aboutime
@comcast.net | Filters are good
Then when someone is caught Pirating they can't deny their crimes. |
|
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs: | said by aboutime :
Then when someone is caught Pirating they can't deny their crimes.
Sure they can! (Filtering) technology isn't infallible. |
|
offspring07
join:2008-01-06
Taxis River, NB | reply to aboutime
Pirates will just start using encryption to get around the filters. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to aboutime
its not the ISP's job to play police officer.
imo unless the request for info notice comes with a federal or local court issued subpoena then they should charge a heafty processing fee to the RIAA/MPAA(why not make some nice cash of a group with tons of money to burn).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to offspring07
ISPs will ban encryption, and put it in the TOS, when both Cable and DSL do it, what are you going to do?
The other thing is, an ISP can block all traffic between its residential tier IPs, and IPs of other residential tiered customers of ISPs it partners with "anti p2p blacklist". An ISP can say "there is no reason for 2 IPs, both of which in the TOS say "no servers" to be able to talk to each other, if they do, one of the sides HAS TO breaking the TOS". Other thing is, just block all incoming on all residential IPs or NAT them (NAT will be cheaper, mass NATing will allow ISP to sell off IP4 blocks for big $), enough ISPs do it, p2p will fall apart because nobody can connect. Something tells me, the internet will be slowly splitting into 2, with VPNing/proxying into rented machines in datacenters in "free countries" to be able to use the internet in what is today the normal way. |
|
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| said by patcat88  :ISPs will ban encryption, and put it in the TOS, when both Cable and DSL do it, what are you going to do? Placing the ban on encryption in their TOS wont do a damn thing. You and I both know that.
People dont give a crap about a measly TOS policy.
--
Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| I ment ban it, and enforce it, if it sees a protocol that isn't in its database, its dropped or severly throttled to dialup speed.
What about the other possibility of blocking residential Tier IPs from being able to send packets to other residential Tier IPs? And NATing? (mentioned in post above) |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to aboutime
problem with IP blocking and NATing is it can massively effect legit uses of the service. one such is gaming, lots of online gaming the servers are merely match makers and most of the info goes person to person. and if you hurt gaming you basicly hurt one of the primary reasons people get high speed connections.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | reply to patcat88
WTF?
VPN banned?
Skype(Skype is encrypted)?
Logging into your bank?
Yeah, banning encryption is going to happen... LOL!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
 ·Embarq
 ·Skype
·magicjack.com
| reply to patcat88
Banning encryption won't be popular with telecommuters or people who need to encrypt web traffic (like for banking sites), and blocking all incoming connections won't be popular with gamers or VoIPers.
Saying, "servers are against the TOS, so you can't run any server!" is oversimplifying, and frankly I get tired of this mostly baseless refrain. Many commonly used internet programs operate as servers some or all of the time, including FTP "clients," games, remote administration/access, IM and voice programs. The intent (and often verbiage) of the TOS rule is to prohibit public servers, primarily web, email and FTP. Some ISPs also block the ports normally used for those.
--
The public is a poor business manager. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to dadkins
2 words "Key Escrow". Rogers already throttles all encrypted traffic including VPNs, not sure how low. Ban all encrypted traffic except HTTP SSL, ISP can check for certificates from popular CAs, if the SSL site doesn't have one, its treated like all other encrypted traffic. That way Joe Six pack can still go onto his bank.
Also ISPs can lobby US Govt for encryption restrictions. Wouldn't be too hard to force encryption to be a "weapon" again. ISPs can always use the words "terrorists" and "child porn". |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to aboutime
thing is fighting encryption is Always a loosing battle, someone will write one that looks like a normal packet but is still encrypted. ISPs will counter, coders will counter, prices will go up performance will drop all for zero reason other then fighting P2P which means its not worth the effort.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
·Skype
·magicjack.com
| reply to Kearnstd
Yes, requiring a server to pass all game data will have 2 bad effects: it will require gamers to pay for the massive server bandwidth in some way, and it will greatly increase lag, ruining any game with real time interaction.
--
The public is a poor business manager. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
| reply to patcat88
Whatever you say... I just see a MAJOR backfire with any of this.
Guess that screws me from receiving the copyrighted, encrypted images from a friend who is a photographer for a magazine.
Ones that may not be *officially* encrypted but from his home computer to this laptop. 
Just one of many that this idea will hose.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to MrMoody
Telephone number VOIP (Vonage, etc) does not make your a server, since their IP can be the "server". Not too familiar with online games, I assume most gamers connect to a server in a datacenter somewhere, not p2p with other users (higher cheating possibility in p2p architecture). IM systems already have central server to relay video/file transfers through if both IM users are firewalled and can't receive incoming.
