Forums | MacLife

bedstuy wrote:

Why isn't the holy free market giving us speeds as fast as in South Korea?

What part of South Korea?
And what does that have to do with net neutrality?

Last edited by resedit (2009-10-27 11:54 pm)

I think you are smart enough to know there are many factors involved.

Earlier adopters frequently have older tech, for one.

Oh please.  The Northeast easily has a population of 60 million people and is very densely populated.  Not everyone lives in Redding.  Put it this way - the top seven most dense states are all in the Northeast.

Last edited by bedstuy (2009-10-28 2:51 am)

btw - I seem to recall students at Seoul's University (whatever it is called) complaining that they could get faster bandwidth at home than the campus had. Probably the same issue - the Campus was an early adopter and thus has slower network.

Possibly.
All this South Korea talk though still has squat to do with net neutrality.

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007 … dwidth.ars

Interesting article on arstechnica about P2P traffic.

P2P sucks up anywhere between 49 and 83 percent of all Internet traffic during the day, and can spike much higher at night.
...
And the number one tracker in the world? The Pirate Bay, of course.

resedit wrote:

Let me explain one possible outcome of this.
ISP's will no longer be allowed to throttle P2P traffic. In order to cut costs, they will change their contracts to monthly fee + bandwidth costs.

This will result in parents needing to limit what access their children have to Internet for simple economic reasons, just like many parents now deny Internet access on their children's cell phones due to cost.

Yes, corporations should regulate children's internet usage, so parents won't have to.

.tsooJ

Typical mentality of the pirate:

well, i have been using peer block for the past few days, and everything has been fine.

till this morning.

-------------
We've recently received a request from Columbia Pictures to immediately terminate all Internet service to the user associated with IP (Internet Protocol) address xx.xxx.xx.xxx.xx during the period of their investigation. This IP address was associated with your account during that time. They have identified your computer as part of a peer-to-peer network and that their intellectual property "Zombieland" has been offered for uploading from your computer. The file name they believe contains their intellectual property, and the date it was found is below:

Timestamp: 2009-10-25 00:45:00
Filename: Zombieland (2009) TS XviD-MAXSPEED.torrent (1,469,852,209 bytes)

We would prefer not to terminate your service. However, we do want to elminate unauthorized use of copyrighted material. Please stop this activity immediately. Remove the file from your computer and stop offering it to others via any method. If you need help with this removal, or would like us to do it for you, please call and we can arrange help in any way we can.

We have noted Columbia Pictures's request. Further reports from them (or other similar organizations) may lead to the termination of your service. We have not disclosed your identity to Columbia Pictures, but they are aware of our policy that further reports may result in termination. As a result, they may watch your IP address carefully in the future.

Please feel free to contact us if you feel their information is incorrect or you have any questions. We can be reached in the Massillon area at 330-833-4134, and in the Wooster area at 330-345-8114. ----


this is f**king bullsmurf. im about to just call them and tell them im going to sue THEM or something.

I actually send emails bitching out Bethesda over this about a year ago.

needless to say i got no reply.

it seems peerblock has finally failed me..Sad

or i need to figure something else out.

any ideas?

i think im gonna start moving everything over to dvds and unfortunately just not download or upload till i know whats going on.

I don't WANT to not seed, but that message i got does specifically say they are monitoring the uploading.

this makes me sad.

to think, a "free" person can be watched and monitored and logged and recorded by so many different companies. Sure, its their property, but just as it is mine.

I wont go too far into politics here, but I think when it comes to this point, its time to start REALLY learning about everything going on around us and standing up against it.

And as humans, when we cannot freely pass information around without it being in constant check, then we are pathetic.

I just want these people the f**k out of my computer.

i paid for it.
i pay for the internet.
its just as much MY intellectual property as it is theirs.

They feel entitled to piracy, it's their right to steal.
This is why they want net neutrality.

resedit wrote:

They feel entitled to piracy, it's their right to steal.

Copyright infringement is not stealing.

Huh--hardly surprising: resedit uses P2P so the entire world's problems is based on P2P.

Here's a clue: net neutrality isn't about piracy, P2P or otherwise. This isn't about broadband throttling (something that ISPs already do with tiered pricing).

What net neutrality is about is limiting the ability for ISPs to determine the content you can access.

Suppose you like Bing for your search engine, but one day you type that in and you are automatically re-routed to Google. Why? Because Microsoft neglected to pay their access fee to your ISP while Google did (and Google also paid the additional re-direct fee that makes them the automatic search engine whenever ANY search engine site is typed in).

Or you are looking for new music artists and you've heard about this online service where you type in some that you like and it comes back with others who are similar. Unfortunately your ISP is owned and controlled by a large media conglomerate (including a music division) and you cannot access that site. Not only that, but when you fire up your ISP's search engine--you think you are ever getting to Google again?--and type in "music" the only artists that you see are those signed by that same conglomerate.

Is this a problem that already exists as resedit complained earlier? No, of course not, but what the effort for net neutrality is to prevent such a system to come forth.

Last edited by D'Eyncourt (2009-10-28 3:38 pm)

Copyright infringement has next to nothing to do with net neutrality. It has everything to do with ISP's being dumb pipes or not.

Right now, ISP's aren't content to just connect you to the Internet (be a dumb pipe). They want to run portals and services. The problem is, everyone else is also running portals and services that compete with them. In the eyes of the ISP, they are facilitating their competition by providing you access - so they want to charge those other entities extra money to have access to their customers. They essentially want to tax any traffic on their network that doesn't directly contribute money to their coffers.

That is what this is all about. If this doesn't pass, everyone that serves data on the Internet will get held up by every ISP that wants a cut. It won't be enough to just pay your own ISP - no, you will have to pay them all. Only the wealthiest companies will be able to afford it, the rest will either fold, or become niche sites available to very few.

Of course, it won't be quite that simple. The ISP's will just degrade the connections of people who don't pay up - so the quality of your connect to customers on their networks depends on how much you cough up. Maybe Hulu experiences an intentional 50% packet loss or an extra 500ms of packet delay, while their own video portal experiences only what would naturally be lost.

Net neutrality is entirely economic - and it's going to determine how "free" the Internet is. Will it only be open to the biggest players, or to everyone. For the ISP's, it will determine whether Internet access becomes a commodity or not. It's a big deal.

Frankly, I'm in support of net neutrality - because the alternative silences all but the most well-heeled voices.

Last edited by radarman (2009-10-28 3:44 pm)

Yeah, that's a great idea when many places in the nation only have one or two ISPs to choose from.

Farmerkev wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Yeah, that's a great idea when many places in the nation only have one or two ISPs to choose from.

If they don't meet customer demand that demand will get filled by someone else.
I've played this game before and where you're seeing a problem I'm seeing another business opportunity.

You do know what a natural monopoly is right?

ISP's aren't presently required to share access to their physical lines. This means the competitor would have to run their own lines, assuming they could even get the permissions and right of way rights. Even if this competitor could lease access, do you really think they are going to be able to charge less than the host? Those days are over. Customers would have to choose between cheap and more limited, or absurdly expensive (if available at all) and less limited.

Aside from that, most markets are controlled by one of a small number of large ISP's.

No, this is a case of where regulation is going to be necessary. The market is NOT going to sort this one out.