hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greed Premium Member join:2003-04-03 Long Beach, CA |
yepAccording to the company, such "critical decisions should not be based on the demands of the vocal minority who make the most noise in public forums." ------------------------ LOL
give want the people want! | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
2 recommendations |
KrK
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 1:41 pm
Re: yepsaid by hopeflicker:According to the company, such "critical decisions should not be based on the demands of the vocal minority who make the most noise in public forums." ------------------------ LOL give want the people want! ROFL Comcast: It's not fair! BroadbandReports.com is ratting us out! /pout | |
|
| | |
NAMEGOESHERE
Anon
2008-Feb-17 5:46 am
Re: yepkaRL +1 COMCAST -1
BBR FTW!!!!! | |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix? Premium Member join:2005-03-14 Woodstock, CT
1 recommendation |
ptrowski
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 12:20 pm
Wording should be clear....Saying reasonable 40+ times doesn't make it clear. Tell the customers what they are doing, don't try to deny what they are doing. That has failed in the past and will fail again. | |
|
| NOYBSt. John 3.16 Premium Member join:2005-12-15 Forest Grove, OR 1 edit |
NOYB
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 4:49 pm
Re: Wording should be clear.... Comcast has already told the customer what they are doing. Read the Comcast TOS & AUP. Comcast TOS & AUP make it very clear the type of use and traffic of Bittorrents is prohibited.
If you are unable to understand them, blame your education, not Comcast.
| |
|
| | ptrowskiGot Helix? Premium Member join:2005-03-14 Woodstock, CT |
ptrowski
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 7:39 pm
Re: Wording should be clear....said by NOYB:Comcast has already told the customer what they are doing. Read the Comcast TOS & AUP. Comcast TOS & AUP make it very clear the type of use and traffic of Bittorrents is prohibited. If you are unable to understand them, blame your education, not Comcast. I beg to differ. It was as clear as you say, these discussions would not be going on. Comcast has and still is cryptic about their wording on their TOS and AUP and their definitions can be interpreted many different ways. Forging packets though is NOT a acceptable way to manage traffic. | |
|
| | |
to NOYB
It's clear if you have a law degree from Harvard, and only in the NEW TOS, the old one said nothing of the sort. That's what they're taking fire for. | |
|
| | |
sillysillysig to NOYB
Anon
2008-Feb-14 4:07 am
to NOYB
said by NOYB:Comcast has already told the customer what they are doing. Read the Comcast TOS & AUP. Comcast TOS & AUP make it very clear the type of use and traffic of Bittorrents is prohibited. If you are unable to understand them, blame your education, not Comcast. lol at your silly sig | |
|
|
Unfortunate
Anon
2008-Feb-13 12:23 pm
This will continuePeople may as well get use to it, all major players that provide internet service seem prepared to start doing the same type of blocking and/or limiting what you can do with your internet.
More of how long will it be before this is put in place everywhere and can it be circumvented? And if it can be circumvented, that is why Time Warner just wants to bill you for usage.
Oh well.. Lose-Lose it seems for the end user in the long run. | |
|
| ajax25 join:2003-12-10 Colonia, NJ |
ajax25
Member
2008-Feb-13 12:28 pm
Re: This will continuesaid by Unfortunate :
People may as well get use to it, all major players that provide internet service seem prepared to start doing the same type of blocking and/or limiting what you can do with your internet.
More of how long will it be before this is put in place everywhere and can it be circumvented? And if it can be circumvented, that is why Time Warner just wants to bill you for usage.
Oh well.. Lose-Lose it seems for the end user in the long run. I don't think we'll see this with FIOS. | |
|
| 1 edit |
to Unfortunate
said by Unfortunate :
People may as well get use to it, all major players that provide internet service seem prepared to start doing the same type of blocking and/or limiting what you can do with your internet.
More of how long will it be before this is put in place everywhere and can it be circumvented? And if it can be circumvented, that is why Time Warner just wants to bill you for usage.
