I use a lot of bandwidth, but am tired of paying...

I pay about $75 a month for my internet. Concast is the "best" option, but they seem to be leading the ISPs against BT users. That is the vast majority of my use, ofc.

I stopped paying for movies, DVDs, etc. about a year ago because I cannot support Industries that are so strongly against internet freedoms.

So, I've been doing some reading about 2.4ghz antennas, cables, load balancing (fail safe redundancy), etc. and I believe I could find a number of open connections, unsecured connections, and not-so-secure :naughty: connections. I don't intend to use large amounts from any one source, BTW. That is why I am looking into the amplification- to boost range and number of sources.

It seems to me that individuals are FAR better off being able to access open connections (lots of gadgets depend on them, honestly), and it is only a myth perpetuated by ISPs that people are STEALING bandwidth.

So, what are your thoughts? Anyone strongly against a soon-to-be "bandwidth thief"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I stopped paying for movies, DVDs, etc. about a year ago because I cannot support Industries that are so strongly against internet freedoms.

---

:lol:

I'm pretty strongly against this sort of thing, especially given that as a filesharer you're using a crapload of bandwidth and most people generally have bandwidth caps. As for using "only a bit from each source", unless you're lucky and living in a specific area there will only be a few Unsecured/WEP/WPA-TKIP connections that you can actually crack, discounting WPA2 and AES as rather hopeless ;)

Basically you're forcing someone else to not only foot the bill for your downloading habits, but you're also forcing legal responsibility onto them if you ever get caught. And if they also have small bandwidth caps, you're making that even smaller for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ca_aok

Basically you're forcing someone else to not only foot the bill for your downloading habits, but you're also forcing legal responsibility onto them if you ever get caught. And if they also have small bandwidth caps, you're making that even smaller for them.

---

This. I don't think it's a good idea to make your neighbors' Internet stop when you leech/seed, possibly legally implicating them if you get caught P2Ping. But then again I illegally download copyrighted stuff. :unsure: I do it with my own connection, though. :lol:

Oh, and same IP, getting into problems if both are members on the same tracker, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinchi11as

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I stopped paying for movies, DVDs, etc. about a year ago because I cannot support Industries that are so strongly against internet freedoms.

---

:lol:

---

Change "cannot" to "will not". Honestly, if I can't get movies/media for free, I don't care enough to worry about them.

And, if it makes anyone feel better, I plan to reduce my monthly use. Would 80-100 GB/month be more palatable? 2/3 of my current monthly 250 GB is used for uploads.

My location overlooks a large portion of the city. There are some trees in the way of a great view (vantage point), but it's a pretty good spot for this. :)

One, let's all change the if you get caught p2ping to if they get caught p2ping.
Two, the open wifi is a solid good defence which is tried and tested.
Three, it's ok to steal movies and other crap but no bandwidth? (You may not have bought all of it but there sure as shit is a bunch of crap you would have bought if you weren't downloading)

Anyways, this isn't something I would do if my isp cracked down on the ole torrent traffic, I would just switch over to a different method of getting files to my computer. I don't know how US isps work but in the UK you can basically pirate all you want on the cheap package. Also seems like you're gonna spend a shitload trying to save a few bucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backie

One, let's all change the if you get caught p2ping to if they get caught p2ping.
Two, the open wifi is a solid good defence which is tried and tested.
Three, it's ok to steal movies and other crap but no bandwidth? (You may not have bought all of it but there sure as shit is a bunch of crap you would have bought if you weren't downloading)

Anyways, this isn't something I would do if my isp cracked down on the ole torrent traffic, I would just switch over to a different method of getting files to my computer. I don't know how US isps work but in the UK you can basically pirate all you want on the cheap package. Also seems like you're gonna spend a shitload trying to save a few bucks.

---

Some good points, backie- pro and con.

One of the main reasons I posted this is the disparity between the users of file sharing who download stuff and the zealous nature of securing their connections. Certainly, open connections should be seen in the same spirit as file-sharing. :D To me, they practically go hand-in-hand.

The costs are less than would be expected. The ultra cheap method would be simply connecting to my 3 neighbors who I can get on the netbook I am using right now.

