Comcast Seeks P2P “Bill of Rights and Responsibilities”Good idea or just a way to control customers? ( old news - 09:25AM Wednesday Apr 16 2008) tags: legal · Fileswapping · business · bandwidth · ComcastTrying to find a way to control filesharing without getting into trouble for throttling, Comcast has announced that it seeks to develop a “Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” which would lay the ground rules for all Internet providers to deal with all people who share files. Comcast says this is a way to clearly outline what constitutes legal and illegal filesharing and to define who has control over what actions. " ‘By having this framework in place, we will help P2P companies, ISPs and content owners find common ground to support consumers who want to use P2P applications to deliver legal content,’ said Tony Werner, Comcast's chief technology officer." Comcast points to these efforts as an example of their willingness to work in harmony with the industry. Others in the industry disagree, saying that it’s just another way for Comcast to exert control over what customers are doing online. The fact that consumer advocacy groups are not part of the bill-drafting process highlights this argument. Pando Networks, a company which is working to speed up P2P sharing, has come out in support of Comcast’s idea.
Related:- Comcast Tells FCC To Butt Out
- Beating Comcast's Sandvine On Linux With Iptables
- Comcast Pays Florida $150K For Misleading Consumers
- Cox Responds to DMCA 'Three Strikes' Report
- Martin, Comcast, Continue Lover's Feud
- ISPs Won't Admit Participation In New RIAA Plan
- AT&T, Comcast Part Of RIAA's New 3 Strikes Plan
- Comcast Still Fighting FCC Throttling Sanction
|
 ender7074
join:2006-11-21
Saint Louis, MO | Dont think so How about you ISPs just concentrate on giving everyone a fast and reliable connection. That alone seems to be a pretty big task for you. Just concentrate on that. It's not your job to filter packets. | |
|  | 
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| Re: Dont think so said by ender7074  :How about you ISPs just concentrate on giving everyone a fast and reliable connection. That alone seems to be a pretty big task for you. Just concentrate on that. It's not your job to filter packets. I agree. | |
| | 
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| said by ender7074 :How about you ISPs just concentrate on giving everyone a fast and reliable connection. That alone seems to be a pretty big task for you. Just concentrate on that. It's not your job to filter packets. I don't mean to dissect your wording, but, re: filtering packets:
At least let people opt-out of certain filtering mechanisms. For example, I'm fine with ISPs filtering TCP/UDP 137-139, 445, etc. (SMB/CIFS sharing) for obvious reasons.
On the other hand, I have *major* qualms over Comcast injecting falsified/spoofed TCP RST into existing TCP streams as a form of rate-limiting. I don't care if it's being done on BitTorrent traffic or *all* TCP traffic -- it's a bad idea, for a lot of reasons.
I'd love to know who this "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" caters to, because it definitely doesn't to the average customer/consumer. | |
| | | 
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
| Re: Dont think so You can have any two of the three choices below:
A) More bandwidth to support p2p
B) No filtering or throttling.
C) No add on costs to rates to support p2p use.
Someone has to make a choice here, who is it going to be?
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
| | | |
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| Re: Dont think so said by halfband :You can have any two of the three choices below: A) More bandwidth to support p2p B) No filtering or throttling. C) No add on costs to rates to support p2p use. Someone has to make a choice here, who is it going to be? Simple: A and B.
I have no qualms paying a little bit more for something that's less "tainted", but Comcast doesn't work that way. They're applying said TCP injection to all customers, not those who are paying less.
So what exactly is your point?
I pay US$70.20/month just for Internet access. This is by no means affordable for lower or lower-middle class. Admittedly broadband should be US$20-30/month, tops -- and regardless of how much you pay, you should be getting a clean, manipulation-free connection. | |
| | | | |
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
2 edits | Re: Dont think so said by koitsu :I have no qualms paying a little bit more for something that's less "tainted", but Comcast doesn't work that way. They're applying said TCP injection to all customers, not those who are paying less. So what exactly is your point? You want A and B, you can get it, but it is a business class connection. Unfortunately, it is not a "little bit more" it is a lot more.
My point is there are tradeoffs, every choice impacts some other aspect of the system. It is very hard to do something that wins on all fronts.
You actually make an argument for comcast or other isps to develop a p2p friendly tier that supports more, un-filtered upload, but does not have the other costs associated with business level service. Probably would still be expensive, but not the obscene numbers for high reliability business class service.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
| | | | | |
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| Re: Dont think so said by halfband :You want A and B, you can get it, but it is a business class connection. Unfortunately, it is not a "little bit more" it is a lot more. Ahh, this discussion. I go through this about once a year with someone, and it always results in the same thing: lack of acceptance.
