[asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
Doug
Doug at NaTel.net
Tue Dec 2 14:48:46 CST 2008
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.
>>
>> "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.
>>
>> Es tut mir leid für das Durcheinander meine Brüder!
>>
>>
>>
>This is the classic logical fallacy that people seem to perpetuate when
>reporting news about P2P activity.
>
>ISPs oversubscribe. It's a common practice, and reasonably valid. But
>when you oversubscribe, you use a model based on 'projected' use of the
>available circuits and bandwidth. If you have a user who pays for a
>circuit that you've advertised as an X Mb line, and he uses X Mb ALL the
>time, he's using what he's paying for. If you then proceed to tell him
>that he can't do that, you're either wrong or you're not being up front
>enough with your pricing and marketing materials. You can't then proceed
>to blame the customer for use you did not anticipate.
>
>Imagine a farmer who sells tomatoes. He's promised you a bushel, but he
>gets a harvest of only so many. You walk up to the counter just after
>he's sold all of his tomatoes to someone and he tells you "Sorry. There
>are no more tomatoes because that customer before you just 'stole' them
>all from you. He's abusing his privileges by buying up my whole crop."
>
>Now whose fault is it that you don't get the tomatoes you want? Is it
>the customer's fault for buying all the tomatoes the farmer sold him? Or
>is it the farmer's fault for selling them?
>
>The same works with the ISP vs P2P argument. If the ISPs were up-front
>about saying that they do not intend for you to actually USE the
>bandwidth you think you're paying for, I would say they had a leg upon
>which to stand. However, hiding this information from the customer and
>then blaming the customer when he does what he believes is well within
>his rights... it may play well in the media, but it's bad for the whole
>system and is incredibly divisive.
Yep. In our contract we say things like "shared", "best efforts",
etc. If you want a dedicated pipe with guaranteed bandwidth, you
gotta pay a hefty price.
More information about the asterisk-users
mailing list