Re: Policy goals and rules are different things in

Re: Policy goals and rules are different things in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19371469 en Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:40:05 EDT Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:40:05 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19384928 espaeth :

said by morbo

:

manage a network and degrade and block certain legitimate traffic are two different things.

Ok, I'll play.

How does one manage capacity without interfering with at least some quantity of traffic?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19384928 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 05:40:36 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19382767 openbox9 : It's not a debate of semantics, it's network management. I'll go back to my original statement that I believe there will be a lot of disappointed BBR readers if your net neutrality law ever sees daylight.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19382767 Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:31:42 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19382671 morbo : semantic debate that will be settled with appropriate net neutrality laws. let's see who wins...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19382671 Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:09:15 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19382229 openbox9 :

said by morbo

:

manage a network and degrade and block certain legitimate traffic are two different things.

it's important that everyone understand the issue clearly.

If I'm managing a network and it is getting pummeled by abusive users, I will cap and shape whatever needs to be done to bring the network back to a nominal level for a majority of my customers. You say degrade, I say shape. You say block, I say who's blocking? Capping is a good solution and shaping is good for the peak times of use that the abusive users get online.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19382229 Sun, 04 Nov 2007 16:28:56 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19382138 morbo : manage a network and degrade and block certain legitimate traffic are two different things.

it's important that everyone understand the issue clearly.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19382138 Sun, 04 Nov 2007 16:04:18 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19380818 CableTool :

said by SilverSurfer

said by MAR_03_2002

:

But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over?

They have never advertised an ALL YOU CAN EAT BUFFET.
They advertised a WE NEVER CLOSE buffet. ;)
--
CableTechs.org/"Horrible People with Integrity"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19380818 Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:30:42 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19380784 openbox9 : I seriously doubt you will ever see an ISPs ability to manage their network made illegal. If you do, get ready for price increases and/or decreases in service offerings.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19380784 Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:21:54 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19380682 morbo : as long as the law takes into account the best interests of the business community and its consumers (and not best interests of dumb-pipe providers like comcast and at&t), then the net neutrality laws will make comcasts actions illegal. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19380682 Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:56:40 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19380674 morbo : despite what you may think, you just saying something doesn't make it so. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19380674 Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:54:36 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19375427 openbox9 : If it is competing then yes. Otherwise, the ISP is simply managing a large swath of very troubling and resource intensive traffic on their network. This would also be different if the ISP singled out The Pirate Bay for example in the P2P management and left the remainder of BT traffic flowing freely.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19375427 Sat, 03 Nov 2007 08:41:47 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19374188 jjeffeory : Right. "Shaping" & "throttling" competing services' traffic is also a net neutralitiy issue.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19374188 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:14:58 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19374177 jjeffeory : Managing their network is different than what they're doing. There's Qos and there's altering their customer's data. Traffic prioritisation is very differnt than redirection.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19374177 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:13:20 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19372901 LeftOfSanity :

said by jsouth

:

By continuing to pay your monthly bill, your "contract" updates routinely and you agree to said "contract, ToS, and AUP. I'm failing to see how you are able to claim fraud

It my update as you say but the information in it has not changed. They still deny they even use any kind of traffic-shaping and do not have clear caps listed. Other cable companies do (like COX whom I use) and they have had no problems. Why can't Comcast? What are they trying to hide?

They don't deny it. They said they don't block it, which they don't. They said they take steps to manage their network so it doesn't degrade for other users. You may say "It's not my problem their network can't handle it." Maybe, and hopefully when Docsis 3 rolls out it won't be a problem. They don't neglect their infrastructure, they may not be as speedy as we all would like but unfortunatley there is red tape and shareholders to deal with.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19372901 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:41:20 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371779 MAR_03_2002 :

said by backness

:

Comcast's fundamental problem is that 3 teenagers can saturate their local node and management thinks the best solution is to buy sandvine boxes. This is the 21st century network they offer.

