how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2007-10-28 13:02:08: An article at The Consumerist this weekend points to proof that Comcast did indeed contract with Sandvine. Of course, we already knew that. ..
| |
 | | | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: Comcast is a typical big corporation... said by supergirl  :Now Kathrynv is becoming Karl's corporate bashing apprentice taking news from "blogs" without any real proof. Now, if the AP or a real newspaper reported it, I'd consider it since they have journalists not hate-filled bloggers spinning webs of deceit. First off, Comcast admits to web shaping (ie. filtering/blocking) on their own FAQs and press releases.
Second, news media outlets have done investigations on this matter and came to the same web filter/blocking conclusion.
Basically, if you're still believing the "lol, WTF" spin certain divisions of Comcast are still putting out there...well, I have a bridge to sell you, among other things. | |
| | | CMoore2004
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Jonesville, MI | You count a news release as a blog post? | |
| | | 
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing | I agree with you that when people have nothing to say about the subject, they should still post.
--
Sure, that'll work.. | |
| | whocares
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
| said by qworster :They play it any way it suits them. They bribe whomever they can to get what they want. They have no social conscience whatsoever (why should they? They're NOT human-they're a friggin' company!). And- They lie like rugs..... Why does any of this surprise you? Half of you think their behavior is OK! where you proof
--
People's minds are changed through talking & observations,
not through arguments.
| |
| JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL | So Comcast uses Sandvine! No what? | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! Exactly!
What this topic/thread/"news" posting fails to state, while it fails to post objectively, is that it remains with in the right of Comcast to manage it's network the way it sees fit.
Also, we continue to see these "news" postings regarding Sandvine and the relationship comcast has with it. The question is... "so? " and as JSRoman said - "Now what?" They use it.. we're aware of it... the next "logical" step is if people don't like it... get off the network and go somewhere else.
In my OWN words, if the internet is THAT important to the P2P user base, then they should look into more places with in their lifestyle choices and make some different ones so that their P2P priority in life can be fulfilled.
Neither Comcast, Cox, TWC, Qwest, Verizon, or AT&T have any obligation to anyone, with THEIR network, to allow any and everything goes. When someone can point out a legitimate, VALID argument otherwise, then I will back off this issue myself. But, the last time I checked, $14.95 to $42.00 a month does not give anyone the right of ownership and/or full expectation that anything goes on the internet.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! said by fiberguy :What this topic/thread/"news" posting fails to state, while it fails to post objectively, is that it remains with in the right of Comcast to manage it's network the way it sees fit. I think what the article is more addressing, is Comcast's outright blatant lies when evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. Yes, it's well within their rights as an ISP to screw with their customer's network traffic. However, to have them deny their own actions just makes the company come off as unscrupulous.
I mean, put it this way...if you operated a business, would you really be interested in partnering up with another business that blatantly lies? Being visibly dishonest isn't exactly an asset in customer relations. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! I will respond to you with this:
Where does it say that Comcast must report to their customers what methods they put in place to protect their network from abuse?
P2P, technically, IS NOT ALLOWED. It's a server application. Some will say that P2P isn't a server when it in all definitions is. You are allowing anyone to access a resource on your local network, browse, and retrieve a file. That is a server. A server doesn't have to be a BOX, it doesn't have to be "Linux" or "Microsoft Windows Server X" or even the main operating system. It's the act of serving.
With that said, Comcast is, 'in my opinion' , taking measures to keep that traffic OFF the network. So, in your own terms, isn't the customer out and out lying when they said "I agree to the terms" when they clicked that choice when they signed up for the service?
Where does it say that ANY ISP must give full disclosure to it's customer base about any technology used on it's network. Where does it also say that Comcast or ANY ISP must answer questions asked of them? If I were Comcast in this case I would have been out right and said "what we do on our network is none of your business" and that "we make choices based on the agreements we have in place".. that's ALL any ISP has to say.
As for lying? Be glad they said anything. They aren't the government - they don't owe you an explanation other than the agreement in place between you and them. People are looking at this from the perspective that "we have a right to know" when in fact you don't.
I would rather they NOT state anything on the network. All that does is gives people more ammo when they want to hack the network and break security anyway.
I do operate a business and I don't make choices based on emotion like many people here do. B2B is a different relationship than business to consumer. Put Qwest, Verizon, at&t, Cox, TWC, or any other provider in place of Comcast and I wouldn't say they were lying. I'd say they are looking out for their best interest - and it may be hard for some to believe based on the crowd base here - they are also looking out for the interest of the bulk of their consumers.
