Comcast vs. Internet

AuntPeggy

AuntPeggy

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
8,484
Location
Oklahoma
Display Name
Namaste
Home Airfield
OK93 (Airman Acres)
What the heck is he thinking?
On Tuesday, Mitch Bowling, senior vice president of Comcast Online Services, added a nuance to that statement, saying that while Comcast may block initial connection attempts between two computers, it eventually lets the traffic through if the computers keep trying.
Click to expand...
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20071023/D8SF7F5O0.html
 
I can't believe this hasn't led to lawsuit yet. This is the one big thing Comcast did that has always driven me nuts. Net neutrality is VERY important to the success and future of the internet.
 
SkyHog said:
I can't believe this hasn't led to lawsuit yet.
Click to expand...

For what? Right now, I don't think there are any laws that require them to pass all traffic. That's how the ISPs that offer spam filters get away with it. In addition many ISPs block Port 25 and other ports. No lawsuits there.

Heck, even Verizon hasn't been sued yet over it's limited "unlimited" data services.
 
wsuffa said:
For what? Right now, I don't think there are any laws that require them to pass all traffic. That's how the ISPs that offer spam filters get away with it. In addition many ISPs block Port 25 and other ports. No lawsuits there.

Heck, even Verizon hasn't been sued yet over it's limited "unlimited" data services.
Click to expand...

It's not the fact that they're blocking traffic. It's the fact that they are impersonating both ends of the conversation in order to forcibly terminate the sessions. If you are a comcast user they literally pretend to be you in order to send reset packets to the person on the other end...and they pretend to be them and send reset packets to you. The spoofing is what's going be hard for them to defend in court.
 
wsuffa said:
For what? Right now, I don't think there are any laws that require them to pass all traffic. That's how the ISPs that offer spam filters get away with it. In addition many ISPs block Port 25 and other ports. No lawsuits there.

Heck, even Verizon hasn't been sued yet over it's limited "unlimited" data services.
Click to expand...

FlyNE said:
It's not the fact that they're blocking traffic. It's the fact that they are impersonating both ends of the conversation in order to forcibly terminate the sessions. If you are a comcast user they literally pretend to be you in order to send reset packets to the person on the other end...and they pretend to be them and send reset packets to you. The spoofing is what's going be hard for them to defend in court.
Click to expand...

SkyHog said:
I can't believe this hasn't led to lawsuit yet. This is the one big thing Comcast did that has always driven me nuts. Net neutrality is VERY important to the success and future of the internet.
Click to expand...

For now Comcast is denying that they're doing anything. They mumbled about errors and software issues. "What are you going to believe? Me or many reports and suites of test results?"

They'll huddle in twice daily conference calls for a few weeks, make a decision, and take a month or three for the network guys to unwind the router config files and then show that nothing is going on.

They always count on Joe and Mary Six Pack not knowing and not caring about this kind of stuff. Based on that they may decide to keep the rules and just tell the techies who are up in arms to pound sand.

All of these companies lust after that special kind of customer who has no problem sinking $5000 into poorly installed HD equipment with a $125 cable bill they pay so that they can watch noisy stretched SD content while thinking life is good because the picture is big. They would be happy to weed out those that know better.
 
FlyNE said:
It's not the fact that they're blocking traffic. It's the fact that they are impersonating both ends of the conversation in order to forcibly terminate the sessions. If you are a comcast user they literally pretend to be you in order to send reset packets to the person on the other end...and they pretend to be them and send reset packets to you. The spoofing is what's going be hard for them to defend in court.
Click to expand...

To be fair, this is basically the kinds of stuff we'd see if net neutrality goes by the wayside. Quality of service tiers would mean that your ISP's switches could tell your packets to wait for an open spot since the priority tiers were using the bandwidth at the moment, then by the time your packet is ready to be transmitted, it's timed out. Of course, your PC may never see a response because the switch told your PC that it received your packet, but it just never sent it further. On your end it looks like whoever you're trying to connect to just isn't there.

Considering the massive amounts, comparatively, that these telecoms charge for internet services, one would think that network upgrades would be constantly implemented, allowing our piddly 2Mbps cable/DSL modems full reign without restriction. I really question how much telecoms are investing in network and infrastructure expansion and how much they're hoping we'll just sit on our thumbs and go "At least I can get 2Mbps when it's not peak!" while the rest of the world enjoys 10+Mbps service.
 
mikea said:
For now Comcast is denying that they're doing anything. They mumbled about errors and software issues. "What are you going to believe? Me or many reports and suites of test results?"

They'll huddle in twice daily conference calls for a few weeks, make a decision, and take a month or three for the network guys to unwind the router config files and then show that nothing is going on.

They always count on Joe and Mary Six Pack not knowing and not caring about this kind of stuff. Based on that they may decide to keep the rules and just tell the techies who are up in arms to pound sand.

All of these companies lust after that special kind of customer who has no problem sinking $5000 into poorly installed HD equipment with a $125 cable bill they pay so that they can watch noisy stretched SD content while thinking life is good because the picture is big. They would be happy to weed out those that know better.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Network upgrades? Come now. 2Mbps should be enough for anybody! We don't want to encourage piracy, so 2Mbps and an arbitrary bandwidth quota are necessary!
 
wbarnhill said:
To be fair, this is basically the kinds of stuff we'd see if net neutrality goes by the wayside. Quality of service tiers would mean that your ISP's switches could tell your packets to wait for an open spot since the priority tiers were using the bandwidth at the moment, then by the time your packet is ready to be transmitted, it's timed out. Of course, your PC may never see a response because the switch told your PC that it received your packet, but it just never sent it further. On your end it looks like whoever you're trying to connect to just isn't there.

