Please go back and read the OP... the point is not that they block torrents, it's that they are not up-front about it. Why lie about it? If torrents are really a problem, why not say, 'OK, we are not allowing torrents through as of today'?
If they had done that then I would have said 'Hmmm, torrents are a problem, I did not know that... eh, whatever'.
Comcast blocking certian traffic
-
Foil
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:31 pm
- Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
WillyP, why should they make their security & system-integrity methods public? That would just counteract what they're trying to do.
Now, I don't think \"the free market and capitalism will make all things right\" (I tend to agree with Gren that past a certain point, things should be regulated in a limited way). But with that said, I certainly don't think this decision by Comcast is anywhere near 'abuse of monopoly power'.
Here's how I see it:
Q. Is the Comcast decision unpopular?
A. Yes, they'll probably lose some customers because of it.
Q. So why did they think it was worth it?
A. Because they want to keep customers like me happy, rather than allow their service to degrade because of a certain type of (mostly-illegitimate) traffic.
(As I said before, as a customer who depends on the stability and speed of their service, I'm personally glad they limit torrent abuse.)
Now, I don't think \"the free market and capitalism will make all things right\" (I tend to agree with Gren that past a certain point, things should be regulated in a limited way). But with that said, I certainly don't think this decision by Comcast is anywhere near 'abuse of monopoly power'.
Here's how I see it:
Q. Is the Comcast decision unpopular?
A. Yes, they'll probably lose some customers because of it.
Q. So why did they think it was worth it?
A. Because they want to keep customers like me happy, rather than allow their service to degrade because of a certain type of (mostly-illegitimate) traffic.
(As I said before, as a customer who depends on the stability and speed of their service, I'm personally glad they limit torrent abuse.)
i wonder if this anti-torrent stuff is linked to their TV services?
i mean... i watch a lot of things on the BITTORRENT CHANNEL
, which could be said to be a major competitor to paid cable.
Comcast not being open about their blocking of torrents implies that they wanted to do it secretly, perhaps they wanted people to get a bad taste in their mouth for torrents, they want people to think \"meh... torrents suck\".
A FUD campaign
i mean... i watch a lot of things on the BITTORRENT CHANNEL
, which could be said to be a major competitor to paid cable.Comcast not being open about their blocking of torrents implies that they wanted to do it secretly, perhaps they wanted people to get a bad taste in their mouth for torrents, they want people to think \"meh... torrents suck\".
A FUD campaign
well-being?
are you saying that comcast is only doing this 'for the good of the people'??
wow.. just. wow.
\"If you're telling someone what they can and can't do out of a desire to protect your own financial interests, that's entirely different. It's not \"playing babysitter\" to tell someone to get off of your property, or to tell someone that if they break your item they have to pay for it. That's just looking out for your own interests.\"
sorry dude but these are pretty bad examples. an internet connection has nothing to do with property. Also, you're mixing up tresspass with internet access. The other example where someone drops and breaks your item is particularly bad because it really has nothing to do with Comcast.
are you saying that comcast is only doing this 'for the good of the people'??
wow.. just. wow.
\"If you're telling someone what they can and can't do out of a desire to protect your own financial interests, that's entirely different. It's not \"playing babysitter\" to tell someone to get off of your property, or to tell someone that if they break your item they have to pay for it. That's just looking out for your own interests.\"
sorry dude but these are pretty bad examples. an internet connection has nothing to do with property. Also, you're mixing up tresspass with internet access. The other example where someone drops and breaks your item is particularly bad because it really has nothing to do with Comcast.
Re:
How is it any different to NeoCon philosophy?Lothar wrote:This is basic capitalist-libertarian economic philosophy.
Re:
I had Adelphia cable internet for years, (Comcast has since bought them).fliptw wrote:The best way to break monopolies is deny them patronage. If you adopt an attitude that you cannot do without what a monopoly offers, then you have given a vote for Mercantilism/Protectionism.
Our whole neighborhood would experience outages *at the same time*. I would call tech support (lawl) and go through the same BS, reboot cable modem, reboot PC. ipconfig /all... yadda yadda. I never got an answer as to what it was; the service would just start working again. Lost track of how many times I called them, as it was a daily occurrence to lose internet connectivity.
The final time I called them the tech got real smart assy with me. Said it was a problem with the wiring in my house, to which I responded my father lives 8 doors down and lost connectivity at the same moment I did. Didn’t want to hear it. Said it was my house wiring again (which was also installed by them).
Long story short. Verizon DSL now has my Internet business.
Re:
Foil wrote:WillyP, why should they make their security & system-integrity methods public? That would just counteract what they're trying to do.
I said nothing about publicizing 'security & system-integrity methods', BUT they could have said, 'Sorry, we don't allow torrents' instead of lying about it.
Here's the thing: I, as a customer, look at Comcast packages to decide what would suit me most. Basic, casual and unlimited. now since I'm a heavy internet user who does a lot of downloads, I select the unlimited package.
Now, they state that unlimited means unlimited access. great. I sign up, pay my money and now I expect unlimited access to every site, downloads and other services.
Now I see that the program I use to download stuff is failing and I wonder why. I dig around and find out it's been blocked. from the ISP side.