The next step amounts to a single, directional antenna aimed off the back deck. I have about 120 degrees to play with. Mesh antennas are small and can be had for ~$45. A dish mover (if I am feeling lazy) is another ~$70. A cable attaches to my already owned router for another $35. Total+ $150. About 2 months of current usage fees.

A step higher would include 2 dishes, 2 movers, 2 cables. They would attach to 2 routers going into 2 nic cards (one already on my MB). Windows 7 has built in support for this. However, it would only serve as a redundancy, not a speed doubler.

Concast is one of two options available (second being the phone co.). Concast is the first to impose, and enforce, a monthly cap. I am kinda opposed to this- even if I were not saving money.

Last minute edit- actually, the more 90 year olds who get cut off for "piracy" the better the defense of open-connection becomes! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

And, if it makes anyone feel better, I plan to reduce my monthly use. Would 80-100 GB/month be more palatable? 2/3 of my current monthly 250 GB is used for uploads.

---

That's a shitload to be pawning off on someone else's connection. My monthly cap is a paltry 60GB, I'd be pretty pissed if someone else blew through that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backie

One, let's all change the if you get caught p2ping to if they get caught p2ping.
Two, the open wifi is a solid good defence which is tried and tested.

---

That depends on their country, I'm not sure what legal precedence says on that in the States to be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backie

Three, it's ok to steal movies and other crap but no bandwidth? (You may not have bought all of it but there sure as shit is a bunch of crap you would have bought if you weren't downloading)

---

Uhh, yeah. I've got no problem taking a digital copy I wouldn't have bought anyway from a faceless corporation. Screwing over my next door neighbour for something that has a tangible cost is another story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

One of the main reasons I posted this is the disparity between the users of file sharing who download stuff and the zealous nature of securing their connections. Certainly, open connections should be seen in the same spirit as file-sharing. :D To me, they practically go hand-in-hand.

---

While this is much less common now that most ISPs turn on WEP when installing a modem, many people with unsecured networks simply don't know how to secure them. You have no way whatsoever of knowing whether they're doing something illegal and trying to create plausible deniability, or if you're stealing money from a little old lady who doesn't know what WEP is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Last minute edit- actually, the more 90 year olds who get cut off for "piracy" the better the defense of open-connection becomes!

---

So it's fine to put someone else through the legal system to support your own views...

I would not be screwing anyone over. Chances are quite good that people who cannot figure out how to set up WEP are NOT using anywhere near the monthly cap. I would be using their monthly "headroom".

Also, I never use public trackers. I have only received one notice of infringement, and that was like 2 years ago.

I am saying that the general public will get outraged against a system that turns off their grandmothers from using their email.

You got to watch how many ip's your using as it will look as if your sharing your account.

When I used to run my trojan backdoor loader, I would install utorrent in the background and of course have remote gui setup :P.

Some people would have better speeds than some of the seed boxes offered around here lol....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tv Controls you

You got to watch home many ip's your using as it will look as if your sharing your account.

When I used to run my trojan backdoor loader, I would install utorrent in the background and of course have remote gui setup :P.

Some people would have better speeds than some of the seed boxes offered around here lol....

---

The IP question is an interesting one...

I don't entirely know how an address is assigned. Interestingly enough, last month my personal meter showed I was over by ~100GB. However, when I checked the meter on Concast's site, I was fine. :01:

Apparently, my wireless has been grabbing from my neighbors anyway.

I don't have any interest in installing anything in my neighbors' backdoor. :blink:

Edit-...and how is my plan any different than the 100's of thousands of ipod touch users walking/driving around using unsecured connections?

With comcast you have a 250gb limit between pay periods (1 months)..
I have ran over 250gb a few times and they didn't say anything,
I have a few friends who use over 500 gb a month and just ignores the letters they send... lol

If you want to do it the "correct" way buy business class from them.
As their is no apparent limit....

I used 750GB one month, and I got a call. I've been keeping an eye on it and find it more irritating than anything else. Not only is Concast the proponent of monthly caps, they also shape bandwidth against BT users. I've seen a lot of disconnects while jumping on new torrents that build up to 2+MB/sec.

