Re: IMPORTANT!! ALL COMCAST Subscribers!! PLZ READ! COMCAST COMCAST

Bill I think you and I are just going to have to disagree...you want a hard fast number and obviously Comcast and others are not going to provide it. I think there way is okay, but I see your point. I personally got told one month that I was under "observation" by Comcast for using an excessive amount of bandwidth. The next month I intennionally used less and everything was fine. I DO NOT resell Comcasts bandwidth and those that do need to be prosecuted! I am NOT saying you do, I just KNOW that some do. You have your points and so does Comcast, have a nice interneting experience.

Actually it is way more usage than a typical residential user

Nope, wrong again. For a single residence 30 to 40Gb is excessive

Usage patterns over time say you are making incorrect assumptions.

Human behavior is greedy if left unchecked.

We know

Thanks, same to you! :)

If you were to stream in one movie, what would that run in Gb - maybe 10+ Gb (just a guess) ? So that would be 3 or 4 movies ?

That doesn't sound so excessive to me unless I'm way off on the size.

"Ness_net" wrote in news:brKdnSF9x_HQiUPbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

I wonder what my "node average" is? I downloaded 58GB to a new 750GB WD external just today while I was out cruising around on my motorcycle in nice weather!...(c;

Grabit's backed up 48GB for tonight....

Man there's some great movies on alt.binaries.movies.divx these days....

Larry

Rick Merrill wrote in news:N_mdnRe0r4zPGUPbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

If we were worried about "resources", bandwidth that can't be stored, we'd do something to eliminate SPAM, which none of them do anything to stop....

Larry

If all you care about are bytes just get one of the many system flood self replicating virus's and let it do it's thing. It can fill up hard drive space faster than multiple T-1 connections can.

If you don't have defined, published limits, you are opening yourself up to legal action. From what I've heard about Comcast's practice in this matter (giving them a warning with no specifics on how to get into compliance with the bandwidth limits), I'd say that they should be hit with a class action suit.

Regards,

Fred

mmmm, what is the 'class'? abusers?

You don't suppose Comcast has hired fools for corporate attorneys, do you? OTOH, I am not sure what laws *require* "defined, published limits".

Customers, current and previous.

Define the written defined limits a cop has to follow to arrest and charge someone with disorderly conduct please. Perhaps you'd like to start a class action law suit on behalf of everyone ever arrested for disorderly conduct?

We had a guy arrested for disorderly conduct for speaking during his assigned time at city council meetings. He was tried and found guilty by a jury of shills for the city council & a crooked judge.

Since there doesn't seem to be any clear cut definitions of what 'abuser's' are, I would suggest that it would be any member of the general public who has been improperly denied service.

Fred

Poor analogy. Let's try something more apropos - like the highway speed limit. There is a max of 65 (ignoring the 70+ on some freeways).

If you exceed that speed limit at 75, you can get a ticket (let's say it's currently $5 per mile over plus $35 in court costs etc for a total of $85). We also know how fast we're going since all of our cars have a speedometer in them that is usually fairly accurate. The limit is defined, the fines are also predefined (with a few caveats like doubling in a maintenance zone, etc.).

In the case of the Internet, the speed limit signs, the fines and the speedometer all seem to be missing. Presumably, the speedometer isn't necessary since they put governors on or engines so we can't exceed the limit - the only thing we can control is how far/long we drive. So what's missing in this analogy is what is the limit on how long we can drive at the speed limit ?

Obviously if most of us aren't on the highway, the ones that are can drive longer. When everyone gets on the road, a second throttle comes into play which is the width of the highway. This width vs traffic analogy should cause all drivers to be forced to slow down (rush hour).

It would be nice if the drivers that haven't been on the road as long could get more speed than those driving all day (diamond lane analogy for you Californians), but I'm not sure any ISP has a diamond lane implemented. If they did, this would all be kinda moot and iron itself out by adding one.

ROFLMAO! I can't wait to see a bunch of movie, music and software thieves file a class action suit against Comcast.

I'm sure the MPAA, RIAA and the BSA will find a use for the class list. Sort of like shooting fish in a barrell.

One [required] college course for one credit hour, and it was excruciating.

OK. So just what does the Comcast TOS (that the customer presumably agreed to) say? Is it any different then the TOS of other broadband providers? I assume that their lawyers were involved in the writing of the TOS. Isn't the TOS essentially "the contract"?

Would you supply that number if you were Comcast? Now you get abusers that keep their usage just a few MB below the maximum. The problem isn't that a specific amount of total bandwidth use is exceeded; the issue is that a specific amount of total bandwidth use is exceeded chronically.

Nor should they. They should give you a warning if you are identified as an abuser and you have the chance to fix it. You and I both know that the person who gets labeled as an abuser will know WHY already and they can either take the option to challenge the label and potential sanctions imposed by Comcast or they can fix their behavior. Either way, it should come as no surprise to the chronic downloader.

If they had such published limits you would find a large number of abusers attemption to stick just below max, which does NOT solve the problem. The issue is one of chronic misuse and not of exceeding some arbitrary limit.

Actually, AT&T (which Comcast has a close affiliation with) is known to be working on sniffing packet streams for copyrighted content and prosecuting based upon such information. You would be well advised to use encryption if you are illegally working with such material that is travelling over the AT&T backbone.

AOL set this precedent almost a decade ago and it is an old argument at this point.

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Thomas T. Veldhouse) wrote in news:s5dFi.1303$ snipped-for-privacy@textfe.usenetserver.com:

If there's a maximum and you keep your use below the maximum, then you're not an abuser.