Now I'm not getting what I paid for. I'm paying for unlimited access and I'm suddenly getting limited access. That's considered false advertising.
I'm on the horn with Comcast and I'm trying to find out why I'm not getting what I pay for. and I'm stonewalled.
My next action is to file a complaint with the BBB regarding this deception.
Unless they declare it in the webpage or in the contract, they can't do this. It's a breach of contract.
The claim about 'they can do whatever they want with their pipes' is bogus. 'their' pipes are not their pipes. Those are pipes that are being leased to them by the telco companies. so they are AT&T's pipes. Comcast simply provides the service. It's the telco companies that bought and laid them in the first place.
Now before you start in about bittorrent only being used for warez, consider this. More and more sites are using bittorrent to distribute patches and demos; which now weigh in higher than 1.5gb and growing.
Using the old method where I click on a link and download it manually, comcast can now come in and say i'm hogging bandwidth and now can revoke access.. when all I am trying to do is get a game demo. Pretty ironic seeing as they advertise high download speeds and a speedburst feature.
The smart thing would have been to offer a higher cap package or to charge per gig downloaded. Not this. Not only does it not make any business sense whatsoever but they're basically shooting themselves in the foot.
Now, they state that unlimited means unlimited access. great. I sign up, pay my money and now I expect unlimited access to every site, downloads and other services.
Now I see that the program I use to download stuff is failing and I wonder why. I dig around and find out it's been blocked. from the ISP side.
Now I'm not getting what I paid for. I'm paying for unlimited access and I'm suddenly getting limited access. That's considered false advertising.
I'm on the horn with Comcast and I'm trying to find out why I'm not getting what I pay for. and I'm stonewalled.
My next action is to file a complaint with the BBB regarding this deception.
Unless they declare it in the webpage or in the contract, they can't do this. It's a breach of contract.
The claim about 'they can do whatever they want with their pipes' is bogus. 'their' pipes are not their pipes. Those are pipes that are being leased to them by the telco companies. so they are AT&T's pipes. Comcast simply provides the service. It's the telco companies that bought and laid them in the first place.
Now before you start in about bittorrent only being used for warez, consider this. More and more sites are using bittorrent to distribute patches and demos; which now weigh in higher than 1.5gb and growing.
Using the old method where I click on a link and download it manually, comcast can now come in and say i'm hogging bandwidth and now can revoke access.. when all I am trying to do is get a game demo. Pretty ironic seeing as they advertise high download speeds and a speedburst feature.
The smart thing would have been to offer a higher cap package or to charge per gig downloaded. Not this. Not only does it not make any business sense whatsoever but they're basically shooting themselves in the foot.
-
Krom
- DBB Database Master
- Posts: 16134
- Joined: Sun Nov 29, 1998 3:01 am
- Location: Camping the energy center. BTW, did you know you can have up to 100 characters in this location box?
- Contact:
It really looks simple to me: Comcast didn't want to drive away torrent users who are very valuable subscribers that depend on broadband, so they tried to keep it a secret, that way they could have their cake and eat it too. I've seen so many ads for various broadband services that say \"download your files faster\"... nobody in the industry would dare mention they implemented a system to outright prevent or seriously slow the download speeds that they spent millions advertising. I have honestly seen ads for broadband ISP that would list how many seconds it would take to download an average song or movie, that is all but endorsing piracy and they were making money off it. They sure as hell aren't going to sell any connections by saying \"our network cripples high demand types of traffic, so the stuff that doesn't need it, or fewer people use works faster! YAY!\".
Re:
The worst part is that even to a net savvy user, it would appear as if the torrent from the other end... as Comcast was sending a FAKE stop packet! Not many users would know how to detect that, I'm guessing. It took someone with a bit of inside knowledge and a lot of tech savvy to figure this out. That, and as Ferno said they do advertise 'Unlimited Access', is why I say FOUL!Ferno wrote: Now I see that the program I use to download stuff is failing and I wonder why. I dig around and find out it's been blocked. from the ISP side.
Ah, yes, that's it... woo the potential customer with one face and screw the little guy with the other... Every day I hear Comcast ads on the radio repeating how wonderful they are.Krom wrote:It really looks simple to me: Comcast didn't want to drive away torrent users who are very valuable subscribers that depend on broadband, so they tried to keep it a secret, that way they could have their cake and eat it too. I've seen so many ads for various broadband services that say "download your files faster"... nobody in the industry would dare mention they implemented a system to outright prevent or seriously slow the download speeds that they spent millions advertising. I have honestly seen ads for broadband ISP that would list how many seconds it would take to download an average song or movie, that is all but endorsing piracy and they were making money off it. They sure as hell aren't going to sell any connections by saying "our network cripples high demand types of traffic, so the stuff that doesn't need it, or fewer people use works faster! YAY!".
Re:
Just so ya know, I do not have any dealings with Comcast but I assume the contract is not unlike the one I have with my ISP.d3jake wrote:Good luck with that fileing Ferno. Is it save to assume that you looked into the fine print of your contract? Though I'm not sure how advertising deals with contract wording...
Re:
It's not a lawsuit yet. Hopefully it will be.Top Wop wrote:Lawsuit:
http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/0 ... 0235.shtml
