Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
So Comcast wishes to avoid defaming others. How noble of them. Not! Do they really expect us to believe that? What a bunch of crooks. This is the same Comcast that has been interfering with their customer's communications (by disconnecting peer-to-peer transactions). This is the same Comcast that paid people to pack an FCC public hearing to prevent supporters of Net Neutrality from participating (see http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20080228_Comcast_admits_paying_attendees_at_FCC_hearing.html) These are the actions of a fundamentally corrupt enterprise.
Shooter, you are truly oblivious to irony, aren't you?
Irony? You and Timberman possess all the subtlety of prize hogs at the county fair. Ignoring something isn't being oblivious.
Your ignorance of irony was in you chastising someone for not being able to make a coherent point. As you rarely are coherent yourself, I found this to be ironic. You didn't grasp that, unsurprisingly.
As for why you ignore certain posts, you don't need to explain as it's painfully obvious. There are many, many, many arguments you cannot address in your quest to add snark and meaninglessness to the debate here.
To reiterate, network neutrality should mean that providers can offer various types of connections with various speeds, different mixes of various classes of services, etc., at various price points; what I do with the connection I purchase is my business.
Since the provider has sold me a connection with a specific profile, the provider has no issue in figuring out how to engineer its network. My choices on how I use my connection do not degrade anyone else's service. The various Robot-3 objections are irrelevant.
How to put together and market these various connections, hiding the technical details which most people won't follow, is an issue for the provider to solve. Hopefully, an Apple-like company will figure this out rather than a IBM-like company.
To reiterate, the version of network neutrality that says every IP packet is treated the same is a red herring, flies in the face of reality, and is pushed only by people who either do not understand the issue, or else want to sabotage network neutrality by posing an impossible version of network neutrality.
Oh, I agree with you, and think I said that. What I was saying is that there is more to the (useful) equation than "guaranteed bandwidth" and "peak bandwidth". They may be convenient marketing concepts, but from a technical perspective miss the boat in some instances.
I think that marketing based on QoS classifications and specs for these might be the solution.
I stated specifically in a prior post that I think that the carriers should be allowed to charge on QoS class (and that the common carriers should implement such classes), but not on whose traffic it is (customer or provider).
Implementing QoS on a cross-network basis would make the statement that "all packets are the same" untrue (but sadly, for the present mish-mash we have, and in the absence of end-to-end QoS implementations, differential treatment of packets is inconsistent at best).
FWIW, you'll probably note that I'm in the telecom field too. I've done work with major and minor carriers both here and abroad (and in fact, I'm up in the "51st state" this week). I won't ask who you work for. ;-)
Cheers,
[Comcast lawyer-speak]: Moreover, all of the lawsuits for which you have provided links are civil suits that would not result in criminal liability, even if decided against the defendants.
50 USC § 1809 and § 1810 both cover the same underlying acts. In fact (and in particular), the civil damages provision (§ 1810) references violations of the criminal statute, § 1809, in specifying what acts can be redressed thorough civil damage suits:
An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover -
(a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater;
(b) punitive damages; and
(c) reasonable attorney's fees and other investigation and
litigation costs reasonably incurred.
To prevail in court, the plaintiffs would have to show that the actions prohibited by § 1809 had in fact occurred. That the maladministration refuses to prosecute itself or the telcos is irrelevant. And in fact, if some telco employees participated in illegal activities, it's not at all clear that they wouldn't be in jeopardy of criminal prosecution if we didn't have a dysfunctional Department of "Just Us".
Cheers,
on his blog, "Attytude," at the Philadelphia Daily News today.
In fact, he also invites his readers to pass along to their family, friends and neighbors the ad that Comcast still refuses to run.
Here's the link to today's post, if you want to check him out:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Watch_the_ad_that_Comcast_doesnt_want_you_to_see.html
Sorry, that should have been "Attytood!"
Didn't we already see this movie? It was supposed to be fictitious. Something about a World War?
Comcast deeply appreciates citizen concerns regarding alleged wiretapping under the FISA laws. For our part, it is a matter of public record that we have not made our systems available to the government for any customer surveillance without valid legal process, and we have not lobbied on FISA legislation.
What is a matter of public record exactly? That some Concast lawyer put out a public statement claiming that Concast wasn't involved in any illegal surveillance? Is that the extent of the "public record?"
By "without valid legal process" do you mean "without the kings say so"? Because that's my bet. King BushCo told you it was "legal" because, well, he said so and you went with it correct? Oh yeah and need we point out to you that much of the surveillance was done outside of FISA and thus was illegal? BushCo has admitted as much. Are you actually trying to convince us that none of that extralegal activity involved Concast? I don't buy it. I think there should be some legal action taken to find out the truth. Oh wait, that's right, there already is some in the works.
You better get your bought and paid for congresscritters to get you that blanket immunity. Your very existence may depend on it.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