ATT explicitly bans leaving on a p2p app 24/7 but no explicit banning servers by word »www.att.net/csbellsouth/s/s.dll?···&leg=tos
Verizon outright bans all servers
"3.7.5 You may not use the Broadband Service to host any type of server whether personal or commercial in nature."
Comcast bans VPM explicitly
"resell the Service or otherwise make available to anyone outside the Premises the ability to use the Service (i.e. wi-fi, or other methods of networking), in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, or on a bundled or unbundled basis. The Service is for personal and non-commercial use only and you agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider or for any business enterprise or purpose, or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network"
And also bans servers in a very loose definition, and bans p2p unless your run leecher mods
"run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;"
Qwest explictly allows servers
"Service may be used to host a server, personal or commercial, as long as such server is used pursuant to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement applicable to Service and not for any malicious purposes. Malicious purposes include without limitation
Spam, viruses, worms, Trojans, etc."
Some ISPs ban, some don't. They can always switch. |
|
MrMoody
Carbon Based Lifeform
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
·Skype
·magicjack.com
| said by patcat88 :Telephone number VOIP (Vonage, etc) does not make your a server, since their IP can be the "server". Wrong. How do you receive phone calls? Client connections cannot remain open indefinitely. The Vonage box waiting for an incoming request is, by definition, a server. And not all VoIP is standard telephone like Vonage either. Ever hear of Skype?
Not too familiar with online games, I assume most gamers connect to a server in a datacenter somewhere, not p2p with other users (higher cheating possibility in p2p architecture). No you aren't. Nearly all games connect user to user to reduce lag and server load. Head to head real-time games quickly become unplayable with any amount of lag.
Comcast bans {VPN} explicitly
"resell the Service or otherwise make available to anyone outside the Premises the ability to use the Service (i.e. wi-fi, or other methods of networking), in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, or on a bundled or unbundled basis. The Service is for personal and non-commercial use only and you agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider or for any business enterprise or purpose, or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network" No this doesn't prohibit VPN, because VPN doesn't connect remote LAN users onto Comcast's network. This is referring to reselling: allowing others to use your connection.
And also bans servers in a very loose definition, and bans p2p unless your run leecher mods
"run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;" Referring to public servers exactly as I said. Services != servers, and they only prohibit servers that provide services to others, so a server that doesn't provide services to others is OK. This is the only reasonable prohibition against servers, and I believe RoadRunner and others are worded similarly.
So Verizon is the only one that really prohibits all servers, and they don't enforce it at all, probably because it would be ridiculous to do so. Their lawyers, like you, probably don't know what a server really is or is used for.
--
The public is a poor business manager. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to aboutime
MMOs are really the only client-server games, and too much VPN can even screw them up and there is no reason i should get a 200-300ping in WoW just so some movie fatcat doesnt have to worry about piracy. we pay comcast to provide TV and a pipe to the net.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to MrMoody
quote:
Main Entry:
serv·er Listen to the pronunciation of server
Pronunciation:
\ˈsər-vər\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century
1 : one that serves food or drink
2 : the player who serves (as in tennis)
3 : something used in serving food or drink
4 : one that serves legal processes upon another
5 : the celebrant's assistant at mass
6 : a computer in a network that is used to provide services (as access to files or shared peripherals or the routing of e-mail) to other computers in the network
Source: »www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b···a=server
"provide services", is the opposite of "receive services".
VOIP protocols can always paging channels that are kept alive, one reason why UDP exists, your still not a server in using one. In p2p, someone has to be the server by definition of TCP, Skype clients become tunnels if they are unfirewalled, thats offering services to others outside your LAN/one big open proxy server.
My mistake, it bans running a VPN server, not running a VPN client. The VPN ban, bans you from running a VPN server or more loosly a proxy on your comcast connection, then have clients use the VPN server. Just because 1 clause doesn't match the spirit of the sentence/paragraph, it doesn't make it unenforceable in my legalese knowledge.
quote:
"run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
"commonly refered to" isn't the legal definition. The first part of the sentence is. "examples of" "but are not limited to", just because they list those, doesn't mean other things are not against TOS, says it in the sentence.
Regarding Gamers, well you can always go back to telnet MUD games and people who want a GUI can goto a RPG JK JK Other than lagging everyone through central server, no way around that problem other than changing the type of gameplay, gamers will revolt, and thats pretty bad. Personally I know of alot of joe six pack gamers, when they can't play, expect hell.
Speaking of gamers, whatever happened to GameRail? Incumabant ISPs could always advertise something similar to GameRail and make you buy their "gaming addon" to be able to p2p with other gamers. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to aboutime
but why should they have to? without games we would probally not have dual core processors and broadband connections as common as they are today.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