Oh well.. Lose-Lose it seems for the end user in the long run. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought BT would be encrypting data in the next release. And something else never gets brought up, price. I love how Comcast's commercials are quite clever, only to leave out the price of the service. | |
|
newviewEx .. Ex .. Exactly Premium Member join:2001-10-01 Parsonsburg, MD |
newview
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 12:23 pm
I have this gnawing feeling . . .that if Comcast prevails in this investigation, they will use the findings to begin "traffic shaping" other protocols they deem unacceptable. | |
|
| |
dsparil
Anon
2008-Feb-13 12:27 pm
Re: I have this gnawing feeling . . .I just hope the investors win that lawsuit they've been threatening Comcast with not too long ago... How's that going anyway??? | |
|
| 1 edit |
to newview
said by newview:that if Comcast prevails in this investigation, they will use the findings to begin "traffic shaping" other protocols they deem unacceptable. Threats of an FCC investigation are basically toothless, anyway. Do you really believe the FCC will actually put a stop to business as usual while the telco errand boy is still at the helm? He would be treading in awfully shallow water to demonize a business practice that his beloved corporate telco masters will no doubt and have employed themselves. (cough AT&T cough Pearl Jam cough). The throttling of Internet traffic is tantamount to censorship, however, Essentially, Comcrap's version of same is a different stanza of the same song. | |
|
| Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA |
to newview
said by newview:that if Comcast prevails in this investigation, they will use the findings to begin "traffic shaping" other protocols they deem unacceptable. Which will be everything not going to their "commercial partners". | |
|
| | newviewEx .. Ex .. Exactly Premium Member join:2001-10-01 Parsonsburg, MD |
newview
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 1:24 pm
Re: I have this gnawing feeling . . .said by Dogfather:said by newview:that if Comcast prevails in this investigation, they will use the findings to begin "traffic shaping" other protocols they deem unacceptable. Which will be everything not going to their "commercial partners". . . . like VOIP. What better way to stifle competition than to screw with packets to a competing VOIP service in order to convince potential subscribers that Comcast is "better". | |
|
| | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 1:35 pm
Re: I have this gnawing feeling . . .But if ISPs do that, they'll bring the rain of the net neutrality crowd. I doubt we'll see that from ISPs. The direction that ISPs are leaning in regards to capping and/or billing-by-the-byte are much more plausible tactics to "stifle" competition IMO. | |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 12:28 pm
Comcast changed AUP to admit to Connection tamperingComcast already took one of the complaints to the FCC and made it moot. It changed their policy allowing them to do what they are doing on P2P connections » news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2008 ··· nation_3On Jan. 25, it updated its online Acceptable Use Policy to specify that it reserved the right to break off file-sharing connections on congested cables. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
JasonD
Anon
2008-Feb-13 12:43 pm
Re: Comcast changed AUP to admit to Connection tamperingNow they need to find a method to 'disable' the p2p download side. Imagine the immediate relief their network would feel if this burden could be lifted, not to mention the cost savings. | |
|
| | |
factchecker
Anon
2008-Feb-13 1:09 pm
Re: Comcast changed AUP to admit to Connection tamperingsaid by JasonD :
Now they need to find a method to 'disable' the p2p download side. Imagine the immediate relief their network would feel if this burden could be lifted, not to mention the cost savings. Yeah, and imagine what the customer attrition would do to them when suddenly people can't "Download music, photos and videos way faster than DSL and dial-up"... Customers just love being lied to... | |
|
| | |
someone2 to JasonD
Anon
2008-Feb-13 1:10 pm
to JasonD
said by JasonD :
Now they need to find a method to 'disable' the p2p download side. Imagine the immediate relief their network would feel if this burden could be lifted, not to mention the cost savings. I don't think the negative PR would be worth it to Comcast to do that. People may not admit it, but probably quite a few subcribers of Comcast use P2P services. Disabling them would not be a smart move. | |
|
| | |
asdfdfdfdfdfdf to JasonD
Anon
2008-Feb-13 1:42 pm
to JasonD
I'm glad you are admitting that you believe this is NOT an attempt to "briefly delay" p2p traffic but is an assault intended to kill off p2p applications. | |
|
pokesphIt Is Almost Fast Premium Member join:2001-06-25 Sacramento, CA |
pokesph
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 12:29 pm
Traffic Shaping, Packet Forgeryquote: Reasonable, reasonable, reasonable, reasonable, reasonable, reasonable...
Illegal, illegal, illegal, illegal, illegal, illegal... | |
|
| ajax25 join:2003-12-10 Colonia, NJ |
ajax25
Member
2008-Feb-13 12:31 pm
Re: Traffic Shaping, Packet ForgeryI guess they can do whatever they want as long as they change their policy?
NOT | |
|
| | ajax25 |
ajax25
Member
2008-Feb-13 12:33 pm
Re: Traffic Shaping, Packet ForgeryThis one is my favorite.
