 
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| You know what they say... A rose, by any other name, is still a rose...
Throttling and blocking seeding of BitTorrent traffic, by any other name, is still throttling and blocking of BitTorrent traffic.
No semantic argument filled with lofty legalese is going to make this all go away. Depending on what comes of this, it just may define network neutrality, or lack thereof, for years to come.
--
"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. | |
|
 | 
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs: | Re: You know what they say... Agreed I hope the FCC does something good for once and force them to stop that shit. Pardon my french but that is the only way to properly describe sand-vine.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight | |
|
| 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | To ensure any form of network neutrality, Comcast would have to have a site audit.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| |
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
|  Policy goals and rules are different things
Although the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard, it will incorporate these principles into its ongoing policymaking activities. So there aren't even any rules that Comcast could violate, even if they wanted to.
So, the way I read this is that the FCC has nothing legally enforceable in place that Comcast Lawyers would have to even think about.
But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over?
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
| SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by LiamJunket  :But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over? Because you are clearly one of the minority who seems to think it perfectly OK to advertise an all you can eat buffet for X price and then change your mind about it when the customer actually does so. | |
|
| |
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by SilverSurfer :said by LiamJunket :But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over? Because you are clearly one of the minority who seems to think it perfectly OK to advertise an all you can eat buffet for X price and then change your mind about it when the customer actually does so. One, they don't advertise an all you can eat buffet and haven't done so for a long time. And their Terms Of Service NEVER said so.
Two, I am only a minority here at BBR, where the majority thinks that broadband should be a public utility subsidized by taxpayers. In the real world I am in the majority.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
| | | bi0tech
join:2003-06-19 | Re: Policy goals and rules are different things If you truly in the majority then you must be one of the millions that still dont have a slightest clue what any of this means, shrugs it off, and goes back to their day to day lives.
Yawn for continual misrepresentation of everything. | |
|
| | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by bi0tech :... Yawn for continual misrepresentation of everything. TCH/HCT doesn't actually misrepresent anything, he is just here to protect the poor telcos/cablecos from us mean people with a clue. | |
|
| | | | | 
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by nasadude :said by bi0tech :... Yawn for continual misrepresentation of everything. TCH/HCT doesn't actually misrepresent anything, he is just here to protect the poor telcos/cablecos from us mean people with a clue. Right. All you keyboard crusaders are FOR THE PEOPLE!
1. Its their network to manage. Be glad they don't block it all together.
2. Vote with your wallet. If they are your only provider, then be thankful. Why bitch at the only company giving you service? Not Comcasts fault DSL isnt available.
--
Fighting on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Win or lose, your still Retarted! | |
|
| | | | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by LeftOfSanity :Right. All you keyboard crusaders are FOR THE PEOPLE! 1. Its their network to manage. Be glad they don't block it all together. 2. Vote with your wallet. If they are your only provider, then be thankful. Why bitch at the only company giving you service? Not Comcasts fault DSL isnt available. we are the people - I don't work for a telecom/cable company, nor do I have any stock in these companies (unless it's in my retirement 401K). my interest is a speedy broadband connection at a reasonable price that lets me visit ANY site available on the internet.
1. yes, within the confines of laws and regulations, which these days either go unenforced or are in the process of being gutted for the benefit of the incumbents. if they blocked it entirely, they wouldn't exactly be providing a service.
