how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
645 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| Network Neutrality vs transparent transport I think this has less to do with Network Neutrality then violating accepted Internet technical standards and then lying about it.
To my knowledge all residential ISP prohibit running servers. This is done for technical and business reasons. If a customer is running a server ISP is well within its TOS to disconnect that customer. Comcast choose not to do that. Rather analyzed customer traffic and spoofed packets for traffic it assumed was P2P causing session to prematurely terminate. This affected both customers uploading data (in possible TOS violation) and downloading (well within the TOS).
Notion of network neutrality does not prohibit ISPs from offering different levels of service. Rather it encompasses notion of transparency. ISP provides a service and has no business interest in the nature of the bits it carries. Its only interest is transporting information to and from its customers and how that traffic affects the ISP’s network.
/tom | |
|  RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Network Neutrality vs transparent transport Not all of them do. In fact, the largest US ISP--AT&T--does not prohibit servers on DSL. I run them, and have run them, for eight years now under three different regimes in two locations.
Embarq does not prohibit them either.
As for the real issue--transparent transport--you nailed it exactly with this statement: "[V]iolating accepted Internet technical standards and then lying about it." This is very troubling to anyone concerned with the ongoing viability of high-bandwidth product like video streaming.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: Network Neutrality vs transparent transport said by RadioDoc:Not all of them do. In fact, the largest US ISP--AT&T--does not prohibit servers on DSL. I run them, and have run them, for eight years now under three different regimes in two locations. Embarq does not prohibit them either. Comcast does not prohibit servers, either. They prohibit running public services -- and this has been relatively unchanged since Comcast merged with AT&T Broadband. I've run private servers on my TCI/AT&T Broadband/Comcast account since the very first year. I did review the TOS/AUP when I started and I have reviewed it on subsequent occasions. Overall, the gist of the AUP has stayed the same. They simply don't want to support customers who try to resell their Comcast services -- this "do not resell" thought includes providing free public services such as hotspots, shell or rlogin accounts, or webspace (ala Geocities).
I am not a lawyer, but I bet that I've been a Comcast customer longer than most of its lawyers. So I've seen it evolve and I know both past and current practice.
Clue #1: If they meant "no servers," it would say "no servers." Instead, it clearly does not mean "no servers." This is why there are no less than 25 different clarifications in the AUP as to exactly what they intended to prevent. Like most work products that evolve, the TOS/AUP resembles spaghetti code these days -- and that even after a hasty rewrite in January 2008.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
| | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Network Neutrality vs transparent transport Since I have yet to see a "server" that does not provide "services", and that Comcast specifically calls out web and file servers, I would suggest that you would have great difficulty trying to escape account termination by asserting that your webserver is not a prohibited service if it is accessible from beyond your LAN.
It doesn't matter though since the question of whether Comcast allows servers (by your or anyone else's definition) has been answered many times by their actions blocking commonly used ports and terminating the accounts of those who have been running them.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Network Neutrality vs transparent transport said by RadioDoc:It doesn't matter though since the question of whether Comcast allows servers (by your or anyone else's definition) has been answered many times by their actions blocking commonly used ports and terminating the accounts of those who have been running them. What blocked ports are you talking about, Doc? What terminations have occurred? Or are you saying that they generally do not block ports (which would be correct) and do not shut down accounts for servers (which would also be correct).
I've read one story from a guy whose open port 25/53 got him terminated. When questioned, he insists his story is true. Otherwise, I've never heard of this happening at Comcast.
I can open a socket and route its input to the null device. Somehow that's a service?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
| | | | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
1 edit | Re: Network Neutrality vs transparent transport I'll just recommend that you do a search through the Comcast forum here for your answers.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Network Neutrality vs transparent transport Doc, I've read your stuff. I know you don't make it up. I'm not challenging your honesty. I might be challenging your memory (or just as likely exposing my own lack of same). 
I do read the Comcast forum, and I haven't seen the trend that you are reporting.
Just do me a favor and ping me the next time you find such a Topic. I'll appreciate that.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by tschmidt:(see edit comment below)[The...] Notion of network neutrality does not prohibit ISPs from offering different levels of service. Rather it encompasses notion of transparency. ISP provides a service and has no business interest in the nature of the bits it carries. Its only interest is transporting information to and from its customers and how that traffic affects the ISP’s network. Authoritative citation requested, please.
