Sign In
Register
Help
Wow, your posts were really informative at the beginning of this thread, but you've strayed so far from the topic that I can't take them seriously anymore.
Inside Net Neutrality: Find an honest ISP
MultiQuote
#44
Totally_lost 
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 14-February 08
Posted 18 February 2008 - 07:51 PM
Hi Wardoggie ... your comments are both appreciated, and at the same time, are actually off topic for this particular thread. Read the article this thread is under ... what is objected to is equating Bittorent access as part of Net Neurality, which are in effect two completely separate topics.
Net Neutrality is about equal access for content to prevent competitive discriminatation between content provider sources.
The issue about Bittorrent is about acceptable technologies and use of ISP systems at customer sites COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the content provided. Bittorrents is simply a horrible technology that places high volume servers at the wrong place on the network which will ONLY make customers network access worse and more expensive. It doesn't mater if BT is delivering Movies or Linux distributions, it's the wrong techology, in the wrong place.
The acceptable place to run BT in on co-located servers at the head of the ISP network infrastructure ... there it would be the right technology at the right place.
Net Neutrality is about equal access for content to prevent competitive discriminatation between content provider sources.
The issue about Bittorrent is about acceptable technologies and use of ISP systems at customer sites COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the content provided. Bittorrents is simply a horrible technology that places high volume servers at the wrong place on the network which will ONLY make customers network access worse and more expensive. It doesn't mater if BT is delivering Movies or Linux distributions, it's the wrong techology, in the wrong place.
The acceptable place to run BT in on co-located servers at the head of the ISP network infrastructure ... there it would be the right technology at the right place.
#45
Totally_lost
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 14-February 08
Posted 18 February 2008 - 07:55 PM
Sorry Wardoggie .... reflect that this particular thread is all about bittorrent ... reread the article ... talking explictily about BT is right on topic ....however, your diversion back to the proposed legislation is a completely different topic.
#46
Totally_lost
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 14-February 08
Posted 18 February 2008 - 09:07 PM
Now Wardoggie, to take a brief diversion to the proposed bill that got junked, if you had read it with an open mind, there is nothing in it that would have forced Bittorrent on ISP's. What was there was a request for the FCC to conduct a series of public meetings to gather input about ISP practices. Stated clearly is this:
"The goal of this bipartisan legislation is to assure
consumers, content providers, and high tech innovators that the historic, open
architecture nature of the Internet will be preserved and fostered. H.R. 5353 is designed to assess and promote
Internet freedom for consumers and content providers. Internet freedom generally embodies the
notion that consumers and content providers should be free to send, receive,
access and use the lawful applications, content, and services of their choice
on broadband networks, possess the effective right to attach and use
non-harmful devices to use in conjunction with their broadband services, and
that content providers not be subjected to unreasonably discriminatory practices
by broadband network providers."
There is a large degree of ambiguity in the language that has allowed bittorrent advocates to believe that since the language states "and use the lawful applications, content, and services" that would have carried thru the public meetings as mandating that ISP's be required to accept bittorrent server use anywhere in an ISP network.
The reality is that would not happen, nor was it actually intended because the language also shows clear concern about keeping our nations ISP networks healthy by also in the same paragraph stating "possess the effective right to attach and use
non-harmful devices to use in conjunction with their broadband services" clearly showing concern about not creating a loop hole for consumers to destroy ISP networks.
Congress clearly proposed that this order for the FCC would include ISP input to the report. Such a report would out of necessity have to include explict language to protect ISP's from abusive customer applications such as peer-to-peer servers which seriously impair networks and tools used for denial of service attacks.
The full intent of this study was to insure that restrain of trade would not occur based on competitive concerns. Nothing in this proposal actually suggests it would mandate low cost consumer account be capable of using a shared resource oversubscribed account in a way that would impact other users or the ISP profitability.
The Bittorrent advocates trying to equate BT with Net Neutrality have grossly overstepped everyones reasonable expectations, and may actually have prevented this legislative study from proceeding by jumping the gun expecting it would also mandate ISP's to accept peer-to-peer applications in volation of AUP restrictions.
Those that have strong desires to enforce Net Neutrality have to completely separate themselves from the peer-to-peer advocacy groups, and prevent their hijacking this cause, ultimately blocking any progress in that area.
"The goal of this bipartisan legislation is to assure
consumers, content providers, and high tech innovators that the historic, open
architecture nature of the Internet will be preserved and fostered. H.R. 5353 is designed to assess and promote
Internet freedom for consumers and content providers. Internet freedom generally embodies the
notion that consumers and content providers should be free to send, receive,
access and use the lawful applications, content, and services of their choice
on broadband networks, possess the effective right to attach and use
non-harmful devices to use in conjunction with their broadband services, and
that content providers not be subjected to unreasonably discriminatory practices
by broadband network providers."
There is a large degree of ambiguity in the language that has allowed bittorrent advocates to believe that since the language states "and use the lawful applications, content, and services" that would have carried thru the public meetings as mandating that ISP's be required to accept bittorrent server use anywhere in an ISP network.
The reality is that would not happen, nor was it actually intended because the language also shows clear concern about keeping our nations ISP networks healthy by also in the same paragraph stating "possess the effective right to attach and use
non-harmful devices to use in conjunction with their broadband services" clearly showing concern about not creating a loop hole for consumers to destroy ISP networks.
Congress clearly proposed that this order for the FCC would include ISP input to the report. Such a report would out of necessity have to include explict language to protect ISP's from abusive customer applications such as peer-to-peer servers which seriously impair networks and tools used for denial of service attacks.
The full intent of this study was to insure that restrain of trade would not occur based on competitive concerns. Nothing in this proposal actually suggests it would mandate low cost consumer account be capable of using a shared resource oversubscribed account in a way that would impact other users or the ISP profitability.
The Bittorrent advocates trying to equate BT with Net Neutrality have grossly overstepped everyones reasonable expectations, and may actually have prevented this legislative study from proceeding by jumping the gun expecting it would also mandate ISP's to accept peer-to-peer applications in volation of AUP restrictions.
Those that have strong desires to enforce Net Neutrality have to completely separate themselves from the peer-to-peer advocacy groups, and prevent their hijacking this cause, ultimately blocking any progress in that area.
#47
wardoggie
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 475
- Joined: 02-September 04
Posted 18 February 2008 - 09:44 PM
Totally_lost,
With all due respect...
