dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
972
share rss forum feed


fightinfilipino

@mindspring.com

i am constantly amazed and disappointed...

at the responses of people on BBR/DSLReports boards on topics such as Net Neutrality.

if Comcast is indeed filtering bandwidth based on specific protocols, THEY SHOULD SAY AS SUCH. telling customers that they aren't doing such filtering is deceptive.

furthermore, restricting specific protocols IS restricting specific internet services. THAT is counter to Net Neutrality. it is the SAME problem as ISPs degrading or blocking bandwidth for IP-based phone services that compete with the ISPs own internal phone service. this is HORRIBLY problematic.

also, if we're talking about the U.S. here, we should be working towards approaching internet access as if it were an essential utility accessible by ALL. if we want to be competitive in emerging technological fields, we can't be letting horribly-run corporations ruling over segments of internet users like fiefdoms. we need a country-wide strategy for broadband that drives increased capacity and open access.


telcolackey5
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
Why should you be amazed and disappointed with people that have a different opinion than you do?

said by fightinfilipino :

we need a country-wide strategy for broadband that drives increased capacity and open access.
Ah.. yes... we need more government. That is the answer.[/sarcasm] As far as open access, we already have it. The words "Net Neutrality" are thrown around way to much. Each day someone posts FUD about "XXX Blocking". All of these turn out to be BS and make the poster look like chicken little.

In the case here, broadband ISPs (not just Comcast) are using traffic shaping to address problem areas, and in reality, running p2p 7x24 is violations of almost every broadband ISPs ToS. p2p is essentially "re-selling"(1) of the bandwidth ISPs sold you (not the world)

Understand not everyone will agree with the "Internet should be free and paid for by business, taxes, more government". Some of us think the speed and price are good, the free market is good and would rather avoid more taxes/government.

(1) providing your bandwidth in exchange for p2p download privs.

Ahrenl

join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
1. There's no free market here.. move along.

2. I don't request more government, just correct government, there's plenty government in this business to go around.

3. Net neutrality is thrown around WAY too much, but mostly by people who don't understand it. It's still very important.

jvanbrecht

join:2007-01-08
Bowie, MD
reply to telcolackey5
Not totally true, bittorrent and p2p are not the same thing. P2P is an over arching description of traffic between 2 entities. Bittorrent falls under that, as does kazaa and all those other file sharing tools. The major difference, is that many of those file sharing tools allow a user to transfer a file, or many files to another user, where as bittorrent is designed to distribute the load, 1 user downloading small portions of a file from many users, this distributes the load, and is not technically acting as a server in the traditional sense of the word "server".

You are not reselling anything, you are part of a legitimate connection, now if you tried to charge someone for your participation in data transfer, that is selling/reselling.

Also, traffic shaping is one thing, sending tcp resets, is totally different, and could technically constitute a criminal violation by comcast, yes it is there network, no they are not allowed to eavesdrop on your conversation (in the terms of data movement), same way Verizon/$telco cannot arbitrarily listen to you talking to you mother (don't even bring up the NSA stuff, thats a different ball game). I work in the IT security sector, and trust me, I know well the limitations an entity is allowed to use on traffic in transit, and technically what comcast is doing is illegal.