Thou shalt not question Comcast

[jkinz-+hffLmS/kj4 at public.gmane.org (jkinz-+hffLmS/kj4 at public.gmane.org)]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:24:34AM -0500, Matthew Gillen wrote:
> jkinz-+hffLmS/kj4 at public.gmane.org wrote:
> > So my final thought is that ISP's are just using an arbitrary 
> > label of server to give themselves a simple tool for controlling
> > excess bandwidth use and stopping undesired traffic/uses of their
> > network.
> 
> I don't buy the excess bandwidth argument, at least in Comcast's case.
> They've already decided that they're going to go with aggregate usage
> tracking, and anyone who uses more than 250GB of transfer in a month will be
> cut off, regardless of whether you were sending email or downloading songs
> (their FAQ says the 250GB limit would allow you:
>     * Send 50 million plain text emails (at 5KB/email)
>     * Download 62,500 songs (at 4 MB/song)
>     * Download 125 standard-definition movies (at 2 GB/movie)
>     * Upload 25,000 hi-resolution digital photos (at 10 MB/photo)
> )
> 
> So there's no longer a 'bandwidth' reason for the no-server-rule.  

Oh absolutely right, and I don't really think it was ever really
valid. I think it was just a position argument. 

And yet all
> of a sudden they've gotten a lot stricter about it (I ran all my servers
> happily on their residential service for over 3 years).  Curious, no?
> 
> As a side note, I think it's pretty amusing that one of the biggest
> spam-originating networks in the world uses the example of being able to "send
> 50 million emails" and still stay within their bandwidth cap.  :-)
> 
> Matt
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

--