nocando
@comcast.net
| nocando
Try downloading a 3 gig World of Warcraft client with Comcast in the background flicking the switch off and on. The downloader uses a p2p downloading scheme and it just gets hosed. Ok so p2p is the highway thieves drive on, but their idea of policing the problems is just stop everyone. Lets offer high speed internet and slow down and throttle downloads. Sheesh talk about double standards. |
|
cmarin
join:2004-01-13
Boynton Beach, FL
| Its all in the ToS
Comcast is a company, not a government institution. You are not "ENTITLED" to anything other than what you pay for. You are paying for internet access that comes with restrictions. These restrictions are CLEARLY identified in the TERMS of SERVICE that you agree to when you subscribe to said service.
»www.comcast.net/terms/use/
The ToS clearly indicates that you cannot use their service for file sharing.
"use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network ("Premises LAN"), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;"
Regardless of the argument of legal vs. illegal or copyright vs. theft, the ToS is clear and unambiguous with respect to file sharing (which is what P2P clients do). Therefore, if you want to use P2P, then simply subscribe to a different ISP that doesn't have this restriction.
This isn't about RIAA or MPAA or Comcast fanaticism. Abide by the rules that you agreed to when you subscribed to the service, or find another service. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
Regardless of the argument of legal vs. illegal or copyright vs. theft, the ToS is clear and unambiguous with respect to file sharing
Can you show me where it tells users how much bandwidth they can consumer per month before being booted from the service?
Could you also show me where it informs users that all P2P upstream connections will be derailed via the use of forged TCP packets regardless of how much bandwidth is consumed by that user?
Your argument largely holds up until the "clear and unambiguous" part. |
|
cmarin
join:2004-01-13
Boynton Beach, FL
| said by Karl Bode  : quote:
Regardless of the argument of legal vs. illegal or copyright vs. theft, the ToS is clear and unambiguous with respect to file sharing
Can you show me where it tells users how much bandwidth they can consumer per month before being booted from the service? Could you also show me where it informs users that all P2P upstream connections will be derailed via the use of forged TCP packets regardless of how much bandwidth is consumed by that user? Your argument largely holds up until the "clear and unambiguous" part. Karl, with respect, your rebuttal on my argument is a red herring. I never addressed the question of caps or how the company decides to enforce their terms of service. These are separate and distinct issues.
The fact that they don't have any hard caps in their ToS doesn't mean that you can just consume all available bandwidth. This would be disruptive to other clients and there is a clause in the ToS that deals with the disruption aspect of it. The threshold for the disruption may be different in different markets, so perhaps it makes sense not to specify a hard limit but deal with it on a case by case basis.
As to your second argument about forged TCP packets, that goes to the heart of the enforcement aspect. Cops have multiple ways of catching a speeder, from planes to radar, to laser, to cameras. They are all tools used to enforce a law. Comcast rightfully or wrongly decided that the best way to enfoce the file sharing ToS is to forge TCP packets and send RST packets when they detect P2P activity. Whether this is correct or not is not the point.
The point is that if you use P2P your're violating their ToS. You can't complain about how they enforce the ToS if you're violating it. So I still think that this issue is quite clear and unambiguous.
Show me where it says in the ToS that even though you pay for 8mbps service, Comcast will double it to 16mbps for no extra charge during the first few minutes of use so you can get your file quicker. How come you don't complain about this? |
|
gateguy
Premium
join:2001-02-12
Reisterstown, MD | Cant wait until Comcast has to pay to transport the entire World of Warcraft patch (and any other ISO's being downloaded).
Cut off the nose to spite their face? |
|
cmarin
join:2004-01-13
Boynton Beach, FL
| said by gateguy :Cant wait until Comcast has to pay to transport the entire World of Warcraft patch (and any other ISO's being downloaded). Cut off the nose to spite their face? Perhaps, but if you're downloading the ISO's "the old fashioned way" and not using a P2P client, and assuming you're not downloading so much that you're disrupting other clients, then you're not in violation of their ToS and they have to provide you with the bandwidth to do so. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
edit:
March 26th, @01:50PM
| reply to cmarin
quote:
Karl, with respect, your rebuttal on my argument is a red herring. I never addressed the question of caps or how the company decides to enforce their terms of service. These are separate and distinct issues.
