dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
302908
share rss forum feed


elvey
Spamassassin

join:2001-02-17
San Francisco, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Sipgate VOIP
·Virgin Mobile Br..

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to crucialcolin

Re: TV coverage.

The media coverage was < sarcasm> impeccable as usual < /sarcasm> »www.ktvu.com/video/14382117/index.html

»abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sectio···=5716714

The purpose of non-net-neutrality is to fix the problem of commodity Internet being a business market that is too competitive for the big players to make money hand over giant excavator shovelful.

PS The movie I was trying to BitTorrent was "INFEST WISELY".



elvey
Spamassassin

join:2001-02-17
San Francisco, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Sipgate VOIP
·Virgin Mobile Br..

1 edit
reply to EG

Re: Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P Connections

said by EG:

Watch out for the Papparazzi, or even worse, possible reprisals ...
My address is quite hard to find. But reporter Pattie Lee got a hold of my cellphone #, I'm not sure how. Being a spamfigher (and some of the mobsters involved are quite scary) I try to be hard to find.
--
AT&T is the world's second-largest SpamHaus and leads an
Organized Crime Syndicate. Also see TURN.org or UCAN.


EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9

Maybe you should have worn one of those George Bush masks when those vids were shot ?



pflog
Bueller? Bueller?
Premium,MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA
kudos:3
reply to elvey

That video shows two people with your name. Which are you? heh
--
"The Dude abides."



EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9

Seth Shoen ??



FairTriplePlay

@comcast.net
reply to funchords

A class action suite...actually feasible if you can get the EFF to back you 100% imo. Nice work fellas!!



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to skmt

said by skmt :

I don't understand why some people keep saying that this has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. To be sure, this is unrelated to the original issue of charging content providers a premium to ensure unfettered access to their content. Instead it's just another example demonstrating that we need to expand our concept of Net Neutrality.
I suppose you would advocate free food and housing for all? "Food and housing neutrality" should be more important than expanded "net neutrality". I can live without fansub anime, but I need to eat, and a place to set up my computer to watch all of that anime.

Sorry for the hyperbole; but your next paragraph is also full of it.
There are those that seem to have an interest in erecting walls between us, claiming that they are protecting the rights of the majority from abuse by a dangerous minority. But it's not the majority that decides what's supposedly best for everyone--therein lies the rub. An even smaller minority of stuffed suits looking after their portfolios are the ones creating an artificial "us-versus-them" mentality.
Somebody has to pay for the bandwidth. WRT making Google pay for data I request; AT&T should set a price commensurate with the data I am pulling through their pipes. At the same time, they have the obligation to ensure that my data access does not disrupt my neighbors.
That might be fine and well for those that play by their rules, until they start changing to rules to suit the thickness of their wallets.
They are not being as arbitrary as you think. So far, of all the Comcast users I personally know, none are adversely affected by Sandvine. Only a vociferous few of all the posters in this forum are speaking up.

I agree that there ought to be a better way for Comcast to handle this issue. But it isn't affecting access to most data. Only that moved by P2P applications. And it isn't wholly blocked. BT appears to work until the file is completely downloaded. It is the seeding which is problematic.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to FairTriplePlay

said by FairTriplePlay :

A class action suite...actually feasible if you can get the EFF to back you 100% imo. Nice work fellas!!
I thought that a civil suit needed to show some actual tort (damage) caused by the defendant against the plaintiff?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


jig

join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA

damage is an element of a properly pleaded tort, but a tort is really about conduct, the tortuous conduct of the defendant.



EnasYorl
Thieves World

join:2001-12-02
West
reply to JTRockville

said by JTRockville:

Looks like funchords See Profile is famous! Here's a good write-up of the issue:
»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_···nation_2
(By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer)
Nice picture of technology »www.sandvine.com/products/p2p_element.asp

wingman99

join:2003-12-18
Opelika, AL
reply to skmt

said by skmt :

I don't understand why some people keep saying that this has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. To be sure, this is unrelated to the original issue of charging content providers a premium to ensure unfettered access to their content. Instead it's just another example demonstrating that we need to expand our concept of Net Neutrality.

