FCC Hints At New Traffic Shaping Guidelines > Tell the TRUTH

reply to Ahrenl

Re: Tell the TRUTH

You mean BT downloading? Nobody in the US uploads, it's too easy to be prosecuted.

And no blocking it is not the answer.

ISP's should immediately prioritize all http, ssh, vpn, smpt, pop/imap, and regulate all bittorrent traffic down to bulk priority. Everything else gets first chomp at the pipe and the bulk gets there when it gets there.

The tools are there. Nobody has to guarantee timely delivery of bulk traffic, you get it when it gets there and deal with it.

Does anyone not remember downloading doom at 2400 baud?

reply to NOCMan
If what you are saying is correct, then what's the issue?

So far, Comcast has only blocked UPLOADS on torrents, not downloads. If downloads are bing impaired, it's because another user's upload is being shaped.

Also, the moment someone has their traffic prioritized, you know darn well the net-watchers will cry foul and anti-competitive and all the rest.

reply to fiberguy

reply to NOCMan
"ISP's should immediately prioritize all http, ssh, vpn, smpt, pop/imap, and regulate all bittorrent traffic down to bulk priority."

That would work great if the BT crowd followed the rules. When ISPs start doing this then the BT crowd finds a way to make their traffic look like legit traffic. If they did this then BT would begin to look like SSH or VPN traffic.

BT is just as guilty as the ISPs. IF they were not trying to get around the ISP's traffic policies then the ISPs would not resort to things like forging packets. Neither side is in the right, they are BOTH wrong.

reply to NOCMan

reply to battleop

"An ISP isn't supposed to have traffic policies. If they're selling "the Internet," they're supposed to follow Internet Standards."

So ISPs should allow the free flow of spam, spy ware, any virus, or anything else that might come down the pipe. They should allow DDOS attacks as well as port scans and anything else that might inhibit your true unfiltered access to the internet? Maybe they should just bypass their firewalls all together and let the chaos flow. After all we can't have ISPs running around having traffic polices.

Could you care to point out what RFC says that ISPs are not to protect their networks?

Every example that you mention -is- a violation of Network Neutrality. They are also:

1. Clearly and prominently publicized by the ISP -- it's easy to find out from Comcast what ports that they block and why.

2. Considered rare exceptions to the normal expected behavior of the Internet, which is why ISPs traditionally publicize their list of blocked ports.

3. Nearly universally considered either of no effect or valuable by the ISPs customers, so much so that never once (that I know of) has any customer ever complained or sought redress. In some cases, ISPs will also let subscribers "opt out" of certain blocks (such as outgoing port 25 or outgoing volume mail restrictions).

That said -- how long has it been since Comcast added any ports to its list of blocked ports? I cannot remember anything new being added within the past 2-3 years.

So, yeah, I'll grant you that exception to my rather global statement. It exists, and I even support it. It is, however, simply an exception to the rule.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report.

Comcast should have been up front with their customers about screwing with BT traffic. However they have apparently corrected that by making changes to their AUP. I think that as long as they are doing the "All or None" approach they will stay out of trouble. Once they get into screwing with specific destinations like screwing with a competing VoIP provider they are in a lot of trouble.

Perhaps this was a way to test the waters to see what would happen.

reply to funchords
You claim that something BattleOP said is violation of Network Neutrality. What is it actually and what is a violation? Nothing has been set in stone for it and nothing will be. So how can one violate something that doesnt exist?

reply to funchords
If you don't like the way an ISP operates its business then START YOUR OWN

What a helpful comment, thanks for adding!

reply to hottboiinnc
Hi Kyle,

Network Neutrality is a principle, and that principle has existed since the beginning of the Internet.

That doesn't mean to say that we've never had a Network Neutrality violation until recently, it simply means that the principle has been around since the beginning.

A principle stands above laws and rules. Sometimes they are organizers to other principles: Honesty is a principle under which principles such as respect for the truth, fair dealing, and honoring the property of others. Sometimes they are the principles that organize our written and common laws: robbery, theft, burglary, fraud, and forgery.

Getting pulled over and having your pockets searched by a policeman is a violation of your privacy. However, the word violation in an of itself does not mean it is actionable. The officer's reasonable concern for his own safety might justify the brief and limited roadside search.

The principles of Honesty, Privacy, and Network Neutrality are not nebulous. We know what they are, and we know when they are violated -- even if there are no written laws or rules telling us so.

As battleop noted above, there are Network Neutrality violations that almost everyone accepts (and many appreciate). But I think we can agree that those examples are exceptions, and that despite those exceptions, the Internet is expected to be Neutral.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report.