TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit |  Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral
Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems).
Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| said by TKJunkMail  :Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems). Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly. I agree. It's their network. Move on if you don't like it. |
|
JasonD
@comcast.net
| get over it people
internet access is a privilege you pay a company to provide, not a right. you don't own the line, the equipment, hold the peering contracts, the providers do. traffic over their connections are only as equal as the providers grant. every major providers TOS clearly states this. don't like it? leave. that's how free markets work. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral
Shouldn't Comcast notify the customer about their traffic/usage, rather than interfering with p2p traffic?
Eg. If I flood TCP/ICMP, etc. I'd probably get disconnected until I call up CS.
Not all p2p is illegal.
The only equivalent of p2p I use is called Skype.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
ronnie
join:2001-02-17
34. N 84.7 W
| reply to JasonD
Re: get over it people
said by JasonD :
internet access is a privilege you pay a company to provide, not a right. you don't own the line, the equipment, hold the peering contracts, the providers do. traffic over their connections are only as equal as the providers grant. every major providers TOS clearly states this. don't like it? leave. that's how free markets work.
|
|
WRONG
@nextweb.net
 from:
jmn1207
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral
Trying to tie a particular protocol to piracy is asinine.
BT is an ever increasingly common method for distribution of legal software.
This has nothing to do with Piracy and everything to do with Comcast not being able to support the speeds they advertise.
To compete with telco wireline competition they make these huge multi-megabit promises, then on back side establish these phantom monthly DL caps and institute bandwidth throttling in their struggle to live up to these "BMW" speed claims. |
|
ronnie
join:2001-02-17
34. N 84.7 W
| reply to JasonD
Re: get over it people
said by JasonD :
internet access is a privilege you pay a company to provide, not a right. you don't own the line, the equipment, hold the peering contracts, the providers do. traffic over their connections are only as equal as the providers grant. every major providers TOS clearly states this. don't like it? leave. that's how free markets work.
Kinda like the "unlimited" internet access that really isn't "unlimited", those TOS are the ones you are talking about?
That is why we have the court system. |
|
Madcap
Reformed Forum Troll
Premium
join:2004-06-26
Kenosha, WI
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to JasonD
And to think we share a first name. *shakes his head*
You all seem to have little to no knowledge of the legal uses for sure technology. Let me drop one that get through to the kiddies.
World of Warcraft patches via p2p networking. So when you say "OMGZ mah patch iz slow!" Thank Sandvine.
For the cultured and up and coming,
Free artists and movie makers, as well as software companies that deploy hot fix patches using this protocol are basically shut out. It's well noted that in MANY areas there is not much competition against Comcast, so they can't just "leave it".
Back under your rocks people. Everything from snail mail to passing dvds in class can be used to pirate and steal. You're really, really going to have to get over your "p2p is just for thieves" attitudes. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | This is now the top story on Drudge report
Wow, this story is now the top story on he Drudge report.... |
|
abu maryam
join:2006-05-16
Columbia, MD | Comcast SUCKS
I am so happy that I am not a comcast customer. And if I was I wouldnt think twice about dropping their shady service.
I encourage others to do the same. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by abu maryam :I am so happy that I am not a comcast customer. And if I was I wouldnt think twice about dropping their shady service. I encourage others to do the same. And who are you a customer of that is so much better?
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
1 edit | P2P and Oversubscription are natural enemies
P2P traffic mitigation techniques are not going away anytime soon. Broadband networks are built to accommodate "normal" traffic patterns which have random bursts that tend to balance out the load. That's how with a single 38mbps downstream channel cable companies are able to provision multiple 16mbps connections with everyone appearing to be able to hit their maximum transfer speed.
P2P software operates under the assumption that there's all this "idle" bandwidth available to be tapped for transfers. The problem is that on an oversubscribed network your "idle" capacity tends to be your neighbors' "use" capacity. For being a "free" method of distributing content, P2P has expensive implications on capacity planning and network architecture.
There's only a few approaches to take with this, and any option that gets chosen is going to be unpopular.
1) Throttle traffic types that disrupt the experience for the overwhelming majority of your customer base
2) Convert to a usage-based billing system to fund infrastructure upgrades in areas where heavy use occurs
3) Increase the rates for everyone so that the oversubscription ratios can be lowered. |
|
CKizer
Raptus Regaliter
Premium
join:2003-01-29
Tijeras, NM | Problem solved.
Qwest DSL is up and running. Comcrap has been fired.  |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to JasonD
Re: get over it people
And you can point to a section of their TOS that specifically states that they do this? Why the coverup by Comcast?
I agree that they have the right to do this- but they also have the responsibility to be open about it so that customers can choose services accordingly. If the ability to P2P unhindered is important to some people, they should have the right to know if Comcast is actively hindering BT traffic and take that into account when choosing a service provider. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
internet access is a privilege you pay a company to provide, not a right. you don't own the line, the equipment, hold the peering contracts, the providers do. traffic over their connections are only as equal as the providers grant. every major providers TOS clearly states this. don't like it? leave. that's how free markets work.
Unfortunately your argument is exactly the reason some people think the public should own the line. Those lines already cross our public rights of way and if each line was leased to more than one provider by the public there could be even more competition. |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| reply to CKizer
Re: Problem solved.
said by CKizer :Qwest DSL is up and running. Comcrap has been fired. It's only a matter of time... If all the "hogs" flock to Qwest in your area, they will lose (more) $$ and find some way to address it.
•Caps - why get rid of your high usage customers?
•Shaping - done by many more ISPs than Comcast
•Usage tiers (incremental costs over XMbs,YMbs,ZMbs)
The last is my favorite. If someone doesn't mind sharing their bandwidth with businesses or the world 7x24, then they shouldn't mind paying for it. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral
in some situations it is both. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to Sammer
Re: get over it people
what you said may lead to an onslaught of "guv'ment is bad!" posts. prepare thyself. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
1 edit | reply to dynodb
said by dynodb :Why the coverup by Comcast? That is a good question. I can't see any reason for Comcast to be withdrawn about this, especially considering they took the time to spell it out as something they don't condone in their Terms of Service. Under Prohibited Uses and Activities, item #14:
run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers; Edit: Link to Terms of Use: »www6.comcast.net/terms/use/ |
|
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to LeftOfSanity
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral
said by LeftOfSanity :said by TKJunkMail :Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems). Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly. I agree. It's their network. Move on if you don't like it. Or go Business Class. So far my BT is full power, no limitations, not even using encrypted links. I've pumped out more than 100GB in the last few weeks according to BT counter and the only reason it doesn't go more is because I'm using the built in scheduling to limit transfer rates during the day (business hours) and let it go full throttle at night between midnight and 8:00AM.  |
|
