Contrary to popular belief. Unlimited is used with very loose terms. A marketing fault no doubt but every internet account is limited somehow. I know of little access (in my area) that promotes 100% none restricted limits of bandwidth usage. Only limited by hardware alone. I'm sure the fine print of the service contract will detail the terms.
The average user, one who does not need a ton off bandwidth could have a limited bandwidth "unlimited access" account.
At some point there is a definitive difference between and average user and a power user. A user that surfs the web, email's, send pictures, testing new software or plays online games,etc and a user that has a file sharing server that serves to anyone that connects to it running 24 hours a day. Maxing there usage. Not even to mention business related transfers. It is a valid point though. One who is paying for the service should be able to use it with no restrictions. The trouble is that with the easy, simplicity and growth of P2P, it becomes evident that the influx of traffic is going to put strains on other users as well. Growth is needed.
Unfortunately in regards to more important services. VOIP is a major concern. As more and more people move to digital telephone services. The need to maintain reliable connections grows everyday. The more and more people that jump on the wagon then more and more forward bandwidth is needed. How would it look if a company like comcast could not maintain the reliable connections needed for "911" services. Seems kinda important to me. If I had someone dying beside me and I could not get a 911 operator because the company was congested with people abusing the right to unlimited network usage. Well, I don't really what to have it come to that.
Now I'm not saying it's wrong. Really I'm with you. It is a good thing, file sharing and all. But if there was not any issues with it then where is the problem. File sharing uses huge amounts of traffic. So why are company's like Comcast limiting the usage and blocking P2P. I think that is a thing to look at. Addressing the issues that wont be resolved by trying to stop people from doing it. More forward bandwidth is a future concern and these company's need to realize it.
And yes. My apologies. Convections was an inappropriate word to use.
Thats right. Take away illegitimate file sharing and what do you have left. Oh, and don't forget the ye old porn block. Lots and lots of legitimate bandwidth. Seeing how that horizon might never shine it might just be a good idea to create a permanent, dedicated, file sharing network that would be unrestricted with reason. If 5% of the usage used 95% of the width. Well lets not get to greedy now....
So if in relation you are stating that upping the costs in file sharing would lower the amount of people doing it then bravo. If only that were that case. Here the user does pose to be the enemy. Eating up crazy resources beyond the convections of a normal average daily internet regiment. ISP's are inundated with mass amounts of data chocking off more important services. So, throttling and limiting the amounts of threw put allows then to potently circumvent the immediate bandwidth issue. Not to side against all but ISP's but it's true. The fix. Equal upload download rates, for subscribing users of course;)
Wow, Thats some hugely in depth drug related similarity. It does however simulate the synonymous . People are going to continue to file share regardless of it's connotations that it needs to overcome.
But they do (sometimes) need to get on to the same wire as other common traffic. Limiting a portal's bandwidth would only elongate the need for more upload speed/width
I think the real trouble is the limit of forward data in general. Comcast along with ever other limiting provider needs to realize the needs of its users and open up a few more forward channels.
Slashdot Mirror
Contrary to popular belief. Unlimited is used with very loose terms. A marketing fault no doubt but every internet account is limited somehow. I know of little access (in my area) that promotes 100% none restricted limits of bandwidth usage. Only limited by hardware alone. I'm sure the fine print of the service contract will detail the terms. The average user, one who does not need a ton off bandwidth could have a limited bandwidth "unlimited access" account. At some point there is a definitive difference between and average user and a power user. A user that surfs the web, email's, send pictures, testing new software or plays online games ,etc and a user that has a file sharing server that serves to anyone that connects to it running 24 hours a day. Maxing there usage. Not even to mention business related transfers. It is a valid point though. One who is paying for the service should be able to use it with no restrictions. The trouble is that with the easy, simplicity and growth of P2P, it becomes evident that the influx of traffic is going to put strains on other users as well. Growth is needed.
Unfortunately in regards to more important services. VOIP is a major concern. As more and more people move to digital telephone services. The need to maintain reliable connections grows everyday. The more and more people that jump on the wagon then more and more forward bandwidth is needed. How would it look if a company like comcast could not maintain the reliable connections needed for "911" services. Seems kinda important to me. If I had someone dying beside me and I could not get a 911 operator because the company was congested with people abusing the right to unlimited network usage. Well, I don't really what to have it come to that.
Now I'm not saying it's wrong. Really I'm with you. It is a good thing, file sharing and all. But if there was not any issues with it then where is the problem. File sharing uses huge amounts of traffic. So why are company's like Comcast limiting the usage and blocking P2P. I think that is a thing to look at. Addressing the issues that wont be resolved by trying to stop people from doing it. More forward bandwidth is a future concern and these company's need to realize it.
And yes. My apologies. Convections was an inappropriate word to use.
Thats right. Take away illegitimate file sharing and what do you have left. Oh, and don't forget the ye old porn block. Lots and lots of legitimate bandwidth. Seeing how that horizon might never shine it might just be a good idea to create a permanent, dedicated, file sharing network that would be unrestricted with reason. If 5% of the usage used 95% of the width. Well lets not get to greedy now....
So if in relation you are stating that upping the costs in file sharing would lower the amount of people doing it then bravo. If only that were that case. Here the user does pose to be the enemy. Eating up crazy resources beyond the convections of a normal average daily internet regiment. ISP's are inundated with mass amounts of data chocking off more important services. So, throttling and limiting the amounts of threw put allows then to potently circumvent the immediate bandwidth issue. Not to side against all but ISP's but it's true. The fix. Equal upload download rates, for subscribing users of course ;)
Wow, Thats some hugely in depth drug related similarity. It does however simulate the synonymous . People are going to continue to file share regardless of it's connotations that it needs to overcome.
But they do (sometimes) need to get on to the same wire as other common traffic. Limiting a portal's bandwidth would only elongate the need for more upload speed/width
I think the real trouble is the limit of forward data in general. Comcast along with ever other limiting provider needs to realize the needs of its users and open up a few more forward channels.