 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Just implement upload caps - problem solved Set upload caps at 5-10GB a month and the P2P seeding issue is solved.
The P2P "problem" isn't downloading, it's seeding...it's uploads that are DOCSIS' Achilles heel.
Seeding/serving is ALREADY a TOS violation with virtually every residental cable broadband provider.
Simply enforce an upload cap and when it's violated follow the Cablevision model and throttle their upload speeds to 150kbps or even less.
Then when the customer calls to bitch, tell them what the Lord told John. | |
|
 | | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved said by Dogfather:Seeding/serving is ALREADY a TOS violation with virtually every residental cable broadband provider. Can you cite a residential TOS and or AUP that specifically states that "seeding" is proibited? | |
|
 | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved Yes, you can not serve data requests. »www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
Comcast's AUP says you can not
said by Comcast :
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;
| |
|
| | | | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved said by Dogfather:Comcast's AUP says you can not said by Comcast :
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;
Note that "file sharing" is not strictly defined. In fact, it is a fairly broad term. "Seeding" OTOH is not specifically mentioned or defined. If Comcast wants to write an 80 pg TOS, then the least they could have done was specifically define exactly what constitutes "file sharing" and/or "seeding." | |
|
| | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved said by SilverSurfer1:If Comcast wants to write an 80 pg TOS, then the least they could have done was specifically define exactly what constitutes "file sharing" and/or "seeding." It's not an 80 pg TOS. Even in web page view it is 6.
And they did specifically define exactly what constitutes file sharing and/or seeding.
said by Comcast, again :
You can not provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your premises LAN.../
PERIOD.
It doesn't matter if it's file sharing, seeding, email servers, web servers, FTP servers...ANY activity that provides network content or services to people outside your home is a violation.
Frankly I don't see how Comcast could have made it any more clear. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved The FCC filing is 80 pages and makes no mention of
P2P being against TOS. | |
|
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved said by hghjhjkhhkkh :
The FCC filing is 80 pages and makes no mention of
P2P being against TOS.
Thank you for pointing that out. That is precisely what I was tactfully trying to point out to carbidyne, but in his blind adherence to the Comcast Kool Aid and zealous defense of throttling/spoofing packets, he missed it. | |
|
| | | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved said by SilverSurfer1:said by hghjhjkhhkkh :
The FCC filing is 80 pages and makes no mention of
P2P being against TOS.
Thank you for pointing that out. That is precisely what I was tactfully trying to point out to carbidyne, but in his blind adherence to the Comcast Kool Aid and zealous defense of throttling/spoofing packets, he missed it. Oh yeah, I'm a well known fan of Comcast LOL, and posting the Comcast AUP is drinking Kool-Aid. Oh brother, yours is a post worthy of being written in Crayon.
Instead of pissing whining and moaning about Comcast, how about you take 5 minutes and actually READ the AUP that EVERY Comcast customer agrees to when signing up for service.
EVERY Comcast customer acknowledges that use of the service is subject to these terms and conditions including a prohibition against seeding data to people outside their premises LAN.
It is not open for debate. Seeding is and has long been an AUP violation.
I'm saying kill the uploads, you kill the seeding which is ALREADY an AUP violation.
They didn't need to make any changes to their TOS. They only need follow the Cablevision upload cap model and they would have long ago solved their DOCSIS upload capacity issue. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved said by Dogfather:Oh yeah, I'm a well known fan of Comcast LOL, and posting the Comcast AUP is drinking Kool-Aid. Oh brother, yours is a post worthy of being written in Crayon. Wow, with an argument like that, I can't really imagine how I could possibly recover. But allow me to retort:
Notwithstanding Comcast's craptastically vague TOS/AUP, their basic argument to justify network management is thusly:
Due to complicated, technical reason X, Comcast therefore needs to spoof RST packets and/or use similiar other ways to impede broad classes of TCP/IP connections in order to prevent P2P clients from overwhelming cable modems.
However, the fact remains that neither Comcast OR its shills apologists have bothered to illustrate how forging RST packets is necessary for "network management." Their argument is tantamount to "Nyah nyah nyah, because we SAID so." | |
|
| | | | | | | | ajax25
join:2003-12-10
Colonia, NJ | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved "Nyah nyah nyah, because we SAID so."
