dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
18
share rss forum feed


china crisis

join:2003-05-28

reply to hqh510

Re: Comcast Bandwidth Exceeded Notice!!!

If they sent letters to everybody that was above the area average,50% of the area users would recieve letters.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-14 14:25:30]


hqh510

join:2001-03-24
Manassas, VA
Probably, but not likely. Just the "people who use more than other's in the area on an average", as put by the CSR. What a load of crap.

said by china crisis:
If they sent letters to everybody that was above the area arerage,50% of the area users would recieve letters.
--
===
HQH
===
My website/BEFSR41 Setup Guide:»www.geocities.com/~hqh51/


J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
I wonder what one can expect if/when they raise the download caps.


MrBradTX

join:2001-05-23
Carrollton, TX

»www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp

Under "Prohibited Uses And Activities:"
quote:
(vii) restrict, inhibit, or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to use or enjoy the Service, including, without limitation, posting or transmitting any information or software which contains a worm, virus, or other harmful feature, or generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to send or retrieve information;
Under "Newsgroups:"
quote:
Comcast permits users of the Service to download a maximum of one gigabyte (1GB) of newsgroup content in any one month, unless users are subject to a Service plan that permits downloading more newsgroup content.
Under "Violation of Acceptable Use Policy:"
quote:
Comcast does not routinely monitor the activity of Service accounts for violation of this AUP. However, in our efforts to promote good citizenship within the Internet community, we will respond appropriately if we become aware of inappropriate use of our Service. Although Comcast has no obligation to monitor the Service and/or the network, Comcast and its suppliers reserve the right at any time to monitor bandwidth, usage, transmissions, and content from time to time to operate the Service; to identify violations of this Policy; and/or to protect the network, the Service and Comcast users.
So if the AUP is to be believed, either someone ratted you out, or your bandwidth consumption was so outrageously high that it stood out from the crowd and was noticed.

What I truly found disturbing was this little gem, also under "Prohibited Used and Activities:"
quote:
(ii) post, store, send, transmit, or disseminate any information or material which a reasonable person could deem to be objectionable, offensive, indecent, pornographic, harassing, threatening, embarrassing, distressing, vulgar, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or otherwise inappropriate, regardless of whether this material or its dissemination is unlawful;
Under this clause, the image posted earlier in this thread of a steaming pile of crap could be considered a AUP violation.

(EDIT: spelling)
[text was edited by author 2003-08-14 14:53:16]

cbrain

join:2000-05-21
Silver Spring, MD
Reviews:
·Comcast
·DIRECTV
·Future Nine Corp..
·DSL EXTREME
·Verizon FiOS
·Google Voice

1 recommendation

said by MrBradTX:
»www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp

What I truly found disturbing was this little gem, also under "Prohitited Used and Activities:"
quote:
(ii) post, store, send, transmit, or disseminate any information or material which a reasonable person could deem to be objectionable, offensive, indecent, pornographic, harassing, threatening, embarrassing, distressing, vulgar, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or otherwise inappropriate, regardless of whether this material or its dissemination is unlawful;
Under this clause, the image posted earlier in this thread of a steaming pile of crap could be considered a AUP violation.
As could the proceeding paragraph from Comcast terms.


J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
reply to MrBradTX
said by MrBradTX:
Under this clause, the image posted earlier in this thread of a steaming pile of crap could be considered a AUP violation.
Only if it were posted from a Comcast account.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

reply to J D McDorce
said by J D McDorce:
I wonder what one can expect if/when they raise the download caps.
After reading the scanned letter posted here I don't see anything that says it was download that was exceeded. Maybe it was a server running and the upload was running full burst. That is what would normally trigger a letter from the abuse and fraud team. Maybe a virus on the system has spawned a server process or some file sharing may be going on.
--
My Home Page , Java Calculator "Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there."

[text was edited by author 2003-08-14 15:04:18]


JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
reply to J D McDorce
said by J D McDorce:
said by MrBradTX:
Under this clause, the image posted earlier in this thread of a steaming pile of crap could be considered a AUP violation.
Only if it were posted from a Comcast account.
Right on JD! I'm not bound by any such restrictions!

