said by sturmvogel :

It is the fact that Comcast really does not differentiate at all who they disconnect. Could be a Joe Nobody, someone from Microsoft, a fairly well known blogger like Dave that made some news about it before.

said by funchords :

The question you ought to be asking: was Dave Winer actually unreasonably impacting someone else's use of the Internet or did he just "use too much bandwidth."

said by CleanGene :

The obvious question in response is, if he wasn't affecting other users, why would Comcast even care what he was doing, or go to the trouble of cutting him off? Is the operant theory that they hate him personally?

I think not.

said by sturmvogel :

Because he was using a lot of bandwidth and they do not care if he would be impacting anybody, just about the bandwidth.

said by funchords :

Looks like he was backing up his podcasts.

Dave's the perfect example of a bleeding-edge customer -- an expert innovator trapped by lazily implemented "for the good of the majority" policies.

said by justin :

Of course Comcast should create a meter that shows up to the minute usage and a warning system when it is exceeded however in this poisonous atmosphere of "unlimited for everyone" I kind of understand why they haven't raced ahead with this because they would lose customers to any competitors that _claim_ to be unlimited (but actually are not).

said by sturmvogel :

I also did ask if using the network only at night for FTP downloads would be acceptable and the rep said that they care about total usage ONLY, so....

said by sturmvogel :

I also did ask if using the network only at night for FTP downloads would be acceptable and the rep said that they care about total usage ONLY, so....

said by funchords :

yeah, their TOS does not support cutting you off in that case. It's supposed to be used to keep you from impacting others.

said by Nerdtalker :

If we're really serious about reducing network load, do what my overseas provider does and throttle speeds/impose a bit-cap only for traffic during peak hours. In the middle of the night, take those away and let the few users who need to run their 30 GB warez Anime download do it!

said by CleanGene :

I've occasionally toyed with the idea that users should be able to buy and sell peak bandwidth amongst themselves. If you don't mind being formally throttled back - or even shut down completely - from 5-9PM, you can put your unused bits up for sale to another user who wants to be guaranteed to have more room. Conversely, if you need to do something important during that time, you can go out and buy the peak bandwidth from someone who won't be using it.

said by justin :

...a clueless 14 year old kid who grabs the entire production output of a sub-genre of anime.

said by funchords :

The question you ought to be asking: was Dave Winer actually unreasonably impacting someone else's use of the Internet or did he just "use too much bandwidth."

said by espaeth :

I think the real question is -- how could someone so juiced in to the Internet community miss the fact that Comcast has usage limits? He was called once before, there's been articles posted everywhere about the proposed idea of 250GB caps, and the issue continues to be discussed regularly in forums like those here at DSLR.

Does anyone honestly believe Dave really didn't know?

said by espaeth :

Does anyone honestly believe Dave really didn't know?

said by espaeth :

I think the real question is -- how could someone so juiced in to the Internet community miss the fact that Comcast has usage limits? He was called once before, there's been articles posted everywhere about the proposed idea of 250GB caps, and the issue continues to be discussed regularly in forums like those here at DSLR.

Does anyone honestly believe Dave really didn't know?

said by Pingmeister :

I am certain that I don't degrade things for my neighbors.

said by sturmvogel :

It is the fact that Comcast really does not differentiate at all who they disconnect.

said by Rob :

Was he using a residential or business account?

said by CleanGene :

Residential, of course.

said by Rob :

It was a rhetorical question

said by Johkal :

What have we learned from this topic?

said by Dave Winer :

but if somehow I was responsible for slow connections in the neighborhood, I would see the slowness too, right?

said by Rob :

No, you wouldn't, because you're the one using all the available bandwidth.

Here's an example:

Do you have a router in your home and share your connection with other family members? Have one of them start downloading a file that is, say, 100GB. Their download will max out your connection, and your computer's connection will suffer, while their connection is going at full throttle - sucking up all the available bandwidth.

said by Rob :

No, you wouldn't, because you're the one using all the available bandwidth.

Here's an example:

Do you have a router in your home and share your connection with other family members? Have one of them start downloading a file that is, say, 100GB. Their download will max out your connection, and your computer's connection will suffer, while their connection is going at full throttle - sucking up all the available bandwidth.

said by Rob :

Do you have a router in your home and share your connection with other family members? Have one of them start downloading a file that is, say, 100GB. Their download will max out your connection, and your computer's connection will suffer, while their connection is going at full throttle - sucking up all the available bandwidth.

said by Pizz :

Booting people off the network without any warning, is pretty piss-poor IMO. I dont understand how hard it is, to add a cap into its TOS/AUP. Then there wouldnt be any problems with Dave and Sturm.

I wonder if the people getting booted off, dont have say FIOS or Uverse competing in those areas. Cause if they did, i highly doubt Comcast would want to lose a sub.

said by Pizz :

Booting people off the network without any warning, is pretty piss-poor IMO.

said by rody_44 :

if anyone doesnt like what they deliver they are free to cancel.

said by funchords :

No. "Free to cancel" means that there is an actual freedom there. For example, if I don't like the fact that ZeriTel Wireless doesn't have roll-over minutes, I'm free to choose Allzon Wireless instead.

In much of Comcast's footprint, there are no reasonably similar alternatives.

said by CleanGene :

A "reasonably similar alternative" service is certainly something you might want, but there is no concomitant obligation upon the rest of the world to provide that to you. As a result, you always have another alternative - do without.

Furthermore, your notion of "freedom" borders on the ridiculous. By this logic, if McDonald's (Comcast) is the only restaurant (ISP) in town, and I want a steak-and-lobster dinner (uncapped, unthrottled service), then McDonald's is somehow obligated to provide it to me, whether it's on the menu or not. I don't have the "freedom" to choose that entree with another restaurant, so Mickey D's should have to cough it up.

said by CleanGene :

By this logic, if McDonald's (Comcast) is the only restaurant (ISP) in town, and I want a steak-and-lobster dinner (uncapped, unthrottled service), then McDonald's is somehow obligated to provide it to me, whether it's on the menu or not. I don't have the "freedom" to choose that entree with another restaurant, so Mickey D's should have to cough it up.