Topic 'Re: MORE! MORE! MORE!' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256856 en Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:24:13 EDT Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:24:13 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20301394 said by cdru:

said by CableTool:

Id love if we can actually get a story a day about this. At this rate its only the same story reposted every OTHER day...
If you don't like the headline, skip reading it. I check CNN a couple times a day and if there is something I'm not interested in, I just don't click the link. No different here. No one is forcing you to read it or comment about it.

Besides, you need to get back to work anyways. :)
Im on vacation for the next few weeks... ;)
--
CableTechs.org/"Horrible People with Integrity"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20301394 Tue, 08 Apr 2008 09:34:06 EDT Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20265764 said by Noah Vail:

Discrimination is required for Prioritization. You can't so much as route a packet if you don't examine it first and make a judgment about it.And for that, and ISP only needs to examine the IP header (Layer 3). You don't need to interpret anything after the header (which would be TCP/UDP for layer 4 or anything they transport, such as KAD,FTP,MFTP,HTTP, etc.). All the bits that the ISP needs to prioritize are also located in the IP header.

RFC 2474 Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS 2474 Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers (an Internet Official Protocol Standard)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20265764 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:53:52 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20262245 said by CableTool:

Id love if we can actually get a story a day about this. At this rate its only the same story reposted every OTHER day...If you don't like the headline, skip reading it. I check CNN a couple times a day and if there is something I'm not interested in, I just don't click the link. No different here. No one is forcing you to read it or comment about it.

Besides, you need to get back to work anyways. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20262245 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:23:07 EDT Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20261666 said by Anyuser2:

Prioritization absolutely wouldn't be going away, and there's no reason it should be. They certainly aren't promising to leave traffic "fully unaltered".Discrimination is required for Prioritization. You can't so much as route a packet if you don't examine it first and make a judgment about it.

If the framework were non-discriminatory framework, there would be no judgments made about traffic. Your switches would be no more than hubs.

Comcast apparently forgot that non-discriminatory has an actual meaning. They threw the term out there, intending it to be feelgood gobbledygook.

That is an indicator,
that Comcast's promise
of a non-discriminatory framework,
is - say it with me now,
Yet another bald faced Comcast lie.

Perhaps it's understandable. It seems Comcast can count on a certain number of folks to ignore or redefine their declarations as the need arises.

said by Anyuser2:

Really, all they've said is that they won't specifically target bittorrent/p2p
Oh? Where did they declare that with clarity?

said by Anyuser2:

odds are they'll be stopping the questionable practice of forging reset packets.
Long odds indeed. What, precisely would they do to end that practice?
No, wait; let me guess. They'd be pulling on espaeth's big internet switch thingy?

said by Anyuser2:

said by Noah Vail:

To bring non-discrimination to practice would involve walking across the net-op center floor and powering off the Sandvine equipment.

Comcast says it may take up to 9 months to accomplish this.

So the Comcast Net-Op manager gets up from his chair. He takes one step. Then he takes another step. He breaths in. He breaths out. Skip 9 months. He reaches out with his right hand, index finger extended.... He depresses the button marked power... And the network upgrade is completed!
Network management still needs to be done. Are you familiar at all with Sandvine?.. or is all you know "SANDVINE = BAD!!". Yes, the torrent blocking is questionable, but there's a lot of other things that equipment does and can do. Look into it.
I see you've powerfully summed up your opinion on the company, carefully listing your objections.
Which would be that hysterically plopping forged reset packets, into one direction of a P2P transfer is questionable.
Questionable? What exactly is your question? You seemed to have a superior handle on the topic only a few sentences ago. Now you have something left to learn? Shocking.

But don't feel alone. Comcast must have had some questions as well when they directly and forcefully lied about crapping up the handshakes.

But you are so right about the unmentioned capabilities of Sandvine's PTS. Their DPI allows for expansions that could be used for inserting ads; content monitoring and putting their content ahead of, or on top of what you tried acquire.

BTW, some of us hate seeing resets; bad syns or bad checksums. It's the red flashing light that tells us somethings broken and if we have 27¢ of integrity, we'll go after the offender that dares muck up our streams.

