sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX | reply to Bad analogys FTL
Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized
Truth. I just have soft spot in my black heart for the usage argument that has been preached to me. |
|
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| reply to funchords
funchords  , I think this whole thing is completely and wholly telling of the corporate stance toward "net neutrality," and a remarkable perspective at how transparently this tenet has been violated.
Essentially, you've found yourself at the heart of a technology which represents one of many ways that a non-net neutrality network stance would be implemented. In essence, whether intentionally or by accident, Comcast (and Cox, to a lesser extent, since they also Sandvine) and the Sandvine scandal have become the cause célèbre for everyone following what future net neutrality, or, as I call it, "protocol-agnosticism" has in the future of the internet.
Obviously, their reaction has been to completely defend this position. To some extent, there's nothing else they can do. The proverbial Sandvine cat is out of the bag, it's common knowledge, and they're denying a capacity issue as being the impetus when in fact they argue that BT traffic represents a disproportionate amount of traffic. This is paradoxical; if capacity wasn't a problem, who cares what proportion of traffic is what protocol?
Then again, there's the other side of the issue. From their perspective, enough capacity is never enough. But that's the way it should be, there shouldn't be more than 30% or so of their bandwidth laying around unused at any time; active connections should consume the bandwidth available (a-la Powerboost). It just makes sense that way. Of course, this means they must strike a delicate balance between overselling, and underselling, everyone knows it.
I couldn't agree more that shutting off Sandvine today would make the network better. As I see it, using RST packets to terminate established connections is a bastardization of TCP/IP. If we can't abide by the open standards which made the network what it is in the first place, what's the point? Cut the legs out from under the pretense of internet routing, edge-to-edge routing, that is, and now I can't trust any network traffic.
Honestly, I'm beginning to feel that the recent speed increases are entirely arbitrary. I know in my area that capacity itself hasn't been increased, so why can we suddenly deliver 1.1 megabits upstream? They're selling something they don't have and can't deliver without sandvine, without shaping and a glass cap. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have 768 or even 384 up without sandvine.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB. |
|
nonymousa
@comcast.net
| reply to funchords
Again, Comcast TOS clearly prohibits servers. P2P is a server. Like it or not, no one is forcing you to subscribe. Don't like it, get a T1 for $350+ per month.
And FWIW, if all the illegal content was removed from P2P, bittorent traffic wouldn't be the problem that it is today. I guess you can thank the thieves for causing the problem.
Just my 2¢ |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
1 edit | said by nonymousa :
Again, Comcast TOS clearly prohibits servers.
Again, it does not.
“To be clear, Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites, VOIP applications like Vonage, and thousands of other applications online.” -- Charlie Douglas, Spokesman, Comcast Corporation
Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice said the company "does not block any Internet content, application, or service."
David Cohen, Comcast’s executive vice president, “Our limited network management practices ensure that everyone else’s applications and services, even those that may compete with our services and use P2P protocols, work,” Mr. Cohen said.
I suggest that if you think that you know more about what Comcast permits than Sena, Charlie, or David, that you take it up with them. Meanwhile, everyone else knows that Comcast clearly and authoritatively states permits P2P, and the FCC requires them to:
"consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice"
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
|
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| From »www.comcast.net/terms/use/
• 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; --
Comcast has spoiled me rotten! |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
4 edits | reply to funchords
said by funchords :Rick, Lest anyone confuse your support for Comcast for an attack on me, let me set the record straight. You've been decent with me. I don't see you as an attacker at all. (You're just wrong -- hahahah - just kidding.)      That said, I have said the following pretty consistently, and would like to say it again as my solution for this problem: 1. Turning Sandvine off right now and replacing it with nothing would be an improvement. It does little good and does a lot of harm to innocent users. I have been asking for this all along. Rob,
First of all, thank you for taking my posts in the spirit in which they're intended. I'm not attacking you. Reasonable people can disagree, and that's what I'm doing. And, just to set the record straight, I'm not supporting Comcast per se.
What I am supporting is myself, my connection..and what I see as the vast majority of Comcast users.
There is and has been this VERY vocal...VERY minor portion of users who for the longest time now think they own the entire network. And that is the 5% of people who consume 50% of the bandwidth and who expect everyone else to pay for it for them.
There is no one in this world who should expect a 24/7...powerboosted up to 30Mb speeds for their very own for the amazingly low price of 43 bucks a month. But that is what they want..and more.
We ALL know what those people are doing. They are trading copyrighted material all day and all night long over their RESIDENTIAL connections....the terms of which CLEARLY say...you just can't do that. Servers are not allowed.
