Quote:
Originally Posted by yoropa
I'm not comfortable with what I put in bold text there. I know it defines that it can only do those things based on "technically sound practice", but who determines which practices are sound and unsound? There's no definition of that proposed in this document, which means that it's up to the interpretation of the service providers unless otherwise defined. That can be bad. If the network slows down due to congestion, would they be able to pick and choose who gets connection, and thereby eliminate those taking up more traffic (read: people who actually use the internet)?
|
No, read: those who don't pay for super extra premium gold service (the price doubles for every qualifier).
I agree, that bit is problematic. OTOH, if it wasn't there, wouldn't that mean you can't appeal to your ISP to help you deal with a DOS attack? Or, for that matter, that
they can't defend themselves either? There's got to be a sane middle ground, but it's probably a pain to define properly.
Quote:
Sound silly? Here's another excerpt from earlier:
Essentially, this means that although it technically is against this clause to prioritize the internet, they can still do it anyway. So what I pinpointed out earlier and the scenario that is possible under this bill actually would be legally sound practice. I'm not comfortable with that, I doubt any of you are either.
This needs improvements before I even come close to considering it.
|
I'm actually ambivalent when it comes to prioritization. I mean, yes, I agree with you that it's open to all kind of abuse. OTOH, it's obvious a file transfer packet can wait more easily than a VoIP one.