Business thread, read and give me your opinions.

[Paul Markham]

Just dear this on Xbiz and it is just the most amazing thing. What do you think?

Comcast Faces Lawsuit for Interfering With P2P Traffic
The company denied it ?blocks? file-sharing applications, but admitted that it does delay some file transfers in the interests of managing its network.

XBIZ POLL

Do you think the FBI will continue with 2257 inspections, now that a federal court has declared the law unconstitutional?
Yes
No
Everywhere except the 6th Circuit

By Q Boyer
Monday, Nov 19, 2007 Adjust font size:
OAKLAND, Calif. ? A Comcast customer has filed a class action lawsuit against the company, asserting it intentionally slows and blocks file-sharing applications ? actions that the plaintiff asserted violate California law, as well as the company?s contract with its customers.
John Hart of San Francisco filed a class action asserting breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violations of both California?s business and professions code and the state?s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Adult industry attorney Rob Apgood told XBIZ that the main concern for adult webmasters and business owners observing the situation involves Comcast?s transparency ? or lack thereof.

?What else [is Comcast] doing that they are not disclosing ? that?s the question,? Apgood said. ?It?s their network, and to a certain extent they can do what they like with it, but to take this sort of action without the knowledge and consent of their customers and others with whom they are bound by contract is a real concern.?

The lawsuit followed a report by the Associated Press in October that Comcast was actively interfering with attempts by its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online.

At the time, Comcast issued a statement denying that it was blocking peer-to-peer file sharing, or any other manner of website.

?Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any websites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services,? Comcast said in a statement released in October.

Replicating the AP?s testing, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other industry analysts confirmed that Comcast had been engaged in slowing down P2P file transfers, by forging Transmission Control Protocol Reset (TCP RST) packets that cause connections to drop before the file transfer in question has been completed.

The forged data packets ?cause software at both ends to believe, mistakenly, that the software on the other side doesn?t want to continue communicating,? according to the EFF.

In information posted to its online FAQ, Comcast further detailed its protocols with respect to P2P traffic ? statements in which the company continued to deny blocking P2P traffic, but admitted that it does delay some P2P file transmissions.

?We never prevent peer-to-peer activity or block access to any peer-to-peer applications, but rather manage the network in such a way that this activity does not degrade the broadband experience for other users,? the company said in its FAQ.

?We have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience and we use the latest technologies to manage our network so that you can continue to enjoy these applications. Peer-to-peer activity consumes a disproportionately large amount of network resources, and therefore poses the biggest challenge to maintaining a good broadband experience for all users, including the overwhelming majority of our customers who do not use peer-to-peer applications.?

In his lawsuit, Hart alleged that whatever Comcast is doing with respect to P2P traffic, the interference runs counter to the company?s marketing claims ? and the terms of its service agreement.

?Defendants advertise, market and sell their high speed Internet service ? based on claims of ?lightning fast? and ?mind-blowing? speeds,? Hart said in the lawsuit. ?Defendants further promise their customers and prospective customers that they will have ?unfettered access to all the internet has to offer.? Nevertheless, defendants intentionally and severely impede the use of certain internet applications by their customers, slowing such applications to a mere crawl or stopping them altogether.?

Through his class action, Hart hopes to end Comcast?s practice of interfering with P2P traffic and seeks recovery of fees paid by Comcast customers, whom Hart asserted have ?paid for services they did not receive.?

While Comcast said that the interference with P2P traffic is done to manage its network and ensure a positive online experience for all its subscribers, Hart asserted in his lawsuit that the company provides no indication in contracts or service agreements that it interferes with P2P or any other manner of online file.

?Defendants have numerous different terms of service and/or use posted on their website,? Hart stated in the lawsuit. ?Significantly, none of the terms of service state that Comcast can or will impede, limit, discontinue, block or otherwise impair or treat differently the blocked [P2P] applications.?

In related news, Vuze.com, which described itself as a ?rapidly growing open entertainment platform for professionally produced content with an established audience of more than 12 million users,? has petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to adopt new regulations to prevent network operators from engaging in the manner of P2P interference alleged in Hart?s lawsuit.

?At issue is whether unrestricted ?throttling,? often characterized by ISPs as ?network management? or ?traffic shaping,? which materially interferes with the consumer Internet experience, should be allowed,? Vuze stated in a press release. ?If these tactics continue unchecked, the openness and fairness of the public Internet could be called into question.?

