A 250GB (256GB?) cap won’t solve the problem in the short term and
is moot in the long term. This makes it very strange that Comcast is
bothering with such a policy that brings their limitations to the
We must challenge absurd claims like “And that's good, because if
they had we wouldn't be able to afford broadband at home.” which fly
in the face of the rapid price performance improvements everywhere
that the carriers couldn’t prevent it. This is a confession not a
From: nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com () nnsquad org [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com () nnsquad org
] On Behalf Of Richard Bennett
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 19:48
To: Lauren Weinstein
Cc: Brett Glass; nnsquad; Robb Topolski
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Do the Happy Dance people...
I see your point, but I think you're ignoring the larger issue.
Broadband carriers have never built their networks to support 24x7
constant traffic from each subscriber. And that's good, because if
had we wouldn't be able to afford broadband at home. Rather, they've
built networks with a balance of capacity and cost that enable them to
be marketed attractively. They're clearly made the assumption that
constant traffic wasn't going to be part of the picture.
So the question you're raising is whether that assumption has been
communicated adequately to their customers and prospective customers.
You argue that this assumption wasn't adequately communicated because
it's not there in plain language in the TOS. Instead of saying "we
allow constant traffic," the Broadband Service Providers have simply
banned the most common means of putting constant traffic on their most
constrained link, the upstream by banning servers. It's not that big a
deal for a BSP how much you download, because it's always trivially
to manage downstream traffic, it's the upstream that runs out first.
having banned the only practical means of exceeding the network's
assumption, was there any need to say "and we don't like any other
program that eats tons of bandwidth that may exist in the future?"
Probably not, it would be redundant.
There wasn't any text in the TOS's about P2P until recently, because
wasn't that common until recently. And we know that every restriction
that is enumerated in the TOS is met with crticism, much of it rabid,
even if it's a common sense restriction. Look at the reaction to the
Comcast 250GB cap. For years, Comcast has had a cap on its residential
service. They've identified super-heavy users and told them to knock
off. And they've canceled service to the recalcitrant. But they didn't
publish a number before they were ordered to do so by the courts. And
having published a number, they're no being bashed for having a cap.
they can't win.
What you guys should have learned from your FCC exercise is to be
careful what you wish for. You blasted Comcast for P2P traffic-shaping
(by a crude but effective means that violates naive "envelope"
and as a result you're getting bandwidth caps and metered pricing.
and metering are "neutral" so you can't complain about their use. And
they're going to be explicit, you so can't complain about
you're screwed: the FCC has given you what you demanded and now we're
all worse off than we were before.
With friends like these, P2P doesn't need enemies.
Lauren Weinstein wrote:
> Richard, I clearly noted that restrictions on servers (though I
> should note not always enforced) and "interference" (however
> nebulously defined internally) are common. But I've read every
> single damn TOS of every Internet service I've ever had or have.
> T1s, DSLs, Cable, the whole bunch. None of them ever stated any
> limit on transferred data amounts (presumably absent activating
> the unspoken "interference" parameters).
> No limit == Unlimited
> Look it up.
>> If what you're saying is true, Lauren ( "It's absolutely clear
>> generally understood meaning of "unlimited" in the context of
>> residential broadband service -- and earlier promotional
>> both cable and DSL providers made this utterly obvious -- was
>> could send or receive as much data as you wished for your monthly
>> then it should be absolutely easy to find a whole raft of TOSs
>> "we don't care how much traffic you put on our network - run
>> open access point, a home gateway, or a spambot, we don't care!
>> much as you like! Please!
>> In fact no residential broadband service has ever been sold in
>> or anywhere else that didn't have significant restrictions on
>> and usage.
>> *We all know that* and nobody's fooled by claims to the contrary.
>> Richard Bennett wrote:
>>> The fact remains that "unlimited" in the context of Internet
>>> has generally been understood to mean simply that there are no
>>> connection-time charges. At one time, people accessed their ISPs
>>> dial-up connections, which were typically charged on connection
>>> AT&T phased out connection-time charges when they realized that
>>> charges added to resource congestion. as they encouraged people to
>>> disconnect during non-peak periods.
>>> DSL and cable have been free of connection-time charges because
>>> they're "always on" services. But it's misleading to say that
>>> haven't always been other limits on these services: go read any
>>> for any DSL or Cable Internet service from anyone at any time: you
>>> can't run servers, you can't consume excessive resources. you
>>> spam, etc, etc, etc.
>>> This is reality: residential broadband is inexpensive relative to
>>> business broadband because it's a shared service with no
>>> CIR. That means the service is over-sold by design. Go price
>>> non-oversold services, and you'll find your best deal is $400/mo
>>> 1.5 Mb/s symmetrical T1. Compare that to $60/mo for 16/2 Mb/s from
>>> Comcast. What's the magic? Low duty cycle sharing. And it's a good
>>> thing, because it allows millions of people to get fast
>>> low prices.
>>> A mailing list that's supposed to be about holding ISPs feet to
>>> fire shouldn't engage in willful ignorance.
>>> [ This is becoming positively Kafkaesque. Brett claims that
>>> "unlimited" simply meant "not limiting the sort of content
>>> you send or receive." Richard says it meant "no metered
>>> connection time charges" -- though such charges have largely
>>> been little seen for years. Spinning like the twister that
>>> took Dorothy to Oz.
>>> It's absolutely clear that the generally understood meaning of
>>> "unlimited" in the context of residential broadband service
>>> earlier promotional statements by both cable and DSL
>>> this utterly obvious -- was that you could send or receive
>>> data as you wished for your monthly fee. Yes, there are often
>>> arbitrary server restrictions (but the presence of servers
>>> necessarily translate into high traffic volumes), and rules
>>> "interfering with other customers" and such.
>>> But these attempts to retroactively redefine what was clearly
>>> understood by the public as the meaning of "unlimited" in this
>>> context are straight from fantasyland.
>>> -- Lauren Weinstein
>>> NNSquad Moderator ]
>>> - - -
>>> Robb Topolski wrote:
>>>> For everyone's information, I have *never* visited an FCC
>>>> Commissioner and have I *never* visited or appeared before a
>>>> legislator. I was a panelist at the April 17th FCC Stanford
>>>> (as was Brett), and I was there on my own dime (as was Brett).
>>>> not under contract with FP/PK (or either) at that time, nor was
>>>> an arrangement under consideration.
>>>> Subsequent to the hearings, FP/PK are now my clients. I am their
>>>> consultant. That does kinda associate us together, but I
>>>> don't speak for them. My particular convictions are my own and
>>>> are well aware that it may not mesh with theirs and that I will
>>>> express them. As their consultant, they sometimes commission me
>>>> contribute something on their behalf -- and I do, and I clearly
>>>> disclose that I'm doing so on their behalf. Even then, I have
>>>> would not say anything that I didn't actually support as my
>>>> best judgment, position, or opinion.
>>>> Brett feels safe to say anything he wants to say, and I have to
>>>> respond to avoid it being understood as truth. This situation is
>>>> Robb Topolski
>>>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Brett Glass <brett () lariat net
>>>> <mailto:brett () lariat net>> wrote:
>>>> Robb Topolski is a lobbyist by any definition. "Free" Press
>>>> trotted him out to appear before, and visit, the FCC
>>>> and legislators to favor stifling regulation of Internet
>>>> Very SPECIFIC regulations and legislation.
>>>> --Brett Glass
>>>> Robb Topolski (robb () funchords com <mailto:robb () funchords com>)
>>>> Hillsboro, Oregon USA