"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49efa6a7$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > I'm pretty sure providing NNTP a sever service, especially with the
volume
> > of binary postings, isn't all that cheap either.

> But that's not what the bill is about. It's about the ISP disallowing you

No, it's about *allowing* the ISPs to disallow you...

> from using someone else's NNTP server unless you pay extra. It's about the
> ISP saying "you have to pay more to get to news.povray.org than to
> www.povray.org."  It has nothing to do with the cost of providing the bits
> and everything to do with the profit to be made from popular content.

Still cuts down on bandwidth, since popular content = high bandwidth usage.
Why should strict www users subsidize p2p traffic?

There may be any number of reasons for ISPs to fine tune their services, or
not to. My point is, they should be *able* to do that, if they chose to do
so. Just like the customer can select *any* ISP (or none, as the case may
be).

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:08:01 -0600, somebody wrote:

> Still cuts down on bandwidth, since popular content = high bandwidth
> usage. Why should strict www users subsidize p2p traffic?

Why not go to the next step, then - why should anyone subsidize anyone 
else's traffic?  Pay by the byte.  Why should I subsidize my neighbors' 
use of Netflix on demand?  I don't use it, and I don't benefit from it.

</sarcasm>

> to do so. Just like the customer can select *any* ISP (or none, as the
> case may be).

In many localities, the customer *can't* select *any* ISP.  I have 
friends who live in very rural areas who have one option and one option 
only.  They either pay whatever the provider charges and live with the 
TOC or they go without.

*Infrastructure* is put in place so everyone can benefit.  Why do I pay 
for the water mains for another part of town (through my taxes)?  I don't 
benefit from the west side of Salt Lake City having water mains.  But my 
property tax pays for maintenance on things like that.

We are none of us an island.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f12814$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:08:01 -0600, somebody wrote:

> > Still cuts down on bandwidth, since popular content = high bandwidth
> > usage. Why should strict www users subsidize p2p traffic?

> Why not go to the next step, then - why should anyone subsidize anyone
> else's traffic?  Pay by the byte.  Why should I subsidize my neighbors'
> use of Netflix on demand?  I don't use it, and I don't benefit from it.
>
> </sarcasm>

> > to do so. Just like the customer can select *any* ISP (or none, as the
> > case may be).

> In many localities, the customer *can't* select *any* ISP.

Granted, I did not mean that, say, a Germany resident can chose an
Argentinian ISP. I meant one can chose any ISP available in his/her region.

> I have
> friends who live in very rural areas who have one option and one option
> only.  They either pay whatever the provider charges and live with the
> TOC or they go without.

That's true of many things. In very rural areas, there is also a reduced
selection of, say, supermarkets. I'm not sure if that's a good argument for
legislating that the existing supermarket carries all goods or brands.
Before the analogy police arrives, the point is that it's not a good idea to
limit what types of services private enterprise can offer based on
individuals with special circumstances. One can, to an extent, expect that
governments provide basic necessities to very rural areas (within reason,
even for government), but ISPs are private enterprises. Sometimes, even
though you can select any color, the only available one will be black. Such
is life.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Still cuts down on bandwidth, since popular content = high bandwidth usage.

  I still can't understand this bandwidth argument.

  If bandwidth is a problem for an ISP, then they should lower their
client's bandwidths. It's that simple. Problem solved.

  If your argument is "people who only read email don't need to access
high-bandwidth websites such as youtube", then the solution is extremely
simple, once again: Lower the user's bandwidth. What is the problem?

  "Selective filtering will allow ISPs to offer cheap connections which
only access low-bandwidth services of the internet". Again: Just offer
very low-bandwidth connections for cheap. Problem solved.

  Bandwidth is a really stupid excuse for trying to pass these directives.

  In fact, bandwith is a really stupid excuse for this whole idea. What
is going to sell better, a connection which you can't use to access the
whole internet with, or one which you can, even if it's a slower connection?

  The fundamental idea behind these directives is not bandwidth, but a
way to circumvent network neutrality. Where the ISPs *will* get money
from is from companies: Companies will have to pay the ISPs in order to
get their services to the "basic packages" of those ISPs.

  Both the companies and the users will suffer from this.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Still cuts down on bandwidth, since popular content = high bandwidth usage.
> Why should strict www users subsidize p2p traffic?

It's not about bandwidth. And, truly, popular web sites take *less* 
bandwidth than unpopular ones. That's what proxy servers are for.

> There may be any number of reasons for ISPs to fine tune their services, or
> not to. My point is, they should be *able* to do that, if they chose to do
> so. 

But you don't have any good reason for saying that, right?