2. comcast is my only provider and I am not thankful, nor is there reason for me to be. also, I don't really blame comcast, I blame the government, which should be doing things in the interests of consumers and the country. the current situation IS NOT good for consumers or the country - the longer the government allows the current monopoly/duopoly situation to exist, the further we will fall behind the rest of the world. if you can't see this is a bad thing, I doubt I can change your mind. | |
|
| | | | | | jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| It may be their network to manage but they also have an obligation to the customer with whom they have a contract with. If they would change their TOS and come out and say we have caps of this much and this is allowed/not allowed on our service and if you use it you will find if blocked, then that would be ok because it would give people a choice to change service or not. AS it is now they hide this information in the hopes that they can keep people who might normally leave with their service. This is a form of fraud in my eyes. Sure people here can leave and "vote with their wallet" as you have said. Why? Why? should a customer have to go through a hardship just because a company perpetuates fraud. A few people leaving won't teach them anything. Having to change their TOS, Possible pay a fine and possibly having hundreds of people leaving would.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? | |
|
| | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Policy goals and rules are different things By continuing to pay your monthly bill, your "contract" updates routinely and you agree to said "contract, ToS, and AUP. I'm failing to see how you are able to claim fraud. | |
|
| | | | | | | | jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things By continuing to pay your monthly bill, your "contract" updates routinely and you agree to said "contract, ToS, and AUP. I'm failing to see how you are able to claim fraud
It my update as you say but the information in it has not changed. They still deny they even use any kind of traffic-shaping and do not have clear caps listed. Other cable companies do (like COX whom I use) and they have had no problems. Why can't Comcast? What are they trying to hide?
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by jsouth :By continuing to pay your monthly bill, your "contract" updates routinely and you agree to said "contract, ToS, and AUP. I'm failing to see how you are able to claim fraud It my update as you say but the information in it has not changed. They still deny they even use any kind of traffic-shaping and do not have clear caps listed. Other cable companies do (like COX whom I use) and they have had no problems. Why can't Comcast? What are they trying to hide? They don't deny it. They said they don't block it, which they don't. They said they take steps to manage their network so it doesn't degrade for other users. You may say "It's not my problem their network can't handle it." Maybe, and hopefully when Docsis 3 rolls out it won't be a problem. They don't neglect their infrastructure, they may not be as speedy as we all would like but unfortunatley there is red tape and shareholders to deal with. | |
|
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| I agree with you (HCT) Comcast has not violated any laws or rules from any branch of government. But like I said before. RoadRunner does the same thing; they impose network management tools to better service customers and state so in the RoadRunner Terms of Service and the AUP which is posted at help.rr.com. Which is directly from the ISP not the cable operator. (RoadRunner is separate from the actual cable operators too; including Time Warner Cable)
People on here think that they're owed Broadband/HSI services and at the price they want to pay and get what they want. But it doesnt work that way. | |
|
| | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by LiamJunket : In the real world I am in the majority. More like in your own mind. | |
|
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Policy goals and rules are different things In the real world, very few people understand the allegations that have been made towards Comcast, let alone care as long as their IM clients, browsers, and e-mail clients work. | |
|
| | | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by openbox9 :In the real world, very few people understand the allegations that have been made towards Comcast... I am very certain that more than just a "few" people understand the concept of throttling. Apparently, you haven't been paying attention very closely to the complaints that have received national exposure. | |
|
| | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Policy goals and rules are different things Obviously few is a relative term. I've read some of the "national exposure" of the allegations. How many of the 300 million people in this country understand, or care? I'd wager that those that do are a minority. | |
|
| | | | | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by openbox9 :Obviously few is a relative term. I've read some of the "national exposure" of the allegations. How many of the 300 million people in this country understand, or care? I'd wager that those that do are a minority. First off, 300 million people in the U.S. don't have broadband. Of those that do have it, and use it beyond email, care very deeply about throttling. You may have heard of this group...they call themselves Network Neutrality advocates. | |
|
| | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by SilverSurfer :First off, 300 million people in the U.S. don't have broadband. Of those that do have it, and use it beyond email, care very deeply about throttling. You may have heard of this group...they call themselves Network Neutrality advocates. But, the 300 million is what you would be referring to when discussing the AP's and Consumerist's allegations. Also, I think your use of the network neutrality advocates is misplaced. I would say a better representation would be BBR readers. Besides, this really isn't a net neutrality issue IMO since they aren't discriminating against a specific user or specific content in favor of their own. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by openbox9 :.... Besides, this really isn't a net neutrality issue IMO since they aren't discriminating against a specific user or specific content in favor of their own. if I had to guess, I would say that in your opinion, very little would probably be a net neutrality issue.
