Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » US Cable Support » Comcast » Comcast HSI » Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P Connections
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Posting:
[Spam] Comcast reporting spam from my IP »
« [CDV] Outgoing Static on calls  
page: 1 · 2
AuthorAll Replies

NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC

reply to Comcastrated
Re: Sandvine's MSO Case Study-Reasonable Network Management?

said by Comcastrated :

I would allow users to use the advertised bandwidth for any purpose they see fit within the confines of the TOS.
Would that include the part of the Terms of Use which states that subscribers are prohibited from providing network content to anybody outside of the Premises Local Area Network?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype

said by NormanS See Profile :

said by Comcastrated :

I would allow users to use the advertised bandwidth for any purpose they see fit within the confines of the TOS.
Would that include the part of the Terms of Use which states that subscribers are prohibited from providing network content to anybody outside of the Premises Local Area Network?
If there is a TOS that says that (and I'm sure that there is, as I've seen that quoted before, somewhere), then it's really not Internet service.

That restriction would prohibit the user from downloading a file from one site (thus it is 'network content'), and then subsequently uploading it to another (thus it is 'outside of the LAN').

Both Cox and Comcast spokespersons have said in the press that P2P traffic is not prohibited on their networks. So the point may be moot (so far).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report.


telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA


1 edit
The specific section is as follows:
run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
I've highlighted what I believe is being interpreted as the ToS elements related to P2P


jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR
·Comcast
·AT&T Southwest

said by telcolackey See Profile :

The specific section is as follows:
run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
I've highlighted what I believe is being interpreted as the ToS elements related to P2P
Either way Comcast has shot themselves in the foot by publically stating they do not block P2P or BitTorrent making the whole argument of "file sharing" or even if you choose to go the "Server" route as it applies to BitTorrent a mute point now. By allowing it up till now and making offical public statements to the contrary they have effectively told the public and powers to be that they do not specifically consider P2P or file sharing via BitTorrent as something that is violating the ToS.


telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA

said by jbob See Profile :

Either way Comcast has shot themselves in the foot by publically stating they do not block P2P or BitTorrent making the whole argument of "file sharing" or even if you choose to go the "Server" route as it applies to BitTorrent a mute point now. By allowing it up till now and making offical public statements to the contrary they have effectively told the public and powers to be that they do not specifically consider P2P or file sharing via BitTorrent as something that is violating the ToS.
This is another interpretation to fit an agenda. They also say they don't proactively block illegal activity so does that mean they cannot address it if notified?


jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR
·Comcast
·AT&T Southwest

said by telcolackey See Profile :

said by jbob See Profile :

Either way Comcast has shot themselves in the foot by publically stating they do not block P2P or BitTorrent making the whole argument of "file sharing" or even if you choose to go the "Server" route as it applies to BitTorrent a mute point now. By allowing it up till now and making offical public statements to the contrary they have effectively told the public and powers to be that they do not specifically consider P2P or file sharing via BitTorrent as something that is violating the ToS.
This is another interpretation to fit an agenda. They also say they don't proactively block illegal activity so does that mean they cannot address it if notified?
Sorry as I have no agenda and have to disagree here. Illegal activity is a well defined subject. The ToS is written in legalese for a reason sometimes making it harder to try and interpret. I understand they way they write these things and do not have an issue. They try and cover all the bases but sometimes allow certain questionable activities to try and please the customer base as long as they do not interrupt the network for others.

They can't one minute say they don't block P2P and then turn around and say it's illegal the next. Well they could but that would probably not be the smart thing to do at this point! lol


Tsagoi

@comcast.net

reply to telcolackey
said by telcolackey See Profile :

The specific section is as follows:
run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
I've highlighted what I believe is being interpreted as the ToS elements related to P2P
Out of curiosity, could VOIP traffic be considered to fall under providing network content to anyone outside of your LAN? Not that they would try blocking it (and deny blocking it for the first few months). But that TOS is general enough that it could be quoted as a reason when blocking competition on their network.


Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA

said by Tsagoi :

said by telcolackey See Profile :

The specific section is as follows:
run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
I've highlighted what I believe is being interpreted as the ToS elements related to P2P
Out of curiosity, could VOIP traffic be considered to fall under providing network content to anyone outside of your LAN? Not that they would try blocking it (and deny blocking it for the first few months). But that TOS is general enough that it could be quoted as a reason when blocking competition on their network.
In 99% of the cases, a VoIP user on Comcast is still operating in the capacity of a client and connecting to a server elsewhere. They aren't serving their own VoIP connections.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?


