Actually, it's quite relevant. It only takes a handful of bandwidth hogs in one neighborhood to peg a DOCSIS node. Contrast that to DSL where your actions have no impact on your neighbor. Besides, what do you think is easier? Upgrading the backhaul from the CO or splitting the cable-co's HFC network into smaller pieces?
If the DSL/cable "sharing" is a "myth" then why haven't we seen Verizon and AT&T bitching about "bandwidth hogs"? AT&T might be trying to get into bed with the content industry but I haven't heard bandwidth usage used as a justification for doing so. And Verizon seems to be perfectly content to let their residential customers peg their connections 24/7 if they choose to do so.
Most residential Internet access plans offered by the last-mile duopoly have a stipulation that residential subscribers MUST NOT[1] "run a server" on the connection
The classical definition of "server" would also preclude hosting that FPS game for your buddies or even mIRC's ident daemon if you want to get REALLY technical about it. I could also point out that most BT clients will work just fine (albeit with fewer peers) behind NAT without port forwarding, and an application that can't accept incoming connections hardly qualifies as a "server".
So even if it isn't an infringement on anyone's copyright, seeding a torrent might still be an infringement on the exclusive rights of the owner of the last-mile physical medium.
It could be if they decided to enforce it in such a manner. But I doubt they'd get away with it. Besides, if they really wanted to try that, then why not just NAT all of your customers? That would solve those pesky "servers".
What makes you think Verizon (or whomever) won't throttle traffic on a FiOS network in the same way?
Because Verizon's main source of revenue isn't derived from video or intellectual property. Because they are losing POTS customers left and right and need SOMETHING to use as a contrast between themselves and the cable cos that are kicking their ass. And because they've come out and said that they don't think bandwidth caps are the "right direction for us".
I fucking loathe Verizon for some of their actions (especially those of Verizon Wireless) but they've been on the right side of this issue for as long as I can remember. If that changes they will deserve our scorn but I don't think it's fair to give it to them just yet.
None of the three are great options, #1 hurts everybody, not just the heavy users. #2 keeps the prices low for most, at the expense of the heavy users, and #3 hurts everybody in general.
Upgrading their network isn't an option?
would be agreeable to temporary bandwith reductions (maybe 25% to 50%) for heavy useres during peak usage periods.
I wouldn't be agreeable to those. The applications that are used by the minority of internet users today are going to become mainstream tomorrow. Everybody is slamming bittorrent but missing the point that internet video is probably going to be the next killer app.
I don't know about you, but the typical "infringing" bittorrent download in my experience doesn't exceed 1 - 2Mbits because they usually have an unfavorable seeder/leecher ratio. Contrast that to Netflix instant view which consumes more then 2Mbits the entire time you are watching it.
If they can't handle either of the above then how the hell are they going to handle HD video streams? Should we just give up on IP-Video because the cable companies say they can't handle it? Why did we even bother upgrading from dialup technology if they aren't going to be able to keep pace with the times?
So there are viable alternatives to Cable Internet
Neither one of those options you provided is "viable" if you want to stream video or use VoIP. Streaming video will often require more then 1Mbit (Netflix goes up to 2.2Mbits for the highest quality -- just wait for HDTV and that will probably be 8Mbits or more) and the latency on either of those solutions is usually too high to work effectively for VoIP.
For cable internet service, an entire neighborhood typically shares the same chunk of bandwidth
And they can get around this by splitting their network into smaller nodes, devoting more channels on the HFC network to HSI services and investing in new technologies (DOCSIS 3.0) as they become available.
Also, there is a LOT less bandwidth alloted for upstream transmissions, so cable networks are a lot more sensitive to torrents
That's not as important as you might think. On DOCSIS 1.1 it's 38Mbits down/9Mbits up. On DOCSIS 2.0 it's 38/27. Even with DOCSIS 1.1 though it's not really a limitation because they typically have multiple upstream channels on the same node. In my area Roadrunner always uses the same channel/frequency for downstream (609mhz) but they have multiple upstream channels on each node that the cable modems are randomly assigned to. My neighbor is connected to the exact same cable drop as I am -- yet her modem is on a different upstream channel then mine is.
I can certainly see their complaint.
I can see their complaint too, but they need to be investing in upgrades. They don't have an interest in doing that though because the next killer-app on the internet is going to be video that directly competes with their own video offerings. They'll try to kill it by instituting bandwidth caps (like Time Warner is trying to do) and when that fails they will offer a "video-grade" service that costs a shitload more then a regular internet connection.
Where would the internet be if nobody had invested in upgrading beyond dialup technology?
