Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs: | Is this any surprise?
Didn't we already know that? |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
2 edits | Baloney!
I wrote this the last time this was posted to DSLR -- »Friday Morning Links --, and I suppose it bears repeating. The Register author is lying.
The Register article seems to be based, entirely, on a completely false premise and assertion -- that the EFF "agrees" that some sort of bandwidth restrictions (over and above the contracted bandwidth) are acceptable and/or necessary.
"It is true that some broadband users send and receive a lot more traffic than others, and that interfering with their traffic can reduce congestion for an ISP," they write. Which leaves them, ultimately, only quibbling over the methods the cable giant uses. "Interfering with their traffic can reduce congestion" is similar to saying "shooting bullets at your neighbors' heads reduces wait times at the local supermarket".
It's simply an observation -- it doesn't mean the writer agrees with it! What a stupid, stupid false premise for the article.
Yeah, so today's "top talker" on the network is BitTorrent traffic; tomorrow it might be something you value. If ISP's don't want to provide the bandwidth they're selling at the price they're quoting, they should stop offering the service. Everything else is a load of crap.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| The solution is simple, be UP FRONT about limitations
Instead of burying vague restrictions deep within an AUP:
Don't promise "crazy-fast" speeds that the network can't support.
Admit to the traffic shaping and inform users up front exactly how the traffic shaping works and what protocols they're going after instead of lying about it until caught by a few users and the AP.
Control hogs by implementing easy to understand an monitor usage caps instead of traffic shaping popular apps into the ground regardless of usage and then give the option to BUY more usage. Let the hogs support their usage habits without casual users apps running like ass. Cox does it, so can Comcast.
Don't accuse people of network abuse without clearly defining what "abuse" is.
IOW, instead of hiding all the BS, make the policies and advertising CRYSTAL clear and fair.
--
Help keep cable rates low; support "Big Cable" in their fight against the extortionists at the NFL Network! |
|
Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
 ·buckeye cable
| My sentiments exactly. Unfortunately, just like so many other industries, most ISP's allow their marketing vultures to get away with murder... all in the name of bringing in numbers.
I concede that they're a necessary evil but I can't stand sales people.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
3 edits | reply to B
Re: Baloney!
They are saying that, since they have a flawed technology (docsis1.1), the rest of the internet should conform to thier corporate wishes and desires on thier crippled network.
Instead of them adhering to US network neutrality standards.
History
In 1860, a US federal law subsidizing a coast-to-coast telegraph line stated that
“ ...messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the government shall have priority. ”
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_ne···#History |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Camelot One
Re: Is this any surprise?
said by Camelot One  :Didn't we already know that?
Are you asking, didn't we already know the EFF was wrong? The answer to that is no. Network neutrality is a sound principle and Comcast is violating it.
The EFF may admit that some restraint of usage is acceptable if it's necessary to maintain usability of the network for everyone. Even so, neutrality remains a sound principle and Comcast's practice is not justified.
The fact that DOCSIS 1 cable modems can't handle a certain amount of outbound traffic when there is a certain amount of contention was news to many of us - we didn't "already know this". However, it does not justify stomping on all buttorrent seeding to non-Comcast peers, regardless of how much traffic there is on the node and regardless of how little the user may be claiming in general.
What it does mean is that DOCSIS 1 cable modems are inadequate to deliver the advertised bandwidth a reasonable portion of the time for the variety of normal internet activities of Comcast's user base. It is the ISPs responsibility to avoid advertising more than it can deliver, to disclose caps when it is luring customers, and to treat customers equitably.
ISPs should be prevented by law from discriminating by the contents or destinations of packets. This would not prevent any necessary network management; it would only require them to do it by equitable means. |
|
TakeEmDown
@comcast.net
 from:
Cabal
TKJunkMail
| The EFF is a self-serving bunch of cronies IMNHO
Anyone who wants to find out what the EFF really is should do a little background search. They don't represent me or the masses they represent special interests that are in conflict with civility and even certain laws based on past experience. |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| reply to DotMac4
Re: The solution is simple, be UP FRONT about limitations
said by DotMac4 :Instead of burying vague restrictions deep within an AUP: Don't promise "crazy-fast" speeds that the network can't support. Admit to the traffic shaping and inform users up front exactly how the traffic shaping works and what protocols they're going after instead of lying about it until caught by a few users and the AP. Control hogs by implementing easy to understand an monitor usage caps instead of traffic shaping popular apps into the ground regardless of usage and then give the option to BUY more usage. Let the hogs support their usage habits without casual users apps running like ass. Cox does it, so can Comcast. Don't accuse people of network abuse without clearly defining what "abuse" is. IOW, instead of hiding all the BS, make the policies and advertising CRYSTAL clear and fair. That wouldn't stop most people here from whining.
