Re: COMCRAP in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18953775 en Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:55:17 EDT Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:55:17 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18988256 anon : Beaverton and Portland Oregon]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18988256 Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:19:53 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18969054 funchords :
said by tshirt See Profile :

As to why they are in denial about it (other than obvious security/ operation concerns) I'd guess that's input from the PR dept. and therefore likely has little resemblance to reality
... 'Three point shot from mid-court --- SCORE!!!' :o ;)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18969054 Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:47:55 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18967947 tshirt :
said by funchords See Profile :

I don't get the "Massive Connections" being an issue. Perhaps you can explain that one to me. Comcast's routers don't need to be stateful (like a SOHO router does), they just need to route IP. An idle TCP/IP connection is not "chatty" so what's the beef if I happen to open several hundred of them (if I can)? [don't flame me -- it's an honest question -- if I'm wrong, teach me!]

That's true, but my take on it is that they're better than that. Despite all the heat that these threads have raised, Comcast has been a relatively good ISP over the years.



BitTorrent clients like uTorrent and Azureus/Vuze have bandwidth autotuning that throttles down the upload speeds (Azureus also does download) if network latency increases.

Innovations like that sure seems a like a key part of the solution to me.

All that to say this: Yes, it's their call. But, Comcast would be hard pressed to honestly say that a filetransfer was having a negative impact on the Comcast network if the program itself is constantly monitoring and effectively acting to prevent it.
I doubt torrents or any other app, open large number of connections just to sit idle (unless by poor design) there is always some overhead, no matter how small.
For CC to rely on the autotuning feature is essentially turning control of that latency adjustment over to a third party app on thousands of machines, without control over how it is configured, or the ability to set the limits ads they see fit.
CC also has an overriding interest to be sure their own services (VoIP, IP video, game invasion and normal client transfers) receive the HIGHEST QoS priority
sandvine allows them to add a new, almost stateful like inspection to packets on their network and deprioritize certain traffic/ use patterns.
I do agree that overall Comcast has been a fairly good ISP and think that taking better control over latency, etc.

I also believe that they would not have agreed to (most likely) millions in licensing, hardware/changes, and maintenance to sandvine unless they believed it would assist in providing a better user experience to the majority of their customer base.
In fact any difficult you now have might be due to the initial tuning and testing phase as they iron out any bugs in network wide usage.
As to why they are in denial about it (other than obvious security/ operation concerns) I'd guess that's input from the PR dept. and therefore likely has little resemblance to reality]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18967947 Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:55:01 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18967574 funchords :
said by tshirt See Profile :

said by bmn See Profile I need proof from people claiming that BT is "interfering with the operation of their [Comcast's :

network."
Well take a deep breath, hold it, hold it, hold it, and I'll get back to you soon. ;)
Sorry, No PROOF will be provided
I put forth 3 possible reason why I believe comcast would choose to block/slow torrent activity
1}bandwidth usage
2}massive connections/virus like activity
3}massive connections/ router/network overload
any of which COULD be seen as interference
I don't get the "Massive Connections" being an issue. Perhaps you can explain that one to me. Comcast's routers don't need to be stateful (like a SOHO router does), they just need to route IP. An idle TCP/IP connection is not "chatty" so what's the beef if I happen to open several hundred of them (if I can)? [don't flame me -- it's an honest question -- if I'm wrong, teach me!]

said by tshirt See Profile :

and none of which needs to meet your or my burden of proof to violate the TOS, the only burden of proof is
In the sole opinion of Comcast that it interferes or disrupts their network.
That's true, but my take on it is that they're better than that. Despite all the heat that these threads have raised, Comcast has been a relatively good ISP over the years.

Charter just announced a 16/1 Tier, and I know Comcast has these, too. That's rather irresponsible, isn't it? All it takes is 3 wide-open BitTorrent downloads (or any kind of downloads) to slow down a whole neighborhood.