These actions are anti-customer. We are paying for their service. Well, at least others will be...:shifty:

I had not even thought of jumping ship until they started messing with me. ::ermm:


Edit- and you are correct, TVCY, there is NO monthly cap on business class. I've read everything on their site concerning this. However, I am already paying for the service- they just don't want me to get all of what I am paying for. I certainly am not going to give them more money for being dicks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I would not be screwing anyone over. Chances are quite good that people who cannot figure out how to set up WEP are NOT using anywhere near the monthly cap. I would be using their monthly "headroom".

---

This is in no way a valid assumption. What if they have something like a 2GB cap because they don't use the internet much, and you end up getting them surcharged or cut off? There's no way you can tell what their cap is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Edit-...and how is my plan any different than the 100's of thousands of ipod touch users walking/driving around using unsecured connections?

---

Because you aren't torrenting 80GB off someone's connection, you're checking your email or something using a few MBs tops. Maybe watching a youtube vid. There's a huge difference. If you were without internet for some reason and just needed to keep up with email and such I think it'd be quite different than you have internet but simply can't be assed to pay for it.

It doesn't really matter how IPs are assigned, it would mostly come down to whether they were on the same ISP as you. Same ISP, same city, most trackers would just assume you have a weird dynamic IP range.

I still think this is incredibly immoral and quite frankly I'm surprised at this coming from you. Justify it however you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I used 750GB one month, and I got a call. I've been keeping an eye on it and find it more irritating than anything else. Not only is Concast the proponent of monthly caps, they also shape bandwidth against BT users. I've seen a lot of disconnects while jumping on new torrents that build up to 2+MB/sec.

These actions are anti-customer. We are paying for their service. Well, at least others will be...:shifty:

I had not even thought of jumping ship until they started messing with me. ::ermm:

---

Your describing more of a throttling type of deal.

As when I first hop on a torrent it will be going 2-3 mb/s, then after 20 seconds will stay constant at around 1.8 mb/s.
Although... They are capping us by a lot, if you take a speed test we are using no where near what comcast is capable of providing.

Quote:

---

I still think this is incredibly immoral and quite frankly I'm surprised at this coming from you. Justify it however you like.

---

The way I see it is... Comcast is forcing us to use other peoples connections... They brought this upon us. :P

..But really who are you to judge the morality of this, doing so would just make you a hypocrite.
Either way you look at it, we are all doing something illegal with bandwidth.

Right, I'm going to be accepting morality lessons from the fellow installing trojans on people's computers for the purposes of his own torrenting :whistling

Copyright infringement is just that. Infringing or copying a copyrighted material. Theft is theft, with real and direct consequences to the unwitting person you're stealing from.

But hey, if you enjoy thinking I'm a hypocrite for pointing out you're being a total douche here, whatever helps you sleep at night. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ca_aok

I still think this is incredibly immoral and quite frankly I'm surprised at this coming from you. Justify it however you like.

---

As I mentioned, there are 2 high-speed options in the area. Concast which only offers a 250GB monthly cap, and the phone co. who previously irritated me. Both are HUGE monopolies with tenancies to do whatever they are inclined to their customers.

I know this is an issue for you, because we have discussed your security measures before.

Would it be any more moral if I called this Bandwidth-Sharing? It has a nice ring to it...

I created this thread to get people to look at their actions from a different perspective. You are making the same arguments software companies make for placing protections on their programs. Many end-users suffer for these protections. The arguments are not that different from the other Industries, either.

We are taking things because we want, or are interested in them. These are things we don't want to pay for. Bandwidth-sharing and file-sharing are one and the same. Especially under the specific conditions I have in my situation.

I copy, but I don't steal.

I believe Germany recently required people to protect their connections. This is a serious win for ISPs and coffee shops who get to charge everyone who wants to check their email.


Edit- I want to make it clear that I am not trying to take a moral high-ground, or call anyone, especially my trusted friends, hypocrites. I am throwing this out to the community to look at itself from an angle it may not have considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

As I mentioned, there are 2 high-speed options in the area. Concast which only offers a 250GB monthly cap, and the phone co. who previously irritated me. Both are HUGE monopolies with tenancies to do whatever they are inclined to their customers.

