  ptrowski Got Helix? Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT clubs: | Sigh.... Surprise surprise.... Anyone who thought they actually wanted this to work in the interest of the consumer was sorely mistaken. | |
|
 |   jt45
@comcast.net
| Re: Sigh.... this does work in your favorite. by stopping illegal downloads your speed on the internet service will increase. you dont like it because you download illegal content. how about you pay for the product and service you want. stop downloading illegal content | |
|
 |  |   ptrowski Got Helix? Premium join:2005-03-14 Putnam, CT clubs: | Re: Sigh.... It works in my favorite? Never heard that phrase before.
I don't download illegal content. It affects Vuze, a perectly legal use of P2P. There are also plenty of perfectly legit uses for P2P.
But I guess you just forgot about those. | |
|
 |   swhx7 Premium join:2006-07-23 Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| The big ISPs are trying to set up a situation where they offer a sterilized, commercialized p2p service, and ban all other p2p. The trick is implying that all other p2p (other than their approved service) would exist only for copyright infringement. This would make the customers of each ISP a captive market with the ISP having a monopoly on its subscribers' p2p needs; and it would contrive a phony excuse for traffic discrimination (opposite of network neutrality).
Of course the proposition that all p2p other than the ISP-approved services is illegal, is a big, deliberate lie. In reality, internet subscribers may prefer to use something other than the ISP-managed p2p for many good reasons:
• The people at the other end of the connection choose to share on something other than the ISP's service. • Preferring not to pay an extra fee to the ISP. • Well-justified distrust of closed-source applications. • Avoiding monitoring and filtering.
Stopping copyright infringement is only the excuse the ISPs give in public for monitoring and filtering. But if they get the power, they'll use it for political censorship, political spying, price-gouging, unwanted marketing, "fishing" for blackmail material on behalf of government, and other abuses. | |
|
 |  |   OdinFaktor
join:2001-02-12 New York, NY | Re: Sigh....
Excellent post. Good to see some people aren't so easily hoodwink-able! | |
|
 |  |  |
 |
 |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptive Not to mention that nothing productive comes from those types of discussions and the "consumer advocates" will leave the table pouting because they can't have their way on a network that doesn't belong to them.
The alleged illegality of some of the content that's distributed through P2P is really irrelevant unless you're a member of some of the trade groups that may be realizing losses. IMO, this is a bigger push to control P2P types of applications and what goes on the ISP's networks. What this most likely means is the demise of P2P. The question is, what will replace it and how will ISPs deal with the new threat? | |
|
 |  |   TechieZero Tools Are Using Me Premium join:2002-01-25 Wesley Chapel, FL | Re: Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptive In other words...money talks, BS walks. | |
|
 |  |  |
 |   TScheisskopf World News Trust
join:2005-02-13 Belvidere, NJ | I love how "consumer advocacy" translates to "anti-corporate bias" in your mind.
You are just so cute and cuddly sometimes.  | |
|
 |  |  SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: Consumer Advocates would be intentionally disruptive said by TScheisskopf :I love how "consumer advocacy" translates to "anti-corporate bias" in your mind. You are just so cute and cuddly sometimes. Second that. | |
|
 |   factchecker
@cox.net
| said by GOLFnSUN :And that plays to their usual anti-corporate bias and their usual advocacy for stealing music and movies. Which is some how worse that your usual anti-consumer, corporations do no wrong stance ?
To say that consumer advocates _advocate_ file sharing of copyrighted materials because the oppose ISPs playing content censors and copyright police is like saying that people who support the first amendment rights of organizations like the KKK advocate racism and hate. All that does is serve to cloud the debate and stear the dicussion away from the facts and into BS political and social commentary. | |
|
 |   Not TK
@cwa-union.org | Sir, you are a liar unless you can provide one single piece of evidence that Free Press has advocated for stealing music and movies, or that they have ever said illegal content should be protected from network management.
Shame on you. | |
|
 |   asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Saying consumer advocates will be disruptive is just a biased way of saying that consumer advocates will seek to enhance the interests of their own constituency and that those interests are different from the interests of most of the industries participating.
Of course its true that negotiations are always more difficult if you truly try to bring together all the different interests involved, rather than only bringing together a subset of interests that start with agreement on basic philosophy.
I applaud them for bringing some companies that develop p2p apps into the fold. They admit, however, that they only want to bring in other competing interests after they have reached a consensus, as to tactical approach, with those who largely share their interests. Obviously one only goes on the offensive at the point at which one has built an army of alliances that can overwhelm those with competing interests.