Here's a dose of reality, from someone who works solely with "business-class" tiers (read: backbone providers such as Abovenet, Level 3, Verizon/MCI, AT&T, Telia, InterNAP, and others, a.k.a. the "big boys" who all ISPs peer with). (I'm sure espaeth will come out of the woodwork and spank me though...)
There's only two differences between a "business-class" connection and a consumer/residential connection: an SLA, and (sometimes) prior notice of maintenances.
Nothing stops your circuit (in the case of cable, your coax or related CMTS) from going down because you have a "business-class" connection. You aren't on a physically separate network. Technicians do not treat network repair any differently depending upon what "class" of customer you are. Support representatives still continue to have absolutely no clue about their own scheduled maintenances, their own downtimes, or their own outages. You go through the same rigmarole as residential users do, just talking to different people. You get the same overall cluelessness in most cases, though.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that consumer-class connections are actually better in some regards, because:
1) When there's a problem (such as TCP RST injection!), there's a significantly larger percentage of the populous who notice and complain,
2) When there's a major outage that lasts multiple hours, consumers (given the choice) will change providers. You can't do this with a business-class connection, due to contractual obligations.
The amusing part is that with commerical-grade connections, there's a significantly smaller customer base. This means chances are the customer won't notice a 30 second blip as a technician cleans some fibre.
The SLA will get you nothing more than your account representative telling you "We're sorry for the interruption in service, but it falls within our 99.5% uptime, so thanks for playing", which ultimately makes you wonder what you're really paying for.
It really isn't that much different when you have a larger pipe (e.g. a residential cable connection compared to a full OC12). It's the same bull**** regardless. Believe me, I deal with this on a daily basis!
The only time a business-class connection proves to be useful is when the provider you're getting service from provides you a direct circuit from the A to Z end, and owns the actual copper or transport medium inbetween. In that case, you can usually get someone clueful, because there's less red tape to deal with.
A real-life example would be Abovenet, who actually leases some of their backbone fibre from Level 3. Level 3 gets their fibre from OnFiber. OnFiber performs maintenance one night, and mucks something up. Level 3 "might" notice, but probably doesn't care because OnFibre told them of the maintenance. But Abovenet has no idea what's going on...
If you call Abovenet during this situation and ask "What's the deal? We pay for an OC48, and right now our SONET link to your is dark." Abovenet will spend a few hours figuring out that the circuit actually rides a Level 3-owned pair, and will contact Level 3, who will tell them "Uh, we... hmm... we'll get back to you". OnFiber finishes up their maintenance, Level 3 is happy, and suddenly the OC48 comes up. Abovenet will then call you and ask "Are you still down?" "No, but we want to know what happened anyways" "Right, uh, we'll get you an RFO in a few days..." The RFO will come, and it'll say there was a service interruption caused by "vendor maintenance".
This situation will continue to repeat itself indefinitely, and nothing ever changes. That's how the real world works, believe it or not. It's depressing, because the core of the problem is that no one cares enough to make it right.
My point is there are tradeoffs, every choice impacts some other aspect of the system. It is very hard to do something that wins on all fronts. In that regard, I agree. Yes, there has to be trade-offs. But you must keep in mind that DSLR/BBR consists of broadband-centric visitors: people who want the Internet and ISPs to be up 24x7x365, and expect honest, reliable service. Injecting TCP RST into customers' TCP sessions based on whatever Comcast deems necessary at that moment in time is in no way honest or reliable. Thus, DSLR/BBR people bitch more, and bitch louder.
That said, it would do Comcast well to consider changing their method of throttling. Even though I pay US$70/month, I have no real qualms with throttling. I have qualms with the *method* Comcast is using. If they used packet loss or delayed RTT as a form of rate-limiting (which is common), I would be significantly happier. But falsifying packets? NO. This is not acceptable.
You actually make an argument for comcast or other isps to develop a p2p friendly tier that support more, un-filtered upload, but does not have the other costs associated with business level service. Probably would still be expensive, but not the obscene numbers for high reliability business class service.
This sounds somewhat "buzzwordish", and thus I don't understand what you said fully. I think you're referring to Comcast's recent move to work with the BitTorrent folks, hoping to keep the network traffic off their Internet-bound links and local between customers.
I FULLY support that, and I encourage it. I think it's a much better solution to the bandwidth problem, allowing Comcast to keep traffic off their Internet-bound links and local between cable customers.