In this case, it's not a lie - is a case of 'none of your business... in the case of an Enron lie - that's a different story.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | 
beerbum
Premium
join:2000-05-06 | Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! oh man.. there you go again using facts and logic.. hope you have your flame-suit ready  | |
| | | | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! said by beerbum :oh man.. there you go again using facts and logic.. hope you have your flame-suit ready I have yet to see facts and/or logic yet. Business promises customer product X, customer buys product, only to find it's something else. Please tell me how that's anything but deception and/or false advertising. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! You are putting words in the mouth of the provider as to what product X is. You have skirted that little issue all over the place today.
The product you are buying, as you assume, is something it isn't. YOU, the consumer, don't define what the product, or in this case, the SERVICE is...
The product you are buying is in the TOS - a document that 99.5% (I'm guessing) don't read.
Let me explain the difference of a product and service is.
A product - a pair of boots. You know what they are and you buy it. There is less of a chance of mis-representing a product in the description.
A service - ever had your roof redone? This one SHOULD help you understand. The internet is a SERVICE, so you know. It's not tangible and you can't touch it.. it's a service and a service is defined by the agreement. You can have 20 people getting their roof replaced. Each person can get different service - why is that?? because while you are buying a "roof replacement" as a vague description of the service, you are actually buying what is in the agreement between the two. And, to go one further (to bring Cox, TWC, and Verizon into this) I can get two contracts from different roofers and they too will be different.
If I went purely on the fact I was buying a roof job alone, had the service done, and later found out that one didn't rehang my gutters, for example, and the other would have - I mean, afterall, isn't that what you do non a re-roof job? The answer is, you may think it, but if I read the "service agreement" closer, I would have found that they said "rehanging of the gutters is optional"...
So, please tell me how you were deceived on what you are believing the internet service to be.
Remember, you yourself was saying earlier "Internet SERVICE Provider"... it's a "service" and it must be defined by that "don't bother me with your petty agreements" agreement.
I call blame to the consumer for not reading.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! said by fiberguy :You have skirted that little issue all over the place today. Unfortunately, you're the only one I've seen dancing. Comcast's PR claims unhampered access to BT downloads, but its anything of the sort. This is what we call lying/deception.
said by fiberguy :A service - ever had your roof redone? Yup. If I were to agree to roof your house, take the payment, then just leave...that's about the same deal. Even though you can't "touch" a service, promising to provide it and then not doing so is, again, lying.
said by fiberguy :So, please tell me how you were deceived on what you are believing the internet service to be. Around that part when the PR department explicitly told their customers (both potentially new and existing) that they had access to BT and that it was unhindered. It's pretty simple. Don't tell folks that they have access to services when its untrue. | |
| | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! If I am doing "comcast PR" then you are advocating piracy. I am not defending comcast.. I could give a rat's ass about comcast, honestly. What I DO care about is the hypocracy of some people's belief of one-ups.
People are clearly violating the TOS. What I stand against are those that 1) think that because comcast said something they don't like, that it supersedes their ability to enforce their TOS.
If comcast came out and blocked YOUTUBE.COM, specifically, or started filtering sites that disagreed with them, or something along that line, I'd be right up their a*ses about it as THAT is an example of abuse and fraud.
As for point 2. Their PR department is NOT - get this - NOT what defines the product that you already subscribe to. Your agreement - IN WHOLE - in in the TOS. It even explains to you in the very agreement that you agreed to that the agreement you accepted IS the entire agreement governing the use of the service.
Again, you're looking for a spin here.
I don't spin.. I don't represent.. and I don't accept your charge of being PR for a company because I happen to agree with them and not you. That has been, and always will be, a LAME LAME LAME excuse and cop out to ANYONE in a conversation about any topic when they move to that area to try and discredit an opposing view.
as for your rebut to the roof comparison - you totally just proved to me you don't get it and are looking for every reason to NOT see the other side to this argument. Comcast didn't promise you internet and leave. You're talking about all or nothing here. They ARE, however, enforcing a term that they have every right to, which is blocking server traffic.
Let me ask you this - if the files you offer are so important, why don't you put them on a server? Why doesn't P2P allow for files to be found on a web server on the net?
