funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
4 edits |  Thank you to BroadbandReports.com
I am the author of the piece at »Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P Connections.
When Comcast bought up large systems to become the largest Cable MSO, it did not buy the Internet. It has no right to change how it works -- not one byte of it.
How the world-wide Internet works is defined by all of us, through our participation and trust in the Internet Society and the Internet Engineering Task Force. To ensure interoperability and access for all, changes must be carefully deliberated and standardized there. The responsibility of operating the Internet in accordance with those standards is entrusted to companies providing access to it. It's not Comcast's job to change how the Internet works nor can it decide who or what gets preference upon it.
In the year 1999, this website created a forum where people could come together and "demystify" DSL-based and cable-based Internet and learn about how to gain access to it. Quickly, those of us knowledgeable or interested in learning about the technology became members here. I was one of the latter, and members here have taught me a lot.
BroadbandReports.com has always been a system of people helping people, and when necessary, shedding light to those issues that would change the Internet or the industries it has created. I'm grateful that its users taught me so much through the years. It enabled me, and this outcome is a direct result of the coaching I have received here and the platform that this website provides to all of us.
I haven't seen anything other than the press reports about something to be circulated around the FCC. I am hopeful that when the details are released that it serves to preserve and protect the Internet from those who would abuse their power and change it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs: | Let me say again to you Rob thanks for your hard work and perseverance. This is a lesson as to why ISP's should be honest with their customers. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Ehhh. Since the FCC does not define "reasonable" Comcast could have a field day with this in court. When you issue something for someone else to follow such as this make sure you define what you're actually saying. Lesson #1 of Business. You better look like defining. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| IANAL, but there is historical legal perspective on the word "Reasonable" and on the "Reasonable Network Management" footnote. I don't think it is as open to interpretation as it would initially seem.
That said, I'm having trouble parsing your line, "Lesson #1 of Business. You better look like defining." -- can you say a few more words about that so that I know what you mean?
Thanks
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
kadar
Premium,ExMod 2001-02
join:0000-00-00 | reply to hottboiinnc
Is it "reasonable" to punish the majority for the actions of a few? |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to hottboiinnc
Reasonable means: users don't notice that any management is taking place. Everything should run in specifications... if there are too many packets, drop them randomly. Tolerance for packet loss is built into the internet.
Clearly defined caps could also be called reasonable, invisible and arbitrary is not. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to funchords
I hate to say this, because I largely agree with you, Fun, but one of the hardest terms to define in court is the term "reasonable"... it is one word that, in my opinion, should NEVER be allowed or used in a contract, ever. It's used on purpose as a way to mud up an argument should it ever be made the focal point. What is "reasonable" to one may not be to another. Reasonable is subjective to the issue at hand and can't actually can't be defined. If you could define "reasonable" then you'd never need to use the term "reasonable".. |
|
jarthur31
join:2006-04-14
Carlsbad, NM
| reply to funchords
Here here!!!
I'm not a techo-expert but I do understand the majority of what is reported here and as an interested consumer I read both sides to each topic and make my own judgments accordingly. I applaud you and the rest of the membership for clearing things up for the rest of us who need this forum to make choices that otherwise wouldn't be afforded to us.
Thank you all! |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to fiberguy
»www.google.com/search?q=reasonab···n+theory
I think the term is around for good. It is subjective, and it has to be used.
We always hear that the Internet moves so fast that the laws cannot keep up with it. The reason folks resort to words like "reasonable" is to give such ideas some length.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Right... and, when the word reasonable is used, it leaves MANY open doors. In the case of Comcast, they will have a much easier time to claim they were using reasonable measures to control their networks so everyone has a fair chance at using it. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | that was my point. Nobody at the FCC has defined what reasonable means to them. It just says "reasonable network management".
So that in turn opens the FCC up to be taking to Court. Comcast will win in that. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Define "win".
Reasonable now means that you can't block P2P uploads. Now that that's defined, guess what? Comcast can't block P2P uploads.
I don't see how they've "won" anything.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| The court will tell FCC that Comcast did not do anything wrong. They followed their "rule". Which Comcast did. There is nothing that says Comcast can not filter or slow or do anything else to P2P.
When Brian Roberts takes that to the Court the Court will side with Comcast as it normally does when it comes to the FCC and Comcast. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to axus
the FCC does not state that in anyway anywhere. And until now have they ever said anything different than what Comcast is doing.
The Courts will decide what Reasonable is. And when Comcast raises rates to go to court; all of you Comcast users and thank Martin for this. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| I think you have your authorities backward. Congress gave the FCC the power to regulate wireline broadband. In lieu of rules, the FCC issued a Policy Statement and it outlined four principles. In that statement appears the word "reasonable."
Think of the congressional authority as the bright undefined light, and the policy statement as the lampshade on the light. This lampshade gives the light shape and emphasis.
The word "reasonable" has an everyman meaning. We know what it is when we see it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Congress gave the FCC the power.