BitTorrent clients like uTorrent and Azureus/Vuze have bandwidth autotuning that throttles down the upload speeds (Azureus also does download) if network latency increases.

Innovations like that sure seems a like a key part of the solution to me.

All that to say this: Yes, it's their call. But, Comcast would be hard pressed to honestly say that a filetransfer was having a negative impact on the Comcast network if the program itself is constantly monitoring and effectively acting to prevent it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18967574 Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:49:11 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18967004 bmn :
said by tshirt See Profile :

...the only burden of proof is
In the sole opinion of Comcast that it interferes or disrupts their network...
There is an old saying... Opinions are like assholes; everyone has one but some are full of shit.

:D
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18967004 Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:23:58 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18966645 tshirt :
said by bmn See Profile I need proof from people claiming that BT is "interfering with the operation of their [Comcast's :

network."
Well take a deep breath, hold it, hold it, hold it, and I'll get back to you soon. ;)
Sorry, No PROOF will be provided
I put forth 3 possible reason why I believe comcast would choose to block/slow torrent activity
1}bandwidth usage
2}massive connections/virus like activity
3}massive connections/ router/network overload
any of which COULD be seen as interference
and none of which needs to meet your or my burden of proof to violate the TOS, the only burden of proof is
In the sole opinion of Comcast that it interferes or disrupts their network.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18966645 Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:27:22 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18966365 tshirt :
said by funchords See Profile :

To both of you --

I'm curious what further proof that you feel is needed? Have you read the thread that is linked to my sigline? The evidence is plain -- not to mention that the procedure is clearly spelled out in their patent!
I browsed through your other threads and agree something is effect your downloads in a sandvine like manner.
In most cases it appeared to be at the edge of the CC network or perhaps at the edge of the AT&T network, however you did post one example where it appeared to be effecting a purely CC to CC user transfer.
so I must agree that CC is using sandvine
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18966365 Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:42:27 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18966241 tshirt :
said by grandpinaple See Profile :

Then it's time to upgrade to meet user demand. BT users may be a minority, but they are a significant minority. They bring in other low use customers and they may be a minority percentage wise, but in sheer numbers they are large.
Which CC is constantly doing.
But you (they) don't just run down to walmart and buy 10,000 cisco routers and plug them in.
there are engineering studies, finding/build rack space which means adding power, backup power,power conditioning, cooling, fire suppression, etc. then you probably need to add backhaul fiber, node splits and so on. and more deskspace at the NOC to manage and monitor said equipment, plus more technical staff to maintain it.
Not only are you talking about millions/billion of $ (all within current budget, and with careful choices of equipment, so as not to become obsolete at the next major upgrade), but months/years of planning and design (wasted $ means higher bills to customers)
So demand will always out strip supply.
You suggest a massive, out of planned cycle upgrade to the plant for either
a}a small portion of the customer base, who are using far above the planned typical user resources, and already complain that what they pay is too much and that they will leave at the drop of the hat for other providers
or
b} a growing percentage of customers (10-20%) who have recent discovered much higher bandwidth applications, but are likely to feel priced out of the service, if asked to shoulder the true costs of the improvement and bandwidth bills

all of which while attempting to keep the service usable and affordable for the other 80-90% of your customer base (group C), who are paying 80-90% of the income for your business.

a Massive rush buildout for group a} (who are driving peak demand, MAY generate some additional low-use customers (but probably not as much as a similar $ spent on promos and plant area expansions), and certainly promote high churn rates) makes no sense.

a carefully planned buildout to meet the needs of b} as well as bandwidth control to keep it usable/affordable for c} make a better model for continued long term growth.

