On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 08:33:31 -0400, Fred Atkinson wrote:

You don't suppose Comcast has hired fools for corporate attorneys, do you?
OTOH, I am not sure what laws *require* "defined, published limits".

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

"Fred Atkinson" <fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote in message
news:ktp7e31tkr0nq2p5hdsqtlsj0asaoqhfa7@4ax.com...

Define the written defined limits a cop has to follow to arrest and
charge someone with disorderly conduct please. Perhaps you'd like to
start a class action law suit on behalf of everyone ever arrested for
disorderly conduct?

We had a guy arrested for disorderly conduct for speaking during his
assigned time at city council meetings. He was tried and found guilty
by a jury of shills for the city council & a crooked judge.

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 14:07:15 -0400, Rick Merrill
<rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote:

Since there doesn't seem to be any clear cut definitions of
what 'abuser's' are, I would suggest that it would be any member of
the general public who has been improperly denied service.



Fred

Dr Feelgood WA wrote:
Poor analogy. Let's try something more apropos - like the highway
speed limit. There is a max of 65 (ignoring the 70+ on some freeways).

If you exceed that speed limit at 75, you can get a ticket (let's say it's
currently $5 per mile over plus $35 in court costs etc for a total of $85).
We also know how fast we're going since all of our cars have a speedometer
in them that is usually fairly accurate. The limit is defined, the fines
are also predefined (with a few caveats like doubling in a maintenance
zone, etc.).

In the case of the Internet, the speed limit signs, the fines and the
speedometer all seem to be missing. Presumably, the speedometer isn't
necessary since they put governors on or engines so we can't exceed the
limit - the only thing we can control is how far/long we drive. So
what's missing in this analogy is what is the limit on how long we can
drive at the speed limit ?

Obviously if most of us aren't on the highway, the ones that are can
drive longer. When everyone gets on the road, a second throttle comes
into play which is the width of the highway. This width vs traffic
analogy should cause all drivers to be forced to slow down (rush hour).

It would be nice if the drivers that haven't been on the road as long
could get more speed than those driving all day (diamond lane analogy
for you Californians), but I'm not sure any ISP has a diamond lane
implemented. If they did, this would all be kinda moot and iron itself
out by adding one.

ROFLMAO! I can't wait to see a bunch of movie, music and software thieves
file a class action suit against Comcast.

I'm sure the MPAA, RIAA and the BSA will find a use for the class list. Sort
of like shooting fish in a barrell.



"Fred Atkinson" <fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote in message
news:7e39e3tp2kgrtind303ssrgfuofrc2dc8c@4ax.com...

abuser = movie, music and software thief

OK?

"Bill" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:dtc9e3115i854cujpuqlaqvulm7s7mqliu@4ax.com...

Bill <none@none.invalid> wrote in
news:dtc9e3115i854cujpuqlaqvulm7s7mqliu@4ax.com:

RH erroneously believes that the only way you could use enough
bandwidth to be shut off is if you're using peer to peer software
to exchange unlicensed software, music and video.

Of course, he ignores that people legally watching streaming
video, listening to internet radio, or downloading movies and
software they paid for ALSO use lots of bandwidth.

He's also ignoring two key facts about the complaints against
Comcast:
1. Comcast does not inform any user about what the actual usage
limits are. They have not supplied a number, or way to identify
how much you've used. They apparently simply cut off the user.
2. Comcast has not set up a system to warn users when they are
approaching the limits of that usage. As noted, apparently they
cut off the service, and THEN inform the user that they've
exceeded their limit.

Lacking any sort of metric, Comcast really doesn't have a
defensible position of enforcment.

Finally, RH's arguments are a strawman: Comcast hasn't claimed
that any of the users who have lost access were involved in
downloading anything illegally. And frankly, Comcast would have
no way to tell the nature of the material being exchanged. It
hasn't even been determined that Comcast actually can identify
how much bandwidth any user is consuming.

Comcast really has to do better; if the current laws really allow
this behavior - which is possible - this behavior will only drive
Congress to make laws forcing them to set a metric, and a system
to alert users to their consumption status.

--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/

Experience varies directly with equipment ruined.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:49:13 -0500, Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com>
wrote:

You've hit the nail on the head.

Too bad it has to be this thoroughly explained for people to
understand it.

Just out of curiousity, how many of you have ever had training
in contract law?

Regards,



Fred

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:58:17 -0400, Fred Atkinson
<fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote:

OK. So just what does the Comcast TOS (that the customer presumably
agreed to) say? Is it any different then the TOS of other broadband
providers? I assume that their lawyers were involved in the writing of
the TOS. Isn't the TOS essentially "the contract"?

--

Dennis

In alt.online-service.comcast Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote:
Would you supply that number if you were Comcast? Now you get abusers that
keep their usage just a few MB below the maximum. The problem isn't that a
specific amount of total bandwidth use is exceeded; the issue is that a
specific amount of total bandwidth use is exceeded chronically.

Nor should they. They should give you a warning if you are identified as an
abuser and you have the chance to fix it. You and I both know that the person
who gets labeled as an abuser will know WHY already and they can either take
the option to challenge the label and potential sanctions imposed by Comcast
or they can fix their behavior. Either way, it should come as no surprise to
the chronic downloader.

If they had such published limits you would find a large number of abusers
attemption to stick just below max, which does NOT solve the problem. The
issue is one of chronic misuse and not of exceeding some arbitrary limit.