There are those that seem to have an interest in erecting walls between us, claiming that they are protecting the rights of the majority from abuse by a dangerous minority. But it's not the majority that decides what's supposedly best for everyone--therein lies the rub. An even smaller minority of stuffed suits looking after their portfolios are the ones creating an artificial "us-versus-them" mentality.

That might be fine and well for those that play by their rules, until they start changing to rules to suit the thickness of their wallets.
I agree what happen to people saying it's my upload speed and i can do what i want with it, we're taking upload people that is a small amount.

I cant believe this, it's the minority that does the peer to peer upload they should spend more time and money expanding the network for tv video or just video for the future. If they think peer to peer upload is a killer just wait till people want to do more then surf the web pages.

It's all wording, like this is going to some how solve problems with bandwidth usage, like you can really tell the difference in your internet connection since they started this.

If anything i see more lag complaints during heavy usage by comcast customers because of the traffic sniffing and shaping.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to jig

said by jig:

damage is an element of a properly pleaded tort, but a tort is really about conduct, the tortuous conduct of the defendant.
And the tort in this case is?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Movieman420

join:2007-08-28
reply to funchords

Offhand I'd say deception and forgery..few more I'm sure...but I'm no lawyer. (Slept at a holiday inn last night tho..lol)

Quote from Sandvine product page:

*Improves the subscriber experience through enhanced P2P performance

Yeah right.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

said by Movieman420:

Offhand I'd say deception and forgery..few more I'm sure...but I'm no lawyer. (Slept at a holiday inn last night tho..lol)
Forgery is a crime, not a tort. Deception is only a "tort" if it results in damages, it is not a tort in itself.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


jig

join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
reply to NormanS

the tortuous conduct here might be the unpublicized reduction in service without the concomitant reduction in price. the related damages can be just the difference in the value of the service, but it could be as much as any business lost because of the change. what business would be related to seeding torrents and still be ok under a residential contract? well, probably not any. i suppose there might be an argument that a company that distributes their code through torrents might be able to sue on their own damages by tying in the damage to the comcast customers.

anyway, you would think a lot of this would be covered by the contract between the customers and comcast, but if the contract doesn't cover this specifically, or even if it covers it generally and it looks like comcast is taking advantage of broad language, you can still attack it like you'd attack a typical tort.



jig

join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
reply to NormanS

said by NormanS:

Forgery is a crime, not a tort.
just like murder and/or manslaughter. which is why we have wrongful death suits.

forgery would probably be considered a type of trespass, an intentional tort.

modemslayer

join:2003-12-11
Spokane, WA
reply to funchords

Maybe it's time for a new, more robust P2P protocol. Certainly it's a game of cat-and-mouse, but there must be some way to make a protocol more future-proof than the BT of today.

I think the best strategy will be one that forces an ISP to be so heavy-handed that they will fear a consumer backlash more than "fighting the p2p war".

Some random thoughts / strategies...

Connectionless:

Base it on UDP. Sure, someone could inject bad packets into the stream, but that could be solved, and the peers would at least have full control over connection management. Let the ISPs at least spend the money to legitimately shape the traffic, instead of the weak-ass RST injections that undermine TCP.

Piggyback on top of another protocol (steganography):

If you base it on HTTP, it might be possible to make the traffic look like regular web browser traffic. Or VoIP, SMTP, etc. Hide the traffic in plain sight! HTTPS maybe? Are ISPs really prepared to throw the baby out with the bath water just to throttle p2p? Maybe they can get away with VPN traffic, but other infrastructure protocols? Make a p2p protocol that does such a good job of masking itself that ISPs have to throttle every packet on the network! You could even have 10 peers all impersonating a different "legitimate" protocol. Peer A appears to be sending an email attachment, while peer B appears to be part of a gaming session, while peer C appears to be an online banking session, etc.

Bastardize TCP (it's already happening anyway):

Couldn't a protocol like BT hook into the TCP stack and decide for itself whether to honor an RST? Or find a way to tweak the packet when it sends an RST, such that it can't be forged? Or negotiate its own connection tear-downs that bypass TCP?

