I agree with and understand your statement Nom, however there would be tremendous overhead to manage an implementation like this. There would need to be hardware/software to manage, monitor, filter, and limit traffic for each dedicated line to each consumer. The traffic shaping and filtering technologies do exist, and are often used by institutions as that serve many clients/employees/students. Those of which all go through the same connection, not individual managed.
Another point I also ponder is does the average person have the knowledge to make an informed decision on their maximum bit rate. Right now we have a simlar method from our ISPs you know "10Mb/s 14Mb/s and turbo 16Mb/s" (these are made up). This goes hand and hand in retrospect, let say you have a customer who is aware and knowledgeable about this "choosing of a max bandwidth". They will be expecting to get exactly what they pay for...understandable, yes. However realistically it is not. There are many factors that go into what the end consumer sees as their max bandwidth...the source of the data, how fast it is being uploaded(not the ISP), packet overhead, hardware failure, attenuation rates, signal-noise ratios, etc.
This leading to my question to you..When or what signifies a a point in which you should be able to consider it false advertising?
I am in no way in support of the ISPs as of now...I am a firm believer that the ISPs need to be considered for taking the law into their own hands, which is wrong. Blocking, degrading, or preventing the flow of information should be punishable, definitely, but we need a metric and a baseline. Usually these issues are not as black and white, such as a page doesn't load because the ISP took down a route to that IP source.
I am hoping that with this bill it will wake up the ISPs and alert them that it is not okay to traffic shape or filter or degrade in anyway. They are a service and as such should push and pursue ways to increase customer satisfaction and improving their product, not ways to prevent its possible uses.
I hope I made some sense here....be gentle.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with and understand your statement Nom, however there would be tremendous overhead to manage an implementation like this. There would need to be hardware/software to manage, monitor, filter, and limit traffic for each dedicated line to each consumer. The traffic shaping and filtering technologies do exist, and are often used by institutions as that serve many clients/employees/students. Those of which all go through the same connection, not individual managed. Another point I also ponder is does the average person have the knowledge to make an informed decision on their maximum bit rate. Right now we have a simlar method from our ISPs you know "10Mb/s 14Mb/s and turbo 16Mb/s" (these are made up). This goes hand and hand in retrospect, let say you have a customer who is aware and knowledgeable about this "choosing of a max bandwidth". They will be expecting to get exactly what they pay for...understandable, yes. However realistically it is not. There are many factors that go into what the end consumer sees as their max bandwidth...the source of the data, how fast it is being uploaded(not the ISP), packet overhead, hardware failure, attenuation rates, signal-noise ratios, etc. This leading to my question to you..When or what signifies a a point in which you should be able to consider it false advertising? I am in no way in support of the ISPs as of now...I am a firm believer that the ISPs need to be considered for taking the law into their own hands, which is wrong. Blocking, degrading, or preventing the flow of information should be punishable, definitely, but we need a metric and a baseline. Usually these issues are not as black and white, such as a page doesn't load because the ISP took down a route to that IP source. I am hoping that with this bill it will wake up the ISPs and alert them that it is not okay to traffic shape or filter or degrade in anyway. They are a service and as such should push and pursue ways to increase customer satisfaction and improving their product, not ways to prevent its possible uses. I hope I made some sense here....be gentle.