Re: Comcast blocking p2p uploads

["John C. A. Bambenek" <bambenek () gmail com>]

First, that's not what I learned in my law classes.

Second, the "rent" has conditions (they may not publish them, but that
is entirely different matter which I likely agree with you on).
Comcast is under no obligation to let you misuse their service...
morally, ethically, or philosophically.

Third, the police handle criminal matters, not contract disputes.

It wasn't my analogy to begin with.

I would imagine their AUP is written to allow them to take "any
reasonable measure" to ensure the integrity of their service.

P.S. I don't misuse my service so the debate doesn't effect me.

PPS I think it was requested multiple times to take this debate off
list, let's let it die.

On 10/20/07, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2007, at 10:53 PM, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
>
> > Because you signed up to an AUP that allows what they are doing.
> >
> > That, and in most states, if you rent my house, I can throw you out
> > for no reason given that I give you proper notice and enough time.
> >
> > In this case, if you want to use rental analogies, that's like saying
> > a landlord can't evict you or otherwise take action because you're
> > having loud parties and throwing appliances out windows.  P2P is about
> > the exact opposite of "quiet enjoyment".
>
> I am afraid your skill at analogies is lacking.
>
> First, in most states, you may NOT "throw [me] out for no reason".
> Well, unless you consider "proper notice and enough time" equivalent
> to "wait until the end of the lease".
>
> Second, eviction is totally different than the discussion here.
> Comcast is still taking these people's "rent", an evicted tenant does
> not pay.
>
> Third, the _police_ handle loud parties and vandalism, not the landlord.
>
> Etc., etc.  But the analogy is flawed anyway.  A cable modem is not
> an apartment, and the Internet does not fit well into "normal" modes
> of operation.
>
> If the AUP does not allow this activity, then Comcast has remedies
> detailed in their AUP.  I have not read the AUP, and it is late, so I
> will not do so now.  However, would you care to take a bet about the
> remedies listed?  I would guess it gives Comcast the right to shut
> down the service.  I seriously doubt it gives Comcast the right to
> randomly kill sessions while still billing the full month's rent.
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
> P.S. Careful how far you defend this action lest your own words be
> turned against you.
>
>
>
> > On 10/19/07, Patrick Giagnocavo <patrick () zill net> wrote:
> > > On Oct 19, 2007, at 3:42 PM, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
> > >
> > > > Since when did private companies no longer have the right to
> > > > regulate
> > > > their own property?
> > > >
> > > > I must have missed the Amendment...
> > >
> > > If you want to make a property argument, how do you explain them
> > > denying me my right to enjoy my rental of their property?
> > >
> > > If Comcast were a landlord, they would be interfering with my quiet
> > > enjoyment and my rights in possession.
> > >
> > > Interfering with my traffic rather than blocking it, could lose them
> > > common carrier protection.  They are exerting editorial control, in a
> > > fashion, over what I transmit and receive.
> > >
> > > --Patrick