Slashdot Mirror
Congressman Tells Comcast, Hands Off BitTorrent
An anonymous reader writes "Just a few months back, the Net Neutrality debate was all but dead. Luckily for fans of a free Internet, the telcos are their own worst enemies. Recent stories involving Verizon Wireless blocking pro-choice groups, AT&T censoring Pearl Jam's anti-war comments from a streaming concert, and most recently, Comcast finally admitting to using anti-BitTorrent filters. The Net Neutrality debate would appear to be alive and kicking, with Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) being the first politician to make a public statement sharply criticizing Comcast's actions."
Comcast Tesll Congressman: We Own Your Colleagues
Comcast has politely reminded this wayward congressman that in America laws are paid for by bribes. Comcast then offered the congressman a "campaign contribution", silencing his dissent. The system works.
As a Comcast customer in Virginia, I am glad that Congressman Boucher is taking a stand for net neutrality. Mostly because I need to get my share ratio back up.
www.purevolume.com/martyd
Am I the first to notice that Comcast may have removed the filter? Last night I started the Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon DVD download. I thought it would be done this morning, but I noticed the network switch still blinking like crazy. I logged in and checked the status. The download is done. I checked the upload status...
1286 K uploaded at a rate of 20KB/s. This is the first time in weeks I have seen upload speeds better than 0.0 KB/s and a transfered size larger than 0.1 KB. Since I am finally able to help spread Ubuntu, I'll let it run all day. Maybe I'll be able to upload more than I download for a change. Seeing any upload traffic after a completed download is highly unusual on Comcast lately.
The truth shall set you free!
Guys, if we want to win the argument on Net Neutrality, we can't keep confusing QOS with NN. If they want to indescriminantly block bittorrent, that's QOS. Saying that QOS runs afoul of NN means that later Comcast can say, "Look, if you enforce net neutrality, we won't be able to do QOS on our networks which means that internet tv will be bogged down"
NN is preferential shaping based on the source of the data. QOS is preferential shaping based on the type of data.
-Bucky
At least, from my perspective. I'm not a huge user of P2P, my ire is more directed at the violation of the principles that founded this 'internets' thing. If we let company-interests direct the future development of the internet, we may as well give up now.
:)
What *did* annoy me, after the decision was taken, was that my difficulties with ichat over the last few months seem to be similarly down to Comcast policies.
I use iChat a lot to keep in touch with my family (all of whom have Macs, and 4-way video-conferencing can be pretty cool). There's several thousand miles between us, so this is one of the few ways we can actually see each other without major travel.
Until a few months ago, it all worked great. Now, I get less than a minute of great picture, and then everything breaks up. I was putting it down to transatlantic bandwidth issues, but then I tried it from work, and (lo and behold) had no problems whatsoever.
I pay (not for long, now though, the T1 arrives in 2 weeks) for the most bandwidth Comcast offer, and I cannot believe I average even 1% of that bandwidth. To have them limit me when I *do* want to use it, as a deliberate *general* policy of theirs, is infuriating. All I can do is cancel the service, and hope others do too. Eventually, hopefully, they'll get the message. Not everyone can cancel due to the monopoly they hold in some areas, but perhaps enough can to make a difference.
Now a T1 used to be a lot of bandwidth, but it's not so much any more (1.5Mbit/sec is pretty poor by advertised-bandwidth standards). I'm willing to trade off the small time-periods I actually can use that advertised bandwidth for the reliability of always having the smaller amount - it may not work for everyone, but it works for me
And so, Comcast lose another ~$200/month. Hopefully part of a trend, because won't anyone think of the network ? [grin]
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Congressman Boucher rocks. He actually does a great job of getting things done for everyone. It doesn't hurt that he is all about technology either. He's probably the main force driving broadband adoption in Southwest Virginia (my home). Some the most recent things he's helped get accomplished are a major fiber optic pipe to Lebanon, VA (it's slowly making it's way to my small town), that pipe has convinced at least two global companies to set up shop in Southwest VA. Northrop Grumman being one and CGI-AMS being the other. He does such a great job and is liked so much that I don't think he has even had anyone oppose him in the election for the past several years. And if someone has opposed him, he won by such a margin that they might as well have not shown up. (This is me talking, I'm too lazy to look up any stats, so what I just said could be completely wrong. But, he rocks so much, it doesn't matter. Watch out Chuck Norris?)