In this this case being in the a}'s (cutting edge, geeky, elite, greedy) pushes you outside their desirable customer envelope at least under the current flat rate/no contract model (yes there are several tiers, but that's more about speed than volume)
Should they go to a longterm contract, price per byte system?
That introduces something the cable companies have carefully avoided, becoming a creditor......unlike the current prepaid model PPB means you have to collect fees from the user after the fact even some ordinary users might end up using more that they are prepared to pay. and certainly some of the a} group would run up $$$ in bandwidth fees and default (my impression is many of the BT users down load movies, etc. and *nix etc. because it is "free") leaving the company and the remaining customers holding the bag/bill.
monthly fees to c} group would likely not drop, b} group would rise somewhat, and only the most dedictaed, well-heeled a}'s would remain. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18966241 Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:21:57 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18965876 funchords :
said by Lordicon :

well..I can't connect to any p2p or torrents....
What city are you in? Are others in your city similarly affected?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18965876 Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:23:47 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18965553 grandpinaple : Then it's time to upgrade to meet user demand. BT users may be a minority, but they are a significant minority. They bring in other low use customers and they may be a minority percentage wise, but in sheer numbers they are large.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18965553 Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:24:06 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18962587 anon : well..I can't connect to any p2p or torrents....so I'm ditching these bozos. DNS has always been crap and their routing sux. I'm moving soon anyways so I'll go live in an area served by FIoS.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18962587 Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:37:04 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18961143 bmn :
said by funchords See Profile :

I'm curious what further proof that you feel is needed? Have you read the thread that is linked to my sigline? The evidence is plain -- not to mention that the procedure is clearly spelled out in their patent!
I need proof from people claiming that BT is "interfering with the operation of their [Comcast's] network."
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18961143 Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:40:40 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18959927 funchords :
said by formercanuck :

Gotta love 3rd party DSL resellers like DSL Extreme... no traffic shaping, and any port blocking is listed.
I've been giving that a lot of thought, myself. I've had DSL 3 times. I've subscribed to Verizon directly, and I've subscribed to resellers on two different occasions.

As a power user, I really appreciated the way that the resellers worked. They were much more eager to make me happy!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18959927 Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:38:28 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18959913 funchords :
said by bmn See Profile :

said by tshirt See Profile :

even if comcast is blocking torrents specifically (so far un-PROVEN) I would doubt they know or care about the legality of the content, merely that it is interfering with the operation of their network.
The statement that Bittorrent is "interfering with the operation of their network" is also an "un-PROVEN" statement...
To both of you --

I'm curious what further proof that you feel is needed? Have you read the thread that is linked to my sigline? The evidence is plain -- not to mention that the procedure is clearly spelled out in their patent!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18959913 Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:36:21 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18959846 funchords :
said by dvd536 See Profile :

Simple then. cap your download until you've seeded how much you want.
This really is a good idea, folks.

For any particular torrent, set your upload limit at 20kB/s, set your download limit to about 15kB/s of this. You should be able to complete your download with a great ratio every time!

The exception might be old torrents that have few peers, but it's always been tough to make a ratio on those -- with or without Comcast's "management" getting in the way.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18959846 Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:28:41 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18957497 dvd536 : Simple then. cap your download until you've seeded how much you want.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18957497 Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:03:17 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18957236 tshirt :
said by bmn See Profile :

said by tshirt See Profile :

even if comcast is blocking torrents specifically (so far un-PROVEN) I would doubt they know or care about the legality of the content, merely that it is interfering with the operation of their network.
The statement that Bittorrent is "interfering with the operation of their network" is also an "un-PROVEN" statement...
Notice the if (I'm not yet convinced it is happening) In fact I am convinced that ComCast would only choose to do this, if in fact it was interfering with network operations or under legal duress (which I am sure we would have heard about by now.)
The third Problem large numbers of torrents could cause for network operations is the sheer number of connections.
Let's say 2 of CC's 12 million HSI customers are running BT or similar with an average of 50 connections, that's 100 million connections above the normal/expected traffic hitting CC's routers, DNS, CRAN, etc.
If you have been reading the boards here for even a couple years, you might have read about the rapidly rising route congestion, CC routers dropping packets, DNS failing to respond, etc.,etc.
Just like some basic home routers become overwhelmed by excessive connections, so do their big brothers at CC given enough traffic.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18957236 Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:49:41 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18957034 sanitarium09 : They'll lie about anything that will effect the bottom line in the same way that they'll cut someone off if they deem them to be using too much bandwidth. They never define "unlimited" because they want you too believe that it is. If anything they should start listing unlimited as "Unlimited*" in their ads. Every corporation that has ever existed is worried about one thing and one thing only, money.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18957034 Mon, 27 Aug 2007 01:36:28 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18956855 gizmopt2002 : I have a cousin that works there in California. lol.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18956855 Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:44:16 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18956185 anon : Gotta love 3rd party DSL resellers like DSL Extreme... no traffic shaping, and any port blocking is listed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18956185 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:24:06 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18956028 bmn :
said by tshirt See Profile :