Edit: after tschmidt  responded to this message, I realized that his quote looked very out of context. I added the remainder of his paragraph, but only the bold part existed before he responded to it. This change only to fill in the context. | |
| | tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Network Neutrality vs transparent transport said by funchords:Authoritative citation requested, please. Network Neutrality is an evolving and fluid concept. I posted my opinion. Here are some relevant links:
»www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?···=1234951
»obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-···neutral/
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
•use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network ("Premises LAN"), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers; •use or run programs from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN, except for personal and non-commercial residential use; » www6.comcast.net/terms/
The first bullet seems to be concerned with customer's use a physical device rather then the more common notion of server as a "service" rather then it being a physical device.
The second one could be read to prohibit sending email, IM services or any type of file transfer. This post is illegal based on that bullet.
/tom | |
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
2 edits | Re: Network Neutrality vs transparent transport said by tschmidt:said by funchords:Authoritative citation requested, please. Network Neutrality is an evolving and fluid concept. I posted my opinion. Okay, but you posted it as if it were established fact. Thank you for clearing that up.
It's not an evolving and fluid concept according to Dr. David P. Reed or Tim Wu -- one of which who first coined the phrase, both of which are recognized experts and innovators of today's internet.
Put very plainly: In a Neutral Network, "transmission network operators do not encumber relationships between their customers and destinations on the network." (Ex Parte Submission in FCC CS Docket No. 02-52 by David P. Reed, Tim Wu)
That Yahoo might pay to get higher-precedence service than Google is a possible side-effect of not requiring NN. Rather than get caught up in volumes of regulation about who can and cannot pay whom for what, the best approach is to mandate that all bits are created equal -- and barring some accepted standard to the contrary, are to be treated equally.
There are 3-8 (depending on how you count them) RFCs covering prioritization and precedence that have been fully debated and have achieved "Internet Standard" recognition by the IETF. A transmission network operator (ISP or transit provider) has a choice of following one or a combination of those Internet Standards. They also have a choice to do nothing special at all. Nobody in the argument disagrees with that. However, NN advocates say that implementing their own method of prioritization is not among their choices -- until, of course, it goes through the Standards-setting process and is approved for experimental or Standards use.
The second one could be read to prohibit sending email, IM services or any type of file transfer. This post is illegal based on that bullet.
There's a gem hidden in the Comcast "Subscriber Agreement" where, somehow, High-Speed Internet subscribers have agreed not to use their HSI Service for communication on the Internet. (In so many words, of course.)
It reads: b. Prohibited Uses of HSI. You agree not to use HSI . . . as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network.
(Hint: The Internet is a wide-area network and is not owned by Comcast ... yet)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
| | | | | | Re: Network Neutrality vs transparent transport Wow... That second bullet point can be just about everything: Skype/VOIP, ustream, stickam, YouTube/All it's clones, uploading podcasts, posting on your blog, selling on ebay, just about anything that could have any monetary value.
They should just give us upload at dial-up speeds if they are going to play this game. | |
|
Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
3 edits | said by tschmidt:I think this has less to do with Network Neutrality then violating accepted Internet technical standards and then lying about it. To my knowledge all residential ISP prohibit running servers. This is done for technical and business reasons. If a customer is running a server ISP is well within its TOS to disconnect that customer. Comcast choose not to do that. Rather analyzed customer traffic and spoofed packets for traffic it assumed was P2P causing session to prematurely terminate. This affected both customers uploading data (in possible TOS violation) and downloading (well within the TOS). Notion of network neutrality does not prohibit ISPs from offering different levels of service. Rather it encompasses notion of transparency. ISP provides a service and has no business interest in the nature of the bits it carries. Its only interest is transporting information to and from its customers and how that traffic affects the ISP’s network. /tom GET REAL!
The TOS prohibiting servers is OBSOLETE! It should have been $hi#canned about five years ago! EVERYTHING these days can be considered a 'server'. What they meant by the word server was just THAT-a WEB SERVER (or FTP server) offering up WEB PAGES or FILES! They wanted to charge you business rates for those activities-a reasonable thing to do.
BUT today things like Skype can be considered a server, ANY p2p program can be considered a server, even many audio and video playbacks are servers (Google: "Chaincast" for example). If the ISP's vigorously enforced these TOSes, the only thing we'd be able to do is surf the web and check email! | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Network Neutrality vs transparent transport said by qworster:If the ISP's vigorously enforced these TOSes, the only thing we'd be able to do is surf the web and check email! Yep, thats what they want. Verizon Wireless has that codified, that those 2 are the only permitted uses of the internet. | |
|
| |
|
