karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Net neutrality prevents this
This is EXACTLY the reason we need net neutrality laws. A megacorp is attempting to redefine the internet to increase their own profits, at the expense of the end users. Net neutrality specifically prevents this abhorrent behavior by the megacorops to rape the consumer just a little bit more.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| There is nothing "abhorrent about megacorps raping consumer to increase profits". This isn't a net neutrality issue...yet. The easier and cheaper answer is to simply use alternate DNS servers. If Charter impedes your access to alternate DNS servers, then yes, I agree that it's a potential net neutrality issue. |
|
raw
War Eagle
Premium
join:2001-01-17
Madison, AL
clubs:
| said by openbox9  :The easier and cheaper answer It's faster, too. I've abandoned Charter's DNS servers over a month ago because they were just plain slow (and extremely prone to failure), and reliability has gone up considerably.
--
[BBR]raw
America's Army
BBR Enemy Territory clan founder |
|
rawwhide
Zer0
Premium
join:2000-09-03
Zero
clubs:
·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | reply to openbox9
Using third party DNS servers put users at risk. ISP's DNS servers are expected by customers to be secure and accurate. With third party dns servers you dont have that extra blanket of security. You my type www.google.com but that third party dns server may actually point you at www.ihackedyou.com which may act and look just like google. Or Gaagle where you ended up at actually is ran by your ISP feeding you crap that you thought was different than what you expected, and consumers never being the wiser.
--
HUH!!! Sekurecom |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :This is EXACTLY the reason we need net neutrality laws. A megacorp is attempting to redefine the internet to increase their own profits, at the expense of the end users. Net neutrality specifically prevents this abhorrent behavior by the megacorops to rape the consumer just a little bit more. No it doesn't, because there are no net neutrality laws in existence. And even if there were, it won't prevent this. All this is is a change to an implementation of DNS procedures. And an RFC has no legal effect when broken.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
I use the free Treewalk DNS product and wouldn't be affected if Comcast ever does something similar, which they haven't.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :The easier and cheaper answer is to simply use alternate DNS servers. While that may be an option for some, Charter (as well as other ISPs) should be providing proper DNS, and not using redirection as a form of redirection. While many of us here may be technically savvy enough to change our DNS settings, there are millions that will be caught into this revenue generating, DNS hack.
Why is everything 'opt-out'. If Charter wishes to do this kind of DNS filtering, then they _should_ have those that want it to 'opt-in' by having their DNS set to a site finder service vs. a valid DNS server. |
|
phxmark
What Country Are We Living In?
join:2000-12-27
Glendale, AZ
| reply to karlmarx
I am on Cox and I use my own DNS server. I do not use Cox's as they have been unreliable. Sometimes not able to get lookups on valid domains. Haven't had any issues with my Win2k DNS server.
--
High speed is dangerous. Too many MP3s, not enough time. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to rawwhide
Using different DNS servers doesn't put you at any more risk that using your ISP's. I definitely don't expect my ISP's DNS servers to be any more secure or accurate than the Verizon (not my ISP) DNS servers that I use. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to en102
It's their DNS, they can do what they want with it as long as they don't poison the larger DNS. Who cares if the common customer is exploited by this "DNS hack". The common user sure doesn't. My response was to the Marxist that this is not a net-neutrality issue so long as Charter doesn't impede your ability to use alternate DNS servers. You are still free to choose and therefore the network is neutral in this instance. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to TKJunkMail
But that's what Net Neutrality IS. Net Neutrality FORCES the megacorps to follow the RFC's. i.e. they can't prioritize, they can't provide optimized routes, they can't degrade a service or protocol.
Again, I state, this problem wouldn't exist if the megacorps were FORCED to provide WHAT THEY ARE SELLING. We are buying INTERNET ACCESS, we are NOT BUYING 'charter access' or 'verizon access'. When you pay for internet access you should get internet access, not some bastardized version of it. If you want 'fake internet', use AOL.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Actually, net-neutrality has nothing to do with following RFCs. The commonly discussed implementation has to do with prohibiting or impairing consumers' abilities to use alternate and/or competing services. It also has absolutely nothing to do with your "megacorps". Net-neutrality would apply to everyone from 1-man ISPs to large corporate entities. And finally, your are buying "Charter access"...at least in accordance with you TOS. Go with it, or find a different provider. |
|
hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
clubs:
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :It's their DNS, they can do what they want with it as long as they don't poison the larger DNS. and lots of people find it very useful, rather than getting "Page can not be displayed"
People just like to whine.
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to openbox9
What if you have no choice but to use Comcast, Charter or some other single provider offering high speed access?
I agree with you if there's a choice. If not, then regulation is the only protection offered by the consumer.
I'm not blaming Charter. They are a corporate out to make money for their share holders. In fact they have an obligation to do so. But as any entity with power that is unchecked (i.e. lack of competitive forces), the quest to make profit has no bounds and then requires regulation. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Then you have no choice. Realize that fact, suck it up, and move on in life. That is a competitive market issue and is irrelevant in regards to potential net-neutrality legislation. Any net-neutrality laws would apply to everyone regardless if competition exists in a marketplace or not. Once again, as long as Charter isn't impeding your ability to use an alternate/competing service (DNS in this situation), net-neutrality isn't a concern. |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA | reply to openbox9
I'm pretty sure anyone that uses more than HTTP will care. There's a world of difference between a timed out FTP or SSH connection attempt and a refused one against Charter's web server. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to hobgoblin
If they find it useful then they can opt in. Charter could even make some marketing hoopla about it, maybe even charge extra for the "service". But, making it the default is just plain wrong.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Cabal
The common user has no idea about timed out vs refused connections and they definitely don't know or care about SSH...FTP maybe, but most likely not. Once again, for a majority of their customers (e-mail and surfin' da web), this will be a non-issue. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to openbox9
So you believe genuine competition exists in some markets? I recall Microsoft using that same argument but their 85% lock on the desktop was still considered a monopoly even though everyone could have purchased a Mac. Not just some customers who happened to live in an area where Macs were sold. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Where are you getting the discussion about competition. Competition has nothing with the topic of this thread (alternative DNS exploitations for profit) or the net-neutrality tangent that this part of the thread is on. |
|