If they are doing deep packet inspection to filter and slow traffic identified as peer to peer, are they not party responsible for the alleged infringment?
Only if you are one of the dumbasses that thinks p2p == infringement.
This internet HDTV show is a perfectly legitimate use of bittorrent that just happens to be interfered with by policies like these. I'm sure that 20 people will chime in with replies to this post stating other legitimate uses as well.
but enough to make an egomaniac like Giuliani look for an out
*shrug*, I don't think he arranged to get prostate cancer as an excuse to drop out;) In the final analysis he probably would have lost -- but I think it would have been a better campaign then the one that Lazio put on. Lazio was a fucking moron who couldn't even tell the difference between Owego and Oswego and whose platform consisted of "I'm not Hillary Clinton"
As a New Yorker seeing D'Amato's face while he was walking away from the podium after conceding the election was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.
I don't remember D'Amato that much. I do remember Moynihan though. I don't think Hillary has filled his shoes very well. Neither has Schemer (though Schumer is light-years ahead of D'Amato) for that matter. Moynihan was a statesman. Neither Hillary or Schemer can make that claim, IMHO.
We've got the best political organizing tools in the history of mankind... the internet and cell phones.
They are both good organizing tools but they don't replace the media. The internet in of itself wouldn't have broken Watergate. Neither would cell phones. Good ole fashioned journalism broke Watergate. The kind we are sorely lacking these days....
Also keep in mind that New York doesn't slant as Democratic as you seem to think
Yeah, I live here and you are completely wrong. It used to be the case but it isn't any longer. The New York State Republican Party is three State Senate seats away from irreverence.
he actually withdrew from the race rather than see his reputation among Republicans be tarnished
Uhh, that's not how I remember it. I remember the two of them polling roughly the same and Giuliani dropping out due to prostate cancer and his impending divorce. It would have been a very interesting race if he had stayed in though. I honestly don't know who would have won -- if Giuliani could draw enough support from NYC (he was/is very popular there) then I don't see how Hillary would have overcome him. Win or lose though he would have been better then that jackass Lazio.
recently it had a fairly conservative Republican Senator in the form of that jackass Al D'Amato for 18 years
And he was defeated. He didn't retire.
a Republican governor for 11 years
Pataki won because people got disillusioned with Cuomo. Albany tends to do that to even the most popular of Governors after awhile -- you need look no further then Spitzer's approval ratings if you doubt this. And he's only been in for two years!
and Republican mayors of NYC for 15 years
One of whom is an ex-Democrat turned Republican to avoid a primary fight and whom later switched to being unaffiliated. The other one wasn't exactly very Republican.... pro-choice, pro-gun control, etc, etc. I really don't mean to diminish her successes here. Just pointing out that she really doesn't get to lay claim to much electoral success against the Republicans -- unless she's counting that hard-fought campaign against Barbara Bush in 92;)
Incidentally, Spitzer and Schemer have both managed to win by larger margins then she has -- no small feat for unapologetic downstate liberals who have historically had problems winning upstate.
Yeah, why did we elect her last time? We knew full well she was going to be spending more time campaigning than doing her job.
Because the New York State Republican party is so dysfunctional that they couldn't find a better candidate then a little known ex-mayor of Yonkers who didn't even have the money to campaign?
That's ok though, Hillary can cite her victory over John Spencer as proof that she is ready to "take on" the Republicans. After all, she's already fought them and won. It's not as if New York slants Democratic or anything.....
Don't get me wrong, I think the GP is wrong to use the term "police state" so casually. Just don't kid yourself that the United States hasn't allowed police-state style encroachments on our civil liberties. I'd still rather live here though -- we at least retain the right to bitch about our shitty Government.
The idea was that the mob would be easier to manipulate than a few respected individuals. In practice, both groups are easily manipulated.
It might have worked better if Senators weren't directly accountable to the "mob" as was originally intended before the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment.
just issuing his own Presidential Pardon for the telecoms that he can't pardon them for ongoing and future violations
Unless I'm completely mistaken, the President has zero authority to issue a "pardon" for a civil action. The teleco's aren't being charged with criminal violations of the law (that would require the Government to actually enforce the laws...), they are being sued by individuals and groups seeking discovery to find out what actually happened and possible monetary reparations.
We lost this country when we lost the independence of the media.
Don't tell me that you are naive enough to think that the media was ever independent to begin with. Ever hear about yellow journalism? Ever read about the origins of the Spanish-American war?
The media has never been independent. That shouldn't stop people from fighting for change.
Also, how did Hillary "Yes, Tim, national security is more important than human rights" Clinton vote?
