SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
1 recommendation |
Irony?"the hands off the Internet coalition, spearheaded by AT&T, has written a letter to the FCC asking them to investigate Comcast for network neutrality abuses."
Pot, meet kettle. | |
|
| gaforces (banned)United We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA 3 edits |
gaforces (banned)
Member
2007-Nov-13 9:38 am
Re: Irony?said by SpaethCo:" the hands off the Internet coalition, spearheaded by AT&T, has written a letter to the FCC asking them to investigate Comcast for network neutrality abuses." Pot, meet kettle. They want to block p2p too ... After all, its reasonable network management. But users opting for our special Tier, which includes p2p for only $9.99 extra! Ask us about our special veterans day sale VOIP Tier! Cha-CHING $$$$$$$$$$$$$@! | |
|
| sm2016a join:2004-03-02 Belleville, IL |
to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:" the hands off the Internet coalition, spearheaded by AT&T, has written a letter to the FCC asking them to investigate Comcast for network neutrality abuses." Pot, meet kettle. This was a good laugh this morning. AT&T won't block you they will just keep limiting the speed you can get from them and then give your data to the NSA. Now that sounds like a winner....Not! | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to SpaethCo
Did you notice that the group is also against network neutrality laws? Yet they want the FCC to investigate Comcast for network neutrality abuses.
Definitely pot meet kettle, with a touch of hypocrisy to round it all off. | |
|
1 recommendation |
and that's our broadband policy...posturing and games | |
|
| bi0tech join:2003-06-19 Cockeysville, MD |
Re: and that's our broadband policyand our foreign policy... and our economic policy... etc.. etc.. | |
|
axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC |
axus
Member
2007-Nov-13 10:44 am
hehNo honor among oligopolies, eh? I guess an investigation would be worthwhile, telecoms should not be able to screw with network traffic like that. I'm keenly interested in what laws/prior agreements can be used to stop them from doing it.
Shocked that AT&T would call for something that can be used against them, though. The only use I could see would be to test the water, if Comcast gets away with it then they fill follow... if not, a competitor takes a hit. | |
|
| gaforces (banned)United We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA |
gaforces (banned)
Member
2007-Nov-13 11:15 am
Re: heh | |
|
LostMile Premium Member join:2002-06-07 Coloma, MI 1 edit |
LostMile
Premium Member
2007-Nov-13 10:53 am
Can't the sock puppet read?Well DUH! Comcast's TOS clearly states no servers. P2P is a server.
If you want a server, rent one from one of the bazillion hosting companies on the Net. | |
|
| moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
1 recommendation |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2007-Nov-13 11:02 am
Re: Can't the sock puppet read?said by LostMile:Well DUH! Comcast's TOS clearly states no servers. P2P is a server. So is every chat program out there. Should we ban those too? How about video conferencing? | |
|
| | LostMile Premium Member join:2002-06-07 Coloma, MI
1 recommendation |
LostMile
Premium Member
2007-Nov-13 11:09 am
Re: Can't the sock puppet read?said by moonpuppy:So is every chat program out there. Should we ban those too? How about video conferencing? Are chat programs bandwidth-intensive applications that run unattended 24/7? | |
|
| | | moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
1 recommendation |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2007-Nov-13 11:30 am
Re: Can't the sock puppet read?said by LostMile:said by moonpuppy:So is every chat program out there. Should we ban those too? How about video conferencing? Are chat programs bandwidth-intensive applications that run unattended 24/7? They are still servers and therefore, against the TOS. | |
|
| | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2007-Nov-13 7:15 pm
Re: Can't the sock puppet read?said by moonpuppy:They are still servers and therefore, against the TOS. Just like the police don't enforce all traffic laws all the time but reserve the right to stick it to you when they feel like it, Comcast can enforce the TOS when and how they see fit. There is no law that says they have to enforce every infraction of the TOS. But they can enforce the TOS whenever they feel like. Don't like that, then go elsewhere. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Can't the sock puppet read?said by FFH5:... Don't like that, then go elsewhere. you say that a lot and it makes me sad. I don't have any elsewhere to go to. Does this mean you hate me? | |
|
| | | | | moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:Just like the police don't enforce all traffic laws all the time but reserve the right to stick it to you when they feel like it, Comcast can enforce the TOS when and how they see fit. There is no law that says they have to enforce every infraction of the TOS. But they can enforce the TOS whenever they feel like. Don't like that, then go elsewhere. Felt strongly enough you had to say it twice? Selective enforcement leads to problems. The problem becomes what was o.k. at one time becomes against the rules the next day. This leads to questioning on whether or not the TOS is selectively enforced for nefarious reasons. If companies do this then they deserved to be called out for hypocrisy. | |
|
| | | DotMac4Shill H8r Premium Member join:2007-10-26 Huntington Beach, CA |
