SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Policy goals and rules are different things
said by TKJunkMail  :But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over? Because you are clearly one of the minority who seems to think it perfectly OK to advertise an all you can eat buffet for X price and then change your mind about it when the customer actually does so. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | said by SilverSurfer :said by TKJunkMail :But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over? Because you are clearly one of the minority who seems to think it perfectly OK to advertise an all you can eat buffet for X price and then change your mind about it when the customer actually does so. One, they don't advertise an all you can eat buffet and haven't done so for a long time. And their Terms Of Service NEVER said so.
Two, I am only a minority here at BBR, where the majority thinks that broadband should be a public utility subsidized by taxpayers. In the real world I am in the majority.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
|
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| reply to SilverSurfer
said by SilverSurfer :said by TKJunkMail :But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over? Because you are clearly one of the minority who seems to think it perfectly OK to advertise an all you can eat buffet for X price and then change your mind about it when the customer actually does so. Comcast has not advertised unlimited internet service in over 7 years.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19 | reply to TKJunkMail
If you truly in the majority then you must be one of the millions that still dont have a slightest clue what any of this means, shrugs it off, and goes back to their day to day lives.
Yawn for continual misrepresentation of everything. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to SilverSurfer
I agree be honest about your service. I blame this on the FCC their lack of over site. The FCC used to be run by engineers but starting with the Regan administration when the agency was gutted with job cuts and with the political hacks put in place by Clinton, and then Bush 2 the FCC we have now is a bunch of kiss-ass politicians looking to feather their own nests after they leave for that fat paying job with the very outfits they where writing regulations for.
--
Eat pork chops for Allah! |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to TKJunkMail
I agree with you (HCT) Comcast has not violated any laws or rules from any branch of government. But like I said before. RoadRunner does the same thing; they impose network management tools to better service customers and state so in the RoadRunner Terms of Service and the AUP which is posted at help.rr.com. Which is directly from the ISP not the cable operator. (RoadRunner is separate from the actual cable operators too; including Time Warner Cable)
People on here think that they're owed Broadband/HSI services and at the price they want to pay and get what they want. But it doesnt work that way. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to JSRoman
said by JSRoman :[Comcast has not advertised unlimited internet service in over 7 years. Funny, but I don't see Comcrap advertising that they throttle traffic with Sandvine, either. |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL | One has nothing to do with the other. Nice try though.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail : In the real world I am in the majority. More like in your own mind. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to JSRoman
said by JSRoman :One has nothing to do with the other. Nice try though. The fact that Comcrap throttles traffic and the only way anyone even knows about it is because customers have complained is very relevant. In fact, it is germane to the the crux of your own argument. |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| Yea, I've heard their call centers are flooded with tens of thousands of calls from subs asking about this. 
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to SilverSurfer
In the real world, very few people understand the allegations that have been made towards Comcast, let alone care as long as their IM clients, browsers, and e-mail clients work. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by openbox9 :In the real world, very few people understand the allegations that have been made towards Comcast... I am very certain that more than just a "few" people understand the concept of throttling. Apparently, you haven't been paying attention very closely to the complaints that have received national exposure. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Obviously few is a relative term. I've read some of the "national exposure" of the allegations. How many of the 300 million people in this country understand, or care? I'd wager that those that do are a minority. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by openbox9 :Obviously few is a relative term. I've read some of the "national exposure" of the allegations. How many of the 300 million people in this country understand, or care? I'd wager that those that do are a minority. First off, 300 million people in the U.S. don't have broadband. Of those that do have it, and use it beyond email, care very deeply about throttling. You may have heard of this group...they call themselves Network Neutrality advocates. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by SilverSurfer :First off, 300 million people in the U.S. don't have broadband. Of those that do have it, and use it beyond email, care very deeply about throttling. You may have heard of this group...they call themselves Network Neutrality advocates. But, the 300 million is what you would be referring to when discussing the AP's and Consumerist's allegations. Also, I think your use of the network neutrality advocates is misplaced. I would say a better representation would be BBR readers. Besides, this really isn't a net neutrality issue IMO since they aren't discriminating against a specific user or specific content in favor of their own. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to bi0tech
said by bi0tech :... Yawn for continual misrepresentation of everything. TCH/HCT doesn't actually misrepresent anything, he is just here to protect the poor telcos/cablecos from us mean people with a clue. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :.... Besides, this really isn't a net neutrality issue IMO since they aren't discriminating against a specific user or specific content in favor of their own. if I had to guess, I would say that in your opinion, very little would probably be a net neutrality issue.
"if an incumbent does it, it can't be wrong"
I just made that up, but you can use it if you want. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :But, the 300 million is what you would be referring to when discussing the AP's and Consumerist's allegations. Actually, that "300 million" was your quote, not mine.
said by openbox9 :Also, I think your use of the network neutrality advocates is misplaced. I would say a better representation would be BBR readers. Not necessarily. I read a great many other public forums on the matter besides this one.
said by openbox9 :Besides, this really isn't a net neutrality issue IMO since they aren't discriminating against a specific user or specific content in favor of their own. So, in your opinion, in order for something to be a NN issue, a provider has to discriminate against a "specific user" or "specific content" in favor of their own? What else would you call throttling BT traffic? Just b/c Comcrap didn't replace the throttled BT traffic with their own content is irrelevant. The fact remains they still throttled other content arbitrarily. Yours is a specious argument. |
|
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| said by SilverSurfer :The fact remains they still throttled other content arbitrarily. Yours is a specious argument. But they're not throttling BitTorrent arbitrarily, they have a reason and a supposed (by them) necessity to throttle.
If the reason is network performance, then it is very legitimate. What other reason would they block it for? If network upgrades can't keep up with network performance in the short run, what else are they supposed to do? Start canceling customers? Cut back on download speeds? Are any of these, including Sandvine, reasonable solutions?
ISP's are blocking IP's that send spam and DoS attacks all the time. Is that violating network neutrality? What if I personally wanted that spam?
Are they violating my rights?
Some ISP's block ping to their routers or specific servers. Or they block port 23 to servers. Is that against network neutrality? I mean, for all intents and purposes blocking ports with firewalls is essentially the same as blocking traffic with Sandvine.
So where do you draw the line? |
|
