with a company so inclined to assume a user of the service is guilty of copyright violations just because of the amount of data they are transferring
That's not what they are assuming. What they are assuming is that you violate terms like "[prohibited activities:] (i) continuous uploading, downloading, or streaming of audio or video programming or games".
And other nations seem to have all the bandwidth fairies they need. Amazing, init?
You're dreaming. In most places in the world, bandwidth-to-the-home is much more expensive than in the US. Bandwidth to the home is cheaper in some European countries; we don't know for sure what the reason is, but more responsible usage than in the US may well be one factor. I suspect that when a German ISP says "no BitTorrent", people are more likely to comply, and hence the ISP has lower costs.
In any case, ISPs in those countries still have Comcast-like restrictions in place:
(And, in fact, those are only the restrictions affecting BitTorrent; users in France and Germany, for example, primarily use other protocols, so those wouldn't be listed on the AzureusWiki.)
Trying to stop censorship by pointing fingers at the manufacturers of filtering software is pointless. You can put together an Internet censorship platform out of open source components: no sales, no "made in USA". And it would be really bad if you couldn't: an evolving, open Internet requires being able to manipulate traffic at the packet level.
If the US wants to stop censorship and human rights abuses in Burma, it needs to do it the traditional way: persuasion, politics, trade, and/or military.
You're making the unwarranted assumption that less abortion means higher birth rates. In fact, that contradicts another argument anti-abortion people like to make, namely that abortions encourage promiscuity and out of wedlock births.
It is also irrelevant. Women have the right to have abortions and choose whether to have children; whether that is inconvenient for the economy simply does not matter.
I have no illusions that routers which do these things are complex however my point was that over time computer cycles have become cheaper faster then bandwidth
My point is that the real cost of this is not the compute cycles, it's the people needed to install, maintain, and support it. Those costs are not going down.
I see a giant prisoner's dilemma (although tragedy of the commons is just as apt)
First of all, it's not a prisoner's dilemma. It would be a tragedy of the commons if there were no policing and no TOS, but since Comcast has TOS is policing it, it really isn't even that.
The only issue is a psychological one: a vocal minority of people cannot grasp the concept that not every rule is enforced 100% and that society functions better if people comply with rules even if they don't always get caught.
The course Comcast has chosen will neither yield a workable business model nor the best outcome for their users unless Comcast fails.
This isn't just the course Comcast has chosen. Many other ISPs are doing similar things; Comcast simply screwed up in their networking implementation.
And, yes, I think per-protocol traffic shaping and policing by kicking out the worst offenders is the best solution for users, because it gives people the maximum amount of freedom while still preventing abuses that affect other people. The only problem with it is a psychological one: people think that because the can get away with violating the TOS over some time period, it becomes their right to do so.
Unfortunately, this will not last. Some ISPs are already gearing up for volume based pricing and strictly enforced volume limits and bandwidth shaping.
I hope that what we will end up with is some fairly simple scheme that still gives you a flat monthly rate, but switches you from, say, 4Mbps to 256kbps once you exceed your monthly volume limit. And if we're really lucky, this can be delayed until ISPs can support 4Mbps sustained and can market the whole thing as "included are 4 Mbps unlimited bandwidth, plus 4 Gbyte volume at 64 Mbps".
I do not really expect any ISP to provide a continuous data rate equal (or even similar) to the link data rate. If they wish to use traffic analysis and shaping to moderate any one user's traffic to 256kbps over a 24 hour period,
But they don't want to. Right now, ISPs are happy to let you do whatever you want as long as they don't notice it. They act only when they notice actual problems. It's a simple and efficient system.
If they want to implement traffic shaping then do it transparently and in such a way that obfuscation of traffic is not worth the trouble.
ISPs are just trying to do the cheapest and simplest thing that gets the job done. Port-based filtering still works on average, so they are using it. If people try to use tunneling to get around that, then ISPs will have to do more expensive traffic shaping, prices go up, and everybody loses. The problem isn't the ISPs here, the problem is that people are not thinking about how their usage affects everybody.
Just manage the bookkeeping using a token system or similar. Compute cycles are cheap compared to WAN throughput.
Compute cycles may be, but the rollout of additional network infrastructure, accounting systems, billing systems, and extensive customer support for people who don't know why they are getting a $500 bill isn't. I think this could easily double the cost of bandwidth. Is that what you want? Because that's what we're heading for, thanks to a few bad apples.
