On 6/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The point I'm trying to make, and that most people seem to be >> missing, is that *Comcast controls the terms*. This isn't a situation > > Who controls the terms really isn't the issue.
That's the only point I was trying to make with all this: That playing language lawyer with Comcast is doomed to failure. I wasn't speaking to what one could actually get away with. > That's the point. Creating an IM client that interfaces with gmail > (substitute your own flashy, useless, fad application here) that > listens on port 25 would encourage ISPs to *not* block that port. I don't think so. There are too many good reasons to block it now. For any such thing to gain traction, it would have to work now, and it wouldn't be able to work now if port 25 was needed. There would be too much demand for alternate methods. And if you have an alternate method, everybody just ends up using the alternative. NAT was supposed to be the doom of the Internet; instead, protocols evolved to accommodate and coexist with NAT. >> they can simply put a bandwidth meter on your modem, and sock you when >> your usage goes out of balance. See #1. > > That would require effort on their part. Right, but they have no problem doing things if motivated by profit. Further, basic traffic monitoring is included in every kind of network equipment these days, and even Comcast knows how to use it. Trust me, it ain't that hard. Every ISP tech I've talked to (real techs, not phone support monkies) knows how this workings. And I periodically see some blog rant or whatever with someone complaining about how their ISP warned them about their excessive activity, so they're already doing it. >> seems more than a little far-fetched, to me. This also destroys the >> anti-leech protocol arguments; implementing such just decreases the >> popularity of the protocols. > > Anti-leech protocols? Software techniques that try to keep peer-to-peer sharing balanced, equal uploads and downloads. Leeches (people looking to consume without producing) are a big part of the user base of those nets, so the ones with the biggest user populations are the ones with the fewest controls. (Note that $size_of_user_population carries no other endorsement with it. I'm just expounding a theory about the use of P2P systems.) > So, I'm wondering. If you try (for EXAMPLE ONLY) to connect to a > shared folder on your windoze box from a remote site, and call tech > support for help, what will they say? "We don't support that." > If anyone has first or second-hand experience with what, in fact, > Comca$t will do in a situation like this (trying to access your own, > password-protected, computer remotely), I'd love to know. Keep in mind also that the experience you get is going to vary greatly from agent to agent. Your call is going into a giant call center, and quite often the people in these centers just make things up. I've seen that much plenty of times. -- Ben _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
