<br><br><p><DEFANGED_div><DEFANGED_span class="gmail_quote">On 10/21/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">john-thomas richards</b> <<a href="mailto:jtr@jrichards.org">jtr@jrichards.org</a>> wrote:</DEFANGED_span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" DEFANGED_style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 07:28:58PM -0400, Bob Kline wrote:<br> Based on my<br>understanding this company would lose common carrier status and would then be<br>liable for illegal activities on its network. Thus, it *is* illegal for
<br>Comcast to want to limit how I use my internet connection.<br><br>Then again, I may be all wet. :-)<br><br>[snip, snip, and more snip]<br>--<br>john-thomas<br>------</blockquote><p><DEFANGED_div><br>It's pretty clear that Comcast is not very
<br>proud of what it's doing. Now that it has <br>been definitively found out, maybe concerned<br>customers will look in to the legal status of its<br>actions. I understand that customers cannot<br>run their Internet connects full bore, 24/7/365,
<br>but Comcast needs to be more upfront about<br>its policies - good, bad, or in between.<br><br>It annoys many that the telcos and cable <br>companies assure Congress that net neutrality<br>legislation is not needed, only to show that is
<br>a cynical attempt to help ensure that Congress <br>does nothing.<br><br>Now to see what Congress does, and whether<br>it comes down on our side or the Industry's.<br><br>I think I know, but hope otherwise. I'd like to
<br>see the gov't have its own high speed backbone<br>for for Internet traffic, and then just contract <br>companies to run it. This has been done with<br>other gov't communications system. FTS 2000,<br>a private gov't phone system. And no doubt
<br>Internet2, which none of us can use unless we<br>work at a school or lab.<br><br>But we can pay for it....<br><br>The world is tiered in all kinds of different ways.<br><br> -Bob<br><br></p><DEFANGED_div><br></p><DEFANGED_div><br>