"if an incumbent does it, it can't be wrong"
I just made that up, but you can use it if you want. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by nasadude :if I had to guess, I would say that in your opinion, very little would probably be a net neutrality issue. "if an incumbent does it, it can't be wrong" Until we see an actual net neutrality issue, I'll agree with your statement. Furthermore, I don't care if it's an "incumbent" or any other provider, I'll stand by my belief that providers must management their networks. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by openbox9 :Until we see an actual net neutrality issue, I'll agree with your statement. Furthermore, I don't care if it's an "incumbent" or any other provider, I'll stand by my belief that providers must management their networks. you don't keep up with the news much do you?
* ATT censoring lyrics on a streaming concernt
* verizon refusing to allow a NARAL text message
* and over a year ago now, a small independent ISP BLOCKING VOIP
violations of the principles of network neutrality have been and are occurring - this is just apparently the first time an incumbent is going to see it through and not succumb to public pressure. If comcast gets away with this, there goes the internet as we know it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Policy goals and rules are different things Censorship != net neutrality. The Madison River Communications issue, was resolved without legislation. It was actually a net neutrality issue because of the fact that they were blocking competing services. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | Re: Policy goals and rules are different things Right. "Shaping" & "throttling" competing services' traffic is also a net neutralitiy issue. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things If it is competing then yes. Otherwise, the ISP is simply managing a large swath of very troubling and resource intensive traffic on their network. This would also be different if the ISP singled out The Pirate Bay for example in the P2P management and left the remainder of BT traffic flowing freely. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | Managing their network is different than what they're doing. There's Qos and there's altering their customer's data. Traffic prioritisation is very differnt than redirection. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by openbox9 :But, the 300 million is what you would be referring to when discussing the AP's and Consumerist's allegations. Actually, that "300 million" was your quote, not mine.
said by openbox9 :Also, I think your use of the network neutrality advocates is misplaced. I would say a better representation would be BBR readers. Not necessarily. I read a great many other public forums on the matter besides this one.
said by openbox9 :Besides, this really isn't a net neutrality issue IMO since they aren't discriminating against a specific user or specific content in favor of their own. So, in your opinion, in order for something to be a NN issue, a provider has to discriminate against a "specific user" or "specific content" in favor of their own? What else would you call throttling BT traffic? Just b/c Comcrap didn't replace the throttled BT traffic with their own content is irrelevant. The fact remains they still throttled other content arbitrarily. Yours is a specious argument. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by SilverSurfer :The fact remains they still throttled other content arbitrarily. Yours is a specious argument. But they're not throttling BitTorrent arbitrarily, they have a reason and a supposed (by them) necessity to throttle.
If the reason is network performance, then it is very legitimate. What other reason would they block it for? If network upgrades can't keep up with network performance in the short run, what else are they supposed to do? Start canceling customers? Cut back on download speeds? Are any of these, including Sandvine, reasonable solutions?
ISP's are blocking IP's that send spam and DoS attacks all the time. Is that violating network neutrality? What if I personally wanted that spam?
Are they violating my rights?
Some ISP's block ping to their routers or specific servers. Or they block port 23 to servers. Is that against network neutrality? I mean, for all intents and purposes blocking ports with firewalls is essentially the same as blocking traffic with Sandvine.
So where do you draw the line? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by smcallah :So where do you draw the line? I think if an informal vote was taken that we could get a fairly decent consensus on spam/Dos attacks. Most people generally don't want either. And as to pinging, anyone with even a peripheral familiarity with network admin/security wouldn't argue with you on the merits of blocking port 23 to servers, but I would argue that the average person could care less about pinging.