But with such great ideas why are you not in the buisness trying to implement them? |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
1 edit | said by LeftOfSanity :But with such great ideas why are you not in the buisness trying to implement them? 'Cause I'm doing just fine in the cold header tooling biz. Meanwhile other providers have already implemented truth in advertising. Comcast just can't seem to figure it out. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | This is an expert?
Some expert. He produces a tale of sound and fury signifying nothing. The article is just a diversion and doesn't address Comcast's actions at all, except to say that they work to reduce traffic and are therefore justified. |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH | reply to TakeEmDown
Re: The EFF is a self-serving bunch of cronies IMNHO
I respectfully disagree.
EFF pretty faithfully represents my views about striking a balance between public/private attributes of the Internet.
/tom |
|
serge666
join:2004-06-07
Little Falls, NJ | expert??
since when were people from the register(sister site of TheInquirer) considered experts???
their reporting on the subject is just as shallow as the evidence they present. :/ |
|
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
from:
tschmidt
| Classic bennett.
Those who have come across his blog or his posts at places like the lessig site, will recognize the style and the haughty tone immediately.
He is contemptuous of use of the word forged? The isp, is sending packets that are disguised to look as if they are coming from the two communicating parties to trick them into resetting the connection when neither party wanted to. This behavior fits well within the normal human understanding of forgery. Is he denying that this is what they are doing? I don't think even the company is denying it, at this point.
Quibbles, potato patahto. Use techniques that these companies have used to control abusive customers for quite a long time or create a new policy deceitfully sabotaging connections of particular applications for masses of people. Why quibble? It's all the same in the end. One less problem. For someone with such a withering contempt for "utopians" and their their talk of internet freedom, such details are insignificant. But why should we accept richard bennett's underlying assumption that the internet should adapt to the technical limitations of the cable system, which was designed as a one way medium? The only reason that we are even considering this possibility is because of the extent to which a duopoly controls 97% of residential and small business internet access in america, which should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.
"The issue that destabilises cable modem networks is not strictly related to bandwidth: a lot of short packets are worse for the network than a smaller number of large packets consuming more bandwidth.
That's why the EFF's suggestion about dynamic bandwidth caps, even if it were possible to implement, wouldn't solve the problem."
I see. Complain endlessly about bandwidth hogs and how bandwidth hogs are destroying the internet and then, when people have bought into this set up, laugh at them for being fools who don't understand that it isn't a bandwidth problem. Ha Ha you are so clever and we are so stupid. You're a slick operator, take your bows.
"In other words, the internet's traditional method of ensuring fairness doesn't work any more"
Why doesn't it work any more? Because of the limitations of the cable network architecture? Could it be that it doesn't work, not because there is some fundamental conceptual flaw, but because it is in the interest of the companies that control access to exacerbate scarcity problems to rationalize their increasingly obtrusive control?
"but remain fully committed to the religious view that the internet's protocols were born fully-formed and inviolate in the mind of a virgin engineer in Bethlehem some 40 years ago"
Yes these companies desire for control, is innovation in the face of the old curmudgeons who are still fixated with outmoded ideas like maintaining openness and freedom. The contemptuous references to a 2000 year old religion, an added bonus.
"Like many advocacy groups dealing with technical subjects, the EFF represents the view that technologies are meant to liberate the human spirit from the chains of exploitation"
Yes, what an appalling thought. I'm glad the richard bennetts are here to free us from hundreds of years of enlightenment thought and humanist delusion and to usher in the new age of... what? Is technology supposed to be our master rather than our servant? Are humans to be seen as existing to serve technological change? what are technologies for then, if not to increase human liberty and to serve the needs of those humans? To serve comcast profits? |
|
moresuo
join:2001-08-26
Stewartsville, NJ
| reply to B
Re: Baloney!
The Register article if flawed on its face as the premise it draws its conclusions on is flawed.
All one has to go on is the technology, as it is currently understood, and the history of the players involved.
The technology, as understood, allows the backbones enough bandwidth at this time as there is no need to play favorites among those sending and receiving. All the bit bucketing and pipe narrowing takes place below the backbone near the end user. Such throttle backs aren't necessary and when compared against the history of the AT&T, Comcast, etc, etc, players seen for what they are: attempts at revenue generation.
Not that I wouldn't put a little editorializing past them when targeting bit torrent traffic to throttle back on. That's just gravy though.