even if comcast is blocking torrents specifically (so far un-PROVEN) I would doubt they know or care about the legality of the content, merely that it is interfering with the operation of their network.
The statement that Bittorrent is "interfering with the operation of their network" is also an "un-PROVEN" statement...
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18956028 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:20:50 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18955113 grandpinaple : It is not whether it is legal or illegal they are doing this because they don't like bittorent since it strains their network. Pirating encourages people to get HSI so why would Comcast want to filter it. Comcast just realized that with bitorrent the law of diminishing returns comes into play.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18955113 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 19:22:29 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954960 ARGONAUT : With overloading nodes it's difficult too tell.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954960 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:54:12 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954712 Morac :
said by b10010011 See Profile :

Now here is the problem, if you watch the download will get to 99% and stay there a while. This is because you are required to SHARE a certain amount of the update (That means sending data) before you are allowed to get to 100% complete and continue..
That isn't true, I've downloaded 100% without uploading a single byte. It happened recently so I'm guessing it was caused by the upload blocking.

That said if Comcast users are blocked from uploading then the amount of seeders drops dramatically (since Comcast is the largest ISP in the U.S.). If the number of seeders drops too low, then downloading will be very, very slow.
--

The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954712 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:13:01 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954468 53059959 :
said by Mactron See Profile :

Simple solution... don't use them. ;) :D
if its the only broadband option then your out of luck.

this boils down to a network neutrality debate. in the end the power-user like most of us at this site will be alienated and forced to create our own underground network.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954468 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:35:58 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954228 funchords :
said by Cheese See Profile :

said by deletedpost :

she believes bit-torrent = illegal
And if 90 percent of the content wasn't illegal, I don't think Comcast would be doing this, now would they? :uhh: :uhh:
Let's see...

2/3rds to 3/4ths of Internet traffic is P2P. All P2P protocols use the TCP/IP protocol to transfer files.

Therefore, by your reasoning, it's okay if Comcast bans the TCP/IP protocol since most of what is carried on it is illegal.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954228 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:57:56 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954181 RARPSL :
said by LiberalKing See Profile :

WILL ALWAYS BE COMCRAP
and if cablevision fOllows this fraud ILL SUE THEM
As a Cablevision user who uses BT I can state that CV is screwing around with any attempt to run a BT session (even just downloading). For the past week or so, as soon as I attempt to start to do a download, the peers shut down and go inactive. This is not a torrent that I am seeding but one where I have no pieces to seed in the first place. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954181 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:50:55 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954109 tshirt :
said by Done_Posting See Profile :

The Sandvine product is meant to block seeding (uploading after finishing a downloaded torrent), but in reality they also are rate limiting the download side of things too. They may be using a bucket method of rate limiting, or they may simply limit the number of possible connections to something relatively low, like 50 or 100 concurrent connections per modem.
That speaks to aspect of the other problem.
from a network management view even if available bandwidth is far less limited as with fiber, a client that persistantly attempt to make dozens to hundreds of connection across multiple ports, looks a lot like worm or DoS activity, something that ISP's have an obligation (morally, if not legally) to block/restrict.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954109 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:38:20 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954106 PolarBear :
said by Cheese See Profile :

They aren't "blocking" you from getting the file from what I am reading, once it's done and you start sending is when this is happening.
But that is how BT works. If nobody is allowed to seed, nobody can download, either. That is why it is called file sharing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954106 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:38:01 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954043 b10010011 :
said by Cheese See Profile :

said by Omega See Profile :

I play World of Warcraft. Created by a legitimate company (Blizzard), bought and paid for legally. The folks over at Blizzard have determined that the best way to distribute updates for the game is via a client that uses the same protocol as bittorrent.