Right, because time and time again, terms of service have been found to superceed legislation, case law, and reasonable expectations.
WHAT legislation? WHAT case law? WHAT reasonable expectations?
Companies like Comcast simply can't support widespread BitTorrent use or maxing out your connection 24/7; it's economically impossible. If courts should force them to, one of two things have to happen: either they will have to cap bandwidth much lower than they do right now, or they will have to move to volume pricing. Which do you prefer? You have to decide because there is no bandwidth fairy.
However, until things get fixed, stories like this being posted on/. raises awareness.
The only reasonable fix I see is for Comcast to drop unlimited plans altogether. I'm all for that. Include 5 Gbytes in the basic subscription and then charge $1/Gbyte over that. Then you can decide for yourself whether you want to run BitTorrent 24/7.
Of course, Comcast basically already offers such plans (business plans), people are just too cheap to pay for them.
Just to be clear, I completely disagree with their policies
And what policies do you prefer?
Let's say Comcast drops all those silly requirements. What will happen? Some people will end up running BitTorrent 24/7, and the rest will be left in the dust.
Or let's say Comcast is legally required to provide the bandwidth they advertise at a sustained rate. They can't do that at 4Mbps. So, what will happen? Everybody will be dropped back to a rate they can actually guarantee at the price they charge, which is probably, oh, 256kbps.
Which of those scenarios do you prefer?
Actually, I do agree that the current policies are silly. All ISPs should go to volume-based pricing, like, oh, $1/Gbyte or so. Then, if you want to run BitTorrent 24/7, you pay your fair share for the volume you actually use, and eventually, Comcast will give you your own line.
* The "real" web browser can be a lifesaver. I was able to conduct business as usual, accessing OWA, using PayPal, etc. No Blackberry-ized web. * "Real" email is also a plus. Getting PDF attachments and actually seeing them rendered as they're supposed to be rendered helps.
Yes, like Symbian and Windows Mobile phones have had for many years.
I can only hope that other manufacturers copy the design well enough that someone else can release a model at a lower price.
I hope nobody copies the iPhone; it's a big step backwards compared to modern cell phones. What I hope they copy is the iPhone style, look, and screen.
Are the concepts of "explicitly not allowing any form of server to be run" and "running a server for gaming" not *mutually exclusive*?
(1) You don't need to run any server (public or private) for "great gaming".
(2) Comcast doesn't rule out "any form of server", they rule out public servers (in addition to BitTorrent, P2P, file sharing, etc.).
(3) The fact that the TOS say that something is prohibited doesn't mean that you can't do it, it means that it is at Comcast's discretion whether they terminate the contract because of it.
So, no, there is no conflict between their advertising and their TOS.
They don't rule out "servers", they rule out "public servers". And even there, they give you some leeway. They simply do not guarantee that you can run servers.
Pretty much everything sends data in both directions, even HTTP so is that a server when it connects to/. to download a page and it has to get the get request?
No, an HTTP client is not a server.
What about games, Comcast advertises how great gaming is on their network... many people playing games have to run a server to play. Thier TOS is in direct conflict with their advertising.
I see no conflict. There are many gaming related uses for which their network is good, and some others for which it isn't. In general, you can run gaming clients and servers, but it's at their discretion.
Although data is both sent and recieved from BitTorrent clients, and clients connect to each other, the trackers are really 'the servers' which allow the clients to exchange information.
File sharing is explicitly and separately forbidden, so whether BitTorrent is a "client" or "server" is not relevant.
Again, if you don't get the service you like, change providers. Comcast will not, and cannot, give you full bandwidth maxed out service.
I don't know. It was you who said that the US was "the exact opposite" of "the good guys"--your words. So, you tell me why you have that need to make comparisons.
Why should we let Greenpeace get away with pretending to be unbiased? If they're going to act like just another marketing machine, then they shoud be treated like one.
Greenpeace is a not-for-profit. That's not my opinion, that's a legal fact.
When Apple claims to be a disinterested party they get hammered, even in supposedly pro-Apple forums as this, even on such occasions when they actually have a track record to support their claim.
Apple is never a disinterested party: their goal and their legal obligation is to improve their bottom line, nothing else. If they claim they have any other goals, they are lying.
