DISQUS

It is quite obvious that the credit card companies are having a high time. Not only can they collect an outrageous 2% on every transaction that goes through their hands, (easily 30% of retail transactions, a HUGE amount of money), but they get to do so in a banking system where everything is transparent and already easily instantly transferable from bank to bank, so largely they are doing nothing for that money besides having the prevailing system, one that use to provide something quite tangible to retail outlets, notably security, and simplicity of payment over checks.
Now the system is developed enough that such a centralized system is not necessary to secure payment. Instant check transactions with image-of-a-check-is-a-check systems that provide much the same service as credit cards without the large service charge, and pay-by-phone that is becoming incredibly prevalent in both the EU and in Asia. (the later of which can theoretically provide security vastly out-ranking that of credit-cards.) There rates are astronomical in a world where most banks and people in the world can transfer sums in the billions of dollars instantly and securely, without the need for a complicated billing cycle. We don't need the big credit card companies to punk us out of 2% of our money ostensibly for a system of payment that is largely becoming open-source. It is about time that their rates are lowered. These credit card companies are trying to use there familiarity and market share to rationalize their anti-competitive practices and over-state their importance. They need to be punished for their domineering control of the market. This is basically the result of the banding together of the lobbying efforts of retailers who want there money back, and it is strongly known that the retailers are in a much more fierce competition than the credit card companies. By slimming down on those credit card companies fat, accumulated for a service that is no longer necessary, we ultimately move that money back to consumers, so they, not their credit card companies, can decide what to do with it.

wow, i guess i did a very bad job of explaining myself. I am a strong supporter of net-neutrality. What i was saying is that the swich from there old way of dealing with too much traffic (sending out close requests to any clients connected to Comcast customers on the bittorrent protocol--even to those people on other networks who were connecting to those on Comcast's network, that was another line they crossed) to a strict not by traffic type throttling of its heaviest users. Note that this not only effects P2P users, just by those who have historically used the most bandwidth.
What i was trying to say is that discrimination is greatly wrong, and as open-source software can be much more important than cute you-tube videos, the ISP's if they turn to discriminating will simply limit whatever is best for their pocketbook, there is nothing that would make them do it in the common good. And if they can provide youtube, and cant afford to NOT provide it, even when it uses AS MUCH bandwidth as P2P applications, then clearly bandwidth is very, very cheap and a non-discriminatory policy of dealing with bandwidth hoggers is much more preferential.

A common way that has been used against this is having both a bandwidth rate and throughput limit on connections, but from a marketing perspective telling consumers that a resource that really is for the most part extremely cheep and underutilized is expensive and need close watching is not smart. Furthermore it is really only during peak hours that there is any shortage. Forcing those customers that are maintaining full loads to slow down during peak times is the perfect solution, not only does this limit the the userbase that is effected to a much small base than before and maintains bandwidth-type neutrality, but it also fits the nature of what is being sent. Heavy bandwidth uses, with the exception of servers serving the general public (which are not on these ISPs), tend to be moving non-time-critical information.

(Though I seed torrents quite rarely, it’s nice to know the option exists.)

If everybody did this we would soon have to pay to download this stuff even though collectively we have the bandwidth.
Come on, all you are doing here is promoting the crushing of new enterprise and predatory practices on the internet on behalf on those in charge of it. The initial response of Comcast to throttle down on the top 1% of users during busy times. this is a simple solution, as torrent users tend to keep their computers on and it generally doesn't matter to them when they download as long as they get the bandwidth at some time of day they are using a untapped resource. The off-peak bandwidth is vastly more useful than peak bandwidth, and should be utilized somehow. Bandwidth is cheap also and if these downloads were not look down upon they wouldn't be nearly as threatened. No high-speed ISP would think of shutting down You-Tube as they don't want to touch the shit-storm that would probably capitulate.