• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

FCC to Probe Comcast Data Discrimination

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Kevin Martin, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, said today that the agency will investigate complaints against Comcast alleging the company hindered file sharing by subscribers.

A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars asked the agency in November to stop Comcast from discriminating against certain types of data. Two groups also asked the FCC to fine the nation's No. 2 Internet provider $195,000 for every affected subscriber.
Click to expand...
 
Hey look, there's alot of smoke coming out of the chimney of the Comcast HQ.
 
Wow, so someone who keeps me from using bittorrent for a couple of months can owe me $195000? Sweet! Honey, come here a second, we have to talk...
 
And people think the ISP's will allow digital downloads to replace physical media for movie and music. ISP's don't want that folks. They want tiered internet instead of net neutrality, and they want throttling.
 
Even if they can cover this up, I HAS to mean a change in the winds for future service. Right?
 
xxGriff said:
heheh

or the sound of shredding machines being fed ad nauseum. plausible deniability
as a corporate philosophy...seems to work nowadays :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"Did you hinder P2P Sharing?"

'I do not recall"

"Did you hire any people or companies to install monitoring software?"

"I do not recall"
:eek:
 
Big D. said:
Wow, so someone who keeps me from using bittorrent for a couple of months can owe me $195000? Sweet! Honey, come here a second, we have to talk...
Click to expand...

No, not into your pocket, it means Comcast could theoretically end up paying the FCC $195K in fines for each instance of proven tampering or denial of service. Would be nice though but but but...

I don't think anyone would legitimately win in a case like this because Comcast like every other ISP I have ever used or read a TOU/TOS for plainly states that you as the subscriber will not use your connection to serve data unless you're specifically paying for that priviledge.

Running a BitTorrent client - regardless of whatever content you might be sharing - is making your machine into a server to serve the data as it's being requested, and that crosses the line and breaks the TOU/TOS with the provider. Comcast has pretty much every legal right to say "If you're running a BitTorrent client, and we catch you uploading data even though that is the very nature of BitTorrent file sharing in the first place, we're gonna kill your account, period."

Like it or not, they do have legal ground to stand upon, regardless of how many "irritated" subscribers they have.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
No, not into your pocket, it means Comcast could theoretically end up paying the FCC $195K in fines for each instance of proven tampering or denial of service. Would be nice though but but but...

I don't think anyone would legitimately win in a case like this because Comcast like every other ISP I have ever used or read a TOU/TOS for plainly states that you as the subscriber will not use your connection to serve data unless you're specifically paying for that priviledge.

Running a BitTorrent client - regardless of whatever content you might be sharing - is making your machine into a server to serve the data as it's being requested, and that crosses the line and breaks the TOU/TOS with the provider. Comcast has pretty much every legal right to say "If you're running a BitTorrent client, and we catch you uploading data even though that is the very nature of BitTorrent file sharing in the first place, we're gonna kill your account, period."

Like it or not, they do have legal ground to stand upon, regardless of how many "irritated" subscribers they have.
Click to expand...


Yet Microsoft uses BIT technology with their Windows Update. It's forced upon us and Comcast has no choice but go after the source. BIT was introduced to ease bandwidth in the long run after all, not worsen it.
 
By their TOS contracts, they told me my computer was a server because I used remote desktop to log into it from school. I don't know if anything has changed, but I dropped their horrible service long ago. It was never up and running more than 10 hours out of the day anyway. :p (at least in my area)
 
too bad i already hoped for the 195 grand .... now i have to dump my wishlist :(
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Like it or not, they do have legal ground to stand upon, regardless of how many "irritated" subscribers they have.
Click to expand...

No they don't. The customer has no right to grant Comcast the ability to violate FCC regulations.

Washington, D.C. – The Federal Communications Commission today adopted a policy statement
that outlines four principles to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the
open and interconnected nature of public Internet: (1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful
Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of
their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to connect their
choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) consumers are entitled to
competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Although the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard, it will incorporate these principles
into its ongoing policymaking activities. All of these principles are subject to reasonable
network management.
Click to expand...
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Running a BitTorrent client - regardless of whatever content you might be sharing - is making your machine into a server to serve the data as it's being requested, and that crosses the line and breaks the TOU/TOS with the provider. Comcast has pretty much every legal right to say "If you're running a BitTorrent client, and we catch you uploading data even though that is the very nature of BitTorrent file sharing in the first place, we're gonna kill your account, period."

Like it or not, they do have legal ground to stand upon, regardless of how many "irritated" subscribers they have.
Click to expand...

But....

At the same time Comcast states that you should NOT to run a server from your account, yet they advertise "high speed" service to play xbox live (and other online gaming) directly on their site, which as you might know uses mostly P2P protocols (depends on game) which in fact make you a server whether you like it or NOT.

How is the average Joe going to know that if he jumps on xbox live (which he was told he should do with this service) he IS breaking the TOS?

Heck, even the default install of many instant messenger clients share folders, or what if a friend sends a request to turn on your webcam for them to see? -oops, you are a server too...

In Comcast's ideal world consumers would buy the service and just surf the web with "display images" set to false.
 
No wonder why the shredding companies have been unavailable lately. :D
 
bbz_Ghost said:
No, not into your pocket, it means Comcast could theoretically end up paying the FCC $195K in fines for each instance of proven tampering or denial of service. Would be nice though but but but...

I don't think anyone would legitimately win in a case like this because Comcast like every other ISP I have ever used or read a TOU/TOS for plainly states that you as the subscriber will not use your connection to serve data unless you're specifically paying for that priviledge.