Greenpeace, of course, is also not a disinterested party: their goal is environmentalism, but they are quite clear about it.
Comcast's TOS explicitly disallow running any form of public server or P2P services, so I really don't see why people are complaining about it. If you want to run P2P, subscribe to a plan or provider that permits it.
Or, if you think that people should be permitted to run any service they like, then stand up for government regulations that force all providers to let them do this.
But I'm tired of this pseudo-libertarian bullshit where people complain about evil big business writing restrictive contracts on the one hand, and whine about big bad government on the other.
Under Bush, this nation has sunk to new lows, but it started sinking long before he got into office.
And when would this mystical period in US history be when the US was supposedly doing better? The Reagan years? The Carter years? Nixon? JFK? Or the 19th century, with slavery and expansionary wars?
Or, for that matter, what other nation has been doing better? France? England? The holier-than-thou little European nations that got taken over a couple of times every century?
Politics is dirty and democracy is hard. But on the whole, the US is doing better than other nations, and on the whole, we are making progress.
For all of the bashing the left does about Bush, what is more telling is that Bush didn't really create the modern government that is capable of doing this. Everyone has had a hand in this.
He's the president; if there's a problem, he has the means fix it.
So why do you think that "we were meant to be the good guys that don't do this kind of thing" (I'm guessing you're from the US correct me if I'm wrong). Surely every shred of evidence in living memory and beyond points to the exact opposite?
Oh, please, give me a break. The US isn't perfect, but it is certainly not the "exact opposite of the good guys". Which nation do you think has a better record?
Slashdot Mirror
with a company so inclined to assume a user of the service is guilty of copyright violations just because of the amount of data they are transferring
That's not what they are assuming. What they are assuming is that you violate terms like "[prohibited activities:] (i) continuous uploading, downloading, or streaming of audio or video programming or games".
And other nations seem to have all the bandwidth fairies they need. Amazing, init?
You're dreaming. In most places in the world, bandwidth-to-the-home is much more expensive than in the US. Bandwidth to the home is cheaper in some European countries; we don't know for sure what the reason is, but more responsible usage than in the US may well be one factor. I suspect that when a German ISP says "no BitTorrent", people are more likely to comply, and hence the ISP has lower costs.
In any case, ISPs in those countries still have Comcast-like restrictions in place:
http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad_ISPs
(And, in fact, those are only the restrictions affecting BitTorrent; users in France and Germany, for example, primarily use other protocols, so those wouldn't be listed on the AzureusWiki.)
One day there is going to be an accounting for what has happened in Myanmar.
I wouldn't bet on it; far bigger crimes against humanity have been committed and are largely forgotten.
Trying to stop censorship by pointing fingers at the manufacturers of filtering software is pointless. You can put together an Internet censorship platform out of open source components: no sales, no "made in USA". And it would be really bad if you couldn't: an evolving, open Internet requires being able to manipulate traffic at the packet level.
If the US wants to stop censorship and human rights abuses in Burma, it needs to do it the traditional way: persuasion, politics, trade, and/or military.
ready access to abortion has made women more likely to engage in premarital sex, and as a result more children are being born to single women
Out of wedlock births have risen dramatically, but there is not a shred of evidence that this is the result of "ready access to abortion".
That statement alone completely discredits the U. Chicago economists: their reasoning is shoddy and tendentious.
You're making the unwarranted assumption that less abortion means higher birth rates. In fact, that contradicts another argument anti-abortion people like to make, namely that abortions encourage promiscuity and out of wedlock births.
It is also irrelevant. Women have the right to have abortions and choose whether to have children; whether that is inconvenient for the economy simply does not matter.
I have no illusions that routers which do these things are complex however my point was that over time computer cycles have become cheaper faster then bandwidth
My point is that the real cost of this is not the compute cycles, it's the people needed to install, maintain, and support it. Those costs are not going down.
I see a giant prisoner's dilemma (although tragedy of the commons is just as apt)
First of all, it's not a prisoner's dilemma. It would be a tragedy of the commons if there were no policing and no TOS, but since Comcast has TOS is policing it, it really isn't even that.
The only issue is a psychological one: a vocal minority of people cannot grasp the concept that not every rule is enforced 100% and that society functions better if people comply with rules even if they don't always get caught.
