espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Irony?
"the hands off the Internet coalition, spearheaded by AT&T, has written a letter to the FCC asking them to investigate Comcast for network neutrality abuses."
Pot, meet kettle. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | and that's our broadband policy
...posturing and games |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19 | and our foreign policy...
and our economic policy...
etc.. etc.. |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
3 edits | reply to espaeth
Re: Irony?
said by espaeth  :" the hands off the Internet coalition, spearheaded by AT&T, has written a letter to the FCC asking them to investigate Comcast for network neutrality abuses." Pot, meet kettle. They want to block p2p too ... After all, its reasonable network management. But users opting for our special Tier, which includes p2p for only $9.99 extra! Ask us about our special veterans day sale VOIP Tier!
Cha-CHING $$$$$$$$$$$$$@!
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon |
|
sm2016a
join:2004-03-02
Belleville, IL
 ·VoipYourLife
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :" the hands off the Internet coalition, spearheaded by AT&T, has written a letter to the FCC asking them to investigate Comcast for network neutrality abuses." Pot, meet kettle. This was a good laugh this morning. AT&T won't block you they will just keep limiting the speed you can get from them and then give your data to the NSA. Now that sounds like a winner....Not! |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| heh
No honor among oligopolies, eh? I guess an investigation would be worthwhile, telecoms should not be able to screw with network traffic like that. I'm keenly interested in what laws/prior agreements can be used to stop them from doing it.
Shocked that AT&T would call for something that can be used against them, though. The only use I could see would be to test the water, if Comcast gets away with it then they fill follow... if not, a competitor takes a hit. |
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
1 edit | Can't the sock puppet read?
Well DUH! Comcast's TOS clearly states no servers. P2P is a server.
If you want a server, rent one from one of the bazillion hosting companies on the Net.
--
Meet Bill and Karolyn at www.theslowskys.com |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by ib50MbSoon :Well DUH! Comcast's TOS clearly states no servers. P2P is a server. So is every chat program out there. Should we ban those too? How about video conferencing? |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
1 edit | reply to ib50MbSoon
Well, DUH! EVERYTHING today is a server!
There are more home servers out there today then commercial ones.
Ever hear of Skype? 44 million others have! Skype runs on a p2p protocol. Guess what? Skype is a server.
If Comcast and others strictly enforced their ToS, 3/4 of their customers would be kicked off their network! How do you think THAT would affect their bottom line?
Let me clue you into something...you don't need a
10 mbit/1mbit connection to browse the web and do email.
Why do you think they offer such big pipes? For us to run servers!
Their ToS is the cable equalivent of "Don't ask, don't tell". |
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: Can't the sock puppet read?
said by moonpuppy :So is every chat program out there. Should we ban those too? How about video conferencing? Are chat programs bandwidth-intensive applications that run unattended 24/7?
--
Meet Bill and Karolyn at www.theslowskys.com |
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| reply to qworster
Re: Well, DUH! EVERYTHING today is a server!
said by qworster :Ever hear of Skype? 44 million others have! Skype runs on a p2p protocol. Guess what? Skype is a server. Is skype a bandwidth-intensive app that sucks your connection dry 24/7/365?
--
Meet Bill and Karolyn at www.theslowskys.com |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
| reply to axus
Re: heh
This post has some info on it,»Re: A rational debate on Comcast traffic management and you can read all about it at »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality |
|
hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
clubs:
| reply to qworster
Re: Well, DUH! EVERYTHING today is a server!
said by qworster :If Comcast and others strictly enforced their ToS, 3/4 of their customers would be kicked off their network! How do you think THAT would affect their bottom line? But they are NOT strictly enforcing it are they?
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to ib50MbSoon
Re: Can't the sock puppet read?
said by ib50MbSoon :said by moonpuppy :So is every chat program out there. Should we ban those too? How about video conferencing? Are chat programs bandwidth-intensive applications that run unattended 24/7? They are still servers and therefore, against the TOS. |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| reply to ib50MbSoon
i'd hardly call all p2p stuff servers. servers imply there are clients. the server hosts some service (ftp, http, mail, game, etc.) for clients to use. i'd consider the majority p2p stuff more ad-hoc than server based. bittorrent (assuming you are not hosting a tracker) is more of a hybrid, but you are NOT the server, but only a client to the tracker server, but only a PEER to everyone else on the ad-hoc network. why do you think they call it 'PEER to PEER' anyways? this is no longer the traditional warez system of servers hosting the pirated material and clients downloading the files. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy :said by ib50MbSoon :Well DUH! Comcast's TOS clearly states no servers. P2P is a server. So is every chat program out there. Should we ban those too? How about video conferencing? We could argue that point -- offering an assortment of files for anonymous strangers to download seems a lot more "server-like" than a 1:1 connection streaming audio and video (or text) back and forth. I bet I'd win in court. 
[Please, spare us the dictionary definition, if anyone's thinking of pasting it in -- we've all read it and it's not really helpful to the conversation.] |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to ib50MbSoon
They don't say only "bandwidth-intensive" servers...all servers are a violation of the Comcast TOS/AUP. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to qworster
Re: Well, DUH! EVERYTHING today is a server!
The nice thing about a TOS is that it can be enforced selectively, even at a whim. This goes against the kindergarten "THAT'S NO FAIR" mentality that's pervaded our society, but that's life. |
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| reply to cornelius785
Re: Can't the sock puppet read?
said by cornelius785 : why do you think they call it 'PEER to PEER' anyways? I thought it was PIRATE to PIRATE. 
--
Meet Bill and Karolyn at www.theslowskys.com |
|
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs:
·Comcast
| True but I don't want some company clamping don't on p2p it will create a snow ball effect and they will say "Hey why not do it on our most bandwith intensive hours" If you offer the speed you can do 2 things
1. Offer the speed with out crippling it at all
2. Set up bandwith caps that clearly state your limit.
Personally I would rather be caped then have sandvine.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight |
|