All I want to see stopped is the current method of falsified TCP packet injection. | |
| | | | | | | 
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: Dont think so I have not noticed a single problem with torrent files I receive or send to folks on the network myself. I have been trying to catch this problem in the act, but maybe since I only download a torrent about once or twice a week, and they are about 2 gigs worth of info, I guess I am not being looked at. Or perhaps the 240 gigs of data that I don't really share because I don't want to be stupid and have the **AA's at me might be the reason. I don't know, what I DO know is I don't have any issues using BitTorrent clients. And you know, I have been an Azureus user for years, opting for that over BitTorrent because I like the interface better... Maybe thats why I don't have a problem, because they have some plugin that is suppose to work around it. Well, wait, no, this topic has been going on for a long time, but yet I have only recently got that plugin, so thats not it. And Ethereal on both my Linux box and my Windows machine are not showing RST packets. Sorry for you guys and your luck, maybe you have more traffic than me... Oh well, good luck  
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
| | | | | | | |
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| Re: Dont think so said by phattieg :I have not noticed a single problem with torrent files I receive or send to folks on the network myself. I can't reproduce it here (in the Bay Area) either, and I've spent quite a bit of time looking at layer 2-7 packets coming in off the wire.
All this means is that Comcast doesn't have a Sandvine configured for use, or possibly even deployed, in our areas. Nothing's stopping them from doing that, however, which is why I'm so concerned. ISPs being silent about such things doesn't sit well with me... | |
| | | 
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH
| said by koitsu :said by ender7074 :How about you ISPs just concentrate on giving everyone a fast and reliable connection. That alone seems to be a pretty big task for you. Just concentrate on that. It's not your job to filter packets. I don't mean to dissect your wording, but, re: filtering packets: At least let people opt-out of certain filtering mechanisms. For example, I'm fine with ISPs filtering TCP/UDP 137-139, 445, etc. (SMB/CIFS sharing) for obvious reasons. On the other hand, I have *major* qualms over Comcast injecting falsified/spoofed TCP RST into existing TCP streams as a form of rate-limiting. I don't care if it's being done on BitTorrent traffic or *all* TCP traffic -- it's a bad idea, for a lot of reasons. I'd love to know who this "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" caters to, because it definitely doesn't to the average customer/consumer. I dont know what the problem is sir they are saying that they are wiling to work with the p2p issues as long as it is being used for legal uses so why is that an issue are you using it for something other than that, and if you are then good you deserve to be throttled. | |
| | | |
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| Re: Dont think so said by jonnyb :I dont know what the problem is sir they are saying that they are wiling to work with the p2p issues as long as it is being used for legal uses so why is that an issue are you using it for something other than that, and if you are then good you deserve to be throttled.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. | |
| | | 
jt44
@comcast.net | you dont like it because then you cant download song for free anymore. stop braking the law and pay for the music and videos you wants. | |
| | | |
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: Dont think so said by jt44 :
you dont like it because then you cant download song for free anymore. stop braking the law and pay for the music and videos you wants.
braking.... In a sentence...
I was braking real hard to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
breaking... In a sentence...
I feel like breaking your neck, but I would be breaking the law if I did that.
Gets them everytime, just like then, than, they're, there, their, etc... Sorry reading wasn't a favorite in school...
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
| | | | 
fonzbear2000
Premium
join:2005-08-09
Saint Paul, MN
| said by jt44 :
you dont like it because then you cant download song for free anymore. stop braking the law and pay for the music and videos you wants.
Tell the RIAA to stop being so greedy and lower prices and I'll stop getting free music.
--
I wish qwest would die! I want FIOS! | |
| |
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH | Its there responsibility to filter packets when it affects there network. | |
| | | 
root9
join:2005-04-08
Kitchener, ON
| Re: Dont think so said by jonnyb :Its there responsibility to filter packets when it affects there network. That is the biggest load of Bull I've ever heard.
ISP [Internet Service Provider] RULES:
1- provide a connection to Internet
2- provide speeds a customer pays for
3- provide services customer pays for and that are available anywhere on the Internet
4- protect "their own" network from attacks [user responsible for their own security]
5- provide the best quality of service at best prices
TCP/IP has it's own checks and sums and there is NO need what-so-ever to throttle, TCP is self controlling already and takes care of any congestion on it's own!
Anything that Comcast or any other ISP freaks about is actually about digging into privacy of users. This whole subject of throttling is really about preventing users from posting information on big corporations and their illegal activities, which they consider as copyright protected. Hence we must push for Net Neutrality in all areas!