And if they spent a ton of money upgrading the infrastructure, then 10 teenagers can saturate the local node. With P2P there is no end to how much bandwidth is needed. P2P is a protocol that is bad for the internet and unsustainable for ISPs to tolerate.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371779 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:21:32 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371758 jsouth : By continuing to pay your monthly bill, your "contract" updates routinely and you agree to said "contract, ToS, and AUP. I'm failing to see how you are able to claim fraud

It my update as you say but the information in it has not changed. They still deny they even use any kind of traffic-shaping and do not have clear caps listed. Other cable companies do (like COX whom I use) and they have had no problems. Why can't Comcast? What are they trying to hide?
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371758 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:17:37 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371595 openbox9 : By continuing to pay your monthly bill, your "contract" updates routinely and you agree to said "contract, ToS, and AUP. I'm failing to see how you are able to claim fraud.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371595 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:47:56 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371504 backness : So where do you draw the line?

I'd say when they block all ports to a particular application.

A DoS attack violates the rights of the recipient to connect to the net.

Nice try on the false issues

Comcast's fundamental problem is that 3 teenagers can saturate their local node and management thinks the best solution is to buy sandvine boxes. This is the 21st century network they offer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371504 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:31:56 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371471 openbox9 : Censorship != net neutrality. The Madison River Communications issue, was resolved without legislation. It was actually a net neutrality issue because of the fact that they were blocking competing services.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371471 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:24:56 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371469 jsouth : It may be their network to manage but they also have an obligation to the customer with whom they have a contract with. If they would change their TOS and come out and say we have caps of this much and this is allowed/not allowed on our service and if you use it you will find if blocked, then that would be ok because it would give people a choice to change service or not. AS it is now they hide this information in the hopes that they can keep people who might normally leave with their service. This is a form of fraud in my eyes. Sure people here can leave and "vote with their wallet" as you have said. Why? Why? should a customer have to go through a hardship just because a company perpetuates fraud. A few people leaving won't teach them anything. Having to change their TOS, Possible pay a fine and possibly having hundreds of people leaving would.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371469 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:24:50 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371369 nasadude :

said by openbox9

:

Until we see an actual net neutrality issue, I'll agree with your statement. Furthermore, I don't care if it's an "incumbent" or any other provider, I'll stand by my belief that providers must management their networks.

you don't keep up with the news much do you?

* ATT censoring lyrics on a streaming concernt
* verizon refusing to allow a NARAL text message
* and over a year ago now, a small independent ISP BLOCKING VOIP

violations of the principles of network neutrality have been and are occurring - this is just apparently the first time an incumbent is going to see it through and not succumb to public pressure. If comcast gets away with this, there goes the internet as we know it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371369 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:10:01 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371345 nasadude :

said by LeftOfSanity

:

Right. All you keyboard crusaders are FOR THE PEOPLE!

1. Its their network to manage. Be glad they don't block it all together.

2. Vote with your wallet. If they are your only provider, then be thankful. Why bitch at the only company giving you service? Not Comcasts fault DSL isnt available.

we are the people - I don't work for a telecom/cable company, nor do I have any stock in these companies (unless it's in my retirement 401K). my interest is a speedy broadband connection at a reasonable price that lets me visit ANY site available on the internet.

1. yes, within the confines of laws and regulations, which these days either go unenforced or are in the process of being gutted for the benefit of the incumbents. if they blocked it entirely, they wouldn't exactly be providing a service.

2. comcast is my only provider and I am not thankful, nor is there reason for me to be. also, I don't really blame comcast, I blame the government, which should be doing things in the interests of consumers and the country. the current situation IS NOT good for consumers or the country - the longer the government allows the current monopoly/duopoly situation to exist, the further we will fall behind the rest of the world. if you can't see this is a bad thing, I doubt I can change your mind.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371345 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:04:46 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371296 openbox9 :

said by morbo

:

if providers use it across the board, that just provides more evidence for the need for strict net neutrality laws.

This is NOT a net neutrality issue. If the legislators ever actually screw up and get some net neutrality type of law passed, I think there will be a lot of disappointed BBR members.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371296 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:58:20 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371238 MAR_03_2002 :

said by morbo

:

if providers use it across the board, that just provides more evidence for the need for strict net neutrality laws. if providers only use it on under-developed nodes or over saturated nodes, then that is more understandable but still a violation of net neutrality laws.

