Comcast Defends Traffic ShapingIn the midst of its “we love video” announcement ( old news - 11:03AM Saturday Oct 20 2007) tags: Video · business · bandwidth · cable · networking · ComcastTipped by TK Junk Mail  When Amy Banse, president of the interactive division at Comcast, took the stage at San Francisco's Web 2.0 Summit yesterday, she planned to talk about Comcasts love for video. She managed to spend a bulk of her presentation on this topic, pointing towards the future possibilities which exist for online video. Speaking along with the president of CBSs comparable division, she agreed that there is a lot of potential for video to bring new subscribers to cable television. She says that she sees no battle between Internet and cable in this area and speaks with glowing reports about the possibilities of various partnerships down the line. Thats all well and good but what people really wanted to know about Comcast was not their future plans for video. They wanted to know what Comcast is doing right now with traffic shaping. The company has previously denied all traffic shaping, admitting only yesterday to a responsibility to manage the network (for the benefit of Comcast customers, of course). Although she didnt speak about it extensively, Banse addressed the issue on stage. She defended Comcasts management technology saying that the small percentage of people who engage in excessive use of the system need to be managed. She points out that these customers can choose Comcasts commercial option if they dont want to be managed in this way. Related:- Comcast Confirms New Throttling Tests We Reported Yesterday
- Comcast To Deploy Femtocells
- Comcast, Cox, Trot Out Their Worst 'Bandwidth Hogs'
- Beating Comcast's Sandvine On Linux With Iptables
- Comcast Expands Switched Digital Video Trials
- Comcast Pays Florida $150K For Misleading Consumers
- Comcast: 50Mbps Now Available In 20% Of Markets
- New Comcast Throttling System 100% Online
|
  binarycode
join:2003-04-30 USA | Countdown... ...until the comcast fanboys wake up and tell us it's our fault. -- The statement below is true. The statement above is false. | |
|  |   telcolackey The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06 Death Valley, CA
edit: October 20th, @01:20PM
| Re: Countdown... You call it fan-boy... I call it
•Corporate-haters vs. corporate-real-world. •liberal vs. capitalist •left vs. right
Broadband ISPs are making business decisions to address real business costs. If a very small number of (very vocal) users are upset that they can't share the bandwidth an ISP sold THEM with the general Internet and 3rd party content companies, then so be it. | |
|  |  |   knightmb Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01 Franklin, TN
·Comcast
·Vonage
·Speakeasy
| Re: Countdown... said by telcolackey :You call it fan-boy... I call it •Corporate-haters vs. corporate-real-world. •liberal vs. capitalist •left vs. right Broadband ISPs are making business decisions to address real business costs. If a very small number of (very vocal) users are upset that they can't share the bandwidth an ISP sold THEM with the general Internet and 3rd party content companies, then so be it. Well she is right about one thing. Their commerical or business access isn't managed. I have 5 static IPs setup for my business and I can max all five of them out at 8MB D / 1.5 MB UP 24/7 all week (which I have at times when I was reading about the Comcast traffic shaping) just to see if this was for Residential customers or if it applied to both.
I'm fairly certain that all the "management" is to push residential customers out of the way for customers like me. I can eat up all the bandwidth for the neighborhood and my neighbor on a residential connection could do nothing but suffer slow downloads and uploads at my expense.
So while I don't agree with how things handled (basically having residential and business customers all sharing the same pipe), at the same time I'm glad that I do have priority over my neighbors because I'm paying a lot more for my connection a month than they do. I expect it to be able to handle my company using it to the fullest every single day without problems or slowdowns. Which so far it does, probably at the expense of everyone in my neighborhood as I'm the only business customer here.
So sure, I'm burning up 10GB daily, but that's exactly why I have the account with Comcast, to use it to the max that they will allow. Residential customers get the short end of the stick, with the best effort. Better translations, "what's left after all the high paying customers have used what they need".
Life sucks, then you die, end of story  | |
|  |  LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06 Felton, DE
| said by binarycode :...until the comcast fanboys wake up and tell us it's our fault. So how do you define a Comcast fanboy? Is it someone who doesn't agree with you? Someone who doesn't always go with majority? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   telcolackey The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06 Death Valley, CA edit: October 20th, @05:25PM
| Re: I will suppose that.... Can one take the corporate side of an issue because they understand the business issues and economics, but not be a fanboy?