However, that would take concern over the quality of what you provide. Comcast isn't really hooked into this quality thing. And I've duly noted your passionate concerns over their lack of customer concern. You can tone down all that passion now.

NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20261666 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:09:53 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20261428 said by espaeth:

said by funchords:

Isn't that the hacker defense for kids that break into high-profile corporate or government systems? "I wasn't trying to read anything, I just wanted to see if I could break in!"
Yeah, but hackers don't have nifty agreements like this:

However, Comcast and its suppliers reserve the right at any time to monitor bandwidth, usage, transmissions, and content in order to, among other things, operate the Service; identify violations of this Policy; and/or protect the network, the Service and Comcast users.

Yeah, agreed. Them clever hackers, them! :-P
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20261428 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:01:13 EDT Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20260932 said by espaeth:

Uhh.. no. Queue the Sesame Street "Some of these things are not like the others" music. Don't take this the wrong way,....
...but you're the only one who can hear the SS music.
I'm sure it's lovely.

said by espaeth:

Throttling and prioritization do not modify traffic, and will still very much be a part of any network's traffic management strategy.
I never spoke of modifying traffic. That was you, I'm somebody else. Perhaps the music is distracting you?

I spoke of Comcast's promise was to provide a non-discriminatory framework.
Which form of packet manipulation takes place without any packet examination and evaluation whatsoever?

said by espaeth:

"This means that we will have to rapidly reconfigure our network management systems, but the outcome will be a traffic management technique that is more appropriate for today's emerging Internet trends. We have been discussing this migration and its effects with leaders in the Internet community for the last several months, and we will refine, adjust, and publish the technique based upon feedback and initial trial results," said Tony Werner, Comcast Cable's Chief Technology Officer.
That's nice.

I notice he never addressed the specific network management techniques they are considering and what their goals are in respect to them. Of course, that would be information. The dissemination of which is not their strong point.

His white noise technospeak is very soothing, though. Needs some background music. Maybe some....

said by espaeth:

Just curious, in your world does the equipment room have a big switch labeled "Internet" that should always remain in the "ON" position?
That's just SOOOOOO cute! I can see you with Big Bird, in his "Big Room 'o Tubes". And there you are jumping up and down, dying to pull on the big foam rubber switchey thingey.

I'm sorry you mistook that for the Sandvine Policy Traffic Switch power breaker. Here, have a cookie; the music is starting up again for you.

NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20260932 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:27:43 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20259543 said by funchords:

Isn't that the hacker defense for kids that break into high-profile corporate or government systems? "I wasn't trying to read anything, I just wanted to see if I could break in!"Yeah, but hackers don't have nifty agreements like this:

However, Comcast and its suppliers reserve the right at any time to monitor bandwidth, usage, transmissions, and content in order to, among other things, operate the Service; identify violations of this Policy; and/or protect the network, the Service and Comcast users.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20259543 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:00:43 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20259412 said by Corydon:

I'm not sure if the courts would buy your theory, after all, Comcast isn't interested in the content of your communications.Isn't that the hacker defense for kids that break into high-profile corporate or government systems? "I wasn't trying to read anything, I just wanted to see if I could break in!"
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20259412 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:37:43 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20259131 said by pokesph:

In some states where Comcast operates, intercepting private data communicaions is criminally illegal (same thing is applied to hackers as well)
Grabbing your packets and FORGING RST's before passing the packets on sure seems like intercepting to me... Hence they ARE breaking the law in some places.I'm not sure if the courts would buy your theory, after all, Comcast isn't interested in the content of your communications. Certainly I haven't heard of anyone bringing a lawsuit against them under this theory.

The outstanding class action lawsuits out there focus on breach of contract and false advertising, not intercepting private data communications. And frankly, I don't think those class action suits are going much of anywhere anyway, considering how the TOS is set up and how Comcast hasn't advertised its HSI service as "unlimited" AFAIK for at least the last few years. At best, the members of the class will get a month of service and a nifty keychain, the lawyers will get paid, and Comcast won't admit any liability.

But IANAL. You may be; if so, why aren't you pursuing this in court?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20259131 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:53:08 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258927 said by RadioDoc:

We can concentrate on their other misdeeds then.

