said by Comcastrated :

I would allow users to use the advertised bandwidth for any purpose they see fit within the confines of the TOS.

said by Comcastrated :

If it just does not work from an economical perspective. I would change the TOS to specifically exclude the use of P2P software. I would then block it

said by hobgoblin :

Remember this is a business not a charity and you need to satisfy shareholders.

Hob

said by Mdoc :

Why? Do they understand engineering disciplines?

said by NormanS :

Would that include the part of the Terms of Use which states that subscribers are prohibited from providing network content to anybody outside of the Premises Local Area Network?

run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;

said by telcolackey :

I think broadband needs to go to a utility model and allow for all of this traffic, but charge people if they want to open the throttle full and share the "utility" (Comcast sold them) with the world. I think people will be less generous with bits if they have to pay the true cost of p2p.

said by funchords :

It's rare that I find myself agreeing with you, but I agree with you.

Cable companies are suffering because they built their networks on a web-only usage model. It was an understandable mistake, because in the late 90s when they created their assumptions, the WWW was ramping up exponentially. But if they looked a few years before that, they would see what they are seeing now -- users want to be able to upload and download.

The P2P and bandwidth debates typically are more emotional than logical. People will use corner cases of usage, their interpretation of net-neutrality, state laws, 5+ year old ad campaigns and ToS. Let me try and put some logic around the issue as I see it.

Residential Broadband service (DSL, Cable and even FiOS) speeds have been increasing over the years due to the fact that the average bandwidth cost allows for an oversubscription model which has been economical. Although the vast majority of users get this speed when they need it, they don’t run it 7x24 at the max rate and hence it doesn't cost more than they pay. This is why the business model works.

P2P (bandwidth sharing) in general changes this and operates more like running hosting services or CDNs from home. It also transfers a content $$ source (paying for bits) from the content owners (Apple, Yahoo, Google, etc) to residential users. Today, these companies pay an ISP to send the traffic through the Internet and you pay to receive it. This has been the long term payment system and the infrastructure depends on it.

• Content owners like P2P because it changes their costs to “zero” and will fight for it (with lobbying, FUD +residential voices). People need to think through the end game on this.

•Engineers find P2P interesting due to the robustness of the massive infrastructure and, with a geographic and capacity control plane, provides an efficient delivery system. However this needs to be cost modeled

•Broadband business owners find P2P challenging due to there is no clear way to properly fund Internet costs. If someone actually used, or allowed Apple to use, 100Mb of the residential bandwidth there are large costs associated with this that will need to be factored in.

As speeds increase, these factors gets more and more difficult. If P2P really does take off and is used as the primary content distribution medium for many future services, the last 2 bullets will need to be figured out for P2P to be successful. Generally, I think people on both sides of the debate need to understand all the issues.

said by hobgoblin :

quote:

---

"It's a total violation of net nuetrality "

---

Not..they are treating all P2P traffic the same

said by telcolackey :

The specific section is as follows:
I've highlighted what I believe is being interpreted as the ToS elements related to P2P

said by jbob :

Either way Comcast has shot themselves in the foot by publically stating they do not block P2P or BitTorrent making the whole argument of "file sharing" or even if you choose to go the "Server" route as it applies to BitTorrent a mute point now. By allowing it up till now and making offical public statements to the contrary they have effectively told the public and powers to be that they do not specifically consider P2P or file sharing via BitTorrent as something that is violating the ToS.

said by funchords :

The market is demonstrating that the problem has a lot to do with HFC and, in particular, its upload constraint. Cablelabs is behind the competitive ball, and FIOS is taking Cable Internet customers as a result. Cable can't touch a 20/2 tier -- soon to be a 20/20 tier.

said by funchords :

It's a loss-leader product because they had to lay down new fiber throughout every neighborhood. CableTV companies laid new wire too, however they did that 20 years before. The little bit of work that they had to do to make it bi-directional and digital pales in comparison.

said by funchords :

Comcast will make roughly $25 Bn in profit this year, topping the previous years' performances of $15.9 Bn, $14.2 Bn, and $12.8 Bn.

said by telcolackey :

This is another interpretation to fit an agenda. They also say they don't proactively block illegal activity so does that mean they cannot address it if notified?