One should remain suspicious given the vastly disproportionate power of the isp and content provider interests involved and the clear intent to exclude the influence of broad public sentiment.
"their usual anti-corporate bias"
Call it whatever you like. The interests of corporations are generally well looked after in this society. There are other interests that are generally less well tended to. The internet did not begin with corporations and the internet is not simply the sum total of corporate interests. There are many non-corporate and non-commercial interests that are part of the network of networks. There are key corporations who would like to dominate by using their control over choke points on the network. There are others, like myself, who are content to let corporations utilize these networks for their agendas but are not content to let particular corporate interests dominate the development of the internet. We are in the middle of a process where socially disruptive technological developments are being tamed and absorbed by status quo interests to minimize their disruptive nature. Non-corporate interests are not nearly as easily coordinated or well organized as corporate interests. Corporations, being top-down hierarchical structures have an advantage here. This doesn't mean those non-corporate interests are illegitimate. I don't think it is evil to want a counterbalance to offset that advantage. | |
|
 |
 |  |
 |  |   FLengineer Premium join:2007-06-26 Leesburg, FL | Re: Another nice move by Comcast Not an ISP.
Most companies prohibit the use of P2P period. Stanford's network is nothing more than a huge private network. Now I wonder what Stanford's view would be if their ISP just decided to thottle P2P traffic for them without an option. | |
|
 |  |  |   espaeth Digital Plumber Premium,MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN | Re: Another nice move by Comcast They buy capacity from carriers who have completely different (ie, realistic) bandwidth pricing structures.
Similarly when you sign up for Comcast you are buying attachment to their private network that has upstream connections to carriers. | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  patcat88
join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY | You realize that the fact the meeting is held at Stanford Uni has no relevance to the meeting, they can hold it in a hotel, high school gym, banquet hall, night club, sports stadium, theater, etc. | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |   funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC | Re: Another nice move by Comcast In agreement with you -- I'm pretty sure that FCC Chairman Martin is on the record saying that he held the second hearing because Lessig requested it. | |
|
  Titus Pullo I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26 | Flip-floppers I think Comcast has proven beyond any doubt that they are the Walmart of ISPs -- | |
|
 |   N3OGH Bear patrol must be working like a charm Premium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Flip-floppers said by Titus Pullo :I think Comcast has proven beyond any doubt that they are the Walmart of ISPs -- B.B.BBut, I thought they were the BMW????
 -- Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power
| |
|
 |   TechieZero Tools Are Using Me Premium join:2002-01-25 Wesley Chapel, FL | Good products at cheap prices? | |
|
 |
 |  |
 |  |   FLengineer Premium join:2007-06-26 Leesburg, FL | Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates HAHA, gotta love NYC. The point is still valid, that toll booth operator is a law enforcement officer and should arrest you. Comcast is not a law enforcement agency. | |
|
 |  |  |   jt45
@comcast.net
| Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates you are right they are not a law enforcement agency but they do have the right to stop people from using their network for illegal content. it would be like me renting your home to sell drugs out of it. i am sure if you found out you would want to kick me out. should i throw a fit because you are not a law enforcement agency and you dont have the right? i think not. you own the home so you have the right. | |
|
 |  |  |  |   FLengineer Premium join:2007-06-26 Leesburg, FL 1 edit | Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates You would win a lawsuit against me if my reason was "I THINK he is dealing drugs". If I went in your rental and snooped around to prove it, that would be illegal as well unless I had a legal reason to go looking in your home. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  patcat88
join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY
| Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates Legal reason to look in your home, are you subletting and violating occupancy rules since there is too much foot traffic to the apt?
Even if the initial look was illegal, the person who saw it illegally can tell the cops they saw it, then cops get a warrant and search the place legally (and launch an investigation into you and wiretap you), and then you goto jail. Only if you get rid of the drugs between the 1st (illegal) look and legal investigation/search warrants will you get away with it.
Even without a search warrant, cops can still search anything with probable cause since its an emergency and the opportunity will be lost if they have to get a warrant, even over your protests (you can't stop a cop from searching you, only protest it, only useful in a civil rights lawsuit later). | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   ipickedaname
@teksavvy.com | Re: I am with the Consumer Advocates Yes, but where is your probable cause to snoop on my connection to determine whether my P2P is legal or not?