If you accept the ability to truncate traffic due to what it carries, it can be bit torrent today and anything else tomorrow. It becomes too late, you see, as you've already bought into the premise.
Traffic must be traffic, must be traffic. All the same. Only in this way can we assure that everyone gets a far shake and the "internets' aren't treated as the private property of several large corporations operating its backbone. |
|
moresuo
join:2001-08-26
Stewartsville, NJ
| The EFF
In the seventeen years I have been aware of their presence and their work I have found the EFF to be, far more often than not, on the side of clear thinking and common sense in regard to their policy points on how to handle this evolving technology.
In a time when there are so many politicians making laws and policy, totally unaware of how their decisions are impacting their electorates, the EFF is a vital contributor to the raising of social conscience. Their lobbying efforts alone make them worth every penny invested in it.
Their working with individual corporations when they step over lines or cause concerns to privacy in their actions is another vital component of their work. [Getting Sony to not only acknowledge their huge error in their "root kit solution" to media piracy, but to offer a fix and recompense to those whose computers might have been damaged by it is just one example].
The EFF, and organizations like it, are a necessary balance to corporate greed and those who would run away with emerging technology, either hording it for themselves or using it to profit unreasonably at the expense of 'the little guy'.
I gladly make my yearly contribution. |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| reply to swhx7
Stop misusing "Network Neutrality"
Network Neutrality refers to ISPs double dipping on charging/extorting fees for both users paying for their connections and web sites paying for prioritization of traffic according to origination and destination. It does not refer to protocol-based QoS. It does not mean a flat, unmanaged, unQoS-ed Internet. By repeatedly and deliberately misusing this phrase, its importance is being weakened.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to tschmidt
Re: The EFF is a self-serving bunch of cronies IMNHO
That's the problem: EFF represents a view, not the perspective of fairness. EFF is ultra-consumerist, and clearly is willing to sacrifice intellectual integrity to prosecute their collective personal preferences. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Cabal
Re: Stop misusing "Network Neutrality"
said by Cabal :Network Neutrality refers to ISPs double dipping on charging/extorting fees for both users paying for their connections and web sites paying for prioritization of traffic according to origination and destination. It does not refer to protocol-based QoS. It does not mean a flat, unmanaged, unQoS-ed Internet. By repeatedly and deliberately misusing this phrase, its importance is being weakened. Good point. But many commentators like to use the current "hot cause" and try to make it cover every little pet peeve they have about the internet. So they try to make "network neutrality" become the umbrella for the anarchy that they favor.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
|
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Cabal
1. It's true that impartial QoS is not considered a violation of network neutrality. However, if you read the articles you'd find that Comcast's excuse for packet-forging is precisely the fact that QoS doesn't work in the congested-node upstream situation with cable modems.
2. Your definitions are wrong. The double-dipping is one motivation for neutrality violations, but selective throttling itself can be an abusive practice regardless of whether the ISP tries to charge third parties for not having it imposed on them.
3. Comcast's practice would have been acceptable if it had been merely prioritizing other traffic over bittorrent, only when congestion required it. That's legitimate network management and consistent with neutrality, and it would have solved the problem. Instead Comcast totally prevented seeding to non-Comcast peers, regardless of the state of the network. This punishes innocents and prevents a legitimate use of the connection the customers are paying for. It's the discrimination by destination, and in excess of requirements that is out of bounds. |
|
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
1 edit | It Is All Mute
The people who this affects are in breach of the Comcast residential terms of service they have agreed to abide by, leaving them unable to hold Comcast to any particular level of service commitment.
Here are a few excerpts from Comcast's actual terms of service to wet your appetite.
Terms of Service
»:/www.comcast.net/terms/index.jsp
Subscriber Agreement
»:/www.comcast.net/terms/subscriber.jsp
7. USE OF SERVICES
You agree that the Services and the Comcast Equipment will be used only by you and the members of your immediate household living with you at the same address and only for personal, residential, non-commercial purposes, unless otherwise specifically authorized by us in writing.
b. Prohibited Uses of HSI. You agree not to use HSI for operation as an Internet service provider, a server site for ftp, telnet, rlogin, e-mail hosting, "Web hosting" or other similar applications, ...
Acceptable Use Policy
»:/www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
PROHIBITED USES AND ACTIVITIES
Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment to:
xiv. 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;
--
Be a Good Netizen - Read, Know & Honor Your ISP Terms of Service
Comcast: »www.comcast.net/terms/index.jsp
Verizon: »onlinehelp.verizon.net/consumer/···0707.pdf |
|
