Printable View
Once traffic really starts getting throttled for usenet by ISP's i'd imagine newsgroup providers could just change the port to a nonstandard one. That along with SSL will make it very hard for ISP's to throttle or know what's going on (aside from the high data usage), but there are plenty of legitimate reasons for that :)
Mine has been doing that for years now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sili
I never said that your ISP won't care about how much you download, but its not like they're looking at your usenet traffic going "uh oh, he's downloading LotR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beck38As of a court ruling just today in the U.S., ISP's can limit, delay, or cut you off if you d/l from somewhere they don't 'like', including completely legal sites that don't pay the ISP 'connect' or 'transfer' charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by cola
It all came about over torrents, of course, where the ISP's said it was 'within their network management prerogatives' to mess around with the traffic.
That escalated into some ISP's blocking connections to commercial sites that didn't pay the ISP's 'up front' to carry their traffic (to, it must be said, their 'customers' who paid for the connection).
'Double-Dipping'. Now totally legal. 'Network Neutrality' is DEAD.
havent run into any problems in -what- 7 years
Uh, here in the US that's what got Comcast into trouble with the FCC; then the courts decided that the FCC didn't have the authority since the internet was changed from a telecommunications service to a 'message' service a few years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by cola
This week, the FCC changed it back to a telecom service (where it had been since the 1970's through 2003), with a few changes.
But during that period (2003 until a couple days ago) the ISP's could do whatever they wanted with your traffic. And yes, if you dug down in their respective AUP's (acceptable use policy's) you'd find that usenet traffic (allong with P2P) was specifically singled out as that traffic they were dead set against.
The best security measure is to use a provider that doesn't care about ´infringements´, simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by iLOVENZB
No ISP cares about copyright infringment. Without infringement ISP's would be out of business. No leech = No customer. :shutup:Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnentierThe best security measure is to use a provider that doesn't care about ´infringements´, simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by iLOVENZB
Completely true, the only reason they will probably act and send you a cease and desist letter is if some movie company gets really anal about it and goes on a crusade.Quote:
No ISP cares about copyright infringment. Without infringement ISP's would be out of business. No leech = No customer.
Well, under DMCA, the ISP becomes legally liable if they don't pass on the C&D letter, and no ISP is gonna have a legal battle with RIAA/MPAA/ect for one customer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Comfort101
No isp is going to micromanage what their users do, and they dont care. Who would really want to keep track of what millions of people are downloading, what sites they go to, ect. They don't have the storage space for the logs. They're completely reactive. Law enforcement asks for something, the ISP agrees to give the info. C&D letter comes in, they pass it on. Its not really a big deal or hard to figure out.
A good thing if you're in a very small country (I guess you're in Germany, I lived there for 4 years) but in the U.S., you'd be lucky to have two providers, most folks only have the choice of ONE. Lots have NONE. (we're talking 'broadband', which in the U.S. means something faster than ISDN/128K)Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnentierThe best security measure is to use a provider that doesn't care about ´infringements´, simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by iLOVENZB
Downright pitiful in most areas outside of the big cities.
SSL is one thing, but it doesn't mask the destination. VPN's are gaining lots of users now, and it DOES mask the traffic destination.