Comcast Threatens Delays on Internet Use for P2P Users
 

Comcast Threatens Delays on Internet Use for P2P Users

Comments please.

Personally I welcome it. Too many "net neutrality" means an opportunity to steal or not pay for stolen goods. Crime was never neutral.

and then what happens when comcast decides that porn users use too much bandwidth?

its like freedom of speech, you cant have it apply to only the things YOU like... :2 cents:

If porn users do use too much bandwidth and make a commercial company unprofitable do you think they should carry on in the name of "free speech"?

If you want freedom be prepared to pay for it yourself and not ask others to pay.

Comcast are a company not a Government.

How can you "slow[ing] down the internet speeds" by "20 to 30 minutes"?

you click on a link and wait and wait for the page to appear.
they have been doing that since day one,
they are good at taking your money but don't want to do shit for it.

You have to love the fucking balls of telcom companies have.

They steal millions of dollars the government gave them back in the 90's to upgrade "the net" to the speeds of Japan, and other countries, as well as expand it out into rural areas. None of which they did.

Then they have the balls to keep coming back with throttling the net (i.e. not investing in higher internet, broader access and faster speeds).

It's a fucking joke.

This doesn't even touch on the fact that the 'Bells' have snuffed out most of their 90's and early 2000's competition. So they no longer have a market force motivation to advance.

:2 cents:

I doubt even a computer would wait 20 mins for a page to load, certainly not a human...

I don't know where the hell they got that 20 to 30 minute figure from.
I have Comcast and the more bandwidth you consume the slower your connection becomes.
sometimes they just shut you off altogether, and deny it when you call and complain about it.
they always tell you the problem is on your end.
its bullshit. they just don't want to spend the money to build out their network.

So should they invest so those that over use the system pay more or get it for the same price?

Maybe someone at Comcast looked at it from a profit and loss POV and decided it's not worth investing so those downloading on P2P in such volumes can carry on without slowing down the system for the rest.

I'm sure if they could force these abusers to switch ISPs they would.

There is a fund we pay for that is supposed to be used in improving remote area cell phone reception.. they'll end up stealing that as well.
America.. Land of the TAXED.

You missed the point, as usual, toots. :disgust

They cut the B/W to the website or web application for their users.

I disagree. It's important the Internet stay neutral. Trying to correct one thing like what you are thinking has SERIOUS SERIOUS SERIOUS consequences that you may not foresee.

Should we ban guns because they are used to kill people?

Alcohol causes lots of bad things to happen. Should we ban alcohol? We all know how that went.

There are plenty of legitimate uses for P2P networks. For example, updates to MMORPG games frequently distribute updates through P2P. I've downloaded a number of Linux distros by P2P. They are also used in some IPTV technologies.

Getting rid of net neutrality is opening the door to a whole host of abuses by ISP's.

I'm still surprised VOIP hasn't become more mainstream yet. The technology has been out there for a long time. People are slow to change.

I have business class with Time Warner. I use a ton of bandwidth transfer content to and from sites. I've never noticed any issues thankfully. Hopefully they leave business customers alone.

spoken like a man who fears technology :disgust

People are prepared to pay for it, people are already paying for it... they are paying for highspeed xs to the internet, not access-to-only-those-sites-CompanyX-wants-you-to-see, not high-speed-access-that-becomes-slower-than-dialup-once-you-start-using-it-for-more-then-reading-your-emails,....

btw: you do realize people could use your own arguments about net neutrality in this thread to counter your pro-tube arguments in your other threads, don't you? :winkwink:

Actually that is, and has always been, a hardware issue.

My old telco boss explained it to me a few times. Something to do with stable compatability, hardware, and 911 service, and something else.

Yes some are paying for it, some on business connections or paying extra for a better service. How many are grabbing the deals offered and expecting others to pay for them downloading hour after hours ?

These are the ones I think need to have access capped.

Tube sites pay for their own BW and I don't think are relevant here. This is about a minority abusing the system expecting the majority to pay for them.

For the record "net neutrality" to me means scammers and con men getting a place to make money. At the expense of the rest of us. They will never ban porn on the Net and I am not remotely worried of that.

I am sure the gambling people did not think they would get banned either (U.S.).

Secondly, "the net" is more complex than one universal govern. China, Cuba, among others censor their "net". So what you consider that, another might not.

Same for gambling, among other sites. Now illegal in the U.S., but not overseas. Again, one person's 'net' is not everyone's.

While I agree with you that 'the net' as a whole will not lock down porn. The point is that it becomes a 'slippery slope' when you start talking all that bullshit about throttling, governing, or regulation.

We've seen this countless times before through history, and frankly the net is one of the few "wild west" places left. Mainly because all these old fucks in parliament, congress, and corporate America are still clueless. They have not figured out how to bend it to their collective greedy will.......... yet.

:disgust

I was referring to the use of the term "minutes" when referring to speed of websites, which is very strange...

I guess it could have been 20 to 30 kilobytes? kilobits?