Comcast and the fight against Net Neutrality [Telecom]

Comcast and the fight against Net Neutrality [Telecom]

Post by DTC » Sun, 02 Mar 2008 10:26:40

As a WSIP owner, here's my input...

More specifically its being criticized for offering unlimited service
and then turn around and limit it.

Any criticism about port-blocking or or bandwidth capping is a dead end.

[The excuses usually sound like these]

* "If providers can't provide they bandwidth, they need to increase
their backbone connection" - That may not be possible. go find
another provider.

* "I pay for internet service and I should be able to do anything I
want" - Not of the TOS prohibits it. Go find another provider.

* "What you're doing is illegal" - Says who? Go find another provider.

We block all bandwidth intensive use. If you have a compelling reason,
say downloading a Linux distro, we can open ports for you on a case by
case basis. If you feel you need more bandwidth, we can provide you with
your own dedicated 10 Mbps link for $200 a month and $1,000 equipment
and installation fee.

We don't "feel" entitled to block traffic, we ARE entitled. Its OUR
service, if you don't like it, you shouldn't have signed up without
reading our TOS.

If the agreement says no personal servers, then you can't run them.
We do allow some server application, selectively...but we charge more
per month.

Comcast and the fight against Net Neutrality [Telecom]

Post by AES » Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:38:06

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,

Would you agree, however, that these last mile bandwidth restrictions
should be _totally content neutral_?

That is, whoever is selling you this last mile bandwidth may limit the
total number of bits per second or per day or per month they send you.

(Preferably telling you in advance what those limits will be, and how
they will be applied.)

But, they should never exercise any discrimination over which particular
bits they send you, or how rapidly they send any particular bits, based
on what the bits contain, where they're going, or where they came from.

(Unless, of course, _you_ have specifically instructed them to block
certain bits or certain sources, e.g. as in spam filters or the like.)

Agreement on this?


Comcast and the fight against Net Neutrality [Telecom]

Post by Tom Horn » Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:29


I don't see it as paranoid but when we get strident about how we
phrase things it makes us appear powerless. If we buckle down and
organize we won't be powerless: we will be a force to be reckoned

My wife is a full time lobbyist for our church. She has been doing
that work in Washington since 1980. She has demonstrated to a fair
number of people that one hundred letters to a senator's office can
change a vote and that fifty non-form letters to a representative's
office will always change a vote. To a member of congress fifty
constituents who will take the time to write a letter is a blizzard.

Like a lot of other issues if we wait until the other fella or gal
acts we'll end up with multi-tiered net access. Those that don't give
the carriers the monthly fees they're having wet dreams about will get
only what some advertiser is willing to pay to send them. Sort of
like how broadcast television outside of PBS works right now.

In the interest of full disclosure I am the moderators brother. That
means he gives me a harder time then he'd ever give any of you.

Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison

***** Moderator's Note *****

In the interest of full disclosure, he's a terrible speller and his
grammar always needs work. ;-)

Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator

(Please put [Telecom] at the end of the subject line of your post, or
I may never see it. Thanks!)