<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Good but only if it applies to everyone in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20774007</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:31:13 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:31:13 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20786002</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><b>funchords</b></A> : Fine.  Do you know what?  The FCC ought to just reissue the policy statement without that in there.  Will that satisfy you?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20786002</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:56:31 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20784217</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><b>GOLFnSUN</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  funchords <A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Consider this:<br><br><IMG SRC="http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1326773~44bdd9bcddbc2e307d6f9138d4d9885a/Reasonable.jpg"><br><br>Assume this is or becomes enforceable, would conflicting provisions in boilerplate TOS/AUP documents supersede it or be nullified by it?<br> </div>It all depends on how "reasonable" is defined. And Comcast isn't going to leave that up to the FCC. Off to court they go to define "reasonable".<br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a><br>Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20784217</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:59:17 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20784202</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><b>funchords</b></A> : Consider this:<br><br><IMG SRC="http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1326773~44bdd9bcddbc2e307d6f9138d4d9885a/Reasonable.jpg"><br><br>Assume this is or becomes enforceable, would conflicting provisions in boilerplate TOS/AUP documents supersede it or be nullified by it?<br><small>--<br>Robb Topolski -= <A HREF="http://funchords.com/">funchords.com</a> =- Hillsboro, Oregon<br><i><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/6famoj"><b>HTTP</b> is the new Bandwidth Hog</a></i>... <br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20784202</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:54:44 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20782515</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/887660"><b>hottboiinnc</b></A> : RR is a separate company from TWC. RR is the ISP. TWC is the operator. Go read the TOS and the AUP on the RR side.  They are separate. You don't call TWC to get RR support. You call RoadRunner Support who is in Canada. Not in your home state.  The only thing that is in your home state is the reboot monkeys and Tier 3/Network Operations.<br><br>RR uses the same agreement with BH and Insight in the areas that use RR instead of InsightBB or BH Internet.<br><br>You just fail to go read the agreements as I have said before.  InsightBB and BH also have RR logos on their website but does NOT mean that they are RR.<br><br>You people are just stupid and only do what is easy for you to argue about because you're fuckin lazy to go read what the agreements actually say.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20782515</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:17:45 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20782461</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/887660"><b>hottboiinnc</b></A> : RoadRunner does state in their's at help.rr.com what they do.  You would know this if you went to read it. But since you don't feel like you should have to follow their guidelines you simply feel that the rules they have don't apply to you; the same as many others on here.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20782461</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:01:21 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20781109</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><b>funchords</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  fiberguy <A HREF="/useremail/u/1206900"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>No, I didn't say that. BUT, when it's updated, do you not get the notice from them stating they updated their TOS agreement?<br> </div>When Comcast last updated its agreements, it was a few days before an FCC filing where they defended their case by referring to the changed agreements!  <br><br>I had software that was monitoring the changes.  <br><br>They changed the TOS documents and told nobody for about 8-9 days.  Nobody mentioned it anywhere in any of Comcast's online forums or on DSLReports.  The changes were significant, and there is no way that such a change would go unmentioned by a user or the press.<br><br>After waiting to see if anyone picked up on it, I sent e-mail to a contact at FreePress.net telling them about what changed and giving them the diffs.  That started a round of press where Comcast essentially called FreePress.net's lawyer a liar or trouble-maker by saying  that the TOS was front-page news on Comcast.net (except that it wasn't front-page news, and Google cache confirmed that).  <br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="/shownews/Comcast-Changes-TOS-In-Response-To-Traffic-Shaping-Firestorm-91656">Comcast Changes TOS In Response To Traffic Shaping Firestorm</A><br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/02/06/comcast-new-terms-of-service-recipe-for-discrimination/" >www.savetheinternet.com/blog/200&middot;&middot;&middot;ination/</A><br><br><small>--<br>Robb Topolski -= <A HREF="http://funchords.com/">funchords.com</a> =- Hillsboro, Oregon<br><i><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/6famoj"><b>HTTP</b> is the new Bandwidth Hog</a></i>... <br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20781109</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:00:37 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Martin delivers a fart instead of a bomb with his recommenda</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20781093</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1514516"><b>Dogfather</b></A> : Okay...so reruns of Yu-Gi-Oh.