Talk:Bandwidth management

Linkspam

Has anyone else noticed that Jim Henderson deletes entries under the heading "Companies With Products Employing Bandwidth Management" as "linkspam" when they come from other contributors?

Maybe it would be productive for him to explain these deletions.

---

Hmm I am not sure that this isn't an "attack" from someone who had a link deleted, but nevertheless, some of the "linkspam" deletions do seem quite arbitrary, 195.224.48.73 11:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

External links 'hiding'

I have revised over a handful of edits the section Bandwidth management#Companies With Products Employing Bandwidth Management because it felt too much like a simple list of extenal links to me, which violates WP:NOT. Further, the present format highlights that articles that remain to be written; I did check to see if any had been AFD-deleted before, and none had, but there were a couple that had been deleted one or more times via Speedy Deletion (various criteria), but that is not an impediment to article creation per se. All of the company listings remain and the external links have been placed into editorial comments so that they can be seen by persons editing the page but not by persons simply viewing the page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy versus anal retentiveness

I see no reason to delete the entire company when deleting company links. Is the Wiki not interested in accuracy? Does it make sense to leave off major players in an industry because there is no wiki page for that company?

It makes more sense to leave the company name without the link if you're concerned with spam. Removing the company and the link is just stupid. You end up with an incomplete list and the article's usefulness is significantly diminished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsdguru (talk • contribs) 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This "article" is a joke

Who is responsible for maintaining this joke of an article? Its technically inaccurate, the major innovators in the field aren't represented. This article appears to have been written by a high school kid who has zero knowledge of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.28.38 (talk • contribs) 13:57, August 6, 2008

Removal of inappropriate content

I have removed the inappropriate content (tone, no sources) which was tagged since December 2007. I have maintained lists and the see also stuff which might be useful.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

UK filters in the Wikipedia amendments (EU Telecoms package policy)

The first sentence defining the bandwidth management has been copy-pasted by the British government that is currently pushing the adoption of such system as one of the possible sanctions against users "taken" as downloading illegal contents on the Internet. The problem is that this system is not only promoted for fighting piracy, but lots of groups of defence worldwide are concerned by the fact that an of the listed systems here are also widely used in non-democratic countries to fragment the web and have it constrained so that it will become anticompetitive.

See for example this page commenting the proposed UK amendment to the proposed EU Telecoms package. This subject is very hot as, if this is adopted in Europe (and also in USA through AT&T similar incitation), the Internet will no longer be an interoperable and single open network. This is another way to define a web with "whitelists" of authorized sites, and a way to create arbitrary anti-competitive practices that could disseminate worldwide; not just in China, where these systems are already used and in place, and that is alreaduy used in three areas that are completely against several fundamental rights: - against freedom of speech: only authorized sites get the conectivity or bandwidth necessary for their delivery, even if those sites are perfectly legal - against competition and freedom of choice: white lists managed in different countries will create additional costs for all other websites that can't support the need to register at the various national authorities; this will favor only the "giant" commercial sites that already have a physical presence in the concerned countries. - against inovation and dissemination of new ideas and concepts - against private communications: traffic shaping will considerably limit the way we can interact in the Internet, including for private one-to-one comunication. The proposed system also presupposes that the communications will also be monitored and scrutinized by private parties, collecting data about users, without any control of how this data will be used by third parties, even if this data is perfectly legal. Under this principle, every one is considered "guilty" and placed under active surveillance for all his communications.

The amendment is also against the principle of technical neutrality. In France, where the HADOPI law has been proposed (and rejected for now) and pushed very actively in EU for the proposal of the "three-strikes" sanction, the cost of deploying such system is already estimated at more than 70 millions a year (only the cost for network operators), plus the cost of the ad hoc administrative commission (that will be able to act without any control by the judicary authorities). The HADOPI proponents (supported by organizations like SACEM in France) are trying to convince the deputies in the French or Europan Parlements that the cost will be negligeable. But the system proposed admits that it will be only able to catch about 500 internauts per month (in France), i.e. about 6000 internaiuts per year. The cost of the solution proposed, when rated per user, becomes tremendous: more than 14000 euros per internauts. Even if the law wants to keep the obligation to pay the ISP, it is impossible to revover this cost only from these internauts (that will also be incited to simply cancel their subscription, even if they have to pay the rest of their contractual year of subscription), because of the mandatory principle of "proportionality of the sanction". What this means is that the extra cost will necessarily be supported, once again, by ALL internauts, within the subscription price. If you consider France only, with about 16 millions users in 2004 when these figures were computed, it creates an additional cost of about 4 euros per year and per subscriber: this is extremely costly when compared to the commercial margins left to ISPs.

That's why French ISPs are clearly opposed to this system (except cable operators, in fact just one in France, Numericable that has capted all the French cable market, because it wll not be required to use the proposed costly system, as it does not need any new platform to cut just the internet access or split it by kind of services). Orange (the hostoric operator, that still has about 50% of the market) would also be much less affected by the system, because it has deployed his ADSL network using a multi-VC ATM architecture for its DSL deployment, and still maintains this system for its current FTTH deployments). Clearly the system is not technology neutral, it is too costly, ithinders the innovation for long, it will fragemnt the net, and will make the European Internet behave like in China (the same is true for AT&T in USA if it adopts the same system).

We all know what China has made against freedom of speech, and against Wikipedia in general. Do you want to support it also in Europe and America?

As it is clearly anticompetitive, the net result will be less competitors, no incitation to invest in newer technologies, higher prices for offers, annd control of the rest of the market (that highly depends on the Internet now) by a few giant ISPs (this is already the case in China, with only two major ISPs). And in all cases, it will severely impact the international competition. So not only the freedom of speech will be severely altered, we will suffer from a lot more of difficulties to communicate privately between two users is they don't live in the same country, or even if they are not subscribers of the same ISP. The dream of an open Internet will disappear, as well as the one for an open market, just because of a system that will, if it is adopted, be easily turned.

If our deputies and democracies want to protect freedom of speech and still maintain creativity for artists, this is certainly not the way of the law that will solve the problem. The only wat to go is to push the ISPs to invest in content creation, and offer this content to their subscribers as part of their services: it will be much less costly, and more people will profit of it (including artists that could gain much more if they can distribute and sell their content directly on the Internet without depending on "majors" that only give them about 5% of sales). Unfortunaltely, the "majors" do not want to loose this market: they have abused artists since long and now are collecting "taxes" unlegetimately from other unrelated sources (think: taxes on support medias and computers, even if they are not used to store artistic productions, but only private data, or the production made by users themselves in their own documents, family photos, ... or organizations that need such storage for theit information system).

Here is some interesting link to start with, that links to this article: http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=272&Itemid=9

So let's help fight against all these "bandwidth management" systems. They are dangerous for the Internet as a whole, and our freedom. They are clearly not the solution. Laws cannot solve efficiently a problem that is best solved, at much lower costs, by the market (an OPEN market) by innovation in commercial practices.

It does not matter if the media "majors" cannot survive. Either they adapt their business model, or they die. Artists must be able to live without them, and yes, they can live on the Internet, as long as it remains open without anticompetitive barriers: it's up to the natural competition of ISPs to promote a new sale system, and up to us to make sure that they will maintain fair competition. If regulation is needed, it's to avoid them to become too big; we need more ISPs, not less, and we must stop their concentration, and ease the introduction of newcomers, just like it happened when the telcos monopoles were broken. The open Internet is the necessary condition, let's not break it now that it has become a very vast space of creation (and not just a space of piracy, like the few "majors" are trying to convince regulators, often with falsified arguments, false signatures, wrong figures,...)

Philippe. verdy_p (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)