Re: post #43, applications are specifically mentioned in the summary of the proposed legislation, so Bit Torrent is covered by HR 5353, aka, "The Internet Freedom Preservation Act". Although it may not change your position on the subject, I encourage you to download and read the PDF summary on Congressman Markey's web page, especially section two. If this were to pass, the FCC may very well decide that certain peer-to-peer applications, including Bit Torrent, do more harm than good and approve of certain methods to regulate the traffic they generate. But, if that does happen, I'd also be willing to bet that these applications provide enough legitimate consumer and competitive benefits that the FCC would not allow them to be shut out completely. After all, the US Army used Bit Torrent to distribute their game, America's Army, and NASA uses it to distribute their images, which are in the public domain. So there's more to Bit Torrent than porn and piracy :D
Re: the general trend of your posts, you seem to have shifted from:
1) providing sound ethical and technical reasons why Bit Torrent traffic needs to be managed
2) getting offended by the mere implication that managing traffic in some way makes you "dishonest"
3) pointing out where Bit Torrent is being dishonest in their portrayal of how their application works
4) to post #40, where you suggest that
With all due respect...
Re: post #43, applications are specifically mentioned in the summary of the proposed legislation, so Bit Torrent is covered by HR 5353, aka, "The Internet Freedom Preservation Act". Although it may not change your position on the subject, I encourage you to download and read the PDF summary on Congressman Markey's web page, especially section two. If this were to pass, the FCC may very well decide that certain peer-to-peer applications, including Bit Torrent, do more harm than good and approve of certain methods to regulate the traffic they generate. But, if that does happen, I'd also be willing to bet that these applications provide enough legitimate consumer and competitive benefits that the FCC would not allow them to be shut out completely. After all, the US Army used Bit Torrent to distribute their game, America's Army, and NASA uses it to distribute their images, which are in the public domain. So there's more to Bit Torrent than porn and piracy :D
Re: the general trend of your posts, you seem to have shifted from:
1) providing sound ethical and technical reasons why Bit Torrent traffic needs to be managed
2) getting offended by the mere implication that managing traffic in some way makes you "dishonest"
3) pointing out where Bit Torrent is being dishonest in their portrayal of how their application works
4) to post #40, where you suggest that
#49
Totally_lost
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 14-February 08
Posted 18 February 2008 - 10:04 PM
Clearly Wardoggie, your clearly miss that Mathew casts a VERY broad brush in these statements to quote the article:
"And having choices is a good thing, particularly if your ISP is
engaging in filtering or traffic shaping or in any way throttling back
your bandwidth. If your ISP is guilty of any of the practices outlined
in part one of our series on network neutrality, there’s no reason to keep doing business with that service."
The first article specifically singles out ISP networks blocking Bittorrent use, and continues in each article in the series to assert that bittorrent use is equivalent to having net neutrality, which is grossly in error, because the blocking of BT is independent of content and merely because of the impact on customer network and AUP restrictions.
Here the author, and MacWorld, are declaring that our membership have no reason to keep using our service, because we have standards against First Party Shooter games, peer-to-peer servers such as bittorrent that the author extensively provides as the standard necessary. The title is a clear insult based on this clear and overt definition.
That is an insult to all ISP's ... and it was directly and overtly directed at all ISP's which block peer-to-peer for sound technical and economic reasons based on AUP restrictions in use.
"The
practice of slowing down certain types of traffic goes against the
principle of network neutrality, the idea that all Internet traffic
should be treated equally. While network neutrality has plenty of
advocates, the best way to support it is to vote with your wallet by
supporting ISPs that don’t practice data discrimination."
That the author and MacWorld are so clueless about the severe technical impacts of bittorrent and go so far as to suggest that our customers leave if we do not all it's use, is anything but reasonable or fair .... especially when the Author and MacWorld by VERY strong inference asset we are less than honest or ethical by enforcing these restriction to protect our networks.
So Wardoggie ... you do not seem so clueless as to fail to understand this clear insult. Did you just fail to read what was actually said, or did your advocacy for peer-to-peer blind your objectivity?
"And having choices is a good thing, particularly if your ISP is
engaging in filtering or traffic shaping or in any way throttling back
your bandwidth. If your ISP is guilty of any of the practices outlined
in part one of our series on network neutrality, there’s no reason to keep doing business with that service."
The first article specifically singles out ISP networks blocking Bittorrent use, and continues in each article in the series to assert that bittorrent use is equivalent to having net neutrality, which is grossly in error, because the blocking of BT is independent of content and merely because of the impact on customer network and AUP restrictions.
Here the author, and MacWorld, are declaring that our membership have no reason to keep using our service, because we have standards against First Party Shooter games, peer-to-peer servers such as bittorrent that the author extensively provides as the standard necessary. The title is a clear insult based on this clear and overt definition.
That is an insult to all ISP's ... and it was directly and overtly directed at all ISP's which block peer-to-peer for sound technical and economic reasons based on AUP restrictions in use.
"The
practice of slowing down certain types of traffic goes against the
principle of network neutrality, the idea that all Internet traffic
should be treated equally. While network neutrality has plenty of
advocates, the best way to support it is to vote with your wallet by
supporting ISPs that don’t practice data discrimination."
That the author and MacWorld are so clueless about the severe technical impacts of bittorrent and go so far as to suggest that our customers leave if we do not all it's use, is anything but reasonable or fair .... especially when the Author and MacWorld by VERY strong inference asset we are less than honest or ethical by enforcing these restriction to protect our networks.
So Wardoggie ... you do not seem so clueless as to fail to understand this clear insult. Did you just fail to read what was actually said, or did your advocacy for peer-to-peer blind your objectivity?
#50
Totally_lost
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 14-February 08
Posted 18 February 2008 - 10:25 PM
Good question ... saw some headline this weekend that was titled something like Net Neutrality bill rejected by House, and assumed it was the same.
May have been a poor assumption.
May have been a poor assumption.
#51
Totally_lost
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 14-February 08
Posted 18 February 2008 - 11:02 PM
Since the bill is still in consideration, I've fired off a note requesting Rep. Markey ammend the bill to specifically exempt peer-to-peer such as bittorrent, and other software which damages ISP networks. I will make a point to provide comment to the FCC as well.
