A question on capping

Does anybody think that the introduction of capping has been bought
about with pressure from the record companys and film studios in
attempt to slow down file sharing I'm not saying its the only reason
and its not THE reason its been bought in but over a period of time
the amount of data you will be able to recieve and send could and
probably be squeezed to such a point that file sharing becomes un
atractive for the people who download/share dozens of movies every
month
Just a thought

Osiris

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Does anybody think that the introduction of capping has been bought
> about with pressure from the record companys and film studios in
> attempt to slow down file sharing I'm not saying its the only reason
> and its not THE reason its been bought in but over a period of time
> the amount of data you will be able to recieve and send could and
> probably be squeezed to such a point that file sharing becomes un
> atractive for the people who download/share dozens of movies every
> month

No,

It's due to a change in the way that some ADSL providers have chosen to
pay for the wholesale DSL product from BT.

"Classic" charging for the DSL products was on a fixed rental basis set at
different levels for each speed/grade of DSL line, plus a (large) fixed
rental charge for the Central service used to deliver the end-user
connections to the ISP.

With the new "Capacity Based Charging" (CBC), which some service providers
have now chosen to use, all end-user DSL lines are charged by BT at the
same (low) rental charge, and the central service is a lower rental
charge. However, the ISP must pay for the ammount of data going over the
Central service.

CBC allows ISPs to deliver very cheap DSL services to customers who make
very little use of it. The flip side is that under CBC, customers who use
their DSL more heavily than most will be costing the ISP far in excess of
the monthly charge the ISP makes for providing the service.

This means that service providers who have changed to CBC now want to cut
the ammount of data that their customers are moving, and the way to do
that is to impose usage limits and impose penalties for exceeding them.


d.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Does anybody think that the introduction of capping has been bought
> about with pressure from the record companys and film studios in
> attempt to slow down file sharing I'm not saying its the only reason
> and its not THE reason its been bought in but over a period of time
> the amount of data you will be able to recieve and send could and
> probably be squeezed to such a point that file sharing becomes un
> atractive for the people who download/share dozens of movies every
> month
> Just a thought

To be honest, I don't think BTYahoo give a damn about the issue of file
swapping per se. They are clearly under the misapprehension that 'heavy
users' are causing the service to be slow for more moderate customers.
This, of course, is twaddle. Busy exchanges are to blame. Lots of people
download at the same time (usually peak times) resulting in slowness. Some
of those people will be heavy users, some moderate, some light. But the
heaviest users download mostly overnight, when the network is quiet, so
BTY's argument will never hold water.

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:59:05 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed)
wrote:
<snip capping stuff>

Possibly, but I've never given much thought to it.

Random mutterings: What I saw last night was that my PC at home has
received more than 900Mb of data from 7am-9pm. I use TS from work so
the bandwidth gets used. That doesn't include the bandwidth taken by
my mail server on a separate computer (should be peanuts though) and
web server which doesn't get advertised except to family and friends.

Richard

Five Rounds Rapid <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
<snip>
> To be honest, I don't think BTYahoo give a damn about the issue of file
> swapping per se. They are clearly under the misapprehension that 'heavy
> users' are causing the service to be slow for more moderate customers.
> This, of course, is twaddle. Busy exchanges are to blame. Lots of people

Another aspect is the cost of bandwidth.
A 512K user constantly running P2P at maximum bandwidth will use about
90 quid a month as a proportion of the cost of a BT central line.

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:48:09 UTC, "Five Rounds Rapid" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> This, of course, is twaddle. Busy exchanges are to blame. Lots of people
> download at the same time (usually peak times) resulting in slowness. Some
> of those people will be heavy users, some moderate, some light. But the
> heaviest users download mostly overnight, when the network is quiet, so
> BTY's argument will never hold water.

That may be. But it sounds like the classic excuse of the heavy user
(a.k.a. pirate)

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

"Bob Eager" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-pn2-(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:48:09 UTC, "Five Rounds Rapid" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> > This, of course, is twaddle. Busy exchanges are to blame. Lots of
people
> > download at the same time (usually peak times) resulting in slowness.
Some
> > of those people will be heavy users, some moderate, some light. But the
> > heaviest users download mostly overnight, when the network is quiet, so
> > BTY's argument will never hold water.
>
> That may be. But it sounds like the classic excuse of the heavy user
> (a.k.a. pirate)

You immediately assume that anyone who downloads a lot must be up to no
good. I would argue that is by no means the case. I download a lot of old
TV eps from the newsgroups, material which isn't available to buy. This is
hardly piracy. Downloading game demos isn't piracy either. And neither is
downloading Linux distros. I do all of these things, and probably rack up
about 30-40Gb of bandwidth usage most months, but I don't think I'm breaking
any laws. I am simply using a service I am paying for, as it was
advertised.

Five Rounds Rapid <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
<snip>
> You immediately assume that anyone who downloads a lot must be up to no
> good. I would argue that is by no means the case. I download a lot of old
> TV eps from the newsgroups, material which isn't available to buy. This is
> hardly piracy.

The law disagrees.
Apart from the very small fraction of TV where the copyright has lapsed.
The original author does not have to make the work available to the public
at all for copyright to be in force.


> Downloading game demos isn't piracy either. And neither is
> downloading Linux distros. I do all of these things, and probably rack up
> about 30-40Gb of bandwidth usage most months, but I don't think I'm breaking
> any laws. I am simply using a service I am paying for, as it was
> advertised.

"Ian Stirling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ThhFc.1673$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Five Rounds Rapid <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> <snip>
> > You immediately assume that anyone who downloads a lot must be up to no
> > good. I would argue that is by no means the case. I download a lot of
old
> > TV eps from the newsgroups, material which isn't available to buy. This
is
> > hardly piracy.
>
> The law disagrees.
> Apart from the very small fraction of TV where the copyright has lapsed.
> The original author does not have to make the work available to the public
> at all for copyright to be in force.

Agreed, but TV companies have no objections to people taping shows and
watching them again later, and the same applies to the digital medium. I
know because I have contacted various copyright holders to clarify the
issue. So long as you don't start knocking out VCDs or DVDs for a fee, the
vast majority are happy enough for their shows to be distributed via usenet.
It is precisely this sort of interest which leads to official DVD releases
coming about, which is obviously good news for all concerned.

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 14:06:38 GMT, Ian Stirling
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>A 512K user constantly running P2P at maximum bandwidth will use about
>90 quid a month as a proportion of the cost of a BT central line.

Don't forget that the cost of a central line is the same whether it is
used to capacity or sitting idle.

Cheers,

Guy

** I may not be perfect, but I'm
** English, and that's the next best thing!