Gilles BianRosa, CEO of Vuze, argued that ?now is the time to embrace the sea changes in entertainment consumption that are occurring.?

?The rapid convergence of the entertainment and Internet industries has enabled the delivery of high-quality video, and these throttling tactics represent growing pains as ISPs resist inevitable change,? BianRosa said. ?We hope our petition will trigger a public discussion, but we also need the FCC to act. The industry needs transparency into what ISPs are doing and an environment that fosters innovation in online entertainment.?

BianRosa argued that ISPs should seek to adapt to the changes in online distribution methods, rather than ?resisting changes in Internet usage with counterproductive and arbitrary traffic throttling.?

[JohnnyJames]

The meat of the story happens so far into the post that I doubt most people here will get it.

It IS vitally important though, and I hope everyone reads it from start to finish.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by JohnnyJames

The meat of the story happens so far into the post that I doubt most people here will get it.

It IS vitally important though, and I hope everyone reads it from start to finish.

I've just seen how I quoted it, so here it is again. Sorry guys, I'm sick with the flu and not thinking straight. But this is important.

It's basically about the pirates going to court for their rights to be pirates.

OAKLAND, Calif. ? A Comcast customer has filed a class action lawsuit against the company, asserting it intentionally slows and blocks file-sharing applications ? actions that the plaintiff asserted violate California law, as well as the company?s contract with its customers.
John Hart of San Francisco filed a class action asserting breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violations of both California?s business and professions code and the state?s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Adult industry attorney Rob Apgood told XBIZ that the main concern for adult webmasters and business owners observing the situation involves Comcast?s transparency ? or lack thereof.

?What else [is Comcast] doing that they are not disclosing ? that?s the question,? Apgood said. ?It?s their network, and to a certain extent they can do what they like with it, but to take this sort of action without the knowledge and consent of their customers and others with whom they are bound by contract is a real concern.?

The lawsuit followed a report by the Associated Press in October that Comcast was actively interfering with attempts by its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online.

At the time, Comcast issued a statement denying that it was blocking peer-to-peer file sharing, or any other manner of website.

?Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any websites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services,? Comcast said in a statement released in October.

Replicating the AP?s testing, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other industry analysts confirmed that Comcast had been engaged in slowing down P2P file transfers, by forging Transmission Control Protocol Reset (TCP RST) packets that cause connections to drop before the file transfer in question has been completed.

The forged data packets ?cause software at both ends to believe, mistakenly, that the software on the other side doesn?t want to continue communicating,? according to the EFF.

In information posted to its online FAQ, Comcast further detailed its protocols with respect to P2P traffic ? statements in which the company continued to deny blocking P2P traffic, but admitted that it does delay some P2P file transmissions.

?We never prevent peer-to-peer activity or block access to any peer-to-peer applications, but rather manage the network in such a way that this activity does not degrade the broadband experience for other users,? the company said in its FAQ.

?We have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience and we use the latest technologies to manage our network so that you can continue to enjoy these applications. Peer-to-peer activity consumes a disproportionately large amount of network resources, and therefore poses the biggest challenge to maintaining a good broadband experience for all users, including the overwhelming majority of our customers who do not use peer-to-peer applications.?

In his lawsuit, Hart alleged that whatever Comcast is doing with respect to P2P traffic, the interference runs counter to the company?s marketing claims ? and the terms of its service agreement.

?Defendants advertise, market and sell their high speed Internet service ? based on claims of ?lightning fast? and ?mind-blowing? speeds,? Hart said in the lawsuit. ?Defendants further promise their customers and prospective customers that they will have ?unfettered access to all the INTERNET has to offer.? Nevertheless, defendants intentionally and severely impede the use of certain INTERNET applications by their customers, slowing such applications to a mere crawl or stopping them altogether.?

Through his class action, Hart hopes to end Comcast?s practice of interfering with P2P traffic and seeks recovery of fees paid by Comcast customers, whom Hart asserted have ?paid for services they did not receive.?

While Comcast said that the interference with P2P traffic is done to manage its network and ensure a positive online experience for all its subscribers, Hart asserted in his lawsuit that the company provides no indication in contracts or service agreements that it interferes with P2P or any other manner of online file.