"Comcast gives consumers useful information about its bandwidth management pratices" | |
|
| | | |
Re: Traffic Shaping, Packet Forgerysaid by ajax25:This one is my favorite. "Comcast gives consumers useful information about its bandwidth management pratices" AHAHAHHAHAH That's a classic PR BS LIE. Heh, they've been using this technique for MONTHS before the press finally became aware of it. And all that time they were denying EVERYTHING. Adi | |
|
| | | newviewEx .. Ex .. Exactly Premium Member join:2001-10-01 Parsonsburg, MD |
to ajax25
said by ajax25:This one is my favorite. "Comcast gives consumers useful information about its bandwidth management pratices" LIARS . . . again | |
|
| | pokesphIt Is Almost Fast Premium Member join:2001-06-25 Sacramento, CA |
to ajax25
said by ajax25:I guess they can do whatever they want as long as they change their policy? NOT Not in my state anyway: (bold's are mine) said by CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 502(c) : CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 502(c) "COMPREHENSIVE COMPUTER DATA ACCESS AND FRAUD ACT"
(1) Knowingly accesses and without permission alters, damages, deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer, computer system, or computer network in order to either (A) devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B) wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data.
(2) Knowingly accesses and without permission takes, copies, or makes use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network, or takes or copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.
(3) Knowingly and without permission uses or causes to be used computer services.
(4) Knowingly accesses and without permission adds, alters, damages, deletes, or destroys any data, computer software, or computer programs which reside or exist internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network.
(5) Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.
(6) Knowingly and without permission provides or assists in providing a means of accessing a computer, computer system, or computer network in violation of this section.
(7) Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network.
(8) Knowingly introduces any computer contaminant into any computer, computer system, or computer network.
(9) Knowingly and without permission uses the Internet domain name of another individual, corporation, or entity in connection with the sending of one or more electronic mail messages, and thereby damages or causes damage to a computer, computer system, or computer network.
ref: » nsi.org/Library/Compsec/ ··· forn.txt | |
|
| | | 2 edits |
Re: Traffic Shaping, Packet Forgerysaid by pokesph:Not in my state anyway: (bold's are mine) It's nice that you know how to research the Penal Code and all, but Comcrap's practice of throttling/spoofing is still occurring in the Golden State, virtually with impunity, nonetheless. Additionally, take notice in the Hart v. Comcast complaint, your Penal Code citation is not a cause of action. Guess you better notify Hart's legal counsel -the Lexington Law Group- that you found the magic law that will prohibit Comcast's practices. | |
|
| | | | pokesphIt Is Almost Fast Premium Member join:2001-06-25 Sacramento, CA |
pokesph
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 1:15 pm
Re: Traffic Shaping, Packet ForgeryYeah I saw that.. I hope his lawyer is up for the task.. and that the court recognizes it's own laws.. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Traffic Shaping, Packet Forgerysaid by pokesph:Yeah I saw that.. I hope his lawyer is up for the task.. and that the court recognizes it's own laws.. My point was that Comcast throttling/spoofing is occurring in California with impunity, and, despite your assertion to the contrary of, as well as a lawsuit brought by another individual, the Penal Code section you cited does not appear in Hart's complaint. | |
|
| | | NOYBSt. John 3.16 Premium Member join:2005-12-15 Forest Grove, OR |
to pokesph
#4 It is their network, so they give themselves permission. And further more you gave them permission when you agreed to the TOS & AUP. #5 Ditto #8 Rest packets are not a contaminant. You all yell about defining "reasonable", so define contaminant.
| |
|
| | | | |
Re: Traffic Shaping, Packet Forgerysaid by NOYB:#4 It is their network, so they give themselves permission. And further more you gave them permission when you agreed to the TOS & AUP. #5 Ditto #8 Rest packets are not a contaminant. You all yell about defining "reasonable", so define contaminant. TOS, AUPs, and EULAs are not above state and federal laws, so your argument is moot. | |
|
| | | | lillypad join:2005-11-19 San Francisco, CA |
to NOYB
I didn't realize that the cabling from their cable modem connection to another person's computer was their network. However I DO believe that the forged packet has to travel over said cabling. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
to pokesph
Forged, Forged, Forged, Forged, Forged, Forged.... | |
|
|
factchecker
Anon
2008-Feb-13 12:34 pm
Bull$hit !It is not accurate to describe these reset packets as "forged," and Free Press's attempted analogy to a telephone operator impersonating the called and calling parties to a phone conversation is inflammatory hyperbole, not fact. Comcast is full of crap with that statement... They are doing exactly what Free Press accuses them of doing, forging packets. Whenever anyone creates a packet with the IP address of another host, without actually being that host, they are spoofing or forging a packet. Sorry Comcast, you can't twist the facts on this one. If you are generating packets from WW.XX.YY.ZZ without actually being WW.XX.YY.ZZ, you are forging packets. And the funny thing is, if anyone else tried to do what Comcast was doing, they would be quick to call it that - spoofing/forging packets - and they would quickly slap you down for it. | |
|
| ••• |
axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC |
axus
Member
2008-Feb-13 12:34 pm
vocal minorityHeh, sounds like Comcast is directly responding to this board.
