NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: The real issue in the Comcast case

To name the TOS/FCC disagreement as the "real issue" seems to call
everything else "non issues."  I disagree.
> "/b. Prohibited Uses of HSI. You agree not to use HSI for 
> operation as an Internet service provider, a server site for 
> ftp, telnet, rlogin, e-mail hosting, "Web hosting" or other 
> similar applications, for any business enterprise, or as an 
> end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network."/
> They obviously have BitTorrent seeds nailed, because that's a 
> "similar application" to an ftp server. 

You correctly said in another message that this has been argued to death.
One can interpret that section to mean "don't resell, or run a public
account-controlled service (such as an FTP site or Telnet BBS) on Comcast

The phrase "or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide
area network" might be interpreted to mean that you can't use Comcast HSI to
complete any connection on the Internet!

It's vague and overbroad.  Reasonable people can read it and interpret it
completely differently.  It probably has morphed over time, and the original
intent has been lost over the span of the modifications.  Now it means
anything that anybody wants it to mean (which works fine for Comcast).

> Once again, the FCC says you can run any application you 
> want, and Comcast says you can't run servers. That's the 
> conflict that needs to be resolved.

I just learned about that FCC policy statement because it was mentioned in
the PublicKnowledge filing.  I agree with you on this point, the TOS should
have been changed to comply with it. Since Comcast was a player in those FCC
proceedings, I can only presume that they agreed with that language at the

 -- Robb Topolski