I find people define a fanboy as anyone that is not a corporate-hater. | |
|  |  |  |  |   blergh123
@net.nz | Re: I will suppose that.... While at the same time taking the otherside because comcast doesn't come out and say what it's terms and conditions are and exactly what you'll be getting and what they'll be doing to your packets? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  bicker
join:2007-05-10 Burlington, MA
| Re: I will suppose that.... They actually do outline their terms and conditions. Some folks simply choose to ignore them because they don't like them. File sharing is not permitted on the network. It's there in black and white. The terms and conditions also explicitly state that they will employ network management. No, they don't provide all the technical detail -- and the shouldn't. They are terms and conditions, not technical specifications. :rolleyes: | |
|  |  |  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Noah Vail :said by LeftOfSanity :So how do you define a Comcast fanboy? Is it someone who doesn't agree with you? Someone who doesn't always go with majority? I would define it as someone who takes the corporate side of an issue, while defending/denying/whitewashing the corporate malfeasance that was critical in bringing us to this point. Another definition might be the blind acceptance of corporation lawyers deciding the ethics of an issue, by writing the laws for purchased legislators to pass. Is that enough? I could provide some of the additional definitions. NV DING DING DING!!!! WE HAVE A WINNAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is NOT about taking the company's side but also ignoring the negative aspects or actions of the company. | |
|  |  |  |  |  jester121
join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL | Re: I will suppose that.... Or, really, anything that you don't happen to agree with.
When you can't debate the issue intelligently, resort to name calling. It's how we do things now... | |
|  |  imanogre
join:2005-11-29 Mcdonough, GA
·AT&T DSL Service
·AT&T Southeast
edit: October 20th, @09:52PM
| said by binarycode :...until the comcast fanboys wake up and tell us it's our fault. Oh good grief, you're so out of touch with reality it's sad.
When choosing an ISP, most consumers can only base their choice on what the corporation tells you. I have no problem with comcast choosing how to run their network how they see fit, but to lie to their consumers about their product... that in my book is akin to fraudulent business practices.
If Comcast would have been a bank, the OCC would have shut them down due to "unfair banking practices".
Unfortunately, no matter how you spin it, the internet is rapidly becoming a utility in the same way a phone is considered a utility. No, you don't need it to live, but with the amount of communication that is done over this medium, the corporate leadership of these companies need to be held to a higher standard then your standard Mom and Pop business model. My point here being is that there are many rules and regulations for businesses that necessary for the economy to run smoothly... i.e. the OCC comparison above. If Comcast is going to continue to operate as business as usual then it's time for them to either get their act together and stop lieing to the consumer, or it's time for the goverment to step in and (oh the horrors) regulate this industry. And as many of us know, government regulation is almost any form is bad. | |
|   Simba7
join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT
| Comcast at it again.. It's my internet. If I pay $$$ for their fastest connection, I better get that speed no matter what I do with it.
Now, if it was uncapped up and down, I could see that happening.
I'm glad I don't have Comcast, and Bresnan has NO plans on pulling this crap. -- Bresnan 15M/1M - My Computer (P4 1.8GHz, 3GB RAM, 80+160GB HDDs, Vista) - Wife's Computer (Duron 2.15GHz, 512MB RAM, 40GB HDD, Vista), Router (P2 450MHz, 224MB RAM, 6.8GB HDD, AT-2560FX, 2x DE504, WMP54G, DGE-500T, and an EtherLink III, FreeBSD 7.0-CURR). | |
|  |   yuutomo The Wonder Kitter Premium join:2001-08-27 Missoula, MT
·Bresnan Online
| Re: Comcast at it again.. No, Bresnan will not do that, but they will try to claim your modem as their own, and bill you until you give it to them and refuse to give even government agencies any proof that it is theirs and not yours. -- "The World is but a drop in the sea of time and space, and I am the current that flows through it" -Yuu Tomo (21st Century) | |
|  |  |   Simba7
join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT
edit: October 20th, @11:35AM
| Re: Comcast at it again.. Hasn't happened here. Of course, I'd prefer to use their Arris instead of an extremely old DOCSIS 1.x modem I have.