But that just don't matter to them anymore than stealing other peoples work matters to them. Somewhere in the back of their minds it's all ok because they're anonymous. And, it's just "there" for the taking. Well..so too is goods in a store front window after a massive riot smashes storefronts.
It never was theirs to take. They are thieves.
Rob..with all due respect to you and your experience and education..(and..i do believe you're a smart and intelligent guy)...Comcast is right to question your experience.
Because of this statement you just made...
"1. Turning Sandvine off right now and replacing it with nothing would be an improvement. It does little good and does a lot of harm to innocent users. I have been asking for this all along."
Comcast is saying in their filing you have no network experience. And that statement proves it.
Because what would happen..just by the very nature of this shared network we're all using..is if that happened..
immediately..we'd all be posting on our dial up connections to the Comcast forum screaming that we simply had no connection at all.
The p2p crowds unrelenting 24/7 saturation of the upstream would take down comcasts entire nationwide network IMHO.
And..it would take down the entire networks of every cable operator out there.
Your statement is misinformed..and wishful thinking.
And not reality.
What you would like comcast to do is similar to you asking Citibank to take down their alarms..unlock their doors 24/7..and leave no one in the bank..and trust that no one will rob them.
I fully understand that Sandvine has some unwelcome carryover effects. On people who don't fall into that 5%.
But no one can reasonably argue that the VAST majority of those it seeks to prevent from harming this network is the ones i've described above. You know it..and I know it.
And everyone who's been around BBR more than a month knows it.
As you know..what my biggest complaint has been about your posts is that you fail to recognize and acknowledge that.
And even in your statement above..you fail to recognize that. You say that it's comcasts problem and not yours to worry about..but that would be like you saying to your state they need to eliminate all their speed limits and laws and just let everyone else deal with it. You offer up no solutions at all. And in doing so...are simply representing that 5% of people who the 95% are tired of carrying on the backs of their hard earned paychecks.
I've said before and I'll say again..I think that what Comcast was and is doing is watching out for not only themselves..but the vast majority of we users. I have a great experience with my connection..get great speeds..and have no problems at all with connecting to anything. I think your criticism of them is unfounded. For me..and the vast majority of users.
Thanks for considering my position.
Rick |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| We ALL know what those people are doing. They are trading copyrighted material all day and all night long over their RESIDENTIAL connections....the terms of which CLEARLY say...you just can't do that. Servers are not allowed.
But that just don't matter to them anymore than stealing other peoples work matters to them. Somewhere in the back of their minds it's all ok because they're anonymous. And, it's just "there" for the taking. Well..so too is goods in a store front window after a massive riot smashes storefronts.
It never was theirs to take. They are thieves.
///
No, we don't. Not all heavy users use their connection for P2P traffic. Many use it for downloading content from video content providers purchased legally.
There are a number of video content providers that are a threat for Comcast's video distributon model and they are using their internet access as leverage to hinder access to these new vendors.
Also, copyright infringement is not stealing, it is copyright infringement.
The fact that many on P2P networks may trade coprighted material does not make it true for all. Many people have guns, not all people that have guns are murderers.
Also, if there is no contractual quota for the heavy users, they are not stealing bandwidth from anyone. They are paying a flat fee that Comcast agreed on and they are using their connection within the transfer SPEED agreed. Stealing bandwidth would be if they would uncap their modem. |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| reply to Rick
I believe that position that what is good for the vast majority of users should take precedence over technological advancement to be an short sighted view. There should be a balance.
What we see here is a network provider that has oversold its capabilities, advertised "unfettered" access to the Internet, download, view whatever you want using your fast connection available 24/7 and then the applications that could use this "unfettered" access CAME.
Instead of working with the users to reach a solution and pricing scheme agreable for all, the provider chooses to criminalize the users for using what was sold to them. No matter what, if a connection is sold to me as being available 24/7, but then it is not, then it is not what was sold.
The 95% do not bear the weight of the 5% heavy users not more than the vast multitude of car drivers bear the cost unjustly for the usage of the roads for 18 wheelers. This point of view just tries to turn people against each other instead of focusing on the deceptive network access sold. As I have stated before, I have no issue with paying for a clear quota, usage and throttling as long as it is clearly defined when sold and VERIFIABLE.
But I believe Comcast cannot offer really not even a 250 GB quota to its users. That is why they are "toying" with this idea. Because they do not know what to do. They did not foresee the demand and the same people that did not foresee it are still in command and still are not knowlegeable of the technology that the Internet promotes to regular people. They are afraid that if the quota is published then most people will come "close" to it. Here is the crux. So, they decide on a quota that they ALREADY KNOW will be a problem for them if the people actually use. How is this different from the current situation when they sold something that is a problem even if 5% of users use ?