Use everything encrypted or be persecuted
See »wikileaks.org
Senior Network & Systems Analyst
--
Fight for your rights or loose them! | |
| | | |
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH | Re: Dont think so No comment.... | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by root9 :ISP [Internet Service Provider] RULES: 1- provide a connection to Internet 2- provide speeds a customer pays for 3- provide services customer pays for and that are available anywhere on the Internet 4- protect "their own" network from attacks [user responsible for their own security] 5- provide the best quality of service at best prices Where did those "rules" come from? No need to throttle TCP? Hah! Even if that were true, what about the other protocols? As for your "digging into privacy" comment....I seriously doubt Comcast gives a rat's arse what is posted on wikileaks if it's not about them. | |
| | | | |
root9
join:2005-04-08
Kitchener, ON
| Re: Dont think so These have been the rules all along, check your Internet history. All protocols fall under these roles
I don't care what Comcast says, they are wrong/illegal/immoral/unethical and that's final!
--
Fight for your rights or loose them! | |
| | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Dont think so Umm, ok. I guess it must be so...because you say it should be. | |
| | | | | | | | |
root9
join:2005-04-08
Kitchener, ON
1 edit | Re: Dont think so again bull ... all wired connections can handle 12 Mbps dwld & 3.5 Mbps uplds 24/7 with all users on at same time.
Comcast has not been fixing their last mile and that's why they have bandwidth probs.
It doesn't matter whether traffic is legit or not ,, PPL have rights. Internet was rejected by DOD and given to universities and likes so it can be used for FREE sharing of information for betterment of everyone on this planet!
--
Fight for your rights or loose them! | |
| | | | | | 
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| Re: Dont think so said by root9 :again bull ... all wired connections can handle 12 Mbps dwld & 3.5 Mbps uplds 24/7 with all users on at same time. Comcast has not been fixing their last mile and that's why they have bandwidth probs. It doesn't matter whether traffic is legit or not ,, PPL have rights. Internet was rejected by DOD and given to universities and likes so it can be used for FREE sharing of information for betterment of everyone on this planet! What? Where did you pull that info from? Or is that your opinion. | |
| | | | | | | 
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs: | Re: Dont think so Straight out his ass...
 | |
| | | | | | |
root9
join:2005-04-08
Kitchener, ON
| Please go do some real studying instead of being fed by Big Business.
try:
Internet history
Internet Authority
Wikipedia
google articles related to infrastructure and network management
stats of all kinds
I've been dealing with Big Biz and their lies for over 40 yrs
--
Fight for your rights or loose them! | |
| | | | | | | |
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Dont think so I don't usually do this, but:
ROFL!
all wired connections can handle 12 Mbps dwld & 3.5 Mbps uplds 24/7 with all users on at same time You do realize you are posting on a tech site, right? Spouting some BS like that might fly on www.bitkiddie.com, but not here.
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.shtml
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau | |
| | | | | | | | |
root9
join:2005-04-08
Kitchener, ON
2 edits | Re: Dont think so good, and you realise that tudmax = senior network & systems analyst?
also has worked on Canadian, US and European infrastructure, backbone and ISP level hosting, etc.
and do you realise that most major ISP's are pushing their contect, media and other crap across the wire while throttling rest of internet, which they shouldn't be since they are only an ISP?
I'll add: to have phone and internet on same line is ok, to also add TV, HDTV or any other crap is killing your internet by default.
--
Fight for your rights or loose them! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Why should it matter?
How many guns are used in shootings?
How many drunk drivers are drinking alclohol? Or driving cars?
Should we ban everything that could be used in an illegal act? | |
| | | |
Iagreewiththis
@comcast.net
| Comcast wants to make due with compression and limited connections to the CMTS's without having to spend extra for a bigger pipe to the customers area.
Docsis 3.0 is going to be a joke. The current connections can't handle the bandwidth requirements.
Capacity planning is still not going well and never will from what I can tell.
Yeah they will throttle your traffic because when they put 300-400 people on the same node all sharing the same pipe they have to. | |
| | tx_tower
join:2007-11-13
Blanco, TX
| while i agree that comcasts practices are horrible; part of providing a fast and reliable connection is filtering and prioritizing, you people dont seem to understand what heavy p2p usage can do to a network, it essentially amounts to a low grade DoS attack by ones own customers.
