Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertie_MB
Who knows? Yes I imagine you're right, they wouldn't do a lot about it. But again you're talking about individual cases, not a reason to stop shaping altogether.
|
Lovely rationale there Bertie, the old "individual cases" trickspeak. Each individual case, when viewed collectively, constitutes a percentage of the overall customer base
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertie_MB
The argument at the start of this thread was against shaping in terms of being able to download slower, not in terms of being shaped when you didn't deserve it.
|
My earlier "Who polices the police"? comment reflects this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertie_MB
Of that 5% who get shaped (which according to you is wrong, and from what you've said should be a lower figure) I doubt there are many who get shaping when they haven't done anything wrong.
|
I didn't say it was "wrong" - I questioned the methodology of how it was arrived at. As for doubting that there are many who will be shaped who "haven't done anything
wrong" I have offered individuals a means to ascertain if they have been unduly traffic managed. Why do you have a problem with customers exercising their right? Are you of the opinion that if someone is wrongly traffic managed (on a service tier that they pay for) that it is entirely acceptable for that to happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertie_MB
Of those people who do get shaped I expect a high proportion is due to illegal content...
|
Since when have VM become the custodians of legal / illegal content? To put this in context (and entirely dispel any notion that there is some sort of "legal content" consideration playing any part in this decision) VM are using a "download up to 4000 music tracks in a day" pitch to sell this service. Who do you know that can afford to pay for that sort of legally downloaded content a day?
On an even more unsavoury note a recent report noted an 80% increase in illegal child porn sites - what are VM doing about that? Are they banning access to them or are they simply going to traffic manage their customers who view them? If VM were to be seen to be playing an honest part in trying to circumvent the distribution of illegal content then perhaps these measures would appear less unpalatable, indeed praiseworthy, for most paying customers but the fact is they're not.
Any assertion by them that offering their customer base an apparant ability to download a certain amount of illegal / questionable material, purportedly twice as fast as the current maximum, is hardly in keeping with trying to stay within the confines of the law or encouraging your customer base to do so. Lets not fool ourselves here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertie_MB
..and another fairly high proportion won't even notice when it happens - they'll just think their torrent speed is bad.
|
As I mentioned earlier - all quite rather convenient don't you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertie_MB
Let me know in 6 months if your campaign gets anywhere, but I suspect traffic shaping will still be with us.
|
Nice attempt at a sleight, but it's not my campaign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mertie_MB
VM deal with lots of complaints about slow speeds, so the small number being incorrectly shaped won't really bother them at all...
|
Quite. And it's about time people stood up to them and asked quite simply why, If they cannot effectively handle the demand for existing tiers, are they introducing services which place further excessive demands on their infrastructure?