Our coop would be destroyed should BT become forced on our service by peer-to-peer advocates, as our technology simply can not handle it, and it radically changes our ability to provide stable service to the majority of our membership when the oversubscription principles assuming fair share are violated.
Our coop would be destroyed should BT become forced on our service by peer-to-peer advocates, as our technology simply can not handle it, and it radically changes our ability to provide stable service to the majority of our membership when the oversubscription principles assuming fair share are violated.
#52
Totally_lost
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 14-February 08
Posted 19 February 2008 - 07:11 PM
An open letter to IDG senior management:
From the IDG computerworld web site:
Code of Ethics
1. Computerworld's first priority is the interest of its readers.
2. Editorial decisions are made free of advertisers' influence.
3. We insist on fair, unbiased presentation in all news and articles.
4. No advertising that simulates editorial content will be published.
5. Plagiarism is grounds for dismissal.
6. Computerworld makes prompt, complete corrections of errors.
7. Journalists do not own or trade in computer industry stocks.
8. No secondary employment in the IT industry is permitted.
9. Our commitment to fairness is our defense against slander.
10. All editorial opinions will be clearly labeled as such.
Your sister publications editors have chosen to assert that nearly every
ISP on the planet is dishonest. Those editors refuse to reply to multiple
requests for an apology and retraction, and run a balanced factual piece to
amend this gross error and breach of journalistic standards. Several of these
peer-to-peer advocacy articles violate points 3, 4, 6, and 9 above.
I see that without such a retraction and open apology, that the next step
is to apply the same standards as your MacWorld editors to the entire
IDG chain of publications ... and openly call for a boycot for all readers
and advertisers of IDG publications. I'm sure that other of your major
advertisers will find the Inside Net Neutrality: Find an honest ISP
equally offensive, and a gross violation of professionalism in journalism.
If it's fair for IDG publications to openly call for customers to leave
their ISP based on peer-to-peer advocacy, then it's certainly fair for
ISP's and end users wishing to protect the quality and pricing of their
internet service to openly and loudly call for IDG readers and advertisers
to also "vote with their wallet" for this breach of ethics as well.
http://www.macworld....utrality2.html#
"And having choices is a good thing, particularly if your ISP is
engaging in filtering or traffic shaping or in any way throttling
back your bandwidth. If your ISP is guilty of any of the practices
outlined in part one of our series on network neutrality, therea??s
no reason to keep doing business with that service.
"The practice of slowing down certain types of traffic goes against
the principle of network neutrality, the idea that all Internet
traffic should be treated equally. While network neutrality has
plenty of advocates, the best way to support it is to vote with
your wallet by supporting ISPs that dona??t practice data discrimination."
John Bass
Colorado Wireless Exchange Cooperative
From jbass Sun Feb 17 15:26:58 2008
To: letters@macworld.com.
Subject: http://forums.macwor...art=30&tstart=0
Cc: letters@macworld.com
Again, I would like to use my posts as Totally_lost in this thread for
a series of articles to balance the onsided BT advocate articles on
Net Neutrality that are simply false, and unfairly damn nearly every
ISP on the planet.
MacWorld and NetWorld editors failed to select factual balanced material
when they published the "Inside Net Neutrality" and "Is Comcast serving users or itself?"
stories.
A retraction and appology are in order ... or at least publishing a
factual piece to balance those advocates missleading hype and false
statements about ISP problems/motives.
John Bass
and I suggesting reading ALL the the forum for this article to get a more
balanced presentation of the problems.
http://forums.macwor...tart=0&tstart=0
From the IDG computerworld web site:
Code of Ethics
1. Computerworld's first priority is the interest of its readers.
2. Editorial decisions are made free of advertisers' influence.
3. We insist on fair, unbiased presentation in all news and articles.
4. No advertising that simulates editorial content will be published.
5. Plagiarism is grounds for dismissal.
6. Computerworld makes prompt, complete corrections of errors.
7. Journalists do not own or trade in computer industry stocks.
8. No secondary employment in the IT industry is permitted.
9. Our commitment to fairness is our defense against slander.
10. All editorial opinions will be clearly labeled as such.
Your sister publications editors have chosen to assert that nearly every
ISP on the planet is dishonest. Those editors refuse to reply to multiple
requests for an apology and retraction, and run a balanced factual piece to
amend this gross error and breach of journalistic standards. Several of these
peer-to-peer advocacy articles violate points 3, 4, 6, and 9 above.
I see that without such a retraction and open apology, that the next step
is to apply the same standards as your MacWorld editors to the entire
IDG chain of publications ... and openly call for a boycot for all readers
and advertisers of IDG publications. I'm sure that other of your major
advertisers will find the Inside Net Neutrality: Find an honest ISP
equally offensive, and a gross violation of professionalism in journalism.
If it's fair for IDG publications to openly call for customers to leave
their ISP based on peer-to-peer advocacy, then it's certainly fair for
ISP's and end users wishing to protect the quality and pricing of their
internet service to openly and loudly call for IDG readers and advertisers
to also "vote with their wallet" for this breach of ethics as well.
http://www.macworld....utrality2.html#
"And having choices is a good thing, particularly if your ISP is
engaging in filtering or traffic shaping or in any way throttling
back your bandwidth. If your ISP is guilty of any of the practices
outlined in part one of our series on network neutrality, therea??s
no reason to keep doing business with that service.
"The practice of slowing down certain types of traffic goes against
the principle of network neutrality, the idea that all Internet
traffic should be treated equally. While network neutrality has
plenty of advocates, the best way to support it is to vote with
your wallet by supporting ISPs that dona??t practice data discrimination."
John Bass
Colorado Wireless Exchange Cooperative
From jbass Sun Feb 17 15:26:58 2008
To: letters@macworld.com.
Subject: http://forums.macwor...art=30&tstart=0
Cc: letters@macworld.com
Again, I would like to use my posts as Totally_lost in this thread for
a series of articles to balance the onsided BT advocate articles on
Net Neutrality that are simply false, and unfairly damn nearly every
ISP on the planet.
MacWorld and NetWorld editors failed to select factual balanced material
when they published the "Inside Net Neutrality" and "Is Comcast serving users or itself?"
stories.
A retraction and appology are in order ... or at least publishing a
factual piece to balance those advocates missleading hype and false
statements about ISP problems/motives.