A simple solution would be to limit the number of simultaneous connection an individual customer can make, outline this in the ToS along with the speed. problem solved
said by ender7074 :How about you ISPs just concentrate on giving everyone a fast and reliable connection. That alone seems to be a pretty big task for you. Just concentrate on that. It's not your job to filter packets. | |
| | | | | | | lordofwhee
join:2007-10-21
Everett, WA
| As has already been proved, ISPs are scared to death of being what a vast majority of consumers want them to be: a dumb pipe. If all they do is provide a fast, reliable connection, with no content, they make less money than a slow, intermittent-at-best connection with buttloads of content they get paid to have, and what company in the US (or, really, most countries) is going to do something because it's what's right/what the consumer wants? | |
| 
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
| The question is . . . quote:
Can we trust Comcast to protect our online freedoms without enforceable, independent consumer safeguards?
I think we've all seen where Comcast's interests lie . . . and it's NOT with with it's subscribers, except if you count extracting as much money as possible for all it's customers.
We cannot trust Comcast, period.
--
Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
| |
See 34 replies to this post | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
rsa0
join:2003-01-25
Birmingham, AL | Comcast - Legislator ...and since when Comcast is issuing decrees or "laws"...or who knows...fatwas ?!
That is a dangerous path. | |
| |
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH | Re: Comcast - Legislator ISP's should also put a curfew on the internet no internet use after 9 pm that would be awesome and if you are caught, straight to jail with you. | |
| 
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | Be a good plumber... ...and keep the pipes working. I'll pay my bill every month.
That's my agreement with Comcast. | |
| |
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
| Re: Be a good plumber... said by jjoshua :...and keep the pipes working. I'll pay my bill every month. That's my agreement with Comcast. I know this is not what you meant  , but the sandvine attack on p2p keeps the upload working for the rest of us. Without the need to upgrade for p2p, rates stay the same. So it seems you and comcast are on the same page with this.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
| | |
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH
| Re: Be a good plumber... I agree with you on that, my upload is great all the time thanks to the throttleing and for the ones being throttled if you are trying to do legal and legit p2p transfers i feel for ya that is not right but for the ones ripping illegal content good... | |
| | |
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | No. That's not what I meant. The pipes need to be clear of all obstructions. | |
| | | |
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH | Re: Be a good plumber... Well i guess when you take a big duce(p2p) its tough to try and keep the pipes clear... | |
| | | | |
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | Re: Be a good plumber... My town has good pipes. No problems in or out.
Also, my town doesn't monitor my crap to figure out what I eat so it can send me banner ads. | |
| backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| so they can PAY to have thier way? This is the same company that filled the independent hearing on this issue with scabs.
Do you really think they will let anyone in a position of power who will not furher their agenda have any say in this process?
unless they independantly appoint a 3rd party to examine the issue in the public light anything they say on this issue is pure Bull. | |
| |
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
| Re: so they can PAY to have thier way? said by backness :unless they independently appoint a 3rd party... Serious question, who should be appointed to do this?
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
| | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | Re: so they can PAY to have thier way? Mark Cuban
| |
| | | |
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL | Re: so they can PAY to have thier way?  | |
| rayeger
join:2003-07-05
North Royalton, OH
| So what should they do? Just sit and do nothing until the courts decide the ISPs are liable for the file sharing and get sued for millions?
I believe that will happen, the RIAA is not getting enough money from the end users so why not go after the corporations with money. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| |
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
1 edit | Re: When did Comcast become a law-enforcement agency? said by JTRockville :Comcast says this is a way to clearly outline what constitutes legal and illegal filesharing and to define who has control over what actions.Isn't that sort of like asking car dealerships to deny sales to customers who might use a car while committing a crime? I was kind of surprised that comcast even mentioned the whole legal content thing. They are better off just addressing the p2p bandwidth problem and let the content providers work out the legal issues. Trying to determine what is legal vs illegal at the packet level just gets too messy.
Then again maybe that is naive, I guess if you buy into the 80% of p2p is illegal claim, it is a bit hard to ignore the elephant in the room.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
| | | | | | |
jt45
@comcast.net | but when you buy a car you own it. you dont own the internet network that you are using. its more like a car rental company saying no you cant rent a car because we have evidence that you will brake the law in it. | |
| | | 
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Re: When did Comcast become a law-enforcement agency? It's more like a rental company saying you can't rent a car because cars can be used to commit crimes (without any evidence that you intend to commit a crime). | |
| | |
See 9 replies to this post | |
kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| what about other uses of bandwidth OK, as someone who has used p2p in various forms since the original Napster, I can't help but wonder why all these providers (Bell and Comcast Especially), are wanting to throttle anything P2P. Why not just provide the customer with the speed they pay for, and who cares what the customer uses that speed for? I mean with Napster for example, you downloaded directly from a user, and users uploaded data from you. Now just how is that so different from say me doing an FTP backup of my own personal files to an off site location, which I pay for the storage of such data backups?