But even so, I only transmitted text (the url of the image), not the actual image.


hbreg
Premium
join:2000-11-09
Feasterville Trevose, PA
said by JTRockville:

But even so, I only transmitted text (the url of the image), not the actual image.
JT, sshh, next us Comcast customers will see transmitting text will be against the AUP. LOL


hqh510

join:2001-03-24
Manassas, VA
reply to MrBradTX
I think the bandwidth consumption was outrageous to them that I stood out. I never boasted about how much I downloaded to people, so that isn't going to the reason for this notice.

said by MrBradTX:

So if the AUP is to be believed, either someone ratted you out, or your bandwidth consumption was so outrageously high that it stood out from the crowd and was noticed.
--
===
HQH
===
My website/BEFSR41 Setup Guide:»www.geocities.com/~hqh51/


hqh510

join:2001-03-24
Manassas, VA
reply to FFH5
Nah, there's no virus on my computer nor do I run a server. I just have my computer on to capture the Internet radio streams, using at least 43% of the bandwidth.

said by FFH5:
After reading the scanned letter posted here I don't see anything that says it was download that was exceeded. Maybe it was a server running and the upload was running full burst. That is what would normally trigger a letter from the abuse and fraud team. Maybe a virus on the system has spawned a server process or some file sharing may be going on.
--
===
HQH
===
My website/BEFSR41 Setup Guide:»www.geocities.com/~hqh51/


JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:
said by J D McDorce:
I wonder what one can expect if/when they raise the download caps.
After reading the scanned letter posted here I don't see anything that says it was download that was exceeded. Maybe it was a server running and the upload was running full burst. That is what would normally trigger a letter from the abuse and fraud team. Maybe a virus on the system has spawned a server process or some file sharing may be going on.
In a recent bandwidth usage cap discussion (How much bandwitch is acceptable at comcast?), I specifically asked about upstream utilization on a cable network. JD quickly referred me to Comcast's revolutionary network management model, which dispels the myth that high utilization of upstream bandwidth will degrade the network.


madylarian
The curmudgeonly
Premium
join:2002-01-03
Parkville, MD
reply to china crisis
said by china crisis:
If they sent letters to everybody that was above the area average,50% of the area users would recieve letters.

Um, that would be the median (the point at which equal numbers appear both above and below that value), as opposed to the mean (average) and the mode (the most frequently occurring value).

mady
--
Honi soit qui mal y pense

jharvey6

join:2002-12-20
Minneapolis, MN
reply to hqh510
There are parts of that agreement that would not stand the test of constitutional law. Specifically "types of use" if they try to enforce that agreemnt on those terms it would cost them.....


SolarPup
Hardware God
Premium
join:2002-03-07
Windsor, CO
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to MrBradTX
Yeah but that's newsgroup content.. that's not the service content itself... and honestly if it's not in the AUP stating specifically what the max is, then they have no room to bitch. Unless someone is really complaining about slow speeds, (which could be on their node), then they need to detail what the rate limits are...
--
"Gentlemen, I wouldn't trust this overgrown pile of microchips any further than I could throw it. And I don't know if you want to trust the safety of our country to some silicon diode."


CableUZR5
Cuidado, Hay Llamas

join:2003-02-04
Mount Holly, NJ
reply to hqh510
Call you neighbors and tell them to start downloading lots of files, and listening to streaming media. That way you won't be using "more than other's in the area on average".


dataguy5

@stargus.com
reply to MrBradTX
you realize that you are probably costing them more than $60 in transport bandwidth costs at their peering points, not to mention the capital to support you. I have adelphia so I am not sure how much you pay, but thats more than I pay for my service.


dataguy6

@stargus.com
In other words you are costing them more than you are giving them in which case I woudl boot you off the network. The guy claiming to do 200 GB a month is costing them more than $350 in bandwidth to support him per month.

How many of you would be willing to pay $300 for unlimited access? not me

How many of you would be willing to pay $100 a month for a high usage limit? I might

stang03283

join:2003-08-16
Camden, NJ
reply to jharvey6
[I agree, How can they say you may not transmit anything considered offensive. I just had pork chops for dinner last night. Ok comcast cut my service i just pissed off alout of muslims with that last comment.


AnonymousDude

@cableone.net
reply to jharvey6
"There are parts of that agreement that would not stand the test of constitutional law."

IF constitutional law applied here, I would agree with you. This is an agreement between two private parties. Comcast can ask for whatever restrictions they feel aren't appropriate. You can choose to agree or not to agree.

The Bill of Rights keeps the government from restricting your speech. If you sign an agreement with someone to not talk about something, you can't talk about it and then claim the right to free speech protects you.

Nice try. Try again.


Big_D
Premium
join:2003-06-02
Augusta, GA
Excellent point, AnonymousDude!


midranger4
Stupid Is No longer in Vogue
Premium
join:2002-01-18
Levittown, PA
reply to AnonymousDude
said by AnonymousDude:
This is an agreement between two private parties. Comcast can ask for whatever restrictions they feel aren't appropriate. You can choose to agree or not to agree.
It is impossible to agree to abstract/ambiguous limits and/or boundaries.

It is my opinion that it is incumbent upon Comcast to clearly define these *limits*. Only then can I even begin to agree with the above statement.
--
Democracy is the illusion of freedom.


