SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to openbox9
Re: Policy goals and rules are different things
said by openbox9  :But, the 300 million is what you would be referring to when discussing the AP's and Consumerist's allegations. Actually, that "300 million" was your quote, not mine.
said by openbox9 :Also, I think your use of the network neutrality advocates is misplaced. I would say a better representation would be BBR readers. Not necessarily. I read a great many other public forums on the matter besides this one.
said by openbox9 :Besides, this really isn't a net neutrality issue IMO since they aren't discriminating against a specific user or specific content in favor of their own. So, in your opinion, in order for something to be a NN issue, a provider has to discriminate against a "specific user" or "specific content" in favor of their own? What else would you call throttling BT traffic? Just b/c Comcrap didn't replace the throttled BT traffic with their own content is irrelevant. The fact remains they still throttled other content arbitrarily. Yours is a specious argument. |
|
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| said by SilverSurfer :The fact remains they still throttled other content arbitrarily. Yours is a specious argument. But they're not throttling BitTorrent arbitrarily, they have a reason and a supposed (by them) necessity to throttle.
If the reason is network performance, then it is very legitimate. What other reason would they block it for? If network upgrades can't keep up with network performance in the short run, what else are they supposed to do? Start canceling customers? Cut back on download speeds? Are any of these, including Sandvine, reasonable solutions?
ISP's are blocking IP's that send spam and DoS attacks all the time. Is that violating network neutrality? What if I personally wanted that spam?
Are they violating my rights?
Some ISP's block ping to their routers or specific servers. Or they block port 23 to servers. Is that against network neutrality? I mean, for all intents and purposes blocking ports with firewalls is essentially the same as blocking traffic with Sandvine.
So where do you draw the line? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to SilverSurfer
said by SilverSurfer :Actually, that "300 million" was your quote, not mine. It's my number from the population statistics of this country, but the statement was made based on your assertion that complaints have received national exposure.said by SilverSurfer :So, in your opinion, in order for something to be a NN issue, a provider has to discriminate against a "specific user" or "specific content" in favor of their own? Not just my opinion.
»www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#what
Put simply, Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
also to discriminate between content providers (e.g. websites, services, protocols), particularly competitors.
»obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-···neutral/
"It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge.
But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say that they want to create high speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual agreements with Internet content providers for access to those high speed lanes.
Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes."
said by SilverSurfer :What else would you call throttling BT traffic? I'd call it throttling BT traffic. As long as the throttling takes place across the board for network management, I don't see the net neutrality issue. Many ISPs have similar network management practices in place. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :if I had to guess, I would say that in your opinion, very little would probably be a net neutrality issue. "if an incumbent does it, it can't be wrong" 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. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to smcallah
said by smcallah :So where do you draw the line? I think if an informal vote was taken that we could get a fairly decent consensus on spam/Dos attacks. Most people generally don't want either. And as to pinging, anyone with even a peripheral familiarity with network admin/security wouldn't argue with you on the merits of blocking port 23 to servers, but I would argue that the average person could care less about pinging.
What we are discussing is the wholesale blocking of a very specific type of traffic -BT- or more specifically, P2P, which does not always necessarily have a nefarious connotation. Just because people use it doesn't mean everyone who does so is a pirate. And to state as much would be like saying that anyone who buys a firearm is going to go on a rampage and become a serial murderer. P2P traffic is not necessarily always a bad thing.
You draw the line when a national provider like Comcast suddenly starts throttling/blocking certain types of traffic based on its arbitrary judgment at the same time it advertises itself as a content-friendly network and then denies doing it after it gets caught. |
|
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| said by SilverSurfer :Just because people use it doesn't mean everyone who does so is a pirate. And to state as much would be like saying that anyone who buys a firearm is going to go on a rampage and become a serial murderer. P2P traffic is not necessarily always a bad thing. Well, if you're going to use THAT analogy, then the same can be said for email from known spammer netblocks, and legitimate traffic that happens to sit on a network that a DoS was started from, and not all pings are necessarily bad things either.
So again, if they're allowed with no questions asked to block some traffic on their own private network, why are they questioned when they do it to a different type of traffic?
I'm not saying they're right in blocking P2P, far from that. But if the FCC comes out and says they can't block traffic, how sweeping a ruling is that going to be?
Would they not be allowed to block ANYTHING by the word of the law at that point?
When you involve non-technical people in things like this, unintended consequences always happen. Just look at the DMCA. |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :said by bi0tech :... Yawn for continual misrepresentation of everything. TCH/HCT doesn't actually misrepresent anything, he is just here to protect the poor telcos/cablecos from us mean people with a clue. Right. All you keyboard crusaders are FOR THE PEOPLE!
1. Its their network to manage. Be glad they don't block it all together.
2. Vote with your wallet. If they are your only provider, then be thankful. Why bitch at the only company giving you service? Not Comcasts fault DSL isnt available.
--
Fighting on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Win or lose, your still Retarted! |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
 ·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :As long as the throttling takes place across the board for network management, I don't see the net neutrality issue. if providers use it across the board, that just provides more evidence for the need for strict net neutrality laws. if providers only use it on under-developed nodes or over saturated nodes, then that is more understandable but still a violation of net neutrality laws.
net neutrality is a slippery slope. this is the first slip but will definitely not be the last. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to smcallah
said by smcallah :When you involve non-technical people in things like this, unintended consequences always happen. Just look at the DMCA. Oh shit, dude, don't get me started on that! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :if providers use it across the board, that just provides more evidence for the need for strict net neutrality laws. if providers only use it on under-developed nodes or over saturated nodes, then that is more understandable but still a violation of net neutrality laws. Discussed before:
»A good 3rd party independent ananlysis of Net Neutrality
»Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
|
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :if providers use it across the board, that just provides more evidence for the need for strict net neutrality laws. This is NOT a net neutrality issue. If the legislators ever actually screw up and get some net neutrality type of law passed, I think there will be a lot of disappointed BBR members. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to LeftOfSanity
said by LeftOfSanity :Right. All you keyboard crusaders are FOR THE PEOPLE! 1. Its their network to manage. Be glad they don't block it all together. 2. Vote with your wallet. If they are your only provider, then be thankful. Why bitch at the only company giving you service? Not Comcasts fault DSL isnt available. we are the people - I don't work for a telecom/cable company, nor do I have any stock in these companies (unless it's in my retirement 401K). my interest is a speedy broadband connection at a reasonable price that lets me visit ANY site available on the internet.
1. yes, within the confines of laws and regulations, which these days either go unenforced or are in the process of being gutted for the benefit of the incumbents. if they blocked it entirely, they wouldn't exactly be providing a service.
2. comcast is my only provider and I am not thankful, nor is there reason for me to be. also, I don't really blame comcast, I blame the government, which should be doing things in the interests of consumers and the country. the current situation IS NOT good for consumers or the country - the longer the government allows the current monopoly/duopoly situation to exist, the further we will fall behind the rest of the world. if you can't see this is a bad thing, I doubt I can change your mind. |
|
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. |
|
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? |
|
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. |
|
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 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. |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| 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? |
|
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
|
|
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. |
|