The courts did not. The FCC failed to define what "reasonable" is to Comcast and every other provider.
The ILECs would do the same thing as Comcast is doing right now and you know it. But I doubt you'd be defending them. Or if it was your company you'd be trying to protect what is at your best interest as well; just like everyone else on here would be. But since this website seems to hate Comcast even people who live in Fu*king Canada- who have no right to bitch about what goes on down here with our Company's and call them Comcrap- with that thought people who do not use them or who never used them and do not live in their service areas should keep their mouth shut as well.
Because what is going to happen is Comcast is going to take this issue to Court we all know this; the Court will DEFINE what "reasonable" means and that will be the end of it. If Comcast likes it they'll be happy if not they'll appeal it the same as they normally would. And the end result everyone that has Comcast will be paying a rate hike that they supported; but will still be on here bitching about the services going up in cost and saying how Comcast should not be raising rates and blah blah blah. But get over it; Comcast has to pay for the legal costs some how and its going to be in the form of a rate hike so all the pissy ass customers can keep bitching or get the hell off their network. Nobody's telling you or anyone else to use them. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by hottboiinnc  :Congress gave the FCC the power. The courts did not. The FCC failed to define what "reasonable" is to Comcast and every other provider. First off, I think it's childish for grown men and women to say that they don't understand the difference between reasonable and unreasonable.
Can we start by saying that "Reasonable Network Management" ought to have something to do with managing the network and not the applications being run by the computers on the end points?
Since 1982, network operators have run just fine without the power of knowing whether or not the IP packets contained FTP or Kazaa or were Client-Server or Peer-to-Peer in nature.
Just because someone invented full-packet-capture DPI doesn't mean that suddenly it becomes necessary to have in order to manage networks.
said by hottboiinnc :The ILECs would do the same thing as Comcast is doing right now and you know it. I would know it if they were doing it right now. However, the findings of the Max Planck Institute in their Project Glasnost found no Telcos using it. Verizon has come right out and said that they weren't going to. AT&T made noises last summer that said we would see something on their network by now, but it has never materialized.
This particular round of stupidity belongs to Comcast and Cox and almost brought in a bunch of other MSOs, who I think got lucky that Comcast got caught when it did -- if it had taken another 3 months or so, my guess is that more MSOs would have had Sandvine up and running in a conspicuous fashion.
Make no mistake, Comcast is in so much hot water not only because of the blocking of P2P uploads, but because they behaved so stupidly when they got caught.
said by hottboiinnc :But I doubt you'd be defending them. So far, I haven't defended any ISP who is doing this crap. I have appreciated that some use greater restraint, some use clear notification, but I maintain that none of them ought to be discriminating against any type of network traffic.
said by hottboiinnc : Or if it was your company you'd be trying to protect what is at your best interest as well; just like everyone else on here would be. I wouldn't be in the Internet business if I didn't love the Internet. You can't just be in it for the money. That's stupid and joyless. Life is too short for an existence like that and money is too common an object to worry about.
said by hottboiinnc : But since this website seems to hate Comcast even people who live in Fu*king Canada- who have no right to bitch about what goes on down here with our Company's and call them Comcrap- with that thought people who do not use them or who never used them and do not live in their service areas should keep their mouth shut as well. Well, well, well -- aren't we the little tyrant. It's a wonder you haven't been confirmed as Secretary of State, yet!
said by hottboiinnc :Because what is going to happen is Comcast is going to take this issue to Court we all know this; the Court will DEFINE what "reasonable" means and that will be the end of it. The last thing that Comcast wants is a definition of the word "reasonable." Before the appeal asking for one, they need to think about whether or not they can live with the outcome.
The would be far better off waiting until the Report & Order is made.
A court isn't going to decide on "Reasonable" anyway, a court will either uphold the FCC's R&O or will send the case back to the FCC if it thinks "Reasonable" needs a definition. Personally, I doubt it. Courts have to deal with the word "Reasonable" in many statutes. The "Reasonable Man Theory" is pretty much a staple of law.
said by hottboiinnc :If Comcast likes it they'll be happy if not they'll appeal it the same as they normally would. And the end result everyone that has Comcast will be paying a rate hike that they supported; but will still be on here bitching about the services going up in cost and saying how Comcast should not be raising rates and blah blah blah. But get over it; Comcast has to pay for the legal costs some how and its going to be in the form of a rate hike so all the pissy ass customers can keep bitching or get the hell off their network. Nobody's telling you or anyone else to use them. "Pissy ass" customers, too? I guess you won't be working in marketing any time soon, either.
Comcast is a monopoly in most of the areas it serves, including where my home is. I have to use them, they bought the cable company that used to serve there.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Comcast can not be considered a monopoly. There are other services that are available. Just not theirs. You have choices, and until those choices come to an end you and everyone else should stop calling them a monopoly. You have WildBlue, Dial-up, Hughes Networks, EVDO, and GSM data services. |
|