I've never had a problem with Bresnan for almost a year, which is the time we've had them. The only problem I have is their stinkin' Pace box, but that will be remedied soon.
..and yes.. I am a Bandwidth Hog.. But I haven't received any complaints about it. -- Bresnan 15M/1M | My Computer (P4 1.8GHz, 3GB RAM, 80+160GB HDDs, Vista) | Wife's Computer (Duron 2.15GHz, 512MB RAM, 40GB HDD, Vista) | Router (P2 450MHz, 224MB RAM, 6.8GB HDD, AT-2560FX, 2x DE504, WMP54G, DGE-500T, and an EtherLink III, FreeBSD 7.0) | |
|  |  |  |   yuutomo The Wonder Kitter Premium join:2001-08-27 Missoula, MT
·Bresnan Online
| Re: Comcast at it again.. I have a nice Linksys modem that's docsis 2, and backup motorola I have had for over a year, had to use the motorola and a month after I canceled my service they started claiming I owed them for a modem I rented. Long story short, I never signed for a modedm, the techs didn't leave one, and their office was closed that day of the install, and they can not show proof where I signed for a modem, and all they've been able to show is some screen capture from a progeam, which doesn't even have the right serial number on it. They've stonewalled the city commission office and bs'ed them and I've sent the details off to the consumerist, and will be taking this to the FCC. -- "The World is but a drop in the sea of time and space, and I am the current that flows through it" -Yuu Tomo (21st Century) | |
|  |   dka
@comcast.net
from: TK Junk Mail 
| I am not trying to sound rude but the price you pay for your high speed connection is nothing compared to the actual costs to support it. ISP's only make up the difference by having a large customer base. They oversell their bandwidth because they have to simply to pull a profit and stay in business. | |
|  |  |   Simba7
join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT
| Re: Comcast at it again.. So.. Basically it's alright for them to give me 2Mbps when I paid for 15Mbps?
If I'm paying the extra $10/month for 15Mbps, you darn right I'd better be getting 15Mbps (or VERY close to it). If I was getting 2Mbps, I'd just go with their 2Mbps plan and save myself some $$. -- Bresnan 15M/1M | My Computer (P4 1.8GHz, 3GB RAM, 80+160GB HDDs, Vista) | Wife's Computer (Duron 2.15GHz, 512MB RAM, 40GB HDD, Vista) | Router (P2 450MHz, 224MB RAM, 6.8GB HDD, AT-2560FX, 2x DE504, WMP54G, DGE-500T, and an EtherLink III, FreeBSD 7.0) | |
|  |  |  wombough
join:2001-08-30 Beaufort, SC
·Packet8
·Skype
·Vonage
| got to love unlimited Now a days. Verizon wireless does it and now we are seeing ISP's do it. Unlimited must have a new meaning for them! I love how they say switch to the business option. Well if they are both unlimited whats the difference other then you are paying more for business! | |
|  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL | Re: got to love unlimited It's not unlimited and hasn't been advertised as such for quite some time. | |
|  |  |  wombough
join:2001-08-30 Beaufort, SC | Re: got to love unlimited allot still are I am not sure about comcast but allot still are! Then they put restrictions in the TOS | |
|  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL | Re: got to love unlimited Show me one. | |
|  |  |  |  |  wombough
join:2001-08-30 Beaufort, SC
·Packet8
·Skype
·Vonage
| Re: got to love unlimited you want one. Sprint Wireless data for 59.99, wait got two for you alltel wireless data. With EVDO speeds they are considered high speed. I called charter and TWC and asked they said they are unlimited with no restrictions. They said they don't advertise it because it is now automatic! | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: got to love unlimited And I'm sure you'd be one of the first in line stating that cellular providers aren't competition for broadband access. Anyway, here you go.
Sprint's offerings: Ok. Have you been cutoff from Sprint by using too much?
Alltel Wireless Internet: Same question, have you been cut off from Alltel's service for using too much? Also, there's an asterisk, so if you don't read the fine print as a customer, it's your own fault.
TWC: I don't see any mention of unlimited.