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20781093</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:55:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Martin delivers a fart instead of a bomb with his recommenda</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20781089</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><b>funchords</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Dogfather <A HREF="/useremail/u/1514516"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Or maybe Roberts promised Martin that he could watch all the Berenstain Bears episodes he wanted on the new $22M HD wall.<br> </div>I know, the guy looks so freekin' young! He's 40 though! <br><small>--<br>Robb Topolski -= <A HREF="http://funchords.com/">funchords.com</a> =- Hillsboro, Oregon<br><i><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/6famoj"><b>HTTP</b> is the new Bandwidth Hog</a></i>... <br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20781089</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:53:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20778978</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1206900"><b>fiberguy</b></A> : No, I didn't say that. BUT, when it's updated, do you not get the notice from them stating they updated their TOS agreement?<br><br>Where I WILL damn them is if they make changes to the TOS and NOT notify people. I do not agree with those that update their TOS and do so quietly. I do NOT agree that it's up to the user to "review it periodically"... you and I are talking about the word "reasonable" in another thread. Here is a perfect clear example of what is not reasonable. It's NOT reasonable to expect a user to always look over their shoulder.  <br><br>Just like any other chance, I believe they should have to notify consumer with a "reasonable" amount of time and using reasonable measures.. ie: registered email address, or by mail, or in the bill.<br><br>Paypal sends out updates regularly.. and, if the update is serious enough, I have to click to agree or I can't continue. That's fair.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20778978</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:23:07 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Martin delivers a fart instead of a bomb with his recommenda</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20778751</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1514516"><b>Dogfather</b></A> : Or maybe Roberts promised Martin that he could watch all the Berenstain Bears episodes he wanted on the new $22M HD wall.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20778751</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:18:01 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Martin delivers a fart instead of a bomb with his recommenda</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20778454</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><b>funchords</b></A> : Sadly, I think Comcast will take it to court, and I think that Kevin Martin thinks that will happen too.  The lack of huge fines will make the FCC look like it was being "reasonable." (For some reason, I suddenly feel dirty when I use that word.)<br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  Dogfather <A HREF="/useremail/u/1514516"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>LOL.  Looks like Comcast's check made it through.<br> </div>Hahahahaha.<br><small>--<br>Robb Topolski -= <A HREF="http://funchords.com/">funchords.com</a> =- Hillsboro, Oregon<br><i><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/6famoj"><b>HTTP</b> is the new Bandwidth Hog</a></i>... <br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20778454</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:15:00 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Martin delivers a fart instead of a bomb with his recommenda</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20778385</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1514516"><b>Dogfather</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  GOLFnSUN <A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>LOL. Lots of noise about how TOUGH Martin was going to be. Well he has released his recommendation on Comcast:<br>- No fine.<br>- Stop P2P blocking before year end. Something Comcast already said they were going to do.<br><br>I guess he doesn't think he has any real power given his recommendations are already what was going to happen.<br><br>I wonder if Comcast will take the FCC to court over this anyway if the FCC even issues this weak order. The news story says they will.<br><br>Story:<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200807111314DOWJONESDJONLINE000683_FORTUNE5.htm" >money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/art&middot;&middot;&middot;UNE5.htm</A><br> </div>LOL.  Looks like Comcast's check made it through.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20778385</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:03:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Martin delivers a fart instead of a bomb with his recommenda</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20778057</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><b>GOLFnSUN</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  funchords <A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Personally, with all of the lying and deception to the FCC and the public, I'm surprised about no fines.  But if the FCC wants to make their future job difficult and encourage lying by imposing no penalties for doing so, then I guess that's up to them.  <br> </div>Just my humble opinion. But it looks like Martin doesn't have much confidence in his cause. And he is trying to look like he is doing SOMETHING while hoping Comcast doesn't call his bluff by going to Federal court. <br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20778057</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:49:21 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Martin delivers a fart instead of a bomb with his recommenda</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20778000</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><b>funchords</b></A> : Well it seems to me that if the Commission gives an order and Comcast disobeys, then bring on the fine for disobedience of the order.<br><br>Comcast is complaining that the FCC never told them what is reasonable.  The order will tell them that blocking P2P uploads isn't reasonable.<br><br>Personally, with all of the lying and deception to the FCC and the public, I'm surprised about no fines.  But if the FCC wants to make their future job difficult and encourage lying by imposing no penalties for doing so, then I guess that's up to them.  <br><small>--<br>Robb Topolski -= <A HREF="http://funchords.com/">funchords.com</a> =- Hillsboro, Oregon<br><i><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/6famoj"><b>HTTP</b> is the new Bandwidth Hog</a></i>... <br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20778000</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:39:55 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Martin delivers a fart instead of a bomb with his recommendation</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20777851</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><b>GOLFnSUN</b></A> : LOL. Lots of noise about how TOUGH Martin was going to be. Well he has released his recommendation on Comcast:<br>- No fine.<br>- Stop P2P blocking before year end. Something Comcast already said they were going to do.<br><br>I guess he doesn't think he has any real power given his recommendations are already what was going to happen.<br><br>I wonder if Comcast will take the FCC to court over this anyway if the FCC even issues this weak order. The news story says they will.<br><br>Story:<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200807111314DOWJONESDJONLINE000683_FORTUNE5.htm" >money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/art&middot;&middot;&middot;UNE5.htm</A><br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20777851</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:10:54 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20777205</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/994429"><b>KnightAR</b></A> : That's what I'm trying to say tho, That is why Cox is getting a pass. I didn't say it made it right ... It just seems that it's better to admit what they are doing then to try to deny it and try to keep the truth a secret.<br><br>I mostly download from people on dedicated servers on Bittorrent ... so Cox's blocking doesn't bother me much ... eventually any isp doing this will get whats coming to them.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20777205</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:51:31 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20777179</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1027919"><b>Anonymous_</b></A> : see image<div class="borderless"><TABLE WIDTH=95% align=center border=0 CELLPADDING=4"><TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#FFFFFF nwrap COLSPAN=3 WIDTH=100%><A HREF="/speak/slideshow/20777179?c=1326917&ret=L2ZvcnVtL3IyMDc3NDAwNy54bWw%3D"><IMG class="apic" BORDER=0 TITLE="105665 bytes" WIDTH=600 HEIGHT=477 SRC="/r0/download/1326917.thumb600~0e5af539a0ec74c3342b0fb654b0f32a/2008-07-11_152933.jpg/thumb.jpg" ALT="Click for full size"></A></TD></TABLE></div>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20777179</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:44:34 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20777067</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><b>funchords</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  KnightAR <A HREF="/useremail/u/994429"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Cox does throttle Bittorrent Traffic but it's only for Uploads, AND they ADMITTED they do ... and they have limits you actually know about. Comcast throttled both Download & Upload</div>1.  Cox's day is coming <br>2. In P2P, everyone's upload is someone else's download<br>3. Admitting doing wrong doesn't make it right<br><div class="bquote">and said they did no such thing which was a obvious lie ... which I think is worse then actually doing it without admitting they are even when it was proved.<br> </div>Right. On a technical and real level, Cox and Comcast did precisely and exactly the same thing.  <br><br>On an investigative level, both kept it secret.  But when directly confronted, only Comcast denied, deflected, diverted attention in order for people to get confused.  Cox got a pass from the public's anger when it simply confirmed the allegation.<br><br>I haven't tested in a while, but it seems that both companies continue to do this, apparently.  (I haven't heard otherwise.)<br><small>--<br>Robb Topolski -= <A HREF="http://funchords.com/">funchords.com</a> =- Hillsboro, Oregon<br><i><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/6famoj"><b>HTTP</b> is the new Bandwidth Hog</a></i>... <br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20777067</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:20:04 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20777037</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><b>funchords</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  fiberguy <A HREF="/useremail/u/1206900"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Please explain how anything is "hidden" in an agreement.  Are these terms written on white paper in white ink? Do you need a magic decode ring to decipher the encrypted symbols to turn them into English letters? Do they hide them behind bushes in the agreement? what?