You'd be wetting yourself over an AT&T or Verizon story a day.

If Comcast wants off the front page they should quit doing things that land them there.
Bingo
--
"Where's my coffee? Oh. I guess it's my turn to make it." :(]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258927 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:17:47 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258813 said by funchords:

Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as pulling someone you don't like out of line, punching them in the face, and then blaming someone else for the assault.
That sums it up rather nicely.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258813 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:58:13 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258791 said by funchords:

And even for the ones that are out there, they did not get it right. Remember that I found this after two months of investigation as to why I couldn't upload anything via Gnutella -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week -- 100% blocked.

Their Sandvine "solution" doesn't delay uploads, it blocks them. Comcast's stretched definition of "delay" only works when there multiple copies of all pieces outside of the Comcast.net domain. Comcast, being the 2nd largest ISP in the US, repeatedly prevented a lot of original content from being uploaded. They didn't delay it, they blocked it.

I have seen what is most likely Sandvine equipment in
operation on Gnutella and WinMX, where it forces peer
connection resets as soon as someone enters my upload
queue. And sometimes I've seen these people keep trying,
maybe not knowing that they are disconnected in this
manner, thinking perhaps it is the person they are
downloading from that is disconnecting them.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258791 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:54:15 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258593 said by RadioDoc:

Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as pulling someone you don't like out of line, punching them in the face and telling them if you see them again you'll do it again.
No, allow me:

Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as pulling someone you don't like out of line, punching them in the face, and then blaming someone else for the assault.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258593 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:13:35 EDT Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20258541 said by Anyuser2:

Are you familiar at all with Sandvine?.. or is all you know "SANDVINE = BAD!!". Yes, the torrent blocking is questionable, but there's a lot of other things that equipment does and can do. Look into it.
Honest question for you, or Espaeth, or other knowledgeable:

Other than the P2P Policy Enforcement part, does Sandvine's hardware have anything else that is unique and compelling over the competition?

Their stock crash tells me, "No," but this is really not my field.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20258541 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:05:19 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258495 said by espaeth:

I'm not knocking RFCs, there's a lot of brilliant ideas published in RFC form, but you have to take them for what they are.
And then there are the RFCs that are issued dated April 1 such as 1149 (A Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers) issued in 1990. This one was actually implemented experimentally a few years ago and even had an enhancement RFC issued a few years ago where the datagrams were tunneled via commercial air planes to speed the transmission time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258495 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:55:48 EDT Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20258212 said by Noah Vail:

Non-discriminatory means NO discrimination.
That means no prioritizing, throttling, packet forging, packet injection, or anything else.
Since you can not make an alteration to the network traffic streams without discrimination (ie:examination and evaluation), Comcast is promising to leave the network traffic fully unaltered.Not really, no. Prioritization absolutely wouldn't be going away, and there's no reason it should be. They certainly aren't promising to leave traffic "fully unaltered". Really, all they've said is that they won't specifically target bittorrent/p2p - odds are they'll be stopping the questionable practice of forging reset packets.

said by Noah Vail:

To bring non-discrimination to practice would involve walking across the net-op center floor and powering off the Sandvine equipment.

Comcast says it may take up to 9 months to accomplish this.

So the Comcast Net-Op manager gets up from his chair. He takes one step. Then he takes another step. He breaths in. He breaths out. Skip 9 months. He reaches out with his right hand, index finger extended.... He depresses the button marked power... And the network upgrade is completed.
Network management still needs to be done. Are you familiar at all with Sandvine?.. or is all you know "SANDVINE = BAD!!". Yes, the torrent blocking is questionable, but there's a lot of other things that equipment does and can do. Look into it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20258212 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:03:22 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258203 --
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258203 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:02:49 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258176 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258176 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:59:37 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258160 --
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258160 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:56:49 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258107 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258107 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:48:03 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258083
Since oversimplified examples have been introduced, I'll correct yours:

Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as pulling someone you don't like out of line, punching them in the face and telling them if you see them again you'll do it again.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20258083 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:45:15 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257934 said by Corydon:

said by funchords:

Forging the RSTs is a wrongful act. After you get caught in "The Real World," you don't get to keep committing wrongful acts with impunity until you figure out what else to do.
What exactly does "wrongful act" mean?