John Bass
and I suggesting reading ALL the the forum for this article to get a more
balanced presentation of the problems.
http://forums.macwor...tart=0&tstart=0
#53
Totally_lost
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 14-February 08
Posted 21 February 2008 - 02:54 PM
Well, it's been an interesting week. The iDG publications treat these articles as independent of their own works, and do not exercise any serious editoral restraint on the authors, leaving them free to libel whoever they please. There seems to be a belief that these regular and guest colomnists are free to take whatever freedom with the truth they please to press advocacy positions of their choice, and it has no reflection of the advertisers or publications integrity.
From Jason Snell's reply, I offer the following quotes (which I strongly disagree with) for others also concerned about the accuracy of this article, which combined with my other posts in this thread show that both the author and the MacWorld editors clearly have both a complete lack of understanding about the issues, and an advocacy that blinds their objectivity:
bq. I feel Mr. Honan's article is a reasonable approach to this topic. Though you have chosen to interpret it as a broad attack on ISPs, I disagree with that assessment. I believe that when Mr. Honan is advocating for an "honest ISP," he's referring to ISPs that offer full disclosure of what their packet-shaping and server policies are, and pointing out that users who care about such issues should use that knowledge and the power of the free market to choose an ISP and a service plan that's in keeping with the way they would like to use their Internet service. I'm sure you understand that there are issues that go far beyond BitTorrent, although even with BitTorrent there are numerous legal uses that can also be affected by packet-shaping. For example, slowing down movie-download data or charging extra for it could create a severely anticompetitive environment in which ISPs, some of whom offer competing services, could degrade the service of their competitors or change the net pricing so that their competitors' products were more expensive than their own. I don't believe our articles contain any sort of falsehoods. Do they have a point of view? Most certainly. As a consumer-focused publication, we serve the users of internet services, not ISPs themselves. As a result, we believe users should know the issues that affect them as consumers. In this particular area, the service- provider industry as a whole has generally not done a good job of communicating what's being filtered, what's being slowed, and what behaviors are allowed and not allowed as a part of a user's terms of service. This should not be read as a personal attack on you -- different providers behave in very different ways, as Mr. Honan's series mentions. I don't believe at any point we said that all ISPs are dishonest. In fact, Mr. Honan's final sentence ends with the phrase "make sure your ISP is giving you the service you paid for." This represents the point of the entire series: that users need to be more aware of what their ISPs are doing, and either hold them to the terms of their agreement or exercise their rights to finding a different ISP that provides them with the services they want. Or, alternately, support legislation that would promote the sort of behavior that they would like to see from ISPs.
Probably others need to write Jason and offer corrections at jsnell@macworld.com
Clearly Jason and the author have failed to grasp:
http://www.macworld....band.html?t=224
bq. “Without some type of management of the Internet by ISPs, the Internet would become unstable,” says Jay Rolls, vice president of technology for Cox Communications. Like virtually every ISP contacted for this story, Cox says that it engages in various forms of Internet traffic management (not blocking), called “traffic shaping” and “traffic prioritization.”
http://www.macworld....eutrality2.html
bq. The practice of slowing down certain types of traffic goes against the principle of network neutrality, the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. While network neutrality has plenty of advocates, the best way to support it is to vote with your wallet by supporting ISPs that don’t practice data discrimination.
with the headline: *Inside Net Neutrality: Find an honest ISP
It's rather interesting in one piece they acknowledge "virtually every ISP contacted" does traffic management, and then they assert that this should cause virtually every ISP customer to vote with their wallet, with the strong implication that ISP is dishonest, because no where in the article do they actually limit which ISP's they are actually talking about except for those they advocate their customers leave.
Net Neutrality is about equal access for well behaved applications, it is not about network management required for abusive applications which choose to not share bandwidth fairly and are by design respectful of other customers bandwidth rights as well.
Clearly Jason and the author need to here this from other normal users and ISP's as well.
From Jason Snell's reply, I offer the following quotes (which I strongly disagree with) for others also concerned about the accuracy of this article, which combined with my other posts in this thread show that both the author and the MacWorld editors clearly have both a complete lack of understanding about the issues, and an advocacy that blinds their objectivity:
bq. I feel Mr. Honan's article is a reasonable approach to this topic. Though you have chosen to interpret it as a broad attack on ISPs, I disagree with that assessment. I believe that when Mr. Honan is advocating for an "honest ISP," he's referring to ISPs that offer full disclosure of what their packet-shaping and server policies are, and pointing out that users who care about such issues should use that knowledge and the power of the free market to choose an ISP and a service plan that's in keeping with the way they would like to use their Internet service. I'm sure you understand that there are issues that go far beyond BitTorrent, although even with BitTorrent there are numerous legal uses that can also be affected by packet-shaping. For example, slowing down movie-download data or charging extra for it could create a severely anticompetitive environment in which ISPs, some of whom offer competing services, could degrade the service of their competitors or change the net pricing so that their competitors' products were more expensive than their own. I don't believe our articles contain any sort of falsehoods. Do they have a point of view? Most certainly. As a consumer-focused publication, we serve the users of internet services, not ISPs themselves. As a result, we believe users should know the issues that affect them as consumers. In this particular area, the service- provider industry as a whole has generally not done a good job of communicating what's being filtered, what's being slowed, and what behaviors are allowed and not allowed as a part of a user's terms of service. This should not be read as a personal attack on you -- different providers behave in very different ways, as Mr. Honan's series mentions. I don't believe at any point we said that all ISPs are dishonest. In fact, Mr. Honan's final sentence ends with the phrase "make sure your ISP is giving you the service you paid for." This represents the point of the entire series: that users need to be more aware of what their ISPs are doing, and either hold them to the terms of their agreement or exercise their rights to finding a different ISP that provides them with the services they want. Or, alternately, support legislation that would promote the sort of behavior that they would like to see from ISPs.