Considering the massive amounts, comparatively, that these telecoms charge for internet services, one would think that network upgrades would be constantly implemented, allowing our piddly 2Mbps cable/DSL modems full reign without restriction. I really question how much telecoms are investing in network and infrastructure expansion and how much they're hoping we'll just sit on our thumbs and go "At least I can get 2Mbps when it's not peak!" while the rest of the world enjoys 10+Mbps service.
Click to expand...

See, I don't really think it is the same thing. There is a difference between packet priority and impersonation. One delivers the unmodified packet when it is able to do so and one pretends to be somebody that they are not in order to prevent a user from using a service that they are not publicly saying that they aren't allowed to use.

I'm not really as up in arms about this as the rest of the internet. The bottom line of this is that they are getting worked up because they're not able to download free movies, songs and tv shows. That said, I don't like how Comcast is handling this. Just say that you're blocking it and move on...or offer them a higher priced alternative. $10/month to cover the extra bandwidth costs associated with the use of bittorrent.
 
FlyNE said:
...

I'm not really as up in arms about this as the rest of the internet. The bottom line of this is that they are getting worked up because they're not able to download free movies, songs and tv shows. That said, I don't like how Comcast is handling this. Just say that you're blocking it and move on...or offer them a higher priced alternative. $10/month to cover the extra bandwidth costs associated with the use of bittorrent.
Click to expand...

BitTorrent is alos used to download open source Linux distrobutions, but lket's let hollywood put a stop to tthat.

The point is if the company sells you unlimited internet for your $59, it's supposed to be unlimited. If they make decisions to limit whatever without notice - actually denying the limit - that's fraud.
 
FlyNE said:
It's not the fact that they're blocking traffic. It's the fact that they are impersonating both ends of the conversation in order to forcibly terminate the sessions. If you are a comcast user they literally pretend to be you in order to send reset packets to the person on the other end...and they pretend to be them and send reset packets to you. The spoofing is what's going be hard for them to defend in court.
Click to expand...

No law that I know of says they can't. In fact, no law says they can't (as ISP) do a "man in the middle", unless they turn around and use that data to otherwise break the law (identity theft, for example).

It's not like Comcast hasn't given you notice:

Comcast Terms of Use said:
Subject to applicable law, we have the right to change our Services, Comcast Equipment and rates or charges, at any time with or without notice. We also may rearrange, delete, add to or otherwise change programming or features or offerings contained in the Services, including but not limited to, content, functionality, hours of availability, customer equipment requirements, speed and upstream and downstream rate limitations.

.........................
NEITHER COMCAST NOR ITS AFFILIATES, SUPPLIERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS OR CONTRACTORS WARRANT THAT ANY COMMUNICATIONS WILL BE TRANSMITTED IN UNCORRUPTED FORM.
.........................
Click to expand...

And from the AUP

Comcast or its suppliers may take any responsive actions they deem appropriate. These actions include, but are not limited to, temporary or permanent removal of content, cancellation of newsgroup posts, filtering of Internet transmissions, and the immediate suspension or termination of all or any portion of the Service. Neither Comcast nor its affiliates, suppliers, or agents will have any liability for any these responsive actions.
Click to expand...

Pretty easy for them to weasel out of any challenge.

And oh, by the way, Comcast is requiring binding arbitration in lieu of lawsuits. So they'd immediately move to toss the lawsuit.
 
mikea said:
BitTorrent is alos used to download open source Linux distrobutions, but lket's let hollywood put a stop to tthat.
Click to expand...

I'm aware that there are plenty of legitimate uses of the bittorrent technology. But you know as well as I do that downloading linux iso's isn't what has caused this much uproar. If they wanted to the Ubuntu guys could develop a similar distribution mechanism in 30 minutes that would be ok'd by Comcast.

mikea said:
The point is if the company sells you unlimited internet for your $59, it's supposed to be unlimited. If they make decisions to limit whatever without notice - actually denying the limit - that's fraud.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree.
 
mikea said:
The point is if the company sells you unlimited internet for your $59, it's supposed to be unlimited. If they make decisions to limit whatever without notice - actually denying the limit - that's fraud.
Click to expand...

After being challenged, Verizon finally put a small notice up on their websites that excessive use would be considered abuse. So "unlimited" it's not.

Likewise on their advertised unlimited phone usage, they now say "if you exceed the average amount of use that other subscribers use, then we will consider your use fo the services to be either abusive or business related, and we will discontinue your use of the service".
 
wsuffa said:
After being challenged, Verizon finally put a small notice up on their websites that excessive use would be considered abuse. So "unlimited" it's not.

Likewise on their advertised unlimited phone usage, they now say "if you exceed the average amount of use that other subscribers use, then we will consider your use fo the services to be either abusive or business related, and we will discontinue your use of the service".
Click to expand...
Ummmmm.... Don't approximately half of the subscribers exceed the average amount? (Okay, let's not get into a discussion of average vs. median. You know what I mean). And, once they "discuss" with them and they're gone, the average drops, so it all starts again!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top