Comcast tells FCC that blocking customers' file transfers is a fully legitimate exercise of...

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: her209
Keep dreaming. They'll keep charging the same rates to the lower use customers and charge more money to the higher use customers.

BINGO!

It's a cash grab.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
For as much as I hate to defend the likes of Comcast, I think their contract & Terms of Use will succeed in court.

Just because its in the contract doesn't make it "legal".

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20070809.html

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ScottMac
For as much as I hate to defend the likes of Comcast, I think their contract & Terms of Use will succeed in court.

Just because its in the contract doesn't make it "legal".

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20070809.html

But none of the circumstances of the case you linked apply here (other than "something changed").

The contract refers to usage per the Terms of Use, and they publish (and print, I believe) that the Terms can change, and that' it's the user's responsibility to check periodically on a site that's publicly available (and available on paper at their locations, and can be sent via snail mail on request)

and besides, that's the Ninth Circuit "The Court Jesters" ... the most overturned court in the country ... it's not like they'd know ANYTHING about the law ...

I Could see it coming down to whether or not a reasonable person, having read the contract and the associated Terms of Use (at the time the contract was signed) would come away with the understanding that I, as a common consumer of this product, have the (purchased) right to slurp up enough bandwidth to negatively impact service to the other users on my network segment, and possibly other network segments, simply because I know how and have the equipment necessary to do so.

And if it's the case that there is "X" amount of bandwidth available to me and my neighbors, and whoever has the ability and hardware can eat the majority of it (to the detriment of the service provided to the remaining group that uses that bandwidth pool), how would you hold Comcast responsible? Any reasonable person would be able to understand with minimal technical explanation that bandwidth for any given segment is a finite resource.

If the available resource is fairly divided or "traffic managed" such that it is offered in a way the ensures fair distribution of the finite resource, why would anyone bitch about that?

It's either a managed system or the Wild West. If you're unhappy with the contract, then bitch to your local government representatives ... they are the one that OK'd the contract that's offered in your area.

Again, it's a product; if you don't like the product, drop it and move to something else. I'll pretty much guarantee that for the right amount of money, you can get a GIG of Internet bandwidth delivered to your house just about anywhere in the lower 48.

I dropped Comcast as an ISP about two years ago in favor of AT&T DSL. I'm looking forward to U-Verse when it becomes available in my neighborhood (suburban Chicago). U-Verse will be available with 10/1.5 Internet sometime in Feb / March (the current max is like 6M/512k).

Whatever

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: charrison
Considering something like that 5% of the users generate over 50% of the net traffic, can you really blame them for shaping traffic so the other 95% get a good experience as a customer.

And giess what, if cable companies increased capacity without traffic shapping, those same 5% would still manage to generate more than 50% of the traffic.

Yes, I can blame them for that. If they didn't want 5% to use 50% of the bandwidth, then they should have put a rate or total bandwidth cap in the contract. If 5% of people use 50% of the electricity, what happens? They get charged 50% of the costs. It's not exactly like business models to address this sort of thing aren't available in every other industry. The cable companies are just promising the moon when they know they can't (or won't) deliver, yet here you are sticking up for them.

Be careful what you wish for. This kind of billing is easily implemented on an ISP model.
What would you do if all ISPs went to this?

They are not capping the bandwidth, they are slowing it down, and only specific traffic types. If that's unacceptable to the user, they can move to something else.

Pay less for the internet.

Keep dreaming. They'll keep charging the same rates to the lower use customers and charge more money to the higher use customers.

BS. So right now comcast is doing unlimited internet out of the goodness of their heart? If comcast was forced to go to a pay per bit model those 95% of the costumers that use 5% of the bandwidth would end up paying less.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ScottMac


I think it really boils down to the Terms of Service.

Comcast Terms of Use


For example, this is item xiv:

run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;

and there are others that might apply as well.

So, am I to understand that Comcast is only targeting the file transfers of people who are eggregiously violating the terms of service?

Am I to understand that people wishing to provide "e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers" must purchase some other level of service?

As far just dropping them and getting another company's product - where I live the cable company has a monoply. You want cable, you get it from them or you simply don't get it. There are no cable competitors. I think in return for this grant of monoply they should more regulated than a typical business.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Not that I understand the technology behind cable, but wouldn't it be possible to cap individual users' speeds at some pre-determined level, like they do with DSL?

Oh, wait, then they'd have to tell the truth about bandwidth. Silly me...

 

[techs]

The question no one has asked is why Comcast so heavily promoted "unlimited'.
Very, very, very few isp's limit usage.
Comcast, imo, was trying to set the stage for something other than unlimited usage for quite some time.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

I dropped Comcast as an ISP about two years ago in favor of AT&T DSL. I'm looking forward to U-Verse when it becomes available in my neighborhood (suburban Chicago). U-Verse will be available with 10/1.5 Internet sometime in Feb / March (the current max is like 6M/512k).

Whatever

The 10/1.5 has been available since the beginning of the month. You just have to call to get the upgrade.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ScottMac


I think it really boils down to the Terms of Service.

Comcast Terms of Use


For example, this is item xiv:

run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;

and there are others that might apply as well.

So, am I to understand that Comcast is only targeting the file transfers of people who are eggregiously violating the terms of service?

Am I to understand that people wishing to provide "e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers" must purchase some other level of service?

As far just dropping them and getting another company's product - where I live the cable company has a monoply. You want cable, you get it from them or you simply don't get it. There are no cable competitors. I think in return for this grant of monoply they should more regulated than a typical business.

Fern

As far as targeting: This kind of monitor and throttle / drop is very easy to do, it's done by application appliance on a set-and-go basis .... it's not like it take any real effort or manpower. They set the targeted protocols or ports and thresholds and away it goes.

"Am I to understand that people wishing to provide "e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers" must purchase some other level of service? "


Yes, that's exactly right for most, if not all, ISPs. Consumer-level services are different / cheaper (and frequently not guaranteed to the same level of reliability) than business, commercial, or special application service pricing.

"I think in return for this grant of monoply they should more regulated than a typical business."

I agree. Things are changing in many areas of the country as others are permitted in for competition. Unfortunately, when villages, towns, cities wanted cable for their citizens, the cable company wanted some guarantee that they'd have a shot at making their money back . It's what they negotiated, and it's what your local politicians agreed to.

Now that other services have become widely available (satellite, DSL ...) instead of getting permission of each individual community, providers are pushing for state-level permissions (Illinois recently passed such a law and so have other states). The competition should be good for prices and service levels, but I believe it'll be "a while" before you see wide-open unlimited and unconditional consumer-level bandwidth.