Probably others need to write Jason and offer corrections at jsnell@macworld.com
Clearly Jason and the author have failed to grasp:
http://www.macworld....band.html?t=224
bq. “Without some type of management of the Internet by ISPs, the Internet would become unstable,” says Jay Rolls, vice president of technology for Cox Communications. Like virtually every ISP contacted for this story, Cox says that it engages in various forms of Internet traffic management (not blocking), called “traffic shaping” and “traffic prioritization.”
http://www.macworld....eutrality2.html
bq. The practice of slowing down certain types of traffic goes against the principle of network neutrality, the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. While network neutrality has plenty of advocates, the best way to support it is to vote with your wallet by supporting ISPs that don’t practice data discrimination.
with the headline: *Inside Net Neutrality: Find an honest ISP
It's rather interesting in one piece they acknowledge "virtually every ISP contacted" does traffic management, and then they assert that this should cause virtually every ISP customer to vote with their wallet, with the strong implication that ISP is dishonest, because no where in the article do they actually limit which ISP's they are actually talking about except for those they advocate their customers leave.
Net Neutrality is about equal access for well behaved applications, it is not about network management required for abusive applications which choose to not share bandwidth fairly and are by design respectful of other customers bandwidth rights as well.
Clearly Jason and the author need to here this from other normal users and ISP's as well.
#54
Totally_lost
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 14-February 08
Posted 21 February 2008 - 05:34 PM
The ethical violations of this series by the author and the editorial staff which allowed it's print are very troubling. Especially the part about encrypting your traffic to partially evade dediction for prohibted uses. This continues to smack of the outright disregard P2P advocates have had for US and International Copyright law, and the intellectual property rights of all authors and publishers. That any publisher would contribute to this problem, leaves grave concerns.
Since this publisher has chosen to directly attack Comcast for limiting P2P bittorrent servers, lets explore the Terms of Service agreement that Comcast customers are expected to respect:
http://www6.comcast.net/terms/use/
Technical restrictions
* access any other person's computer or computer system, network, software, or data without his or her knowledge and consent; breach the security of another user or system; or attempt to circumvent the user authentication or security of any host, network, or account. This includes, but is not limited to, accessing data not intended for you, logging into or making use of a server or account you are not expressly authorized to access, or probing the security of other hosts, networks, or accounts without express permission to do so;
* use or distribute tools or devices designed or used for compromising security, such as password guessing programs, decoders, password gatherers, unauthorized keystroke loggers, analyzers, cracking tools, packet sniffers, encryption circumvention devices, or Trojan Horse programs. Unauthorized port scanning is strictly prohibited;
* copy, distribute, or sublicense any software provided in connection with the Service by Comcast or any third party, except that you may make one copy of each software program for back-up purposes only;
* distribute programs that make unauthorized changes to software (cracks);
* use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network ("Premises LAN"), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
* use or run programs from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN, except for personal and non-commercial residential use;
* service, alter, modify, or tamper with the Comcast Equipment or Service or permit any other person to do the same who is not authorized by Comcast;
Network and usage restrictions
* restrict, inhibit, or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to use or enjoy the Service, including, without limitation, posting or transmitting any information or software which contains a worm, virus, or other harmful feature, or generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to use, send, or retrieve information;
* restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or otherwise disrupt or cause a performance degradation, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to the Service or any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) host, server, backbone network, node or service, or otherwise cause a performance degradation to any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) facilities used to deliver the Service;
* resell the Service or otherwise make available to anyone outside the Premises the ability to use the Service (for example, though wi-fi or other methods of networking), in whole or in part, directly or indirectly. The Service is for personal and non-commercial residential use only and you agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider or for any business enterprise or purpose (whether or not for profit);
* connect the Comcast Equipment to any computer outside of your Premises;
* interfere with computer networking or telecommunications service to any user, host or network, including, without limitation, denial of service attacks, flooding of a network, overloading a service, improper seizing and abusing operator privileges, and attempts to "crash" a host; and
* accessing and using the Service with anything other than a dynamic Internet Protocol ("IP") address that adheres to the dynamic host configuration protocol ("DHCP"). You may not configure the Service or any related equipment to access or use a static IP address or use any protocol other than DHCP unless you are subject to a Service plan that expressly permits you to do so.
What the author and MacWorld have chosen to ignore, and have chosen to aid and abeit users to do, is very clearly stated restrictions which apply to unauthorized servers for commercial use at the customers site. Each of the red highlighted resitrictions above specifically and collectively apply to bittorent and other peer-to-peer applications inisde the Comcast network.
That peer-to-peer advocates are equally as willing to break US and International copyright laws, as easily as they disregard the Comcast Terms of Service restrictions is hardly surprising, and outright unethical.
So while the author and MacWorld assert certain rights, until the law changes they are simply wrong. If the law does change, I hope that it applies to all electronic media, such that I have the right to demand equal access to the MacWorld publications infrastructure to publish what I please free of their selective editorial restrictions .... after all ... if they demand equal access to ISP computer and network systems, then users should have equal rights to the publishers computer and network systems to protest when necessary.
Since this publisher has chosen to directly attack Comcast for limiting P2P bittorrent servers, lets explore the Terms of Service agreement that Comcast customers are expected to respect:
http://www6.comcast.net/terms/use/
Technical restrictions
* access any other person's computer or computer system, network, software, or data without his or her knowledge and consent; breach the security of another user or system; or attempt to circumvent the user authentication or security of any host, network, or account. This includes, but is not limited to, accessing data not intended for you, logging into or making use of a server or account you are not expressly authorized to access, or probing the security of other hosts, networks, or accounts without express permission to do so;
* use or distribute tools or devices designed or used for compromising security, such as password guessing programs, decoders, password gatherers, unauthorized keystroke loggers, analyzers, cracking tools, packet sniffers, encryption circumvention devices, or Trojan Horse programs. Unauthorized port scanning is strictly prohibited;
* copy, distribute, or sublicense any software provided in connection with the Service by Comcast or any third party, except that you may make one copy of each software program for back-up purposes only;
* distribute programs that make unauthorized changes to software (cracks);
* use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network ("Premises LAN"), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
* use or run programs from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN, except for personal and non-commercial residential use;
* service, alter, modify, or tamper with the Comcast Equipment or Service or permit any other person to do the same who is not authorized by Comcast;
Network and usage restrictions
* restrict, inhibit, or otherwise interfere with the ability of any other person, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to use or enjoy the Service, including, without limitation, posting or transmitting any information or software which contains a worm, virus, or other harmful feature, or generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others' ability to use, send, or retrieve information;
* restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or otherwise disrupt or cause a performance degradation, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to the Service or any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) host, server, backbone network, node or service, or otherwise cause a performance degradation to any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) facilities used to deliver the Service;
* resell the Service or otherwise make available to anyone outside the Premises the ability to use the Service (for example, though wi-fi or other methods of networking), in whole or in part, directly or indirectly. The Service is for personal and non-commercial residential use only and you agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider or for any business enterprise or purpose (whether or not for profit);
* connect the Comcast Equipment to any computer outside of your Premises;
* interfere with computer networking or telecommunications service to any user, host or network, including, without limitation, denial of service attacks, flooding of a network, overloading a service, improper seizing and abusing operator privileges, and attempts to "crash" a host; and
* accessing and using the Service with anything other than a dynamic Internet Protocol ("IP") address that adheres to the dynamic host configuration protocol ("DHCP"). You may not configure the Service or any related equipment to access or use a static IP address or use any protocol other than DHCP unless you are subject to a Service plan that expressly permits you to do so.