Is forging TCP RST packets illegal? Possibly, in the context of the FCC's current rules, but that's debatable (and rather unlikely, in my view). More likely, Comcast's methods are legal now, but they want to preempt any further regulation.
...
In some states where Comcast operates, intercepting private data communicaions is criminally illegal (same thing is applied to hackers as well)
Grabbing your packets and FORGING RST's before passing the packets on sure seems like intercepting to me... Hence they ARE breaking the law in some places.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257934 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:16:26 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257867 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257867 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:03:06 EDT Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20257650 said by funchords:

Comcast should only prioritize according to approved "Internet Standard" RFCs. Any other behavior is not Network Neutral. That's great, except there are no official standards on how applications should be prioritized. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20257650 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:29:26 EDT Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20257419 said by espaeth:

Just curious, in your world does the equipment room have a big switch labeled "Internet" that should always remain in the "ON" position?
Why Yes it does! Have you seen it too? :p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20257419 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:26:28 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257596 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257596 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:22:27 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257594
If the app doesn't exist, how would Sandvine profile it to be able to take action on it?
Sandvine attacked the application protocol, so it recognized all BitTorrent applications. However, how one BitTorrent app responds to RST's resulting Winsock error code might be completely different than how another responds. Some apps might try and reestablish contact right away, others might mark the peer as "bad" and blacklist it.

Sandvine's method doesn't (and probably cannot) recognize which app is actually being used to generate the protocol it is attacking, so therefore it cannot predict what the app will do in response to the RST unless that behavior is also described in the protocol. And for BitTorrent, Gnutella, or ED2K, it is not. (I don't know about the others.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257594 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:21:08 EDT Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20257549 Any other behavior is not Network Neutral.

Back in the ...-.- day, the rule was "First In, First Out." No message, except for those of the government, would get precedence.

These days, we do have Standards that allow prioritization, but the en-route transit providers do not have carte blanche to prioritize them any way that they want to.

Edit: strikethrough my obviously overbroad statement

--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20257549 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:13:42 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257536 said by funchords:

That's true of all of the RFCs. Enforcement is essentially the missing part. Actually, for the worthwhile RFCs the enforcement is quite effective. "Do it this way or your shit won't work"

said by funchords:

I love to quote the RFCs (those that are the authoritative "Internet Standards") because that's the instruction manual for developers and implementors.
There are actually a couple Internet standards bodies: the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF, who picks and chooses certain RFCs to become standards) and the IEEE being the two largest orgs. The difference between RFCs and IEEE standards is like the difference between books and scientific journals. To publish in a scientific journal you need a certain level of detail, research, and peer review whereas any jackass of the street can write a book.

I'm not knocking RFCs, there's a lot of brilliant ideas published in RFC form, but you have to take them for what they are. Many of the proposals are purposefully left open-ended for interpretation; that's why SHOULD vs MUST becomes a huge point of distinction in many RFCs.

said by funchords:

And Comcast didn't know how all P2P apps would respond -- all P2P apps haven't been written yet.
If the app doesn't exist, how would Sandvine profile it to be able to take action on it?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257536 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:11:26 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257480 said by funchords:

Forging the RSTs is a wrongful act. After you get caught in "The Real World," you don't get to keep committing wrongful acts with impunity until you figure out what else to do. What exactly does "wrongful act" mean?

Is forging TCP RST packets illegal? Possibly, in the context of the FCC's current rules, but that's debatable (and rather unlikely, in my view). More likely, Comcast's methods are legal now, but they want to preempt any further regulation.

Is it inconvenient for some users? Definitely true, although as has been pointed out, there are a wide variety of alternatives out there to accomplish whatever task you want to accomplish (assuming that you care more about getting things done rather than particular means of accomplishing them).

In "The Real World", people do "wrongful" stuff all the time. I had someone cut me off while I was driving to work. Hell, the price I paid for the gas I used to get to work ought to be a crime. If I spent all my time throwing hissy fits on the internet over every way I was "wronged", I'd never get anything done.