What we are discussing is the wholesale blocking of a very specific type of traffic -BT- or more specifically, P2P, which does not always necessarily have a nefarious connotation. Just because people use it doesn't mean everyone who does so is a pirate. And to state as much would be like saying that anyone who buys a firearm is going to go on a rampage and become a serial murderer. P2P traffic is not necessarily always a bad thing.
You draw the line when a national provider like Comcast suddenly starts throttling/blocking certain types of traffic based on its arbitrary judgment at the same time it advertises itself as a content-friendly network and then denies doing it after it gets caught. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by SilverSurfer :Just because people use it doesn't mean everyone who does so is a pirate. And to state as much would be like saying that anyone who buys a firearm is going to go on a rampage and become a serial murderer. P2P traffic is not necessarily always a bad thing. Well, if you're going to use THAT analogy, then the same can be said for email from known spammer netblocks, and legitimate traffic that happens to sit on a network that a DoS was started from, and not all pings are necessarily bad things either.
So again, if they're allowed with no questions asked to block some traffic on their own private network, why are they questioned when they do it to a different type of traffic?
I'm not saying they're right in blocking P2P, far from that. But if the FCC comes out and says they can't block traffic, how sweeping a ruling is that going to be?
Would they not be allowed to block ANYTHING by the word of the law at that point?
When you involve non-technical people in things like this, unintended consequences always happen. Just look at the DMCA. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by smcallah :When you involve non-technical people in things like this, unintended consequences always happen. Just look at the DMCA. Oh shit, dude, don't get me started on that! | |
|
| | | | | | | | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| So where do you draw the line?
I'd say when they block all ports to a particular application.
A DoS attack violates the rights of the recipient to connect to the net.
Nice try on the false issues
Comcast's fundamental problem is that 3 teenagers can saturate their local node and management thinks the best solution is to buy sandvine boxes. This is the 21st century network they offer. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by backness :Comcast's fundamental problem is that 3 teenagers can saturate their local node and management thinks the best solution is to buy sandvine boxes. This is the 21st century network they offer. And if they spent a ton of money upgrading the infrastructure, then 10 teenagers can saturate the local node. With P2P there is no end to how much bandwidth is needed. P2P is a protocol that is bad for the internet and unsustainable for ISPs to tolerate.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by SilverSurfer :Actually, that "300 million" was your quote, not mine. It's my number from the population statistics of this country, but the statement was made based on your assertion that complaints have received national exposure.said by SilverSurfer :So, in your opinion, in order for something to be a NN issue, a provider has to discriminate against a "specific user" or "specific content" in favor of their own? Not just my opinion.
»www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#what
Put simply, Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
also to discriminate between content providers (e.g. websites, services, protocols), particularly competitors.
»obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-···neutral/
"It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge.
But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say that they want to create high speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual agreements with Internet content providers for access to those high speed lanes.
Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes."
said by SilverSurfer :What else would you call throttling BT traffic? I'd call it throttling BT traffic. As long as the throttling takes place across the board for network management, I don't see the net neutrality issue. Many ISPs have similar network management practices in place. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
See 11 replies to this post |
|
| | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| said by SilverSurfer :said by LiamJunket :But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over? Because you are clearly one of the minority who seems to think it perfectly OK to advertise an all you can eat buffet for X price and then change your mind about it when the customer actually does so. Comcast has not advertised unlimited internet service in over 7 years.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
|
| | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by JSRoman :[Comcast has not advertised unlimited internet service in over 7 years. Funny, but I don't see Comcrap advertising that they throttle traffic with Sandvine, either. | |
|
| | | | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL | Re: Policy goals and rules are different things One has nothing to do with the other. Nice try though.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
|
| | | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things said by JSRoman :One has nothing to do with the other. Nice try though. The fact that Comcrap throttles traffic and the only way anyone even knows about it is because customers have complained is very relevant. In fact, it is germane to the the crux of your own argument. | |
|
| | | | | | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| Re: Policy goals and rules are different things Yea, I've heard their call centers are flooded with tens of thousands of calls from subs asking about this. 