This is the readers digest version of the AUP/TOS. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved said by ajax25:"Nyah nyah nyah, because we SAID so." This is the readers digest version of the AUP/TOS. That's it in a nutshell. And so long as the FCC continues to kiss the ass of cable and telcos by not forcing line sharing, that is how it will continue. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | quote:
allow me to retort
nice Pulp Fiction reference!
The other day a guest said "I like your coffee!" I replied, "I buy the gourmet expensive stuff." Sadly they didn't pick up on it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | I believe the FCC filing has nothing to do with P2P at all.
I believe their bullcrap argument is designed to normalize traffic shaping. I believe they're using P2P to set this precedent so that they can then turn around and use it against Netflix and Apple with their video services that obviously would compete with cable VOD which is where a ton of dough is made. It's all about the money.
It all plays into the bull crap "content providers should pay" (content providers being Apple, Google, Netflix etc) for content delivery subs already pay for.
As I plainly state in my OP, if curbing P2P was really their goal, there was a much easier method, already used in the industry that could have accomplished it...AND it would have already been supported by the AUP. | |
|
| | | | |
1 edit | said by hghjhjkhhkkh :
The FCC filing is 80 pages and makes no mention of
P2P being against TOS.
See their AUP:
»www6.comcast.net/terms/use/
(iii) temporarily delaying peer-to-peer sessions (or sessions using other applications or protocols) during periods of high network congestion, (iv) limiting the number of peer-to-peer sessions during periods of high network congestion, You might want to read that whole policy at this link. Basically they have given themselves the right to do anything they damn well please in order to keep THEIR network running as they see fit.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | said by hghjhjkhhkkh :
The FCC filing is 80 pages and makes no mention of
P2P being against TOS.
Uh, yes it is, in very clear black and white. It's Attachment A page 3 as detailed on page 4 of the filing.
You should have probably browsed through the 80 pages before commenting on what they contain or don't contain. | |
|
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Their TOS basically says this:
You are a slave.
You will consume.
You will be mined for $$$.
You have no rights or privileges.
We can and will tell you what to do.
That's basically it in a nutshell. | |
|
| | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved You forgot,
Take it or Leave it. | |
|
| | | | | ajax25
join:2003-12-10
Colonia, NJ | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved The second FIOS brings the light. | |
|
| | |  NOYBSt. John 3.16Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1
2 edits |
No Sir Judge, I did not murder my spouse, I redrum'ed her and that is not specifically mentioned nor prohibited in the legal code so therefor it is not illegal and okay to do.
| |
|
| ajax25
join:2003-12-10
Colonia, NJ | I would say with 80 pages from comcast about P2P and no
mention of it violating TOS that P2P is probably OK.
But then with comcast you never know. | |
|
| | |
| | |  superdogI Need A DrinkPremium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved What about this?, I would say that P2P apps. do exactly this, and without throttling/shaping, this rule would apply to every Limewire and Bit Torrent user:
viii. restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or otherwise disrupt or cause a performance degradation, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to the Service or any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) host, server, backbone network, node or service, or otherwise cause a performance degradation to any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) facilities used to deliver the Service;
--
»www.wavecrazy.net Join WISPA today! »www.wispa.org/ | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved What Comcast has in their Accceptable Use Policy
»www6.comcast.net/terms/use/
(iii) temporarily delaying peer-to-peer sessions (or sessions using other applications or protocols) during periods of high network congestion, (iv) limiting the number of peer-to-peer sessions during periods of high network congestion, So yes, they have stated what they WILL do when they want to.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | | | ajax25
join:2003-12-10
Colonia, NJ | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved said by fAcEtIOUs:What Comcast has in their Accceptable Use Policy » www6.comcast.net/terms/use/(iii) temporarily delaying peer-to-peer sessions (or sessions using other applications or protocols) during periods of high network congestion, (iv) limiting the number of peer-to-peer sessions during periods of high network congestion, So yes, they have stated what they WILL do when they want to. After first lying about it and then being forced to admit they were doing it. | |
|
 pokesphIt Is Almost FastPremium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | I believe that the TOS statement refers to running a file sharing SERVER, not day to day 'normal' usage.. If you notice its under the server heading..