Simple - it stops YOU from being the "server" and you KNOW that web providers would charge a rate no one would accept paying - AND, many ISPs would find the very files being shared to be piracy and kill the account.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | | | | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! said by fiberguy :If I am doing "comcast PR" then you are advocating piracy. How so? If you can make that leap of faith in logic, then I could very well brand you as an advocate for piracy as well. | |
| | | | | | | | | | jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! Psst... that's called "hyperbole". | |
| | | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| By your definition ANY upload is a server. BT doesn't allowing "browsing" a file from you network. The user specifically selects to upload a file to users in a stream. When they close the BT program, or end the the torrent, it's no longer available. In fact it's no different then streaming anything, like a nanny cam, or personal radio station off your network, except that some jokers use it for illegal activities (certainly applicable in both the latter streams) and people, stupidly, don't cap the usage levels.
I understand what you're saying, but in a service contract, the service provider has to honor the agreement. I deal with this all the time with contractors (per your example). When they don't provide the service that was presented, I don't pay them what they charge. In fact this seems to happen more often than not, and I certainly don't use those contractors again after I've had to fight with them to keep them from over-charging me for less than what we agreed to. | |
| | | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! So what you are telling me is that with BT, I can't search for files that I want, find your computer running the BT client, initiate, on my own, a request to download and it just doesn't start? So, you're saying that you have to approve the file to start sending?
Sure, when BT is closed, it stops working - as does IIS and Apache.
I can tell you that "by my definition" I CLEARLY have been on record that any upload is a server. You'll find that I've been straight forward on what I, not only believe, understand is a server.
Someone sitting there and going "click click click" to send out files is not a 'server'... there are plenty of definitions in this very topic of what a 'public server' is.. So, no.. you're incorrect on that assumption.
BT does allow the browsing on files you've made available to be browsed - so does IIS and Apache. BT allows a client to search from available files and make that request. The BT "server" will then accept the request and automatically start sending the file to the client. That, by all definitions, is a server.
What people are trying to do is claim BT isn't server software because of it's dual purpose. People are working overtime to claim that since it runs on XP, for example, that it's not a server. (For them, I say, PWS can be installed on XP and XP can very much become a server - a limited one, but a server none the less) What makes this "p2p" for some NOT a server is that because the very program that they send files from is also one they use to get files. So, I say - it serves two purposes. In that case, so does Windows Server 2003 Standard with IIS running. IIS does the anonymous sending, while the internet explorer component of that same machine allows me to grab information from the web.
I see no difference.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! So what of my two other examples (nanny cam and streaming radio?) Would those then be denied under the server TOS restriction as well?
It's not a black and white definition, but shades of grey. If you take it far enough you can deny most services (using TOS language) that give the internet its value. Thus if they actually enforced the TOS by the strictest definition they would destroy the value of their product. And they know this... | |
| | | | | | | | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! said by Ahrenl :It's not a black and white definition, but shades of grey. Definitions are definitely black and white. It's the selective application/enforcement is when you start dealing with shades of grey. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! Then narrowly define a server please. | |
| | | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
1 edit | said by fiberguy :Where does it say that Comcast must report to their customers what methods they put in place to protect their network from abuse? Now you're just being overly-apologetic to the point of sillyness. Lying is still lying, especially when it impacts the use of the product you're buying. If you bought a new car from a dealer (with the expectation that it will run), then realized there wasn't a motor in it...do you think that "well, that's our business policy" excuse is going to cut it?
These are deceptive business practices, plain and simple. Lying to your customers about services rendered is the same as false advertising, nomatter how you try and gloss it up.
said by fiberguy :P2P, technically, IS NOT ALLOWED. It's a server application. Some will say that P2P isn't a server when it in all definitions is. You are allowing anyone to access a resource on your local network, browse, and retrieve a file. That is a server. Wow. By your draconian definition, there isn't a valid need to offer your customers an upload speed at all. Glad you don't manage ISPs.
said by fiberguy :So, in your own terms, isn't the customer out and out lying when they said "I agree to the terms" when they clicked that choice when they signed up for the service? So, I'm interested in Comcast's service. When signing up & reading the TOS (which includes nothing specific about BT blocking), I then fire off an e-mail to their PR department asking specifically "Do you interfere with BT traffic?" Seeing as how Comcast's PR division STILL is lying about its business practices, they confirm a wholeheartedly no, and I've now been sold on a product that they will not provide.
It's lying, at best. It's not a far stretch either to call it false advertising.
said by fiberguy :Where does it also say that Comcast or ANY ISP must answer questions asked of them? If I were Comcast in this case I would have been out right and said "what we do on our network is none of your business" and that "we make choices based on the agreements we have in place".. that's ALL any ISP has to say. Which is why I don't picture you operating a business for long. When new customers have questions about your product, simply screaming at them "MIND YOUR DAMN BUSINESS" isn't going to sell anyone on anything. ISPs, or any business for that matter, have an obligation to address customer concerns/issues before point-of-sale...if only to stay in business. | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! Your long post is easy to reply to point by point.