What the author and MacWorld have chosen to ignore, and have chosen to aid and abeit users to do, is very clearly stated restrictions which apply to unauthorized servers for commercial use at the customers site. Each of the red highlighted resitrictions above specifically and collectively apply to bittorent and other peer-to-peer applications inisde the Comcast network.
That peer-to-peer advocates are equally as willing to break US and International copyright laws, as easily as they disregard the Comcast Terms of Service restrictions is hardly surprising, and outright unethical.
So while the author and MacWorld assert certain rights, until the law changes they are simply wrong. If the law does change, I hope that it applies to all electronic media, such that I have the right to demand equal access to the MacWorld publications infrastructure to publish what I please free of their selective editorial restrictions .... after all ... if they demand equal access to ISP computer and network systems, then users should have equal rights to the publishers computer and network systems to protest when necessary.
#55
Totally_lost
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 14-February 08
Posted 21 February 2008 - 11:13 PM
For those P2P advocates that claim Comcast is a monopoly, they should note that one of the largest service area broadband providers, nearly all of the USA and elsewhere, and Comcast's service area is a VERY tiny fraction of their market area -- enter DirectWay or Hughesnet:
Hughesnet doesn't confront servers directly, or even P2P in their terms of service. What they do have is a very strong proactive "fair share" policy and throttling system. Typical service may be like they share in the FAQ:
http://www.satellite...snet-faq.aspx#2
bq. What connection speeds will I typically get with HughesNet? With the HughesNet Home service plan, you may enjoy download speeds up to 700Kbps, with typical speeds of about 500Kbps to 600Kbps during peak times. Upload speeds, which are capable of reaching 128Kbps, are typically 70Kbps to 80Kbps during peak hours. With the HughesNet Professional plan, connect your home office to the Internet with maximum download speeds of up to 1.0Mbps, with typical speeds about 650Kbps to 750Kbps during peak times. Upload speeds, which are capable of reaching 200Kbps, are typically 100Kbps to 125Kbps during peak hours. With the HughesNet Small Office service plan, you may enjoy maximum download speeds of 1.5Mbps, with typical speeds of about 800Kbps during peak times. Upload speeds, which are capable of reaching 300Kbps, are typically about 185Kbps during peak hours. With the HughesNet Business Internet plan, connect your office to the Internet with maximum download speeds of 2.0Mbps, with typical speeds about 1.2Mbps during peak times. Upload speeds, which are capable of reaching 500Kbps, are typically 300Kbps during peak hours
However, it doesn't take much to hit there fair use quota system, one modest file over a 100MB combined with normal use can easily trigger it. At which point, your fair share becomes what you are really paying for unless your being normal and nice for this network. Firing up a P2P application and letting it run for a day or two, will leave your bandwidth throttled longer than you might like. The fair use policy is pretty clear -portions pasted below - note the numbers in in MB not GB:
http://www.satellite...ess-policy.aspx
bq. Fair Access Policy Overview It's important to know that all high-speed Internet Service Providers utilize "Shared Bandwidth Technology." Simply put, that means everyone shares one "ultra" high-speed connection in order to get a high-speed connection at each of their homes. However, in some cases, as few as 5% of the users can consume as much as 50% of an Internet Service Provider's bandwidth, making the service run slower for everyone else.
|bq. HughesNet Fair Access Policy|
|bq. To ensure equal Internet access for all HughesNet subscribers, Hughes Network Systems maintains a running average Fair Access Policy (FAP). Fair Access establishes an equitable balance in Internet access across satellite broadband services by service plan for all HughesNet customers regardless of their frequency of use or volume of traffic. To ensure this equity, customers may experience some temporary throughput limitations. HughesNet Internet access is not guaranteed. This policy applies to all service plans including "Unlimited" plans where customers' use of the Service is not limited to a specific number of hours per month.|
|bq.|
|bq. HughesNet system usage data indicates that approximately 5% of subscribers are responsible for a disproportionate share - often as much as half - of the total HughesNet service traffic. Unfortunately, many of those subscribers are not using HughesNet for its intended purpose. To ensure that all HughesNet subscribers have fair and equal access to the benefits of the Satellite broadband service, HughesNet has enacted a Fair Access Policy to prevent abusive consumption of bandwidth by a handful of users.|
|bq.|
|bq. FAP is straightforward: based on an analysis of usage data, Hughes Network Systems has established a HughesNet usage threshold well above the maximum typical usage rates. When a customer exhibits patterns of system usage which exceed that threshold for an extended period of time, the FAP may temporarily limit that subscriber's throughput to ensure the integrity of the system for all HughesNet subscribers.|
|bq.|
|bq. Typically, the restrictions will be lifted within 8-12 hours of the original application of the FAP if the customer's usage in this period stays below the FAP threshold.|
|bq.|
|bq. For example, you may experience FAP if the cumulative requested downloads in a relatively short time period (1-4 hours) exceeds your HughesNet plan download threshold. An example of what can be downloaded within any HughesNet plan would be a software application such as Microsoft Internet Explorer or Adobe Acrobat. And normal Internet surfing generates small downloads for each Web page viewed. For example, an hour of surfing can generate 1-10 MB of download activity depending on the content being surfed - well below the amount required to trigger FAP.|
|bq.|
|bq. Subscribers are likely to avoid the limitations imposed by the FAP if their use is typical of the majority of Internet users and consists of Web surfing and a reasonable amount of downloading. See below for a table of FAP parameters for each plan.|
|bq.|
||bq. HughesNet - Fair Access Policy (FAP) Parameters|
|bq.|bq. Home|bq. Professional|bq. Small Office|bq. Business Internet|
|bq. Download Threshold *|bq. 175|bq. 350|bq. 500|bq. 1250|
|bq. Recovery Rate |bq. 50|bq. 56|bq. 150|bq. 400|
|
||bq. *|bq. Download Threshold is the volume of data that can be downloaded continuously before the Fair Access Policy may restrict the download speed.|