I don't mind the ISP deciding what I can see and what I can't, as long as 
the ISP is *also* responsible for what they decide to deliver. If they're 
going to filter legal content, they should be responsible for not filtering 
illegal content.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:49f1c1fb$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > There may be any number of reasons for ISPs to fine tune their services,
or
> > not to. My point is, they should be *able* to do that, if they chose to
do
> > so.

> But you don't have any good reason for saying that, right?

Fundamental free market principles is an excellent reason, IMO.

> I don't mind the ISP deciding what I can see and what I can't, as long as
> the ISP is *also* responsible for what they decide to deliver. If they're
> going to filter legal content, they should be responsible for not
filtering
> illegal content.

I think they should try to filter out illegal content anyway. But if
legislated, it would have to be legislated in a manner not to make
perfection a requirement. The legislation, if anything, should protect ISPs
from liability for trying to filter out illegal content but not entirely
succeeding (either false positives or false negatives). Same thing with spam
filters too.

Do you run an anti-virus program? Are they liable for not being able to
catch new viruses that are not in their databases? Are they liable for
misidentifying a benign application as malware? I think at least the same
degree of liability protection should be there for ISPs trying to do good.

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:49ed9bb5$1@news.povray.org...

> Besides, ISPs have so far successfully convinced people that things like
> YouTube and iPlayer are "hogging" all the bandwidth. (Er, no, it's just
> that people are actually using *all* of what they've paid for, when your
> entire business model is based on the assumption that they won't do
> this,

A lot of business models are based on that assumption. Do you think banks
have remotely enough cash on hand if all customers want to withdraw their
money simultaneously?

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
>> But you don't have any good reason for saying that, right?
> Fundamental free market principles is an excellent reason, IMO.

And if there were a free market in ISPs, I'd agree with you. I don't think 
that's the case, tho.

> I think they should try to filter out illegal content anyway. But if
> legislated, it would have to be legislated in a manner not to make
> perfection a requirement.

Why? *My* downloads of content have to be perfect. How come the ISP would 
get a free pass on sending me child porn, but I wouldn't have a free pass on 
having it by mistake?

If you start saying "The ISP filters illegal content", people will rely on that.

> The legislation, if anything, should protect ISPs
> from liability for trying to filter out illegal content but not entirely
> succeeding (either false positives or false negatives). Same thing with spam
> filters too.

Why?

> Do you run an anti-virus program? 

Nope.

> Are they liable for not being able to
> catch new viruses that are not in their databases? 

Possibly.

> Are they liable for
> misidentifying a benign application as malware? 

Possibly.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:53:17 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:49f12814$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:08:01 -0600, somebody wrote:
> 
>> > Still cuts down on bandwidth, since popular content = high bandwidth
>> > usage. Why should strict www users subsidize p2p traffic?
> 
>> Why not go to the next step, then - why should anyone subsidize anyone
>> else's traffic?  Pay by the byte.  Why should I subsidize my neighbors'
>> use of Netflix on demand?  I don't use it, and I don't benefit from it.
>>
>> </sarcasm>
> 
>> > to do so. Just like the customer can select *any* ISP (or none, as
>> > the case may be).
> 
>> In many localities, the customer *can't* select *any* ISP.
> 
> Granted, I did not mean that, say, a Germany resident can chose an
> Argentinian ISP. I meant one can chose any ISP available in his/her
> region.

Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained before - 
if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a single choice.  
I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps without paying for a 
dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with Comcast's draconian TOS or 
to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3 Mbps currently.

>> I have
>> friends who live in very rural areas who have one option and one option
>> only.  They either pay whatever the provider charges and live with the
>> TOC or they go without.
> 
> That's true of many things. In very rural areas, there is also a reduced
> selection of, say, supermarkets. I'm not sure if that's a good argument
> for legislating that the existing supermarket carries all goods or
> brands. Before the analogy police arrives, the point is that it's not a
> good idea to limit what types of services private enterprise can offer
> based on individuals with special circumstances. One can, to an extent,
> expect that governments provide basic necessities to very rural areas
> (within reason, even for government), but ISPs are private enterprises.
> Sometimes, even though you can select any color, the only available one
> will be black. Such is life.

You seem to be missing my point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:49f1ec38@news.povray.org...

> Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained before -
> if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a single choice.
> I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps without paying for a
> dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with Comcast's draconian TOS or
> to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3 Mbps currently.

So Comcast should be subject to your terms because there happens to be
little alternative in your locality?

It's OK to ask or lobby for Comcast to get what you need. I don't think it's
OK at all for legislation to dictate Comcast to offer you exactly what you
want.

Post a reply to this message