All they want to provide is email and web access and maybe a video trailer here and there, but cannot state it. That is why "servers are not allowed", P2P is not allowed and whatever else is of interest to technologically inclined people is not allowed or will not be once it becomes popular. To me Internet access through Comcast seems more like an afterthought than a serious business to be used.
So what is then allowed ? |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| reply to Rick
Also, I do not believe that the heavy users "own" the network. They expect a level of service that obviously the provider cannot meet and a solution should be negotiated. In most cases the suggestion of "get a business class account" shows only the ignorance of who suggests that, because Comcast would not offer one, as I have found out. The provider treating the heavy users like dirt does not help either. And before I get attacked regarding the dirt statement, let the ones that have had the pleasure of talking to the "abuse" department share their experience or let's focus on the 12 months disconnection "policy", in itself a proof of abuse by the provider. What stance does the 12 month disconnection "policy" show toward the users, heavy or not ? Is this the stance of the provider we see in all the advertisements ?
As I said before, a 1 week or even 1 month disconnection for the at least first time "offenders" could be understandable, but a 12 month is quite too much. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
3 edits | reply to funchords
Comcast decided to personally attack me several days ago, in a public filing in the FCC case. Maybe that was because you were suing them:
»www.multichannel.com/article/CA6581628.html
The lead plaintiff in the suit, Oregon resident Robb Topolski...
The suit was filed July 18 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The court has not certified a class.
Funny that you never mentioned that in all your posts in this thread. |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX | Hey Robb, nice to see you ! I wonder if Comcast has a life sized poster of you to do target practice with darts |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
Probably he could not disclose this until made public by the court. Nevertheless, the important thing is his testimony to the FCC, I am sure that will have more bearing than the potential class lawsuit. |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Comcast decided to personally attack me several days ago, in a public filing in the FCC case. Maybe that was because you were suing them: » www.multichannel.com/article/CA6581628.htmlThe lead plaintiff in the suit, Oregon resident Robb Topolski...
The suit was filed July 18 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The court has not certified a class.
Funny that you never mentioned that in all your posts in this thread. That is interesting. And, it gets even more interesting and perhaps Robb can explain this.
In that story it says this..
"Topolski is identified in court documents as a networking professional currently serving as “chief technology consultant” for Free Press and Public Knowledge, two public interest groups that have targeted Comcast over the peer-to-peer issue."
And, I put emphasis on these words "
"Topolski is identified in court documents as a networking professional"
Comcast...on the other hand..is saying they discovered his resume that says his experience is in software...and cited his own resume as proof.
Interestingly enough..when I just clicked on the link to the resume..nothing now comes up..and it just times out. I guess the home network isn't working too good?
»fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···20034944
Rob..can you explain these obvious discrepancies?
It would be only fair to the audience you're trying to illicit support from here in this forum.
And furthermore..with this suit now revealed..my question is was your purpose here just to try to gather support for that and for the class action status you're trying to get it to be?
These are reasonable questions Rob.
That deserve an answer. |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
1 edit | I do not believe there will be a problem for the suit to attain class status by the statements of Comcast's own based on the percentage of heavy users they disconnect. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :Meanwhile, everyone else knows that Comcast clearly and authoritatively states permits P2P, and the FCC requires them to: "consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice" You've clearly been playing this PR game long enough to know how to excerpt quotes and leave out parts that don't support your view.
From YOUR source:
quote:
To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.13
Comcast says P2P harms their network, and some of us agree. |
|
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY | reply to funchords
Good luck Robb, you're going to need it. |
|
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :said by funchords :Meanwhile, everyone else knows that Comcast clearly and authoritatively states permits P2P, and the FCC requires them to: "consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice" You've clearly been playing this PR game long enough to know how to excerpt quotes and leave out parts that don't support your view. From YOUR source: quote:
To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.13
Comcast says P2P harms their network, and some of us agree. P2P doesnt harm the network - What does harm the network, is having many over-subscribed nodes, with users trying to access content that requires bandwidth. |
|
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :Comcast says P2P harms their network, and some of us agree. Many of us also agree that using RST packets to "manage" network congestion harms their network.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB. |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| reply to Rick
Re://
And, I put emphasis on these words "
"Topolski is identified in court documents as a networking professional"
Comcast...on the other hand..is saying they discovered his resume that says his experience is in software...
//
There are many software engineers that specialize in networking. TCP/IP is a software protocol, among many others.
I did not read Robb resume, but this is just a reply to your question. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Nerdtalker
said by Nerdtalker :Many of us also agree that using RST packets to "manage" network congestion harms their network. This would be a problem if it was their blanket solution to network congestion. The RST packet injection is limited to specific applications that survive having individual sessions reset. |
|
