Comments on: BitTorrent throttling and cable bandwidth lawsuits

By: Joe Bingham

Joe Bingham — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:48:45 +0000

Wow, I didn’t know the S word was kosher here. Yay?

By: Zedd

Zedd — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:46:13 +0000

I think we’d all be happy if we could get 8000 and 20000 Kbits and upload of 1000 Kbit and no charge for connection time for $69 a month. Right now with Verizon I’m paying $60 a month, and for the last 2 day my connection has dropped a total of 79 times and when I can get a download test to run I’ve had a massive 75k down and 10 up. I’ve disconnected the router, and connected my computer directly to their modem, their tech support insists that it’s my modems fault that my connection keeps dropping. Yay Monopolies.

By: raunchy

raunchy — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 07:28:06 +0000

It seems to me that Comcast has a bad business plan in that they don’t offer different subscriptions for different users. Here in Switzerland, the ISP’s offer packages based on the user needs. For example, Swisscom offers DSL starting at 9 Sfr/m (1 USD = 1.05 Sfr). For this you get 300Kbit download and 100Kbit upload and pay 2.40 Sfr/hr. This is perfect for people who use the net mostly for email and specific information lookups. The next package is 49 SFr/m and gives download speeds between 300 and 3500 Kbits and upload of 300 Kbit and no charge for connection time. The next package is 59 SFr/m and gives download speeds between 3500 and 5000 Kbits and upload of 500 Kbit and no charge for connection time. The final package is 69 Sfr/m and gives download speeds between 8000 and 20000 Kbits and upload of 1000 Kbit and no charge for connection time. The offers very clearly states the range of speeds guaranteed and indicate that actual speed depends on a number of factors. The cable companies offering internet services also have similar package deals.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:52:00 +0000

Getting rid of monopoly rents on the local loop is great for the guy who lives in a big city, but it sucks for those of us who live in the boondocks. There are still a significant percentage of people who have access to no broadband Internet access at all. Forcing whoever wires us up to charge low fees and give other companies access at artificially low prices just ensures that we never get wired up.

It has in fact had precisely this consequence for me. Broadband was planned for my area in mid 2000, and the plan was killed when the FCC changed the rules.

I want the first company to be able to charge monopoly rents. Because right now I can’t get broadband for any price. Seriously, I’d have to pay about $750/mo for 1.5Mb/s each way.

By: JOhn

JOhn — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:00:21 +0000

Ook. Ook. That’s me, the ol’ troll. Feel free to have ted or walter verify my email address.

I really HAVE to learn not to reply to people who have a demonstrated inability to RFC.

By: Jim W

Jim W — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:28:36 +0000

I think John is a troll. Half his comments conflict with stuff he has said previously, and his style is way too abrasive to be anything other than an attempt to provoke.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:04:27 +0000

gitarcarver thinks that increasing a business’s infrastructure won’t take any additional help. That’s just dumb.

Yet history within the industry has shown just that.

AND OF COURSE the problem is of Comcast’s making. Who said anything else?

You and Comcast for two.

Anyway, if you want to believe that Comcast or Verizon or anyone can build their way out of the problem, go right ahead.

Which is it? If Comcast can’t build itself out of the issue for which they are partly responsible, then why are they trying to do just that? If you don’t think that increasing the infrastructure will help, go right ahead.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:01:54 +0000

any good commercial webdesigner will always load the graphics and the ads that generate revenue for the site first, and then the content that the user wants after that.

My browser’s adblocker, which I have enabled for most sites, stops the ads.

By: Comcast P2P throttling, cont’d

Comcast P2P throttling, cont’d — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:08:10 +0000

[…] In case you missed it, yesterday’s post on the disputes over bandwidth, cable speeds and BitTorrent has prompted an unusually rich discussion with contributions from many knowledgeable readers — I know I’ve learned a lot. Check it out here. […]

By: Jim W

Jim W — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:20:58 +0000

Regardless of who is to blame, I think the old local loop neutrality rules were good for consumers and only bad for the providers to the extent that it denied them monopoly rents for their service. We should bring them back in my opinion.

I was thinking about this a lot last night and on the commute this morning and it occurred to me that congress could tweak the property rights surrounding the local infrastructure that runs to the end-user, maybe give them some sort of equitable right in the disposition of their lines. This would let the original company that laid the lines retain ownership (disrupting ownership patterns could have other impacts down the line) but the consumer gets to choose service providers and backbones.