She didn't. Couldn't be bothered apparently. Interestingly enough both McCain and Obama found the time to vote. Here's the vote itself if you are wondering how your Senators voted on it.
At least my other Senator (Schemer) had the balls to vote against it. For all the good it did.
Pffft, the Senate failed us and you think the House won't? The House has become a rubber stamp for whatever the party leadership wants in the last few years -- under both the Democrats and the Republicans. So no, unless Nancy Pelosi herself is personally opposed to this I would assume that it will pass easily.
Fucking Republicans impeached Clinton even though they knew full well they couldn't convict him -- and yet the Democrats don't even have the backbone to stand up to a veto threat by the White House before they knuckle over. Isn't there some middle ground between being the White House bitch and impeachment?
If you think IP-protection is wrong, fight to change it. Don't fight for the right to break the law.
That's a stupid argument. If I buy your logic, Rosa Parks should have given up her seat when asked.
Before I get slammed in any replies, no I'm not making the comparison between Rosa Parks and p2p file sharers. But the argument that unjust laws should be followed just because they are laws is idiotic.
(And no, I'm not passing judgment on whether or not I think IP laws are "just")
This contractor better have plenty of IPs. Otherwise it won't be long before their clients are black listed.
What's to stop them from doing it on standard issue residential cable or dsl connections? Roadrunner in my area doles out IP addresses in no less then four different class A networks (24.x.x.x being the most well known but not even the most common anymore).
Sure you can block those, but if you block Roadrunner/Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/etc from accessing your tracker then the whole point of bittorrent kinda goes up in smoke, doesn't it?
I suspect we'll start seeing more and more private trackers emerging if this becomes a trend.
They could pay for a OC-192 with the markup they are making on their coffee;)
Well, maybe not that extreme, but I'm sure that they did studies proving that whatever the bandwidth costs is more then made up for by people sitting there and buying products. Bandwidth is cheap. All the more so if they have a nationwide deal and AT&T is bringing the pipes in.
I can't even remotely begin to imagine how this erodes my rights in any way
It erodes your rights because the Government (at least here in the States, dunno about down under) would usually need probable cause before it could compel you to turn over biometrics (DNA, fingerprints, etc). I.e: You'd need to be accused of a crime with at least some underlying evidence before they could compel you to turn it over.
Ah, but now they can demand them to get a passport (or worse yet: drivers license). If you complain the answer will invariability be something along the lines of "Well, travel is a privilege and not a right". As if the Government is a parent that gets to dole out "permission" to the children before they can do stuff.
and the trick is to find the patriots who are willing to refresh the tree of liberty with their own blood as well as that of tyrants.
Too bad most people in the modern world are perfectly content with losing their rights, provided that they still have their blackberries, TVs, cheap gasoline, houses and the illusion of security from terrorists.
Yeah, it's probably not as bad as all that, but it sure does feel that way sometimes, doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
I get rid of my illegal substances by dumping them onto a big truck. It's much more reliable then that series of tubes.
Actually, it's quite relevant. It only takes a handful of bandwidth hogs in one neighborhood to peg a DOCSIS node. Contrast that to DSL where your actions have no impact on your neighbor. Besides, what do you think is easier? Upgrading the backhaul from the CO or splitting the cable-co's HFC network into smaller pieces?
If the DSL/cable "sharing" is a "myth" then why haven't we seen Verizon and AT&T bitching about "bandwidth hogs"? AT&T might be trying to get into bed with the content industry but I haven't heard bandwidth usage used as a justification for doing so. And Verizon seems to be perfectly content to let their residential customers peg their connections 24/7 if they choose to do so.
The classical definition of "server" would also preclude hosting that FPS game for your buddies or even mIRC's ident daemon if you want to get REALLY technical about it. I could also point out that most BT clients will work just fine (albeit with fewer peers) behind NAT without port forwarding, and an application that can't accept incoming connections hardly qualifies as a "server".
So even if it isn't an infringement on anyone's copyright, seeding a torrent might still be an infringement on the exclusive rights of the owner of the last-mile physical medium.It could be if they decided to enforce it in such a manner. But I doubt they'd get away with it. Besides, if they really wanted to try that, then why not just NAT all of your customers? That would solve those pesky "servers".
Because Verizon's main source of revenue isn't derived from video or intellectual property. Because they are losing POTS customers left and right and need SOMETHING to use as a contrast between themselves and the cable cos that are kicking their ass. And because they've come out and said that they don't think bandwidth caps are the "right direction for us".
