14 replies to this topic

[zephyr]

Aug. 1 the FCC returned a decision prohibiting Comcast from interfering with its internet subscribers using BitTorrent. It's an interesting case because part of the "net neutality" issue is bandwidth regulation. With this decision, the FCC effectively says, for now, that any ISP policy on bandwidth management is subject to scrutiny and enforcement. Is this a good thing, or should we be concerned at ANY govt. regulation?

Edward J. Markey, Dem REP from Mass has introduced legislation to mandate network neutrality. He says that the F.C.C.’s action proved that Congress must act. Time for expert witness JW to appear on Capitol Hill!

[Jill]

Do you have a link?

[zephyr]

FCC Press Release = http://hraunfoss.fcc...OC-284286A1.pdf
NY Times = http://www.nytimes.c...?ref=technology

Gigi Sohn for Huffington Post actually has a good blog on it
http://www.huffingto...n_b_116219.html

& Eric Schmid's take on NN = http://www.google.co...ity_letter.html

[piskie]

In the UK, here are moves afoot to get ISPs to act against users of P to P and BitTorents in particular on piracy grounds. This is initially on a voluntary basis, but long term maybe with legislation.

The only thing stopping legislation now (I think) is that the UK has handed over most of it's legislative powers the that Juggernaut the EU.

[Randy]

I read about this yesterday in the local newspaper. It's interesting I guess.

The question I always have when this sort of thing comes up is why the ISPs don't or can't place some type of limit on the amount of bandwidth used to send relatively massive amounts of data to the 'net. One would think that's where the bottleneck occurs, when a BitTorrent user is sending files. That's typically the smaller of the two pipes historically anyway.

It seems like neither the FCC or the Congressional discussions I've read about make no distinction between serving up content and consuming content. But I see them as being on complete opposite ends of the spectrum.

The ISPs have had (legitimate I think) restrictions on the upload speeds and bandwidth usage since day one. Going all the way back to the old exceedingly slow modem days. These restrictions make it difficult at best, bordering on impossible, to set up a computer in your home to function as a server via one's personal ISP account. Most ISPs will sell you a business hosting account, however these are of course more expensive. And of course a business hosting account is much more easily tracked back to an owner, which could put that person at risk if they're doing something outside the law.

I guess I don't get the hubbub. I've always considered Personal connections to be one thing, something that's used mostly to retrieve information from the 'net. And Business connections to be another thing, which by defintion means you're probably serving content to the 'net.

Taken to its extreme this part of the Net Neutrality argument could mean that the folks who supply my server hardware would not be able to place any restrictions on the amount of incoming or outgoing bandwidth any of my servers use. Which doesn't seem very fair, since bandwidth is a real cost to them. A cost that gets passed along to me.

[piskie]

Yes Randy the difference in the 2 directions could give a different line of restrictive attack.
Incidentaly, the A in ADSL stands for Assymetric.

[SEO_Gal]

Finally! My husband and I have been fighting with Comcast for 3 years over this issue. We both work from home and rely on the internet to do run our businesses effectively.

It's a good thing, but I think the FCC basically just gave Comcast a slap on the back of the hand.

[nethy]

I guess I don't get the hubbub. I've always considered Personal connections to be one thing, something that's used mostly to retrieve information from the 'net. And Business connections to be another thing, which by defintion means you're probably serving content to the 'net.

Well, I can see some issues with regulating this sort of way. I mean if ISPs do it themselves in order to create price categories or scrounge more from businesses, that's legit I suppose. But I wouldn't like to see regulators get into it.

For one thing, doesn't web 2.0 mean the distinction is becoming blurred between personal & business, user & author etc.
There is a sort of tread lightly requirement. What I mean is that if you do something that kills (or even pricks) Wal Mart or Unilever, you here about it. It makes a bang. If you do something that kills (the still unborn) next Youtube or Google, it doesn't, make a sound.

But I guess I'm happy enough with this approach because I don't really see too much of a need to stop the flood of piracy. To me IP law is just a decision we need to make. Like driving on one side of the road. The one we made before is no longer practical. I'm not sure that the current piracy situation is causing long term economic harm. But obviously, I'd be more happy with a working legal framework that was generally followed. Anyway, there is a danger that policing piracy may cause harm. Especially if you take blunt measures.

[zephyr]

... this part of the Net Neutrality argument could mean that the folks who supply my server hardware would not be able to place any restrictions on the amount of incoming or outgoing bandwidth any of my servers use.

So I think what the claimants objected to was the selective targeting of BitTorrent traffic. A slippery slope? Would they get to throttle based on any parameter, such as political?
Most hosts do not allow adult, file share, etc.. But should user downloads be un-restricted?? Hosts are freely available, but many users are limited to 1 or 2 ISP choices.