The course Comcast has chosen will neither yield a workable business model nor the best outcome for their users unless Comcast fails.
This isn't just the course Comcast has chosen. Many other ISPs are doing similar things; Comcast simply screwed up in their networking implementation.
And, yes, I think per-protocol traffic shaping and policing by kicking out the worst offenders is the best solution for users, because it gives people the maximum amount of freedom while still preventing abuses that affect other people. The only problem with it is a psychological one: people think that because the can get away with violating the TOS over some time period, it becomes their right to do so.
Unfortunately, this will not last. Some ISPs are already gearing up for volume based pricing and strictly enforced volume limits and bandwidth shaping.
I hope that what we will end up with is some fairly simple scheme that still gives you a flat monthly rate, but switches you from, say, 4Mbps to 256kbps once you exceed your monthly volume limit. And if we're really lucky, this can be delayed until ISPs can support 4Mbps sustained and can market the whole thing as "included are 4 Mbps unlimited bandwidth, plus 4 Gbyte volume at 64 Mbps".
I do not really expect any ISP to provide a continuous data rate equal (or even similar) to the link data rate. If they wish to use traffic analysis and shaping to moderate any one user's traffic to 256kbps over a 24 hour period,
But they don't want to. Right now, ISPs are happy to let you do whatever you want as long as they don't notice it. They act only when they notice actual problems. It's a simple and efficient system.
If they want to implement traffic shaping then do it transparently and in such a way that obfuscation of traffic is not worth the trouble.
ISPs are just trying to do the cheapest and simplest thing that gets the job done. Port-based filtering still works on average, so they are using it. If people try to use tunneling to get around that, then ISPs will have to do more expensive traffic shaping, prices go up, and everybody loses. The problem isn't the ISPs here, the problem is that people are not thinking about how their usage affects everybody.
Just manage the bookkeeping using a token system or similar. Compute cycles are cheap compared to WAN throughput.
Compute cycles may be, but the rollout of additional network infrastructure, accounting systems, billing systems, and extensive customer support for people who don't know why they are getting a $500 bill isn't. I think this could easily double the cost of bandwidth. Is that what you want? Because that's what we're heading for, thanks to a few bad apples.
Right, because time and time again, terms of service have been found to superceed legislation, case law, and reasonable expectations.
WHAT legislation? WHAT case law? WHAT reasonable expectations?
Companies like Comcast simply can't support widespread BitTorrent use or maxing out your connection 24/7; it's economically impossible. If courts should force them to, one of two things have to happen: either they will have to cap bandwidth much lower than they do right now, or they will have to move to volume pricing. Which do you prefer? You have to decide because there is no bandwidth fairy.
However, until things get fixed, stories like this being posted on /. raises awareness.
The only reasonable fix I see is for Comcast to drop unlimited plans altogether. I'm all for that. Include 5 Gbytes in the basic subscription and then charge $1/Gbyte over that. Then you can decide for yourself whether you want to run BitTorrent 24/7.
Of course, Comcast basically already offers such plans (business plans), people are just too cheap to pay for them.
Just to be clear, I completely disagree with their policies
And what policies do you prefer?
Let's say Comcast drops all those silly requirements. What will happen? Some people will end up running BitTorrent 24/7, and the rest will be left in the dust.
Or let's say Comcast is legally required to provide the bandwidth they advertise at a sustained rate. They can't do that at 4Mbps. So, what will happen? Everybody will be dropped back to a rate they can actually guarantee at the price they charge, which is probably, oh, 256kbps.
Which of those scenarios do you prefer?
Actually, I do agree that the current policies are silly. All ISPs should go to volume-based pricing, like, oh, $1/Gbyte or so. Then, if you want to run BitTorrent 24/7, you pay your fair share for the volume you actually use, and eventually, Comcast will give you your own line.
The TOS explicitly forbid file sharing and P2P; I don't see any basis for a lawsuit.
* The "real" web browser can be a lifesaver. I was able to conduct business as usual, accessing OWA, using PayPal, etc. No Blackberry-ized web.
* "Real" email is also a plus. Getting PDF attachments and actually seeing them rendered as they're supposed to be rendered helps.
Yes, like Symbian and Windows Mobile phones have had for many years.