I fucking loathe Verizon for some of their actions (especially those of Verizon Wireless) but they've been on the right side of this issue for as long as I can remember. If that changes they will deserve our scorn but I don't think it's fair to give it to them just yet.
Upgrading their network isn't an option?
would be agreeable to temporary bandwith reductions (maybe 25% to 50%) for heavy useres during peak usage periods.I wouldn't be agreeable to those. The applications that are used by the minority of internet users today are going to become mainstream tomorrow. Everybody is slamming bittorrent but missing the point that internet video is probably going to be the next killer app.
I don't know about you, but the typical "infringing" bittorrent download in my experience doesn't exceed 1 - 2Mbits because they usually have an unfavorable seeder/leecher ratio. Contrast that to Netflix instant view which consumes more then 2Mbits the entire time you are watching it.
If they can't handle either of the above then how the hell are they going to handle HD video streams? Should we just give up on IP-Video because the cable companies say they can't handle it? Why did we even bother upgrading from dialup technology if they aren't going to be able to keep pace with the times?
Neither one of those options you provided is "viable" if you want to stream video or use VoIP. Streaming video will often require more then 1Mbit (Netflix goes up to 2.2Mbits for the highest quality -- just wait for HDTV and that will probably be 8Mbits or more) and the latency on either of those solutions is usually too high to work effectively for VoIP.
And they can get around this by splitting their network into smaller nodes, devoting more channels on the HFC network to HSI services and investing in new technologies (DOCSIS 3.0) as they become available.
Also, there is a LOT less bandwidth alloted for upstream transmissions, so cable networks are a lot more sensitive to torrentsThat's not as important as you might think. On DOCSIS 1.1 it's 38Mbits down/9Mbits up. On DOCSIS 2.0 it's 38/27. Even with DOCSIS 1.1 though it's not really a limitation because they typically have multiple upstream channels on the same node. In my area Roadrunner always uses the same channel/frequency for downstream (609mhz) but they have multiple upstream channels on each node that the cable modems are randomly assigned to. My neighbor is connected to the exact same cable drop as I am -- yet her modem is on a different upstream channel then mine is.
I can certainly see their complaint.I can see their complaint too, but they need to be investing in upgrades. They don't have an interest in doing that though because the next killer-app on the internet is going to be video that directly competes with their own video offerings. They'll try to kill it by instituting bandwidth caps (like Time Warner is trying to do) and when that fails they will offer a "video-grade" service that costs a shitload more then a regular internet connection.
Where would the internet be if nobody had invested in upgrading beyond dialup technology?
Only if you are one of the dumbasses that thinks p2p == infringement.
This internet HDTV show is a perfectly legitimate use of bittorrent that just happens to be interfered with by policies like these. I'm sure that 20 people will chime in with replies to this post stating other legitimate uses as well.
That wouldn't tell them very much about their TCP changes though. Much better to do the test on a real live network.
*shrug*, I don't think he arranged to get prostate cancer as an excuse to drop out ;) In the final analysis he probably would have lost -- but I think it would have been a better campaign then the one that Lazio put on. Lazio was a fucking moron who couldn't even tell the difference between Owego and Oswego and whose platform consisted of "I'm not Hillary Clinton"
As a New Yorker seeing D'Amato's face while he was walking away from the podium after conceding the election was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.I don't remember D'Amato that much. I do remember Moynihan though. I don't think Hillary has filled his shoes very well. Neither has Schemer (though Schumer is light-years ahead of D'Amato) for that matter. Moynihan was a statesman. Neither Hillary or Schemer can make that claim, IMHO.
They are both good organizing tools but they don't replace the media. The internet in of itself wouldn't have broken Watergate. Neither would cell phones. Good ole fashioned journalism broke Watergate. The kind we are sorely lacking these days....
Yeah, I live here and you are completely wrong. It used to be the case but it isn't any longer. The New York State Republican Party is three State Senate seats away from irreverence.
he actually withdrew from the race rather than see his reputation among Republicans be tarnishedUhh, that's not how I remember it. I remember the two of them polling roughly the same and Giuliani dropping out due to prostate cancer and his impending divorce. It would have been a very interesting race if he had stayed in though. I honestly don't know who would have won -- if Giuliani could draw enough support from NYC (he was/is very popular there) then I don't see how Hillary would have overcome him. Win or lose though he would have been better then that jackass Lazio.
recently it had a fairly conservative Republican Senator in the form of that jackass Al D'Amato for 18 yearsAnd he was defeated. He didn't retire.
a Republican governor for 11 yearsPataki won because people got disillusioned with Cuomo. Albany tends to do that to even the most popular of Governors after awhile -- you need look no further then Spitzer's approval ratings if you doubt this. And he's only been in for two years!