Actually, AT&T (which Comcast has a close affiliation with) is known to be
working on sniffing packet streams for copyrighted content and prosecuting
based upon such information. You would be well advised to use encryption if
you are illegally working with such material that is travelling over the AT&T
backbone.

AOL set this precedent almost a decade ago and it is an old argument at this
point.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

veldy71@yahoo.com (Thomas T. Veldhouse) wrote in
news:s5dFi.1303$vq6.590@textfe.usenetserver.com:

If there's a maximum and you keep your use below the maximum, then
you're not an abuser.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

"Christopher Jahn" <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99A759BB5D17Axjahn@216.196.97.136...
Not true.

The AUP clearly states no one may use the service in any way that
negativlely affects any other Comcast customer or violates any state
or federal law. The first part of that precludes any set limit as the
point is node bandwidth / customer / usage dependent.


Also not true.

Depending on the type of abuse Comcast uses different methods of
notification ranging from snail mail notices to phone calls to
temporary suspension of service, depending on level & type of abuse.

Bert Hyman wrote:
Not true.

The issue is are you in the top % of your node - 'max' is relative.

rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com (Rick Merrill) wrote in
news:sOOdnSy59vrWGnjbnZ2dnUVZ_vrinZ2d@comcast.com:

So there really is no maximum; it's completely arbitrary.

It's hard to obey the speed limit when you have no idea what it is.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

Bert Hyman wrote:
Why don't you just test it? Make a little batch job that uploads a file
then downloads the file and repeat until they call you? Simple.

Bill wrote:
That was for Bert; what's weird is that Bill replied;-)

In alt.online-service.comcast Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
Exactly, and as I indicated, I don't believe a singular maximum value is the
problem. The problem is those that chronically hog bandwidth. One should
have the ability on occassion to massively download data if there is good
reason for it (there are many), without fear of disconnect. However, one
should NOT believe they should get massively downloaded data every period, it
doesn't make sense and we all know the consumer pricing model based on %
overselling [it is no secret]. If you want that kind of service, then you
shouldn't be purchasing residential broadband, but instead, dedicated
bandwidth [usually commercial in nature]. Comcast does offer a commercial
class product for about $110 / month if that is your real desire.

I am not trying to defend Comcast in particular here, it is just common sense
and the industry has a well established model. You can complain all you like,
but this model is a decade old and going strong ... and I find it better than
any of the models used in other countries.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

In alt.online-service.comcast Bill <none@none.invalid> wrote:
In my mind, what makes one an abuser is if one is downloading to the extent
that:

1. Others are impacted on a regular basis by abuser
2. Chronic and excessive consumption, defined in part by (1).
3. Cost to Comcast is significantly higher than revenue generated by abuser,
again, subject to (1).

This is fairly quickly drawn up, but it is easy to see that a fixed monthly
cap would not solve the problem. For instance, if a person were to max out
their bandwidth during prime time every day and then leave it idle (or worse
yet .. not idle) during non-prime time, it would be far more likely to be
labeled as abuse in my book.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

In alt.online-service.comcast AuldPhart <auldphart@the.home> wrote:
I am not kidding. Why do you think so many USENET providers are offering SSL
now?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:s5dFi.1303$vq6.590@textfe.usenetserver.com:

Yes. You can't honor a limit if you don't know what that limit
is.

A few years ago, my supervisor was injured, and I took over the
project. My first question was "What's my budget on this?" The
producer didn't want to tell me, because he was afraid I'd simply
spend everything in my budget.

I told him "I have to know where the ceiling is if I'm to stay
below it."

There simply is not one valid reason not to set a defined limit.
Not ONE.


Which is the exactly why you HAVE limits. If "a few MB below
max" still causes problems, you set the limit lower. THAT is the
point of having a set limit.

I do not see any difference between one and the other. Maybe you
think you're making some profound point, but you're not.



Define "abuser." You've decided that's its a case of abuse
without one shred of documentation. I can't abuse a limit if one
hasn't been set. If I have paid for "unlimited use," and set up
a phone line, listen to the radio, and download movies from
Blockbuster, I haven't broken any law. And since Comcast hasn't
set a defined limit, I can't be exceeding it.


Not in these United States, son. The laws of this country state
unequivocably that a man is innocent until he has been proven
guilty.

Comcast has failed to set a limit, and therefore there can be no
proof of abuse. It's that simple. Without a defined standard,
there can be no violation of a standard.


What is "misuse?" What is "abuse?" You can't have either without
setting a standard, period. That's the entire purpose of setting
standards and defining limits.



I'm not "illegally" doing anything, although I'm not surprise
that this is your tactic. Why have a rational discussion when you
can accuse me of being a thief? I'm not stealing anything, nor
do I feel that I'm using a lot of bandwidth. But I abhor strong-
arm bully tactics, and that's what Comcast is currently involved
in. And they will stop, or I will do everything I can to put
them out of business.

BTW, packet-sniffing is very close to a wire-tap, at least when
used in the manner you describe. And those require a court
order. If AT&T and Comcast are actually doing this, THEY, and
not the users, are skirting the edge of breaking the law.


THat was before there was a blogosphere; now there are people
willing to hurl stones at Goliath.


--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/

So close, no matter how far... couldn't be much more from the
heart. Forever trusting who we are, and nothing else matters.