Corey Edwards tensai at
Tue Aug 21 10:23:53 MDT 2007

On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 10:02 -0600, Clint Savage wrote:
> I see where this is going, we're going to debate whether changing
> their TOS is appropriate.  I don't think that's the issue here though.
>  The real issue is:
> If Comcast can block one particular protocol from being sent across
> their wires, what's to stop them (or another major/minor ISP) from
> doing it to other protocols/traffic.  Since when is it illegal to use
> bittorrent?  Since when does an ISP have the right to say what types
> of traffic I can send?  Since when should I bow down to them and take
> it?

What about an ISP blocking the latest virus/worm? Would you rather they
didn't block that traffic? Wouldn't an ISP be considered derelict of
duty if they failed to block it?

If you had a choice to make between 1 customer's service being degraded
(due to a p2p limit or similar) or 20 customers' service being disrupted
due to packet floods, which would you choose?

I'm not a staunch defender of Comcast, but I don't see that the issue is
so clear cut.

> I understand they have limitations, but those limitations are
> artificial.  They limit consumer bandwidth only to let business
> bandwidth in at a higher price.  I honestly think that businesses and
> consumers should pay the same price.

If you're not getting anything more for a business package over a
residential package, then yeah that's a rip off. But my customers do get
more for their business class service.


More information about the PLUG mailing list