NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
NNSquad Home Page
[ NNSquad ] Re: Do the Happy Dance people...
With friends like these, P2P doesn't need enemies.
Richard, I clearly noted that restrictions on servers (though I
should note not always enforced) and "interference" (however
nebulously defined internally) are common. But I've read every
single damn TOS of every Internet service I've ever had or have.
T1s, DSLs, Cable, the whole bunch. None of them ever stated any
limit on transferred data amounts (presumably absent activating
the unspoken "interference" parameters).
No limit == Unlimited
Look it up.
If what you're saying is true, Lauren ( "It's absolutely clear that the generally understood meaning of "unlimited" in the context of residential broadband service -- and earlier promotional statements by both cable and DSL providers made this utterly obvious -- was that you could send or receive as much data as you wished for your monthly fee.") then it should be absolutely easy to find a whole raft of TOSs that say "we don't care how much traffic you put on our network - run servers, an open access point, a home gateway, or a spambot, we don't care! Use as much as you like! Please!
In fact no residential broadband service has ever been sold in America or anywhere else that didn't have significant restrictions on traffic and usage.
*We all know that* and nobody's fooled by claims to the contrary.
Richard Bennett wrote:
The fact remains that "unlimited" in the context of Internet access has generally been understood to mean simply that there are no connection-time charges. At one time, people accessed their ISPs over dial-up connections, which were typically charged on connection time. AT&T phased out connection-time charges when they realized that such charges added to resource congestion. as they encouraged people to disconnect during non-peak periods.
DSL and cable have been free of connection-time charges because they're "always on" services. But it's misleading to say that there haven't always been other limits on these services: go read any TOS for any DSL or Cable Internet service from anyone at any time: you can't run servers, you can't consume excessive resources. you can't spam, etc, etc, etc.
This is reality: residential broadband is inexpensive relative to business broadband because it's a shared service with no guaranteed CIR. That means the service is over-sold by design. Go price non-oversold services, and you'll find your best deal is $400/mo for 1.5 Mb/s symmetrical T1. Compare that to $60/mo for 16/2 Mb/s from Comcast. What's the magic? Low duty cycle sharing. And it's a good thing, because it allows millions of people to get fast service for low prices.
A mailing list that's supposed to be about holding ISPs feet to the fire shouldn't engage in willful ignorance.
[ This is becoming positively Kafkaesque. Brett claims that "unlimited" simply meant "not limiting the sort of content that you send or receive." Richard says it meant "no metered connection time charges" -- though such charges have largely been little seen for years. Spinning like the twister that took Dorothy to Oz.
It's absolutely clear that the generally understood meaning of "unlimited" in the context of residential broadband service -- and earlier promotional statements by both cable and DSL providers made this utterly obvious -- was that you could send or receive as much data as you wished for your monthly fee. Yes, there are often arbitrary server restrictions (but the presence of servers does not necessarily translate into high traffic volumes), and rules against "interfering with other customers" and such.
But these attempts to retroactively redefine what was clearly understood by the public as the meaning of "unlimited" in this context are straight from fantasyland.
-- Lauren Weinstein NNSquad Moderator ]
- - -
Robb Topolski wrote:
For everyone's information, I have *never* visited an FCC Commissioner and have I *never* visited or appeared before a legislator. I was a panelist at the April 17th FCC Stanford hearing (as was Brett), and I was there on my own dime (as was Brett). I was not under contract with FP/PK (or either) at that time, nor was such an arrangement under consideration.
Subsequent to the hearings, FP/PK are now my clients. I am their consultant. That does kinda associate us together, but I generally don't speak for them. My particular convictions are my own and they are well aware that it may not mesh with theirs and that I will still express them. As their consultant, they sometimes commission me to contribute something on their behalf -- and I do, and I clearly disclose that I'm doing so on their behalf. Even then, I have not and would not say anything that I didn't actually support as my first, best judgment, position, or opinion.
Brett feels safe to say anything he wants to say, and I have to respond to avoid it being understood as truth. This situation is unacceptable.
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Brett Glass <email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
Robb Topolski is a lobbyist by any definition. "Free" Press has trotted him out to appear before, and visit, the FCC Commissioners and legislators to favor stifling regulation of Internet providers. Very SPECIFIC regulations and legislation.
Robb Topolski (email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>)
Hillsboro, Oregon USA