Running a BitTorrent client - regardless of whatever content you might be sharing - is making your machine into a server to serve the data as it's being requested, and that crosses the line and breaks the TOU/TOS with the provider. Comcast has pretty much every legal right to say "If you're running a BitTorrent client, and we catch you uploading data even though that is the very nature of BitTorrent file sharing in the first place, we're gonna kill your account, period.

Like it or not, they do have legal ground to stand upon, regardless of how many "irritated" subscribers they have.
Click to expand...

They can put whatever they'd like in their TOS, that certainly doesn't make it legal or binding. They can put in their TOS that by me signing up for their service, they can rape my dog, and shoot my family, but that doesn't make it legal ;) I agree you didn't say that, they just have "ground to stand upon". According to the FCC though, (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement, which would rule that line in their TOS pretty much worthless.
 
Oh4Sh0 said:
They can put whatever they'd like in their TOS, that certainly doesn't make it legal or binding. They can put in their TOS that by me signing up for their service, they can rape my dog, and shoot my family, but that doesn't make it legal ;) I agree you didn't say that, they just have "ground to stand upon". According to the FCC though, (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement, which would rule that line in their TOS pretty much worthless.
Click to expand...

You are kidding right? Have you ever read your TOS? When you started using theirs or anyone else’s service YOU agreed to make it a legal and binding contract. It’s the same when you agree to use a piece of software and click yes in the I agree box. That is a good as a signature.

Neither Comcast nor any other ISP should be in a hurry to shred paper. All they have to do is turn over your usage reports and suddenly you become involved in proving you were evolved in legal activity. What possible excuse could some one have for something like 500 gigs per month or more up and down service? You have that extra few hundred grand it will cost you to defend your “right” to exchange music or movies or software?

No ISP provides this service out of the goodness of their hearts, it’s a business.

The entitlement mentality of I paid for the service, I’ll use it as I see fit won’t go far with a judge. It fall under the same type of defense that saying you own an Enzo that can do 210 mph gives you the right to do it.

A very naive outlook for sure.:rolleyes:
 
BillR said:
You are kidding right? Have you ever read your TOS? When you started using theirs or anyone else’s service YOU agreed to make it a legal and binding contract. It’s the same when you agree to use a piece of software and click yes in the I agree box. That is a good as a signature.
Click to expand...

There is no ToS in the world that supercedes state and/or federal law. Just because your click "agree" does not make every term and condition legally binding. If there are federal or state laws that prohibit any given term or condition, that portion is not binding.
 
BillR said:
You are kidding right? Have you ever read your TOS? When you started using theirs or anyone else’s service YOU agreed to make it a legal and binding contract. It’s the same when you agree to use a piece of software and click yes in the I agree box. That is a good as a signature.

Neither Comcast nor any other ISP should be in a hurry to shred paper. All they have to do is turn over your usage reports and suddenly you become involved in proving you were evolved in legal activity. What possible excuse could some one have for something like 500 gigs per month or more up and down service? You have that extra few hundred grand it will cost you to defend your “right” to exchange music or movies or software?

No ISP provides this service out of the goodness of their hearts, it’s a business.

The entitlement mentality of I paid for the service, I’ll use it as I see fit won’t go far with a judge. It fall under the same type of defense that saying you own an Enzo that can do 210 mph gives you the right to do it.

A very naive outlook for sure.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

did you even bother to read what I typed :p
 
BillR said:
The entitlement mentality of I paid for the service, I’ll use it as I see fit won’t go far with a judge. It fall under the same type of defense that saying you own an Enzo that can do 210 mph gives you the right to do it.
Click to expand...
They aren't putting a speed limit on your internet, rather they are trying to limit how much you use. That would be like putting a 5 gallon gas tank in the Enzo without permission to refuel it until the end of the month.
 
The only true solution to that post just above this one about the filtering would be for end users to use secure connections. That's a bit extreme but, hey, if the ISPs wanna filter, they can't if they can't tell what the hell it is they're supposedly filtering in the first place. Even attempting to break encryption on secure links is a Federal offense in itself, not like they'd actually succeed I suppose.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
The only true solution to that post just above this one about the filtering would be for end users to use secure connections. That's a bit extreme but, hey, if the ISPs wanna filter, they can't if they can't tell what the hell it is they're supposedly filtering in the first place. Even attempting to break encryption on secure links is a Federal offense in itself, not like they'd actually succeed I suppose.
Click to expand...

You've got a darn good point. If this does start happening, I forsee a "BitTorrent 2.0" that uses SSL or some other form of secured connection.
 
I have cox broadband and my internet slows to a crawl when i have torrent going. not just recently either.
 
deeznuts said:
I have cox broadband and my internet slows to a crawl when i have torrent going. not just recently either.
Click to expand...

I think it does this on all internet connections. Try lowering your upload rate. Most torrent software set their upload at 0 which is infinite. Set it to 1 and watch your internet speed up.
 
TOS agreements are not enforceable when they involving someone checking a box and clicking accept. This is because of no witnesses. They can't prove who clicked it. That is why there are notaries.

Anywho... About Comcast. Where they will get into trouble is they are saying that they are only delaying traffic. Which is false. They are sending RST flags to torrent users to cause them to drop connections. So one, they are impersonating another user and two, they are deliberately sabotaging traffic.

As for not being able to run a server in their TOS... They need to clearly define what constitutes a server in order to effectively enforce it. So did they clearly define it to include any p2p software?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top