Hey, I don't remember making any decisions here, I just vocalize my point of view. It's up to the FCC to make decisions, and they're appointed by those that the majority elected. The FCC never came to me asking for my help in their decision making. | |
|
Anonymous_Anonymous Premium Member join:2004-06-21 127.0.0.1 1 edit |
Forgery IS Illegal, illegal, illegal, illegal, illegal Forgery is the process of making or adapting objects or documents (see false document), with the intent to deceive. The similar crime of fraud is the crime of deceiving another, including through the use of objects obtained through forgery. Copies, studio replicas, and reproductions are not considered forgeries, though they may later become forgeries through knowing and willful mis-attributions. | |
|
TitusMr Gradenko join:2004-06-26
1 recommendation |
Titus
Member
2008-Feb-13 12:58 pm
What's perfectly reasonable,and becoming more justifiable with each passing day, are my reasons for dumping their service over a year ago. -- | |
|
1 recommendation |
Nice analysis KarlAnd yes, I am serious. I particularly like their car example. Instead of just delaying the traffic like they claim they are, they are ripping off a door and replacing it with one not from your car. And they're changing the license plate too. And THEN they send it on its way. The reason they are fighting this so hard is that they fully intend to use this technology against anything which competes with their cash-cow video on demand products. | |
|
amungus Premium Member join:2004-11-26 America |
amungus
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 1:09 pm
Critically botchedsuch "critical decisions should not be based on the demands of the vocal minority who make the most noise in public forums." That little quote above makes me curious about their stance on what defines the internet... Critical decisions pertaining to the nature of the internet are usually discussed, defined, by many standards organizations, not ISPs. Sure, ISP's implement their portions of what becomes assimilated to the rest of the internet, but they should have no place in changing how it works without consent and approval from the rest of the world. I understand that BT can get out of hand very quickly with lots of little connections, but overall, there are better solutions. First, if people were "nicer" and limited their clients to a reasonable number instead of unlimited, they'd greatly reduce the needless traffic that pisses off ISPs. Second, the ISP could probably figure out a way to do this for their customers anyway instead of "shaping" such traffic into a state that mostly kills it. Really, how hard would it be to limit customer A to, for instance, 20 simultaneous connections instead of allowing unlimited numbers of things bounce up and down from 100's to 10's and back and forth? Customer B, who's simply surfing or downloading from one or two sources at a time would never know anything was different. "A" would likely notice a limit, but everything would still work, and it'd probably still work with relatively good speed. Changing how the internet works in the ways that this ISP seems to be doing just seems downright wrong. Surely there is a better way to handle this instead of the approach they've taken. Debating the legality of a protocol is not what I'm even going to touch on here. In my opinion, it's a great idea that deserves to be out there just as much as any other method of exchanging information. Granted, unlimited numbers of connections up/down can be a problem for ISPs, but why knock the whole system out instead of handling it responsibly? Users should too. You shouldn't set your clients to spew out connections at full blast, it's considered bad netiquete. It's been this way for a long time, and having more speed shouldn't change that. ISPs should also realize this, and if they must, I think they do have some say in controlling simultaneous connections to/from IP addresses which are going nuts. "Shaping" a protocol into near oblivion, however, isn't the answer. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
KrK
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 1:40 pm
Re: Critically botchedsaid by amungus:such "critical decisions should not be based on the demands of the vocal minority who make the most noise in public forums." Question.... Isn't the Halls of Congress really just a form of public forum? | |
|
| | amungus Premium Member join:2004-11-26 America |
amungus
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 2:22 pm
Re: Critically botchedNice | |
|
Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA
2 recommendations |
Just implement upload caps - problem solvedSet upload caps at 5-10GB a month and the P2P seeding issue is solved.
The P2P "problem" isn't downloading, it's seeding...it's uploads that are DOCSIS' Achilles heel.