Comcast has stated that the reason they started throttling P2P in the first place was to manage the network so that everyone could have a reasonably responsive experience. Now I know there are tons of conspiracy theories out there about other ulterior motives they may have, but the fact that only certain people in certain areas are getting throttled tends to make me think that network management truly is the reason for starting this in the first place.

Just "turning off" a major part of their network management without having some kind of alternate method in place really would be negligent.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257480 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:02:06 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257431 said by espaeth:

Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as cutting in line. It's not a very nice thing to do and it tends to annoy other people in the line, it may violate the social contract but there are no civil or criminal implications.That's true of all of the RFCs. Enforcement is essentially the missing part.

I'm on the record as saying that the FCC should limit its rulemaking to enforcement of existing rules, it shouldn't put itself into the position of duplicating, adding to, or changing Internet Standards.

But even better would be to restore wholesale competition to Broadband (the crap going on with Bell Canada now, not withstanding).

said by espaeth:

The RFC examples you love to quote refer to unintended consequences of RST injecting by firewalls on unknown header values. The Comcast deployment is a little more specific -- they know how P2P apps respond to TCP resets, it achieves the desired effect for them, and they appear to be taking reasonable measures to ensure that only their intended application target is affected. (not 100% obviously, but I'm sure they try to make it as close to perfect as possible)
I love to quote the RFCs (those that are the authoritative "Internet Standards") because that's the instruction manual for developers and implementors.

And Comcast didn't know how all P2P apps would respond -- all P2P apps haven't been written yet. And their secret addition to RFC 793 wouldn't give developers the heads up as to why their apps were behaving unexpectedly.

And even for the ones that are out there, they did not get it right. Remember that I found this after two months of investigation as to why I couldn't upload anything via Gnutella -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week -- 100% blocked.

Their Sandvine "solution" doesn't delay uploads, it blocks them. Comcast's stretched definition of "delay" only works when there multiple copies of all pieces outside of the Comcast.net domain. Comcast, being the 2nd largest ISP in the US, repeatedly prevented a lot of original content from being uploaded. They didn't delay it, they blocked it.

And, once discovered, I couldn't even report the problem to anyone at Comcast because Customer Support (truthfully) did not know it existed on their network. My CS notes would probably say "customer sees UFOs and Black Helicopters - ID10T."
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257431 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:54:50 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257409 said by RadioDoc:

We can concentrate on their other misdeeds then.

You'd be wetting yourself over an AT&T or Verizon story a day.

If Comcast wants off the front page they should quit doing things that land them there.
They can't do that, that actually makes sense.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257409 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:50:49 EDT Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20257404 said by Noah Vail:

Non-discriminatory means NO discrimination.
That means no prioritizing, throttling, packet forging, packet injection, or anything else.
Since you can not make an alteration to the network traffic streams without discrimination (ie:examination and evaluation), Comcast is promising to leave the network traffic fully unaltered.Uhh.. no. Queue the Sesame Street "Some of these things are not like the others" music. Throttling and prioritization do not modify traffic, and will still very much be a part of any network's traffic management strategy. Per the press release:

"This means that we will have to rapidly reconfigure our network management systems, but the outcome will be a traffic management technique that is more appropriate for today's emerging Internet trends. We have been discussing this migration and its effects with leaders in the Internet community for the last several months, and we will refine, adjust, and publish the technique based upon feedback and initial trial results," said Tony Werner, Comcast Cable's Chief Technology Officer.


said by Noah Vail:

To bring non-discrimination to practice would involve walking across the net-op center floor and powering off the Sandvine equipment.
Just curious, in your world does the equipment room have a big switch labeled "Internet" that should always remain in the "ON" position? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20257404 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:49:47 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257340 said by battleop:

After all they think it's their God given right to do anything now matter what with their connection.They should be able to do the things described in the FCC Policy: »hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···51A1.pdf

said by battleop:

or they would expect 10 years of credits.
If it's voluntary, it's voluntary. Any credits would be simply goodwill (and good customer-relations).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257340 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:40:23 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257337 said by funchords:

Forging the RSTs is a wrongful act. After you get caught in "The Real World," you don't get to keep committing wrongful acts with impunity until you figure out what else to do. Forging RSTs is only about as wrong as cutting in line. It's not a very nice thing to do and it tends to annoy other people in the line, it may violate the social contract but there are no civil or criminal implications.