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
|
| | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| I agree be honest about your service. I blame this on the FCC their lack of over site. The FCC used to be run by engineers but starting with the Regan administration when the agency was gutted with job cuts and with the political hacks put in place by Clinton, and then Bush 2 the FCC we have now is a bunch of kiss-ass politicians looking to feather their own nests after they leave for that fat paying job with the very outfits they where writing regulations for.
--
Eat pork chops for Allah! | |
|
| | 
CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12
| said by SilverSurfer :said by LiamJunket :But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over? Because you are clearly one of the minority who seems to think it perfectly OK to advertise an all you can eat buffet for X price and then change your mind about it when the customer actually does so. They have never advertised an ALL YOU CAN EAT BUFFET.
They advertised a WE NEVER CLOSE buffet.
--
CableTechs.org/"Horrible People with Integrity" | |
|
| 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
| said by LiamJunket :» hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···35A1.pdfAlthough the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard, it will incorporate these principles into its ongoing policymaking activities. So there aren't even any rules that Comcast could violate, even if they wanted to. So, the way I read this is that the FCC has nothing legally enforceable in place that Comcast Lawyers would have to even think about. But none of this is even new. Why does this subject have to be rehashed over and over and over? Maybe because they lie and misrepresent thier product?
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon | |
|
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| But we are not allowed to run servers "Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services"
Ohhh my!! Comcast does not block P2P applications but we are not allowed to use them.
They confuse me. 
--
People pray to God because they're told to. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
|
| Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| Re: Where To Draw The Line? said by Ignite :It's a tricky distinction. There is no difference. This is Comcast trying to control the debate.
Forging RST packets is an active attempt by Comcast network administration to shut down a connection - not delay it. How can that be anything but blocking? | |
|
| | |
| | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| Re: Where To Draw The Line? I understand, but thats not the issue. The issue is what Comcast is doing to shut down that traffic. If the BitTorrent protocol didn't work the way it did, do you think Comcast would NOT be sending RST's? They would still block it because it isn't the connection ATTEMPTS that are their problem, its the connection itself once it's established. | |
|
| | madrhino
join:2004-07-03
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| said by Talis :said by Ignite :It's a tricky distinction. There is no difference. This is Comcast trying to control the debate. Forging RST packets is an active attempt by Comcast network administration to shut down a connection - not delay it. How can that be anything but blocking? It's not blocking.It's not Friday.It's not even daytime. | |
|
| 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| The relevant lines in the FCC policy statement would seem to be:
said by FCC :
(2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of
their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
[and]
... All of these principles are subject to reasonable
network management.
Reasonable management might include throttling, i.e. dropping a percentage of packets from certain low-urgency types of traffic, only when the network is too congested, and without discrimination by packet destinations. What Comcast is doing instead is forging packets to prevent customers from seeding torrents to peers outside of Comcast. This is not "reasonable network management"; it is blocking a specific use of a protocol regardless of network conditions. | |
|
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | If you shape it... to the point that people can't get to it effectively, you are defacto blocking it. | |
|
Neyland85
join:2003-02-04
North Augusta, SC
·AT&T Southeast
| At Network Neutrality Core I remember many people and law makers saying they didn't want to enact laws because there really wasn't anyone doing anything that needed regulating.
Isn't this the core of what Network Neutrality is all about? It's more than just blocking traffic. It's reducing performance of specific traffic. Next you'll see the reduction of YouTube traffic under the guise of 'Network Management'. All while the ISP is saying if you want un-shaped service, get a business class account (pay more).
It seems to me all those folks waiting to act.. time to put your money where your mouth is... this is what you've been waiting on.
