Should ISPs Be Allowed To Throttle Back Connection Speeds?
- 8
- Add a Comment
- No Related Post
First it was Comcast who was caught stopping some users from using P2P sites by what is alleged to either bethrottling back download speeds, or deliberately using false packets to thwart the download. Now it seems that Verizon and AT&T may be doing the same thing. The latest is that congress may be taking another look at Net Neutrality to determine if cable and phone companies are abusing their powers and using their own set of guidelines to tell consumers what they can and can not do on the Internet.
On the flip side of the coin is that Comcast says that some people over use their connection by participating in P2P networks, which slows down the connection speeds of other users. If you are not aware of it, cable broadband shares a connection for all who are using the system in a particular neighborhood. The more people connect, the slower the speed. So one person or persons could hog most of the pipeline. It is these people who Comcast says it is targeting.
As we wander through life, we have all known those who think that the world is their personal playground, without any regard for others. We see this is our daily lives when some yo-yo cuts us off in traffic, cuts in line at the market, or performs some other act that most of us would have the courtesy not to do. So it is not to hard to believe that they consider their using a Internet connection for their own personal pleasure and downloading the entire Internet to their system, seems OK no matter how it will affect others.
For about 99% of us, what ever Congress, Comcast or other ISP’s decide to do, will have little or no affect in our lives. It will always be the ‘road hog’ or in this case the ‘pipeline hog’ that will cry like a baby because their mommy and daddy never did teach them how to play well with others. Or is this to simplified? Are the big cable and phone companies picking on the consumer and setting up their own rules?
Comments welcome.
[tags]comcast, at&t, verizon, congress, net neutrality, broadband, hogs, [/tags]
8 Comments
marc klink
October 29th, 2007
at 5:30am
I have 3Mb DSL service from Verizon, and KNOW that at certain times of the day, my service is throttled. It happens at 7:30 - 9:00am, and again at 4:30 - 5:30 pm. I don’t like it, but since I otherwise have little to complain about, I tolerate it. I’m told that FiOS is going to be available next year, and when I go to 20/20 symmetric, I sure won’t be happy about it then - and I’ll be very vocal.
Much of the problems we see is simply the ISPs insane profits coming down to normal levels, and they don’t like it. Like Donald Trump, these ISPs have gotten fat and sassy, and think it should always be that way. Infrastructure will have to be upgraded soon, especially when everything with a chip in every house has an IP address.
Don Naphen
October 29th, 2007
at 6:33am
If ISP’s are going to regulate the amount of usage a subscriber is allowed, then they should state so in plain English at subscription time. Comcast had an issue like this not too long ago, and the subscriber could NOT get a straight answer from them on this policy. What constitutes “excessive use” by one person may very well be the norm for another. The language in the agreement is just too ambiguous to come to a logical conclusion.
Sure, P2P services do consume large amounts of bandwidth, but is it excessive? If ISP’s wish to regulate each user’s usage, then put it in writing … plain and simple. Offer a structured pricing system based on usage, but don’t pull the plug on the customer! Wireless providers have been doing business this way for a long time, and it works for them.
Just too many websites these days contributing to the bottlenecks Ron. Almost every TV site has streaming video’s available so that one can watch entire news broadcasts and updates during the day. Also, the practice of buying d/loadable software (encouraged by the companies) must be a huge hit on the bandwidth, especially when those d/loads consist of 100Mbytes and more!
Thanks for listening … God Bless the Red Sox!
Ron Schenone
October 29th, 2007
at 6:59am
Hi Marc,
Interesting. But I guess anything is possible. Thanks for the comments.
I didn’t think that DSL could be throttled down.
Heh Don,
It should be stated in plain and simple terms before you sign up. Not after.
I see the Red Sox BARELY squeaked by! LOL
Mike
October 29th, 2007
at 8:23am
Quality of service (QoS) in a DSL system can be implemented at the DSLAM (the switch where all the DSL connections from people’s homes get multiplexed into the big backbone pipes). A weak implication (proof), but easily understood: I can throttle bandwidth by port and IP address on my little $50 Linksys/DLink/Belkin router at the house. I’m sure that the multi-thousand dollar pieces of Cisco and Juniper equipment that TELCOs use are more than capable of QoS.
Bottom line: DSL providers can throttle your bandwidth.
Concur with everyone’s comments about putting the QoS in the terms of service when you sign up. Give me an idea of what the TELCO thinks is “excessive” traffic. That way, if I don’t like the way that TELCO implements QoS, then I can go elsewhere for my service.
Wolfhard
October 29th, 2007
at 8:59am
I’m really wondering about the situation in the USA…
Here in Austria no ISP would even think of limiting the download volumes with terms like “no excessive use”. It’s simply a legal problem. When “excessve” is not defined then they would get flooded with lawsuits especially when completely shutting down the internet connection!
Don’t your ISPs have massive problems? Especially in the country where everyone sues everybody all the time
And when I pay for a DSL line with 12 MBit UL/DL then throttling my connection would simply be a breach of contract… (and yes, I’m monitorung my connection speed).
A widely offered feature here is a so called “turbo button” - you can temporarily increase your connection speed when you need it and pay a time-based extra fee - I’ve never heard of time-based throttling at all.
In Austria one big mobile phone provider thought aloud about blocking ports and/or filtering packets to block VoIP in connection with UMTS.
Scared off by the outrage that followed they quickly dumped these plans.
I don’t want to think of the hue and cry when an ISP here would dare to block certain ports or send false packets (!!!).
For me such measures are simply intolerable. What comes next after blocking P2P services? Blocking VoIP? Blocking the websites of competitive ISPs? Oh and we also don’t like that civil rights organization…
Watch out! Such practices should be nipped in the bud…
Ron Strahan
May 21st, 2008
at 7:36am
lighten up the f***ing background so people can read the page. Christ this is stupid.
Ron Schenone
May 21st, 2008
at 7:48am
Hello Ron,
See how the site is now. Chris has been updating the site during the past day or so. Hopefully this problem has been corrected.
Please let me know so we can correct any other problems that may crop up.
TIA, Ron
Joel Gratton
May 21st, 2008
at 6:27pm
They should not throttle speeds, if someone buys a 10/1 package then they should be able to get the full speed. Like for me i have a 4/.7 package and i get about 1/.5 out of 4/1 so i happen to complain to my ISP alot and they come out and check the line and they fix it or say its fine. If it does get fixed then about 1 month later right back to crap speeds.