ISP disconnects p2p participant.

Netizenship
Internet service is a privilege, not a right. If he has been disconnected, then he should check with his ISP as to why it happened. If the reason is not due to a technical problem, then he must have broken the contract that he agreed to when he signed on with his ISP provider.

Bad neti-zen-ship!

0 Replies

He was downloading an illegal or a legal movie?

That might be the problem.

0 Replies

Re: Netizenship

Ragman wrote:

Internet service is a privilege, not a right. If he has been disconnected, then he should check with his ISP as to why it happened. If the reason is not due to a technical problem, then he must have broken the contract that he agreed to when he signed on with his ISP provider.

Bad neti-zen-ship!

I disagree with this in the strongest possible terms. Internet service should be considered a right, not a privilege.

The Internet is increasingly becoming an essential source of information, connections, and the ability to have a voice.

If entities, be they ISP's or anyone else, are allowed to control who can get information, or present their viewpoint... it not only provides an unfair platform for certain activities or viewpoints, it also allows an unfair prejudice in what is becoming a key medium in the 21st century.

You can't have a just democracy unless everyone has access to the media.

0 Replies

Since you argue that Internet service should be considered a right:

Is this a right that shouldn't be a function of economic status?

If so, how do you intend to level the playing field? Free Internet? Free computers?

Shouldn't, by the same token, RF access be considered a right, and thus not be regulated by the FCC / CRTC?

0 Replies

Re: Netizenship

ebrown_p wrote:

Ragman wrote:
Internet service is a privilege, not a right. If he has been disconnected, then he should check with his ISP as to why it happened. If the reason is not due to a technical problem, then he must have broken the contract that he agreed to when he signed on with his ISP provider.

Bad neti-zen-ship!

I disagree with this in the strongest possible terms. Internet service should be considered a right, not a privilege.

The Internet is increasingly becoming an essential source of information, connections, and the ability to have a voice.

If entities, be they ISP's or anyone else, are allowed to control who can get information, or present their viewpoint... it not only provides an unfair platform for certain activities or viewpoints, it also allows an unfair prejudice in what is becoming a key medium in the 21st century.

You can't have a just democracy unless everyone has access to the media.

You're quite misdirected in your railing, e-brown. You may direct that angst toward some entity which prevents someone from accessing any and all connection to Internet for engaging in LEGAL activity, perhaps then....and even then, it's sill doubtful due to the Internet provider's being a private party. Do you get the distinction?

However, the issue at hand here is connection through a private vendor of Internet services. Take a look at the contract you willingly sign when you subscribe to an ISP as they are protected from having to provide connection for participation with any illegal activity.

0 Replies

Re: ISP disconnects p2p participant.

jasonrest wrote:

A friend of mine was just recently disconnected from service.
No warning.
No sounding of the trumpets or flashing lights.
Nothing.

He was downloading a movie that was due to release on dvd in a couple of weeks. For other participants that have encryption enabled on their torrent client as well as using an IP blocker such as Peer guardian, is there anything else one can do to avoid such a thing?

Yes, there is something one can do. Don't illegally download movies.

If the worst he gets is disconnected from his service, he should feel lucky.
Woman loses suit over illegal sharing.

0 Replies

This response is for both Ragman and Chumly.

The Internet is increasingly a key part of public life that encompasses a large range of important parts of society-- from politics, to running a business to building social networks.

Yes, access to the Internet is done through private companies, but this is an important enough area that the rights of users must be protected from corporate interests.

There is a real danger if a few companies who can monopolize affordable access to the internet can control the content that people can see or publish. Companies must not be allowed to do this since the the Internet doesn't belong to them. They own the doors, not the net. Controlling the doors gives them too much power, but it doesn't give them the right to use this power.

Now there is a difference between controlling information and stopping illegal downloads of movies (I am not against copyright per se (although there are other issues here that we can argue separately)).

But giving the ISPs the ability to decide what I can do with Internet service is too much power. If they, for example, decide that I can't access a P2P service they will stop legitimate communication (as well as movie downloads).

Commercial companies generally don't have any business stopping people from doing illegal things with their products. I could use my Ford Aerostar for gun running (in fact gun running can not be done without a vehicle). What does Ford do to make sure I am not running guns?

ISPs provide a door... access to something that is not owned by them. Letting private corporations be police, or referee or judge of taste is very dangerous to what is a increasingly important part of public life.

They should not be allowed to cross this line.

0 Replies

The road in which this conversation is headed was not my intention but intriguing nonetheless.

Ragman wrote:

Internet service is a privilege, not a right. If he has been disconnected, then he should check with his ISP as to why it happened. If the reason is not due to a technical problem, then he must have broken the contract that he agreed to when he signed on with his ISP provider.

Bad neti-zen-ship!