No, I don't P2P at all unless I have a game or other application that uses it as a means of patching or something. | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
|
| 
Nightshade
sic semper tyrannis
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR | Re: Defintion of 'Block' Exactly, if Comcast did what you said they wouldn't have mud thrown in their faces about this.
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
|
Jon
Premium
join:2001-01-20
Lisle, IL | Does it ever end? And people think AT&T is evil.  | |
|
|
o2cool8
join:2002-04-19
Miami, FL
| how about this... Lets say instead of p2p, they did this with a site like google.com
So if I tried to goto google.com and it would take about 5 minutes for you to finally get through. So even though google isn't blocked, it is degraded. This means the next time I wanted to search, i might decide to use yahoo.com because it took less then a second to load. This would definitely be considered a neutrality issue.
The same thing happens for p2p, but there isn't another place to go. So how can it not be a neutrality issue? | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
netdude
Premium
join:2006-05-18
Fort Collins, CO | sarcasm no were not blocking bittorrent and other apps. were just making them so horrendiously slow to use that no one will want to use them. | |
|
TKadlec
join:2000-04-25
Trenton, NJ | You know you're screwed when.. you hear the phrase, "for the good of all". | |
|
MJRudzik
join:2002-01-13
Independence, MO
| This is covered in the TOS First of all I do have a problem with what Comcast is doing. My reasons are different that most of you though.
First lets be accurate. From BBR's own analysis what Comcast is doing with Sandvine is identifying seeders and sending them forged reset packets causing the seed to run extremely slow. Bit Torrent downloads are not affected. I still download bit Torrent files at full speed.
Ok seeding is Serving. Servers have always been a no go in the TOS that all Comcast Customers accept by subscribing to the service. So even if they were outright blocking the serving side of Bit Torrent its not only in their right but was upfront stated that if you were caught your account could be cancelled. So by comparison slowing or preventing the serving traffic is mild. Serving is very useful, and one should be allowed to do so, but it s against the rules at Comcast always has been and subscribers agree to that when the sign up. Comcast is usually lax about enforcing it, but they have the right to do so and you know it when you get your service.
My only 2 issues is that they refuse to own it and the methodology. I wish that they would just come out and say yes they are interfering with Bit Torrent Serving. Also I find the use of forged packets to be very shady. If they will forge identities for the sake of stopping a user from serving then what else will they fake? | |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Karl says... "Of course nobody has said Comcast blocks content, but that they degrade traffic. "
I think i'd have to take exception to that.
In the statement issued by the group who is asking that comcast be penalized 195k per subscriber...they reportedly said this according to your story yesterday.
"Comcast, the number two provider of high-speed Internet access, has been secretly degrading peer-to-peer protocols. Degrading these protocols undermines innovation and violates the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement, whose four principles guarantee consumers access to the content, applications, and services of their choice, as well as access to competition among network, applications, and content providers."
What they did in that statement was to use the word degrade..but then to go on to say that it violates the FCC's policy statement. They go on to describe the main principles of that policy statement.
Note that each of those principles is about BLOCKING service..not about degrading or managing traffic.
Comcast most certainly IS doing each of those things that the policy spells out..and certainly ISN'T blocking access to anything.
And so, while this group uses their carefully crafted word..and the word DEGRADE initially..that which they refer to says no such thing and is all about BLOCKING access instead.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
| AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Re: Karl says... said by Rick :And so, while this group uses their carefully crafted word..and the word DEGRADE initially..that which they refer to says no such thing and is all about BLOCKING access instead. “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” - Bill Clinton | |
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Who is to say Comcast won't stop at bitorrent? Managing your network to make things equal is one thing but managing a network that prevents people from reaching a particular website is another. If a company like Comcast degrades traffic so much that it prevents someone from reaching that site, I would consider it blocking.
Sure Comcast is not actually blocking traffic but they are degrading the traffic so much that after awhile people will get disgusted and not use it. Who is to say that Comcast won't stop with just bitorrent?
