Re: Tell the TRUTH in

Re: Tell the TRUTH in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20059789 en Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:33:26 EDT Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:33:26 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20069069 funchords : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20069069 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:22:51 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20066179 Ahrenl : What a helpful comment, thanks for adding! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20066179 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:21:03 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20066083 hottboiinnc : If you don't like the way an ISP operates its business then START YOUR OWN]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20066083 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:05:52 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20066071 hottboiinnc : 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20066071 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:04:17 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20062330 battleop : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20062330 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:27:30 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20062115 funchords : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20062115 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:46:14 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20061695 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? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20061695 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:41:58 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20061435 funchords :

said by battleop

:

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.

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

There have been two, and will soon be three, technologies added to BitTorrent to thwart ISPs.

1. Protocol Obfuscation

2. Message Stream Encryption

3. Tracker Obfuscation (in draft)

In all three cases, it is because ISPs broke Internet Standards and attacked the protocol, even though the protocol was following the rules.

In all three cases, the new BitTorrent technologies that were added were pre-announced and built on open specifications for anyone to read. ISPs can and should know how their network is being used so that they can support their users.

BitTorrent doesn't want a fight with the ISPs, they just want what's right. BitTorrent has acted above-board each time -- and some of the ISPs have, too -- but not Comcast in this instance.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20061435 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:59:58 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20061376 funchords :

said by NOCMan

:

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.

ISPs have no business worrying about HTTP, SSH, VPN, SMTP -- blah blah blah.

ISPs should worry about one thing: I.P. -- Internet Protocol

Any protocol above that level is really not the ISPs concern!

How do you write transport-layer or application-layer network software and predict how it will behave on the Internet if every ISP has their hand on a knob tuning the protocols to their specific liking?

If VOIP doesn't work in the presence of BitTorrent (it does), then let's have the software and network engineers figure out one OPEN and PUBLISHED solution that will work world-wide instead of a bunch of ISPs and transit providers who insist on working in secret.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20061376 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:50:31 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20060293 battleop : "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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20060293 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:47:40 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20060074 TKJunkMail :

said by RARPSL

said by fiberguy

:

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.

I think you should look again at how BT works. Failure to upload (when you have needed pieces) or dropping uploading sessions will cause the peers at the other end to disconnect you or at least stop talking to you. Once a peer requests a piece from you, failure to supply it will cause the requesting peer to stop sending you pieces (ie: Choke you). This means that what Comcast is doing by blocking Uploads is ALSO blocking downloads since there will be no data to be downloaded (due to you being choked by the other peers).

Then let those pushing out versions of bittorrent change that, so slow uploading peers aren't choked.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20060074 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:18:10 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20059789 RARPSL :

said by fiberguy

:

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.

said by fiberguy

:

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.

You will always have complainers, but they have little grounds moan if the QoS is done equally across the board and doesn't prioritize a competing service lower than the ISP's service (e.g. VoIP).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20059583 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:54:21 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20059356 fiberguy : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20059356 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:10:55 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20059237 openbox9 :

said by NOCMan

Agreed. It's relatively easy for ISPs to look at traffic patterns, determine most used, least "dangerous", and time sensitive protocols, and then set priority weights as appropriate. I would guess that it costs less for hardware to implement QoS than it does for hardware to conduct deep level inspection of traffic.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20059237 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:47:00 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20059145 NOCMan : 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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20059145 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:28:31 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20059118 fiberguy : Fair?

It would be nice if they would just come out and reinforce "no servers" and add to it, "No BT Uploading" allowed. That would end this problem over night.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20059118 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:23:58 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20059103 fiberguy : No.. I think that means something TOTALLY different.. So far, I still believe my predictions WILL come true... (pending the fact that the FCC caves and actually cows to the torrent whiners)

it's possible he could pass guidelines that force ISPs to be more transparent with the precise nature of their traffic shaping, giving broadband customers an easier time comparing providers.

What this translates into is simple: You buy this tier, you get 40gig transfer.. buy the other, you get 80gig transfer. Again, welcome to punishing everyone in order to control the small amount of problem children.

However, at this time, I don't think the FCC will do anything.. for not only do they not have the ability to, no rules have been broken, nothing has been violated.. the ISPs have a right to manage their networks.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20059103 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:21:33 EDT Re: Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20058880 Ahrenl : Seriously. If they just made the rules, that you had to report it EVERY time you used "network management", and there would be a big fine/penalty if you didn't and were caught.

Then, if the actions survive the light of day, at least things can be reviewed in a fair and honest way. It's impossible to right regulation/legislation to cover every instance for an evolving technology. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20058880 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:38:37 EDT Tell the TRUTH http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20058746 newview :

quote:
"They must be conducted in an open and transparent way," said Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission".

That means no more lying, Comcast.
--

Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20058746 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:11:12 EDT