Comcast to Stop Hampering File-Sharing

too late comcast....i already switched to your biggest competitor who also provides basic newsgroup service....good luck to you...:rolleyes:
 
[H]ocusPocus;1032283149 said:
I have one of the Comcast package deals, TV, internet and phone. I live in an area where Comcast is basically my only choice for high speed internet. I don't use torrents so this particular issue didn't directly impact me, but on principle I don't like such practices.

It really pisses me off everytime I hear about them doing something like this. Like the latest case, apparently there is some evidence that Comcast recently started running compression on some HDTV channels to the point where the picture quality is noticeably impacted. So I'm paying for high-def and getting medium-def.

Link for those interested:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271

Thanks for bringing that up becuase it is so true.
Comcast has been pulling this crap for a long time.
 
danbfree, utorrent after 1.6 has RIAA tracking within the software so using 1.7.7 with encryption is kinda redundant. I use utorrent 1.5 with ipfilter files that get updated every week or so. It's amazing to see the number of blocked peer ip's per torrent.

Bleh... That's only what the really paranoid believe. I use an ipfilter too and have had no problems. I DID get a warning letter when the teenage kid used limewire to download a movie though!
 
Just to make it more expensive to figure out what is going on, all new apps and p2p should simply use ports 80/443. This would force anyone trying to throttle traffic to use deep packet inspection which is costly (CPU wise, probably software wise as well). Of course, this means you can't use the same machine as a web server...

But don't most of us have residential service which says no things like webservers in the EULA? Won't using those ports heavily get them interested in you anyway?
 
We have Verizon and Comcast here as our main vendors. Don't think one has to guess twice to identify which ISP I have. :)
 
We have Verizon and Comcast here as our main vendors. Don't think one has to guess twice to identify which ISP I have. :)

Do you have Verizon? I've heard good things, but if you have it, what do you think of it? I'd like to hear it from someone who's had them firsthand. Pricing, speeds, throttling, etc. just for comparison to Comcastic.
 
Isnt there some FCC law stating something, about how customers have the right to use services they choose/want?

ISP's need to wake up to this otherwise people will start taking their demand for fast internet access elsewhere.
LOL I hope that was sarcasm.

Yeah, us cable customers will take our buisness elsewhere... To PeoplePC, perhaps? They were happy to provide me with up to 36.6Kb/s of bandwidth. Though, you had to use their dialer, and they dropped your connection every 2-3 hours. Not that big of a deal, until you consider that by the time you load hardforum and newegg, 2 hours has gone by.

[H]ocusPocus;1032283149 said:
It really pisses me off everytime I hear about them doing something like this. Like the latest case, apparently there is some evidence that Comcast recently started running compression on some HDTV channels to the point where the picture quality is noticeably impacted. So I'm paying for high-def and getting medium-def.

Link for those interested:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271

If ISPs were required to tell you exactly what you were offered, how much you could use, when you could use it, what you could use it with, and had to inform everyone of what they were doing, such as throttling/proxying/NATing, etc. That would be nice. My power/water company calls me or sends me a letter if they are going to shut off some water mains, which might leave me with little or no water. I get calls or letters if there will be a blackout or brownout for any reason, due to something the power-company is doing (repair work, usually) Though, that wont ever happen. My ISP doesnt give two shits if their DNS servers are down, if the network is so overwhelmed that I cant even use email or google... oh well.

Internet is one thing, but television... They couldnt just leave it alone, could they? I have the comquack digital package, and... I cant even begin to describe what I see. I think i would see a less distorted picture, taking a massive hit of LSD and watching tv over rabbit ears, than I do with the digital service. Horrible colour banding (actual colour banding, as in a band of fuggin colours where a cloud should have been). I dont have any way of getting a capture/recording of what I see, but its sort of like... if you converted a high-quality PNG/JPG over to a 256 colour/8-bit .GIF, not dithered... thats what im talking about, pure crap. Discovery HD was the worst, when they had some animal show about africa... I asked myself, is that supposed to be the sky, behind the british narrator, or was that a finger-painting done by a toddler?

Some of the channels are worse than youtube videos, its sad. Not that its better (although it is worse than) satellite, but I would expect "high definition" channels to be more so than what a camera-phone video would have.

Anyways... Nothing new, typical BS.
 
Back
Top