Charter: I don't see any mention of unlimited. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  wombough
join:2001-08-30 Beaufort, SC
·Packet8
·Skype
·Vonage
| Re: got to love unlimited they aren't? they offer up to 3mbs in their evdo areas and in some offer evdo were cable is not even there nor is DSL! And no sprint I know for a fact will NOT cut you off for using to much. Alltel which I have their broadband service for my laptop and have used over 40gb last month as I travel allot and not a peep from them. Verizon has a 5gb cap on their unlimited plan and will cut you off so will att! | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: got to love unlimited So if Sprint won't cut you off for their unlimited plan, then is it not unlimited? Same for Alltel.
Verizon's BroadbandAccess plan doesn't say unlimited. However, I can attest that I've gone over 5 GB numerous time, mostly running encrypted tunnels, and haven't heard a peep from them about violating ToS.
I only see unlimited vaguely mentioned on AT&T's wireless site and I can't vouch for them too much. I can say that we used to use Cingular cards exclusively usually running encrypted tunnels without a problem, but we haven't really used them too much since the transition to AT&T. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  wombough
join:2001-08-30 Beaufort, SC | Re: got to love unlimited yes they are unlimited. And verizon specifically limits you to normal browsing no streaming of anything or downloading large files. Sprint and alltel encourage you to do it mostly in hopes to get people to sign I think. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: got to love unlimited said by wombough :verizon specifically limits you to normal browsing no streaming of anything or downloading large files. Verizon doesn't claim unlimited. Besides, like I said, I can verify through six different Verizon BroadbandAccess cards that going over 5 GB and using encrypted tunnels doesn't necessarily constitute a warning letter from Verizon. We've had service for over a year for our VIPs reaching back through VPN connections without a problem. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  wombough
join:2001-08-30 Beaufort, SC | Re: got to love unlimited did I say they did? No I don't think I did! And go ahead a stream a movie every day and see how many more years you are with them! | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: got to love unlimited This thread started with the unlimited comment, just following that topic. As for "streaming a movie every day", that's not really the point of a business solution. I do however run multiple encrypted tunnels passing multiple GB/month and haven't had a problem. If you think that Verizon's EVDO service is aimed at the home consumer as a broadband replacement, you are mistaken. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  wombough
join:2001-08-30 Beaufort, SC | Re: got to love unlimited i don't that is the hole point they won't let you however sprint and alltel will.
Yes it did start with the unlimited comment and I was pointing out some still say unlimited and others don't. I was told no one does and that is wrong! | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: got to love unlimited said by wombough :Yes it did start with the unlimited comment and I was pointing out some still say unlimited and others don't. I was told no one does and that is wrong! Yes, apparently a few ISPs still use the unlimited term. It does appear however that the services are unlimited, so I don't see a negative distinction for using the term. | |
|   hobgoblin Sortof Agoblin Premium join:2001-11-25 Orchard Park, NY clubs: | Where is my whip... to flog this dead horse.
Hob | |
|  |   telcolackey The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06 Death Valley, CA
edit: October 20th, @12:37PM
| Re: Where is my whip... Agreed. People will twist this to meet their agenda.
•P2P is great technology, but it is a ToS file sharing violation which GREATLY benefits content delivery companies (moving their bandwidth costs to ISPs upstream).
•Illegal vs. legal is a temporary and a poor argument.
•cap vs. "unlimited" - No one advertises unlimited anymore while Karl and other keep pulling out that non-dated scanned piece of paper every now and then to stir this one up. The unlimited argument is BS and tired.
I predict as speeds continue to go up, there will be a change to some sort of metering tiers. All-you-can eat has a key word in it... YOU. With p2p it is all-the INTERNET-can eat and if YOU want to pay for that, YOU should . | |
|  |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Where is my whip... said by telcolackey :Agreed. People will twist this to meet their agenda. •P2P is great technology, but it is a ToS file sharing violation which GREATLY benefits content delivery companies (moving their bandwidth costs to ISPs upstream). •Illegal vs. legal is a temporary and a poor argument. •cap vs. "unlimited" - No one advertises unlimited anymore while Karl and other keep pulling out that non-dated scanned piece of paper every now and then to stir this one up. The unlimited argument is BS and tired. I predict as speeds continue to go up, there will be a change to some sort of metering tiers. All-you-can eat has a key word in it... YOU. With p2p it is all-the INTERNET-can eat and if YOU want to pay for that, YOU should . You hit on all the right points. Too bad the defenders of unlimited P2P don't get it and never will. -- -- Internet News My BLOG My Web Page | |
|  |   EverAndAnon
@verizon.net
| The horse may be dead, but the rider(s) is(are) alive 'n' kickin'... er, whippin'.
