Comcast 'Delaying' Not 'Blocking' Traffic > I'm sorry but....

said by backness:

and just a quick question,

Do you think a sandvine box is free? If not how much do you think it costs to buy them for a entire network?

My objections to this technology are mostly around the cost of implementation vs. upgrading the network.

If i were management i would shortlist the most congested nodes on the network and see how many we could upgrade for the same money as the sandvine boxes.

said by salahx:

While I agree BBR often vilifies Comcast in favor of abusers, this is not one of those cases. Enough users have been adversely affected by this to cause a major news outlet, the AP, to test for this. Not everyone, maybe not even most users of BitTorrent. A major Linux distribution, Ubuntu, just release a new version (7.10, Gutsy Gibbon) a Linux distribution heavily rely on BitTorrent.

Furthermore, I have technical reservation with what Comcast is doing, TCP is intended to be a network-friendly protocol; there are other packet games Comcast could play to make this more subtle and less customer affected, but by playing RST games this can only lead to "arms race" by switching to UDP, which this trick doesn't work on. And nobody ever wins an arms race.

Comcast has done some questionable things, but this particular measure is ill-conceived. While the majority of Cocmast subscribers have probably never heard of BitTorrent (although they may use WoW which uses it). a significant minority does. Comcast equivocation on this issue is reprehensible. The public has already figured out what going on ANYWAY, its time for Comcast to come clean and stop the equivocation. Heck, we impeached a President over this kind of equivocation.

As I said earlier - this time, its not just a case of pirates vilifying Comcast. Many legitimate users are being affected. Sure, maybe it minority, but a large minority, many orders of magnitude of those who hit invisible quotas. Comcast has been honest with its subscribers in the past (the invisa-quota thing is controversial but its not like these subscribers weren't warned. The KNEW they had it coming).

said by asellus:

Just because a protocol is 99.9999% can be used for copyright infringement, does it mean it should be delayed/blocked? It is like China saying Internet can be used for abuse/revolt/piracy/Taiwan etc and lets block/delay them.

Comcast has a clear TOS that says those users that do copyright infringement can be kicked out from service. Why Comcast does not enforce that? Making assumptions that Bittorrent == Bad will surely hit plenty of innocents, just look at Lotus Notes users and some Comcast users who are not able to go to some sites (read Techdirt/Ars Technica forums for more info).

Alreadym the over-ligitious America already smells of some potential civil-action lawsuits because of this. This is what you got if Comcast do something and it hits innocent users.

said by Nightfall:

As for the rest of the field, I think this is a great opportunity for DSL, FIOS, and other services to toot their horn about their connections not being packed shaped.

said by Nightfall:

I hate to break it to you, but yes. If there is a protocol or software taking up an obscene amount of bandwith and 99.9999 percent of it is all illegal, then it should be blocked. You compare ti to China saying the Internet can be used for abuse/revolt/etc. Except that the internet here is uncensored. The analogy just doesn't add up.

I do agree with you on that. Why doesn't Comcast just police this issue? Probably because it would be a PR nightmare. What they are facing now is much less of a nightmare than turning off someones connection and having them rant to the local newspaper. As it is right now, the news picks up on it, reports it, and the general public pretty much says "meh". The only ones who are really bitching are the file sharers and the tech gurus.

said by russotto:

Your tag is "My goal is to deny yours". How appropriate to a Comcast apologist on this particular topic. Maybe it should be Comcast's new slogan.

said by haplo2112:

Might I suggest yu see this from another perspective?

If the network were properly upgraded and working fast and efficently, then whatever a person might want to download would come down quick they would get off the network and it would be all over.

For those seeding, a faster upload speed would let them do the job more quickly they would hit their seeding (giving back theshhold more quickly and also get off)

said by Rick:

BBR's persistence in presenting this issue in a negative light is disturbing.

said by Rick:

A company does not have to tell all about how they police their network from abuse. But yet, you somehow feel that "honesty" is the best policy in this case because "mom said so".

said by Rick:

Well, I doubt that Mom encourages her little darlings to steal and trade copyrighted material.
And folks, raise your hands if you REALLY believe that that isn't what 99.9999% of bit torrent is really all about.

said by Rick:

... massive amounts of bandwidth that cause the rest of us problems. ...Network neutrality is not the issue here. The issue is flagrant abuse of isp's networks. ... Network neutrality does not have to say Comcast or any isp has to give someone 400 gigs a month of access for 42.95/month.
That is unreasonable..and damaging to the rest of us ...

said by Rick:

I really think that BBR should get on the side of what's right here..and stop presenting comcast and others in the negative light you are.

said by Rick:

A company does not have to tell all about how they police their network from abuse. But yet, you somehow feel that "honesty" is the best policy in this case because "mom said so".

said by Rick:

But yet, you somehow feel that "honesty" is the best policy in this case because "mom said so".

said by Rick:

And folks, raise your hands if you REALLY believe that that isn't what 99.9999% of bit torrent is really all about.

said by Rick:

The vast majority of people using these bit torrent services are not only breaking the law, but they're also the ones consuming the massive amounts of bandwidth that cause the rest of us problems.

said by Rick:

Network neutrality does not have to say Comcast or any isp has to give someone 400 gigs a month of access for 42.95/month.

said by Rick:

You risk becoming much less as a website I think..something along the lines of a renegade website here to promote pirate bay or something.

said by Thaler:

[Clearly you've never had to download large content files anytime in the last decade, have you? Sorry, but if you can't use BT at broadband speeds, then the ISP line is rendered nigh-useless to many legitimate online uses.

said by beerbum:

so.... I take it from this statement, the only way one can obtain program files / distributions, music, television, and movies is using Bit Torrent.

said by Rick:

BBR's persistence in presenting this issue in a negative light is disturbing.

And folks, raise your hands if you REALLY believe that that [piracy] isn't what 99.9999% of bit torrent is really all about.

BBR says this.
"So is using hardware to send forged TCP packets with the RST (reset) flag set blocking or delaying? Does it matter? "

Of course it matters.

said by haplo2112:

Oh POOR Comcast with their billions of dollars a year profits people are actually utilizing the network at the full potential that they have been provided.