On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:33:56 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:49f1ec38@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Now I *know* you know that's not what I meant.  I've explained before -
>> if you want cable-like speeds, in most markets there is a single
>> choice. I can't get anything but Comcast if I want 10 Mbps without
>> paying for a dedicated line.  So my choice is to live with Comcast's
>> draconian TOS or to use DSL - which gives me a whole 3 Mbps currently.
> 
> So Comcast should be subject to your terms because there happens to be
> little alternative in your locality?

Can you say "abuse of monopoly power"?  Yes, Comcast should be required 
to behave in a manner that doesn't permit them to abuse their monopoly, 
which includes dictating what traffic I can or cannot use.

They provide me with a pipe that sends bits back and forth.  But they 
should not be permitted to say "you may not use NNTP connections" or "you 
may not use p2p connections regardless of whether it's legal content or 
not".

Once they get into the business of filtering content, they open 
themselves up to lawsuits when their technology fails to "protect" people 
from illegal content.

This is why the provider of the pipe should not also be the ISP.  I 
notice that you completely ignored my earlier comments about the water 
mains and how my tax dollars subsidize people on the other side of town, 
even though I don't use *their* water pipes.

> It's OK to ask or lobby for Comcast to get what you need. I don't think
> it's OK at all for legislation to dictate Comcast to offer you exactly
> what you want.

What I and others want is for the providers to not be permitted to 
restrict traffic.

What makes it OK for Comcast to lobby congress and get legislation that 
allows them to apply arbitrary limits to the service?

Jim

Post a reply to this message