Comments on: BitTorrent vs. the Typical User

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:15:21 +0000

The judge will throw it out of court for lack of relevance. I said we don’t want any “needless” regulations, which is practically a tautology, and you argued that we do.

American broadband speeds are not dictated by regulation, and in fact they can’t be. They’re dictated by a judgment about how to make money, and different carriers do the math in different ways. Verizon believes they can do well with a 100+ Mb/s service, part of it dedicated to TV and some 30 Mb/s dedicated to Internet access in each direction. Talk of NN regulations dries up the market for the kind of capital it takes to make the kind of investment they’ve made, which is part of the reason AT&T is slow to follow suit.

We’re a long way from over with the broadband build-out.

By: anim810

anim810 — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:08:33 +0000

‘hampering’ ISPs with regulations, at least within a free and democratic environment, allows for an even playing field.

If you leave the providers alone, they may close the doors on the globe and simply create a ‘global’ intranet for the sheep to follow. After long the masses may even forget they could surf to a website overseas…if you care about that sort of thing of course…

It seems painfully obvious to me that if they are crying they can’t keep up with the demand NOW, what guarantees can be provided that if left unchecked, that they will EVER keep up with the technology?

-improving their network services? I quote: ‘…Don’t take this the wrong way, but American broadband service is really a bit of a joke. Entry-level DSL provides 768Kbps for downloads and only 128Kbps upstream–less than a tenth of what passes for broadband in Asia. Even cable access, with access rates around 6Mbps (and 385Kbps upstream) are not much more than half the rates you can get in Japan and Korea….’

I rest my case. By the way, 18Mb/s here on cable with 1Mb up

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:57:51 +0000

We often make assumptions that turn out not to be correct, and that can be annoying. And companies often have to change their sales pitches because conditions change, often adjusting their prices in the process. And yes, companies sometimes mislead, as do individuals.

Net neutrality laws are not going to change any of this, they’re simply going to discourage companies from improving their network services. If you want faster and cheaper Internet connections (who doesn’t?), don’t hamper telecom companies with needless regulations.

By: anim810

anim810 — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:06:39 +0000

I feel like I’m chatting with Colbert :)

I realize you are not going to ‘get’ that paying for an internet connection based on a set of assumptions, then for for the same fee, to have the terms reconstituted to consist of differing terms is wrong. Incidentally, I am allowed to operate a sever as you mentioned earlier, I just choose not to.

I am also thinking that if the world got a whole lot smaller in a very short period of time it would be very easy for you to understand (you may yet be in luck). I submit that faster more robust internet connections are the future; while stagnant, closed networks are a dead end. Only the strong nations will survive- and prosper.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:23:25 +0000

Actually, I wrote the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article you’re quoting to me, and no, it doesn’t follow that traffic-shaping is illegitimate.

There has never been a neutral network of any kind, and there never will be, because each network is tailored to the needs of a particular type of traffic.

There’s nothing new about traffic-shaping at Internet connection points.