Example: If Comcast made an exclusive deal with Yahoo, Comcast could use this "managing our network" excuse and degrade all the other search engines traffic so people will have no choice but to use Yahoo. They are not actually blocking the other search engines traffic, they are just degrading it. | |
|
|
Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
·Bell Sympatico
| Terrible Customer Relations I'm not a Comcast Internet subscriber (AT&T DSL), but I do get their digital cable. They're upgrading the network in my area to soon offer their "triple play", which I WAS interested in. Now I have second, third, and fourth thoughts on that. I'm not a big P2P user, but their attitude bothers me.
To me the whole "Is it blocking, or merely degrading?" argument is absurd. If I turn off my car in the left turn lane for three light cycles, I'm blocking traffic. Temporarily or not. And I'll get a ticket for it. If not a brick through my windshield.
Does Comcast have the right to manage their network? Sure. Does forging communications fall within that right? And is such behaviour even legal? Less sure.
The TOS argument. Half (I think it's higher) of all internet traffic is P2P. So most traffic is infringing on someone's TOS or another. It's simply a tool to boot a customer if they really need to. And at their peril, reputation-wise. Comcast AT&T, Verizon, etc.. make millions of dollars off of TOS violating customers. I have little sympathy.
But in the end, this and their cagey "bandwidth caps" are examples of absolutely idiotic customer and public relations. You could argue that only a few percentages of people are aware of the issues, but they all probably advise their less tech-savvy friends. The old adage in customer relations is that a dissatisfied customer tells 20 people, a satisfied one, 3. Simply perusing the topics on a forum such as the Comcast one illustrates that nicely.
Would it kill them to simply be honest with their customers, and potential customers? Advertise and enforce when needed, hard bandwidth limits. Why not charge for overages, as many ISPs do? Want to manage upload? There are better ways than clandestinely forging data.
Better yet, have government kill all the monopoly rights and let customers properly vote with their wallets.
--
"Idealism is based on big ideas. And, as anybody who has ever been asked "What's the big idea?" knows, most big ideas are bad ones."
O'Rourke, P.J. | |
|
stealth50k
@charter.com
| cheap skate company Throttling is blocking and starving a service into crap. Its like someone torturing you without even killing you. Its like someone being put in jail for life without being put to death. Its similar to a movie like saw or texas chainsaw where they cut your fingers one by one but you don't die. Its crippling a service which is just as bad. They are ruining internet developement and growth. They should be upgrading and not stalling growth. | |
|
|
duck liver
@comcast.net
| Re: cheap skate company said by stealth50k :
Throttling is blocking and starving a service into crap. Its like someone torturing you without even killing you. Its like someone being put in jail for life without being put to death. Its similar to a movie like saw or texas chainsaw where they cut your fingers one by one but you don't die. Its crippling a service which is just as bad. They are ruining internet developement and growth. They should be upgrading and not stalling growth.
how old are you 12? ask your mom what imbecilic means then reread your post. | |
|
coold8
Premium
join:2005-05-15
Englishtown, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Comcast on Thin Ice Comcast really needs to take a second thought about themselves. What comcast does not realize is that over time they are becoming less and less monopoly based. Within a few short years, there will be a phone company providing fiber in all of the places they serve. Then the question will be quality of service and price. When fiber starts to get paid off, fiber will drop way low in price, and the cables companies will be forced to compete. The problem is their reputation will be low, and people will just switch because they are pissed off that the cable company screwed them over for 5 years. This is comcast's time to show they are better than Fiber, the same way cablevision is doing. Good luck comcast! | |
|
asoke
join:2007-12-16
| I suggest a VPN account There are many companies that sell the VPN accounts, and they have many benefits. Here are a few
»www.strongvpn.com
»www.vpnaccounts.com
»www.vpn.com
In my experience it bypasses any traffic shaping and also has other benefits, see the sites. | |
|
|
|
|
Comcast Denies They're Violating Network Neutrality
·
