Articles
Advice of the Day (Forum)
Books (Forum)
Druidic Ramblings (Forum)
Dumb Ideas (Forum)
H-Town (Forum)
Links (Forum)
Movies (Forum)
Music (Forum)
Opinions (Forum)
Photo Albums (Forum)
Prose/Poetry (Forum)
Questions (Forum)
Video Games (Forum)
Member Login

Username

Password

Register Here

Forum
 

Forum posts for net neutrality

Posted by Nerhael on Apr 22, 2008
I think they really shouldn't fucking touch our traffic. Really, just put an economic disincentive to downloading retarded amounts of shit every month, essentially what they're doing now.

If you're downloading a few hundred gigs a month, you are using more of a service than others, so just pay for it. If you can't afford that, then don't download several hundred gigs a month.

I really think they can have reasonable numbers for this. I don't however believe they're set right now. Rogers has me limited to 60 gigs. That's 2 gigs a day, which while a lot, I apparently am close to hitting this month due to formatting my PC, and having to redownload all the steam crap, + some stuff I'm doing through work that sent several gigs of stuff to my PC as a test.

Posted by Palmer on Apr 23, 2008
But there you have it...just doing some simple operations like that and now you have to be warned that you approaching your limit. Sure, like you said, it's a one time deal and that's not your average month but wouldn't you hate it if they charged you if you went over your download cap one month whereas the rest of the year you were underneath it.

ISPs are going to crumble fast with the pressure...they need to figure out new ways of getting information out over the network so it doesn't harm them. The amount of information people will be getting into their computer is only going to increase over time...like streaming movies or something like that. No one will buy into that (well, I don't know if anyone actually has bought into it yet!) if they know there is a download cap out there.

Posted by Palmer on Apr 23, 2008
http://gizmodo.com/382691/10-percent-of-broadband-subscribers-suck-up-80-percent-of-bandwidth-but-p2p-no-longer-to-blame

here's a follow up to my comment about streaming movies and whatnot which will eventually take over the Net. Turns out that the future is now.

"No, p2p is no longer the single biggest traffic whore, responsible for only 20 percent of total traffic. It's streaming video, like YouTube and Hulu, which is now 50 percent of total traffic. During peak congestion—the times when Comcast will slow you down for hitting the pipe too hard—70 percent of it is http."

Interesting. I just assumed it was all the Torrents being downloaded over the place but I guess not.

Posted by Nerhael on Apr 23, 2008
Actually, I'd like to refine my position.

I don't think the payment should be based on bandwidth used, but bandwidth available.

Basically, any ISP should have a sense of, "If absolutely everyone on my network were to go nuts, using full bandwidth, this is the size of pipe I need.", and then, monitoring actual usage, get a better sense of okay, really, only about 10% of people are constantly at 100% usage, the rest don't really use it that much.

They should set their plans based on that I would expect, and frankly, if they can't support that, fuck them. You offer a service that allows me to download at speed X, if it turns out that Y people actually use it to 100%, you fucked up, and should really buy whatever it takes to support the demand. Realistically, you would think they'd test the waters, and eek it out over time, slowly allowing consumers access to larger, and larger pipes, as it seems Rogers has in fact done, with the various plans you can buy now.

Anyhow, this was rambling in writing form, and I've lost my train of thought.

Posted by alltogethernow on Apr 23, 2008
I have no fucking clue what you just said.

Posted by Palmer on Apr 24, 2008
That's actually a decent line of thinking on what they should do. Perhaps we should just all go work for the enemy and change things from the inside.