|bq. |bq. Recovery Rate is the rate at which a service plan recovers the Download Threshold.|
|
Hughesnet doesn't confront servers directly, or even P2P in their terms of service. What they do have is a very strong proactive "fair share" policy and throttling system. Typical service may be like they share in the FAQ:
http://www.satellite...snet-faq.aspx#2
bq. What connection speeds will I typically get with HughesNet? With the HughesNet Home service plan, you may enjoy download speeds up to 700Kbps, with typical speeds of about 500Kbps to 600Kbps during peak times. Upload speeds, which are capable of reaching 128Kbps, are typically 70Kbps to 80Kbps during peak hours. With the HughesNet Professional plan, connect your home office to the Internet with maximum download speeds of up to 1.0Mbps, with typical speeds about 650Kbps to 750Kbps during peak times. Upload speeds, which are capable of reaching 200Kbps, are typically 100Kbps to 125Kbps during peak hours. With the HughesNet Small Office service plan, you may enjoy maximum download speeds of 1.5Mbps, with typical speeds of about 800Kbps during peak times. Upload speeds, which are capable of reaching 300Kbps, are typically about 185Kbps during peak hours. With the HughesNet Business Internet plan, connect your office to the Internet with maximum download speeds of 2.0Mbps, with typical speeds about 1.2Mbps during peak times. Upload speeds, which are capable of reaching 500Kbps, are typically 300Kbps during peak hours
However, it doesn't take much to hit there fair use quota system, one modest file over a 100MB combined with normal use can easily trigger it. At which point, your fair share becomes what you are really paying for unless your being normal and nice for this network. Firing up a P2P application and letting it run for a day or two, will leave your bandwidth throttled longer than you might like. The fair use policy is pretty clear -portions pasted below - note the numbers in in MB not GB:
http://www.satellite...ess-policy.aspx
bq. Fair Access Policy Overview It's important to know that all high-speed Internet Service Providers utilize "Shared Bandwidth Technology." Simply put, that means everyone shares one "ultra" high-speed connection in order to get a high-speed connection at each of their homes. However, in some cases, as few as 5% of the users can consume as much as 50% of an Internet Service Provider's bandwidth, making the service run slower for everyone else.
|bq. HughesNet Fair Access Policy|
|bq. To ensure equal Internet access for all HughesNet subscribers, Hughes Network Systems maintains a running average Fair Access Policy (FAP). Fair Access establishes an equitable balance in Internet access across satellite broadband services by service plan for all HughesNet customers regardless of their frequency of use or volume of traffic. To ensure this equity, customers may experience some temporary throughput limitations. HughesNet Internet access is not guaranteed. This policy applies to all service plans including "Unlimited" plans where customers' use of the Service is not limited to a specific number of hours per month.|
|bq.|
|bq. HughesNet system usage data indicates that approximately 5% of subscribers are responsible for a disproportionate share - often as much as half - of the total HughesNet service traffic. Unfortunately, many of those subscribers are not using HughesNet for its intended purpose. To ensure that all HughesNet subscribers have fair and equal access to the benefits of the Satellite broadband service, HughesNet has enacted a Fair Access Policy to prevent abusive consumption of bandwidth by a handful of users.|
|bq.|
|bq. FAP is straightforward: based on an analysis of usage data, Hughes Network Systems has established a HughesNet usage threshold well above the maximum typical usage rates. When a customer exhibits patterns of system usage which exceed that threshold for an extended period of time, the FAP may temporarily limit that subscriber's throughput to ensure the integrity of the system for all HughesNet subscribers.|
|bq.|
|bq. Typically, the restrictions will be lifted within 8-12 hours of the original application of the FAP if the customer's usage in this period stays below the FAP threshold.|
|bq.|
|bq. For example, you may experience FAP if the cumulative requested downloads in a relatively short time period (1-4 hours) exceeds your HughesNet plan download threshold. An example of what can be downloaded within any HughesNet plan would be a software application such as Microsoft Internet Explorer or Adobe Acrobat. And normal Internet surfing generates small downloads for each Web page viewed. For example, an hour of surfing can generate 1-10 MB of download activity depending on the content being surfed - well below the amount required to trigger FAP.|
|bq.|
|bq. Subscribers are likely to avoid the limitations imposed by the FAP if their use is typical of the majority of Internet users and consists of Web surfing and a reasonable amount of downloading. See below for a table of FAP parameters for each plan.|
|bq.|
||bq. HughesNet - Fair Access Policy (FAP) Parameters|
|bq.|bq. Home|bq. Professional|bq. Small Office|bq. Business Internet|
|bq. Download Threshold *|bq. 175|bq. 350|bq. 500|bq. 1250|
|bq. Recovery Rate |bq. 50|bq. 56|bq. 150|bq. 400|
|
||bq. *|bq. Download Threshold is the volume of data that can be downloaded continuously before the Fair Access Policy may restrict the download speed.|
|bq. |bq. Recovery Rate is the rate at which a service plan recovers the Download Threshold.|
|
#56
Totally_lost
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 14-February 08
Posted 22 February 2008 - 12:10 AM
Telco's offering DSL also have similar restrictions, which I will also explore with Qwest residential DSL, which has this statement about excessive use:
bq. Qwest® Broadband connects customers to the people, things and information important to them. Whether downloading music or photos, watching videos or TV shows online, e-mailing or any number of other activities, Qwest Broadband, is fast, reliable and full of features to help customers navigate the Internet. The majority of Qwest Broadband customers make great use of their high-speed service and comply with the Qwest Broadband Service Agreement. An extremely small percentage use Qwest Broadband excessively, or at such extreme high volumes, that they violate the terms of the Qwest Broadband Subscriber Agreement. While this high volume use is very rare, Qwest makes it a point to talk to these customers and help them find a broadband solution to better meet their needs. Learn more about excessive or high-volume use of your Qwest Broadband service.
* View questions and answers (PDF) about the Excessive Use Policy (EUP).
