 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | 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 |
|
|
|
| said by Linklist: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. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | reply to Linklist
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 |
|
approval from:
jmn1207 
| reply to Linklist
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. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to Linklist
in some situations it is both. |
|
 knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | reply to LeftOfSanity
said by LeftOfSanity:said by Linklist: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.  |
|
approval from:
jap
| 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. |
|
 ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to Linklist
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 Linklist
Kindly tell us what Network Neutrality is about, then |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| 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? |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist: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 |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
·ViaTalk
·Vonage
1 edit | reply to Linklist
said by Linklist
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. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
1 edit | 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
 HangmnDon't Fight It...It's InevitablePremium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA | reply to Linklist
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 /ʌnˈlɪmɪtɪd/ 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 |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
·MSN
2 edits | 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??? |
|
| You Have me Rolling on the FLOOR. Well where did you get that anaalogy from???? |
|