Discussed before:
»A good 3rd party independent ananlysis of Net Neutrality
»Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371238 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:49:08 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371235 SilverSurfer :

said by smcallah

:

When you involve non-technical people in things like this, unintended consequences always happen. Just look at the DMCA.

Oh shit, dude, don't get me started on that!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371235 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:48:58 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371183 morbo :

said by openbox9

:

As long as the throttling takes place across the board for network management, I don't see the net neutrality issue.

if providers use it across the board, that just provides more evidence for the need for strict net neutrality laws. if providers only use it on under-developed nodes or over saturated nodes, then that is more understandable but still a violation of net neutrality laws.

net neutrality is a slippery slope. this is the first slip but will definitely not be the last.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371183 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:40:55 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371129 LeftOfSanity :

said by nasadude

said by bi0tech

:

...

Yawn for continual misrepresentation of everything.

TCH/HCT doesn't actually misrepresent anything, he is just here to protect the poor telcos/cablecos from us mean people with a clue.

Right. All you keyboard crusaders are FOR THE PEOPLE!

1. Its their network to manage. Be glad they don't block it all together.

2. Vote with your wallet. If they are your only provider, then be thankful. Why bitch at the only company giving you service? Not Comcasts fault DSL isnt available.
--
Fighting on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Win or lose, your still Retarted!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371129 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:32:37 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371082 smcallah :

said by SilverSurfer

:

Just because people use it doesn't mean everyone who does so is a pirate. And to state as much would be like saying that anyone who buys a firearm is going to go on a rampage and become a serial murderer. P2P traffic is not necessarily always a bad thing.

Well, if you're going to use THAT analogy, then the same can be said for email from known spammer netblocks, and legitimate traffic that happens to sit on a network that a DoS was started from, and not all pings are necessarily bad things either.

So again, if they're allowed with no questions asked to block some traffic on their own private network, why are they questioned when they do it to a different type of traffic?

I'm not saying they're right in blocking P2P, far from that. But if the FCC comes out and says they can't block traffic, how sweeping a ruling is that going to be?

Would they not be allowed to block ANYTHING by the word of the law at that point?

When you involve non-technical people in things like this, unintended consequences always happen. Just look at the DMCA.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371082 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:24:59 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371009 SilverSurfer :

said by smcallah

:

So where do you draw the line?

I think if an informal vote was taken that we could get a fairly decent consensus on spam/Dos attacks. Most people generally don't want either. And as to pinging, anyone with even a peripheral familiarity with network admin/security wouldn't argue with you on the merits of blocking port 23 to servers, but I would argue that the average person could care less about pinging.

What we are discussing is the wholesale blocking of a very specific type of traffic -BT- or more specifically, P2P, which does not always necessarily have a nefarious connotation. Just because people use it doesn't mean everyone who does so is a pirate. And to state as much would be like saying that anyone who buys a firearm is going to go on a rampage and become a serial murderer. P2P traffic is not necessarily always a bad thing.

You draw the line when a national provider like Comcast suddenly starts throttling/blocking certain types of traffic based on its arbitrary judgment at the same time it advertises itself as a content-friendly network and then denies doing it after it gets caught. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19371009 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:13:55 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370998 openbox9 :

said by nasadude

:

if I had to guess, I would say that in your opinion, very little would probably be a net neutrality issue.

"if an incumbent does it, it can't be wrong"

Until we see an actual net neutrality issue, I'll agree with your statement. Furthermore, I don't care if it's an "incumbent" or any other provider, I'll stand by my belief that providers must management their networks.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370998 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:12:02 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370981 openbox9 :

said by SilverSurfer

:

Actually, that "300 million" was your quote, not mine.

It's my number from the population statistics of this country, but the statement was made based on your assertion that complaints have received national exposure.

said by SilverSurfer

:

So, in your opinion, in order for something to be a NN issue, a provider has to discriminate against a "specific user" or "specific content" in favor of their own?

