headers
Doug | 2 Dec 04:37

Re: OT: What do you guys think of this?

At 18:56 12/1/2008, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
 >On Monday 01 December 2008 06:21:33 pm Doug wrote:
 >> We tell our customers that they are not allowed to
 >> download copyrighted material.
 >
 >So your customers are only allowed to download public domain
 >material?  That kind of restricts the amount of information
 >available on the Internet.  Nitpick:  just about everything, including
 >this email, is copyrighted by somebody.  Forbidding the download
 >of copyrighted works is not only a draconian policy, but may actually
 >violate several copyright laws (you're interfering with a copyright
 >owner's right to distribute his/her/their works, and courts are
 >generally not very sympathetic with your position).

Oops!  Didn't mean to start a fire here.

I meant to say "illegal copyrighted material".  Also, if they
are using up hundreds of Internet connections, we can see
that.  It essentially causes a Denial of Service situation
for other users on that leg of our wireless network.  The system
supposedly has rate limiting, but seems to get overloaded when
someone goes completely nuts with BitTorrent.  We are working
on ways to limit the number of simultaneous connections.

When we get a copyright infringment notice from our upstream
provider, we are compelled to reprimand the user.  I don't
think we have sent a customer to the "shower" even if they
had several notices.

"Net Neutrality" is great in principle.  But ISP's need to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Benny Amorsen | 2 Dec 11:03

Re: OT: What do you guys think of this?

Doug <Doug <at> NaTel.net> writes:

> "Net Neutrality" is great in principle.  But ISP's need to
> somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down
> a huge majority of the bandwidth.  It's dollars and cents.

Yes, just like the airlines need to somehow control those users who
keep showing up to the flight they booked, every single time! It's
impossible to do overbooking with customers like that, so we need to
find ways of punishing them.

/Benny

_______________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Doug | 2 Dec 21:44

Re: OT: What do you guys think of this?

At 04:03 12/2/2008, Benny Amorsen wrote:
 >Doug <Doug <at> NaTel.net> writes:
 >
 >> "Net Neutrality" is great in principle.  But ISP's need to
 >> somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down
 >> a huge majority of the bandwidth.  It's dollars and cents.
 >
 >Yes, just like the airlines need to somehow control those users who
 >keep showing up to the flight they booked, every single time! It's
 >impossible to do overbooking with customers like that, so we need to
 >find ways of punishing them.

What happens if everyone who owns a car drives
it at the same time?  Owns a telephone and
uses it at the same time?

_______________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Permalink | Reply |
headers
SIP | 2 Dec 21:52

Re: OT: What do you guys think of this?

Doug wrote:
> At 04:03 12/2/2008, Benny Amorsen wrote:
>  >Doug <Doug <at> NaTel.net> writes:
>  >
>  >> "Net Neutrality" is great in principle.  But ISP's need to
>  >> somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down
>  >> a huge majority of the bandwidth.  It's dollars and cents.
>  >
>  >Yes, just like the airlines need to somehow control those users who
>  >keep showing up to the flight they booked, every single time! It's
>  >impossible to do overbooking with customers like that, so we need to
>  >find ways of punishing them.
>
> What happens if everyone who owns a car drives
> it at the same time?  Owns a telephone and
> uses it at the same time?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>   

If everyone who owns a car drives it at the same time, there's lots of 
traffic. You know who gets blamed? The right people -- the people to 
create the infrastructure. Drivers aren't blamed for driving their cars 
when they want to as long as they do it legally as prescribed by the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ira | 3 Dec 01:05

Re: OT: What do you guys think of this?

At 12:44 PM 12/2/2008, you wrote:
>At 04:03 12/2/2008, Benny Amorsen wrote:
>  >Doug <Doug <at> NaTel.net> writes:
>  >
>  >> "Net Neutrality" is great in principle.  But ISP's need to
>  >> somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down
>  >> a huge majority of the bandwidth.  It's dollars and cents.
>  >
>  >Yes, just like the airlines need to somehow control those users who
>  >keep showing up to the flight they booked, every single time! It's
>  >impossible to do overbooking with customers like that, so we need to
>  >find ways of punishing them.
>
>What happens if everyone who owns a car drives
>it at the same time?  Owns a telephone and
>uses it at the same time?

As far as I remember the very first service to offer flat rate was 
BIX. They very carefully figured out what it would cost to insure a 
fair profit, and it was a big hit till a few people figured out that 
they could use private chats as a network pipe and stay on 24/7 using 
some mysterious protocol. In the end, that was some of what killed 
the service and there was nothing to be done about it.

For most of us, well for me anyway, I like the fat pipe I have for 
the 1% of the time I use it and I expect that as a residential user 
Time Warner sell me that pipe expecting me to use it about that much, 
maybe a bit more if I had teenage kids. I'm sure in the fine print it 
says I can't host a web server though I'd guess they'd not complain 
if it didn't get much traffic. I've considered a T1 so I'd be
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Drew Gibson | 3 Dec 15:38
Favicon

Re: OT: What do you guys think of this?