<br> </div>So every time you start your web browser, you re-read your service "agreement" to see if someone has changed it without notifying you?<br><br>(And what kind of an "agreement" is it really if you have to check it to see whether or not you've agreed to something new?)<br><small>--<br>Robb Topolski -= <A HREF="http://funchords.com/">funchords.com</a> =- Hillsboro, Oregon<br><i><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/6famoj"><b>HTTP</b> is the new Bandwidth Hog</a></i>... <br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20777037</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:12:51 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20776667</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/891765"><b>Cheese</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  hottboiinnc <A HREF="/useremail/u/887660"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>TWC DOES NOT DO IT! RoadRunner does who is the actual ISP.<br><br>Go read your TOS and AUPs from the help.rr.com site. You agree to both their AUPs as well as Time Warner's.  RR has the right to do what they want to you since they "own" the network, TWC "leases" it according to the AUP and the TOS. The same with BH customers and anyone else who leases their lines to RoadRunner.<br> </div>TWC = Roadrunner I believe ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20776667</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:44:05 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20776465</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/994429"><b>KnightAR</b></A> : Cox does throttle Bittorrent Traffic but it's only for Uploads, AND they ADMITTED they do ... and they have limits you actually know about. Comcast throttled both Download & Upload and said they did no such thing which was a obvious lie ... which I think is worse then actually doing it without admitting they are even when it was proved.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20776465</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:03:07 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20776167</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/168864"><b>sporkme</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  GOLFnSUN <A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>[Martin is just going after Comcast because it has fought his favorite cause as commissioner - huge amounts of lobbying dollars, hookers and vacations. <br> </div>Fixed. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20776167</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:04:28 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20776062</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1206900"><b>fiberguy</b></A> : Please explain how anything is "hidden" in an agreement.  Are these terms written on white paper in white ink? Do you need a magic decode ring to decipher the encrypted symbols to turn them into English letters? Do they hide them behind bushes in the agreement? what?<br><br>The last time I checked the TOS agreement, every word was available for me, and everyone else *should they choose to bother to read*, to read every work. <br><br>My hang up with your comment is that something is being hidden. I think you need to change your comment because as it is stated, you simply show that the consumer is lazy and doesn't care what they sign which says NOTHING for the average consumer. And, who's fault is that for the consumer not taking time to read?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20776062</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:47:49 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20776038</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1206900"><b>fiberguy</b></A> : When it comes to Martin and the cable industry, period, its simply hard to take anything he says serious. It so incredibly clear that he's MORE than biased that he makes Fox news truly look fair and balanced in their reporting. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20776038</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:43:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775838</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1514516"><b>Dogfather</b></A> : Doesn't suck to be me anymore.  At that address I switched to FiOS.  50/20Mb for a while 'cause of the free first month but now I have 20/5.  Of course now there aren't any problems.<br><br>At my Cox address I rarely use usenet and don't use BT do I don't know what they're up to.  Lately though speeds in the evening have been shitty no matter what.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775838</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:02:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775819</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/947367"><b>Xizer</b></A> : I downloaded over 500 gigs off of Usenet last month on my RR connection without experiencing throttling.<br><br>Sucks to be you, I guess. That little news announcement hasn't come to fruition for me.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775819</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:00:14 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775806</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1514516"><b>Dogfather</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Doctor Four <A HREF="/useremail/u/197199"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>   :</small><br><br>TW was also allegedly throttling NNTP (Usenet) traffic as<br>well. Though I never did see that for the few weeks I<br>still had it last year around the time they starting doing it.<br> </div>I didn't see it right away.  It started for me long after all the hub-bub in the forums here.  Then my normally 15Mb DLs from Giganews dropped into the 2-3Mb range in the late evenings.  Use encryption and the speeds would be 15Mb day or night.  