Comcast Invisi-Caps Rediscovered > I have never in my life

reply to Rick

Re: I have never in my life

reply to N3OGH

My father once went to an "all-you-can-eat" restaurant with a rather corpulent friend. When the friend went back for fourths, the cook served him and said, "And THAT is all you can eat."

reply to N3OGH

reply to Rick
maybe you need to get real... ever heard of the phrase, "truth in advertising"...? if any isp says they have unlimited (and unasterisked) usage, then it is what it is... the presumption that you don't think someone should have 300gb of downloads or hell, even uploads is none of your concern... if comcast offers it and someone takes advantage of it, then what is the issue...? also, it's none of your business what someone does with their internet account now is it mrs. cravetts...?

reply to Cabal
Yes, I really do exist. I also venture a guess I've done more for society in the past 10 years than you have, but I don't know you, so I won't sling arrows your way.

Like I'm actually sitting in a restaurant someplace eating for 5 hours. I believe this is the point of the discussion where I slap my forehead and say DUH.

I stand by my statement that his analogy was a bad one. He compares chaining a pickup truck to a buffet and dragging it off, to abusing your broadband internet connection.

One is a blatant, overt theft (The chain and truck thing). The other is a matter of semantics and judgement that changes from system to system.

Look, I'm not bashing Comcast. I'm not a heavy user of my internet connection, and if I download 2 songs from iTunes a month, that was a heavy month for me.

But, everyone knows it's illegal to drag a buffet away with a chain and a truck. Everyone KNOWS it's theft. Comcast doesn't tell you what the cap is, so until you violate it, you don't know.

Now if Comcast set a limit, told you not to cross it, and you repeatedly did, well then shame on you. You were forewarned and you did as you shouldn't.

Comcast has every right to regulate the use of their private network and to be sure a select few individuals aren't ruining the experience for everyone else.

But, you can't punish people for breaking rules you don't lay down. The cops can't write you a speeding ticket where the limit isn't clearly posted (in PA at least). If it's not in the contract, they can't hold you to it.'

Clearly spell it out, and put it in the contract. Then come down like a sack of rocks on the ones that don't do as they are told.

It's as easy as that...
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power…

reply to Asmodeus

reply to Rick
Hey RR how it going?
In most cases I am in agreement with you, What in your Opinion
is CC obligation to the Billing Account under the "TOS".(Please do not tell me to read it I asked for Opinion.
Thanks Bruce

PS just nosy I do not have them.

reply to Nightfall

reply to Rick
Actually it is a bad analogy. This very thing happened to a friend's football team. They were eating at a chinese buffet on Dundas just south of Erin Mills in Mississauga.

The owners told them to leave, they refused, he called the cops. The cops showed up and asked what the problem was after which he told the manager never to call him for that again and to let them finish eating.

If you advertise a service and then can't provide it, that is called false advertising and is a poorly constructed business model. You don't blame the consumer because YOU didn't believe , think it would be used to its fullest or more importantly plan on honouring your advertisement which oddly enough seems to be acceptable practice. Lie to people them blame them for following through on YOUR promise.

reply to kinglou0

reply to soldatenhund

reply to kinglou0

reply to N3OGH
How is the consumer expected to keep their usage non-abusive if they don't have a definition of abuse? For the people who would define abuse as "That which causes degradation for other users", how exactly do you accomplish non-abusive use? I can tell you how I attempt to do this. I run QoS to throttle my connection back to the point where I only occasionally add 1 millisecond of latency between my cable modem and anything else. I Ping my gateway, ping Yahoo, and I am not adding latency for myself. This way, I should see the impact of my usage before any one else would.

Responsible traffic shaping at the ISP would be difficult to even notice, and would end my need to throttle my connection, which I only do to be sure I am not dragging the neighborhood down. I am a responsible netizen.

The definition of abuse needs to be stated by the ISP. If it is stated as something similar to "Don't negatively impact other users", and I am doing everything that can be done on this end of the wire to be sure I am not abusive per their definition, I should have nothing to worry about, right?

I did about 80GB of transfer this month, and I put in real effort to make sure that my usage doesn't impact anyone negatively, using everything I can use on my end of the wire. Someone tell me, am I abusing my connection? If so, explain to me how I would go about knowing if I was abusing it, beyond what I am already doing.

And why should I bother when my ISP won't help?