?Defendants have numerous different terms of service and/or use posted on their website,? Hart stated in the lawsuit. ?Significantly, none of the terms of service state that Comcast can or will impede, limit, discontinue, block or otherwise impair or treat differently the blocked [P2P] applications.?

In related news, Vuze.com, which described itself as a ?rapidly growing open entertainment platform for professionally produced content with an established audience of more than 12 million users,? has petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to adopt new regulations to prevent network operators from engaging in the manner of P2P interference alleged in Hart?s lawsuit.

?At issue is whether unrestricted ?throttling,? often characterised by ISPs as ?network management? or ?traffic shaping,? which materially interferes with the consumer Internet experience, should be allowed,? Vuze stated in a press release. ?If these tactics continue unchecked, the openness and fairness of the public Internet could be called into question.?

Gilles BianRosa, CEO of Vuze, argued that ?now is the time to embrace the sea changes in entertainment consumption that are occurring.?

?The rapid convergence of the entertainment and Internet industries has enabled the delivery of high-quality video, and these throttling tactics represent growing pains as ISPs resist inevitable change,? BianRosa said. ?We hope our petition will trigger a public discussion, but we also need the FCC to act. The industry needs transparency into what ISPs are doing and an environment that fosters innovation in online entertainment.?

BianRosa argued that ISPs should seek to adapt to the changes in online distribution methods, rather than ?resisting changes in Internet usage with counterproductive and arbitrary traffic throttling.?

So he thinks the future is pirating. Where does the money come to support it? Less money to produce products, less money to build the system for them to download for free and more money for the pirates via selling ads.

[Mutt]

Apgood makes a good point - what if Comcast or any ISP decided that their porn surfing users are so busy always downloading that it creates problems for the rest of their users so they started interfering with porn traffic.

i think Comcast's explanation sounds reasonable - so many customers just leaving their computers on 24/7 trading files on torrents and other P2P networks. I think if they had their way they would put a cap on heavy users but I know my ISP tried that and I think there was enough customer backlash that they dropped it. So Comcast rather than do that capped them without letting them know.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Apgood makes a good point - what if Comcast or any ISP decided that their porn surfing users are so busy always downloading that it creates problems for the rest of their users so they started interfering with porn traffic.

i think Comcast's explanation sounds reasonable - so many customers just leaving their computers on 24/7 trading files on torrents and other P2P networks. I think if they had their way they would put a cap on heavy users but I know my ISP tried that and I think there was enough customer backlash that they dropped it. So Comcast rather than do that capped them without letting them know.

If Comcast blocks porn they will lose a lot of their market. If they block P2P will they? Is the person who pays the ISPs bill paying for the connection?

ISP's like Comcast gave out these connection packages without thinking of the consequences and now facing them. People on a flat rate costing more than they are paying and putting a strain on the rest of their clients. Two tier billing will have to come.

However I think there's a clause in the contract that allows Comcast to adjust the service to maintain the benefit of the majority.

[will76]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Apgood makes a good point - what if Comcast or any ISP decided that their porn surfing users are so busy always downloading that it creates problems for the rest of their users so they started interfering with porn traffic.

i think Comcast's explanation sounds reasonable - so many customers just leaving their computers on 24/7 trading files on torrents and other P2P networks. I think if they had their way they would put a cap on heavy users but I know my ISP tried that and I think there was enough customer backlash that they dropped it. So Comcast rather than do that capped them without letting them know.

thats making a huge leap, in the same sense and logic they could block myspace because people spend too much time on the site eating up bandwidth. You don't have to worry about this turning into a moral or political thing, it has eveything to do about bandwidth and profit.

The core problem for the residential internet providers is that massive amounts of bandwidth is being used by people using p2p. I don't see what the big deal is, throttle their usage to reasonable amount of transfer. It doesn't matter WHAT they are downloading or making available for download, it is how much they are doing.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by will76

The core problem for the residential internet providers is that massive amounts of bandwidth is being used by people using p2p. I don't see what the big deal is, throttle their usage to reasonable amount of transfer. It doesn't matter WHAT they are downloading or making available for download, it is how much they are doing.

This is going to the only solution. Either they keep adding to the structure for free loaders to DL or they start capping it. As for losing customers, that's not such a bad thing.

Clients costing more than they pay are customers you can do without.

[thonglife]

The ISPs can block the popular P2P ports and be done with it. Some ISP's already do this because of the RIAA. There are ways around it but most folks won't know how to supercede this.