Ira wrote:
> At 12:44 PM 12/2/2008, you wrote:
>   
>> At 04:03 12/2/2008, Benny Amorsen wrote:
>>  >Doug <Doug <at> NaTel.net> writes:
>>  >
>>  >> "Net Neutrality" is great in principle.  But ISP's need to
>>  >> somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down
>>  >> a huge majority of the bandwidth.  It's dollars and cents.
>>  >
>>  >Yes, just like the airlines need to somehow control those users who
>>  >keep showing up to the flight they booked, every single time! It's
>>  >impossible to do overbooking with customers like that, so we need to
>>  >find ways of punishing them.
>>
>> What happens if everyone who owns a car drives
>> it at the same time?  Owns a telephone and
>> uses it at the same time?
>>     
>
>
> If I could get the same plan for my internet as I get for my phones, 
> a few dollars a month plus a bit per minute(megabyte), I'd be all 
> over it, but even better, then the provider wouldn't have to care as 
> they'd be making a fair profit no matter what the user did.
>   

You make that sound almost reasonable. I'm sure initial pricing would 
only be slightly higher for the majority of customers with only the 
"bad" users being "punished".
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
SIP | 2 Dec 14:00

Re: OT: What do you guys think of this?

Doug wrote:
> At 18:56 12/1/2008, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
>  >On Monday 01 December 2008 06:21:33 pm Doug wrote:
>  >> We tell our customers that they are not allowed to
>  >> download copyrighted material.
>  >
>  >So your customers are only allowed to download public domain
>  >material?  That kind of restricts the amount of information
>  >available on the Internet.  Nitpick:  just about everything, including
>  >this email, is copyrighted by somebody.  Forbidding the download
>  >of copyrighted works is not only a draconian policy, but may actually
>  >violate several copyright laws (you're interfering with a copyright
>  >owner's right to distribute his/her/their works, and courts are
>  >generally not very sympathetic with your position).
>
> Oops!  Didn't mean to start a fire here.
>
> I meant to say "illegal copyrighted material".  Also, if they
> are using up hundreds of Internet connections, we can see
> that.  It essentially causes a Denial of Service situation
> for other users on that leg of our wireless network.  The system
> supposedly has rate limiting, but seems to get overloaded when
> someone goes completely nuts with BitTorrent.  We are working
> on ways to limit the number of simultaneous connections.
>
> When we get a copyright infringment notice from our upstream
> provider, we are compelled to reprimand the user.  I don't
> think we have sent a customer to the "shower" even if they
> had several notices.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Doug | 2 Dec 21:48

Re: OT: What do you guys think of this?

At 07:00 12/2/2008, SIP wrote:
 >Doug wrote:
 >> At 18:56 12/1/2008, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
 >>  >On Monday 01 December 2008 06:21:33 pm Doug wrote:
 >>  >> We tell our customers that they are not allowed to
 >>  >> download copyrighted material.
 >>  >
 >>  >So your customers are only allowed to download public domain
 >>  >material?  That kind of restricts the amount of information
 >>  >available on the Internet.  Nitpick:  just about everything, including
 >>  >this email, is copyrighted by somebody.  Forbidding the download
 >>  >of copyrighted works is not only a draconian policy, but may actually
 >>  >violate several copyright laws (you're interfering with a copyright
 >>  >owner's right to distribute his/her/their works, and courts are
 >>  >generally not very sympathetic with your position).
 >>
 >> Oops!  Didn't mean to start a fire here.
 >>
 >> I meant to say "illegal copyrighted material".  Also, if they
 >> are using up hundreds of Internet connections, we can see
 >> that.  It essentially causes a Denial of Service situation
 >> for other users on that leg of our wireless network.  The system
 >> supposedly has rate limiting, but seems to get overloaded when
 >> someone goes completely nuts with BitTorrent.  We are working
 >> on ways to limit the number of simultaneous connections.
 >>
 >> When we get a copyright infringment notice from our upstream
 >> provider, we are compelled to reprimand the user.  I don't
 >> think we have sent a customer to the "shower" even if they
 >> had several notices.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
SIP | 2 Dec 22:02

Re: OT: What do you guys think of this?

Doug wrote:
> At 07:00 12/2/2008, SIP wrote:
>  >Doug wrote:
>  >> At 18:56 12/1/2008, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
>  >>  >On Monday 01 December 2008 06:21:33 pm Doug wrote:
>  >>  >> We tell our customers that they are not allowed to
>  >>  >> download copyrighted material.
>  >>  >
>  >>  >So your customers are only allowed to download public domain
>  >>  >material?  That kind of restricts the amount of information
>  >>  >available on the Internet.  Nitpick:  just about everything, including
>  >>  >this email, is copyrighted by somebody.  Forbidding the download
>  >>  >of copyrighted works is not only a draconian policy, but may actually
>  >>  >violate several copyright laws (you're interfering with a copyright
>  >>  >owner's right to distribute his/her/their works, and courts are
>  >>  >generally not very sympathetic with your position).
>  >>
>  >> Oops!  Didn't mean to start a fire here.
>  >>
>  >> I meant to say "illegal copyrighted material".  Also, if they
>  >> are using up hundreds of Internet connections, we can see
>  >> that.  It essentially causes a Denial of Service situation
>  >> for other users on that leg of our wireless network.  The system
>  >> supposedly has rate limiting, but seems to get overloaded when
>  >> someone goes completely nuts with BitTorrent.  We are working
>  >> on ways to limit the number of simultaneous connections.
>  >>
>  >> When we get a copyright infringment notice from our upstream
>  >> provider, we are compelled to reprimand the user.  I don't
>  >> think we have sent a customer to the "shower" even if they
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane