moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD |
to LostMile
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 |
LostMile
Premium Member
2007-Nov-13 11:09 am
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 |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2007-Nov-13 11:30 am
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. |
|
 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.] |
|
 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. |
|
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD |
to jester121
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. |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN |
to DotMac4
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 moonpuppy
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. |
|
| FFH5 |
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 |
|
| |
to FFH5
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. |
|