Adaptive protocol:

One that senses what network it's on and changes its tactics on a per-peer basis. Certainly two peers can compare notes and detect man-in-the-middle attacks, and adjust their strategy / methods accordingly. Are we on comcast? Then negotiate our own tear-downs. Are we on rogers? Make it look like a world of warcraft gaming session!

Honestly, all the ISPs are doing is driving innovation, so I'm not against Sandvine at all. I look forward to seeing it rendered useless.



telcolackey5
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA

You can play cat and mouse with this, but I predict that eventually it will come down to two things.

#1 p2p is a clear violation of almost all broadband providers ToS. It IS making the broadband connection the ISP sold YOU available to 3rd parties to profit from and millions of Internet users to utilize. For Comcast you are violating #9 and #14 of »www6.comcast.net/terms/use/

#2 The difference between speed and usage. I have 200amps in my home, but if I use the full 200amps 7x24 I am going to have to pay for it.

I think what needs to happen is not cut people off or play shaping games. If someone really wants to leave the faucets on, TV, lights, windows open, etc 7x24, they should pay for it. If let your neighbor plug into your outside outlet to run his pool heater, you will have to pay for it.


modemslayer

join:2003-12-11
Spokane, WA

said by telcolackey5:

I think what needs to happen is not cut people off or play shaping games. If someone really wants to leave the faucets on, TV, lights, windows open, etc 7x24, they should pay for it. If let your neighbor plug into your outside outlet to run his pool heater, you will have to pay for it.
Agreed. The electric company doesn't do deep inspection to see what appliances you are running and randomly disable your toaster if they deem you are using it too often, or decide for you which appliances are legitimate and which aren't. You pay for what you use. The phone company doesn't randomly leave you unable to dial people you spend 10 hours on the phone with. Again, you pay for what you use. So there must be some pricing options - maybe reasonable cap + overage - where most folks can be happy that they're seeing the value they expect for the money they shell out.

However, if everyone turns on their toaster at the same time, it doesn't knock your local power grid offline. The problem with cable is that it's not designed for everyone consuming large amounts of bandwidth at once. The underlying technology is flawed, and that's why cable companies are playing their games, rather than addressing the limitations of the technology.


telcolackey5
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA

2 edits

said by modemslayer:

The problem with cable is that it's not designed for everyone consuming large amounts of bandwidth at once. The underlying technology is flawed, and that's why cable companies are playing their games, rather than addressing the limitations of the technology.
Although we both agree with payment model, I disagree with your technology assessment. All Internet delivery technologies use an over subscription model and each has ways to address capacity. If you are in a FiOS neighborhood and all users started 8mbs downloads at the same time, a circuit would hit capacity. Same with DSL, Cable, T1, DS3, OC3, OC12, OC192, etc.

Cable can combine and split nodes, allocate frequencies, channel bundle, etc. to address capacity.


Mdoc
Ehh... munch munch... what's up, Doc?
Premium
join:2007-03-27
Sterling, VA
kudos:1
reply to Movieman420

said by Movieman420:

Offhand I'd say deception and forgery..few more I'm sure...but I'm no lawyer. (Slept at a holiday inn last night tho..lol)
...And I saved money by staying at home last night.


jig

join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
reply to telcolackey5

said by telcolackey5:

#1 p2p is a clear violation of almost all broadband providers ToS. It IS making the broadband connection the ISP sold YOU available to 3rd parties to profit from and millions of Internet users to utilize. For Comcast you are violating #9 and #14 of »www6.comcast.net/terms/use/

#2 The difference between speed and usage. I have 200amps in my home, but if I use the full 200amps 7x24 I am going to have to pay for it.
why not just use the word "use" instad of utilize?

anyway,

if i'm making my bandwidth availabel to others, then i guess all the free email suppliers are going to have to play too, right? they're using my bandwidth both ways, using it to help me send attachments and emails on the upload, and sending me adds on the download. guess we'll have to shut all those off too.

in reality, i'm using my bandwidth to help me get what i want to get as quickly as i can. period.

the seed vs. usage has been argued for years. they've advertised it as a usage, not as a speed. they don't have anything in their TOS or elsewhere that says we should expcect to not use it at max speed all the time. in fact, they offer it as "always on, always fast". when i signed up with the electric company, they made it clear that i would have a connection charge per month, and then a sliding scale usage fee each month. not so with comcast.

