Google Fiber Continues Awful ISP Tradition of Banning “Servers”

Re:Google Fiber Continues Awful ISP Tradition of Banning “Se... by Dylan16807 on Monday August 12, 2013 @07:02PM (#6202787)

>Perversely, I would be perfectly fine with you dropping my connections if I try starting 100 parallel downloads or charging me the same whether I download 1GB or 100GB this month, as long as it's a nice flat reliable fee.

I wouldn't. Never interfere with my packets (except dropping when buffers are too full, of course). Throttle me to 1mbps if you need to, but you shouldn't even know how many TCP connections I have open.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google Fiber Continues Awful ISP Tradition of Banning “Se... by anonymous on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @04:39AM (#6204635)

I meant in the case when the network is saturated. If I've bought a link that only guarantees N concurrent connections and I'm over that and the link is being saturated, then I would expect to have some of my packets dropped.

I guess we're saying mostly the same thing, just worded differently.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google Fiber Continues Awful ISP Tradition of Banning “Se... by Dylan16807 on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @01:26PM (#6206989)

Kind of. But I'm trying to make a point that limits should always be in terms of packets. The ISP should not even know how many connections I have, let alone limit it. It's not like you can't saturate a line with a single connection.

[ Parent | on HN ]