On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 10:02 -0600, Clint Savage wrote: > I see where this is going, we're going to debate whether changing > their TOS is appropriate. I don't think that's the issue here though. > The real issue is: > > If Comcast can block one particular protocol from being sent across > their wires, what's to stop them (or another major/minor ISP) from > doing it to other protocols/traffic. Since when is it illegal to use > bittorrent? Since when does an ISP have the right to say what types > of traffic I can send? Since when should I bow down to them and take > it?
What about an ISP blocking the latest virus/worm? Would you rather they didn't block that traffic? Wouldn't an ISP be considered derelict of duty if they failed to block it? If you had a choice to make between 1 customer's service being degraded (due to a p2p limit or similar) or 20 customers' service being disrupted due to packet floods, which would you choose? I'm not a staunch defender of Comcast, but I don't see that the issue is so clear cut. > I understand they have limitations, but those limitations are > artificial. They limit consumer bandwidth only to let business > bandwidth in at a higher price. I honestly think that businesses and > consumers should pay the same price. If you're not getting anything more for a business package over a residential package, then yeah that's a rip off. But my customers do get more for their business class service. Corey /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