---

Guess what, I have two real options in my area. The phone company with a 60GB soft cap where I have to pay surcharges every month (which I do), or the cable company with a 60GB hard cap where the internet goes bye bye if you hit 60.01GB for the rest of the month. I put up with it. I'd love to have a 250GB cap montly. That's not even available even if I was inclined to pay for it. Telecom in my entire country is a huge monopoly and the companies throttle you, surcharge you, raise your rates with no warning, etc.

Quote:

---

I created this thread to get people to look at their actions from a different perspective. You are making the same arguments software companies make for placing protections on their programs. Many end-users suffer for these protections. The arguments are not that different from the other Industries, either.

---

Actually I'm not. The industry says "you're stealing our product", which is incorrect. I never would have "bought" lets say, Adobe Audition. It costs hundreds of dollars and I use it so infrequently that it'd be a pointless buy. I would however, download it for the occasional usage. Now the company will say "you stole that", but no, I didn't. If I went to Best Buy, took the CD off the shelves, and stuffed it in my pocket and walked out, I'd have stolen it. I deprived someone of a physical copy that cost them money to produce and would roughly equate to a lost sale. If I download a copy, I haven't deprived anyone of anything other than imaginary profit.

On the other hand, if I take my neighbour's bandwidth, I've specifically deprived them of a product they paid for, leaving them to foot the bill for my greed. They may be forced to pay surcharges, they may be cut off from the internet for the rest of the month, they might receive copyright notices from the RIAA/MPAA or their equivalents elsewhere, they might experience constant slow speeds due to your sharing (depriving them of something else they paid for), they might be throttled because of you as well.

This is clear unabased greed. There are no acceptable conditions for your situation. As I said, acceptable would be "I don't have an internet connection but need to be able to access my email/work material until I get one again", not "I don't like my ISP so I'm going to ruin other people's internet connections".

We are copying things we want. You are taking things you want. Enjoy justifying that :frusty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ca_aok

On the other hand, if I take my neighbour's bandwidth, I've specifically deprived them of a product they paid for, leaving them to foot the bill for my greed. They may be forced to pay surcharges, they may be cut off from the internet for the rest of the month, they might receive copyright notices from the RIAA/MPAA or their equivalents elsewhere, they might experience constant slow speeds due to your sharing (depriving them of something else they paid for), they might be throttled because of you as well.

---

Sorry to hear your service is so lousy there.

There are some big differences between our services- 1. Nobody pays for overages. If they did, they would secure their connections immediately. 2. Nobody gets cut off. In fact, the DSL option (phone co.) does not cap their service. 3. The only people who get kicked off of Concast use in excess of 250GB/mo. Concast says that only 1% of the population use that much. So, if they are accurate, I have a 1% chance of effecting someone's connection.

As for limiting their speed, I would be leeching via a wireless connection. That is ALWAYS slower than line speed AND far less than the 2MB/s speed available.

I also realize that if I effect someone too much, they will protect their wireless. Why would I want to kill my host?

Actually, many people in this area, including businesses...intentionally leave their lines open. That way people CAN travel across a city and use their wireless devices. The more people who leave them open, the better for the end user.

Justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinchi11as

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I stopped paying for movies, DVDs, etc. about a year ago because I cannot support Industries that are so strongly against internet freedoms.

---

:lol:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinchi11as

:lol:

---

Change "cannot" to "will not". Honestly, if I can't get movies/media for free, I don't care enough to worry about them.

---

I believe someone when they claim they torrent b/c they cannot afford to pay, they just want shit for free, or something alone the line. But when someone claim they cannot (or will not) pay b/c industries are against "internet freedom" it makes me -> :lol:

To be Morally correct or not is your choice.But stealing is stealing,there is not Justification for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinchi11as

I believe someone when they claim they torrent b/c they cannot afford to pay, they just want shit for free, or something alone the line. But when someone claim they cannot (or will not) pay b/c industries are against "internet freedom" it makes me -> :lol:

---

Why would I support Industries that are ABSOLUTELY trying to take away our abilities to use the internet as we see fit? Do you ever glance at the News section? These Industries have sued children. Run racketeering schemes. Bribed judges. Faked evidence.

