But just to double-check, I have an attorney friend who focuses on technology issues. I forwarded this to him, and according to him, the only provision you listed that might apply is the third one. However, the fourth one immediately negates it. Furthermore, due to the technical issues of TCP, the third provision is essentially unenforceable, which is why the fourth provision is there.

So, yes, Bittorrent itself is fair game, and Comcast was out of line.

–SYG

• restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or otherwise disrupt or cause a performance degradation, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to the Service or any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) host, server, backbone network, node or service, or otherwise cause a performance degradation to any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) facilities used to deliver the Service;

• resell the Service or otherwise make available to anyone outside the Premises the ability to use the Service (for example, though wi-fi or other methods of networking), in whole or in part, directly or indirectly. The Service is for personal and non-commercial residential use only and you agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider or for any business enterprise or purpose (whether or not for profit);

• use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network (“Premises LAN”), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;

• use or run programs from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN, except for personal and non-commercial residential use;

P2P violates all of these provisions.

He wasn’t “parroting the industry party line,” as the biased account above suggests. Rather, he recognized that in this case Comcast was throttling back bandwidth hogs — a good thing for consumers. It wasn’t blocking any application; it was throttling it. (It would have been justified in blocking P2P, however, because its use violates Comcast’s terms of service. So, it showed great restraint.) Nor was Comcast blocking access to any legal content. (It’s worth noting that the Web site of Free Press, an organization which posted slanderous messages about Comcast and much misinformation about what it was doing, was not blocked at all.)

I’ve placed some of the facts about this issue, as laid out in my testimony at an FCC hearing in March, on my Web site at http://www.brettglass.com/FCC/remarks.html. Also see my filings with the FCC at http://tinyurl.com/2wf6nd, http://tinyurl.com/5elsy5, and http://tinyurl.com/5gfn6p. Reference these URLs for the truth about these issues — not from the point of view of inside-the-Beltway Washington lobbyists but from a hard working local ISP who is fighting to give consumers a real choice.