You made the argument that the limitations of the service are clearly laid out in the TOS. They are not. They are vague, and they do not give a would-be consumer a clear understanding of the limitations imposed on the network. They are designed, like most TOS, to cover the ISPs legal posterior and little else.Show me where it says in the ToS that even though you pay for 8mbps service, Comcast will double it to 16mbps for no extra charge during the first few minutes of use so you can get your file quicker. How come you don't complain about this? Because it's mentioned adequately within the Comcast FAQ. The forgery of TCP packets is mentioned nowhere, nor are hard cap numbers. Both are things I believe consumers have the right to know if they're to make a smart purchasing decision. |
|
Dan888
join:2007-08-21
Wilmington, DE
| reply to cmarin
Just a quick question as I am not sure if this is in the ToS, but does Comcast claim they have the right to alter any data that you send out and alter it to their liking, and then claim that this altered data came from the IP that you are using and would trace back to you? |
|
cmarin
join:2004-01-13
Boynton Beach, FL
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode : quote:
Karl, with respect, your rebuttal on my argument is a red herring. I never addressed the question of caps or how the company decides to enforce their terms of service. These are separate and distinct issues.
You made the argument that the limitations of the service are clearly laid out in the TOS. They are not. They are vague, and they do not give a would-be consumer a clear understanding of the limitations imposed on the network. They are designed, like most TOS, to cover the ISPs legal posterior and little else. Show me where it says in the ToS that even though you pay for 8mbps service, Comcast will double it to 16mbps for no extra charge during the first few minutes of use so you can get your file quicker. How come you don't complain about this? Because it's mentioned adequately within the Comcast FAQ. The forgery of TCP packets is mentioned nowhere, nor are hard cap numbers. Both are things I believe consumers have the right to know if they're to make a smart purchasing decision. My argument was focused on file sharing ToS. If we leave all other issues aside, do you not agree that file sharing is a violation of ToS?
If you agree on this one point, then all else is moot. How they are enforcing the ToS doesn't matter. That's my point. .. and a FAQ and a ToS are two very different things. You don't agree to a FAQ. You agree to a TOS. |
|
linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
 ·CenturyTel Inc.
 ·Cebridge Connections
 ·Vonage
| reply to Dan888
I think before any one can answer that question, you need to provide an example without putting yourself or anyone else in jeopardy.
Generally speaking. no. Comcast doesn't have the time to sort through a million messages a day to trick you. It is more likely your email address was hijacked.
--
Mac: No windows, No gates, Apple inside |
|
ChevTex
@chevrontexaco.com
| reply to cmarin
There goes the entire basic concept of the internet. The internet is not one way TV signal. They still have that frame of thought. All i have to say is they are putting themselves in a corner, you cannot stop the torrent of information being exchanged between all the citizens of the internet. Comcast and the rest of them are going to lose this battle. Take a lesson from history, the will of the people always wins. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to cmarin
Your original statement I had an issue with: quote:
These restrictions are CLEARLY identified in the TERMS of SERVICE that you agree to when you subscribe to said service.
They are not. TOS in general are misleading piles of vaguely worded legalese crafted solely for the carrier's legal protection.
Your suggestion that users are clearly informed about the precise nature of a service or network restriction based on reading the TOS is incorrect. The TOS says p2p service is not allowed, yet clearly it is... |
|
Dan888
join:2007-08-21
Wilmington, DE
edit:
March 26th, @02:24PM
| reply to linicx
For this I am referring to forged TCP packets, as they alter some of the data that you send out and then have it show that the packet came from the IP that you are using. This is no different then forging any other packet and so I was asking simply if the Comcast ToS claimed they had the right to alter any of the data that you send out and still have that data trace back to you. |
|
fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
·Comcast
| reply to linicx
said by linicx :I think before any one can answer that question, you need to provide an example without putting yourself or anyone else in jeopardy. Generally speaking. no. Comcast doesn't have the time to sort through a million messages a day to trick you. It is more likely your email address was hijacked. We're not talking email, he said "data", and that is exactly what Comcast is doing. The user's computer sends a TCP packet, which Comcast intercepts, alters, forges the IP address, then sends it on. In effect, Comcast is impersonating the user. |
|
cmarin
join:2004-01-13
Boynton Beach, FL
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :Your original statement I had an issue with: quote:
These restrictions are CLEARLY identified in the TERMS of SERVICE that you agree to when you subscribe to said service.
