dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8633
share rss forum feed


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

3 recommendations

Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems).

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page



LeftOfSanity
People Suck.

join:2005-11-06
Dover, DE

said by FFH:

Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems).

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
I agree. It's their network. Move on if you don't like it.


en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

1 edit
reply to FFH

Shouldn't Comcast notify the customer about their traffic/usage, rather than interfering with p2p traffic?
Eg. If I flood TCP/ICMP, etc. I'd probably get disconnected until I call up CS.

Not all p2p is illegal.

The only equivalent of p2p I use is called Skype.
--
Canada = Hollywood North



WRONG

@nextweb.net

1 recommendation

reply to FFH

Trying to tie a particular protocol to piracy is asinine.

BT is an ever increasingly common method for distribution of legal software.

This has nothing to do with Piracy and everything to do with Comcast not being able to support the speeds they advertise.

To compete with telco wireline competition they make these huge multi-megabit promises, then on back side establish these phantom monthly DL caps and institute bandwidth throttling in their struggle to live up to these "BMW" speed claims.



morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
reply to FFH

in some situations it is both.



knightmb
Everybody Lies

join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
reply to LeftOfSanity

said by LeftOfSanity:

said by FFH:

Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems).

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
I agree. It's their network. Move on if you don't like it.
Or go Business Class. So far my BT is full power, no limitations, not even using encrypted links. I've pumped out more than 100GB in the last few weeks according to BT counter and the only reason it doesn't go more is because I'm using the built in scheduling to limit transfer rates during the day (business hours) and let it go full throttle at night between midnight and 8:00AM.


EverAndAnon

@verizon.net

1 recommendation

reply to LeftOfSanity

Managing a network is one thing. Falsifying network data/packets to defraud your customers is another.

Network neutrality is all about providing a neutral network regardless of how you define it.

And there's nothing neutral about this.



ieolus
Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA

1 recommendation

reply to FFH

I don't believe anyone has the right to forge TCP packets. They are fucking with the fundamentals of the Internet here, not just "their network".
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp


axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
reply to FFH

Kindly tell us what Network Neutrality is about, then



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

1 recommendation

reply to EverAndAnon

said by EverAndAnon :

Managing a network is one thing. Falsifying network data/packets to defraud your customers is another.
Ok. So what's the difference in net effect if they filter this traffic by blocking it outright vs closing the connection with TCP resets?


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems).

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
You have no idea what you are talking about!
Do you work for Comcast????

Net Neutrality means EVERYTHING on the internet.
How stupid do you have to be to say protocols are not part of the internet???
--
»www.ryanoneill.us


DaveDude
No Fear

join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·ViaTalk

1 edit
reply to FFH

said by FFH See Profile

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
:

But there doing in it, in a completely improper manner. Why not just impose rate limits ? or even better lower its priority on there network. But to send forged packets, and then say were protecting our network is lame.


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

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by DaveDude:

But there doing in it, in a completely improper manner. Why not just impose rate limits ? or even better lower its priority on there network. But to send forged packets, and then say were protecting our network is lame.
Differential prioritization would mean significant changes to how Comcast handles traffic, which would likely require more/different hardware than what's currently in place. Limiting the number of connections a bittorrent client can make (by closing some of the connections with resets) achieves the same rate limiting effect without adding more single points of failure in path and making the data delivery chain overly complex.

rahvin112

join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

1 recommendation

reply to espaeth

Public knowledge. If they admitted and were forced to put in their advertising that they toss the packets, instead of denying they do it and sending forged packets, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Consumers would be able to make real decisions about what service they want and whether they wish to stay with a provider who is making determinations about what kind of traffic they will allow to pass.

Under the policy Comcast is currently operating under they don't even acknowledge that they are intercepting the communication and interfering with it. This leads people to believe that the problem isn't with the Comcast service. To me it's fraud, it should be an announced policy that is forced to be carried in their advertisements so consumers can make informed decisions about their Internet provider. The real test on how fraudulent the behavior is relies on whether Comcast would be willing to make the knowledge public. In fact their own careful wording and pseudo-denials indite their fraud. They won't talk about it publicly because they know it will cost them customers. That's what's dirty about it, and that's why it should be illegal. The policy is in every single way counter to what they say and imply in their advertisements.

It saddens me every time people get up and defend what is essentially false advertising. As a country we were pioneers in making sure that advertisements were truthful and supported by fact. Thanks to the political polarization of this country pioneered by the Neo-cons we are abandoning all the ideas that made this country strong. Ideas like truth in advertising and use of the public airwaves for the public good.



RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
reply to axus

said by axus:

Kindly tell us what Network Neutrality is about, then
Being a "Dumb Pipe" - ie: Transporting the packets the user sends (and asks to be returned to his computer by the computer at the other end of the session) without altering them and/or inspecting their payload content for use in deciding if to trigger content dependent special handling. This does NOT mean that the content of the TCP/IP Headers can not be inspected since that inspection is required to route the packets. The packets must also not be mis-routed (such as routing the long way to increase latency) based on the destination IPN. This also does not preclude using IPv6 QoS headers/flags to support time critical handling such as for Streaming Video or VoIP but this must based on the Flag Requests ONLY not on what IPN is in the Headers (ie: You must not give one treatment to your ISP VoIP and another to Vonage or Skype VoIP.
Expand your moderator at work


Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
reply to FFH

Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

OMG what a troll..If I as a consumer starting spoofing packets I would be accused of a DDoS, which is illegal. This practice is in effect illegal. Plus I believe there are merits to truth in advertising. If a service is advertised as unlimited then that would go by the definition of unlimited:
un·lim·it·ed /nlmtd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-lim-i-tid] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

Does sending tcp resets sound unlimited to you? Or is there a neo-con dictionary that is unpublished?
--
»davescustompc.com


qworster

join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS

2 edits

2 recommendations

reply to LeftOfSanity

Wrong!

