how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
631 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
approval from:
battleop 
| Kick 'em to the curb! Comcast clearly states no home servers on their residential accounts. RTF TOS before singing up.
If you don't like Comcast's server restrictions, get DSL.
If you can't get DSL, get a telco T1.
If a T1 isn't fast enough for you, get a T3.
In any case, get the right tool for the job.
A web host might be an option but I suspect they won't allow hosting pirated material on their servers either. | |
|   ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
| Re: Kick 'em to the curb! said by FartinMartin :
Comcast clearly states no home servers on their residential accounts. RTF TOS before singing up.
If you don't like Comcast's server restrictions, get DSL.
If you can't get DSL, get a telco T1.
If a T1 isn't fast enough for you, get a T3.
In any case, get the right tool for the job.
A web host might be an option but I suspect they won't allow hosting pirated material on their servers either.
Funny, P2P is not a home server. | |
| |  tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Kick 'em to the curb! said by ptrowski:P2P is not a home server. What then is the definition of a server?
A server is not a physical device rather it is a service allowing remote users to access data.
This prohibition is not unique to Comcast. All residential ISPs attempt to structure residential service as "consumption" based. ISPs try to differentiate low cost residential service from much more costly business service. Cablcos tend to be more aggressive in going after "bandwidth hogs" because upstream node capacity is extremely limited.
/tom | |
| | | ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| Re: Kick 'em to the curb! said by tschmidt:said by ptrowski:P2P is not a home server. What then is the definition of a server? A server is not a physical device rather it is a service allowing remote users to access data. This prohibition is not unique to Comcast. All residential ISPs attempt to structure residential service as "consumption" based. ISPs try to differentiate low cost residential service from much more costly business service. Cablcos tend to be more aggressive in going after "bandwidth hogs" because upstream node capacity is extremely limited. /tom True, but there is a slippery slope on the "service allowing remote users to access data". IM programs such as Yahoo allows this, as does other services.
My question is where is the line drawn?
--
"A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Kick 'em to the curb! Exactly. There is no search function when a user opens a bit torrent stream. The user sends certain bits of information, and receives other bits, all at the home users request, who chooses to start and terminate the connection. (NOT the remote user) Much like a webpage.
A server allows the remote user to control actions, which is NOT what is happening. Other P2P apps do allow that, but not torrents.
Unfortunately it just works too well, and while I think it's perfectly appropriate to QoS the entire protocol to a lower priority level, injecting forged packets into any users communication should be felony. I mean, if that's okay, why can't they change your email's en-route? How about bank transfers? "You may have clicked show accounts, but we changed it to, pay comcast bill early". | |
|
| |  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Not my ISP, and many others as well, DSL Extreme comes to mind ...
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day! | |
|
|  DeadpoolGo Sens GoPremium,VIP
join:2001-03-29
Canada
kudos:17 | said by ptrowski:said by FartinMartin :
Comcast clearly states no home servers on their residential accounts. RTF TOS before singing up.
If you don't like Comcast's server restrictions, get DSL.
If you can't get DSL, get a telco T1.
If a T1 isn't fast enough for you, get a T3.
In any case, get the right tool for the job.
A web host might be an option but I suspect they won't allow hosting pirated material on their servers either.
Funny, P2P is not a home server. Ugh, not this debate again.  
--
Series tied 3-3 vs Leafs...GO SENS GO  | |
| | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Kick 'em to the curb! The "is a server" "is NOT a server" debate is moot.
Comcast itself has cleared this up with its own public statements. Comcast explicitly permits its customers to upload and download using P2P applications and protocols on its network. | |
| | | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: Kick 'em to the curb! said by funchords:Comcast itself has cleared this up with its own public statements. Comcast explicitly permits its customers to upload and download using P2P applications and protocols on its network. Didn't they also state this in the same breath that they claimed they were not acting on P2P traffic in any way?
I think one of the things we both agree on is that Comcast's PR department has done an incredibly poor job of accurately representing the company's position. They stated they don't interfere with P2P traffic, and you have gathered a substantial amount of documentation to prove that false. They stated they don't have a problem with P2P applications, yet their own legally binding Terms of Service states that peer-to-peer applications are likely to cause excessive bandwidth usage resulting in termination of service.
The statements from the PR department have been so inconsistent with how the company conducts business that I don't think you can use their public statements to support any point relating to Comcast service. | |
| | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: Kick 'em to the curb! said by espaeth:said by funchords:Comcast itself has cleared this up with its own public statements. Comcast explicitly permits its customers to upload and download using P2P applications and protocols on its network. Didn't they also state this in the same breath that they claimed they were not acting on P2P traffic in any way? I think one of the things we both agree on is that Comcast's PR department has done an incredibly poor job of accurately representing the company's position. They stated they don't interfere with P2P traffic, and you have gathered a substantial amount of documentation to prove that false. They stated they don't have a problem with P2P applications, yet their own legally binding Terms of Service states that peer-to-peer applications are likely to cause excessive bandwidth usage resulting in termination of service. The statements from the PR department have been so inconsistent with how the company conducts business that I don't think you can use their public statements to support any point relating to Comcast service. I've known you long enough to gather the opinion that you just don't say things to spin them. If that had come from anyone else, I'd question their motives.