They are not. TOS in general are misleading piles of vaguely worded legalese crafted solely for the carrier's legal protection. Your suggestion that users are clearly informed about the precise nature of a service or network restriction based on reading the TOS is incorrect. The TOS says p2p service is not allowed, yet clearly it is... All ToS and contracts ARE legalese and they are indeed crafted to protect the legal rights of those who enter into the agreement. There is a specific mention of file sharing in the "legalese" and of the fact that it is NOT an allowed use of their network. I don't know how this can be any clearer.
I wish that they had infinite bandwidth and we could all sit in our couches fat dumb and happy and download every video, song, and picture available on the internet at all times. Perhaps this will be the case in the future, but it isn't now. The service provider has limited bandwidth and limited resources. It provides service and limits the use of the service via the TOS. You have to AGREE to the TOS in order to use the service, so if you don't read it, that's your fault. We're all adults here (for the most part), and I always read what I agree to.
So it all boils down to the ToS. Unless you can make the company change the ToS to allow P2P use, then you're in violation if you use P2P file sharing. Please give me an argument that defeats this binding agreement.
Look, I'm no Comcast rep or even a stockholder. I'm just a subscriber. But I know what I subscribed to, and while I DON'T like the restrictions, I have to live with them because I agreed to them. Just like my HOA. I hate the fact that I can't plant a nice fruit tree in my yard, but my HOA has covenants that prevent this use of MY land. I agreed to the covenants when I bought my house, so now I have to abide by them.
This is such a simple concept! Agree to ToS or take your business elsewhere! |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| The TOS is BS. Everybody knows it. They should be banned by law.
They force it on you, so break it at will, and if they try and bury you in it, take your $$$ and walk. And trash them at every possible turn for being the scumbags that they are. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to cmarin
quote:
All ToS and contracts ARE legalese and they are indeed crafted to protect the legal rights of those who enter into the agreement.
Broadband industry TOS are designed solely to protect the corporation, and in some cases to strip away customer rights (see binding TOS arbitration). I find your arguments disingenuous. quote:
There is a specific mention of file sharing in the "legalese" and of the fact that it is NOT an allowed use of their network.
And yet clearly it is, because millions of Comcast customers are allowed to do so every day -- which makes the TOS an inaccurate portrayal of what's allowed on the network. quote:
This is such a simple concept! Agree to ToS or take your business elsewhere!
I suppose. Some customers have decided to stay and fight, forcing the carrier to be transparent in their network management in a desire for a device and software agnostic network. I think that's absolutely their right as consumers. |
|
linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
·CenturyTel Inc.
·Cebridge Connections
·Vonage
| reply to fuziwuzi
Email is data, too, but that is beside the point. Why would Comcast single this person out, or for that matter, go to the trouble of forging an IP address and impersonate a customer? This does not make any sense, but it does make the case for further investigation.
Personally, if it was my machine, I'd lug it to the best network guy I could find and have him "fix" the problem.
--
Mac: No windows, No gates, Apple inside |
|
Dan888
join:2007-08-21
Wilmington, DE
| I believe you misunderstood me
I have had no problems, fuziwuzi did indeed understand what I was saying, I am asking if the Comcast ToS allows them to alter data (forge a packet)while still claiming it came from your IP address. When a reset packet is forged and sent out to interrupt P2P with how they are doing it, it says it came from your IP address, despite the fact that your system never sent out that packet. My question is only asking in the Comcast ToS do they claim they have the right to alter any of the data you send out (packets) while still claiming it is from you, as this is what happens when they forged packets. I am not looking to get a problem fixed, however if they have the right to forge packets in this one case, then it would imply they have the right to alter ANY data you send out, and I simply wish to know if Comcast claims this right. |
|
linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
·CenturyTel Inc.
·Cebridge Connections
·Vonage
| I do not believe any ISP has the right to alter data as anything an American writes is protected by US Copyrright law for 75-years. If Comcast is doing that, and if they are caught they would get it BIG trouble for it. It wouldn't be worth the risk, I don't believe. Could one emplyee who has a grudge do that without the knowledge of Comcast. Probably. I do not know how closely they watch every IT person they hire.
On the otherhand, with the new software, I don't know how difficult tt is for a hacker to breach your system and do what you describe. This is just a thought.
However, I do believe Comcast is probably throttling transmissions like BT. p2p, how they do it I do not pretend to understand. Whether or not they can forge your data to throttle your transmission or receiving is another question.
An ISP I was close to, who is now deceased, said it wasn't that difficult to forge emails or hijack addresses. There may be more going on than what you realize and you may have stumbled on to something that really is not nice quite by accident. I would be curious enough to look further.
--
Mac: No windows, No gates, Apple inside |
|