The RFC examples you love to quote refer to unintended consequences of RST injecting by firewalls on unknown header values. The Comcast deployment is a little more specific -- they know how P2P apps respond to TCP resets, it achieves the desired effect for them, and they appear to be taking reasonable measures to ensure that only their intended application target is affected. (not 100% obviously, but I'm sure they try to make it as close to perfect as possible)

said by funchords:

Nobody can license them to do what they're doing. Not BitTorrent, not PublicKnowledge, not the EFF, nobody. They must stop. They must disclose. They must accept responsibility for lying and under-delivering their service.
They need to get the ass clowns in marketing on board with the rest of the company. The folks that worked to craft the AUP seem to have a clue, and I'm sure there were more than a few "Uhh, guys..." comments that popped up with regards to the advertising.

said by funchords:

Take it offline right now -- today -- and I'll bet that they can figure out a Network Neutral solution before 9 months.
This "SHUT IT DOWN NOW" stance reminds me of the traffic meter study we did here in MN. Lots of people got annoyed with waiting on highway entrance ramps so they convinced the state senate to push the department of transportation into shutting down the meters. As ordered, MNDOT shut down the meters and conducted a survey for a few months. Traffic SUCKED. My normal commute to downtown went from pretty predictable 25 minutes to a range of 20-65 minutes, usually on the upper end of the scale. By the time the study was complete people were writing to the local papers, politicians, and MNDOT requesting the meters be turned back on. Study results were published here: »www.dot.state.mn.us/rampmeterstudy/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257337 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:39:40 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257258
Very few would do this. After all they think it's their God given right to do anything now matter what with their connection. That or they would expect 10 years of credits.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257258 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:26:23 EDT Re-Re-read what Comcast posted. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20257246 said by espaeth:

Re-read what Comcast posted. They didn't state they were going to stop managing their network, they stated they were going to be protocol agnostic in their management. (ie, pick on everyone, not just BT)And here they defined agnostic as open and non-discriminatory.

""This new architecture would enable many new and emerging applications and will be based upon an open, non-discriminatory framework ... so we need to have an architecture that can support it with techniques that work over all networks," said (Tony) Werner. (Comcast Cable's Chief Technology Officer)"

Non-discriminatory means NO discrimination.
That means no prioritizing, throttling, packet forging, packet injection, or anything else.
Since you can not make an alteration to the network traffic streams without discrimination (ie:examination and evaluation), Comcast is promising to leave the network traffic fully unaltered.

To bring non-discrimination to practice would involve walking across the net-op center floor and powering off the Sandvine equipment.

Comcast says it may take up to 9 months to accomplish this.

So the Comcast Net-Op manager gets up from his chair. He takes one step. Then he takes another step. He breaths in. He breaths out. Skip 9 months. He reaches out with his right hand, index finger extended.... He depresses the button marked power... And the network upgrade is completed.

Hey Comcast customers. Is this what your service calls are like?

NV]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/ReReread-what-Comcast-posted-20257246 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:24:23 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257186 said by caco:

Whatare they suppose to do about BT protocol sucking up all the bandwith in the meantime. Just because they stop doesn't mean the problem goes away.
I'm a ham-radio operator. I'm used to the concept of not using more power than I need to communicate effectively.

If I got a polite email from Comcast, asking me to help them curb a temporary neighborhood bandwidth crunch** for a few months, and showing me how to set my P2P client to 33% during prime-time hours -- I know that I'd comply.

There's only one reason that they didn't: it would make them look uncompetitive to Verizon.

Well, they got caught -- very publicly. So now there is no excuse.

Even if half of the P2P guys would not comply, the half that would should make a difference!

**In a recent NCTA interview, Comcast revealed that only 35% of its node splits require anything more than adding equipment at the headend (known as a virtual split). This means that they have the spare capacity in the neighborhoods. Instead of using it, they're creating a false sense of scarcity.
quote:
The return bandwidth is not on the worry list right now, for a bunch of reasons. For one, we’re splitting a lot of nodes based on the success of voice, high-speed Internet, and VOD. In other words, all based on downstream requirements, not upstream.