Try: FISHING EXPEDITION! | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  See 10 replies to this post |
|
 |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by FLengineer :If the ISP is allowed to block your traffic because they suspect that it is illegal files You assume ISPs are blocking P2P because of illegal content. Unless they're getting kickbacks from the content owning trade groups, my guess is that ISPs are minimizing the impact to their networks. | |
|
 |  |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
  Drex Beer..It's What's For Dinner Premium join:2000-02-24 La Place, LA | Oh I'm just a bill Gotta love the Schoolhouse Rock "I'm a Bill" graphic. | |
|
  Charlie Douglas
@comcast.net
| Comcast Comments & Trackbacks Karl I just posted this comment on the article you are sourcing from. Janko - Comcast has not abandoned the idea of a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. We fully support the DCIAs effort to build a coalition of ISPs, P2P companies, experts and others to develop a set of P2P Best Practices and encourage you and others to read the press release they put out last week at »www.prweb.com/releases/2008/05/p···0024.htm. The fact is, Comcast and Pando took the first step in calling for a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities and the DCIA is an ideal forum for the entire industry to collaborate and develop some best practices. We look forward to working with the DCIA and others on this important initiative. | |
|
 |  mudtoe
join:2005-10-09 Cleveland, OH
·Cincinnati Bell
| Re: Comcast All this is going to do is hasten the effort to encrypt P2P traffic. Once that takes place, then the real battle begins. Will Comcast decree that any P2P that's encrypted be blocked, because they can't verify that the content is legal? Right now Comcast is using this argument about P2P traffic being predominately illegal as a pretense for their actions against it, when in fact it's really because they aren't willing to upgrade their network in order to actually give the customers the bandwidth that their marketing materials promise.
Once encryption happens they have no way to know, so they can't use it as a justification to target P2P. Of course the content providers will pitch a fit and be in favor of disallowing encryption period. | |
|
 |  |   TNMTiger
@twtelecom.net
| Re: Comcast I have not read anywhere that Comcast claims to be managing P2P for illegal content; that was what AT&T proposed doing. The only reason I have seen that Comcast gives for managing P2P is to prevent upstream congestion from interfering with applications and services that are sensitive to packet loss, such as voice (pretty bad if a call to 911 loses some packets) and real-time gaming (sucks when your character gets killed because of a delay in your command to cast that spell). Not a value judgment, just a fact. | |
|
 |  |  |   a333 A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12 Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Comcast really? and what if I replaced that said "illegal" p2p with, er, a big photo/home movie upload? Would the nutcases at Comcast say that me daring to use my connection goes against their TOS? When you come down to it, it's really the same thing. Whether I'm uploading kiddie pr0n via p2p, or photos to grandma, shouldn't matter to Comcast. And no, I don't set my BT client to use 100% upload bandwidth all the time, in fact I keep it shut down when I'm not actively using it. | |
|
 searcher61
join:2000-09-03
| Well time for a change. Interesting.... I just upgraded to 16/2 so I will be able to hit the limit faster. I have 3 kids, wife and myself using computers at my house all on the web a lot. I think I will just downgrade my comcast service...shut down my comcast tv, comcast phone, comcast dvr and comcast internet and use the money to by a dedicated non-comcast line. I have not ever been contacted, so I don't know if we are over the limit...but 250G seems low. | |
|
 |   a333 A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12 Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
| How's this... Why don't ISP's just pass the damn packets and let the gov't take care of the goddammed legality of those said packets? Since when did the **AA's and the ISP's turn into the new police? Last time I checked, my tax dollars already pay for the gov't to take care of the DMCA. I don't need the **AA's/ISP's to play uncle sam/Big Brother. That's what the NSA is for, ya know..
Do we have a deal? | |
|
 |   funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Well time for a change. said by searcher61 :Interesting.... I just upgraded to 16/2 so I will be able to hit the limit faster. I have 3 kids, wife and myself using computers at my house all on the web a lot. I think I will just downgrade my comcast service...shut down my comcast tv, comcast phone, comcast dvr and comcast internet and use the money to by a dedicated non-comcast line. I have not ever been contacted, so I don't know if we are over the limit...but 250G seems low. I think you replied to the wrong thread. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
|
  Kim in Seattle
@comcast.net
| email troubles I have just been told by Comcast that they have a nation wide glitch and my emails won't be delivered to yahoo, hotmail, and msn. The supervisor suggested I call all those servers and ask them to unblock me. As if it me, kim, who has been blocked not Comcast, the server. Has anyone here heard this before? Desperate in Seattle. | |
|
 |
|
 |