3 ms·

I completely agree with you on the false advertising. That said, I think it's disingenuous to compare a residential network connection with a commercial teleco

by count 15y ago

I completely agree with you on the false advertising. That said, I think it's disingenuous to compare a residential network connection with a commercial telecom contract, as they provide fundamentally different things. The cross connect or peering contract you sign at Equinix is radically different in every way from the service agreement you establish with a residential vendor. I disagree with residential connections having a separation of concerns. Cox, Comcast, et. al. ALL provide desktop technical support to get PCs, laptops, ipads, etc. on the Internets. In many cases, exactly like Ma Bell, they own everything but your PC, and provide configuration assistance and technical support for even that. Now, I'm not arguing this is a positive thing, just that it is the reality of the situation in the vast majority of cases. You do NOT have a contract that says 'the demarc is X, with a commit of N Mbps' or the like, you have a contract which says 'you can use this connection and our equipment, and we'll support you, for one device, for this type of usage'. Like it or not, you're not buying a neutral communication line - hell, in many cases, the cable or fiber plant isn't even required to be open to competing service like a LEC has to be.

mindslight 15y ago
You're conflating the internet access that ISPs sell with the PC technical support they're forced to provide so granny doesn't cancel when her ethernet cable gets unplugged. Of course the bundled PC support won't troubleshoot your 20 device home network. For technical users, PC technical support is just an annoying hurdle to clear in order to fix a connectivity problem. I was comparing residential connections to small business connections, which only differ in static IPs and contractual guarantees. Most people engaged in home business activities do not have these connections. You're engaging in 'contract fundamentalism' because you're bringing up all these vestigial clauses inserted by the ISP's legal compiler into their document-that-nobody-reads while ignoring the actual contract, which is determined by the understanding between parties. As far as any user is concerned, the only actions of theirs that matter are whether they pay their bill and whether they set off the ISP's hassle-this-user system. I'm sure many ISPs have clauses about multiple devices, running "servers", piracy, business use, wifi, swearing/offending people, etc. But the only time they even come close to mattering is when the ISP is the target of a legal attack.
- count 15y ago
  What you call fundamentalism, I call 'rule of law'. Nobody cares about you doing 65 in a 55 either, until you either get pulled over or hit somebody. Then all of a sudden that 'understanding' becomes critical. We'll agree to disagree - enjoy your frustration and lack of understanding of how these things work.
  - mindslight 15y ago
    I think you've got the lack of understanding - people adopted internet gateways long before ISPs 'allowed' them to. Contract fundamentalism is orthogonal to the rule of law. Fundamentalism presumes that following the base rules of the system (unbounded contracts) is more important than following the behavioral rules (actual contract law).

by count 15y ago

mindslight 15y ago

You're conflating the internet access that ISPs sell with the PC technical support they're forced to provide so granny doesn't cancel when her ethernet cable gets unplugged. Of course the bundled PC support won't troubleshoot your 20 device home network. For technical users, PC technical support is just an annoying hurdle to clear in order to fix a connectivity problem. I was comparing residential connections to small business connections, which only differ in static IPs and contractual guarantees. Most people engaged in home business activities do not have these connections. You're engaging in 'contract fundamentalism' because you're bringing up all these vestigial clauses inserted by the ISP's legal compiler into their document-that-nobody-reads while ignoring the actual contract, which is determined by the understanding between parties. As far as any user is concerned, the only actions of theirs that matter are whether they pay their bill and whether they set off the ISP's hassle-this-user system. I'm sure many ISPs have clauses about multiple devices, running "servers", piracy, business use, wifi, swearing/offending people, etc. But the only time they even come close to mattering is when the ISP is the target of a legal attack.

count 15y ago
What you call fundamentalism, I call 'rule of law'. Nobody cares about you doing 65 in a 55 either, until you either get pulled over or hit somebody. Then all of a sudden that 'understanding' becomes critical. We'll agree to disagree - enjoy your frustration and lack of understanding of how these things work.
- mindslight 15y ago
  I think you've got the lack of understanding - people adopted internet gateways long before ISPs 'allowed' them to. Contract fundamentalism is orthogonal to the rule of law. Fundamentalism presumes that following the base rules of the system (unbounded contracts) is more important than following the behavioral rules (actual contract law).