how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
716 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1
4 edits | reply to funchords
Re: NN Does Not & Will Not Address BT Prevention said by funchords:said by NOYB:Apparently when some people become self exalted experts their extreme bias inhibits their ability to read. You believe what you want. Enjoy your very-expensive Interweb.
I always think for myself. That is why I did not take your word for what is and is not in the Comcast residential terms of service. But even before reading them I already knew what I would find. Hmmm, wonder how I could be so psychic? Or maybe it is that experience trumps self proclaimed expertise.
Maybe it would not be so "very-expensive" if not for customers like you violating the residential terms of service you agreed to abide by and abusing the residential tier services. Go get business tier service and pay your own way. Stop expecting me to subsidize your internet service. Same goes for businesses who are leaching off of residential ISP customers with things like bit torrents rather than paying for their own appropriately provisioned services for their needs.
Some how I was expecting more of a response from someone with such a high degree of expertise and renowned industry recognition. But I guess the spin just can not withstand the actual Comcast terms of service and those of many other ISPs.
| |
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by NOYB:Some how I was expecting more of a response from someone with such a high degree of expertise and renowned industry recognition. But I guess the spin just can not withstand the actual Comcast terms of service and those of many other ISPs. If you want to have an open-minded discussion, fine. I'm all for that.
But you are not discussing, you are simply repeating the same things over and over -- even after you have been shown to be incorrect or -- at best -- where the item is open to interpretation. The word for this is "trolling."
So, I'm going to follow decades of Internet advice: Do not feed trolls.
Bye, now.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. | | |
|
NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1 | said by funchords:said by NOYB:Some how I was expecting more of a response from someone with such a high degree of expertise and renowned industry recognition. But I guess the spin just can not withstand the actual Comcast terms of service and those of many other ISPs. If you want to have an open-minded discussion, fine. I'm all for that. But you are not discussing, you are simply repeating the same things over and over -- even after you have been shown to be incorrect or -- at best -- where the item is open to interpretation. The word for this is "trolling." So, I'm going to follow decades of Internet advice: Do not feed trolls. Bye, now.
That is a copout for not being able to in fact and reality refute that bit torrents are a violation of Comcast and many other ISPs residential terms of service as I and some others have been saying.
Those who breach their ISPs terms of service forfeit their right to hold their ISP accountable. Thus their ISP has no obligation to provide any particular level of service, entitling them to throttle, block, etc. any traffic, protocol, application, etc. they so desire.
| |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
2 edits | reply to jp10558
said by jp10558:"And, as for the ads.. read the fine print." So, when I go and provide a QUOTE that you cannot refute, you then say it doesn't matter? The fine print with the ad does not prohibit or even mention *how much* you can use the service, only that YMMV with regard to speed. Your point is flawed...
The fine print DOES NOT need to spell out the terms of the service. You are assuming incorrectly - and in all honesty, that's your problem you'll have to work through on your own.
The fine print DOES, however, state that you must "additional terms, and restrictions apply".. if you don't know what that means, again, there is no hope. (Hint: that refers you to the terms of service and also says that something that "This add is not what defines the service")
Hate to break your bubble here, but you've not supported your side well at all.
This is an example of where you are trying to make something that isn't there.
edit:
To help what you were looking for on the blockbuster issue.. not lazy and stupid... the legal term is "un-sophisticated consumer"... just to help you out there.
Fine print: companies should not be able to get away with putting things in the legally required fine print? First, they were told they can't say things with out defining it better in fine print.. so a law was passed and accepted. Now, the next generation comes by and it's not good enough for them? Either people are getting more and more ridiculous, and wanting to be a victim, or the new generations coming up are getting less educated - possibly more of a reason they need to spend less time file sharing on campus and more time studying.
Now.. please try to explain why, when you install the service and are told to read and accept an agreement, or not accept it, why you aren't doing so? Are you still holding on to an advertisement?
Read this: THE AD DOES NOT NEED TO SPELL OUT EVERY TERM OF THE SERVICE! You're making things up and honestly it's quite a bore. Stop making excuses for why you think you're not being told, and actually read - you're simply being lazy at this point. | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by fiberguy:Fine print: companies should not be able to get away with putting things in the legally required fine print? First, they were told they can't say things with out defining it better in fine print.. so a law was passed and accepted. Please show me this law that requires fine print. (Don't bother.) It is required, but by necessity more than by law.
What is this argument about? If I remember right (and I'm too lazy to go look), it was about whether or not Comcast defined their service as for being large files.
What I see here are two guys that I respect getting into a ridiculous argument that doesn't matter very much in the end. You're both right. Yes, jp10558, the ad exists. And yes, fiberguy, it doesn't really change the more important facts of the case all that much. To both of you, the TOS is vague -- reasonable people will disagree as to what it means.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. | |
NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1 | said by funchords:... the TOS is vague -- reasonable people will disagree as to what it means.
Directly from the Comcast terms of service:
»www.comcast.net/terms/index.jsp
Subscriber Agreement
7b. You agree not to use HSI for operation as an Internet service provider, a server site for ftp, telnet, rlogin, e-mail hosting, "Web hosting" or other similar applications, ...
Acceptable Use Policy
PROHIBITED USES AND ACTIVITIES
Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment to:
xiv. 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;
That is not vague, except to unreasonable people who have an extreme bias and personal stake in the matter that is blinding their objectivity. To the rest of us it is quite clear and I believe it would be just as clear to a judge and a jury. I have run it by several colleagues as well and non of them have any problem deciphering what it really means, and that it prohibits bit torrents.
As I have stated many times, and others as well, bit torrents are a breach of the Comcast terms of service that residential customers have agreed to abide by. Nullifying their right to demand any particular level of service.
| |
|