Actually, the "horse" will never die as long as all customers who pay for a service expect to get that service: bandwidth-hungry and non-bandwidth-hungry alike.
So, Giddyup!! | |
|  |  |   HIP2BSQRE
@verizon.net | COMCAST So what is "excessive use"? Who gets to define the terms? So was the AP reporter who tried to upload the bible an excessive user? | |
|  |   hobgoblin Sortof Agoblin Premium join:2001-11-25 Orchard Park, NY clubs:
| Re: COMCAST said by HIP2BSQRE :
So what is "excessive use"? Who gets to define the terms? Comcast do as its their network.
Hob -- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
| |
|  |  |   Justme12121
@wavecable.com
| Re: COMCAST No, you're wrong, it's not their network. It's the customers' network. Or have you forgotten?
No customers = No network.
It's bad PR to admit to traffic shaping and limiting, but even worse to be caught doing it.
Glad I left them. | |
|  |  |  |  jester121
join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL | Re: COMCAST Yeah, let's all live in a commune and share everything. We shouldn't have to pay Comcast -- it's OUR network. | |
|  |   telcolackey The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06 Death Valley, CA
edit: October 20th, @12:56PM
| Several have quoted it is around 200-300G or sharing 150,000 text versions of the King James bible with your closets friends.
Most ISPs have avoided publishing an exact number for many reasons including marketing concerns, people creating p2p CDN systems that download 199G vs 200G, flexibility to change it without huge uproars, etc. | |
|   cyber
@coretel.net
| Comcast P2P blocking How does Comcast know the P2P traffic they are blocking is illegal downloading activity? They don't.
That means they are also blocking completely legitimate P2P traffic from all Comcast users.
This is censorship and it should be illegal.
Regards, Cyber, CISSP, CISM | |
|  |  smcallah
join:2004-08-05 Home
| Re: Comcast P2P blocking Calling it censorship is a bit of rhetoric there.
Censorship is selecting objectionable material out of all material, and banning that bit that you find objectionable.
Comcast is doing this to ALL P2P traffic, they are not selectively banning specific content. If they were, there would probably not be as much uproar. The Sandvine product has no way of knowing what content is being shared, it just sends a RST to any P2P session initiated from anyone outside of Comcast's network.
Also, even if it is censorship, which it's not, Comcast is a private company, and it would not be illegal for them to censor anything. It would be questionable, no doubt. But the 1st amendment of the Constitution applies to the government, not to private companies. | |
|  |  |   Lordicon666
@comcast.net | Re: Comcast P2P blocking anyway you call it, it's still horse poo. | |
|  |  |  msx
join:2003-04-03 Belmont, CA
| Where is this respond leading to? That Comcast is okay because they have not violated any laws, and really didn't selectively "block"(censor) data streams?
Playing with words is not a defense for an entity for "not telling"(lied) to their customers about their practices. I just pulled the plug on my comcast although I have never used Bit Torrent. | |
|  |  jester121
join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL | Counting the seconds until someone trots out the First Amendment boondoggle and calls for a class action civil rights lawsuit against Comcast... | |
|  |   U235Sentinel1
@sprintlink.net
| cyber
@coretel.net
Comcast P2P blocking
How does Comcast know the P2P traffic they are blocking is illegal downloading activity? They don't.
That means they are also blocking completely legitimate P2P traffic from all Comcast users.
This is censorship and it should be illegal.
If the company did know then they are in violation of the 1984 telecommunications privacy act... again. Yes I say again. In 2001 they were slapped for violating it in court BY a Judge.
I guess if they knew then there are bigger problems to deal with.
Isn't Google Great 
--- »comcastissue.blogspot.com | |
|  gpp
join:2001-12-15 Elmhurst, IL
edit: October 20th, @09:41PM
| is comcast business any better than residential? >She points out that these customers can choose Comcasts commercial option if they dont want to be managed in this way.
