3 ms·

Getting rid of terrenting is what net neutrality is about for a lot of players: it's a significant part of backbone traffic that can be eliminated (de-prioritiz

by andreyf 16y ago

Getting rid of terrenting is what net neutrality is about for a lot of players: it's a significant part of backbone traffic that can be eliminated (de-prioritized to the point of being useless) overnight, given the right legal setting. Frankly, the interests looking to get rid of peer-to-peer bandwidth are so powerful and around invested long-term, I don't think there's much anyone can do.

jacquesm 16y ago
What goes on in my packets is nobodies business but me and my 'peer', whether it's a web server, a phone, an internet connected appliance, an ftp site or a torrent server. De-prioritizing (what a word anyway) is not what it is all about it is about limiting. Prioritizing all the traffic is like selecting a volunteer by having someone step backwards. ISPs sell bandwidth, so bandwidth is what they should deliver. They don't sell quality of service, at least, I've yet to see an ISP that offered me 250K down for torrents, 32K for voice and 128K for web traffic as a single package. They'll sell me 1, 4, 8, 10 or even 20 Mbps down and 2 Mbps up for X credits per time unit. So that's what I expect to receive. And once they start doing deep packet inspection where does it end? Some websites have a deal with the ISP to prioritize their traffic at the expense of others?
- antics 16y ago
  I'm for net neutrality, but the argument that they are "selling bandwidth" is ridiculous -- in fact that's the very argument ISPs have for disallowing it! [Pete Ashdown is the president of a Utah ISP called Xmission: http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/05/04/net-neutrality/ http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/05/04/net-neutrality/] As providers of a service, they argue that they should be able to "deprioritize" garbage traffic so that all their customers don't suffer, and you might argue that this is not the real reason they de-prioritize, but regardless, your argument is just as easily turned in the opposite direction. Bottom line, is that net neutrality is about having an accurate picture of the internet, and not a picture that Comcast (or whoever) decides I get. THAT, as well as maintaining user privacy, is the goal here. EDIT: I should also add that ISPs have throttled upload-heavy traffic WITHOUT inspecting the packets for a long time, so even if you didn't inspect packets, the issue of net neutrality persists.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    You are talking about bandwidth in the aggregate (to multiple users, aka overselling) I'm talking about bandwidth on an individual basis. Different things.
    - antics 16y ago
      I don't see your point at all. The fact that you want the bandwidth you were supposedly "sold" is the very justification ISPs give for throttling the traffic of, say, spammers, or torrenters. Why should those practices make for a worse experience for everyone else? (edit: particularly if they are illegal?) Again, I'm for net neutrality, but you do it a disservice with that argument.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        Yes, you entirely miss the point. They do it by throttling my traffic in order to supply others the bandwidth that they have bought. Whereas I have just as much right to my bandwidth (the bandwidth that I paid for) as they have for theirs, which protocol is being used is irrelevant. And you can't compare spam to torrents, spam is illegal, torrents are - surprise - not. So, ISPs will have to rely on statistical modeling to determine how much they can oversell, not on throttling.
        antics 16y ago
        Actually, that last part is not correct. Torrents are not always legal [http://ask-leo.com/is_it_illegal_to_download_torrent_files.html http://ask-leo.com/is_it_illegal_to_download_torrent_files.h...], and spam is not always illegal [http://spam.abuse.net/faq/ http://spam.abuse.net/faq/]. It's abusive to say otherwise. I torrent also all the time, but that doesn't change the facts. But anyway, your argument hinges on the supposition that ISPs guarantee your bandwidth all the time. In fact, most of them do not. If you are buying a strict guaranteed bandwidth, do tell me why it is that the ISPs don't actually say that themselves? Hence the argument that throttling your traffic betters other customers.

by andreyf 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

What goes on in my packets is nobodies business but me and my 'peer', whether it's a web server, a phone, an internet connected appliance, an ftp site or a torrent server. De-prioritizing (what a word anyway) is not what it is all about it is about limiting. Prioritizing all the traffic is like selecting a volunteer by having someone step backwards. ISPs sell bandwidth, so bandwidth is what they should deliver. They don't sell quality of service, at least, I've yet to see an ISP that offered me 250K down for torrents, 32K for voice and 128K for web traffic as a single package. They'll sell me 1, 4, 8, 10 or even 20 Mbps down and 2 Mbps up for X credits per time unit. So that's what I expect to receive. And once they start doing deep packet inspection where does it end? Some websites have a deal with the ISP to prioritize their traffic at the expense of others?

antics 16y ago
I'm for net neutrality, but the argument that they are "selling bandwidth" is ridiculous -- in fact that's the very argument ISPs have for disallowing it! [Pete Ashdown is the president of a Utah ISP called Xmission: http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/05/04/net-neutrality/ http://peteashdown.org/journal/2006/05/04/net-neutrality/] As providers of a service, they argue that they should be able to "deprioritize" garbage traffic so that all their customers don't suffer, and you might argue that this is not the real reason they de-prioritize, but regardless, your argument is just as easily turned in the opposite direction. Bottom line, is that net neutrality is about having an accurate picture of the internet, and not a picture that Comcast (or whoever) decides I get. THAT, as well as maintaining user privacy, is the goal here. EDIT: I should also add that ISPs have throttled upload-heavy traffic WITHOUT inspecting the packets for a long time, so even if you didn't inspect packets, the issue of net neutrality persists.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  You are talking about bandwidth in the aggregate (to multiple users, aka overselling) I'm talking about bandwidth on an individual basis. Different things.
  - antics 16y ago
    I don't see your point at all. The fact that you want the bandwidth you were supposedly "sold" is the very justification ISPs give for throttling the traffic of, say, spammers, or torrenters. Why should those practices make for a worse experience for everyone else? (edit: particularly if they are illegal?) Again, I'm for net neutrality, but you do it a disservice with that argument.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Yes, you entirely miss the point. They do it by throttling my traffic in order to supply others the bandwidth that they have bought. Whereas I have just as much right to my bandwidth (the bandwidth that I paid for) as they have for theirs, which protocol is being used is irrelevant. And you can't compare spam to torrents, spam is illegal, torrents are - surprise - not. So, ISPs will have to rely on statistical modeling to determine how much they can oversell, not on throttling.
      - antics 16y ago
        Actually, that last part is not correct. Torrents are not always legal [http://ask-leo.com/is_it_illegal_to_download_torrent_files.html http://ask-leo.com/is_it_illegal_to_download_torrent_files.h...], and spam is not always illegal [http://spam.abuse.net/faq/ http://spam.abuse.net/faq/]. It's abusive to say otherwise. I torrent also all the time, but that doesn't change the facts. But anyway, your argument hinges on the supposition that ISPs guarantee your bandwidth all the time. In fact, most of them do not. If you are buying a strict guaranteed bandwidth, do tell me why it is that the ISPs don't actually say that themselves? Hence the argument that throttling your traffic betters other customers.