|
 
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral said by TKJunkMail  :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. | |
|
 | 
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral said by LeftOfSanity :said by TKJunkMail :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
 from:
jap
| 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. | |
|
| | |
| | | rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral 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. | |
|
| | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| 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!!! | |
|
| | | 
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| 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
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral 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. | |
|
| | | 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
1 edit | Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral said by jap :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. It's really easy to talk about this and discuss the theory of it, but the actual implementation of such a system is plagued with complexity and technology limitations. Anyone who has ever implemented large scale IDS/IPS deployments knows all about the scaling factors that make this challenging. For this to work as you suggest the inspection probes would need to be placed in-line at all of the points that are being monitored today so that the packets could be touched/marked. Then you have the problem of how you place the traffic into a different class of service. Traffic shaping means queuing, and that's going to require memory on your routing hardware. Assuming right now Comcast is able to get everything done with a single queue per end-station attachment, what you propose would double the number of queues each CMTS needs to manage (one regular and one P2P queue for each end station), which could potentially drive expensive CMTS upgrades or even CMTS splits where adding more capacity to the existing hardware isn't possible.
said by jap :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. That's reading *way* too much into what is taking place. Sandvine isn't interacting with the BT protocol, or touching the payload of packets at all. It's sending a packet with the RST bit set to 1 in the TCP header. To a certain degree it is a cost cutting move, but really it's a matter of balancing access to somewhat limited resources at the edge of the network.
I find it interesting that people are treating network communications between machines as the equivalent of constitutionally protected human free speech. The only way that legal argument is even plausible is if you personify the packets in an effort to describe what is taking place. If you're going to go on a moral tirade about injected RST packets to close connections in the name of bandwidth mitigation, then you better have the same fervor in arguing against satellite providers who are performing ACK spoofing to allow TCP connections to overcome latency limitations and allow for higher transfer rates. If something is legally wrong, it's not just wrong in the cases where you don't benefit from it. Manipulation of protocols is a common practice; technologies like random early detection intentionally discard certain TCP packets to trigger TCP to make flow adjustments, Intrusion prevention systems will inject TCP resets for connections where malicious signatures are detected, and routers will spoof the ARP response of devices off-segment to allow machines with improperly set subnet masks to still function.
said by jap :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. I'm not sure what you are defining as "the boundary"; this implmentation is most likely taking place at the distribution / aggregation layer between the individual CMTS hardware and the upstream Internet access routers. According to posts in the forum this connection limiting is taking place even between connections that only take place on Comcast's network. This make sense because the key point of contention is not the Internet access circuits; Internet bandwidth is dirt cheap and easy to come by, especially when you have your own nationwide fiber backbone like Comcast has built out. The key limitation is the capacity available between the cable modem and the cable head-end -- that's a tougher nut to crack which carries greater expense.
I do believe that you're invoking the freedom of the Internet incorrectly here. This isn't censorship on the content, this is a limitation on the method of distribution. The freedom of the Internet is indeed a great thing, but there are costs involved in moving bits. The premise of the network has always been that as long as you were willing to pay for the cost of distribution you can pretty much move whatever content you want (subject to legal restriction). The issue here is that people have a very distorted view of how much of the actual transport costs their $42.95/mo covers. The cost model works quite well for normal traffic (surfing, email, youtube, typical downloading) but breaks horribly when heavy P2P loads are applied. There's only 2 ways out of this: reduce consumption or raise prices. If Comcast had their entire user base vote on what should be done, I think you know how that'd turn out. | |
|
| |
| |
| | Jah_rankin
join:2006-11-12
Clinton, MD | Re: Wrong! You Have me Rolling on the FLOOR. Well where did you get that anaalogy from???? | |
|
| | Jah_rankin
join:2006-11-12
Clinton, MD
| 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???? | |
|
| | |
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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. | |
|
| | | |
|
WRONG
@nextweb.net
from:
jmn1207
| 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
clubs: | in some situations it is both. | |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | 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 | Kindly tell us what Network Neutrality is about, then | |
|
| 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral 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. | |
|
|
|
| |
Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
| 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 | |
|
| qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA | 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.... | |
|
81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA | 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 | |
|
|
|
EverAndAnon
@verizon.net
| 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.) | |
|
zachary1
you talkin' to me?
join:2004-03-07
right here | It's not stealing, it's sharing.
Screw the haterz, keep sharing! | |
|
unhappyComcaster
@rr.com
| Shaping traffic based on bandwidth management needs is one thing.
Providing a bandwidth limit for customer who use more than a certain allotment is tolerable if it's noted in the contract and not applied in a discriminatory way.
Stopping it altogether is denial of service.
Think about the outcome if all ISPs do denial of service based on protocol. Everyone will will start encrypting everyting. What was gained? Nothing. | |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by TKJunkMail :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. Absolutely. I don't want my service adversely affected because other folks are excessive users. As a matter of fact, if they cannot do THIS, then I want the authorities to require Internet service be provided by metered bandwidth -- pay per megabyte uploaded and downloaded. Un-metered service REQUIRES respect for other users of the service. | |
|
|
|
|
·
Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral
