Some ISP Users Struggle To Reach Google > Apparently the user is bringing the problems on themselves..

reply to Rick

Re: Apparently the user is bringing the problems on themselves..

reply to fiberguy

reply to Rick

reply to fiberguy

reply to IhatemyISP

reply to Thaler
No, you're right.. they simply block ports and say "not at all"... is that any better?

In this VERY particular discussion, let's try something ... the VERY topic was the TOS itself.. and NOT what they are doing to "enforce" it. Keep Sandvine and what is and isn't out of this particular thread.

At the moment - I mentioned the TOS itself. People are complaining about the TOS. I mention Verizon's TOS for FiOS against Comcast and how they have the SAME TOS.

So.. ON TOPIC... what does this mean?

1) It's ok to have the TOS as long as it's not enforced?

2) It's ok because it's anyone BUT comcast or cable?

3) "we don't care because it's our beloved fiber"..

Or...? Add one.. BUT - keep it ON TOPIC.

That very "gotcha" IS in the FiOS TOS as it is in Comcast's. Fios simply says NO! and blocks it.. Comcast said NO.. we'll take your word that you're honest and will follow the terms and NOW is saying "NO!"

I think the issue here is a moral issue and where people place theirs. The ONLY right thing is that people engaged and agreed to a TOS. LEGALLY they are bound to, and ONLY to, the TOS they accepted - they ALL state that this is the agreement you follow. Yet, many people BELIEVE that "well, they allowed it and didn't enforce it with measures before, so it must be ok - but how dare they stop me since I've BEEN ABLE TO do it in the past?" (Which is the same as saying that cops would allow you to do 10 MPH over the limit before popping you and it was ok all along, but now they are going to get you when you break the actual posted. In this case, people ignore the posted sign and go by the belief and the "it's always been".)

What you're just not getting, either because you are fighting hard to make something you 'believe' correct, or you simply don't want to accept the truth and reality which is a matter of fact.

I won't bring this into another 200 post thread.. The topic is that VZ FIOS and COMCAST have the SAME T.O.S. but only Comcast gets hell when they take measures to enforce it where they hadn't prior. Sanvine, other X company, or a straight pin in your cable, I don't care how they block the traffic. The TOS states that they MAY TAKE ACTION.. and they have. VZ FiOS (I make it clear that i say FiOS since it has a different TOS) simply blocks ports - at least in some areas that I know of.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."

reply to ptrowski
Agreed.. and I'm glad you at least see the other side to it.

This forum/site, sadly, has a collective unwilling to stay on specific topics and loves to go on tangents about everything else including how comcast killed their cat in a DNS thread, for example, and in the end, the original point doesn't get discussed. (My guess is because maybe the original topic was never a topic worth discussing?)

peace.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."

reply to fiberguy

You're answering questions with questions?

Ok - we're down to the bottom line with you.. and I was right. It's what YOU want and what YOU 'BELIEVE'.. not fact. It's what YOU'D 'RATHER' things be...

So now we're not talking about facts.

Here's the reality and this is the end all. NO ONE, be it you, me, a business, corporation, or the government, HAVE TO enforce, 100% anything they state to their benefit.

Let me put a clear example in front of your face, and if you come back with any more 'yea but' comments.. then it's hopeless.. If Comcast, Verizon, ET ALL, were to sell you an UP TO 8MB connect.. then over provision your account so you can receive 9.5MB to which you have been getting for some time and you've noticed it, THEN they decide to shave that back down to 8MB and again you notice.. based on YOUR reasoning (key word, "REASONING" which really holds no water legally) you would have been deceived and, most likely, "cheated"..

Here's what we have:

1) You were sold an UP TO speed up 8MB
2) You got more all along and noticed it.
3) They cut back and you're upset because you're not getting less. Your reasoning is "I've always been able to get more than what they said in the first place, so they are taking away from me.
4) You cry foul.
5) Provisioned at 8MB, your actual speeds are now about 7.5mb.
6) You're upset that you're actually getting 50Kbps less that the "up to" speeds forgetting the count of over head.
7) The TOS even accounts for network conditions and over head.
8) You still continue to argue that you are not getting what you're supposed to. (Which is acceptable in DSL, but not Cable usually)

This is a pretty accurate description of what you're saying.

It all boils down to your own line of reasoning. The problem is, we're talking about legal definitions. You can reason all you want but you're not going to change anything.

To go further, as a customer, you can say "well I'll take my business elsewhere" or "I'll vote with my wallet" which is fine - go for it. (where you can)

Problem is that the other players will likely do the same thing at some point, if not already do in some cases. Why is that? Because they all write their TOS from the same fabric of terms, definitions, and legal wording. What does that tell you, ok, MOST people... it says that while you are trying to set a precedence in your own reasoning - you're the one in left field on this.

Key is 'reasoning' and 'reality' - they are two different things.

Let me throw something at you "TO THINK ABOUT"..

From: »esupport.huxcomm.net/AUP.shtml

This company serves a portion of Central Iowa and is a fiber to the home provider in parts. They are THE telephone, voice, and data in most parts and only compete with MediaCom in a section.

Their TOS states SPECIFICALLY:

"e. Sexually Explicit Material. Using the Services to transmit any material (by email, uploading, downloading or otherwise) that contains explicit or graphic descriptions or accounts of sexual acts including but not limited to sexual language of a violent or threatening nature directed at another individual or group of individuals."

According to this TOS, no porn means "NO PORN" - As over reaching as this term is, it's still a term that ALL USERS HAVE AGREED TO. Yet, I can guarantee that everyone does it at some point. HuxCom doesn't boot people off their lines for it. Same as Comcast hasn't always enforced the BT Server in the past but now are. What if HuxCom decides they want to enforce the no porn clause at some point. Are you still being sold an orange and getting a grape? The answer is NO. It simply says they reserve the right to boot people for this violation. In your terms, it's "JUST THE INTERNET AND THAT'S ALL I WANT." Again, because that's what you say it is.. HuxCom, in this case, says otherwise in their agreement.

This is exactly an example of what comcast has to say in their TOS regarding servers, which BT is.

I could care less about Comcast and their TOS. Unlike many, I made the right choice to have a second line that allows activity on it that comcast doesn't and spend the money. Others don't want to spend the money and believe they shouldn't. Again, there's that belief again.

I could come straight out and simply say "you are just plain wrong and you don't want to admit it"... You're fighting a fight that you're never going to win.

And really.. It's been fun, but I won't respond to you any more, on this topic, in any thread. Speaking to you, any more, is like speaking to a brick wall. If we were talking about something that didn't have a hard definition already, then I'd be happy to go on. But, you're refusing to even accept the legal definition of things we are talking about and it's pointless to waste any more time on this.

As in the other thread, I will not read any more responses here and I will put you on ignore if you follow this onto yet another topic. It's enough - you're just getting down right silly in your posts and I'm not interested any more.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."

(edit) I figured the rest of my post would just confuse things...so, my addressing the OT sections has been removed.

Simple question, simple answer. If I promise you a service, yet don't provide it, have I deceived you? Have I lied to you? Answer those questions, and you'll have your "why is Comcast being picked on" answer.

There were mixed signals coming out of Comcast, one of which out of their own PR department that BT wasn't being filtered. However, proof mounts (even on Comcast's own FAQs) that things are anything but. TOSes, laws, technology, etc. have nothing to do with this other than Comcast's PR being caught in a fib.

There. Post is short, sweet, and to the point.

Fair..

But - years of TOS that have never changed vs. one half ass statement made to someone who asked a question doesn't change everything bud. That's what I've said to you over and over and over. You took the path of least resistance in this case.

Here in lies the rub: Comcast TOS,

15) General

a. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This agreement and any other documents incorporated by reference constitute the entire agreement and understanding between the parties ......

PR people mean nothing.. advertisements mean nothing (to a degree).. what DOES matter is when you install this software, you are presented a document - which 99% of people never read, but agree to. Read it or not, THIS is the very document that tells you in no uncertain terms WHAT IT IS you are buying.

Mr. PR man, right or wrong, and they make mistakes, or speak too soon, or what ever.. doesn't matter. The law understands that mistakes happen.. even if the PR guy did make a mistake, the TOS is why you are being pointed back to it on every post. The TOS *IS* your product.

There were not mixed signals. They could say all day long that they filter or they don't. NO ONE made the decision to purchase the product because of a statement someone supposedly said a few weeks ago. It's meaningless. TOS, Laws, and technology have EVERYTHING to do with this. What you call a fib, the law calls "what's in your contract?" A press statement isn't an agreement..
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."

I think this one would be hard to bring to court. Since there is no clear cut law which defines the internet, (think the so-called network neutrality debate that some people are trying to bring about) then it's pretty much a thing of "it's their network"... so far, I don't think there are any laws that would preempt a network provider from running their network the way they see fit. I believe that congress would have to pass a law to force the change.

Since they are able to mandate use requirements over the lines now, ie: business vs residential, they can clearly state that a residential line can't run a "server".. Same thing goes with dial tone. They are able to specifically state that no business use may be conducted on a residential line in many states and are able to enforce use restrictions.

I really don't think a law suit would turn this one around - if so, it would have been done a long time ago especially with the net-neut screaming going on right now.

By the way.. don't discount legal abilities... you never know what the other persons knowledge or affiliations are. I will say this, if I had any legal background, being this site is what it is, I'd not even form an opinion based on it. In my line of work, I am surrounded by lawyers from a few specific practice lines. I once quoted my own attorney based on an article posted on this very site and some "ill informed" person on the site told me that I and my crackpot lawyer were "full of Sh*t".. even though my lawyer happens to be on personal speaking terms with the magistrate (whom I also know personally) that was involved in the case. Those situation, I love to sit back and laugh because it just backs up a lot of what is suspected around here
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."

Your problem, AB, is you assume way too much in your postings. Sorry to say, your posts are more opinion than they are fact.

Seriously... start stating some facts in your posts and stop basing everything on your own account or your own life.. also, spend a little more time reading all the words in the posts you respond to as well.. you continuously pick out part of a message and leave other words out and then respond to an inaccurate meaning.

-fg
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."

*shrugs* I can really only talk from personal experience and news offerings. And when we're talking about subjects with no prior news precident, the only valid observations I can make are my own.

Yes, they are as equally statistically irrelevant in a big picture. I mean, I am but just one experience out of many. However, I'd rather talk about my own personal truths, than offer over-extrapolated hypothetical conjecture that so many like to assume to be fact.

Plus, some facts are just simply easier to take as fact. My internet posting is an off-time hobby, not a career. At a certain point of news/forum saturation (ie. WMDs in Iraq), its significantly easier to just post on a common floor, rather than add up every old news article to prove a point. If I feel like linking articles, I either felt it was necessary, or the links were avaliable on that very same page.

Basically, I'll leave people to take my posts as-is, or don't - its the reader's call. I have no assets personally vested in forum chit-chat, and I'm not one to feel personally hurt that someone poo-poos my points, only to go wander off ill-informed on the internet somewhere.