Re: [p2pi] Fwd: For those who think "User Fairness/Cost Fairness"is unacceptable...

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Livingood, Jason <
Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com> wrote:

>  One question inline below.
> -Jason
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* p2pi-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:p2pi-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Robb Topolski
>
> The only way to win "The Lifeboat Game<http://www.google.com/search?q=lifeboat+game>"
> is to assume that your particular values are better than anyone elses
> values.  And, odds are, you're right.  However, you are also probably in the
> minority of lifeboat passengers who hold that opinion.
>
> So while you're busy deciding who its okay to throw overboard, know that *I'm
> stubbornly going to remain convinced that a person who has paid their bill,
> who has not hacked their modem, who is using applications who have not
> behaved nefariously, and who is acting within the law has every right to the
> next bit of bandwidth as I do.  *I also believe that truly abusive users
> should not be handled through probability guesses enabled by packet
> inspection and throttling, but with evidence, due process, and the entire
> termination of their service.
>
> So here's a technical operations question for you then.  What do you do
> with the users of a network who may have "hacked their modem" (using your
> terms) or who is using apps that are behaving "nefariously," and who may *
> not* be "acting within the law?"  It sounds like you are suggesting that
> these are some specific and reasonable corner cases when applying reasonable
> network management may well be appropriate, provided a due and open process
> for determining and communicating this.  And that in some extreme cases
> (perhaps the "acting within the law" parameter you suggested), that this may
> result in termination of service.  To follow this logic you have suggested,
> it would *not*  be reasonable to apply such policies *unless *a user
> essentially knew such limits or whatever *beforehand* (transparency needed
> in advance).
>
> I was talking about network abuse and the commission of acts that ought not
require policies prohibiting them.  I was also talking about the wedge
tactic that pits one user against another in an effort to create "sides" in
a debate.

As to how Comcast should respond to a user innocently exceeding clearly
communicated service limits in an agreement is another subject.

-- 
Robb Topolski (robb@funchords.com)
Hillsboro, Oregon USA
http://www.funchords.com/