[Zuss]

Bittorrent is a protocol and can be used for legal file distribution. I've already used it legally.

[Paul Markham]

What no one has seen, so far, is this guy is taking on Comcast. Unless I'm wrong, happens , this guy has some backing to go to court against Comcast. Where is the money coming from?

Unless he has very deep pockets he has backers with very deep pockets?

Comcast have a department full of lawyers, it will not worry them.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Zuss

Bittorrent is a protocol and can be used for legal file distribution. I've already used it legally.

It's not the legal distribution we are against.

[Paul Markham]

Time for a bump.

[JohnnyJames]

I am curious about how comcast is defining "File sharing protocols". And how much legitimate traffic is being caught up by whatever filtering program thay are using?

If it is simple throttling, how do they KNOW who is pirating? Is it a judgement based solely on bandwidth usage?

How much is TOO much? And who decides? Individual companies? This could set the stge for a whole new class of ISP, one that does NOT enforce limits EVER, and in fact, lead to the rise of Torrent-friendly ISP's. Already, ISP's are pretty much free of any legal action from a result of a user's actions.

One aspect for the adult biz would be:

Your customer is a good, paying subscriber of three good networks. Has rebilled again and again. Between the networks there are enough content updates to provide him with 100 gigper month of new porn. He downloads all of it because he loves it, is paying for it, and it is there.

Is your good paying customer going to get throttled? If so, he will probably get angry at YOU. Even if he does realize it's the ISP, he is forced to make a hard choice. Which of the three networks he will continue to use in the face of these new limits.

Just a thought from a different perspective.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by JohnnyJames

I am curious about how comcast is defining "File sharing protocols". And how much legitimate traffic is being caught up by whatever filtering program thay are using?

If it is simple throttling, how do they KNOW who is pirating? Is it a judgement based solely on bandwidth usage?

How much is TOO much? And who decides? Individual companies? This could set the stge for a whole new class of ISP, one that does NOT enforce limits EVER, and in fact, lead to the rise of Torrent-friendly ISP's. Already, ISP's are pretty much free of any legal action from a result of a user's actions.

One aspect for the adult biz would be:

Your customer is a good, paying subscriber of three good networks. Has rebilled again and again. Between the networks there are enough content updates to provide him with 100 gigper month of new porn. He downloads all of it because he loves it, is paying for it, and it is there.

Is your good paying customer going to get throttled? If so, he will probably get angry at YOU. Even if he does realize it's the ISP, he is forced to make a hard choice. Which of the three networks he will continue to use in the face of these new limits.

Just a thought from a different perspective.

100 gig I dont think so. When I lived in a loft it had a shared t1, you would have these people that kept p2p open 24/7.It slowed the system to a crawl,he started throwing them off the system then it rocked. Also these people got fucking balls its my right to trade other peoples work for no money so the BT's can get rich. I hope the judge laughs at them and throws it out.

[JohnnyJames]

Originally Posted by tony404

100 gig I dont think so. When I lived in a loft it had a shared t1, you would have these people that kept p2p open 24/7.It slowed the system to a crawl,he started throwing them off the system then it rocked. Also these people got fucking balls its my right to trade other peoples work for no money so the BT's can get rich. I hope the judge laughs at them and throws it out.

I agree. Just curious about who is making the decisions on limits and how that might impact legit business and customers, if at all.

Obviously, if someone is dealing with Tb's of info, that would seem to be P2P.

I don't know enough about the backend tech involved, so if I come off a little dumb there, well, I AM a little dumb there.

What limits, set by who, and how much is TOO much? I guess those were my main concerns.

[theking]

Originally Posted by will76

thats making a huge leap, in the same sense and logic they could block myspace because people spend too much time on the site eating up bandwidth. You don't have to worry about this turning into a moral or political thing, it has eveything to do about bandwidth and profit.

The core problem for the residential internet providers is that massive amounts of bandwidth is being used by people using p2p. I don't see what the big deal is, throttle their usage to reasonable amount of transfer. It doesn't matter WHAT they are downloading or making available for download, it is how much they are doing.

He is not worried about it being a moral or political thing but you are right about it having everything to do with bandwidth and profit. His point was...what if they decide that pornsites are using to much bandwidth...will they decide to also throttle them?