Actually, I'll change the first line to, "why would anyone support Industries that are trying to destroy the freest, most equalizing, everything-you-can-imagine, technology ever created?"

They are my enemies; I don't support my enemies. They should be considered our enemies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbyBeats

To be Morally correct or not is your choice.But stealing is stealing,there is not Justification for that.

---

fair point. there's no justification for stealing, which includes torrenting. I still do it though, it's just that i don't try to justify it by claims like "industries are evil" :shifty:

---

If you keep jumping over unsecure wireless connection, your IP history will probably show shitload of different ISP changes. When looked up (which staff will do eventually) they won't notice any country/city change or suspect it's a trade but i'm sure staff will question if the user is safe or not.

So, what this boils down to is...it is ok to download anything we want AS LONG AS we pay a third-party for access to that stuff.

Then I guess I'll make sure I pay for the rental car before robbing a bank.


Edit- I can see already that the majority here find this unacceptable. I am headed to bed, so I'll let this ride for today and see where it goes. I'll leave with a couple of excerpts from PMs sent regarding this thread. I think they might reveal a bit more of my motivations behind this thread...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I have not canceled my service, and I may not. I would be taking a serious reduction in usable bandwidth, and my speed would be VASTLY slower.

I found the topic intriguing, so I trolled it a bit. If you re-read from the title through my first couple posts, I was intentionally inviting opposition. :)

It is actually a viable option here. I would not consider it if anyone would be paying overages, or truly faced trouble.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I do find it interesting where people draw lines. This was an exercise in testing those boundaries, and seeing IF my actions were over that line. The majority of people here who have sounded off tend to agree with you.

If I were to ask the question amongst professors, I would expect these same answers. However, this is a community of people gathered for the purpose of illegal activities. Surely you see the irony here...

---

Have fun. I have. :D

Edit2- Still up, so I'll throw in another PM excerpt...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

We are talking about data here. Both file-sharing AND bandwidth-sharing. I expected more people than did to fall on the side of my arguments. They didn't. I think that is an issue of investment (my money vs their money) than a moral one, honestly. People have an investment in their bandwidth, while companies have investment in their products.

---

MBM, are you Cambodian, Canadian or American or you're everywhere?

I recognize torrentor as person who sit inside grey area because most reason risen is they wouldn't pay or can't pay for copyrighted stuff and how can we get stuff if no pirates buying it at first place. Still stealing is always stealing. Those company are stealing our money too with their crap stuff.

One more paragraph :lol:. How about the rise of seedbox and hosting company biz to stocked pirated stuff? Isn't it money circulated? How can't those company with their anti-piracy policy monetize P2P with new ways?. And If piracy is never exist, the world will be fulfilled with trash because of consumerism, the poor will always poor, the rich will get richer because of information gap (how can a student learn with 300 bucks software).

Sorry for the Off topic, MBM. Actually filesharingtalk isn't a place of gathering for illegal activity because even RIAA do file-sharing talk too.
Nevermind about those i***** seeker (including me). :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ca_aok

Right, I'm going to be accepting morality lessons from the fellow installing trojans on people's computers for the purposes of his own torrenting

---

Hop off your high horse pal, your no better than me nor anyone else on this forum.

See if a usenet subscription with a smaller plan is cheaper. You won't need to 2/3 upload that way.

If your problem is with Comcast's policies, switch to another ISP, even if it isn't the best option in terms of quality.

It's just a dick move to steal bandwidth from your neighbors, especially if you can afford to pay for your own internet, which is made worse by how much bandwidth you know you're going to use torrenting. It's not like you can't afford the cost or just want to check the news and your email a few times a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tv Controls you

Hop off your high horse pal, your no better than me nor anyone else on this forum.

---

I find it amusing that "you pirate so therefore you have no input on morality or legal issues" is being used as an argument here. You pirate as well. Would you not say that murder is wrong? Stealing a car? Kidnapping a child? The world is not separated into the black and white of criminal activity, while one person may shoplift a loaf of bread, that doesn't mean they'll proceed to rob a bank.

