mis-leading headline, wrong focus
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| gus3 Aug 02, 2008 11:05 AM EDT |
The headline states that Comcast was blocking web (WWW, HTTP) access, which is wrong on two levels: 1. The traffic affected was BitTorrent, not HTTP. 2. The traffic was not blocked; it was throttled (suffocated) using spurious packets designed to confuse BitTorrent programs. The core issue wasn't about guaranteeing access for other services, or government regulation. It was false advertisement and breach of contract. Comcast advertised "unlimited bandwidth" that wasn't really "unlimited," and when BitTorrent came into its own, they altered their TOS without informing their customers. All packets from Comcast should have the evil bit set to 1. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 02, 2008 1:18 PM EDT |
The whole situation is idiotic. Local government grants a monopoly to Comcast. The Fed.gov makes all kinds of nasty noises about the abuses of P2P software, as defined by their friends the MPAA and RIAA. Seeing a way to make lots of special interests happy, Comcast throttles P2P. Yet another branch of the government doesn't like that Comcast has been doing that. What's the one thing no one is questioning? Why Comcast has the monopoly in the first place. Without that, people could take their business to someone who doesn't abuse their customers. |
| moopst Aug 02, 2008 7:29 PM EDT |
gus3: I would add: 3. Comcast was sending out packets that said the torrent was "done" not just to Comcast users but to outside users as well. I had Linux downloads mysteriously stop on me two nights in a row only to find out about the story a day or so later. I was using Sprintbroadband at the time. |
| garymax Aug 02, 2008 8:45 PM EDT |
I am a Comcast customer and I am pleased with the level of service that I get. Though I never saw any throttling, my understanding was that Comcast was sending a reset bit to drop the bittorrent connection. I also believe that even "unlimited" services have a limit in terms of bandwidth usage per month. It's just not advertised. If one user is hogging bandwidth to the detriment of others, and since cable is a "party line" service instead of a direct connection like DSL, the effects are felt by others on that network segment. I guess the real question is should a cable service provider advertise "unlimited" while having unspoken limits that are not advertised? I see merits in both sides of the argument. |
| gus3 Aug 02, 2008 9:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:I also believe that even "unlimited" services have a limit in terms of bandwidth usage per month. It's just not advertised.Then my point about false advertisement still stands. If the bandwidth was not truly unlimited, it was illegal to advertise it as such. |
| garymax Aug 02, 2008 10:50 PM EDT |
gus3 I wasn't attacking your position either way. I see Comcast's point of view when it comes to network integrity and fair use of bandwidth per customer. I agree that it would be helpful for the service providers to at least give some sort of soft or hard limit as a guide. On the other hand, I believe the reason why this "limit" is not advertised is because it may be considered as belonging to another part of the end user agreement--the part about not interfering with the network by causing undue congestion or something to that effect. Just a guess, here. I see your point: either a service is unlimited or it is not. But cable being a party line service--as I alluded to earlier--means that a network segment is shared and, therefore, the actions of one individual, using excessive amounts of bandwidth, can affect the particular network segment that they're on. And I believe that it is due to this type of usage that the providers act to ensure a pleasant experience for everyone. I see your point about advertising. But I also see the ISP's viewpoint on fair usage and on monitoring the network for users whose massive bandwidth consumption affects others on that network segment. It's a hard call depending on whose position you're viewing it from. I agree with the FCC that Comcast should not have interfered with network traffic by sending reset packets; However, barring any legislation to prevent this type of behavior, an ISP can and will act in any manner they deem fit to preserve their network integrity and usage parameters. Whether we agree with this or not, the ISPs pretty much control what happens. |
| jdixon Aug 03, 2008 6:56 AM EDT |
> And I believe that it is due to this type of usage that the providers act to ensure a pleasant experience for everyone. You can throttle usage without disconnecting a user from the service they're using. Comcast wasn't managing bandwith, they were disabling a particular application. Managing bandwith is acceptable. Disabling an application isn't. Especially when you don't tell your customers you are doing so and deny it when it's discovered. If Comcast didn't know what they were doing was wrong, they wouldn't have denied doing it. |
| gus3 Aug 03, 2008 7:21 AM EDT |
Quoting:If Comcast didn't know what they were doing was wrong, they wouldn't have denied doing it.I think Hanlon's Razor applies here. Those doing the denying (the PR dept.) may not have been aware of... Oh, who am I kidding? The PR department is probably the one department that actually does know everything going on in a company. Stupidity doesn't explain what Comcast did. Malice does. Concur Yr Analysis. |