[will76]

Originally Posted by Zuss

Bittorrent is a protocol and can be used for legal file distribution. I've already used it legally.

hey so that makes you and 5 other people now, congrats to the winners

[will76]

Originally Posted by JohnnyJames

I am curious about how comcast is defining "File sharing protocols". And how much legitimate traffic is being caught up by whatever filtering program thay are using?

If it is simple throttling, how do they KNOW who is pirating? Is it a judgement based solely on bandwidth usage?

How much is TOO much? And who decides? Individual companies? This could set the stge for a whole new class of ISP, one that does NOT enforce limits EVER, and in fact, lead to the rise of Torrent-friendly ISP's. Already, ISP's are pretty much free of any legal action from a result of a user's actions.

One aspect for the adult biz would be:

Your customer is a good, paying subscriber of three good networks. Has rebilled again and again. Between the networks there are enough content updates to provide him with 100 gigper month of new porn. He downloads all of it because he loves it, is paying for it, and it is there.

Is your good paying customer going to get throttled? If so, he will probably get angry at YOU. Even if he does realize it's the ISP, he is forced to make a hard choice. Which of the three networks he will continue to use in the face of these new limits.

Just a thought from a different perspective.

I don't see why everyone is getting bent out of shape over this. Oh wait, thats right, most people who use p2p are looking for something for free, so why wouldn't they expect to get unlimited bandwidth for free as well.

Just about Everything except for breathing is rate limited. Unless you pay for an unlimited plan on something you are going to get capped or throttled.

I wonder if the same people who are saying they shouldn't throttle usage to reasonable amounts would feel the same way if one of the members of their site started downloading/playing all of their videos from their site 24/7, at the end of the month the $35 month paying customer cost you several times more than that in bandwidth. It is abusive and unreasonable. If someone wants to use tons of bandwidth why can't they pay for it? thats right, they want everything for free. Fucking stupid mentality.

[will76]

Originally Posted by theking

He is not worried about it being a moral or political thing but you are right about it having everything to do with bandwidth and profit. His point was...what if they decide that pornsites are using to much bandwidth...will they decide to also throttle them?

i understand that, but on a scale of eating up bandwidth pornsites are in the same class with myspace and youtube, etc.. which would be a 1 on the scale and p2p being left open 24/7 is a 100 on the scale, that is why i said it would be a huge leap for them to jump to porn sites. The only way I could see them try to go after porn sites would be something to do with political or moral issues, because it certainly wouldn't be from bandwidth issues.

[JohnnyJames]

Originally Posted by will76

I don't see why everyone is getting bent out of shape over this. Oh wait, thats right, most people who use p2p are looking for something for free, so why wouldn't they expect to get unlimited bandwidth for free as well.

Just about Everything except for breathing is rate limited. Unless you pay for an unlimited plan on something you are going to get capped or throttled.

I wonder if the same people who are saying they shouldn't throttle usage to reasonable amounts would feel the same way if one of the members of their site started downloading/playing all of their videos from their site 24/7, at the end of the month the $35 month paying customer cost you several times more than that in bandwidth. It is abusive and unreasonable. If someone wants to use tons of bandwidth why can't they pay for it? thats right, they want everything for free. Fucking stupid mentality.

I am NOT against throttling, quite the opposite. I support it for all the reasons you listed and more. Perhaps I wasn't clear on the point.

I just wanted to point out that a customer who is valued and downloads lots of content from all 50 sites he subscribes to could end up caught in this very wide attempt to control p2p. If he is "overusing" your bandwidth, that is between you and him.

I don't know that adding another throttle (the ISP) that neither you nor he can control will make this any easier. Certainly there should be limits, but where's the balance and who defines it?

[DateDoc]

The main problem is that Comcast has gone on record denying they do this yet it has been proved they do. They say they offer unfettered (release from restraint or inhibition) access to the internet which if they are limiting a users download ability is a false claim. They are going to lose this lawsuit.

From their site:

Do you block access to peer-to-peer applications like BitTorrent?

No. We do not block access to any Web site or applications, including BitTorrent. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites, VOIP applications like Vonage, and thousands of other applications online.

Do you discriminate against particular types of online content?

No. There is no discrimination based on the type of content. Our customers enjoy unfettered access to all the content, services, and applications that the Internet has to offer. We respect our customers' privacy and we don't monitor specific customer activities on the Internet or track individual online behavior such as which Web sites they visit. Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTorrent or any other site.