By doing what they are doing, Comcast is FORGING data! They are pretending it comes from YOU, when it does not. Your comment of: "It's their network" does not hold a DROP of water! I'll bet if you said on the phone: "I love you" to your girlfriend or wife and Verizon forged the packets so in your voice it came out: "FU*K you, bitch!", you'd be screaming bloody murder! But why can't they do that? After all, it's their network!

R I G H T???


Jah_rankin

join:2006-11-12
Clinton, MD

1 recommendation

You Have me Rolling on the FLOOR. Well where did you get that anaalogy from????


Jah_rankin

join:2006-11-12
Clinton, MD
reply to qworster

said by qworster:

By doing what they are doing, Comcast is FORGING data! They are pretending it comes from YOU, when it does not. Your comment of: "It's their network" does not hold a DROP of water! I'll bet if you said on the phone: "I love you" to your girlfriend or wife and Nynex forged the packets soin your voice it came out: "FU*K you, bitch!", you'd be screaming bloody murder! But why can't they do that? After all, it's their network!

R I G H T???
You are FUNNY, You Have me Rolling on the Floor, How did you get to this analogy????


Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
reply to espaeth

Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by espaeth:

Ok. So what's the difference in net effect if they filter this traffic by blocking it outright vs closing the connection with TCP resets?
No Bittorrent if they go the other way. Someone call the Judean People's Front, crack suicide squad.
--
Mooooooo!!!


81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2
reply to FFH

TCH is that an official or unofficial statement made on behalf of comcast?
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet



jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
reply to EverAndAnon

said by EverAndAnon :

Managing a network is one thing. Falsifying network data/packets to defraud your customers is another.
Correct. And this article should not be titled "shaping" for the same reason. It's easy to assign BT packets a low priority relative to others and I support that practice. Complete neutrality has never existed and is a pipe dream.

Note that Topolski analyzes Comcast as falsifying peer responses only at the boundary and not within their own network. That's both a cost-cutting move and a marketing manipulation which he rightly emphasizes. Sandvine is lying in the name of users both in connection requests/acceptance and in BT-specific communications by changing message packets which say "I need this chunk to complete this file piece" to "I've completed this file piece." It's fundamentally different to lie in someone else's name than to prioritize packets network-wide.

It surprises that Comcast is relying on packet headers to ID the BT protocol when protocol (header) encryption has been a push-button feature in all dominant clients for over a year. It's a piece of cake to ID by user connection patterns ... just not at the boundary. Unlike Topolski's expressed opinion I consider the boundary-only practice a poor one even if it was done above board. It's a walled garden approach, albeit a half-step at the moment, and antithetic to global openness of the internet. Content originates from all over the world and Comcast's practice, if adopted by others, means content would have to be imported to each network by some other transport like FTP then re-published via p2p. Stupid and utterly anti-customer, anti-user.

Limiting both throughputs by protocol and connections per second at the account level during periods of high network load is perfectly reasonable. It solves all the loading issues of P2P and it's verifiably above board. I am continually mystified by the stance & behavior of ISPs on their responses to p2p. Neither the business practices nor technical aspects are obscure or complicated. P2P users would be happy to have their traffic slow down during peak times if they were confident traffic was elsewise unmolested. It's not like p2p content is time-critical like VoIP.


jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
reply to espaeth

said by espaeth:

Ok. So what's the difference in net effect if they filter this traffic by blocking it outright vs closing the connection with TCP resets?
See my post here. I think it answers question. Though your phasing "net effect" suggest a dismissal of ethics, legality, customer relations and intelligent technical management.


jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
reply to Jah_rankin

Re: Wrong!

said by Jah_rankin:

You are FUNNY, You Have me Rolling on the Floor, How did you get to this analogy????
Probably qworster arrived at his/her conclusion by reading & comprehending the article. Data sent by your computer to another is intercepted and altered to say the opposite of what you sent. That's how Sandvine works.

Your chiding claim of humor is misplaced.

qworster

join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA
reply to Hangmn

Worse-you could be accused of terrorism!

If YOU OR I did this, we'd be committing a federal felony. Doing a computer crime like this gets investigated by Homeland Security.

But I guess when Comcast does it, it's AOK-especially by many of you....



supergirl

join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
reply to FFH

Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by FFH:

Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems).

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
Well said. Cox dumps Bittorent freaks too called "powerusers" from my understanding. And, I hope they do, sick of powerusers running 24/7 downloading and providing since it affects other users experience. When @Home was around on Comcast, they had to throttle upload for everyone because idiots were running servers.

I don't think the TOS of any ISP allows illegal downloading. Now, if they were blocking Vonage, Comcast would be wrong. Bittorent, 99% illegal, good riddance!

Business class is what they should be offered.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl

qworster

join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS

3 edits
reply to Jah_rankin

Hmmm....does The AP's analogy make more sense to you?

From the Associated Press:

"Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer — it comes from Comcast. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."

Who's laughing AT YOU now, dude?



EverAndAnon

@verizon.net
reply to supergirl

Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

What?! I'm paying $60/mo for service*--both upstream and downstream, and I actually want to use it?! Shame on me. (*but I'll be dropping Comcast presently)

"99% illegal"... you so funny. Make up some more statistics, why don'tcha. You clearly don't use Linux. (Actually, the courts have been striking down TOS clauses as illegal over the past year or so. You can expect to see more of this.)