Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OptimumOnline Bans uploads to P2P networks

Posted by Hemos on from the cutting-the-feet-out dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In disturbing news this week Cablevision's high speed broadband unit OptimumOnline has sent letters to subscribers warning that uploading to P2P networks will no longer be tolerated. Obviously bowing to record and movie industry pressure the letter includes a link to a page that gives directions on how to disable file trading on 18 P2P services from KaZaa to Xolox. If you don't comply, they will cut the cord. I remember not to long ago where OptimumOnline ran TV ads touting the ability to grab music from the Net. The story on this can also be read here."

3 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. This article is completely innacurate . . . by jgaynor · · Score: 5, Informative

    Im sorry but this article is completely inaccurate. Im an OOL customer and I actively participate in the OOL discussions on broadbandreports. The discretionary cap was put into place because users were clogging upstream channels with p2p uploads. It got so bad that DHCP requests on some nodes (mine in particular) could not be recieved within even a 17 second ack window. It does NOT have to do with pressure from the RIAA.

    Here's why: The cap is not a new portblock (they already block 80 to discourage webhosting), but simply a different cable modem config file with a lower upstream maximum. The ordinary config for OOL is 10 megabits down and 1 megabit up. the altered config file is 10 megabits down and only 150 kilobits up.

    Obviously this is a solution that was implemented to control bandwidth, not specific applications. If OOL were to start battling p2p apps, it would come in the form of a portblock or traffic shaper - NOT an upload throttle.

    To the author of the story, please do your homework. You can start in the OOL forums on BBR:

    http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/cable,opt

  2. those using "illegal" should understand the law by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Informative
    As a "common carrier", the ISP is not responsiable for uploads by the user any more than the telephone company is responsiable if you make a threatening or harassing call. However, if they start censoring, then they assume responsability for anything later done that they didn't catch, a point I doubt the RIAA thugs pointed out in their threats.

    Clearly not all shared content is illegal (although there is little doubt that most of it is). Small artists have been able to use it legally for self-promotion, a perfectly legal use that the RIAA is also glad to put a stop to, as it might slightly impeed their ability to steal from artists.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  3. Re:Once Again by NineNine · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, this has nothing to do with whose attorneys are better. It has to do with the fact that when you signed up for service, you signed a legally binding contract saying that you won't run a server. Even the best attorney in the world couldn't defend against this. You agreed to use their service under their conditions. You break the conditions. The contract is null and void. They don't have to provide you service. Don't like it? Find an ISP that allows server usage.