* You may also wish to view the Qwest Broadband Subscriber Agreement.
Inside the above Subscriber Agreement you will find what most ISP AUP terms are, and that is that you do not interfere with other subscribers use, which includes excessive or high-volume user such as a peer-to-peer server:
bq. 7. Service Conditions. The following conditions apply to the Service. Qwest may suspend, terminate, or limit use of your Service if you violate any of these conditions. (a) Limits on Use. You agree not to use the Service for high volume or excessive use, in a business or for any commercial purpose if your Service is a residential service, or in a way that impacts Qwest network resources or Qwest’s ability to provide services. You agree not to: (i) offer public information services (unlimited usage or otherwise), (ii) permit more than one dial-up log-on session to be active at one time, or (iii) permit more than one broadband log-on session to be active at one time, except if using a roaming dial-up account when traveling, in which case 2 sessions may be active. A log-on session represents an active connection to your Internet access provider. The active session may be shared to connect multiple computers/devices within a single home or office location or within a single unit within a multiple dwelling unit (e.g., single apartment or office within an apartment complex) to your modem and/or router to access the Service (including the establishment of a wireless fidelity (“WiFi”) hotspot), but the Service may only be used at the single home or office location or single unit within a multiple dwelling unit for which Service is provisioned by Qwest. You may not use a WiFi hotspot in violation of this Agreement or in a way that circumvents Qwest’s ability to provide Service to another customer (e.g., you cannot use a WiFi hotspot to provide Service outside your single home or office location or outside your single unit within a multiple dwelling unit and you cannot resell Service provided over a WiFi hotspot). You may not use more than one IP address for each log on session unless an advanced service allocating you more than one IP address has been purchased. Service may only be used in the U.S. Service may be used to host a server, personal or commercial, as long as such server is used pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement applicable to Service and not for any malicious purposes. Malicious purposes include without limitation Spam, viruses, worms, Trojans, etc. Qwest may restrict your use of or interrupt the Service without notice for: (i) maintenance activities; (ii) equipment, network, or facility upgrades or modifications; and (iii) to ensure the provision of acceptable service levels to all Qwest customers. Qwest is not responsible or liable for any Service deficiencies or interruptions caused by such events. (d) Compliance. The Service cannot be used for any unlawful, abusive, or fraudulent purpose, including without limitation, using the Service in a way that: (i) interferes with Qwest's ability to provide service to Qwest customers, (ii) avoids your obligation to pay for services, (iii) constitutes a criminal offense, (iv) gives rise to a civil liability, or (v) otherwise violates any law, order, ordinance, governmental requirement or regulation or this Agreement.
The bottom line if you leave a P2P server running, they will suggest you purchase something other than a heavily oversubscribed basic residential account, like a T1 or Business DSL account, or leave.
Qwest covers a large portion of the western states.
bq. Qwest® Broadband connects customers to the people, things and information important to them. Whether downloading music or photos, watching videos or TV shows online, e-mailing or any number of other activities, Qwest Broadband, is fast, reliable and full of features to help customers navigate the Internet. The majority of Qwest Broadband customers make great use of their high-speed service and comply with the Qwest Broadband Service Agreement. An extremely small percentage use Qwest Broadband excessively, or at such extreme high volumes, that they violate the terms of the Qwest Broadband Subscriber Agreement. While this high volume use is very rare, Qwest makes it a point to talk to these customers and help them find a broadband solution to better meet their needs. Learn more about excessive or high-volume use of your Qwest Broadband service.
* View questions and answers (PDF) about the Excessive Use Policy (EUP).
* You may also wish to view the Qwest Broadband Subscriber Agreement.
Inside the above Subscriber Agreement you will find what most ISP AUP terms are, and that is that you do not interfere with other subscribers use, which includes excessive or high-volume user such as a peer-to-peer server:
bq. 7. Service Conditions. The following conditions apply to the Service. Qwest may suspend, terminate, or limit use of your Service if you violate any of these conditions. (a) Limits on Use. You agree not to use the Service for high volume or excessive use, in a business or for any commercial purpose if your Service is a residential service, or in a way that impacts Qwest network resources or Qwest’s ability to provide services. You agree not to: (i) offer public information services (unlimited usage or otherwise), (ii) permit more than one dial-up log-on session to be active at one time, or (iii) permit more than one broadband log-on session to be active at one time, except if using a roaming dial-up account when traveling, in which case 2 sessions may be active. A log-on session represents an active connection to your Internet access provider. The active session may be shared to connect multiple computers/devices within a single home or office location or within a single unit within a multiple dwelling unit (e.g., single apartment or office within an apartment complex) to your modem and/or router to access the Service (including the establishment of a wireless fidelity (“WiFi”) hotspot), but the Service may only be used at the single home or office location or single unit within a multiple dwelling unit for which Service is provisioned by Qwest. You may not use a WiFi hotspot in violation of this Agreement or in a way that circumvents Qwest’s ability to provide Service to another customer (e.g., you cannot use a WiFi hotspot to provide Service outside your single home or office location or outside your single unit within a multiple dwelling unit and you cannot resell Service provided over a WiFi hotspot). You may not use more than one IP address for each log on session unless an advanced service allocating you more than one IP address has been purchased. Service may only be used in the U.S. Service may be used to host a server, personal or commercial, as long as such server is used pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement applicable to Service and not for any malicious purposes. Malicious purposes include without limitation Spam, viruses, worms, Trojans, etc. Qwest may restrict your use of or interrupt the Service without notice for: (i) maintenance activities; (ii) equipment, network, or facility upgrades or modifications; and (iii) to ensure the provision of acceptable service levels to all Qwest customers. Qwest is not responsible or liable for any Service deficiencies or interruptions caused by such events. (d) Compliance. The Service cannot be used for any unlawful, abusive, or fraudulent purpose, including without limitation, using the Service in a way that: (i) interferes with Qwest's ability to provide service to Qwest customers, (ii) avoids your obligation to pay for services, (iii) constitutes a criminal offense, (iv) gives rise to a civil liability, or (v) otherwise violates any law, order, ordinance, governmental requirement or regulation or this Agreement.
The bottom line if you leave a P2P server running, they will suggest you purchase something other than a heavily oversubscribed basic residential account, like a T1 or Business DSL account, or leave.
Qwest covers a large portion of the western states.
