how-to block ads
|
Jovi
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to RadioDoc
Re: MORE! MORE! MORE!
said by RadioDoc  :We can concentrate on their other misdeeds then. You'd be wetting yourself over an AT&T or Verizon story a day. If Comcast wants off the front page they should quit doing things that land them there. Bingo
--
"Where's my coffee? Oh. I guess it's my turn to make it."  | |
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to pokesph
said by pokesph :In some states where Comcast operates, intercepting private data communicaions is criminally illegal (same thing is applied to hackers as well) Grabbing your packets and FORGING RST's before passing the packets on sure seems like intercepting to me... Hence they ARE breaking the law in some places. I'm not sure if the courts would buy your theory, after all, Comcast isn't interested in the content of your communications. Certainly I haven't heard of anyone bringing a lawsuit against them under this theory.
The outstanding class action lawsuits out there focus on breach of contract and false advertising, not intercepting private data communications. And frankly, I don't think those class action suits are going much of anywhere anyway, considering how the TOS is set up and how Comcast hasn't advertised its HSI service as "unlimited" AFAIK for at least the last few years. At best, the members of the class will get a month of service and a nifty keychain, the lawyers will get paid, and Comcast won't admit any liability.
But IANAL. You may be; if so, why aren't you pursuing this in court? | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| said by Corydon :I'm not sure if the courts would buy your theory, after all, Comcast isn't interested in the content of your communications. Isn't that the hacker defense for kids that break into high-profile corporate or government systems? "I wasn't trying to read anything, I just wanted to see if I could break in!"
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. | |
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by funchords :Isn't that the hacker defense for kids that break into high-profile corporate or government systems? "I wasn't trying to read anything, I just wanted to see if I could break in!" Yeah, but hackers don't have nifty agreements like this:
However, Comcast and its suppliers reserve the right at any time to monitor bandwidth, usage, transmissions, and content in order to, among other things, operate the Service; identify violations of this Policy; and/or protect the network, the Service and Comcast users. | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to espaeth
Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted.
said by espaeth :Uhh.. no. Queue the Sesame Street "Some of these things are not like the others" music. Don't take this the wrong way,....
...but you're the only one who can hear the SS music.
I'm sure it's lovely.
said by espaeth :Throttling and prioritization do not modify traffic, and will still very much be a part of any network's traffic management strategy. I never spoke of modifying traffic. That was you, I'm somebody else. Perhaps the music is distracting you?
I spoke of Comcast's promise was to provide a non-discriminatory framework.
Which form of packet manipulation takes place without any packet examination and evaluation whatsoever?
said by espaeth :"This means that we will have to rapidly reconfigure our network management systems, but the outcome will be a traffic management technique that is more appropriate for today's emerging Internet trends. We have been discussing this migration and its effects with leaders in the Internet community for the last several months, and we will refine, adjust, and publish the technique based upon feedback and initial trial results," said Tony Werner, Comcast Cable's Chief Technology Officer. That's nice.
I notice he never addressed the specific network management techniques they are considering and what their goals are in respect to them. Of course, that would be information. The dissemination of which is not their strong point.
His white noise technospeak is very soothing, though. Needs some background music. Maybe some....
said by espaeth :Just curious, in your world does the equipment room have a big switch labeled "Internet" that should always remain in the "ON" position? That's just SOOOOOO cute! I can see you with Big Bird, in his "Big Room 'o Tubes". And there you are jumping up and down, dying to pull on the big foam rubber switchey thingey.
I'm sorry you mistook that for the Sandvine Policy Traffic Switch power breaker. Here, have a cookie; the music is starting up again for you.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to espaeth
Re: MORE! MORE! MORE!
said by espaeth :said by funchords :Isn't that the hacker defense for kids that break into high-profile corporate or government systems? "I wasn't trying to read anything, I just wanted to see if I could break in!" Yeah, but hackers don't have nifty agreements like this: However, Comcast and its suppliers reserve the right at any time to monitor bandwidth, usage, transmissions, and content in order to, among other things, operate the Service; identify violations of this Policy; and/or protect the network, the Service and Comcast users. Yeah, agreed. Them clever hackers, them! :-P
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Anyuser2
Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted.
said by Anyuser2 :Prioritization absolutely wouldn't be going away, and there's no reason it should be. They certainly aren't promising to leave traffic "fully unaltered". Discrimination is required for Prioritization. You can't so much as route a packet if you don't examine it first and make a judgment about it.
