Bandwidth Abuse?

[SARGE]

I've wondered when this might start happening:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6818

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2002/cableban.html

[doctorgonzo]

I've been wondering when that would happen too. It is pretty stupid, though, especially this example. Upload speeds will be throttled for abuse? Sounds like false advertising to me. People aren't buying broadband just for the faster download speeds. I wonder how many people would get cable or DSL if their upload speeds were limited to dial-up modem speeds?

It's like buying a Concorde and then being told you have to keep it below Mach 1. Then what's the point?

[jackjones]

The first article is so absurd that it boarders on being funny. I think that the companies will quickly find that their customers will go elsewhere. I for one would change my IPS immediately if they blocked any port or started dictating what programs I could or could not run. Does your telephone company tell you who you can and who you can not talk to. I think not.

[Strider]

While I also find it stupid, I can understand that they are getting pressure from the RIAA and the movie industry to "Police" their customers. When the VCR first came out they where so determine to put a halt to that, but they were forced to come to a comprimise. There will eventually have to be a compromise here, but I for one am letting my voice be heard. Email your Senator and Congressperson (Politically correct ), let them know your views on the subject . Doing nothing but saying I'm going to switch ISP's if they start telling me what to do isn't going to do much good.

[Xayd]

It's not RIAA pressure, it's money.

People on OOL typically see upload speeds in the 1 megabit range and downloads in the 5 to 8 megabit range with *standard cable service*. No buisness account, paying to be uncapped, or anything else. Their network just doesn't have many caps on it.

Well, bandwidth costs money because we allow the first mile to be owned, controlled, and relatively unregulated by for-profit companies in this country, so that's why there are caps, and that's why OOL is finally having to throw out caps on their users as well.

[Strider]

I own my own website and I always am email when my usage goes over (even for my email). I disagree it is the RIAA pressuring ISP to crack down on users who are using File sharing programs, they have even admitted it. If an honest person is using a file sharing client, then typically they aren't going to be using the program 24 hours a day and letting everyone download files from him/her and vise versa. No, it's not just money, if it was then they could simply state that their rates will increase if they continue to use them, not sending a stupid and threatenig letter.

[glc]

Most residential broadband plans do prohibit servers - and OOL is simply redefining a "server" - no beef here. You want to run a server, pay for a commercial account. Show me another cable broadband service that has 7 megs down and 1 meg up for 40 bucks - we pay more than that here for 1.5 megs down and 128k up.

[jackjones]

glc, what is the point of having a 7 megs down and 1 meg up if you can not run a server? If you dont run a server then having such a big connection is kind of useless.

[Strider]

I very good point GLC, if a person isn't running a file share program as a server then he/she should have no problem. A while back I personally wrote my Senator and she sent a reply back in the mail and stated that the RIAA, Movie Industry and a Consumer Advocate groups were having meetings to come up a with a compromise. I can't remember what online site I saw that the RIAA and Movie industry were going to go after ISP that let their clients use these file programs, but I know I did read this. I going to do a Google search to find that article.

I have no problems with file sharing programs that are used correctly, but it isn't realistic to think that most people who use them are doing it legally. 99% percent of my mp3 are legally purchased (approximately 200 cds and growning) and about 1% are downloading, the 1% percent is either to see if I like the artist or it is an old song (and I do mean an old song from the 40's or 50's). I know this guy from work who is a major bootlegger, while he's a nice guy it will eventually get him in trouble. I know this person a long time ago who ran this BBS (before internet) that had a lot of illegal software on his board, one day the Feds came storming in his house took all of his computer equipment and marched him off to jail. It cost him some jail time and a $10,000 fine, plus he wasn't allow to run his board any more.

[doctorgonzo]

I think the point is that broadband is being sold for filesharing. That, and the fact that the e-mail OOL sent contained inaccuracies that were appeals to fear.

Again, it would be far better for them to sell less bandwidth and allow people to use all of it than to sell 1 Mb up but decide when they throttle it.

[Tuf]

My DSL provider has stepped our download speed down several times. It is down to 128k now. They say it's because of the extensive use of peer to peer downloading using more bandwidth than they anticipated. I don't use any of the Kazaa type programs but I know many do. I also know if it goes any lower I may switch providers. In all honesty I want my 768k upload speed back. I understand both sides if the arguement but I got DSL because I need to move large files frequently.

A commercial account is not an option for me on my phone numbers. I understand all of the phone companies rules but when I have inquired about upgrading they always tell me I would have to change my number which I don't want to do.

[Markoman01027]

Just e-mailed the Senator and told him my opinion on the article and that I do not agree with them telling what programs to run and what not

[Xayd]

Switch to SBC Tuff, my experiences with them have been pretty good and I get a consistent 1200 to 1300 kbps download speed. Your providers' blaming of DSL download caps on peer to peer is really pretty stupid, just as all the DSL ISPs who have gone out of business were also pretty stupid. The problem wasn't Kazaa, it was the fact that these ISPs assumed they could oversell their networks as much as they did with dialup accounts. The ISP I worked for a couple of years ago had one of the best ratios of modems to users in this region at 13 to 1. Can you imagine having 13 DSL users on a single 1.5mbps T1 line? Of course it would be slow. To expect tht you can have the same ratio of network overselling with broadband as you can on dialup is silly.

This now exposes the "dirty secret" about internet service so to speak, as people get used to the limits of their current broadband connections and want more. The catch being that it is not profitable to sell them what they have now, much less more, for their ISP. No one cared when it was all dialup, since dialup sucked equally for everyone and you couldn't do much with it, therefore overselling was easy and relatively painless. Now with broadband they can't oversell as much anymore so there's no profit. When the public as a whole wants more than the current broadband offerings something will have to give.

Knowing how our government works, a national state of emergency will probably be declared and there'll be an emergency law passed that subsidizes the profits of AT&T and Sprint rather than dealing with the real problem .

The RIAA I have zero sympathy for. Show me why a music CD (cost of production and materials significantly less than any movie) costs the same as a DVD and I'll tell you how to stop the downloading of MP3s.

They act as if they're victims of something, when the entire population of consumers who use the products they distribute have been victims of their price fixing (which is equally illegal) for years.

[Strider]

In most metropolitian area there were a lot of fiber optics that were laid down in speculation that broadband would be the future. Of course then came the big stock market shake-up. So to say that most ISP can't afford to have its all users to be uploading/downloading without having tight bandwith limits is false. Granted they can't have users having no limits, but to say "You can't use a file sharing program at all because it will cause havoc and abuse on bandwidth" is wrong. Now if they said "If you use file sharing programs all the time then you are acting as a file server and this practice will not be allowed", then they have a point.