Cox Also Disrupting P2P Traffic → eTree?

Hope this doesn't mess up perfectly legal torrents like eTree or archive.org.

Guess we wait and see...

People seem to forget one of the original intents of BT - "tapers" trading LEGAL recordings of concerts...
Believe it or not, it's a fairly large community that's still pretty active.

Would really stink if this were disrupted.

I don't think it has anything to do with legal vs. illegal, its a method to manage traffic. Whether its a good one is a different story.

The RIAA had a law passed making taping of concerts illegal.

If they are blocking BT, it will affect everything, legal or not. I was seeing some funny activity with torrents constantly resetting and not being able to seed/upload on my Comcast connection... and I was seeding perfectly legal torrents. Problem disappeared though, I think they were just testing it in my neighborhood or something. I live near MIT so they probably had all the tech-heads filling up their inbox with complaints.

My friend spent about 9 million hours tracking band members down and getting permission and signing waivers to videotape and getting permission for me to upload it, and then Comcast decides it's not allowed.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Several bands that are signed to major labels encourage tapers.

This is about Cox, not Comcast. And your friend is over a thousand years old?

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Which part, actually getting permission, or the time spent to do so...or both.

He can upload to a sever not using P2P apps like bittorent.

9 million hours = hyperbole. I do not know exactly how many hours he spent getting permission from all parties, but I do know it was a process that took him a couple of months from initial inquiry to actually getting permission to actually filling out all the forms the venue required. And yes, I watched him fill out the forms and I read the waiver he signed, so I know it is 100% on the up and up. He owns a record store and is always careful to get permission for everything so he doesn't piss off any of the labels or bands he works with.

The band was really pleased and thanked him for taking the time to tape and share with the fans, and they posted links to the videos on their site.

Lots of bands like it when their fans tape stuff. They see it as a compliment, and free advertising if it's shared on youtube or bittorrent.Bittorrent was invented for things like this, it is not illegal and there is no reason that we shouldn't be able to use it to share legal, homemade amateur videos. Don't all these broadband companies advertise how you can share video and music and pictures?

Legal or Illegal doesn't matter

The issue is whether or not P2P violates the TOS for the Service. Is Cox the same as Comcast in prohibiting P2P?

IMHO, you can hardly call it "abuse" when you use the service for something that you agreed you wouldn't use it for when you signed up, and the ISP then disrupts it. Yea, maybe the ISP let it slide for awhile, but it was inevitable that the party would end eventually.

Don't like it? Find a broadband provider that allowed P2P in their TOS, and move to the area they serve. Or convince Congress to prohibit ISP's from placing restrictions such as this in their Service Agreements ('hope you have deep pockets).

Here's a list I found after a quick search
»btat.wagnerone.com/searc ··· eClick=1

If you can't find at least one artist/band that rings a bell, you should get out more (\sarcasm...)

Seriously, it's usually ok by most bands as long as you're not a total jerk. Also depends on venues too, but whatever.

If he's doing this for his record store, he probably shouldn't be using his Comcast residential connection. If he wishes to continue his distribution, there are numerous mechanisms to do so.I doubt the ISPs are doing this for legality reasons. They are most likely doing to decrease the burden on their networks.I don't know about advertisements for all ISPs, but you can still share video, music, and pictures as advertised.

He's not.He isn't.

I'm not sure how "he owns a record store" and "I have a Comcast connection" turned into "he is recording things for his store and using a Comcast connection"...

You just can't share as much video, music, and pictures as you want, riiiight?

Sure you can IAW your ISP's ToS and AUP.

Of course when the TOS changes so often that you can't keep up with it, there's a problem. Isn't it great that companies can change their TOS but users can't. The only change the customer can make is going somewhere else. And the competition is playing the same game. OLIGOPOLY!!!

So why don't you take this up in a thread that is about Comcast and let Cox has a moment in the sun!?

Why not call this website "Rag On Comcast".com?

You also agreed that they would/could change the TOS at anytime... so if they changed it.. you knew it could. Last time I checked, cable doesn't put you in lame and P*ssy contracts like phone does...

This one time, on the Internet, I had a friend that did something too.

If you're calling me a liar, why aren't you brave enough to say it?

I dunno, it's starting to look that way. What good is a contract when one side can change the terms at will... That's an unfair advantage.

It's a complex problem inherent to service providers of open-ended subscription services: cable TV, ISP, credit cards, mobile phones, ...

Write to your state and federal legislators to get it changed. Meanwhile, there are websites and software programs that will watch a page for you and notify you whenever it changes.

I can call it abuse. They're doing this crap (with BT..I haven't tested eDonkey) to lines purchased from Cox Business, which specifically allow servers.

I can't even seed from my server in San Diego to my home connection in Tulsa.

As I mentioned in response to some other fool upthread, Cox is interfering with BT seeds on CBS connections, which specifically allow servers. They're not just enforcing TOS.

Given that their "blocking" only kicks in on seeds, I think it's fair to say that what Cox is doing is enforcing their TOS regarding "no servers."

That would be fair to say, however such a restriction in a "TOS" goes against the FCC policy statement.

quote:

---

FCC Chairman Michael Powell in 2004 announced a new set of non-discrimination principles, which he called the principles of "Network Freedom." In a speech at the Silicon Flatirons Symposium in February 2004, Powell stated that consumers must have the following four freedoms:

1. Freedom to access content.
2. Freedom to run applications.
3. Freedom to attach devices.
4. Freedom to obtain service plan information.[19]

As remarked upon by David Isenberg, Chairman Kevin Martin later modified these four freedoms to read:

1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

On August 5, 2005, the FCC adopted a policy statement stating its adherence to these principles.

Federal Communications Commission (2005-08-05). New Principles Preserve and Promote the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet (PDF).

---

So what trumps what? The TOS or the FCC policy?

A mere statement of policy of that sort creates no obligation for any ISP to do anything, much less allow servers. Call me when the FCC has an actual rulemaking on the subject. Additionally, these moronic blocking schemes could arguably fall under "reasonable network management," at least insofar as they are used to enforce the ISP's terms of service or prevent BT users from sucking up the vast majority of the limited upstream bandwidth available on most cable systems.

I think it's crappy of them to not allow servers, but that's the way things have been for at least the last 10 years. It's something that we all contractually agreed to when signing up, and something we can all (theoretically; see my above posts) get around by paying them a bit more money each month to subscribe to the service which allows servers.

If anything, Cox is being more permissive than their TOS requires, although that's probably more because applications like WOW use BT to distribute patches than their being nice. Anything that requires the user to serve content is a technical TOS violation.

Of course, in reality, the cable companies should be quite happy for anything that makes them less of a net traffic sink. It's much easier to get peering when you're not sucking vastly more than you spew.

Policy is not law
TOS is not law

Both are left to interpretation and when an ISP says no servers they mean no servers. You have the option to go elsewhere if you can not abide by reasonable network management. Just because one person decides 40,000 requests for the latest backstreet boys cd rip flooding into his neighborhood isnt affecting his connection too bad his neighbors might not feel the same way and have reason to complain because local network is being assaulted in a way not disimilar to a DDOS attack.

Thanks for the information. There's also the issue of the unconscionability of the TOS for the average consumer in the first place. Joe6 Pack simply doesn't understand what is going on. The language is written in such a way that the average user is at a great disadvantage. On the other end of the TOS, the writer is very sophisticated and knows how they're limiting the user. So if something changes, the user doesn't understand the consequences until there's a problem.