In short, I simply made an observation that taking morality advice from someone who's discussed doing something quite immoral in this thread is ridiculous. Squirm around it how you will, the truth still stands.

And that's really what it comes down to. If you think there are no degrees to criminals, and anyone who's done anything wrong in their life has no concept of morality, you have an interesting view on the world.

Although this thread has not gone as I had expected, I find it quite fascinating that there is a near-perfect consensus of people posting who believe it is morally wrong for me to grab this 2.4ghz radio frequency that is floating in the air around me.

It is of no consequence that the company I would no longer be paying is actually a frequent opponent to this community. Even those who are giving me the "out" of paying another company (phone co.), believe I should be paying somebody.

How about this...

Instead of paying Concast, I leech no more than 60GB/mo and divide that among 6 different open connections (10 GB ea) AND I donate that money to...take your pick:

1. An orphanage
2. Children's Leukemia research
3. A homeless shelter
4. A fund that helps poor families receive a computer and internet access

Would any of these causes absolve me from my moral deficit? Or should this money ABSOLUTELY go to AN ISP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Although this thread has not gone as I had expected, I find it quite fascinating that there is a near-perfect consensus of people posting who believe it is morally wrong for me to grab this 2.4ghz radio frequency that is floating in the air around me.

It is of no consequence that the company I would no longer be paying is actually a frequent opponent to this community. Even those who are giving me the "out" of paying another company (phone co.), believe I should be paying somebody.

How about this...

Instead of paying Concast, I leech no more than 60GB/mo and divide that among 6 different open connections (10 GB ea) AND I donate that money to...take your pick:

1. An orphanage
2. Children's Leukemia research
3. A homeless shelter
4. A fund that helps poor families receive a computer and internet access

Would any of these causes absolve me from my moral deficit? Or should this money ABSOLUTELY go to AN ISP?

---

IMO it'd be okay only if:
- the owner of the connection wouldn't receive any C&D letters.
- you would leech your stuff when the owner of the connection is not using it.
- the owner of the connection would never reach his/her cap even though you're using it.

The same thing concerns "illegal" p2p: I'd never ever buy any of the shit I download; nobody loses anything.

Quote:

---

In short, I simply made an observation that taking morality advice from someone who's discussed doing something quite immoral in this thread is ridiculous. Squirm around it how you will, the truth still stands.

And that's really what it comes down to. If you think there are no degrees to criminals, and anyone who's done anything wrong in their life has no concept of morality, you have an interesting view on the world.

---

The "degrees to criminals" is on nearly the same level, which was the comment I was making.
I'm saying hacking isn't more/less moral than pirating software (that was cracked by a hacker... ironic isn't it)

Ca aok tell me if your so damn superior to me, why I should take morality advise from you when you pirate software.

Personally I find it hard to take morality advise from someone that Bites the hand that feeds him.

I'm not infecting other people's computers with backdoor software for my own greedy purposes. Pretty simple.

As a pirate, you have to draw the line somewhere if you have any morals at all. I've used other peoples wireless before, to browse the web. I would never pirate material or hack from there though, putting that person at risk.

I steal (digital) files, but I would never rob a store.

You have to draw the line somewhere or you get into what Coaok was saying: you steal, therefor is everything illegal OK to you?

Edit: I also use comcap as my provider. They give you a lot for what you pay compared to other services like DSL. The speeds blow DSL out of the water. Its not a lot to budget considering all the free stuff you can get on the net (legally and illegally) these days...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ca_aok

I'm not infecting other people's computers with backdoor software for my own greedy purposes. Pretty simple.

---

But you'll sit there and download music and software that others pay hundreds of dollars for?

what kind of greedy monster are you!!!

Some weak ass arguments dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by o__O

Some weak ass arguments dude.

---

The points I was making earlier is, if you use comcast and download torrents... You are technically stealing your neighbors bandwidth, that use comcast as their isp.

geez, just mod your modem and get it over with. That way, unsuspecting customers dont get shafted.