Comcast!?!?

Jerry Feldman gaf at blu.org
Fri Nov 9 20:35:59 EST 2007


Why I do agree that Comcast violated Net Neutrality, I do want to
mention that Comcast and all their previous cable companies, AT&T BB,
Mediaone and Continental Cable Vision had a no server clause. One of
the original reasons was that cable TV systems had a very low
available bandwidth for upload. I'm not sure if this restriction still
exists. I have never had them block any of my incoming ports including
80. On the up side, my cable has had virtually no downtime since
Comcast took over from AT&T BB. The bottom line for me is that they
provide me with a very reliable class of service with good download
bandwidths. I've been downloading SuSE 10.3 for the installfest
tomorrow at a bandwidth of just over 6Mbps. 

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 08:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Joseph <mangg at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hello Ted/everyone,
> 
>   Ted, I respect your opinion but I beg to differ. 
> Comcast is no longer on a vendor list of mine.  First
> it was banning "servers", then bandwidth caps and now
> this.  Net Neutrality is important to me and I make my
> choice know with my $$'s and thats my perogative. 
> Consumers should have input regarding the internet
> they want to see and feel free to demand what they
> want from the companies they support.  Companies
> should recognize that consumers have choice and will
> make it based upon the intersection of their offerings
> and the consumers wants.  



-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix user group
http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9
PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20071109/3e285a0c/attachment.bin 


More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list