So, if I was to have comcast, you are pretty much saying they have every right to block the needed data in order for me to play the game.

They aren't "blocking" you from getting the file from what I am reading, once it's done and you start sending is when this is happening.
When you upddate WOW through the client it uses bit torrent protocol.

Now here is the problem, if you watch the download will get to 99% and stay there a while. This is because you are required to SHARE a certain amount of the update (That means sending data) before you are allowed to get to 100% complete and continue.

If they block you from sending then they are also blocking you from receiving the update.

Gaming on Comcast is Comcraptic, I had better ping times to game servers ten years ago on dial-up.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954043 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:24:29 EDT Sure they would. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954015 Noah Vail : Separate Justification from Reason and you'll see why.

NV ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954015 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:19:49 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954011 Done_Posting :
said by tshirt See Profile :

Best?
Or cheapest (for blizzard)? Rather than Blizzard have a large number of high capacity servers, and paying for high capacity connection at peak bandwidth rates, they seed a few hundred/thousand torrents a spread the cost and bandwidth demand to others.
even if comcast is blocking torrents specifically (so far un-PROVEN) I would doubt they know or care about the legality of the content, merely that it is interfering with the operation of their network.
You beat me to it (see above) -- you hit the nail right on the head. Good post, especially the part about the ISP not caring about the legality of the files being transferred. Your ISP cannot be held liable for what you do with their service, as long as it's not hosted on their servers. Their only interest is in keeping the network unsaturated.

- Tate

--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18954011 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:18:38 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953999 Rick : Baaaa...Baaaaa..

:p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953999 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:15:30 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953998 hottboiinnc : You can sue and get what? a promotional price for service the company offers at most what 5 or 10% off maybe CableTV?

If they don't end up with your house because you spent all your money trying to sue them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953998 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:15:25 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953994 Done_Posting : The Sandvine product is meant to block seeding (uploading after finishing a downloaded torrent), but in reality they also are rate limiting the download side of things too. They may be using a bucket method of rate limiting, or they may simply limit the number of possible connections to something relatively low, like 50 or 100 concurrent connections per modem. That would in effect slow your torrent download because you're unable receive as many pieces of a torrent at a time.

World of Warcraft is an excellent example of a legitimate use of P2P technology. Blizzard doesn't want to have to pay for bandwidth, so instead of hosting their own files in massive data centers (as some might argue that they should), they rely on ISP's to carry bare the burden of their game file transfers. Definitely a win-win scenario for Blizzard, not so much for the ISP's.

- Tate

--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953994 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:14:39 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953976 tshirt :
said by Omega See Profile :

I play World of Warcraft. Created by a legitimate company (Blizzard), bought and paid for legally. The folks over at Blizzard have determined that the best way to distribute updates for the game is via a client that uses the same protocol as bittorrent.

Best?
Or cheapest (for blizzard)? Rather than Blizzard have a large number of high capacity servers, and paying for high capacity connection at peak bandwidth rates, they seed a few hundred/thousand torrents a spread the cost and bandwidth demand to others.
even if comcast is blocking torrents specifically (so far un-PROVEN) I would doubt they know or care about the legality of the content, merely that it is interfering with the operation of their network.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953976 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:10:03 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953928 bmn :
said by Omega See Profile :

Plus allowing companies to block stuff like this could set a dangerous precedent. What if Comcast suddenly decides that DSLR should be blocked because they have negative articles about the company?
[sarcasm]
Corporations can do whatever they want... You don't mean crap and you are subservient to the desires, wishes and profit motives of those companies and to believe otherwise is un-American. So bend over and take it like a good American.
[/sarcasm]

Okay, I don't believe that, but that is the basis of the arguments in favor of this type of activity by Comcast.