I can only hope that other manufacturers copy the design well enough that someone else can release a model at a lower price.
I hope nobody copies the iPhone; it's a big step backwards compared to modern cell phones. What I hope they copy is the iPhone style, look, and screen.
Are the concepts of "explicitly not allowing any form of server to be run" and "running a server for gaming" not *mutually exclusive*?
(1) You don't need to run any server (public or private) for "great gaming".
(2) Comcast doesn't rule out "any form of server", they rule out public servers (in addition to BitTorrent, P2P, file sharing, etc.).
(3) The fact that the TOS say that something is prohibited doesn't mean that you can't do it, it means that it is at Comcast's discretion whether they terminate the contract because of it.
So, no, there is no conflict between their advertising and their TOS.
They can kick me off anytime they like and apparently from the ToS, for any reason.
Yes, they can. Works well for me.
If you don't like it, pay more and get a business line with TOS that let you use full bandwidth 24/7.
Whats your definition of a server?
/. to download a page and it has to get the get request?
... many people playing games have to run a server to play. Thier TOS is in direct conflict with their advertising.
They don't rule out "servers", they rule out "public servers". And even there, they give you some leeway. They simply do not guarantee that you can run servers.
Pretty much everything sends data in both directions, even HTTP so is that a server when it connects to
No, an HTTP client is not a server.
What about games, Comcast advertises how great gaming is on their network
I see no conflict. There are many gaming related uses for which their network is good, and some others for which it isn't. In general, you can run gaming clients and servers, but it's at their discretion.
Although data is both sent and recieved from BitTorrent clients, and clients connect to each other, the trackers are really 'the servers' which allow the clients to exchange information.
File sharing is explicitly and separately forbidden, so whether BitTorrent is a "client" or "server" is not relevant.
Again, if you don't get the service you like, change providers. Comcast will not, and cannot, give you full bandwidth maxed out service.
and your PC will go into "reduced functionality" mode, where you can't do anything but use the web browser for half an hour
And how is this different from regular Vista?
And why the need to keep making comparisons?
I don't know. It was you who said that the US was "the exact opposite" of "the good guys"--your words. So, you tell me why you have that need to make comparisons.
Why should we let Greenpeace get away with pretending to be unbiased? If they're going to act like just another marketing machine, then they shoud be treated like one.
Greenpeace is a not-for-profit. That's not my opinion, that's a legal fact.
When Apple claims to be a disinterested party they get hammered, even in supposedly pro-Apple forums as this, even on such occasions when they actually have a track record to support their claim.
Apple is never a disinterested party: their goal and their legal obligation is to improve their bottom line, nothing else. If they claim they have any other goals, they are lying.
Greenpeace, of course, is also not a disinterested party: their goal is environmentalism, but they are quite clear about it.
Comcast's TOS explicitly disallow running any form of public server or P2P services, so I really don't see why people are complaining about it. If you want to run P2P, subscribe to a plan or provider that permits it.
Or, if you think that people should be permitted to run any service they like, then stand up for government regulations that force all providers to let them do this.
But I'm tired of this pseudo-libertarian bullshit where people complain about evil big business writing restrictive contracts on the one hand, and whine about big bad government on the other.
Under Bush, this nation has sunk to new lows, but it started sinking long before he got into office.
And when would this mystical period in US history be when the US was supposedly doing better? The Reagan years? The Carter years? Nixon? JFK? Or the 19th century, with slavery and expansionary wars?
Or, for that matter, what other nation has been doing better? France? England? The holier-than-thou little European nations that got taken over a couple of times every century?
Politics is dirty and democracy is hard. But on the whole, the US is doing better than other nations, and on the whole, we are making progress.
So, you think that the US government should pluck innocent people off the street and coerce confessions from them for crimes they didn't commit?
You are evil.
For all of the bashing the left does about Bush, what is more telling is that Bush didn't really create the modern government that is capable of doing this. Everyone has had a hand in this.
He's the president; if there's a problem, he has the means fix it.
So why do you think that "we were meant to be the good guys that don't do this kind of thing" (I'm guessing you're from the US correct me if I'm wrong). Surely every shred of evidence in living memory and beyond points to the exact opposite?
Oh, please, give me a break. The US isn't perfect, but it is certainly not the "exact opposite of the good guys". Which nation do you think has a better record?