Seeding/serving is ALREADY a TOS violation with virtually every residental cable broadband provider.
Simply enforce an upload cap and when it's violated follow the Cablevision model and throttle their upload speeds to 150kbps or even less.
Then when the customer calls to bitch, tell them what the Lord told John. | |
|
| •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• |
|
Why does Network Neutrality apply?Network Neutrality was originally supposed to be about stopping the big ISPs from discriminating against the Googles, YouTubes, and Vonages of the world, supposedly so that the ISPs' captive or favored services would run better than those third-party services. It's interesting that, suddenly, the P2P user community is invoking Network Neutrality as a defense. That was really not the original intent, in my view. So I cast a skeptical eye at this approach.
It seems to me this is being used as a stalking horse for the copyright debate. Because if you grant that most P2P traffic is illegal transfer of copyrighted material, then you can't really invoke Network Neutrality as a defense. It'd be like saying that the ISPs should not worry about child porn websites. | |
|
| ••••••••••• |
1 recommendation |
ISP neutrality
Anon
2008-Feb-13 1:31 pm
Stop messing with my VOIPComcast's traffic shaping practices have been affecting a lot more then just P2P traffic. VOIP services from 2 different providers has gone down hill ever since while Comcast's VOIP service has worked flawlessly. The whole point of network neutrality was to prevent that type behavior from ISP "INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER" whose job is to provide Internet access. | |
|
| superdogI Need A Drink MVM join:2001-07-13 Lebanon, PA |
Re: Stop messing with my VOIPsaid by ISP neutrality :
Comcast's traffic shaping practices have been affecting a lot more then just P2P traffic. VOIP services from 2 different providers has gone down hill ever since while Comcast's VOIP service has worked flawlessly. As an ISP, I must agree that if this is in fact happening, it should be stopped. This is just wrong! | |
|
| 1 edit |
to ISP neutrality
said by ISP neutrality :
Comcast's traffic shaping practices have been affecting a lot more then just P2P traffic. VOIP services from 2 different providers has gone down hill ever since while Comcast's VOIP service has worked flawlessly. The whole point of network neutrality was to prevent that type behavior from ISP "INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER" whose job is to provide Internet access. I am pretty sure that Comcast Digital Phone does not share the cable modem Internet channel. I understand it's actually implemented across a different RF frequency on the cable. This would account for the better quality. I am a Time Warner customer, not Comcast, but personally, I had to dump Road Runner and go with AT&T DSL specifically because of poor VoIP quality. I had too many packet drops and too much jitter of the latency to provide a smooth, good quality connection. It had nothing to do with traffic shaping. | |
|
i1me2ao Premium Member join:2001-03-03 TEXAS |
i1me2ao
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 1:48 pm
trust us we are all knowing and powerful and will tell you what you need with revealing how we know.. | |
|
1 recommendation |
throttle this comcasthow bout the fcc just start pulling contracts in areas where most complaints and allow another competitor to take over the area. hows that for comcrap. say comcast violates so many customers in 1 area in a quarterly period, poof goes your contract has been cancelled and given to verizon to light up the area. | |
|
| SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
Re: throttle this comcastThat's great, except Verizon is only locked out of territories by other Local Exchange Carriers, not cable MSOs.
It's Verizon or Qwest / Verizon or ATT.
Verizon and Comcast can coexist in any market. | |
|
| |
to bbscript
Awsome idea. One of my partners is using Vonage at home. His voice quality was terrible. After about 10 calls and proof of shaping voice traffice by a forensic expert, comcast stopped the voip filter. | |
|
Rick5 Premium Member join:2001-02-06 |
Rick5
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 2:39 pm
Public service announcementPlease be advised that I'm taking a day off from posting about this subject. I'll cya again when the issue is raised again by BBR. (which will probably be within 24 hours. ) Have a nice day. | |
|
| ••••••••••••••• |
spamd Premium Member join:2001-04-22 Cherry Valley, IL 2 edits
1 recommendation |
spamd
Premium Member
2008-Feb-13 3:03 pm
Mommy DSLReports is picking on me!! Comcast Baby Crying |
WHHAA!! WHHAAA!!! My users are being mean!!!! WHHAA!! WHHAAAA!!! Tell them to stop it MOMMY!! --- | |
|
|
former comcaster
Anon
2008-Feb-13 3:41 pm
traffic shaping?ask comcast what version of DOCSIS they are running
hint: it is DOCSIS 1.1
maybe they should upgrade that before blocking traffic | |
|
|
|