First point: Quit confusing a tangible product with a non-tangible service. The internet isn't a car with a motor. You want the ISP to micro define every aspect of the service and that is SURELY not reasonable and to think other wise just points out your lack of knowledge in running any business.
Since you are obviously claiming to be an advanced internet user - you should know that P2P services are a form of server use... the TOS says NO SERVERS. They are not required to specifically state "no P2P".. period. It's covered in "servers"... to block abusers - they do not need a press release every time.
Point two: Now you're bringing in OPINION. Care to talk facts? "Draconian"... "valid need"... I got news for you.. in the real world, I'd be right and you are wrong. You're representing a small percentage of the over all internet base. Since day one, the download speed has been more down than up. You think that your fight, on a BBS, is ground breaking and making a difference. The point is you also assume that an ISP doesn't see the need for change - but in time. What YOU also don't see is there is a balance (like most people don't see) in the wants of the customer and the reality of what they will pay.
I see all the time, here, people say "what I'd see fair for internet tiers..." and then they spout off something that is totally ridiculous to what real world conditions would warrant. You are NOT going to get a 50/50 connection, 8 years strong into the internet revolution, a 50/50 connection for $70 a month as most believe it's worth.
The consumer wants a Caddy but is only willing to pay for a Kia.
And, who said I don't believe in more upload speed. I do, however, I believe in the law. The MAJORITY of those who want more upload speed want more P2P traffic - and much of that traffic is to be able to file share property that isn't theres in the first place. When people, along this line of thinking, pull their heads out of the sands, maybe they'd realize it's THEY THEMSELVES that are one of the reasons the internet is so far held back on this level.
Third point: You again assume that they must micro spell out the TOS. Want a 200 page TOS that you still won't read? It says 'no servers' and in some cases they go as far as even describing as to what a server is.. and yet your head still is in the sand. Why haven't they specifically address my Yahoo Messenger? Or in that case, why aren't they talk about about programs like Pidgin..? It's not the software itself.. it's the "act" they are talking about. Your P2P is the "ACT OF SERVING".. you are making available a file for anyone that seeks or searches for it and then, with out you having to make it start sending, it goes to the person who wants it.. Hmmm.. sounds like a "server" to me..
How is it false advertising when they don't care to tell the public about their network security measures so long as it fits into their TOS agreement you signed up and agreed to. And only way mind set and way of thinking would label this false advertising - on the grounds that they haven't specifically addressed your specific concern directly. Silly.
Fourth: You sure do love to twist things up, don't you? I will say this to you - Misguided Entitlement.
The group that you are worried about offending are the group that is the smallest causing the most problems... so, in my words - WHO CARES. The issue is, here, is that I DO GET IT.. in business, I will - and am - going to go far.
If we apply your line of thinking to business to the real world, it is that way of thinking that will kill you. My way, and well, those that are successful, seems to be working. Why is this? Because, you can't be the nice guy and give everyone what they want in business. That model will las only so long, end up costing you SO much more money in the end that you will find yourself either bankrupt, or, in court on a far more regular basis than the current greedy corporation is today. When you don't control your business, your will lose control to your customer, who in turn, has a different view on your business than you do and each customer will have their own view uinque to each others as well. Just try to keep up with that.. and while you are, I will take all your business away from you and laugh all the way to the bank.
This is the fact - you may not like it, it may sound harsh, but really, this is how business AND the consumer works.
You are sitting here fighting over ONE SMALL PART of a service and thinking, like most who have an individual gripe, that the company or service will fail in the long run. So far to date.. number of grips? millions.. number of business or services failed because of it? none.
Anything else?
Good luck.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! said by fiberguy :Since you are obviously claiming to be an advanced internet user - you should know that P2P services are a form of server use... the TOS says NO SERVERS. Then again, so is Yahoo IM!, video chat, or anything else where files/data is sent back and forth. Your definition of server programs basically breaks the internet into uselessness. I mean, there'd be web browsing, FTP, and...well, I think that's it.