If the framework were non-discriminatory framework, there would be no judgments made about traffic. Your switches would be no more than hubs.
Comcast apparently forgot that non-discriminatory has an actual meaning. They threw the term out there, intending it to be feelgood gobbledygook.
That is an indicator,
that Comcast's promise
of a non-discriminatory framework,
is - say it with me now,
Yet another bald faced Comcast lie.
Perhaps it's understandable. It seems Comcast can count on a certain number of folks to ignore or redefine their declarations as the need arises.
said by Anyuser2 : Really, all they've said is that they won't specifically target bittorrent/p2p Oh? Where did they declare that with clarity?
said by Anyuser2 :odds are they'll be stopping the questionable practice of forging reset packets. Long odds indeed. What, precisely would they do to end that practice?
No, wait; let me guess. They'd be pulling on espaeth's big internet switch thingy?
said by Anyuser2 :said by Noah Vail :To bring non-discrimination to practice would involve walking across the net-op center floor and powering off the Sandvine equipment. Comcast says it may take up to 9 months to accomplish this. So the Comcast Net-Op manager gets up from his chair. He takes one step. Then he takes another step. He breaths in. He breaths out. Skip 9 months. He reaches out with his right hand, index finger extended.... He depresses the button marked power... And the network upgrade is completed! Network management still needs to be done. Are you familiar at all with Sandvine?.. or is all you know "SANDVINE = BAD!!". Yes, the torrent blocking is questionable, but there's a lot of other things that equipment does and can do. Look into it. I see you've powerfully summed up your opinion on the company, carefully listing your objections.
Which would be that hysterically plopping forged reset packets, into one direction of a P2P transfer is questionable.
Questionable? What exactly is your question? You seemed to have a superior handle on the topic only a few sentences ago. Now you have something left to learn? Shocking.
But don't feel alone. Comcast must have had some questions as well when they directly and forcefully lied about crapping up the handshakes.
But you are so right about the unmentioned capabilities of Sandvine's PTS. Their DPI allows for expansions that could be used for inserting ads; content monitoring and putting their content ahead of, or on top of what you tried acquire.
BTW, some of us hate seeing resets; bad syns or bad checksums. It's the red flashing light that tells us somethings broken and if we have 27¢ of integrity, we'll go after the offender that dares muck up our streams.
However, that would take concern over the quality of what you provide. Comcast isn't really hooked into this quality thing. And I've duly noted your passionate concerns over their lack of customer concern. You can tone down all that passion now.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to CableTool
Re: MORE! MORE! MORE!
said by CableTool :Id love if we can actually get a story a day about this. At this rate its only the same story reposted every OTHER day... If you don't like the headline, skip reading it. I check CNN a couple times a day and if there is something I'm not interested in, I just don't click the link. No different here. No one is forcing you to read it or comment about it.
Besides, you need to get back to work anyways.  | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to Noah Vail
Re: Re-Re-read what Comcast posted.
said by Noah Vail :Discrimination is required for Prioritization. You can't so much as route a packet if you don't examine it first and make a judgment about it. And for that, and ISP only needs to examine the IP header (Layer 3). You don't need to interpret anything after the header (which would be TCP/UDP for layer 4 or anything they transport, such as KAD,FTP,MFTP,HTTP, etc.). All the bits that the ISP needs to prioritize are also located in the IP header.
RFC 2474 Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS 2474 Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers (an Internet Official Protocol Standard)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. | |
CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12
| reply to cdru
Re: MORE! MORE! MORE!
said by cdru :said by CableTool :Id love if we can actually get a story a day about this. At this rate its only the same story reposted every OTHER day... If you don't like the headline, skip reading it. I check CNN a couple times a day and if there is something I'm not interested in, I just don't click the link. No different here. No one is forcing you to read it or comment about it. Besides, you need to get back to work anyways. Im on vacation for the next few weeks... 
--
CableTechs.org/"Horrible People with Integrity" | |
|
