espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| reply to morbo
Re: Policy goals and rules are different things
said by morbo  :manage a network and degrade and block certain legitimate traffic are two different things. Ok, I'll play.
How does one manage capacity without interfering with at least some quantity of traffic? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to morbo
It's not a debate of semantics, it's network management. I'll go back to my original statement that I believe there will be a lot of disappointed BBR readers if your net neutrality law ever sees daylight. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to openbox9
semantic debate that will be settled with appropriate net neutrality laws. let's see who wins... |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :manage a network and degrade and block certain legitimate traffic are two different things. it's important that everyone understand the issue clearly. If I'm managing a network and it is getting pummeled by abusive users, I will cap and shape whatever needs to be done to bring the network back to a nominal level for a majority of my customers. You say degrade, I say shape. You say block, I say who's blocking? Capping is a good solution and shaping is good for the peak times of use that the abusive users get online. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to openbox9
manage a network and degrade and block certain legitimate traffic are two different things.
it's important that everyone understand the issue clearly. |
|
CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12
| reply to SilverSurfer
said by SilverSurfer :said by TKJunkMail :But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over? Because you are clearly one of the minority who seems to think it perfectly OK to advertise an all you can eat buffet for X price and then change your mind about it when the customer actually does so. They have never advertised an ALL YOU CAN EAT BUFFET.
They advertised a WE NEVER CLOSE buffet. 
--
CableTechs.org/"Horrible People with Integrity" |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to morbo
I seriously doubt you will ever see an ISPs ability to manage their network made illegal. If you do, get ready for price increases and/or decreases in service offerings. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to openbox9
as long as the law takes into account the best interests of the business community and its consumers (and not best interests of dumb-pipe providers like comcast and at&t), then the net neutrality laws will make comcasts actions illegal. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to TKJunkMail
despite what you may think, you just saying something doesn't make it so. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to jjeffeory
If it is competing then yes. Otherwise, the ISP is simply managing a large swath of very troubling and resource intensive traffic on their network. This would also be different if the ISP singled out The Pirate Bay for example in the P2P management and left the remainder of BT traffic flowing freely. |
|
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | reply to openbox9
Right. "Shaping" & "throttling" competing services' traffic is also a net neutralitiy issue. |
|
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | reply to openbox9
Managing their network is different than what they're doing. There's Qos and there's altering their customer's data. Traffic prioritisation is very differnt than redirection. |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| reply to jsouth
said by jsouth :By continuing to pay your monthly bill, your "contract" updates routinely and you agree to said "contract, ToS, and AUP. I'm failing to see how you are able to claim fraud It my update as you say but the information in it has not changed. They still deny they even use any kind of traffic-shaping and do not have clear caps listed. Other cable companies do (like COX whom I use) and they have had no problems. Why can't Comcast? What are they trying to hide? They don't deny it. They said they don't block it, which they don't. They said they take steps to manage their network so it doesn't degrade for other users. You may say "It's not my problem their network can't handle it." Maybe, and hopefully when Docsis 3 rolls out it won't be a problem. They don't neglect their infrastructure, they may not be as speedy as we all would like but unfortunatley there is red tape and shareholders to deal with. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to backness
said by backness :Comcast's fundamental problem is that 3 teenagers can saturate their local node and management thinks the best solution is to buy sandvine boxes. This is the 21st century network they offer. And if they spent a ton of money upgrading the infrastructure, then 10 teenagers can saturate the local node. With P2P there is no end to how much bandwidth is needed. P2P is a protocol that is bad for the internet and unsustainable for ISPs to tolerate.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
|
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| reply to openbox9
By continuing to pay your monthly bill, your "contract" updates routinely and you agree to said "contract, ToS, and AUP. I'm failing to see how you are able to claim fraud
It my update as you say but the information in it has not changed. They still deny they even use any kind of traffic-shaping and do not have clear caps listed. Other cable companies do (like COX whom I use) and they have had no problems. Why can't Comcast? What are they trying to hide?
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to jsouth
By continuing to pay your monthly bill, your "contract" updates routinely and you agree to said "contract, ToS, and AUP. I'm failing to see how you are able to claim fraud. |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| reply to smcallah
So where do you draw the line?
I'd say when they block all ports to a particular application.
A DoS attack violates the rights of the recipient to connect to the net.
Nice try on the false issues
Comcast's fundamental problem is that 3 teenagers can saturate their local node and management thinks the best solution is to buy sandvine boxes. This is the 21st century network they offer. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to nasadude
Censorship != net neutrality. The Madison River Communications issue, was resolved without legislation. It was actually a net neutrality issue because of the fact that they were blocking competing services. |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| reply to LeftOfSanity
It may be their network to manage but they also have an obligation to the customer with whom they have a contract with. If they would change their TOS and come out and say we have caps of this much and this is allowed/not allowed on our service and if you use it you will find if blocked, then that would be ok because it would give people a choice to change service or not. AS it is now they hide this information in the hopes that they can keep people who might normally leave with their service. This is a form of fraud in my eyes. Sure people here can leave and "vote with their wallet" as you have said. Why? Why? should a customer have to go through a hardship just because a company perpetuates fraud. A few people leaving won't teach them anything. Having to change their TOS, Possible pay a fine and possibly having hundreds of people leaving would.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :Until we see an actual net neutrality issue, I'll agree with your statement. Furthermore, I don't care if it's an "incumbent" or any other provider, I'll stand by my belief that providers must management their networks. you don't keep up with the news much do you?
* ATT censoring lyrics on a streaming concernt
* verizon refusing to allow a NARAL text message
* and over a year ago now, a small independent ISP BLOCKING VOIP
violations of the principles of network neutrality have been and are occurring - this is just apparently the first time an incumbent is going to see it through and not succumb to public pressure. If comcast gets away with this, there goes the internet as we know it. |
|