Big_D
Premium
join:2003-06-02
Augusta, GA
said by midranger4:
It is my opinion that it is incumbent upon Comcast to clearly define these *limits*. Only then can I even begin to agree with the above statement.
Yes, comcast should more clearly define its TOS. However, as long as you pay for and use the service, you implicitly agree to the TOS no matter what it says.
--
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!


J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI

reply to AnonymousDude
While Constitutional Law may not be applicable in this case, contracts and similar agreements are governed by statutory, common, and case law.

With respect to Comcast's TOS, sign is an interesting choice of words, since most people associate this with putting a signature (or mark) on a piece of paper. Comcast uses implied consent for their TOS, so you will see very few people indicating that they signed anything and a whole bunch of people who may claim that they never agreed to anything. Having said that, unless there are state laws prohibiting this approach, Comcast's approach is most likely legal and binding.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-17 12:03:41]


JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD

1 recommendation

reply to Big_D
said by Big_D:
said by midranger4:
It is my opinion that it is incumbent upon Comcast to clearly define these *limits*. Only then can I even begin to agree with the above statement.
Yes, comcast should more clearly define its TOS. However, as long as you pay for and use the service, you implicitly agree to the TOS no matter what it says.
How can you agree to something that isn't specified?

Comcast: "You must pay your bill on time!"

Subscriber: "Sure, no problem. But, uhhh, on which day of the month is the bill due?"

Comcast: "We can't tell you that. But if our billing department gets overloaded because everyone pays their bill on the same day, you'll be notified that you're using the wrong day."

Subscriber: "THEN will you tell me which day is best?"

Comcast: "No. But if you don't wise up and guess right, we're not going to want you as a customer anymore."


AnonymousDude

@cableone.net

1 recommendation

reply to midranger4
"It is impossible to agree to abstract/ambiguous limits and/or boundaries."

You aren't agreeing to limits or boundaries. You are agreeing to the Terms of Service every time you send them your money.

The agreement is that if Comcast, IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION, feels the usage is unreasonable, then Comcast can tell you that you are out of line, to the point of refusing to provide you service. That's the agreement. They don't have to publish limits (which would encourage people like this to sit right at the limit).

It's not incumbent on Comcast to define the limits. They don't even have to have defined limits. They are the judges of what is reasonable. If you don't like their judgement, go use someone else's network.

"While Constitutional Law may not be applicable in this case, contracts and similar agreements are governed by statutory, common, and case law."

They are. What part of this agreement violates any statutory, common, or case law?


J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI

said by AnonymousDude:
What part of this agreement violates any statutory, common, or case law?
If you are referring to my previous post, I made no definitive statement that the TOS violates any law.
[text was edited by author 2003-08-17 19:11:30]


midranger4
Stupid Is No longer in Vogue
Premium
join:2002-01-18
Levittown, PA
reply to AnonymousDude
said by AnonymousDude:
What part of this agreement violates any statutory, common, or case law?
Send me one of these *warning* letters then disconnect me the following month and my lawyer will be more than happy to explore this very argument.

Should Comcast disconnect people (and it appears they haven't to date) based on these letters it's just a matter of time before they disconnect the wrong person who decides to take Comcast to task publicly and legally for such action.

I checked my mailbox again yesterday but alas no letter yet
--
Democracy is the illusion of freedom.


hqh510

join:2001-03-24
Manassas, VA
Hahahaha. If you want a letter real bad, just do what I did... But stream more than 5 channels. Although I don't condone it, but it's your choice, not mine.

said by midranger4:
said by AnonymousDude:
What part of this agreement violates any statutory, common, or case law?
Send me one of these *warning* letters then disconnect me the following month and my lawyer will be more than happy to explore this very argument.

Should Comcast disconnect people (and it appears they haven't to date) based on these letters it's just a matter of time before they disconnect the wrong person who decides to take Comcast to task publicly and legally for such action.

I checked my mailbox again yesterday but alas no letter yet

--
===
HQH
===
My website/BEFSR41 Setup Guide:»www.geocities.com/hqh51/

arteekay

join:2002-02-17
Canada
reply to midranger4
said by midranger4:
said by AnonymousDude:
What part of this agreement violates any statutory, common, or case law?
Send me one of these *warning* letters then disconnect me the following month and my lawyer will be more than happy to explore this very argument.

Should Comcast disconnect people (and it appears they haven't to date) based on these letters it's just a matter of time before they disconnect the wrong person who decides to take Comcast to task publicly and legally for such action.

I checked my mailbox again yesterday but alas no letter yet

I'd consider getting myself a new lawyer then, since his motivation would only be to empty your wallet. Any lawyer worth his salt would take a cursory peek at the TOS/AUP and strongly urge you to stop making pointless threats of litigation.