And quit giving upper management ideas... ;)
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953928 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:58:51 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953909 Cheese :
said by Omega See Profile :

I play World of Warcraft. Created by a legitimate company (Blizzard), bought and paid for legally. The folks over at Blizzard have determined that the best way to distribute updates for the game is via a client that uses the same protocol as bittorrent.

So, if I was to have comcast, you are pretty much saying they have every right to block the needed data in order for me to play the game.

Just because it CAN be used for something illegal doesn't give them the right to block the protocol entirely. If that was the case then we wouldn't have Xerox machines, CD/DVD burners, VCR's, the list can go on and on.

Plus allowing companies to block stuff like this could set a dangerous precedent. What if Comcast suddenly decides that DSLR should be blocked because they have negative articles about the company?
They aren't "blocking" you from getting the file from what I am reading, once it's done and you start sending is when this is happening. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953909 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:54:58 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953873 Omega :
said by supergirl See Profile :

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by LiberalKing See Profile :

WILL ALWAYS BE COMCRAP
and if cablevision fOllows this fraud ILL SUE THEM
Sue away. You will just be throwing your money down a rat hole. You have no chance of winning.
Agreed. Stupid to sue over your lack of being able to download illegal stuff. :uhh:
I play World of Warcraft. Created by a legitimate company (Blizzard), bought and paid for legally. The folks over at Blizzard have determined that the best way to distribute updates for the game is via a client that uses the same protocol as bittorrent.

So, if I was to have comcast, you are pretty much saying they have every right to block the needed data in order for me to play the game.

Just because it CAN be used for something illegal doesn't give them the right to block the protocol entirely. If that was the case then we wouldn't have Xerox machines, CD/DVD burners, VCR's, the list can go on and on.

Plus allowing companies to block stuff like this could set a dangerous precedent. What if Comcast suddenly decides that DSLR should be blocked because they have negative articles about the company?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953873 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:48:50 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953812 Cheese :
said by deleted post :

she believes bit-torrent = illegal
And if 90 percent of the content wasn't illegal, I don't think Comcast would be doing this, now would they? :uhh: :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953812 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:36:06 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953775 supergirl :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by LiberalKing See Profile :

WILL ALWAYS BE COMCRAP
and if cablevision fOllows this fraud ILL SUE THEM
Sue away. You will just be throwing your money down a rat hole. You have no chance of winning.
Agreed. Stupid to sue over your lack of being able to download illegal stuff. :uhh:
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953775 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:27:30 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953761 Cheese :
said by LiberalKing See Profile :

keep sticking for the big corps sheep.
Since I don't use BT, doesn't really affect me. Also, sheep? Um :uhh: ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953761 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:23:17 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953759 TKJunkMail :
said by LiberalKing See Profile :

WILL ALWAYS BE COMCRAP
and if cablevision fOllows this fraud ILL SUE THEM
Sue away. You will just be throwing your money down a rat hole. You have no chance of winning.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953759 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:22:59 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953758 Mactron :
said by LiberalKing See Profile :

WILL ALWAYS BE COMCRAP
...
Simple solution... don't use them. ;) :D
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953758 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:22:57 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953754 LiberalKing : keep sticking for the big corps sheep.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953754 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:21:46 EDT Re: COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953745 Cheese :
said by LiberalKing See Profile :

WILL ALWAYS BE COMCRAP
and if cablevision fOllows this fraud ILL SUE THEM
Fraud? Three letters, TOS :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953745 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:20:05 EDT COMCRAP http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953725 LiberalKing : WILL ALWAYS BE COMCRAP
and if cablevision fOllows this fraud ILL SUE THEM ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18953725 Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:16:15 EDT