Do you honestly consider dialup to be a legitimate alternative to Comcast broadband?
In *most* (as in virtually all) Comcast markets, DSL is available. To say that *most* (as in virtually all) Comcast customers do not have a reasonable alternative is just not reality.
For a lot of us, that means ditching internet service, as our only other option is to have our data transported through the tubes by invisible magic bit-fairies.
I'm sorry, it may be true in your case, but I think that in most Comcast markets, DSL (or even Dial-Up) is available.
Do you really think if people had an alternative they would be using comcast?
Yes, I do. And there are alternatives with the dish providers.
It's pretty likely that the people that use p2p regularly do not represent a significant number of Comcast customers. The point is that a relatively SMALL number of Comcast customers use a relatively LARGE slice of their network to transmit p2p traffic, some of which competes with Comcast products. Honestly, did you expect them to sit there and do nothing?
Yes but even as a land lord there are strong restrictions on your ability to evict people. It can take weeks or months after a violation is identified.
Look, the landlord analogy doesn't apply, Interweb access isn't the same at all. Comcast sells a consumer service over its own equipment which is not a "common carrier". It's not a house. You're not just "sitting" on their service. There is a contract. Part of the contract allows Comcast to restrict ("throttle") p2p if they want. Maybe it's at the request of media providers, maybe because of the way cable networks function, it actually does degrade the service. It doesn't matter, Comcast can turn it off completely if they want. It's life.
While the cable is theirs, they have leased it - or some capacity on it - to the customer, and are now actively and purpsefully preventing the customer from using the service he has bought. Leased? I don't think so. And, did you read the contract for service when you signed it? It describes the services that Comcast is offering you, and probably Comcast's rights to do whatever the fuck they like, and so on. I'll bet there is a berbage about restricting services that in their opinion degrade their system.
I wonder if such a clause wouldn't be ruled unconsciable
Unconscionable? Is that illegal? I thought most publically traded companies where Unconscionable.
Your house, your rules, but if you rent it to someone else, you can't bar them from entering.
As a landlord, you most certainly can put restictions on what types of activities are acceptable in / on your properties.
After Comcast loses all their customers to DSL, will they complain about [whatever DSL company]'s unfair monopoly advantage?
This is exceptionally unlikely to happen. The social groups that Slashdot folks circulate in are not the average. I know it's hard to believe, but very few of Comcast's customers give a shit about BitTorrent of p2p, even if they where aware of their existence. Most of Comcast's customers are average low-volume (if at all) computer users who have Comcast to view television, and picked up Interweb connectivity as part of a package.
Comcast has decided that p2p degrades their system, for them it's more of a technical issue than a political one (though I'm sure the **AA Gestapo have been in touch with them).
From wikipedia: "Internet Service Providers generally wish to avoid being classified as a "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so. Before 1996, such classification could be helpful in defending a monopolistic position, but the main focus of policy has been on competition, so "common carrier" status has little value for ISPs, while carrying obligations they would rather avoid. The key FCC Order on this point is: IN RE FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE, 13 FCC Rcd. 11501 (1998), which holds that ISP service (both "retail" and backbone) is an "information service" (not subject to common carrier obligations) rather than a "telecommunications service" (which might be classified as "common carriage")."
Comcast isn't a "common carrier". Also, their cable, their rules, don't like it, ditch Comcast. Now, IANAL, but maybe your argument would apply to DSL, being over the phone lines and all.
Like many people in the "entertainment" world, George Lucas is a megalomaniac, and needs constant "action" to feel personally validated. At a certain point these guys didn't really need any more money, but a fate worse than being poor again would be to fade into the past. These people live exclusively in the Here and Now, the past is death.
Most people can't afford a full version of Photoshop, but they may be willing to pay a small fee to use "Photoshop Lite" online (or perhaps it will be add-supported).
For many people this is not necessary. Photoshop Elements comes with quite a few mid to high range digital cameras...
When the patch includes source, why not? Just check the source a bit and recompile (ignore the prebuilt binary):)
Why yes, of course. We're all Windows source code experts! Hell, why bother with someone elses patch at all? Do it the GNU / Open Source way, just write it ourselves!
You people take yourselves WAY too seriously. It's a BLOG. And over time, it's got worse and worse. Now it's a shitty blog with advertisements that masquerade as stories. More or less like Wikipedia, good for not much more than trivia.
God what an ass kiss! I mean, read that post in the context of Slashdot:
I don't want to start a holy war here
And...
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems
And...
Vista lovers, flame me if you'd like...
I'm sorry, but if you where not going for "holy war", than you where going for what essentially constitutes a Slashdot Blowjob.
Zero meaningful content, AC.
My son tried logo, because his school had it and thought it would be instructive for the more able students. He was utterly bored, and is now learning python in his own time.
Logo was good, but...
So really, LOGO wasn't all that "good". Why then does it have a "following"? Is it just one of those "touchy/feely" ideas that where hatched as a way to "enlighten" the world, but ultimately fail the "any shred of practical use" test? Like the $100 Laptop that is in fact a crippled toy?
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty likely that the people that use p2p regularly do not represent a significant number of Comcast customers. The point is that a relatively SMALL number of Comcast customers use a relatively LARGE slice of their network to transmit p2p traffic, some of which competes with Comcast products. Honestly, did you expect them to sit there and do nothing?
Comcast has decided that p2p degrades their system, for them it's more of a technical issue than a political one (though I'm sure the **AA Gestapo have been in touch with them).
From wikipedia: "Internet Service Providers generally wish to avoid being classified as a "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so. Before 1996, such classification could be helpful in defending a monopolistic position, but the main focus of policy has been on competition, so "common carrier" status has little value for ISPs, while carrying obligations they would rather avoid. The key FCC Order on this point is: IN RE FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE, 13 FCC Rcd. 11501 (1998), which holds that ISP service (both "retail" and backbone) is an "information service" (not subject to common carrier obligations) rather than a "telecommunications service" (which might be classified as "common carriage")."
Comcast isn't a "common carrier". Also, their cable, their rules, don't like it, ditch Comcast. Now, IANAL, but maybe your argument would apply to DSL, being over the phone lines and all.
As with other transitions to Web based, what about people like me who do a lot of stuff while commuting or otherwise not attached to the Mother Ship?
Rethink the Registry? Please?
Hahhaaaha ha ha... Should you really be trusting patches from "unknown" sources? Come on!
You people take yourselves WAY too seriously. It's a BLOG. And over time, it's got worse and worse. Now it's a shitty blog with advertisements that masquerade as stories. More or less like Wikipedia, good for not much more than trivia.
It's a shame that Open Source chooses names that turn most people off.
No suckin' the right cocks I guess.