From: David Honig (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Mar 05 2000 - 06:56:45 PST
At 02:45 AM 3/5/00 -0500, Marc Horowitz wrote:
>I don't have a pipe. I share a stream.
DSL = private pipe, Cable = shared stream
But the cable boxes can be throttled by the cable isp
to allow fair use.
>What makes you think anybody
>is paying for anything more than best-effort connectivity?
I understand this, but you certainly are entitled to
your Capacity/Current-subscribers share, no? And within
your "fair" share, no one should worry about what kind of
traffic it is.
>flexibility in the agreement is *precisely* so they can "harass"
>people who screw up their bandwidth plan. I've been ssh'ing to my
>machine for the two years I've had cable modem service, and nobody's
>ever complained. I've run an ftp server, over which I've done
>occasional OS installs, and nobody's stopped me.
Right, now put up something 'offensive' on your ftp site and get noticed..
find out about their harassment policies..
For $40/month, I
>don't expect to be able to saturate my 300kbps uplink 24x7.
But surely you should be able to use what you buy? I omitted
the 'oversold' parameter P, 0 < P < 1, which you can factor in.
It changes nothing.
Maybe I can't turn on every appliance at once if my neighbors
do the same. But I can certainly use the watts that I *can* draw
in any way I see fit.
>If I want
>that, I expect I'm going to have to pay extra for a dedicated pipe.
Well, you can usually buy a fixed IP for a few more $,
but you shouldn't have restrictions on your content for the regular
>If the cable company starts harassing people based on content, I
>suspect they'll end up with lawsuits on their hands regardless of what
>the agreement says.
As they should.
Further, the cable franchise in most cities is
>controlled by the city, and local governments tend to listen more to
>taxpayers than to cable companies.
They also tend to listen to/be staffed by idiots
with little respect for freedom of speech. "The city of
Bumfuque, USA will not permit Freedom Nodes on the cable
system because of all this scary Horseman disinfo we've been fed.."
Coming soon to a town near you.
> My city voted not to let AT&T buy
>Mediaone unless it agreed to share the wires; good for them.
What kind of fascism is this, where private consensual
acts must be permitted by the state? What kind of
eminent-domain monopoly did your town previously grant
the existing cable operator? Two wrongs don't make a right.
Your city should have kept its hands off a merger, but
forced the cableop to share, regardless.
Oh. You're from the P.R. of Cambridge. Never mind :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 05 2000 - 06:58:53 PST