Not just my opinion.

»www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#what

Put simply, Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

also to discriminate between content providers (e.g. websites, services, protocols), particularly competitors.

»obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-···neutral/

"It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge.

But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say that they want to create high speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual agreements with Internet content providers for access to those high speed lanes.

Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes."

said by SilverSurfer

:

What else would you call throttling BT traffic?

I'd call it throttling BT traffic. As long as the throttling takes place across the board for network management, I don't see the net neutrality issue. Many ISPs have similar network management practices in place.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370981 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:08:00 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370939 smcallah :

said by SilverSurfer

:

The fact remains they still throttled other content arbitrarily. Yours is a specious argument.

But they're not throttling BitTorrent arbitrarily, they have a reason and a supposed (by them) necessity to throttle.

If the reason is network performance, then it is very legitimate. What other reason would they block it for? If network upgrades can't keep up with network performance in the short run, what else are they supposed to do? Start canceling customers? Cut back on download speeds? Are any of these, including Sandvine, reasonable solutions?

ISP's are blocking IP's that send spam and DoS attacks all the time. Is that violating network neutrality? What if I personally wanted that spam?

Are they violating my rights?

Some ISP's block ping to their routers or specific servers. Or they block port 23 to servers. Is that against network neutrality? I mean, for all intents and purposes blocking ports with firewalls is essentially the same as blocking traffic with Sandvine.

So where do you draw the line? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370939 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:01:29 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370833 SilverSurfer :

said by openbox9

:

But, the 300 million is what you would be referring to when discussing the AP's and Consumerist's allegations.

Actually, that "300 million" was your quote, not mine.

said by openbox9

:

Also, I think your use of the network neutrality advocates is misplaced. I would say a better representation would be BBR readers.

Not necessarily. I read a great many other public forums on the matter besides this one.

said by openbox9

:

Besides, this really isn't a net neutrality issue IMO since they aren't discriminating against a specific user or specific content in favor of their own.

So, in your opinion, in order for something to be a NN issue, a provider has to discriminate against a "specific user" or "specific content" in favor of their own? What else would you call throttling BT traffic? Just b/c Comcrap didn't replace the throttled BT traffic with their own content is irrelevant. The fact remains they still throttled other content arbitrarily. Yours is a specious argument.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370833 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:46:59 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370799 nasadude :

said by openbox9

:

.... Besides, this really isn't a net neutrality issue IMO since they aren't discriminating against a specific user or specific content in favor of their own.

if I had to guess, I would say that in your opinion, very little would probably be a net neutrality issue.

"if an incumbent does it, it can't be wrong"

I just made that up, but you can use it if you want.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370799 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:41:57 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370778 gaforces :

said by MAR_03_2002

:

»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···35A1.pdf

Although the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard, it will incorporate these principles into its ongoing policymaking activities.

So there aren't even any rules that Comcast could violate, even if they wanted to.

So, the way I read this is that the FCC has nothing legally enforceable in place that Comcast Lawyers would have to even think about.

But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over?

Maybe because they lie and misrepresent thier product?
--
‘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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370778 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:39:31 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370759 nasadude :

said by bi0tech

:

...

Yawn for continual misrepresentation of everything.

TCH/HCT doesn't actually misrepresent anything, he is just here to protect the poor telcos/cablecos from us mean people with a clue.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370759 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:36:19 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370757 openbox9 :

said by SilverSurfer

:

First off, 300 million people in the U.S. don't have broadband. Of those that do have it, and use it beyond email, care very deeply about throttling. You may have heard of this group...they call themselves Network Neutrality advocates.

But, the 300 million is what you would be referring to when discussing the AP's and Consumerist's allegations. Also, I think your use of the network neutrality advocates is misplaced. I would say a better representation would be BBR readers. Besides, this really isn't a net neutrality issue IMO since they aren't discriminating against a specific user or specific content in favor of their own.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370757 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:36:13 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370635 SilverSurfer :

said by openbox9

:

Obviously few is a relative term. I've read some of the "national exposure" of the allegations. How many of the 300 million people in this country understand, or care? I'd wager that those that do are a minority.

