dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3
share rss forum feed
« Remote Remove
This is a sub-selection from Open can of worms

axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to jjoshua

Re: Open can of worms

Preferable to internet service being disconnected without notification. Cheaper and less creepy than sending a man to knock on your door at 9PM.

It violates network neutrality, but it's not hurting anyone. The right thing to do is probably make it "opt-in", but I'm not going to criticize them for using bad means to a good end.

Let's not pillory Comcast until they start stalling your packets or inserting advertisements into your web pages.


jlivingood
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:3

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by axus:

It violates network neutrality, but it's not hurting anyone.
I appreciated your other supportive comments. But I'm not sure I understand your feeling that this somehow violates NN. ?

I just looked at the Open Internet Coalition's website at »www.openinternetcoalition.com

They list these:
(1) ...may not prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user's choice over the Internet.

Don't see an issue there. This system does not prevent users from sending or receiving lawful content.

(2)may not prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user's choice

Don't see an issue there. This system does not prevent users from running lawful applications of their choice.

(3)may not prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user's choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network.

Don't see an issue there. This system does not prevent users from using the devices of their choice.

(4) may not deprive any of its users of the user's entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.

Don't see an issue there. This system is not anti-competitive in any way.

(5) must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner. (proposed)

Don't see an issue there either.

(6) must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this part. (proposed)

Seems we've done this one pretty thoroughly...
--
JL
Comcast


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
Is Comcast verifying what we already know?
That the Norton Security Suite handed out to Comcast customers isn't worth a sh*t?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
said by S_engineer:

Is Comcast verifying what we already know?
That the Norton Security Suite handed out to Comcast customers isn't worth a sh*t?
or there are customers who, despite this being able to be acquired for free, still refuse (or are unaware they can acquire software) to be proactive in protecting themselves. this is another layer in mitigating the potential threat.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
Norton isn't going to help the person whos going to Russian porn sites or Carribean Poker sites. If you want to get serious about the threat, then you need to clearly identify the problem. Also, theres another reason that people don't take the Norton...thats because they've been infected while Norton was "protecting" the pc before.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to axus
said by axus:

It violates network neutrality,
WHAT "network neutrality" do you speak of? I wasn't aware there was actually something called "network neutrality" other than what some people are trying to get passed into a law, and so far have failed to do.

This entire "network neutrality" statement used by many people is just about as valid as that line in the constitution that says specifically "separation between church and state" that also doesn't exist.