My neighbors complained that their torrent traffic was getting hammered and using encryption sped them up as well.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775806</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:56:24 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775790</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/464721"><b>Morac</b></A> : Except Comcast went above and beyond traffic shaping.  Traffic shaping gives certain packets priority over others and limits connection speeds.  Comcast just decided to block certain packets completely and violated several Internet standards to do so.  They did all this while refusing to acknowledge that they did so.<br><small>--<br><br><A HREF="http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,10084297~mode=flat">The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired</a>.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775790</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:54:53 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775730</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1158068"><b>TScheisskopf</b></A> : Entirely plausible, all things considered.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775730</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:44:07 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775685</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1514516"><b>Dogfather</b></A> : Really?<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="/forum/r18468495-TWC-TW-Officially-Announces-Packet-Shaping-for-All-RR-Users">[TWC] TW Officially Announces Packet Shaping for All RR Users</A><br><br>   <blockquote><small>said by From Time Warner's Help Desk :</small><hr>TIME WARNER ANNOUNCES INTRODUCTION OF PACKET SHAPING TECHNOLOGY NATIONWIDE<br><br>June 6, 2007 -- Time Warner today implemented a network management tool to improve the operation of the network for all subscribers. As a result, a small minority of users may experience slower speeds during peak hours when using certain applications that consume lots of bandwidth. You can address this situation by reducing your use of bandwidth-intensive applications during peak hours. "Peak hours" are generally in the evenings.<br><br>"Packet shaping" technology has been implemented for newsgroup applications, regardless of the provider, and all peer-to-peer networks and certain other high bandwidth applications not necessarily limited to audio, video, and voice over IP telephony. Road Runner reserves the right to implement network management tools for other applications in the future.<br><br>Customers are reminded of the terms of our Acceptable Use Policy at &Acirc;&raquo;help.rr.com/aup:<br><br>* The Road Runner service may not be used to engage in any conduct that<br>interferes with Road Runner's ability to provide service to others,<br>including the use of excessive bandwidth.<br><br>* The Road Runner service may not be used to breach or attempt to breach<br>the security, the computer, the software or the data of any person or<br>entity, including Road Runner, to circumvent the user authentication<br>features or security of any host, network or account, to use or<br>distribute tools designed to compromise security, or to interfere with<br>another's use of the Road Runner service through the posting or<br>transmitting of a virus or other harmful item or to deliberately<br>overload or flood that entity's system.<br><br>Customers are further advised that efforts designed to circumvent our network management<br>tools may be in violation of our Acceptable Use Policy and may result in account suspension<br>without warning.<hr></blockquote><br><br>And my 3rd party NNTP service was traffic shaped into the ground.  Only after using encryption (on the same service, Giganews) did my speeds pick back up.  Turn off encryption and they would over time fall again.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775685</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:38:45 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775671</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/947367"><b>Xizer</b></A> : Time Warner Cable doesn't traffic shape.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775671</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:35:52 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775506</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1514516"><b>Dogfather</b></A> : Even if you do read them, more often than not don't tell you anything about how they manage their network.<br><br>In some cases they simply say that you can't use the service in a way that degrades the performance of others in the sole opinion of the ISP.  <br><br>WTF does that mean?  These ISPs repeatedly refuse to clearly define abuse and/or they apply these network management principles across the board whether you're negatively "affecting" the network or not.<br><br>Unless the AUP spells out in detail what constitutes abuse, pointing to the AUP saying they told you is silly.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775506</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:07:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775422</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/887660"><b>hottboiinnc</b></A> : because chances are if you don't read them you'll be one of the many on here that cries about the way ISPs manage their network. <br><br>Read what you agree to. Its there for you to read. Other wise if you don't read it shut the hell up and take your business else where. I'm sure your ISP will be glad to get rid of you.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20775422</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:54:01 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774925</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/489959"><b>nasadude</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  GOLFnSUN <A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Martin is just going after Comcast because it has fought his favorite cause as commissioner - a la carte. ...