First off, 300 million people in the U.S. don't have broadband. Of those that do have it, and use it beyond email, care very deeply about throttling. You may have heard of this group...they call themselves Network Neutrality advocates. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370635 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:22:15 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370593 openbox9 : Obviously few is a relative term. I've read some of the "national exposure" of the allegations. How many of the 300 million people in this country understand, or care? I'd wager that those that do are a minority.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370593 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:17:33 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370531 SilverSurfer :

said by openbox9

:

In the real world, very few people understand the allegations that have been made towards Comcast...

I am very certain that more than just a "few" people understand the concept of throttling. Apparently, you haven't been paying attention very closely to the complaints that have received national exposure.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370531 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:11:37 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370506 openbox9 : In the real world, very few people understand the allegations that have been made towards Comcast, let alone care as long as their IM clients, browsers, and e-mail clients work.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370506 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:07:50 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370432 JSRoman : Yea, I've heard their call centers are flooded with tens of thousands of calls from subs asking about this. ;)
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370432 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:57:02 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370414 SilverSurfer :

said by JSRoman

:

One has nothing to do with the other. Nice try though.

The fact that Comcrap throttles traffic and the only way anyone even knows about it is because customers have complained is very relevant. In fact, it is germane to the the crux of your own argument. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370414 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:53:27 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370402 SilverSurfer :

said by MAR_03_2002

:

In the real world I am in the majority.

More like in your own mind. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370402 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:51:20 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370400 JSRoman : One has nothing to do with the other. Nice try though.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370400 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:50:34 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370383 SilverSurfer :

said by JSRoman

:

[Comcast has not advertised unlimited internet service in over 7 years.

Funny, but I don't see Comcrap advertising that they throttle traffic with Sandvine, either. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370383 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:47:32 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370328 hottboiinnc : I agree with you (HCT) Comcast has not violated any laws or rules from any branch of government. But like I said before. RoadRunner does the same thing; they impose network management tools to better service customers and state so in the RoadRunner Terms of Service and the AUP which is posted at help.rr.com. Which is directly from the ISP not the cable operator. (RoadRunner is separate from the actual cable operators too; including Time Warner Cable)

People on here think that they're owed Broadband/HSI services and at the price they want to pay and get what they want. But it doesnt work that way. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370328 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:37:26 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370325 Transmaster : I agree be honest about your service. I blame this on the FCC their lack of over site. The FCC used to be run by engineers but starting with the Regan administration when the agency was gutted with job cuts and with the political hacks put in place by Clinton, and then Bush 2 the FCC we have now is a bunch of kiss-ass politicians looking to feather their own nests after they leave for that fat paying job with the very outfits they where writing regulations for.
--
Eat pork chops for Allah!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370325 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:37:13 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370261 bi0tech : If you truly in the majority then you must be one of the millions that still dont have a slightest clue what any of this means, shrugs it off, and goes back to their day to day lives.

Yawn for continual misrepresentation of everything.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370261 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:25:40 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370220 JSRoman :

said by SilverSurfer

said by MAR_03_2002

:

But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over?

Comcast has not advertised unlimited internet service in over 7 years.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370220 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:18:17 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370153 MAR_03_2002 :

said by SilverSurfer

said by MAR_03_2002

:

But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over?

One, they don't advertise an all you can eat buffet and haven't done so for a long time. And their Terms Of Service NEVER said so.

Two, I am only a minority here at BBR, where the majority thinks that broadband should be a public utility subsidized by taxpayers. In the real world I am in the majority.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370153 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:08:33 EDT Re: Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370107 SilverSurfer :

said by MAR_03_2002

:

But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over?

Because you are clearly one of the minority who seems to think it perfectly OK to advertise an all you can eat buffet for X price and then change your mind about it when the customer actually does so. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370107 Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:01:41 EDT Policy goals and rules are different things http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19370079 MAR_03_2002 : »hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···35A1.pdf

Although the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard, it will incorporate these principles into its ongoing policymaking activities.