[DateDoc]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

What no one has seen, so far, is this guy is taking on Comcast. Unless I'm wrong, happens , this guy has some backing to go to court against Comcast. Where is the money coming from?

Unless he has very deep pockets he has backers with very deep pockets?

Comcast have a department full of lawyers, it will not worry them.

It is a class action lawsuit so anyone using Comcast that has been affected can join in.

[JohnnyJames]

Originally Posted by DateDoc

Our customers enjoy unfettered access to all the content, services, and applications that the Internet has to offer.

Unfettered access will be the hinge on the whole case.

Access is far different than unlimited speed.

Or is it?

I suspect that will be part of their case. Not disagreeing with anyone, just pointing out that from a legal standpoint, these slight nuances in definition could lead to some big surprises.

[CynthiaB]

Are they doing it because it's a bandwidth hog - in which case they have a right to handle the bandwidth in the manner they see fit (you can always go back to dial-up!)

But if it is a way around stopping sharing for legal reasons then it becomes a case of who made them the keeper of what's legal.

"Unfettered access" - could be the key as JohnnyJames wrote. Access doesn't imply how fast, just means we aren't stopping you from getting there and they aren't - right?

[ShotGun]

OMG this thread is fucking full of BS and boring someone post a pic or something

[thonglife]

Originally Posted by will76

hey so that makes you and 5 other people now, congrats to the winners

Yeah.. that's kind of the argument meth dealers use with ephedrine.. it's legal for colds..

[thonglife]

I just read that this whole ordeal with comcast stemmed through an FCC complaint? Hate to say it but the guys suing don't stand a shot in hell because the internet side of the whole broadband biz is unregulated by the state public service commissions. That being said, Comcast can do anything it sees fit for maintaining reasonable network management.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by JohnnyJames

I am curious about how comcast is defining "File sharing protocols". And how much legitimate traffic is being caught up by whatever filtering program thay are using?

If it is simple throttling, how do they KNOW who is pirating? Is it a judgement based solely on bandwidth usage?

How much is TOO much? And who decides? Individual companies? This could set the stge for a whole new class of ISP, one that does NOT enforce limits EVER, and in fact, lead to the rise of Torrent-friendly ISP's. Already, ISP's are pretty much free of any legal action from a result of a user's actions.

One aspect for the adult biz would be:

Your customer is a good, paying subscriber of three good networks. Has rebilled again and again. Between the networks there are enough content updates to provide him with 100 gigper month of new porn. He downloads all of it because he loves it, is paying for it, and it is there.

Is your good paying customer going to get throttled? If so, he will probably get angry at YOU. Even if he does realize it's the ISP, he is forced to make a hard choice. Which of the three networks he will continue to use in the face of these new limits.

Just a thought from a different perspective.

Unless we all maintain a good speed we will have 100s of customers complaining thinking the reason our sites are slow is because of us. It's one of balance, upset 10 or 100s. Plus few members download that much at one time.

[will76]

Originally Posted by JohnnyJames

Certainly there should be limits, but where's the balance and who defines it?

the market defines it. If company A throttles you too much and you can pay the same price and get more bandwidth from company B you use them. Pretty simple.

[will76]

Originally Posted by DateDoc

The main problem is that Comcast has gone on record denying they do this yet it has been proved they do. They say they offer unfettered (release from restraint or inhibition) access to the internet which if they are limiting a users download ability is a false claim. They are going to lose this lawsuit.

From their site:

Do you block access to peer-to-peer applications like BitTorrent?

No. We do not block access to any Web site or applications, including BitTorrent. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites, VOIP applications like Vonage, and thousands of other applications online.

Do you discriminate against particular types of online content?

No. There is no discrimination based on the type of content. Our customers enjoy unfettered access to all the content, services, and applications that the Internet has to offer. We respect our customers' privacy and we don't monitor specific customer activities on the Internet or track individual online behavior such as which Web sites they visit. Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTorrent or any other site.

then they should update their TOS.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by will76

the market defines it. If company A throttles you too much and you can pay the same price and get more bandwidth from company B you use them. Pretty simple.

Fraid not that simple.

If one company decides to take on the extra work and load of these high users it will have to pass the cost onto it's clients. It will become less attractive to other customers and have less of them to support the free loaders. And spiral down.

The TOS needs to be changed.

Is anyone else noticing the Internet runs slower today than it did this time last year?