<br> </div>I have a new theory about why Martin seems to carry water for the telcos:<br><br>before I begin, please note that Martin's wife worked in the office of the VP for Cheney.<br><br>Martin was told to make sure the telcos get whatever they want in the way of regulatory forbearance to make sure they would continue to implement the administration's warrantless wiretapping program.<br><br>a little "tin foil hat", but isn't it fun to speculate?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774925</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:31:07 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774413</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : I call BS. Just becuase someone hides something in a TOS doesn't mean they get carte blanche on whatever they want to do. That does seem to be a very 'equal' contract when these companies do that kind of thing. Remember that that for a contract to be enforceable they need to be conscionable. Here's a little link about this kind of thing. It works in theory in the US like this as well.<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.fairtrading.act.gov.au/Pages/Business/unconscionable_conduct.html" >www.fairtrading.act.gov.au/Pages&middot;&middot;&middot;uct.html</A><br><br>Most of these TOS and AUP are pretty badly slanted towards the provider.<br>Cell phone companies trie this crap too and it seems that the feds don't care too much as much as it has happen this past 8 years.: &raquo;<A HREF="http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2005/10/cll_phone_arbit.html" >lawprofessors.typepad.com/contra&middot;&middot;&middot;bit.html</A>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774413</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:13:46 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774266</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1027919"><b>Anonymous_</b></A> : my avg upload speed out of 130Megabytes is 114Kbyte up  (OR 914 KBITS/s)<br><br>no one reads em anyhow<br><br> why should i read an buch of crap]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774266</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:46:36 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774261</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/887660"><b>hottboiinnc</b></A> : TWC DOES NOT DO IT! RoadRunner does who is the actual ISP.<br><br>Go read your TOS and AUPs from the help.rr.com site. You agree to both their AUPs as well as Time Warner's.  RR has the right to do what they want to you since they "own" the network, TWC "leases" it according to the AUP and the TOS. The same with BH customers and anyone else who leases their lines to RoadRunner.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774261</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:44:46 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774257</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1027919"><b>Anonymous_</b></A> : ....<div class="borderless"><TABLE WIDTH=95% align=center border=0 CELLPADDING=4"><TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#FFFFFF nwrap COLSPAN=3 WIDTH=100%><A HREF="/speak/slideshow/20774257?c=1326795&ret=L2ZvcnVtL3IyMDc3NDAwNy54bWw%3D"><IMG class="apic" BORDER=0 TITLE="33490 bytes" WIDTH=600 HEIGHT=113 SRC="/r0/download/1326795.thumb600~32b7c7601ae3078e7357a2cb6c7924c6/2008-07-11_064252.jpg/thumb.jpg" ALT="Click for full size"></A></TD></TABLE></div>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774257</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:44:05 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774253</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><b>GOLFnSUN</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  funchords <A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  GOLFnSUN <A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Martin is just going after Comcast because it has fought his favorite cause as commissioner - a la carte. If the FCC is stupid enough to fine Comcast, they will lose in court as they have before when targeting cable without any legal authority to do so.<br> </div>I'm just a tech guy, but I wondered the same thing as you until one of the lawyer's at Free Press listed more than half-a-dozen precedents that indicate the FCC already has the authority, enabled via that very Policy Statement.  <br><br>Have you looked at those arguments?  They're quite strong and together they are unassailable.  They've been listed in a recent FCC filing and can be read here: &raquo;<A HREF="http://www.freepress.net/node/41653" >www.freepress.net/node/41653</A><br> </div>I'd be more impressed with their legal arguments if I thought Federal Circuit & Appeals Courts and the USSC actually based their decisions purely on the law. What they apparently do is decide what they think is right(based on their own personal & political views and on current popular political theory) and then DIG UP precedent to back their decision. They don't appear to work as most people believe - that is base the decision on the law alone. I had a sitting Federal judge as a teacher in graduate school and, off the record & after class, admit that is how many cases are decided. They make a decision and THEN research the law to back the way they want to rule on a case.<br><br>So, no matter what the LAW is, the D.C. circuit may very well rule as they have in the past where cable is concerned- against the FCC.<br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774253</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:43:35 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774166</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><b>funchords</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  GOLFnSUN <A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Martin is just going after Comcast because it has fought his favorite cause as commissioner - a la carte. If the FCC is stupid enough to fine Comcast, they will lose in court as they have before when targeting cable without any legal authority to do so.