So if I was to 'read it like you are reading it' I'd not be able to ftp my web files to my websever, send emails, or upload content to anywhere (i.e. youtube)
WRONG. | |
|
| DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved I'm reading it the only way it can be read.
Comcast couldn't be any more clear...file sharing is a AUP violation.
And no, YOU uploading to YOUR webserver and YOU sending email is not providing SERVICES to others outside your network.
Your WEBSERVER is what provides the services to others. The person you send the email to's MAIL SERVER is was provides the SERVICE to them.
You can not run any device or application that serves data, including seeding. | |
|
| | ajax25
join:2003-12-10
Colonia, NJ
1 edit | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved from comcast FAQ, note it says "uploading files"
Do you block access to peer-to-peer applications like BitTorrent?
No. We do not block access to any Web site or applications, including BitTorrent. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites, VOIP applications like Vonage, and thousands of other applications online. | |
|
| | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved said by ajax25:from comcast FAQ, note it says "uploading files" Do you block access to peer-to-peer applications like BitTorrent? No. We do not block access to any Web site or applications, including BitTorrent. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites, VOIP applications like Vonage, and thousands of other applications online. It's not an AUP violation to DOWNLOAD using P2P. It's only a violation to UPLOAD using P2P and it's that violation that is spelled out clearly in their AUP.
And they thus far haven't blocked access. They're very clever in their working. BT still works, they're just traffic shaping it to a very slow crawl. | |
|
| | | | said by Dogfather:Your WEBSERVER is what provides the services to others. Perhaps you need to understand what is meant by "services" before you assert the following...
You can not run any device or application that serves data, including seeding. Because seeding while downloading, does not classify as a "service". And equating seeding to providing a service is misusing and misinterpreting what the word service means. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved said by factchecker :said by Dogfather:Your WEBSERVER is what provides the services to others. Perhaps you need to understand what is meant by "services" before you assert the following... You can not run any device or application that serves data, including seeding. Because seeding while downloading, does not classify as a "service". And equating seeding to providing a service is misusing and misinterpreting what the word service means. They have given themselves the right to do what they want to to P2P sessions. Read my posts above.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Just implement upload caps - problem solved Yeah, I noticed that and now they are covered... However, the argument that seeding falls under the "no service" argument falls flat because seeding is not a "service" according to the PROPER usage. | |
|
| | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | Read the AUP and come back.
The prohibition is provding quote:
network content or any other services
to ANYONE outside your premises LAN.
And specifically names file sharing as a prohibited activity.
Nice try though.
Seeding at ANY time is servicing requests AND providing network content and it's an AUP violation. And as such Comcrap could have easily taken care of the whole idiots seeding 24/7 problem by doing what Cablevision does, cap excessive uploaders at 150kbps. | |
|
| | | |
See 20 replies to this post |
 scrummie02BentleyPremium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
 ·Comcast
2 edits | I actually have a question about all of this. WHS is being touted as the next big thing by MS. My question is what about the picture sharing part of the software? Microsoft during the setup of WHS sets up a domain name (xxx.homeserver.com) and touts how you can share pictures with your family. basically it works like dynamic DNS providers. Still, when your "family" looks at your pictures they are accessing your content. This seems like a conflict of interest. MS touting how you can share you stuff with other people and Comcast telling you providing any network service is against the AUP which it clearly states (as well as having a "server"). This is confusing.
To me that part (and streaming to my 360) would be the reasons I would buy this product. If Comcast says no...well then we've reached an impasse. It seems a new AUP or TOS needs to be written to accommodate things like this otherwise both MS's WHS and my ISP are well...worthless because I'm not only going to use the internet to read email and look at Drudge Report all day. What is people's thoughts on this? I mean real thoughts not thoughts that Comcast should allow you to seed your entire movie collection to the Pirate Bay thoughts....
Really, if line sharing was allowed like someone suggested I'd pick an ISP that doesn't care what I do with my line like Speakeasy, but alas I cannot because I have a choice of Comcast with is reasonably fast or Verizon DSL which will be slow since my distance from the CO is far. And to be honest I'd rather not deal with having Verizon at all except for my cell phone.
--
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. " - Thomas Jefferson | |
|
|
|