Tsagoi

@comcast.net
Point taken on VOIP, but hosting Vent/podcast or hosting a multiplayer game (even between 2 people) like Neverwinter Nights could be counted.


telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA


2 edits
reply to Tsagoi
said by Tsagoi :

Out of curiosity, could VOIP traffic be considered to fall under providing network content to anyone outside of your LAN? Not that they would try blocking it (and deny blocking it for the first few months). But that TOS is general enough that it could be quoted as a reason when blocking competition on their network.
I think Cabal answered this one pretty well. I think the issue with most broadband ISPs is around "public services". 1:1 voice calls or 1:limited gaming is less of an issue compared to 1:everyone services.

Let me ask the same question a different way and see what people think.

What if a telemarketing service found a way to connect to your Verizon POTs line, Comcast phone, Vonage line, etc, and use it to re-sell 7x24 outbound calls within your service plan (no additional charge) to their customers? The incentive to you is a small payment each month for this. The incentive to them is zero cost on their phone infrastructure.

How close is this analogy to p2p content distribution? For-profit companies (WoW, Bittorrent.com, etc) using this re-sold infrastructure for their gain (removal of CDN or ISP costs on their side). The incentive to the user is lower prices on the content (good thing, but similar to the "small payment")

EDIT ADD: The phone and broadband plans are designed around the consumer. This is why more phone plans are moving away from pay per use and many broadband plans have not changed (yet)


jig

join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA

said by telcolackey See Profile :

What if a telemarketing service found a way to connect to your Verizon POTs line, Comcast phone, Vonage line, etc, and use it to re-sell 7x24 outbound calls within your service plan (no additional charge) to their customers? The incentive to you is a small payment each month for this. The incentive to them is zero cost on their phone infrastructure.
if it's within your minutes plan, then it should be ok. there's a bit of an issue because you are actually reselling the minutes for cash (vs trading directly). if you are just trying to demonize p2p by equating it with telemarketing, then my response, just like i stated above, is that it's MORE like allowing family members or close friends to use your phone to call their loved ones with your extra minutes each month. is there some moral problem with that? what about charging a stranger a quarter to make an outgoing call? does it make a difference whether you bought your phone rather than accepted it under a lease program?

espeth: pick a day, comcast blames their need to packet shape on something different. sandvine et al can sell their wares because comcast and others undeniably have some issue stuck in their craw. saying that local congestion is a red herring is not the same thing as saying there is no problem, at least from the evil executive viewpoint.

as far as costs:

1) i doubt carriers have to buy symmetrical bandwidth. if there's a demand, there is a supply. you can buy asymmetrical bandwidth at a colo...

2) even if it is bought symmetrically, blocking p2p disrupts both up and down.

3) soft savings are still savings, especially if the number of customers is set (like in a residential neighborhood with no other broadband access). deferring is more of a permanent thing in that situation.

NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC

said by jig See Profile :

f you are just trying to demonize p2p...then my response, just like i stated above, is that it's MORE like allowing family members or close friends to use your phone to call their loved ones with your extra minutes each month.
Not really. I actually have shared my Internet connection with my brother-in-law, and vice versa. This sharing is accomplished by hooking in to our respective LANs. Both the 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' and the Comcast AUP/TOS/Terms of Use permit multiple computers to connect via LAN (as long as it is within the Premises, and not as a wireless hotspot from outside of the Premises).

P2P is making network content available to anybody outside of the Premises LAN; exactly what the Comcast Terms of Use prohibits. I am not talking "server", now. If you restrict client access to your BT client, it can't act as a "server" (I have conceded that in past post), but it still responds to tracker information about other parties interest in file bits that you have, and uploads to the interested clients indiscriminately (unlike your use of email, which is discriminate to your contacts; unless you are spamming).
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA

reply to jig
said by jig See Profile :

there's a bit of an issue because you are actually reselling the minutes for cash (vs trading directly).
Incentives are incentives and boil down to having a monitory value.

said by jig See Profile :

just like i stated above, is that it's MORE like allowing family members or close friends to use your phone to call their loved ones with your extra minutes each month.
You relate it to "family members or close friends", but in reality you are potentially sharing your service with a business to profit from as well as millions indiscriminately on the Internet. That is the difference in the service profile: 1:1 (email like), 1:select few (gaming), or what p2p really is, 1:everyone (hosting).


somebody else

@speakeasy.net

I recall reading on some other forum, someone from sweden posted their TOS. I believe the connection was 50 - 100 mbps. I wish I could remember the link.
They explicitly condoned p2p usage.
Why would they do that?