[Randy]

I rather doubt ISPs will be able to disallow downloads, in the US at least. However if someone is downloading something illegal I think they're completely within their rights to report those downloading something illegal to the police. Gets them off the hook of having to deal with it.

They might even be able to restrict downloads based upon bandwidth usage. Meaning someone pays $19.95 per month they get X total download bandwidth usage per month. The ISPs aren't doing this now, but they certainly could if they made bandwidth usage maximums part of the contract. They made the mistake in how they targeted stuff in this case IMHO.

But on the other hand, I do think the ISPs should have the right limit both the speed and bandwidth usage of uploads. Meaning someone with BitTorrent or whatever could download to their hearts delight. But as soon as they start uploading and serving content, regardless of whether it's legal content to not, the ISPs should have the right to say Nope, sorry. You've exceeded your monthly bandwidth allowance for uploads.

Bandwidth usage, especially outgoing bandwidth, carries a real cost for ISPs. They should have the right to place a limit on this, basically forcing someone to purhcase a higher level account if they want to upload more or upload faster. I do this because I need the upload speed for all of the stuff I upload to my sites, so I pay several times the basic rate to have a business quality service. I don't see any difference between my paying more for uploading speed and paying more for more uploading bandwidth.

The issue as I see it is neither the FCC nor any of the discussions that have happened in Congress at the moment differentiate between uploads and downloads. And they should.

[1dmf]

It seems to me that any bandwidth restictions is simply tarring everyone with the same brush. (but that seems how all legislation seems to work, so hey ho).

Why should I have my bandwidth restricted, because others are using it for illegal purposes, that would be like banning all images because some look at illegal porn!

Punish those that commit the crimes and leave the innocent to enjoy maximum benefit!

Why does there never seem to be justice in anything?

[Randy]

Oh, I don't think they should "ban" uploading bandwidth 1dmf. That's not what I'm saying at all.

However I do thing they should have the ability to say, just like I do with the few hosting customers I can't get to leave me, You pay me $x.xx per month, which includes xMB/GB of bandwidth transfer.

When I have a hosting custoemr who exceeds their bandwidth allowance I could, but don't, shut off their hosting account when they go over their monthly bandwidth. Lots of places do that, I've chosen not to. Since I always have at least some bandwidth to burn on each server I just send a friendly email to let them know they've exceeded the bandwidth they've purchased for that month, and let them know if it continues they'll need to upgrade to a different plan that gives them more bandwidth but costs more.

I personally think the Hosting type bandwidth plans would work quite well for ISPs to apply to the non-business customers where outgoing bandwidth is concerned. Where a normal user gets a normal rate and normal bandwidth usage. But if you want to be a server of content (read: providing files for others) you may need to upgrade to a better plan.

[zephyr]

... if someone is downloading something illegal...

what about a small ISP that cannot afford to police the traffic? Would they subscribe to a "master black-list"?

...ISPs should have the right limit both the speed and bandwidth usage of uploads.... But as soon as they start uploading and serving content...

That's sort of what Comcast was doing. Throttling downloads, but preventing a BitTorrent user from seeding.
Where it all gets muddy "net neutrality wise" is what if ISPs end up like ATT? Then if you're not a "preferred site" (or even owned by them?) you get less bandwidth?

The recent allowing of cross-ownership in media markets has enabled large corps to gain control of a large portion of the media in some areas... are ISPs next?

[1dmf]

Personally I feel the up stream is what is restricting the internet currently, it might be different for UK to USA , but our upstreams suck in terms of speeds , so putting data transfer limits is just another restriction holding back the advancement of the internet for personal use.

All this great technology to enable me to talk to my dad via video link in thailand, but we don't , why? coz it sucks, soooo sloooow , images that are so blocky and jerky, add to this his upload limits and it means the technology is useless.

We have Virgin Media (used to be NTL) , and we get unlimited 'fair' usage! and so it should be! (upstream still sucks though!)

[MaKa]

The ISPs have had (legitimate I think) restrictions on the upload speeds and bandwidth usage since day one.

I thought the upload restriction are mostly from the available techniques rather than restrictions by ISPs. ADSL has been developed assuming that most traffic will be download rather than uploads compared to (SDSL) where both speeds are the same.

Most ISPs in Europe have a limit to the amount of traffic allowed. Even most of the unlimited ones have a "fair use" limit in the TOCs fine print, so maybe the issue will not apply here.

With the number of applications (VOIP, video phone, online back ups, etc. ) making use of both the download and upload of your internet connection I would expect that more people will start paying attention to the upload speed as well as the download speed of their connections.

I agree with 1dmf, I used to have 3M upload, but had to go back to 384k when I moved house. I'm waiting to get back to an SDSL line with improved speeds