| phsolide Aug 03, 2008 9:48 AM EDT |
Doesn't Comcast also block "server" TCP ports, like 25, 22, 20 and 21? I mean, they do it in the name of "stopping spam" and "added security", but it means that smarter folks on Comcast have to have HTTP and sshd listening on non-standard port numbers. |
| garymax Aug 03, 2008 10:17 AM EDT |
jdixon said "Managing bandwith is acceptable. Disabling an application isn't." And I agree. I said that I did not agree with Comcast sending reset packets. But I also agree that they have the right to manage their network. That's all. It's the way they went about doing it that has people upset--and rightly so. |
| bigg Aug 03, 2008 11:18 AM EDT |
> I also believe that even "unlimited" services have a limit in terms of bandwidth usage per month. It's just not advertised. Actually, the several ISP's I have had (never Comcast) do clarify that it is unlimited hours of internet access, as in the old days of dialup, not unlimited bandwidth. This, of course, is dirty if not illegal. It's not much different from a gas station selling 87 octance gas as 89 octane to reduce costs. Most cars would still run, you just wouldn't be getting what you thought you were buying. |
| garymax Aug 03, 2008 1:09 PM EDT |
I think a concept from the insurance field is applicable here. Many insurance companies will say that they cover a certain percentage of treatments and services that are "reasonable and customary". The question is just what constitutes reasonable and customary? This is usually set by the insurance company in line with industry practice. The issue with broadband providers is in the definition of their terms. In their service agreements, while it may say that you have unlimited access, just what constitutes unlimited access? Is it unlimited time or unlimited bandwidth or both? Also, most ISPs, more likely than not, have a clause which states that you agree to not interfere with network operations in any way, shape or fashion and that the ISP has the right to take appropriate measures should the need arise. It is under this policy that ISPs may clamp down on a user who is hogging a lot of bandwidth and slowing down the network for others on the same segment. Does this conflict with their "unlimited" service offering? Depends on how the ISP defines the term. I think they need to put an asterisk and an explanation of what constitutes "unlimited" service so the customer knows what to expect. And, further, if there is, indeed, a bandwidth limit, then the ISP has the duty to state what that limit is and allow every user to monitor their bandwidth consumption so they know where they stand on their usage instead of being hit with a letter "out of the blue" telling them that they have to curtail their bandwidth or else be disconnected. I think the need here is for ISPs to define their terms and balance their right to manage their network with the rights of the paying customer. |
| techiem2 Aug 03, 2008 1:12 PM EDT |
Quoting:Doesn't Comcast also block "server" TCP ports Some. They don't block 22 (I bet a large group of their customers like me would have a fit if they did - I live in an ssh session into my house from work), but they do block incoming 80 and outgoing port 25 (fortunately my webhost runs their smtp server on multiple ports). I don't remember if they block incoming ftp or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Thus one of the reasons I have my local webserver running ssl (though actually I also run it normal on port 444, but I don't think that gets hit much). |
| azerthoth Aug 03, 2008 1:26 PM EDT |
techiem, many of the places I have stayed (hotels) when traveling the country do block port 22. Like you thats how I get back to my home systems so that I can do the odd assorted thing. My solution was to push the port way up beyond the standard ports into +10000 range. Since then I have yet to be blocked trying to get back to my systems. It also lets me get on IRC in networks that have those ports blocked too, ssh home, then fire up irssi. |
| techiem2 Aug 03, 2008 4:47 PM EDT |
[quote]It also lets me get on IRC in networks that have those ports blocked too, ssh home, then fire up irssi.[quote] LOL That's exactly what I do. I always have a screen session running on my home machine with irssi connected to several irc networks plus my in-house bitlbee server for all the IM networks. :) |
| moopst Aug 03, 2008 8:08 PM EDT |
I never signed an agreement with Comcast. Why was I receiving sabotage packets from their servers? Why were their servers using IP masquerading? |
| techiem2 Aug 03, 2008 8:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:I never signed an agreement with Comcast. Why was I receiving sabotage packets from their servers? Why were their servers using IP masquerading? Now that does bring up an interesting issue. You are hosting a torrent on ISP X....comcast sends bad packets to you because one of their users is download the torrent hosted by you... So basically, not only are they throttling/stopping their user, they are also interfering with your service... Now what if you are providing a commercial torrent hosting service? They are now interfering with your business. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!