Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs: | Is this any surprise?
Didn't we already know that? |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Camelot One  :Didn't we already know that?
Are you asking, didn't we already know the EFF was wrong? The answer to that is no. Network neutrality is a sound principle and Comcast is violating it.
The EFF may admit that some restraint of usage is acceptable if it's necessary to maintain usability of the network for everyone. Even so, neutrality remains a sound principle and Comcast's practice is not justified.
The fact that DOCSIS 1 cable modems can't handle a certain amount of outbound traffic when there is a certain amount of contention was news to many of us - we didn't "already know this". However, it does not justify stomping on all buttorrent seeding to non-Comcast peers, regardless of how much traffic there is on the node and regardless of how little the user may be claiming in general.
What it does mean is that DOCSIS 1 cable modems are inadequate to deliver the advertised bandwidth a reasonable portion of the time for the variety of normal internet activities of Comcast's user base. It is the ISPs responsibility to avoid advertising more than it can deliver, to disclose caps when it is luring customers, and to treat customers equitably.
ISPs should be prevented by law from discriminating by the contents or destinations of packets. This would not prevent any necessary network management; it would only require them to do it by equitable means. |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| Stop misusing "Network Neutrality"
Network Neutrality refers to ISPs double dipping on charging/extorting fees for both users paying for their connections and web sites paying for prioritization of traffic according to origination and destination. It does not refer to protocol-based QoS. It does not mean a flat, unmanaged, unQoS-ed Internet. By repeatedly and deliberately misusing this phrase, its importance is being weakened.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by Cabal :Network Neutrality refers to ISPs double dipping on charging/extorting fees for both users paying for their connections and web sites paying for prioritization of traffic according to origination and destination. It does not refer to protocol-based QoS. It does not mean a flat, unmanaged, unQoS-ed Internet. By repeatedly and deliberately misusing this phrase, its importance is being weakened. Good point. But many commentators like to use the current "hot cause" and try to make it cover every little pet peeve they have about the internet. So they try to make "network neutrality" become the umbrella for the anarchy that they favor.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
|
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Cabal
1. It's true that impartial QoS is not considered a violation of network neutrality. However, if you read the articles you'd find that Comcast's excuse for packet-forging is precisely the fact that QoS doesn't work in the congested-node upstream situation with cable modems.
2. Your definitions are wrong. The double-dipping is one motivation for neutrality violations, but selective throttling itself can be an abusive practice regardless of whether the ISP tries to charge third parties for not having it imposed on them.
3. Comcast's practice would have been acceptable if it had been merely prioritizing other traffic over bittorrent, only when congestion required it. That's legitimate network management and consistent with neutrality, and it would have solved the problem. Instead Comcast totally prevented seeding to non-Comcast peers, regardless of the state of the network. This punishes innocents and prevents a legitimate use of the connection the customers are paying for. It's the discrimination by destination, and in excess of requirements that is out of bounds. |
|