...and if you want to enforce that the average web user do only that with their broadband connection, then why even move up past dial-up?
said by fiberguy :You're representing a small percentage of the over all internet base. I highly doubt the number of MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, internet shoppers, (ie. anyone who uses the upload stream on their ISP) is a small percent.
said by fiberguy :You think that your fight, on a BBS, is ground breaking and making a difference. No, I'm rather just intrigued how someone can be so dense to blatant lying and/or false advertising right before their eyes. But, I think this will be my last post since you're oblivious, and my sending back every failed example isn't going anywhere.
said by fiberguy :The consumer wants a Caddy but is only willing to pay for a Kia. No, the dealer agreed to provide the consumer a Caddy, but what they got was a Kia.
said by fiberguy :Third point: You again assume that they must micro spell out the TOS. Want a 200 page TOS that you still won't read? Don't we have that already?
said by fiberguy :The issue is, here, is that I DO GET IT.. in business, I will - and am - going to go far. Well, with the Enron "anything goes" mentality in terms of failed service provisions, I wish you the best of luck.
said by fiberguy :Because, you can't be the nice guy and give everyone what they want in business. Umm, nobody's asking about being the nice guy. They're asking that you fulfill your business agreements. If you can't manage that, then I don't know how one plans to go anywhere in business.
said by fiberguy :You are sitting here fighting over ONE SMALL PART of a service and thinking, like most who have an individual gripe, that the company or service will fail in the long run. Because its that "one small part" that's indicative of the business. Put it this way...if I refuse to honor my business obligations with other people/companies...what in the world thinks I'm going to change when it comes to you?
said by fiberguy :You are sitting here fighting over ONE SMALL PART of a service and thinking, like most who have an individual gripe, that the company or service will fail in the long run. So far to date.. number of grips? millions.. number of business or services failed because of it? none. There are many companies that went under due to false advertising, and many more that failed when they were unable to meet their agreed-upon obligations...especially to banks. | |
| | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! Yahoo: Can just ANYONE go into your computer and grab a file? no. Do you have to be given permission, one on one? Yes. To be honest, THAT is P2P... and to be honest, again with the spin here, what most people calling P2P is NOT P2P.. It's a server.. I can grab the software and take files from any other P2P user's computer. But anyway..
Again.. you're spinning.
Myspace, YouTube, Facebook: irrelevant.
Your being intrigued: So, now I'm dense? Why, because I don't believe in your fight? I am "dense" in your view because I am looking at the entire picture, while you continue your battle based on part of the picture - a selfish one at that. You can stop posting all you want - that's fine. I've heard everyone of your posts and have responded to them while you have ignored mine all together with irrelevant additional examples.
The Caddy/Kia example: Again, you didn't even read that one so why should I touch it? You missed the whole point. The internet isn't a product bud.. it's a "SERVICE".. please stop narrow-casting your thoughts to what you see.. please try to keep the whole conversation in play when you respond. In the CONTEXT of my message was in regards to what PEOPLE WANT vs what they CAN REASONABLY ASSUME TO EXPECT for their money. I am FAR from wrong when I say that people want a caddy for the price of a kia. Don't apply something into a conversation to another part of it that it wasn't intended. It's a great spin method but won't work on me. I had to laugh when you said "No, the dealer agreed to provide".. there was never anything about what was being provided.. it was about what a consumer wants in life in regards to what they will pay. So you certainly didn't read.
TOS: No.. you don't have a 200 page TOS. Further - people love to claim there is so much "lawyer mumbo jumbo" in a TOS. If the text in a TOS is so legally written that people can't understand what they are reading, then I pitty society - and it scares me. I just re-read the comcast TOS, since it's in example here, and it's not 200 pages, not even 20. It's easy to read, and speaks in plain, clear English. This is a long time excuse used by ill-informed people who have no other valid argument. This is an area I won't entertain anyone who is obvious about arguing over - because it's a non-point.
The issue of the Enron example: Again, you miss the point. I won't even touch that because while we're supposed to be talking about CA, you're in NY on this one.
You said: "Umm, nobody's asking about being the nice guy. They're asking that you fulfill your business agreements. If you can't manage that, then I don't know how one plans to go anywhere in business."
In this case, Comcast IS fulfilling their business agreement. READ-THE-TOS! They are enforcing it. You're here, BUTT HURT, that some one person said something and you want to nail the company to the wall over it... you're now officially clueless to this matter and not even trying.
You further go to say that it's one small part that will indicate that is indicative of business.
I'm done wasting time with you. To be honest, at first, this was an enjoyable conversation, but as it goes on, you're going way into the deep end, are going ALL over the place, and you're stretching EVERYTHING out of spec here to try to justify the fact that a company is going to block, what is in essence, "SERVER USE".. and you don't like it.