to LostMile
They don't say only "bandwidth-intensive" servers...all servers are a violation of the Comcast TOS/AUP. | |
|
| | | | RJ44 join:2001-10-19 Nashville, TN
1 recommendation |
RJ44
Member
2007-Nov-13 12:59 pm
Re: Can't the sock puppet read?said by DotMac4:They don't say only "bandwidth-intensive" servers...all servers are a violation of the Comcast TOS/AUP. They didn't say it, but you can bet your last dollar that's what it means. It's a clause put in their to protect their butts, and if they need to use it they will. They don't care about the strict definition of a server, they care about making sure their network runs smoothly. | |
|
| | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to DotMac4
said by DotMac4:They don't say only "bandwidth-intensive" servers...all servers are a violation of the Comcast TOS/AUP. Just like the police don't enforce all traffic laws all the time but reserve the right to stick it to you when they feel like it, Comcast can enforce the TOS when and how they see fit. There is no law that says they have to enforce every infraction of the TOS. But they can enforce the TOS whenever they feel like. Don't like that, then go elsewhere | |
|
| | jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL |
to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:said by LostMile:Well DUH! Comcast's TOS clearly states no servers. P2P is a server. So is every chat program out there. Should we ban those too? How about video conferencing? We could argue that point -- offering an assortment of files for anonymous strangers to download seems a lot more "server-like" than a 1:1 connection streaming audio and video (or text) back and forth. I bet I'd win in court. [Please, spare us the dictionary definition, if anyone's thinking of pasting it in -- we've all read it and it's not really helpful to the conversation.] | |
|
| | | moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
1 recommendation |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2007-Nov-13 12:46 pm
Re: Can't the sock puppet read?said by jester121:[Please, spare us the dictionary definition, if anyone's thinking of pasting it in -- we've all read it and it's not really helpful to the conversation.] Really? Why don't the ISPs spare us the legalese that defines nearly everything we do online against the TOS. | |
|
| 1 edit |
to LostMile
Well, DUH! EVERYTHING today is a server!There are more home servers out there today then commercial ones.
Ever hear of Skype? 44 million others have! Skype runs on a p2p protocol. Guess what? Skype is a server.
If Comcast and others strictly enforced their ToS, 3/4 of their customers would be kicked off their network! How do you think THAT would affect their bottom line?
Let me clue you into something...you don't need a 10 mbit/1mbit connection to browse the web and do email.
Why do you think they offer such big pipes? For us to run servers!
Their ToS is the cable equalivent of "Don't ask, don't tell". | |
|
| | LostMile Premium Member join:2002-06-07 Coloma, MI |
LostMile
Premium Member
2007-Nov-13 11:13 am
Re: Well, DUH! EVERYTHING today is a server!said by qworster:Ever hear of Skype? 44 million others have! Skype runs on a p2p protocol. Guess what? Skype is a server. Is skype a bandwidth-intensive app that sucks your connection dry 24/7/365? | |
|
| | | Thaler Premium Member join:2004-02-02 Los Angeles, CA |
Thaler
Premium Member
2007-Nov-13 1:56 pm
Re: Well, DUH! EVERYTHING today is a server!said by LostMile:Is skype a bandwidth-intensive app that sucks your connection dry 24/7/365? Neither is BT for many legit users, but you're missing the point. Crap-canning all of P2P technology/uses shuns perfectly legitimate (and non-bandwidth hogging) uses that many come to define why they use the internet. | |
|
| | hobgoblinSortof Agoblin Premium Member join:2001-11-25 Orchard Park, NY |
to qworster
said by qworster:If Comcast and others strictly enforced their ToS, 3/4 of their customers would be kicked off their network! How do you think THAT would affect their bottom line? But they are NOT strictly enforcing it are they? Hob | |
|
| | | |
Re: Well, DUH! EVERYTHING today is a server!said by hobgoblin:said by qworster:If Comcast and others strictly enforced their ToS, 3/4 of their customers would be kicked off their network! How do you think THAT would affect their bottom line? But they are NOT strictly enforcing it are they? Hob Nope they are not. Instead they use Sandvine to kick us off individual programs. This gives them the ILLUSION of being a net neutral ISP-without actually having to BE one! | |
|
| | | | hobgoblinSortof Agoblin Premium Member join:2001-11-25 Orchard Park, NY |
Re: Well, DUH! EVERYTHING today is a server!"Nope they are not. Instead they use Sandvine to kick us off individual programs. This gives them the ILLUSION of being a net neutral ISP-without actually having to BE one!"
What they are doing has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Its safeguarding their network which they are perfectly entitled to do....but you knew that | |
|
| | | | | BoogeymanDrive it like you stole it Premium Member join:2002-12-17 Wasilla, AK |
Re: Well, DUH! EVERYTHING today is a server!Um, actually its the definition of network neutrality. All network protocols/services are supposed to receive equally neutral treatment.
They are blocking a certain service on their network because they feel it uses too much bandwidth.
They can call it a "quality of service" issue all they want, it doesnt mean its not going against the principle of network neutrality.