<br> </div>I'm just a tech guy, but I wondered the same thing as you until one of the lawyer's at Free Press listed more than half-a-dozen precedents that indicate the FCC already has the authority, enabled via that very Policy Statement.  <br><br>Have you looked at those arguments?  They're quite strong and together they are unassailable.  They've been listed in a recent FCC filing and can be read here: &raquo;<A HREF="http://www.freepress.net/node/41653" >www.freepress.net/node/41653</A><br><small>--<br>Robb Topolski -= <A HREF="http://funchords.com/">funchords.com</a> =- Hillsboro, Oregon<br><i><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/6famoj"><b>HTTP</b> is the new Bandwidth Hog</a></i>... <br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774166</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:26:50 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774137</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/197199"><b>Doctor Four</b></A> : TW was also allegedly throttling NNTP (Usenet) traffic as<br>well. Though I never did see that for the few weeks I<br>still had it last year around the time they starting doing it.<br><small>--<br>"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)<br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774137</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:21:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774112</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1027919"><b>Anonymous_</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Dogfather <A HREF="/useremail/u/1514516"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>   :</small><br><br>Don't single out Comcast.  Both Cox and Time Warner traffic shape.<br><br> </div>TWC does not do it in all areas <br><br> when i use torrent i can get 900Kbyte/s to 1.1MByte/s down any time of the day<br><br>upload avg is 115kbyte/s]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774112</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:17:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774085</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><b>GOLFnSUN</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Dogfather <A HREF="/useremail/u/1514516"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Don't single out Comcast.  Both Cox and Time Warner traffic shape.<br><br>If the FCC is going to go after Comcast, they should have to go after everyone else too.  And if they're going after traffic shaping, why not port blocking?  It could certainly be argued that port 25 blocking for example is anticompetitive against other mail providers in violation of FCC item 4 below.<br><br>Before going after people...they need to make VERY CLEAR rules as to what they expect instead of this sort of "we know it when we see it" crap the FCC usually adheres to.<br><br>That's about as vague as you can get.  They need to clearly state the rules.  And who gets to decide what network management is reasonable.  We've seen what Comcast sees as reasonable and evidentially the FCC didn't agree.<br> </div>Martin is just going after Comcast because it has fought his favorite cause as commissioner - a la carte. If the FCC is stupid enough to fine Comcast, they will lose in court as they have before when targeting cable without any legal authority to do so.<br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774085</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:09:20 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Good but only if it applies to everyone</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774007</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1514516"><b>Dogfather</b></A> : Don't single out Comcast.  Both Cox and <strike>Time Warner</strike> Roadrunner traffic shape.<br><br>If the FCC is going to go after Comcast, they should have to go after everyone else too.  And if they're going after traffic shaping, why not port blocking?  It could certainly be argued that port 25 blocking for example is anticompetitive against other mail providers in violation of FCC item 4 below.<br><br>Before going after people...they need to make VERY CLEAR rules as to what they expect instead of this sort of "we know it when we see it" crap the FCC usually adheres to.<br><br>       <blockquote><small>said by FCC :</small><hr>New Principles Preserve and Promote the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet <br>Washington, D.C. &#150; The Federal Communications Commission today adopted a policy statement that outlines four principles to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of public Internet:<br><br> (1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; <br>(2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; <br>(3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and <br>(4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.  <br><br><b>Although the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard,</b> it will incorporate these principles into its ongoing policymaking activities.  All of these principles are<b> subject to reasonable network management</b>. <br> <br>Action by the Commission August 5, 2005, by Policy Statement (FCC 05-151).  <br>Chairman Martin, Commissioners Martin, Abernathy, Copps, and Adelstein, with Chairman Martin issuing a statement. <br><hr></blockquote><br><br>That's about as vague as you can get.  They need to clearly state the rules.  And who gets to decide what network management is reasonable.  We've seen what Comcast sees as reasonable and evidentially the FCC didn't agree.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20774007</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:43:36 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
