factchecker
@cox.net
| Comcast should face the same penalties as other abusers...
Just try and forge IP packets and watch what happens when you get caught...
The idea that Comcast can get away with something that is objectively harmful to the network is disgusting.
There is no viable or ethical defense for forging IP packets, just as there is no viable or ethical defense for forging documents and signatures. |
|
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR |
When a customer violates the ToS/AUP the ISP is no longer under obligation to provide any particular level of service.
|
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by N O Y B  :When a customer violates the ToS/AUP the ISP is no longer under obligation to provide any particular level of service. While I agree with that point, I have two problems with it.
1. If the ToS/AUP is not clear to the user about what exactly constitutes abuse, how does the user know what they can and can not do. If an ISP classifies BT as a server, spell it out explicitly, especially since BT does fit under the server column based on the classic definition of a server (or service).
2. While you are correct that the level of service is contingent upon following the rules, the method of enforcing those rules (a) should not violate the rules that govern the users (mounting MITM attacks, forging IP packets, etc) because (b) such methods should not interfere with other permitted traffic (VPNs, etc.). The problem with the Sandvine solution is that it can and does mis-classify traffic. There are much better and far more ethical solutions to forging IP packets. |
|