But it's you. (Note to readers -- watch this guy, he knows his stuff very well and is a patient educator. He has corrected more than a few of my mistakes.)
So, please take no offense when I disagree with you.
I think one of the things we both agree on is that Comcast's PR department has done an incredibly poor job of accurately representing the company's position. No, we don't agree.
When Charlie Douglas made his very first inaccurate statements, I took his denials as a simple mistake. I already knew this was a "big secret," and it made sense to me (perhaps naively) that if you want to keep the public from knowing something, then you keep that information away from your PR personnel.
Once the story grew above the blogs to the EFF and the industry press, including the Light Reading article that Comcast seemingly solicited, the denials were no longer plausible. It became clear that this was a campaign.
I quote Charlie Douglas in my signature file, mostly to convey the lie that Comcast was telling. But partly to encourage all of the other Charlie Douglasses of the world that working for the wrong bosses reflects personally on themselves. Being publically, but accurately ridiculed as a liar in the press makes you less than credible. A PR person who is not credible has no future career in PR.
I know that wasn't your main point, espaeth.
The statements from the PR department have been so inconsistent with how the company conducts business that I don't think you can use their public statements to support any point relating to Comcast service. I see your point, and I agree that it does limit the veracity of the claim in a twisted way. But not only does a PR person who has been demonstrated to lie say it, it is published in Comcast's Technical Support FAQs and it has also been reiterated by David Cohen in public and by Comcast's lawyers in filings with the FCC.
So plausibly "taking it back" after it has been recorded in so many different places by so many different sources would be extremely difficult.
-- now picture me standing on a pedestal, raised sword in hand --
I did opt out of the Arbitration Clause. So if I have a fight with Comcast over some new way they're interpreting a server policy that essentially has not changed, then I'm going to a public court and they'll have to respond under penalty of perjury. They won't only be fighting me, they'll be fighting their own past practices established under a TOS/AUP that hasn't changed.
-- hahaha, okay, that just looks foolish; picture redfaced me getting off the pedestal sword revealed to be cardboard spray-painted in silver ---
Look, all of the above is beside the point. It isn't going to happen because Comcast still has more employees who hate the Company's recent tactics than those who honestly support them. The employees who work on HSI are fans of the unfettered Internet and they're fans of their product. They don't want to cheat themselves and others in order to beat the analyst's quarterly projections. Sure, they get frustrated at stupid user mistakes -- like trying to host an pay-per-view adult web site on a Comcast 6Mbps/384Kbps account. But at the end of the day, they still want fast, full, and rich access to the Internet and they want their product to be the most kick-ass ISP it can be. That's how Comcast has been for years. The HSI employees have always been pro-user and have looked out for us even when it has meant a little more work for them. IT'S WHY they don't block outgoing Port 25 unless there is a problem from the account. The easiest solution for any such problems is to block the port and outright prohibit the activity. But, no, the only ports that Comcast has blocked are those associated with specific attack vectors AND when blocking those ports does not interfere with the customer. When they do this, it is never a secret.
Here is a case in point that is often brought up: The words "File Sharing" appear as a prohibited activity in the AUP. File Sharing is mentioned in the AUP not because of P2P or FTP, but specifically because of high-risk, often-attacked Windows File and Printer Sharing SMB traffic/probes. Experience has shown that when this traffic is noticed on the net, it is either an attack or a customer's misconfiguration. Still, there was a lot of concern when ISPs started blocking those ports -- many people holding the position that the customers' security is not the ISPs job. I still hold that position myself, but I find the other position to be very rational. The fully-disclosed actions that ISPs took are within the bounds of "reasonable network management" and are supported by facts. While Network Neutrality is technically infringed, there is no effective harm. Customers' rights to speech and expression were not being exercised on these ports, anyway. The presence of this traffic invariably was either an attack or a mistake [security leak]. On the odd chance that someone decided to use these ports for something else, that too would be an explicit mistake. These ports belonged to IANA registered services and to put other types of traffic on them violates established Internet Standards.
This whole Sandvine thing is an abberation. Comcast Corporate is fighting hard because they spent a ton of money on Sandvine instead of on doing the plant construction that would have normally met the increasing demand. They've also made themselves look very foolish to their investors and to the fellow (and now very pissed off) members of NCTA and Cablelabs. Comcast Corporation, however, is going to be around even after the giant flushing sounds fade from the management offices in Philadelphia.
They'll be gone. I'll still be a customer. Isn't life strange?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
|
|  MacLeechThe one and onlyPremium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
kudos:3
1 edit | said by ptrowski:Funny, P2P is not a home server. Not when Comcast's Sandvine gear fixes it.
said by ptrowski:My question is where is the line drawn? The line seems very clearly drawn by the Sanvine gear in this case. | |
|
| | said by FartinMartin :
Comcast clearly states no home servers on their residential accounts. RTF TOS before singing up.
If you don't like Comcast's server restrictions, get DSL.
If you can't get DSL, get a telco T1.
If a T1 isn't fast enough for you, get a T3.
In any case, get the right tool for the job.
A web host might be an option but I suspect they won't allow hosting pirated material on their servers either.
Who said anything about a server?
@ Comcast????
SHILL! | |
| | | If sending data upstream is considered a server they better start packet shaping my grandmother's vacation images she just sent me via email. | |
|
| |
|