Fair enough. I'm willing to spend more money on business service, so I had a look at their business AUP. Here are a couple of show stoppers.
Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer-Provided Equipment, Comcast Equipment or any other equipment used in connection with the Service to: ... vii) restrict, inhibit, or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to use or enjoy the Service, including, without limitation, posting or transmitting any information or software which contains a worm, virus, or other harmful feature, or generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to send or retrieve information;
viii) restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or otherwise disrupt or cause a performance degradation, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to the Service or any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) host, server, backbone network, node or service, or otherwise cause a performance degradation to any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) facilities used to deliver the Service; ... Network, Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other Limitations You must comply with all current bandwidth, data storage, and other limitations on the Service established by Comcast and its suppliers. You must ensure that your activity(including, but not limited to, use made by you or others of the Service (including Web Site Hosting) does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or degrade any other user's use of the Service, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an overly large burden on the network. In addition, you must ensure that your activities do not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, disrupt, degrade, or impede Comcast's ability to deliver the Service and monitor the Service, backbone, network nodes, and/or other network services.
This is from the business AUP!
I am not able to generate levels of traffic in excess of what I've been provisioned for, yet I would still have to worry about whether comcast's infrastructure can handle the traffic capacity they purport to have sold to me and taken my money for.
I spend most of my time with bittorrent sharing legally available music (eg, see the Live Music Archive at archive.org). I am happy with my current provider, but am always looking for higher capacity. It looks like going with comcast business would be a risky proposition.
When comcast says they are concerned with protecting the integrity of their network, I think they really mean they are concerned with protecting the integrity of their business model. They can get rid of people like me, but there will always be a top 10% of bandwidth users, even when they have only 10 customers left. It seems like their plan is to isolate those users with perjorative terms like 'abuser' and 'bandwidth hog', and eliminate them. I expect to be able to use the bandwidth I've purchased. | |
|   Rick Premium,MVM join:2001-02-06 Waterbury, CT clubs: 
| It's good to hear that coming straight from them "She points out that these customers can choose Comcasts commercial option if they dont want to be managed in this way."
It has been debated in the Comcast forum whether switching to their commercial package would be a viable alternative for those who want to use a lot of bandwidth (200~300+ Gigs per month) and, it would appear judging by that statement, that is the way for people to go if they fall into that category. -- The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|  |  |   telcolackey The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06 Death Valley, CA | Re: Because of youtube. Youtube is paying an ISP for bandwidth to deliver their content vs. putting it out on residential broadband PCs and leaching the bandwidth of a providers upstream. | |
|   binarycode
join:2003-04-30 USA
·Comcast
| laughable AUP said by »www6.comcast.net/terms/use/ : # restrict, inhibit, or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to use or enjoy the Service, including, without limitation, posting or transmitting any information or software which contains a worm, virus, or other harmful feature, or generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to send or retrieve information; # restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or otherwise disrupt or cause a performance degradation, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to the Service or any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) host, server, backbone network, node or service, or otherwise cause a performance degradation to any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) facilities used to deliver the Service; # interfere with computer networking or telecommunications service to any user, host or network, including, without limitation, denial of service attacks, flooding of a network, overloading a service, improper seizing and abuse of operator privileges and attempts to "crash" a host; and
How am I meant to take my HSI AUP seriously when Comcast themselves violate it? Another case of do as I say, not as I do? -- The statement below is true. The statement above is false. | |
|  |  See 7 replies to this post | |
 JerryTongue
join:2003-04-01 Auburn, WA | I call it another lie They always say they dont do this or dont do that until later, then it comes out as we do in this way or that way. When some one is asked do you do it and you say "no" that means no | |
|   ztmike Premium join:2001-08-02 Michigan City, IN
·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
| Why not? I'll be happy when a actual company sues Comcast that has a legitimate business to run or when a user will stand up to Comcast in court over legit files.
Talk about bad PR if they were to win. -- "I am the worst president in US history, I'm either stupid or dumb most of the time, but people still believe me." George W. Bush | |
|  |   telcolackey The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06 Death Valley, CA
edit: October 20th, @06:30PM
| Re: Why not? |
|
|
|