What we have here is IMO the legacy of poor regulatory practice and profit at any cost mentality.
Choice of providers is not very diverse generally.
And yes we have more area to cover, but we also have more $.
And you don't have to wire up every one horse town in the west, but we could surely do better than this.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype

reply to NormanS
said by NormanS See Profile :

P2P is making network content available to anybody outside of the Premises LAN; exactly what the Comcast Terms of Use prohibits.
According to ANYBODY ASKED AT COMCAST, using P2P on their network is NOT PROHIBITED.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report.


telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA


1 edit
said by funchords See Profile :

According to ANYBODY ASKED AT COMCAST, using P2P on their network is NOT PROHIBITED.
"Using" is a key word in this.

Using the web is different than serving web content.

Downloading songs from ITUNES is different than serving mp3's to the Internet.

Using p2p to download a linux distro is different than serving a linux distro to the entire world.

NOTE: These comments/opinions are my own and not an attempt to state anyone's policy.


somebody else

@speakeasy.net

reply to telcolackey
Re: Sandvine's MSO Case Study-Reasonable Network Management?

said by telcolackey See Profile :

said by funchords See Profile :

According to ANYBODY ASKED AT COMCAST, using P2P on their network is NOT PROHIBITED.
"Using" is a key word in this.

Using the web is different than serving web content.

Downloading songs from ITUNES is different than serving mp3's to the Internet.

Using p2p to download a linux distro is different than serving a linux distro to the entire world.

NOTE: These comments/opinions are my own and not an attempt to state anyone's policy.
Whoops messed up the quote. Plz delete the post above thx.

Anyway, the 2 way nature of the data transfer is implied via the "p2p" nomenclature.
"Use" has very little lattitude for interpretation in this case.


telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
"it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" - Bill Clinton


telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA


1 edit
reply to somebody else
said by somebody else :

Anyway, the 2 way nature of the data transfer is implied via the "p2p" nomenclature.
Many in this forum frequently remind everyone that p2p can be configured to download only.

FTP is two way. Running an anonymous FTP server is file sharing and against ToS. "Using" FTP is ok.

HTTP is two way. Running a web server for anyone to download movies is against ToS. "Using" HTTP is not.

[EDIT: Please don't rehash the "is it a server" discussion. That one has been debated to death. File sharing 1:everyone is file sharing]

... It depends on your definition of the word "use" is.
Thread is
Forums » US Cable Support » Comcast » Comcast HSI[Spam] Comcast reporting spam from my IP »
« [CDV] Outgoing Static on calls  
page: 1 · 2


Monday, 09-Nov 05:13:17 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [156] Cable Uncapper Faces Criminal Charges
· [140] AT&T Sues Verizon Over 3G Ads
· [112] Why Run Fiber When You Can Run Ads That Pretend You Do?
· [109] Comcast Is Simply Getting Huge
· [93] Apple Cooking Up New $30 A Month TV Service?
· [83] Bits Of ACTA Agreement Leaking Out
· [80] Will 'Three Strikes' Come To The United States?
· [78] Verizon To Double Smartphone ETFs?
· [77] Verizon: Droid Tethering Will Cost $30 Extra
· [73] Comcast, NBC Deal Almost Complete
Most people now reading
· Lots of problems lately? [Rogers]
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]
· My cat is reluctant to exercise. [General Questions]
· for all the bell haters out there. [TekSavvy]
· Is Gear Score now the new requirement to get pug invite? [World of Warcraft]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· [Rant] Brand New 'Jasper' Xbox360 - RRoD Hardware Failure [Rants, Raves, and Praise]
· Divorce advice... [General Questions]
· Framed for child porn 151; by a PC virus [Security]
· Connecting to Google Voice Via SIP [VOIP Tech Chat]