run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;

said by telcolackey :

The specific section is as follows:
I've highlighted what I believe is being interpreted as the ToS elements related to P2P

said by jbob :

Either way Comcast has shot themselves in the foot by publically stating they do not block P2P or BitTorrent making the whole argument of "file sharing" or even if you choose to go the "Server" route as it applies to BitTorrent a mute point now. By allowing it up till now and making offical public statements to the contrary they have effectively told the public and powers to be that they do not specifically consider P2P or file sharing via BitTorrent as something that is violating the ToS.

said by telcolackey :

This is another interpretation to fit an agenda. They also say they don't proactively block illegal activity so does that mean they cannot address it if notified?

said by telcolackey :

The specific section is as follows:
I've highlighted what I believe is being interpreted as the ToS elements related to P2P

said by Tsagoi :

Out of curiosity, could VOIP traffic be considered to fall under providing network content to anyone outside of your LAN? Not that they would try blocking it (and deny blocking it for the first few months). But that TOS is general enough that it could be quoted as a reason when blocking competition on their network.

said by Tsagoi :

Out of curiosity, could VOIP traffic be considered to fall under providing network content to anyone outside of your LAN? Not that they would try blocking it (and deny blocking it for the first few months). But that TOS is general enough that it could be quoted as a reason when blocking competition on their network.

said by telcolackey :

What if a telemarketing service found a way to connect to your Verizon POTs line, Comcast phone, Vonage line, etc, and use it to re-sell 7x24 outbound calls within your service plan (no additional charge) to their customers? The incentive to you is a small payment each month for this. The incentive to them is zero cost on their phone infrastructure.

said by jig :

f you are just trying to demonize p2p...then my response, just like i stated above, is that it's MORE like allowing family members or close friends to use your phone to call their loved ones with your extra minutes each month.

said by NormanS :

P2P is making network content available to anybody outside of the Premises LAN; exactly what the Comcast Terms of Use prohibits.

said by funchords :

According to ANYBODY ASKED AT COMCAST, using P2P on their network is NOT PROHIBITED.

said by telcolackey :

"Using" is a key word in this.

Using the web is different than serving web content.

Downloading songs from ITUNES is different than serving mp3's to the Internet.

Using p2p to download a linux distro is different than serving a linux distro to the entire world.

NOTE: These comments/opinions are my own and not an attempt to state anyone's policy.

said by somebody else :

Anyway, the 2 way nature of the data transfer is implied via the "p2p" nomenclature.

said by NormanS :

No. P2P can't be configured to "download only". Well, after checking on the BitTorrent protocol, anyway, I can assert that BT can't be configured to "download only". I can block BT from acting as a server, but I can't block BT from uploading.

said by dadkins :

*SOME* can throttle upload to 0%.
Shareaza can - all protocols, all networks.

said by dadkins :

Well, mine must be broken then.
I have throttled it to 0 and the download has continued.

said by dadkins :

Plus, if no one is requesting parts of the file... who would it be uploaded to?

said by telcolackey :

"Using" is a key word in this.

Using the web is different than serving web content.

Downloading songs from ITUNES is different than serving mp3's to the Internet.

Using p2p to download a linux distro is different than serving a linux distro to the entire world.

NOTE: These comments/opinions are my own and not an attempt to state anyone's policy.

said by telcolackey :

Fair to content providers? You bet. Broadband users offering filesharing for them removes their BW costs and pushes it to broadband ISPs.

Fair to users? Yes. We get cheaper (or free) content because the Content providers cost is less.

Fair to ISPs? Who cares. They are greedy, money grubbing slime.

said by dadkins :

Bad, Bad, David!!!

LOL!

said by alalper :

I always knew you were BAD!!

said by NormanS :

I find it distinctly odd that they claim to permit P2P, and prohibit running a mail server; yet a personal mail server, run for the sole benefit of the household members of a Premises LAN will put far less stress on their network than any P2P application.

said by NormanS :

That is certainly at odds with the way their "Terms of Use" is worded.

said by NormanS :

That is certainly at odds with the way their "Terms of Use" is worded.

said by jig :

there's a bit of an issue because you are actually reselling the minutes for cash (vs trading directly).

said by jig :

just like i stated above, is that it's MORE like allowing family members or close friends to use your phone to call their loved ones with your extra minutes each month.