Talk:Bandwidth throttling

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Michigan State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

For a May 2005 deletion over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bandwidth Throttling

---

Net neutrality

The net neutrality section is simply propaganda, painting it in a positive light before even explaining what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.154.51 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree on this one. The calling net neutrality THE guiding principal is misleading, it is something that some people desire or strive for but is something that is perhaps not always possible or financially viable for ISPs to provide. It's a goal, not a guiding principal. It is however a guiding principal of those who a zealots on the subject, so perhaps it was written by someone with a biased point of view. 112.118.206.11 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)just a user

Simply lies

This article is written by someone who does not know what bandwidth throttling is. The term is miss used as a synonym for bandwidth limiting in torrent programs but that does not change what it is. Throttling is an active changine of bandidth availability based on conditions, not a capping of bandwidth at some limit. That is bandwidth limiting. Cisco Systems Defines it well in their documentation. It is a complex technical term with no synonyms and many complex applications.

As usual the Wikidumbing of society continues with ignorant unlearned people of low vocabulary reducing critical technical terms to simplistic bull sh1t and crying that the false misleading overly simplistic article explain too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.11.214 (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten some parts of the article to avoid the mixture of bandwidth throttling and rate limiting concepts; now bandwidth throttling applies to limiting the transmission speed of server responses / downloads (and maybe also the received data speed for uploads of files to server) at application level and to limiting the re-transmission speed of network devices. Now article may not be as it should be yet but it certainly is a bit better. Ade56facc 13:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Too Much

This article attempts to explain too much. At this rate you're going to have to explain what a computer is.

point of view

I fail to see how this is objective, in the argument of QoS, there is a failure to mention the counterarguement of ISP's using QoS as a excuse to lower speeds so they don't have to upgrade their networks. Noian (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC) This article sounds a bit like a rant against QoS. The basic problem that ISPs have is that it is difficult to sell services that have additional charges for using lots of bandwidth; only flat-rate services will sell. But the cost of providing peer-to-peer file transfers and video streaming to whoever wants those things is far beyond the price of the service. The use of QoS to solve this is reasonable in my opinion. However, the ISP marketing people are in many cases telling people that their connection is xxx Mbps when it actually can't go that fast when other users are using it. Marketing people aren't really able to tell people what to realistically expect: "um, it's pretty fast at 3 a.m., but sometimes if your neighbor is using it it could get kinda slow.", because if they don't say "blindingly fast!" in the ad, they're out of a job. Until the FCC or the FTC steps in and enforces truth in advertising nothing will be solved, because you can't expect any one ISP to be the only honest company because they would go broke. It should also be noted that while some ISPs are big enough that most of their communications expenses come from the cost of building and maintaining their own networks, other small ISPs are actually paying bigger players by the megabyte for all data they handle. That means that if they don't use QoS, they could lose money very quickly.BruceThomson (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Mentoring

I have volunteered to mentor students contributing to this article - see this page. I suggest that queries specific to this article be placed here. If I have not replied within 12 hours, put a {{talkback}} tag on my user_talk page. General queries about Wikipedia editing should also be made on that page. Specific suggestions:

• Before you do anything here, pop over to server administrator and tidy that up. Anyone reading no further than the first sentence might thing that server administrators only work on gaming servers.
• In this article the description needs to be clearer on where throttling is applied - at the web server, at the final ISP or en route? If possible quote figures for how much throttling is done at each stage.
• Spell out more clearly the difference between bandwidth throttling and bandwidth capping.
• Fix that ugly naked URI!
• Globalise and improve the external links. References to throttling outside the US are needed.

— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

- Hi RHaworth, our first in class assignment was to write ~250 words for our article under one of our group members user pages. So if you could please go to my user page (Fishern6) and then click on TC 210 sandbox to see what we have done. Please keep in mind this is all of our first time doing major edits to an article. Thanks —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

Moving to the main space

Looks like a lot of work has been posted here. When are you planning on moving material to the main space? Jaobar (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Apr 4

This page is for discussion. We do not clutter it with the actual text. I assume that the latest version is in User:Fishern6/sandbox. First thoughts: naked URIs are obscene. Please use the {{cite web}} template. You are self-contradictory: you state "bandwidth throttling regulates a bandwidth intensive device (such as a server)" - that I agree with - but earlier you state "bandwidth throttling for users is done through the user's modem" - that I simply do not believe. My modem is in my house, I do not believe that my ISP has any control over its throughput capacity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

NPoV (Neutral Point of View): Network Neutrality

This section is biased. It only talks about the bad things that would happen if it went away. I say a complete rewrite, or even a deletion, is necessary. Cbrittain10 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy of Cannshan for doing that. I'll be removing that piece of blatantly biased info, which is also off the topic of bandwidth throttling.--24.128.79.230 (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a stupid idea. You are free to add a subsection noting benefits of eliminating net neutrality. But it's a bit like complaining that the censorship article doesn't talk enough about the virtues of censorship.

The censorship article *does* talk about the virtues of censorship -- protection of children and vulnerable groups, preventing slander and libel, controlling child pornography -- they are all mentioned. That's really a terrible example.

The paragraph on Network Neutrality is out of left field and very clearly not written from a neutral point of view. The actual Net Neutrality article does a much better job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.159.23 (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed: {Copypaste|section|url=|date=September 2021}}

No lawsuit, no fowl. In other words stop deleting information which falls squarely under fair use law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:6F5:47E2:7D26:440B:1DB8:BEE6 (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)