My point is, that many of the files I back up could be considered illegal, as they are mp3s ripped directly from my own personal CD collection, as well as CD images of my own personal windows operating system discs or sound card drivers, ETC. Should I not be allowed to backup content of mine to an off site location, just because it's "illegal" content in terms of file sharing, even though I purchased it and merely want to have a remote off site backup of it?
I'll agree I'm not really a fan of the way the bit torrent protocol works for p2p downloading and how it takes forever to get going, but that's not the only use of bandwidth. And before you ask, I also have my stuff backed up locally as well. All I'm saying is, there are reasons for wanting to be able to upload at the full speed you pay for! If you're going to throttle, then why have speed caps at all? Just give us a wide open pipe, that's only wide open in the middle of the night. The rest of the time the ISP can then feel free to throttle to whatever it wishes, since there won't be any speed tiers to worry about meeting. | |
| | 
kadar
Premium,ExMod 2001-02
join:0000-00-00
| Re: what about other uses of bandwidth said by kd6cae :I can't help but wonder why all these providers (Bell and Comcast Especially), are wanting to throttle anything P2P. One word.
Money.
--
The Revolutionary War was fought over a 14% tax, what % are you paying now? | |
|
Bellundo
@teksavvy.com | Comcast needs to be slapped upside the head! Pronto!! I don't know what kind of delusional dream world Comcast is living in? FCC do your duty and fine them please for the sake of every working American!! | |
| | 
Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Somerset, NJ
| Re: Comcast needs to be slapped upside the head! Pronto!! said by Bellundo :
I don't know what kind of delusional dream world Comcast is living in? FCC do your duty and fine them please for the sake of every working American!!
Yeah.. Why is comcast being such a bitch? | |
| TIGERON
join:2008-03-11
Pacifica, CA | Pathetic PR This is nothing more than a public-relations game. | |
| 
actor90
Never a dull moment
Premium
join:2003-07-21
L.E.H.T., NJ
·Comcast
| 1984 is alive and well at Comcast Center Comcast needs to be a dumb pipe. Many of us have been saying this for years. This "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" should be a wake up call to all customers of Comcast. Comcast is moving from dumb pipe, to content provider, and now it's ultimate goal big brother. Comcast wants to tell you what you can do, and when. They want to control what content you can receive. They will create their "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" and use it as a hammer to get you to do what they want and nothing more.
Comcast should remove bandwidth hogs, thats it, not judge what content I select and view while not abusing their network infrastructure. Comcast has no right to judge what I should and should not be reading, viewing, or listening to. Stick to managing the network, removing those who download 600GB's a month, and billing customers correctly. Comcast you are a dumb pipe run by some very dumb executives, stick to that or the FCC should come in and regulate you till you do.
--
My Blog on blogspot.com | |
| 
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
 ·magicjack.com
| Just give customers what they're paying for For the most part, every customer of an ISP should receive the same service, meaning whatever service level they're paying for. As long as there's no congestion, no one's packets should be inspected or filtered in any way for the sake of "network management". Where the customer's traffic is going and where it's coming from off-network to the ISP is none of the ISP's business--the customer is the one paying for access.
Now, when the network does become congested, as it most certainly will for a huge operation such as Comcast, then some management becomes necessary, but not the kind that's been implemented by Comcast. Customers who pay more for higher speeds (aka more bandwidth) deserve a higher priority; customers who pay less deserve a lower priority. Customers who use more (and huge) amounts of bandwidth should receive lower priority; customers who use less bandwidth should receive higher priority. Balancing these priorities is true network management--something Comcast is unfamiliar with. In all cases, every customer's traffic should be respected as a matter of simple privacy (not that there truly is such a thing) and honest business practices (all customers deserve to get what they pay for without any bias on the ISP's part relative to any application or protocol that is inherently legal, as BitTorrent is).
If an ISP is going to sell a product, then it needs to supply that product... to EVERYONE who pays for their services. Comcast's recent behavior with respect to network management constitutes nothing more nor less than breach of contract. Killing someone's connection through forging packets is not network management. It's denial of service. It's fraud. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
·
·
This remindes me of timed local service.