VIRGIN users

dogmaryxx

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8100394.stm

penrhyn

This won,t be effective unless all the isps adopt the same procedures.

Strider590

The whole concept of the internet was for it to remain a free and open resource of information.

If we allow ISP's to mess with and censor what we can see and do on the internet, the internet as we know it, is sure to die.
Piracy isn't as bigger problem as they'd have you believe, it IS wrong and DOES hurt the music/video industry, but blanket restrictions on internet users (internet communism) is NOT the solution, it's just lazy.

We are headed down the road of pay per view or subscription internet, nobody seems to care, nobody wants to know, but when they can't view their favourite websites any more because it's not on their subscription list, it will be too late to complain.

[Deleted User]

What, reducing the network wide impact that people with reckless abandon have by using illegal filesharing services in order offer a better standard of service to those who use only legitimate services?

Get's my vote.

el_gringo_3

anewhope wrote: »

What, reducing the network wide impact that people with reckless abandon have by using illegal filesharing services in order offer a better standard of service to those who use only legitimate services?

Get's my vote.

How do they know what is illegal? Some ISP's restrict torrent downloads heavily, claiming that they are used almost exclusively for piracy, and leave 'normal' downloads, which is what I guess Virgin are planning to do here.

However, in the past week I've downloaded three items of any decent size - two torrents and a rapidshare download. The torrents were a copyright free documentary and a pack of fan made maps for a computer game that I also assume were 'legal' - why should these downloads be punished when I could quite easily host something from my CD collection on rapidshare that and pimp it round the net unchecked?

I can't imagine for a minute that the extra service Virgin would offer me would enable me to download the selection of tracks that I want - I find it hard enough to spend a tenner on itunes, although thats gotten an awful lot better lately. The article linked even pretty much states they are aiming the service at kids.

Strider590

anewhope wrote: »

What, reducing the network wide impact that people with reckless abandon have by using illegal filesharing services in order offer a better standard of service to those who use only legitimate services?

Get's my vote.

BAAAAAAA!!! lets all become media fed sheep!

Sorry, but this has got my back up now!

It does not cause any problem for other user's either, the ISP's can easily cope with the traffic generated by it (admittedly not if 90% of the population did it). They just choose to persecute its usage because they have to be seen to be doing so and also because they can generate additional cash through it.
They're managing to roll out this new superfast broadband with no ill affect on the rest of us, yet a bit of sharing causes the whole system to collapse? Yeah right!

It is used for illegal downloading, but it is also used for legitimate files. I use it a lot for downloading BBC/ITV documentaries after they're removed from the websites and for downloading tools and applications that can't be found anymore.
I also downloaded various copies of Windows OS disks to allow reinstalls on already owned/paid for product key's, because the PC manufacturers will charge for these disks between £30 and £90.

All im saying is do some research, don't just believe all the hype.

[Deleted User]

Strider590 wrote: »

They're managing to roll out this new superfast broadband with no ill affect on the rest of us, yet a bit of sharing causes the whole system to collapse? Yeah right!

You mean the DOCSIS 3 system that allows VM to offload high volume users to that system because the hardware in everyone's homes is only compatible with DOCSIS 2, thus having a relieving effect on that system?

Strider590

Im talking about the ISP's total bandwidth being far greater than the current usage, it matters not the connection method.
And besides, there's got to be at least a 100% profit over their cost of whole sale bandwidth, if they need more, they should pay out for it instead of punishing customers for using the bandwidth they have paid for each month.
I pay for my Kbps, I should therefore have the perfect right to use it in any way I see fit, if my ISP can't cope with that, they shouldn't sell the package.
It's like buying a Ferrari Enzo only to find they put a 30mph speed limiter on it.

Pssst

I've binned VM for cheaper and better. They are a poor operation with crap customer service.

sickparrot

I assume this only affects file sharing and not usenet?

[Deleted User]

Strider590 wrote: »

It is used for illegal downloading, but it is also used for legitimate files. I use it a lot for downloading BBC/ITV documentaries after they're removed from the websites

With the copyright holder's permission?

Downloading tools and applications that can't be found anymore.

Surely there can't be that many applications that are lost in the ether.

I also downloaded various copies of Windows OS disks to allow reinstalls on already owned/paid for product key's, because the PC manufacturers will charge for these disks between £30 and £90.

With the copyright holder's permission?

So you're main gripe is that you can't use your connection to the fullest to flout the law? Can't say I have any sympathy towards your cause I'm afraid, I'm in the favour that if you can be identified as using your internet connection for illegal means that your ISP should be well within their rights to cease the business relationship.