And who or what made this decision, that it's a privilege and I should thank the heavens for such an honor? The Internet service provider is a "provider", not a regulator.

0 Replies

Re: ISP disconnects p2p participant.

parados wrote:

jasonrest wrote:
A friend of mine was just recently disconnected from service.
No warning.
No sounding of the trumpets or flashing lights.
Nothing.

He was downloading a movie that was due to release on dvd in a couple of weeks. For other participants that have encryption enabled on their torrent client as well as using an IP blocker such as Peer guardian, is there anything else one can do to avoid such a thing?

Yes, there is something one can do. Don't illegally download movies.

If the worst he gets is disconnected from his service, he should feel lucky.
Woman loses suit over illegal sharing.

In this particular case, the action was illegal however the post sought information for those not downloading such material.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

If so, how do you intend to level the playing field? Free Internet? Free computers?

Free internet is being considered widely for precisely such reasons. Free (or low cost) municipal wi-fi systems are springing up around the globe. When wi-max or its equivalent are more widely adopted it will become even more common. But it's important to note that they too are often considering limitations on P2P (and content in some cases).

As to the free computer part, there is such a project (a couple of them actually but one major one) in the One Laptop Per Child project. Their goal is to get $100 laptops that are then subsidized by governments and given to students free of charge.

ebrown_p wrote:

But giving the ISPs the ability to decide what I can do with Internet service is too much power. If they, for example, decide that I can't access a P2P service they will stop legitimate communication (as well as movie downloads).

No it's not. They have legal liability to deal with and at other times its necessary for them to limit their resource use to provide their product offering at all. The bottom line is that p2p traffic is often a net loss for them and they should be allowed to cut their losses if they choose to.

Now I personally won't have anything to do with an ISP that throttles certain protocols if I can help it, and the ISPs that do so will lose business and are making poor business decisions. They should invest in infrastructure and scale instead of throttle bandwidth and drop the unprofitable customers. But they are business decisions that impact their bottom line and that they have the right to make.

Right now, they have the last mile monopoly and people like you are right to be concerned about that. But this will fall as wireless evolves and they will have to compete directly on the strength of their internet offering.

If anything, you should be worried about the last mile monopoly itself and not how it can be abused. Without the last mile monopoly, an ISP decision like this merely indicates a need to switch providers, not legislate what they have a right to do in a private business.

0 Replies

Hi ebrown_p,

I was not questioning the rationalizations for your aforementioned beliefs, in as much as I was drawing forth further positions, by my direct and specific queries.

I note you have not responded directly and specifically, alas.

Robert Gentel,

Thanks for the interesting input, perhaps you like to try and justify this viewpoint in the context of RF's and the FCC / CRTC?

0 Replies

Justify what? That internet access is growingly being seen as a utility?

0 Replies

No no. "RF" means radio frequency.

I am not talking about Internet access per se.

I am talking about about other data throughput configurations in which one might also apply arguments similar to the Internet freedom of access arguments.

Telco comes to mind as well as RF.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I note you have not responded directly and specifically, alas.

Chumly wrote:

Since you argue that Internet service should be considered a right:

Is this a right that shouldn't be a function of economic status?

If so, how do you intend to level the playing field? Free Internet? Free computers?

I don't have a problem with private companies charging for Internet access.

I believe it is important that affordable Internet is available to all communities in the Internet. Government regulation to this end is appropriate if and when it is required.

Free Internet and Computers don't seem necessary to me. This discussion is not related at all to the points I was making.

Chumly wrote:

Shouldn't, by the same token, RF access be considered a right, and thus not be regulated by the FCC / CRTC?

Comparing Radio (which was a very important public communications medium) to the Internet is interesting.

Radio Frequencies is a limited resource-- but some of the issues are the same. There is the same danger that big corporations can shut out all but opinions that they find "acceptable".

Many FCC regulations were designed specifically to give the public more rights. There were laws, for example, preventing one entity from owning more than one station from a radio market. Other laws say that in a political campaign a radio station can't favor one side over the other.

Regulations like this which made it more difficult for a few big guys who owned the doors to the medium to shut out different voices were important to strengthen our democratic society.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

No no. "RF" means radio frequency.

I know.

Quote:

I am talking about about other data throughput configurations in which one might also apply arguments similar to the Internet freedom of access arguments.

I haven't proposed any freedom of access arguments. I've only noted that the equalization you asked about is already being advocated and is happening slowly because internet access is increasingly being seen as a utility by municipal governments.

0 Replies

I suggest, as does ebrown_p to some degree, that there are parallels between RF and the Internet, but that the government imposed censorship of RF throughput (and not the bandwidth limitation regulations) is the potential negative of said interventionism in this case, as might be the case going forward with the Internet......... given time.

0 Replies

ISP disconnects p2p participant.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know