of network neutrality, i.e. not forcing someone to use or NOT use a specific program, or degrading the service of that program solely because you don't like it being run on your network.
QoS would be if Comcast limited bandwidth or connections for BitTorrent softare, not forging reset packets and making it appear that people cannot be reached after they finish downloading something via BitTorrent.
It is called QoS. Quality of service. Certain packets get lower priority then those that need certain guarantees.
It is used on almost any private network(which Comcast has), unless the network admins are retards.
Thanks.
How much bandwidth does checking your mail or surfing the web take? Well the fallacy here is that because it has been a low bandwidth task in the past that it still is, and it always will be.
With more people wanting to send video mails, and transfer high-res images of their new born to grandma or stream video from YouTube instead of watching TV we have to realize that mail and web browsing isn?t all that low bandwidth anymore. No one can deny that web use continues to suck up more bandwidth then it did before. I?m not using my 14.4 anymore.
Bittorrent should be thought of as a blessing because it is a warning that we need more infrastructure. Think of every flash advertisement that you see when you are browsing the web. I don?t know when, but one day those advertisements will all be high-def streaming video and there could be two or three on every page. Also, nobody knows what bandwidth requirements new technologies will require.
Low bandwidth has already held us back. Video conferencing over the web has always been crap. Streaming video is horrible quality. Being able to access your files from anywhere and at anytime has been held back by bandwidth. Some companies are trying to market online backup services, but who wants to back up 100 gigs of data online. I have two 500 gig hard drives. I don?t think I?ll be backing that up to online storage any time soon.
Comcast needs to stop being a babies and running to the Government saying, ?Please don?t make us innovate or actually spend money. Let us just cancel transfers we don?t like.? Well that?s just the equivalence of rolling blackouts for the Internet. It?s only going to get worse. It isn?t like you are going to wake up tomorrow and the Internet is going to require less bandwidth.
If you have to run five dedicated lines to my house alone then just do it. Stop complaining about it. I know it would take some time and require some investment, but that?s what business do so do it. This is just another example of an artificial shortage so they can up the price.
Obvious traffic shaping there.
This used to take me only a day and a half to download.
- by darenshawn October 19, 2008 7:33 PM PDT
- In my opinion degrading P2P service will not help in data control. Neither it will help in a better network management. It will only limit the imaginations and competitiveness of the citizens because even if the degrading is carried out here that will not equally carried out else where. By that time the citizens will lose a powerful medium to the whatever data.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(18 Comments)Daren
<a href="http://www.reviewhostgator.org/">hostgator</a>