So... if you stop, I will too.. as a matter of fact, I am NOT going to post any more.. and this topic can be locked for all I care. I won't even read any further responses from you on this matter - you're not even trying. I can and will ALWAYS entertain opposing views - so long as they are honest.
You're sitting here on this so-called "false advertising"... PLEASE show me ONE advertisement that says "Run P2P and Public Servers/Services on your Comcast high speed connection" and I will tell you I'm wrong. They have NEVER said it was OK to run a server, and, until you show me in the TOS where it says that a public service is acceptable, then I won't buy your entire Sunday argument that this is false advertisement.
You call this P2P all you want, the reality is that people are running servers and call it "p2p" ... last time I checked, this is a server, serving a file, open to anyone. That is what a server is.
I'm done. Enjoy responding because I won't even read it.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | | | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! said by fiberguy :I'm done. Enjoy responding because I won't even read it. Clearly. You've been posting the same drivel over and over. You're fine with deception in a business atmosphere, and that's all there is to it.
To sum up in a WoW forum fashion: TLDR. | |
| | | | | | | | | hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA
 ·Cox HSI
·Time Warner Cable
| i agree what comcast is within their rights as far as the TOS.
I doubt that the lawyers are worried at Comcast, its the marketing folks. Restrictions against excessive p2p bandwidth traffic is understandably appreciated by business clients,
"Comcastic" has a different ring to it now though. Their bandwidth may not be as good anymore - but at least more people can use it at the same time.
Gotta admit that comcast is pretty slick about only blocking uploads though, people would notice download caps before theyw would notice upload restrictions. | |
| | | | | | | 
asellus
Premium
join:2004-09-24
Malaysia
1 edit | said by fiberguy :Since you are obviously claiming to be an advanced internet user - you should know that P2P services are a form of server use... the TOS says NO SERVERS. They are not required to specifically state "no P2P".. period. It's covered in "servers"... to block abusers - they do not need a press release every time. With Comcast saying in TOS that servers are illegal, does that mean all servers applications such as mIRC, Windows Live Messenger etc are illegal?
And don't get me started on Lotus Notes. Is that crappy software is illegal, Comcast has to make it not working (or delaying the e-mails in Comcast words). rick and fiberguy, did running Lotus Notes violates Comcast TOS?
Somebody wants to answer? | |
| | | | | | | |
beerbum
Premium
join:2000-05-06
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! »www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
Prohibited Uses and Activities
Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment to:
...
xiv. run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
(emphasis mine)
maybe it's my above average intellect, but the above spells it out quite clearly.. running servers such as www, mail, usenet, and yes even IRC, are considered a violation of the TOS.. | |
| | | | | | | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! said by beerbum :maybe it's my above average intellect, but the above spells it out quite clearly.. running servers such as www, mail, usenet, and yes even IRC, are considered a violation of the TOS.. Actually, you put the emphasis on the wrong end. The "run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers." line is where the hilarity is at. Basically, this is a CYA that the ISP can block whatever and whenever...seeing as how *anything* on the internet is technically beyond your LAN.
Your bolded content actually said nothing in contects to IRC, seeing as how it's a chat program...unless you refer to file sharing. In that case, then all the chat programs are violating TOS, seeing as how every single one of them has a photo sharing service on it. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | | | 
toadlife
Premium
join:2004-05-03
Lemoore, CA
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| said by fiberguy :P2P, technically, IS NOT ALLOWED. It's a server application. Some will say that P2P isn't a server when it in all definitions is. You are allowing anyone to access a resource on your local network, browse, and retrieve a file. That is a server. A server doesn't have to be a BOX, it doesn't have to be "Linux" or "Microsoft Windows Server X" or even the main operating system. It's the act of serving. This the main reason I prefer DSL. They generally don't have these type of restrictions. | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! said by toadlife :said by fiberguy :P2P, technically, IS NOT ALLOWED. It's a server application. Some will say that P2P isn't a server when it in all definitions is. You are allowing anyone to access a resource on your local network, browse, and retrieve a file. That is a server. A server doesn't have to be a BOX, it doesn't have to be "Linux" or "Microsoft Windows Server X" or even the main operating system. It's the act of serving. This the main reason I prefer DSL. They generally don't have these type of restrictions. You're correct!! Absolutely and I agree with you. It's why I have Qwest DSL for my servers and cable for my desktops.
