how-to block ads
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to battleop
Re: Tell the TRUTH
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. | |
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| "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? | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| 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. | |
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| 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. | |
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | 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? | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | 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. | |
|