If thats ok, then I think we should ban all Cadillacs from public roads. They are so big and take up so much space, and besides, its mostly drug dealers driving them. So its ok then. | |
|
| | | | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2007-Nov-13 9:01 pm
Re: Well, DUH! EVERYTHING today is a server!said by Boogeyman:Um, actually its the definition of network neutrality. All network protocols/services are supposed to receive equally neutral treatment. NO. The definition of Network Neutrality is that all content providers are treated equally - not all protocols or services. Your definition of Network Neutrality has been twisted to fit your bizarre interpretation. | |
|
| | | | | | | hobgoblinSortof Agoblin Premium Member join:2001-11-25 Orchard Park, NY |
Re: Well, DUH! EVERYTHING today is a server!"NO. The definition of Network Neutrality is that all content providers are treated equally - not all protocols or services. Your definition of Network Neutrality has been twisted to fit your bizarre interpretation."
Thank You.
And even so they are treating all p2p traffic equally!
Hob | |
|
| | | | | | | BoogeymanDrive it like you stole it Premium Member join:2002-12-17 Wasilla, AK |
to FFH5
Um, I guess you guys dont remember how the whole debate came about. Sure, the providers being treated equally was PART of it, but do you not recall the other issues involved?
If they are allowed to degrade the service of a certain protocol just because a lot of people use it, what happens when they decide that streaming video uses too much resources? Thay can then degrade every other streaming video site and only allow theres to work. Or try to degrade it altogether since hey, they make more money from cable tv anyway. | |
|
| | | | | | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2007-Nov-13 10:44 pm
Re: Well, DUH! EVERYTHING today is a server!You answered your own statement. Network neutrality involves degradation of other content in favor of the ISP's. What's being done now by a lot of ISPs is shaping across the board without showing favoritism anywhere. This is NOT a network neutrality issue...it's a network management issue. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | ••••••••
|
| | jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL
1 recommendation |
to qworster
The nice thing about a TOS is that it can be enforced selectively, even at a whim. This goes against the kindergarten "THAT'S NO FAIR" mentality that's pervaded our society, but that's life. | |
|
| |
to LostMile
Re: Can't the sock puppet read?i'd hardly call all p2p stuff servers. servers imply there are clients. the server hosts some service (ftp, http, mail, game, etc.) for clients to use. i'd consider the majority p2p stuff more ad-hoc than server based. bittorrent (assuming you are not hosting a tracker) is more of a hybrid, but you are NOT the server, but only a client to the tracker server, but only a PEER to everyone else on the ad-hoc network. why do you think they call it 'PEER to PEER' anyways? this is no longer the traditional warez system of servers hosting the pirated material and clients downloading the files. | |
|
| | ••••• |
| NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to LostMile
said by LostMile:Well DUH! Comcast's TOS clearly states no servers. P2P is a server. Not so clearly as you think. The AUP actually prohibits "...providing network content, or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network)...". So, while P2P probably qualifies as a violation of this policy, not everything which is a "server" does. Not even a mail server, if it is set up to only provide email service for the Comcast members on the LAN. If you want a server, rent one from one of the bazillion hosting companies on the Net. Who rents P2P servers? | |
|
| | LostMile Premium Member join:2002-06-07 Coloma, MI |
LostMile
Premium Member
2007-Nov-13 11:39 pm
Re: Can't the sock puppet read?said by NormanS:Who rents P2P servers? Geeze Norm, ever wonder why they are not easy to find? | |
|
| | | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA |
Re: Can't the sock puppet read?Nobody needs them as long as folks are running clients like uTorrent. The question should have been seen as rhetorical. | |
|
| |
to LostMile
Man you guys/gals have a lot to learn about the internet. I think once you stop feeding the corporate kool-aid (cable and DSL alike) then you as a "american" society will get somewhere.
Till then do you prefer grape, cherry or orange? | |
|
|
Yauch
Member
2007-Nov-13 12:45 pm
As you fall from grace......the only words you say are:
Put your hand inside the puppet head | |
|
darbeafrom the Dark Side Premium Member join:2007-07-15 Coatesville, PA |
darbea
Premium Member
2007-Nov-15 7:27 am
P2PA recent report by Ellacoya (they provide deep-packet inspection equipment)states that P2P traffic is not the Internet's largest consumer of bandwidth. Instead, video-streaming formats that utilize the Internet as a transport mechanism are the bandwidth busters, accounting for 46% of all Internet traffic. In fact, streaming video accounts for 36% of all HTTP traffic.
And of that 36%, YouTube is the king, taking a full 20%.
P2P usage is not as bad as demonized by the ISPs and the RIAA and all the RIAA maggots. It is simply an easy target due to the minority of those who use the protocol to obtain or distribute illegal content.
As for the Comcast TOS regarding exchanging info with a party outside "your lan", I guess email to and from non-Comcast subscribers is technically a violation of the TOS.
It's 1984. | |
|
|
|