RoadRunner nonsense

[Luke -Jr]

On Thursday 28 February 2008, Phil Thayer wrote:
> Whether people like it or not, the ISP's own the IP ranges that they
> serve.

Since when? Last I checked, all IP subnets were *leased*, not sold.

> They can implement this type of functionality.  Whose to say that there may
> be some less educated users out there that would benefit from a "feature"
> such as this. 

Blocking *my* traffic does not benefit any individual directly. It benefits 
the company's bank account because they don't need to support the bandwidth 
that traffic used. Usually ISPs meter traffic by the GB instead (often 
allocating far too little), but a far better approach would be to simply 
equal-share low priority traffic.

> And if a user really doesn't like what they are doing they can always switch
> to another ISP.  If there is not another cable ISP then switch to DSL. 
> There are other options available to most users of the internet.

Not in the US. Cable and DSL companies are given a regional monopoly.
DSL services (1-7 mbps) are not Cable services (5-12 mbps).

> As for censorship and control of the internet by an ISP like Comcast,
> this is a standard practice in most countries outside of the US.  The US
> has the most lenient internet access laws in the world.

That doesn't make it right.

On Thursday 28 February 2008, James Sissel wrote:
>   Well, I don't know about other people here but I paid for a connection to
> the Internet.  When the $$$ changes hands from me to the ISP then *I* own
> that IP address. 

What IP address? Some ISPs assign out of a private subnet and use NAT.
Most certainly don't give a static assignment anymore.

> As such I demand the ISP provide me with complete and total access and not
> interfere with my traffic. 

Sounds reasonable, though prioritizing traffic isn't interfering.

> And if I buy 1.5M up, 875 down then I should be able to use that much
> bandwidth 24x7 if I wish. 

Most people don't buy dedicated lines. Most only offer *up to* x mbps.
Dedicated 24/7 bandwidth is expensive, almost never worth it.

>   Otherwise it is like renting a house but having the landlord say you can
> only use 50% of the living room

More like renting a room in a house that has a common area for all tenants-- 
or more often, a common pool.