Comcast Seeks P2P “Bill of Rights and Responsibilities”

How about you ISPs just concentrate on giving everyone a fast and reliable connection. That alone seems to be a pretty big task for you. Just concentrate on that. It's not your job to filter packets.

quote:

---

Can we trust Comcast to protect our online freedoms without enforceable, independent consumer safeguards?

---

I think we've all seen where Comcast's interests lie . . . and it's NOT with with it's subscribers, except if you count extracting as much money as possible for all it's customers.

We cannot trust Comcast, period.

Consumers, should in turn lay down their policy and rights to be given what they pay for, Comcast and other ISPs where are the advertised speeds that subscribers have been paying for years but many have never gotten? Since when do thieves dictate how thivery should be run?

I agree.

Is it really in your best interest to try to tell other companies how to run their business? Perhaps you should focus on your company and your company ALONE.

Agreed, this is yet another PR stunt from Comcast.

I don't mean to dissect your wording, but, re: filtering packets:

At least let people opt-out of certain filtering mechanisms. For example, I'm fine with ISPs filtering TCP/UDP 137-139, 445, etc. (SMB/CIFS sharing) for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, I have *major* qualms over Comcast injecting falsified/spoofed TCP RST into existing TCP streams as a form of rate-limiting. I don't care if it's being done on BitTorrent traffic or *all* TCP traffic -- it's a bad idea, for a lot of reasons.

I'd love to know who this "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" caters to, because it definitely doesn't to the average customer/consumer.

Wise words.

...and since when Comcast is issuing decrees or "laws"...or who knows...fatwas ?!
That is a dangerous path.

How this is implemented will determine if this is good or bad. As much as we would all like it, comcast is not going to keep adding bandwidth to support more use of p2p apps, unless they also raise the rates. Cables limited upload capacity is a bottleneck, and heavy p2p use on a node can cause congestion. "Just upgrading" does not solve the issue since p2p apps by design will generally consume whatever upload is available. Something as simple getting users to configure their p2p apps to;
1)Slow down a bit during peak hours.
2)Cap the upload used to something less than the entire available upload of the user.
would go a long way to solving the issue. Is this beyond reason?
Sure we can all take the stance that "hey I paid for my upload, I am going to use it 24x7". but your connection will be useless once more than about 10% of the users on your node do the same thing.
So comcast should just upgrade all the nodes right? Sure they will, with the corresponding doubling of rates.
The upload demands of p2p are a problem for the ISPs, but they do not have to be. A little education and responsibility on the part of the users would go a long way to getting p2p apps to play nice on the network.

unfortunately, I don't think it's a PR stunt - it's the beginning of the battle to define what ISPs can do with "their" network.

if comcast is successful in setting the terms of the debate, consumers and the nation LOSE.

...and keep the pipes working. I'll pay my bill every month.

That's my agreement with Comcast.

It is a stiunt as they are trying to look like they now have a heart in trying to work with the p2p companies. I personally feel that they of course want what is in their best interest.

I see nothing "pro-consumer" or "progressive" in this.

You can have any two of the three choices below:
A) More bandwidth to support p2p
B) No filtering or throttling.
C) No add on costs to rates to support p2p use.

Someone has to make a choice here, who is it going to be?

This is the same company that filled the independent hearing on this issue with scabs.

Do you really think they will let anyone in a position of power who will not furher their agenda have any say in this process?

unless they independantly appoint a 3rd party to examine the issue in the public light anything they say on this issue is pure Bull.

I know this is not what you meant , but the sandvine attack on p2p keeps the upload working for the rest of us. Without the need to upgrade for p2p, rates stay the same. So it seems you and comcast are on the same page with this.

Serious question, who should be appointed to do this?

Simple: A and B.

I have no qualms paying a little bit more for something that's less "tainted", but Comcast doesn't work that way. They're applying said TCP injection to all customers, not those who are paying less.

So what exactly is your point?

I pay US$70.20/month just for Internet access. This is by no means affordable for lower or lower-middle class. Admittedly broadband should be US$20-30/month, tops -- and regardless of how much you pay, you should be getting a clean, manipulation-free connection.

Mark Cuban

You want A and B, you can get it, but it is a business class connection. Unfortunately, it is not a "little bit more" it is a lot more.
My point is there are tradeoffs, every choice impacts some other aspect of the system. It is very hard to do something that wins on all fronts.

You actually make an argument for comcast or other isps to develop a p2p friendly tier that supports more, un-filtered upload, but does not have the other costs associated with business level service. Probably would still be expensive, but not the obscene numbers for high reliability business class service.

Its there responsibility to filter packets when it affects there network.

Just sit and do nothing until the courts decide the ISPs are liable for the file sharing and get sued for millions?
I believe that will happen, the RIAA is not getting enough money from the end users so why not go after the corporations with money.

I dont know what the problem is sir they are saying that they are wiling to work with the p2p issues as long as it is being used for legal uses so why is that an issue are you using it for something other than that, and if you are then good you deserve to be throttled.

+1

Or how about concentrating on lowering our bill to be more in line with some "third world" European countries.
Romania offers a "triple play package" $20.00 USD (their economy is a quarter of ours)
1200 minutes phone
86 tv channels
50M (in country) 4M (internet)
No filters, caps, limits.

And I don't see or hear them complaining about the capacity or bandwidth or p2p.

you make horrible points, can you trust any big company they all have to make money and you bash them for it>?

really you dont see anything "pro-consumer" " we will help P2P companies, ISPs and content owners find common ground to support consumers who want to use P2P applications to deliver legal content" that is "pro-consumer" if i have ever seen it unless you are useing p2p for illegal purposes which it seems most of you are and if you are using it legally then you should be very happy about this.

I agree with you on that, my upload is great all the time thanks to the throttleing and for the ones being throttled if you are trying to do legal and legit p2p transfers i feel for ya that is not right but for the ones ripping illegal content good...

You can't distinguish what is being transferred in the p2p apps. It will affect both "legal" and "illegal" transfers as you put it. There are more and more companies using p2p for patches, distro's etc.

They are only trying to do this to regain some positive PR.

If that is the case ptrowski, how will they go about distinguishing if what the consumer is doing is legal or illegal?