watever!!!!!!!!!!! iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii lllllllllloooooooooovvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeee mmmmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It it should be noted that i do not use a bit torrent client. Taking that into acount first is inportant, now i pay for the internet package and should get what its contract promises. This banwidth choking even for supposed good, could be used in any way deemed fit am i right ? So I think a case of too much power possibly in the wrong hands situation is about to happen. nerfing BT or P2P transferes is not the answer, education of the masses is and action on the illegal P2P stuff is. What Its too hard? nonsense thats the cry of people to lazy to find the real solution. Rock OUT.
الاخلاص الوفاء الخيانة
هل تحب ان تغير ديكور الغرف
we want more games for babies , and more pictures
well there not are some important well whatever i am looking favorable and your are nat impportat ok bye and go to JONAS BROTHERS YOU CAN
This device is not so much of a P2P limiter as it is a protocol leveler. If a protocol is designed with no inherent self limiting capabilities as its data travels through the internet, it only makes sense that the companies that manage that traffic would want some other way to manage the traffic.
Think about Windows automatic updates just after patch Tuesday. While they go to a large percentage of people, they are not having near the effect on bandwidth that P2P is, merely by the nature of the protocol.
The 37% of the people in the poll who don't think that is fair you can bet are P2P users. Why should a small amount of Internet users be allowed to hog the bandwidth.
Isn't it a shame that the self importance or sense of entitlement of a few force a genius like Roberts to spend his time watching them as opposed to developing the next revolutionary step where bandwidth might be a minor issue at best?
I post this in cnet also.
User of High Speed internet(usually with cable TV) in the US, already pay way too much for it than say some asian country. Just because we have higher income we have to pay higher bill? I talked with one of my chinese friend he said that he only have to less than $10 dolloar to get most of TV channels in China. Just because the oil price increase??? cable compay don't use oil to provide the cable service. Fine if you called someone to take look your wires or something, but how often an average custom do that. limited bandwidth? I think it is fair, but there also some of consequence for the doc com companys. For an example, who will play Xbox LIVE? if you have to buy the game, memship, OH and you played one too many hour, your internet provider give you fine or something. Online gaming will cost way too much, no more youtube, flickr, download show from iTune? At some of the TV channel or radio website, they are live from the website itself(easily over the limit). The online community as we know will change. People have to think, if I do this, is this going over the limit?
I pay for it and I can use it the way I want. That is an "it's all about me attitude". You must be a CEO wannabe with an attitude like that. In realkity, most service contracts clearly state "up to 10mb", not 10mb guaranteed at all times. They sell shared bandwidth.
Many times I have commuted on toll roads where I sit in traffic. People are enraged because they paid their toll and they cannot drive the limit. They spend their life cursing at everyone else on the road. That shared use of resources.
Whether it be a highway, train, city street or public restaurant, most of the stuff we use is a shared resource. The internet, being what it is, probably has 50 separate links between you and the resource you are trying to view or download. At choke point on any one of those links kills the delivery of the service you requested, so you can't always blame your ISP.
You can limit your exposure by buying your own dedicated DS3 and paying the couple of grand a month to have it. But that is only one link in the chain of 50 links. Many times I have been at work very late and had the entire bandwidth to myself. I may still wait forever for that next page to load because the choke point is somewhere else on the net. Chances are, it is probably guys like you all trying to download the same You Tube clip at the same time because John Stewart just told you how funny it was - you and ten million of your closest friends - all at the same time.
I just hope you are not looking for all that bandwidth so you can write the next law telling me that I can no longer use incandescent bulbs or my next car has to run on batteries, or whatever!
You see, I am frugal by nature. I have a small carbon footprint and a small data footprint. I don't need laws to tell me what to do. However, there are people who try to pass laws to limit the other guy's carbon footprint and then write the next law to insure that their data footprint can be as big as they want.
So, HOW BIG IS YOUR DATA FOOTPRINT?
P2P is like a train on a public hwy, it take's up way too much bandwidth, effectively slowing down the whole thing. Traffic is a problem we all must contend with. Until we can effectively separate traffic hogs, to their own lane, limiting the size of the train, just as we limit the length of a tractor trailer is appropriate.
Yes there is a finite limit. That being the case, why does my ISP provide different level packages with different price tags? I pay for the premium package an then I am villainized when I use what I pay for. I don't exceed the limit I paid for, the ISP limits my bandwidth to what I paid for. Now if there is not enough bandwidth to go around it seems to me the problem lies with the ISP that makes promises it has no intentions of keeping just to get my extra dollars. If they sell more seats than are available on an airplane its called overbooking and they have to compensate the customer. If an ISP overbooks its capacity somehow its the customers fault and we become the villain.
me, me, me ... its all about the so called ishmoi syndrome. in essense, a sad commentary on instant gratification at the expense of everyone else. so why am i surprised that sharing a resource has become such a old world concept ... well, i'm not. i have the fastest cable connection Comcast offers and there are times when it performs as if we are back in the days of 14.4kb modems. thus the argument that because i pay for it, shouldn't i be able to use it too?
The Internet, like any association of people desiring a service with a finite limit, is all about sharing. Yes, you pay for access but that does not give you 100 percent ownership or use of that capacity. You have not paid for all of the Internet just the right to share its use aka capacity. You pay for the right to share. One person does not have all the time to speak at a conference. One person does not use all the services shutting out the others of any organization. The Internet is no different.
I pay for 10Mbit/sec Flatrate so I should get 10Mbit/sec no matter what kind of traffic I´m getting or sending and no matter how much.
I dont think this is fair, because i pay for it, and i can use it whichever way i want. Whether i want to watch a clip on youtube, or google sometihng, or transfer a file from a peer, it should be my choice, not anyone elses.