<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0"
 xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule"
>

<channel>
<title>Topic &#x27;Proxy, What was Comcast Thinking?&#x27; in forum &#x27;Comcast XFINITY&#x27; - dslreports.com</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159595</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2022 10:43:34 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2022 10:43:34 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Proxy, What was Comcast Thinking?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159745</link>
<description><![CDATA[ergibbs posted : A proxy server wouldn't really be handling more traffic than the normal routers would.  It would need to have the storage capacity for the amount of sites, but not everyone accessing the 'Net would be stopping at the proxy server.  I have yet to see a proxy server that performed the way it was intended.  <br><small>--<br>Having children is like being pecked to death by a duck.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159745</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2002 10:37:12 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Proxy, What was Comcast Thinking?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159718</link>
<description><![CDATA[Alphy posted : Alright, Im willing to be educated. Considering that a Proxy would be handling a lot of traffic Im assuming you would need a fairly large pipe (T3-OC3) to provide all that bandwidth. Now why did Comcast fail to implement a Proxy properly? (Technical Aspects)]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159718</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2002 10:31:44 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Proxy, What was Comcast Thinking?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159713</link>
<description><![CDATA[Dmonn posted : The Reason They Used A Proxy Is Because The DHCP Servers Didn't Have Enough Pipeline To Keep Up With IP Assignments Durring The Conversion Of People From Road Runner, Excite@Home, And ATT@Home.  The Proxy Was A Failing Attempt To Try To Make It So Everyone Could Get On The Net.  Obviously They Forgot To Concider The Downside Of It All. Such As The Slowness And Inability For People To Visit Sites That Restrict Proxies.<br><br>Comcast Is In The Process Of Removing The Proxies And Has Already Done So In Some Areas.  I Believe MI Is Still Running Through A Proxy Server]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159713</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2002 10:30:49 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Proxy, What was Comcast Thinking?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159661</link>
<description><![CDATA[ergibbs posted : I've read most of the threads in here.  As I said, they don't need a proxy server to know what sites users are visiting.  <br><small>--<br>Having children is like being pecked to death by a duck.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159661</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2002 10:17:16 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Proxy, What was Comcast Thinking?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159626</link>
<description><![CDATA[Alphy posted :  Have you read any of the other threads? People have been talking about them selling info. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159626</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2002 10:11:50 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Proxy, What was Comcast Thinking?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159612</link>
<description><![CDATA[ergibbs posted : That's one of the more ridiculous things I've ever heard.  They don't need  a proxy server to log what sites you're accessing.  A proxy server, when implemented properly, will cache visited sites.  When future users attempt to access those sites, they will only have to travel as far as the proxy server, in effect speeding up access time to the information.<br><small>--<br>Having children is like being pecked to death by a duck.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159612</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2002 10:09:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Proxy, What was Comcast Thinking?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159595</link>
<description><![CDATA[Alphy posted :  Im just curious, did Comcast ever document what their plan was concerning the Proxy. The obvious idea comes to mind that they would log all the sites you went to and sell them to advertisers but was that the #1 objective they had for it? Obviously it was poorly implemented and strongly rejected by the majority of users but some people say they will bring it back another time. I sure hope not but what do you guys think?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Proxy-What-was-Comcast-Thinking-2159595</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2002 10:06:59 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