and Republican mayors of NYC for 15 yearsOne of whom is an ex-Democrat turned Republican to avoid a primary fight and whom later switched to being unaffiliated. The other one wasn't exactly very Republican.... pro-choice, pro-gun control, etc, etc. I really don't mean to diminish her successes here. Just pointing out that she really doesn't get to lay claim to much electoral success against the Republicans -- unless she's counting that hard-fought campaign against Barbara Bush in 92 ;)
Incidentally, Spitzer and Schemer have both managed to win by larger margins then she has -- no small feat for unapologetic downstate liberals who have historically had problems winning upstate.
Because the New York State Republican party is so dysfunctional that they couldn't find a better candidate then a little known ex-mayor of Yonkers who didn't even have the money to campaign?
That's ok though, Hillary can cite her victory over John Spencer as proof that she is ready to "take on" the Republicans. After all, she's already fought them and won. It's not as if New York slants Democratic or anything.....
Good thing nothing like that could ever happen here.
Don't get me wrong, I think the GP is wrong to use the term "police state" so casually. Just don't kid yourself that the United States hasn't allowed police-state style encroachments on our civil liberties. I'd still rather live here though -- we at least retain the right to bitch about our shitty Government.
It might have worked better if Senators weren't directly accountable to the "mob" as was originally intended before the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment.
Unless I'm completely mistaken, the President has zero authority to issue a "pardon" for a civil action. The teleco's aren't being charged with criminal violations of the law (that would require the Government to actually enforce the laws...), they are being sued by individuals and groups seeking discovery to find out what actually happened and possible monetary reparations.
Don't tell me that you are naive enough to think that the media was ever independent to begin with. Ever hear about yellow journalism? Ever read about the origins of the Spanish-American war?
The media has never been independent. That shouldn't stop people from fighting for change.
She didn't. Couldn't be bothered apparently. Interestingly enough both McCain and Obama found the time to vote. Here's the vote itself if you are wondering how your Senators voted on it.
At least my other Senator (Schemer) had the balls to vote against it. For all the good it did.
Pffft, the Senate failed us and you think the House won't? The House has become a rubber stamp for whatever the party leadership wants in the last few years -- under both the Democrats and the Republicans. So no, unless Nancy Pelosi herself is personally opposed to this I would assume that it will pass easily.
Fucking Republicans impeached Clinton even though they knew full well they couldn't convict him -- and yet the Democrats don't even have the backbone to stand up to a veto threat by the White House before they knuckle over. Isn't there some middle ground between being the White House bitch and impeachment?
That's a stupid argument. If I buy your logic, Rosa Parks should have given up her seat when asked.
Before I get slammed in any replies, no I'm not making the comparison between Rosa Parks and p2p file sharers. But the argument that unjust laws should be followed just because they are laws is idiotic.
(And no, I'm not passing judgment on whether or not I think IP laws are "just")
What's to stop them from doing it on standard issue residential cable or dsl connections? Roadrunner in my area doles out IP addresses in no less then four different class A networks (24.x.x.x being the most well known but not even the most common anymore).
Sure you can block those, but if you block Roadrunner/Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/etc from accessing your tracker then the whole point of bittorrent kinda goes up in smoke, doesn't it?
I suspect we'll start seeing more and more private trackers emerging if this becomes a trend.
They could pay for a OC-192 with the markup they are making on their coffee ;)
Well, maybe not that extreme, but I'm sure that they did studies proving that whatever the bandwidth costs is more then made up for by people sitting there and buying products. Bandwidth is cheap. All the more so if they have a nationwide deal and AT&T is bringing the pipes in.
Does that mean that the pirate bay will become a certificate authority? ;)
Hey, they'd prolly be better to deal with then Verislime ;)
It erodes your rights because the Government (at least here in the States, dunno about down under) would usually need probable cause before it could compel you to turn over biometrics (DNA, fingerprints, etc). I.e: You'd need to be accused of a crime with at least some underlying evidence before they could compel you to turn it over.
Ah, but now they can demand them to get a passport (or worse yet: drivers license). If you complain the answer will invariability be something along the lines of "Well, travel is a privilege and not a right". As if the Government is a parent that gets to dole out "permission" to the children before they can do stuff.
Too bad most people in the modern world are perfectly content with losing their rights, provided that they still have their blackberries, TVs, cheap gasoline, houses and the illusion of security from terrorists.
Yeah, it's probably not as bad as all that, but it sure does feel that way sometimes, doesn't it?