On HSD (high-speed data), I’m using two to three 3.2 MHz carriers (upstream). A lot more than that are sitting fallow in my CMTS cards. In most markets, I still have 12 MHz of bandwidth I can reclaim from circuit switched voice, once we migrate off of those platforms. So for now, the 5-42 MHz to me seems plenty adequate.

...

As we hit 70 percent utilization, we issue a work order to split the node. But it depends on utilization. Usually we set it to split to 250 homes. And for us, 65 percent of our node splits are really decoupling of nodes at the headend."

»www.cedmagazine.com/how-sexy-is-···nty.aspx


--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257186 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:13:48 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257107 said by espaeth:

If they are implementing an interface into the provisioning system to accomplish this like we talked about a few threads ago, that kind of implementation would indeed take time. Forging the RSTs is a wrongful act. After you get caught in "The Real World," you don't get to keep committing wrongful acts with impunity until you figure out what else to do.

Instead of RSTs, let's say Comcast's P2P throttling involved hitting the user in the head with a mallet (another wrongful act). Should they be allowed to continue doing that?

Nobody can license them to do what they're doing. Not BitTorrent, not PublicKnowledge, not the EFF, nobody. They must stop. They must disclose. They must accept responsibility for lying and under-delivering their service.

Take it offline right now -- today -- and I'll bet that they can figure out a Network Neutral solution before 9 months.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257107 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:03:21 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257091 said by funchords:

said by espaeth:

Hey, someone who actually read the Comcast statement where they said they would become protocol agnostic in their bandwidth management in 9 months!
Yeah, that's a prompt response -- seeing as how the AP story that busted this wide-open was only 6 months ago.

If they were serious about fixing this, it wouldn't take 9 hours let alone 9 months.
OH Great Topolski of BBR fame, emperor of Rome, Ruler of the Worlddddddd!

Whatare they suppose to do about BT protocol sucking up all the bandwith in the meantime. Just because they stop doesn't mean the problem goes away.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257091 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:01:42 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257033 --
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257033 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:54:18 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257025
If they are implementing an interface into the provisioning system to accomplish this like we talked about a few threads ago, that kind of implementation would indeed take time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20257025 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:52:13 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256999 said by espaeth:

Hey, someone who actually read the Comcast statement where they said they would become protocol agnostic in their bandwidth management in 9 months!
Yeah, that's a prompt response -- seeing as how the AP story that busted this wide-open was only 6 months ago.

If they were serious about fixing this, it wouldn't take 9 hours let alone 9 months.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256999 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:47:58 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256954 said by RadioDoc:

We can concentrate on their other misdeeds then.

You'd be wetting yourself over an AT&T or Verizon story a day.

If Comcast wants off the front page they should quit doing things that land them there.
Bingo!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256954 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:39:58 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256947 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256947 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:38:33 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256932 said by 33591094:

said by CableTool:

Id love if we can actually get a story a day about this. At this rate its only the same story reposted every OTHER day...
How is this the same story? Comcast says they will stop throttling - now we find out they have not, and may not.
NO - they said they would stop WHEN they put new methods in place to handle abusers. And they said it would be year end before that happens.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256932 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:35:48 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256899 said by 33591094:

said by CableTool:

Id love if we can actually get a story a day about this. At this rate its only the same story reposted every OTHER day...
How is this the same story? Comcast says they will stop throttling - now we find out they have not, and may not.
They said they would stop thottling BT protocol by end of year.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256899 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:29:44 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256893
You'd be wetting yourself over an AT&T or Verizon story a day.

If Comcast wants off the front page they should quit doing things that land them there.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256893 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:28:32 EDT Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256882 said by CableTool:

Id love if we can actually get a story a day about this. At this rate its only the same story reposted every OTHER day...
How is this the same story? Comcast says they will stop throttling - now we find out they have not, and may not.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MORE-MORE-MORE-20256882 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:25:57 EDT MORE! MORE! MORE! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/MORE-MORE-MORE-20256856 --
CableTechs.org/"Horrible People with Integrity"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/MORE-MORE-MORE-20256856 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:20:59 EDT