However, what I have found is many of the 2nd tier ISPs, at least in my area, that are NOT the incumbent Qwest for the ISP, specifically DO prohibit servers and have the same TOS as most cable. (Can't really say most,.. TWC doesn't really seem to care)
But, I bring this up only because there are many second tier DSL ISPs that really don't allow servers too. (I think they are foolish - BUT, they don't allow them because the bandwidth cost to them is usually expensive and they don't want the traffic either)
I only point this out because it's not just cable that care. In fact, another thing that many people forget to point out is that the beloved FiOS has a policy of "no-servers" as well. I believe that I've heard grumblings that they actually block ports. Is this correct?
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | | | | | | | 
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| said by Thaler :said by fiberguy :What this topic/thread/"news" posting fails to state, while it fails to post objectively, is that it remains with in the right of Comcast to manage it's network the way it sees fit. I think what the article is more addressing, is Comcast's outright blatant lies when evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. Yes, it's well within their rights as an ISP to screw with their customer's network traffic. However, to have them deny their own actions just makes the company come off as unscrupulous. I mean, put it this way...if you operated a business, would you really be interested in partnering up with another business that blatantly lies? Being visibly dishonest isn't exactly an asset in customer relations. Who really cares? As people sit here and grumble, they are writing their little checks "Payable to: Comcast". And if CC is your only provider, sucks to be you.  | |
| | | | | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! said by tc1uscg :Who really cares? As people sit here and grumble, they are writing their little checks "Payable to: Comcast". And if CC is your only provider, sucks to be you. And that's the rub. Comcast could go about sponsoring international babyeating and people would still continue sending them their buck-o-five. Honestly, I don't know what scale of scandal to actually upsurp the megacorps in America today. I think the magnitude to do so would scare the crap outta me. | |
| | | | | | 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! who the hell pays $105 for tv or internet (or both)?? that's expensive. | |
| | | | | | |
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| Re: So Comcast uses Sandvine! said by morbo :who the hell pays $105 for tv or internet (or both)?? that's expensive. People who can only get CC. They have you over a barrel unless you want DISH or some other plate on your roof. But then there's HSI. Right now, getting a aircard and wireless router isn't that attractive.. but once Sprints WiMax gets deployed (if your lucky to be in one of the major markets), it's another thought. | |
| | | | | |
See 46 replies to this post | |
LowRider
join:2006-06-23
Dallas, GA | Will they still DENY can't deny that one Comcast. they named you. LOLOLOLOL, wounder if Comcast will still deny this?? More than likely | |
| 
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| Getting boring DSLR is taking the art of beating a dead horse to a whole new level. We all know Comcast is doing something with Sandvine equipment, but posting rumors, he said she said, and "We found a receipt in the corporate dumpster from Sandvine so that's proof" is hardly news, and frankly, its boring. Find some new "news" please. | |
| | Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA | Re: Getting boring Its a reporting method aimed at getting a result from Comcast, get over it.
Seriously, if you need more excitement (ie. bright colors) to your "news" needs, then I suggest you watch Fox News. | |
| | CMoore2004
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Jonesville, MI | You're right, posting things relative to Internet connectivity on a broadband forum is absolutely absurd. | |
| 
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| Sandvine will issue a 'clarification' stating (pigshit protection required) some nonsensical poppy_effin_cock to provide crapcast an escape hatch of plausible deniability.
Whether the phenom of shill-dom we've come to know and love can ever be addressed without a team of doctors from Helsinki deep within study involving the link between corporate idolization and good old fashioned ass kissing is unknown.
--
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
-Oscar Wilde | |
| zed260
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN | personaly i could care less if they block it or not but denying something thats true is 5 times worse | |
| | | 
CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12 | Whats the point? I dont think Comcast ever said they do not use Sandvine. I believe they said they do mangage their networks as they see fit.
--
CableTechs.org/"Horrible People with Integrity" | |
| |
See 34 replies to this post | |
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY | Hammertime Comcast: the other half of the DeathStar! (those incomplete spaces where your torrent data should be)
comcast killed the bittorrent star!
ask not, what your isp can do for you, but what mc hammer can do for your isp. | |
| 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| WTF? Is BBR rewriting history or what?
BBR says this...
"Proof that Comcast Contracted with Sandvine
Will Comcast continue denying their contract?"
I don't recall comcast ever denying they had a contract with Sandvine.
They said they don't disclose who their vendors are.
They said they don't block access to bit torrent.
People should also note it's clearly against comcasts TOS to even use servers..which bit torrent is..when you're "seeding". These users are in violation of Comcasts TOS on several levels..from creating havoc with the rest of us to running servers that they aren't supposed to be running.