it's all bunk, and stems from the same type of thinking that led enron to it's demise, except we're still feeling the effects of what they created in the american bandwidth markets.

bandwidth is not electricity. or water, or gas, or sewage treatment.

modemslayer

join:2003-12-11
Spokane, WA
reply to telcolackey5

said by telcolackey5:

Although we both agree with payment model, I disagree with your technology assessment. All Internet delivery technologies use an over subscription model and each has ways to address capacity. If you are in a FiOS neighborhood and all users started 8mbs downloads at the same time, a circuit would hit capacity. Same with DSL, Cable, T1, DS3, OC3, OC12, OC192, etc.

Cable can combine and split nodes, allocate frequencies, channel bundle, etc. to address capacity.
All utilities oversubscribe to some extent. I've been at a company in Southern California where everyone is sent home on a summer day because of rolling blackouts. During a national emergency the phone lines can go kaput due to millions calling their loved ones at the same time. My problem with ISPs (mostly cable) is the level of oversubscription. They underbuild their networks, advertise big fat pipes, and then villify the folks who actually use them, all without even giving them the tools to help manage their usage. The electric company can tell me how many KWh I use during a billing period. My cell phone carrier can show me how many minutes I'm using in real-time. But good luck getting the cable company to tell me that info unless I go over the secret cap (which I won't, but that's not the point.)

All my utilities are completely above-board except my cable connection.


telcolackey5
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA

said by modemslayer:

But good luck getting the cable company to tell me that info unless I go over the secret cap (which I won't, but that's not the point.)

All my utilities are completely above-board except my cable connection.
Agreed, but I think there are plenty of broadband companies that are or will be changing to that model. This way if people want to use more than 98% of everyone else, they can. It will just cost them.


telcolackey5
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
reply to jig

said by jig:

the seed vs. usage has been argued for years. they've advertised it as a usage, not as a speed.
Please quote your source.

said by jig:

they don't have anything in their TOS or elsewhere that says we should expcect to not use it at max speed all the time. in fact, they offer it as "always on, always fast".
Agreed on exact limits. There are clauses against using specific apps that are normally attributed to generating this much bandwidth however. See #9 and #14 in
»www6.comcast.net/terms/use/

modemslayer

join:2003-12-11
Spokane, WA
reply to telcolackey5

said by telcolackey5:

Agreed, but I think there are plenty of broadband companies that are or will be changing to that model. This way if people want to use more than 98% of everyone else, they can. It will just cost them.
...and conversely, the folks like my mom that use 2% of the bandwidth everyone else uses should pay something like 10$ per month. That's why I don't see companies like CC implementing a usage based pricing model - most people would see their bill go down. Right now it's win-win for the cable companies. Everyone is paying for a high usage model, but few are actually using it, and those that do are villified.

It's like a resturant advertising an all-you-can-eat buffet, knowing that most people don't eat that much, and those that do are quietly asked to leave (after being shown the fine print, which says 'all the average person would reasonably eat'.) And with Sandvine, it would be like the resturant taking away most of the prime rib when fat people walk in the door, claiming that they are holding the rest in reserve for the "normal" eaters.


jig

join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
reply to telcolackey5

comcast mentions 24/7 customer support, doesn't that mean i get 24/7 use? and, specifically, in the subscriber agreement, it mentions outages and how a customer with more than 24 hours of outage gets a credit, pro-rata, and the only thing it mentions is "month", so we are paying for 24/7 use, because the loss of that use is what we get credit for.

9 and 14 don't mention bittorrent



hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:9

"comcast mentions 24/7 customer support, doesn't that mean i get 24/7 use? "

Yes the service is available for you to use at any time.

Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson



ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN

1 edit

Click for full size
Seeding here, at my max speed of 384upload

Nothing speical being used besides whats offered in utorrent, but, after my download was complete i just left them seeding.

(Just to be clear, Sandvine is in effect in my area)
--
"I am the worst president in US history, I'm either stupid or dumb most of the time, but people still believe me." George W. Bush


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
reply to jig

said by jig:

9 and 14 don't mention bittorrent
#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;