On Jun 24, 2007, at 22:05, Ben Scott wrote:
> This also destroys the
> anti-leech protocol arguments; implementing such just decreases the
> popularity of the protocols.
I've only done protocol work with Bittorrent, but as I understand it,
it's quite popular.
Bittorrent uses economic and game
On 6/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The point I'm trying to make, and that most people seem to be
>> missing, is that *Comcast controls the terms*. This isn't a situation
>
> Who controls the terms really isn't the issue.
That's the only point I was trying to make with
> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:05:12 -0400
> From: "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 6/21/07, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Perception doesn't have any effect on the Comcast NOC, but it has an
> > effect on the ToS the company can get away with.
>
> Says who?
>
> The point I'
On 6/21/07, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perception doesn't have any effect on the Comcast NOC, but it has an
> effect on the ToS the company can get away with.
Says who?
The point I'm trying to make, and that most people seem to be
missing, is that *Comcast controls the terms*
Travis Roy wrote:
> The original post was about a local library. I know when I was
> working at the local public access channel in Goffstown the cable
> committee for the town had an agreement with (then) MediaOne to offer
> higher speed access (than a normal customer) to the schools, the tow
On 6/21/07, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, at 13:05, Thomas Charron wrote:
> > No, it isn't. It isn't a client either. It's a 'collaborative'
> > application, where there isn't a client or a server, just peers which
> > send data to each other.
> Are we talking abou
On Jun 19, 2007, at 13:05, Thomas Charron wrote:
> No, it isn't. It isn't a client either. It's a 'collaborative'
> application, where there isn't a client or a server, just peers which
> send data to each other.
Are we talking about perception or implementation? At the
implementation level
On 6/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Suppose I'm Happy Windoze User wanting to check my McOutlook Address
> and Contact Folder from the road, and I want to RDC to my XP box ...
> Are you saying they won't help me with this?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Say it with me
On 06/20/2007 01:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Suppose I'm Happy Windoze User wanting to check my McOutlook Address
> and Contact Folder from the road, and I want to RDC to my XP box so I
> can run the iPod conduit or whatever for it. It's my personal
> machine, my personal credentials, and (s
> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:54:30 -0400
> From: "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 6/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > According to this language, SSHing into your box, accessing your WRT
> > webif from the 'Net, VNCing, and VPNing into your Premesis LAN from
> > outside wo
On 6/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to this language, SSHing into your box, accessing your WRT
> webif from the 'Net, VNCing, and VPNing into your Premesis LAN from
> outside would not be allowed.
Exactly. If you complain to Comcast that you are having trouble
w
On 6/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P2P apps like BitTorrent put similar burdens on the infrastructure to
> that which running ordinary "servers" would. It seems to me that
> Comcrap ... should be equally prohibitive of P2P apps ...
It depends on the nature of the usage.
On 6/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I guess to take any ambiguity or semantics out of it, Comcast does not
> > want you to do the following:
> > run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide
> > network content or any other services to anyone outside of
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:59:58 -0400
> From: "Ben Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 6/19/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> For about the brazilianth time, it's not about listening on a
> >>> particular port, it's about acting as server rather than a consumer.
> >>
> >> Bittorren
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:09:47 -0400
> From: "Shawn K. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I guess to take any ambiguity or semantics out of it, Comcast does not
> want you to do the following:
> run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide
> network content or any other service
On 6/19/07, Travis Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The original post was about a local library.
Right, but the thread was hijacked to complain about Comcast's "no
servers" policy. Further, the old argument was raised about how some
Comcast's allowed usage includes software which listens for i
>
> I'm not a big fan of Comcast's "no servers" policy either, but I do
> understand it. Even if someone thinks Comcast is the Great Satan,
> "Know thy enemy" would seem to be a good strategy. Setting up
> straw-man arguments about how "FTP listens for connections, so it's a
> server too, and t
> Comcast does not want people providing content and services on their
> feeds. They don't want to build their network to support it, they
> don't want the tech support burden, and they don't want the legal
> complications. Comcast wants people sucking down mass content like
> good little drone
On 6/19/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> For about the brazilianth time, it's not about listening on a
>>> particular port, it's about acting as server rather than a consumer.
>>
>> Bittorrent isn't a server?
>
> No, it isn't. It isn't a client either. It's a 'collaborative'
> a
19 matches
Mail list logo