COMCAST HAS THE RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR NETWORK FROM ABUSERS in order to deliver quality service to the 95% + of us who do NOT abuse the network.
And who in their right mind really believes they have any obligation whatsoever to disclose who and what they use as security precautions? What will you expect next..that your bank you use sends you a memo detailing where their alarms are located and cameras are positioned?
Some of you folks are just way out there with your expectations and your continual hammering of Comcast on this issue.
I.and many others who are customers of Comcast have a great experience using this service.
And, we fully support comcast in their efforts to maintain exactly that.
I'm sorry if you have a problem with that.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| |
See 33 replies to this post | |
koam
Pink Pecker
Premium
join:2000-08-16
East Puddle
clubs: | whoa the black helicopters are circling. | |
| Daddio1949
join:2000-12-13
Rockville, MD
| Just a Comment I have no stake in this matter at except that I had Comcast TV and internet. Last week we terminated our service with Comcast; they were not the only kid on the block. We moved on to Verizon Fios. In general, Comcast's TV & internet service was good except when something went wrong. For instance, our internet service degraded to a dial up speed; the problem was the line outside our house. I complained to Comcast about the decrease in speed. It took Comcast nearly a month before they performed the repair, only after I complained to the county.
More importantly, I understand that Comcast has not been doing as well financially as they had been. They have been losing customers. Maybe the bleeding has just begun? | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Just a Comment said by Daddio1949 :More importantly, I understand that Comcast has not been doing as well financially as they had been. They have been losing customers. Maybe the bleeding has just begun? LMAO - need I say more?
Maybe I should - companies have periods of down turn all the time. Based on your own statement, at&t, verizon, and qwest should all be out of business soon too?
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| 
MIRV
join:2000-12-01
Louisville, KY
| I love sour grapes comanies Companies behaving unethically and possibly criminally? (forging user's packets)
Well I never.
They want to sell you a fast connection internet. They'll take your money for access to the internet. They just don't want you to actually use the internet. Nice.
I'll sell you a car, but you are not allowed to drive it on the interstate. I just want to prevent you from possibly speeding.
Won't someone please think of the pr0n?
--
Capitalism and Democracy are mutually exclusive | |
| 
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| To put things in perspective.... A decade ago, when these cable providers began deployment, Routers were a TOS violation. You were expected to purchase a separate IP address for each computer on location.
A firewall was your problem to figure out.
What changed? Consumers installed routers anyway, and jumped ship for less restrictive DSL providers when CableCos became too heavy handed. They demanded reasonable product usage for their money. People communicated in news groups, BBS's and forums; where they increased their annoyance and resolve.
Pretty much the same thing that is happening here.
If you think the premise of consumer disobedience to secure greater value for the dollar is ethically flawed, are you prepared to purchase a separate IP for each PC wherever you are?
That would be the philosophically consistent thing to do.
NV
--
My children used to Speak in Tongues. But after years of Speech Therapy, English is their First Language! | |
| | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | Re: To put things in perspective.... Good comparison. | |
| 
PreacherCA
@rogers.com
| small percentage of impacted users I read somewhere that the shaping, or blocking, or download capping, only effects .001% of users on their network. If it's such a small percentage of users being effected by these practices, why even bother?
To me the current tiering of services is just silly. I'm currently on a 6MB service, and I often see download speeds in excess of 900 Kb/s, and I'm capped at 100GB per month. I'd willingly pay up to $100 a month for even 4MB service if it came with no cap. What good is faster if you can only consume so much? Let's be realistic, 18M service is not for those people checking their email and surfing the web, it's for those people downloading videos and music, we know it, the ISP's know it, and they need to just stop deluding themselves that faster download is all that matters. | |
| 
richdelb
Go Hawks Go
Premium
join:2003-01-22
Algonquin, IL
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Kick abusers off? I don't use BT, and rarely even comment on the topic. Simply isn't very important to me.
That being said... The only thing that troubles me about the whole topic is this: If P2P and BT are violating the Comcast TOS, why not just kick those users off?
Why use Sandvine or other means to "Manage" the traffic of people who are breaking your TOS in the first place? Is it a violation of the TOS or not? Is it not more cost effective to remove those who abuse your TOS than to spend the time and effort to "manage" the traffic of those same abusers.
Is it that Comcast can't identify those user's who abuse the TOS? (That seems impossible to me, but I am not an ISP, so perhaps they just don't know) | |
| | | |
|
·
·
Contract doesn't prove size of deal