... that we actually cheer when a politician we put into office for once stands up and protects our [fill in civic right of your choice]? I mean, when did things go so bad? (rhetorical question) It's sad that we all have gotten used to a status quo where our elected leaders work hand in hand with big business and constantly screw us over. I don't care what political affiliation you have - just take a step back and look what's going on in our country. I do feel very strongly about net neutrality but must also concede that it might be the least of our problem right now. Nevertheless, it is one of thousands of important issues that needs to be addressed and coming next election day we all should do our part and 'kick the bums out' (not my quote - start hearing that very frequently on Hardball recently). Anyway, sorry for the rant, but I'm trying to make a point here, which is that we need to take a step back and rebuilt our democracy - it's ridiculous that we continue to desperately grasp for a few breadcrumbs from an administration that's blatantly in bed with big business.
I am personally against the current form of net neutrality. I think that government intervention is almost always bad. The ONLY regulations that should be passed:
1. All common carriers must allow other providers to connect to them on a naked pipe
2. All providers must support standard protocols.*
3. Providers may only prioritize data/bandwidth based on protocol, not orgin/destination.
5. No data/bandwidth throttling, only prioritization.
*I'd leave defining "standard" up to ICAAN, with these additional rules:
1. The protocol must be open - anyone can see how it works and get specs for it.
2. Usage or modification of the protocol must not be restricted by patents or copyright.
The government can't save you.
... the big ISPs are so short-sighted that they are their own worst enemies when it comes to things like this.
There is a war going on for your mind.
There is a simple solution,
If Comcast, Verizon, AT&T or anyone else blocks any content for any reason, they are (from that point on) legally liable for all remaining content. This is because the have made an effort to control the content crossing there service and by default must agree that all remaining content is acceptable.
Then remind there legal department that it means "If you keep it up, we will hold you responsible for all the remaining content including but not limited to all the child porn, child predators, etc."
In other words, they have violated the common carrier clause and thus are not protected from prosecution!
Where is a lawyer when you need one?
Thank God. There is an alarming trend among those who want to see a "neutral net" (a sentiment I agree with) to have "Dr. Government" fix it all. this is a slippery slope in plain sight; the idea of trusting the government to keep the net neutral doesn't appeal to me any more than having Comcast do it. What happens when the next elections come, and a new party/interest is in power? What happens when X lobby group petitions to sway the government's control of the network?
Fortunately, we have this convenient mechanism called the free market, where an outcry of foul play means an increased demand for competition. I realize this doesn't mean overnight those in Comcast-only zones are given an alternative, but over time, it is possible.
Now, when it comes to the infrastructure, the actual physical cables, etc., there's some room for talk as to whether the Government can have some limited intervention there, because we're dealing with interstate business and infrasturcture... but that's another story.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Boucher was also one of the most vocal opponents of Clinton's impeachment, and has also been on record criticizing the excesses DMCA as well. He's one of the few congressmen that I'm actually glad is in in office.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
From the article, Congressman Boucher said that 'Comcast should "simply tier their offerings and engage in a pricing structure that allocates more bandwidth to those who pay more, and less to those who pay less."' Why the hell should I have to pay more for even more unlimited bandwidth? The issue is not just that Comcast is crippling bitTorrent, but that they are doing so to try to make their false advertising look legitimate.
Indeed. We demand that our presidents' faces be "presidential," discriminating against those with "non-presidential" faces. Facial discrimination is the great unspoken tragedy that stalks this nation. Fight facism now!
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
sadly, we live in a facist state. Fascism: A system of government that promotes extreme nationalism, repression, anticommunism, and is ruled by a dictator.
And this is related to corporate purchasing of congressmen how, exactly?
For those of you saying that a Tier based service system is "bad" because it will raise rates, look at it this way. Currently, you are NOT getting unlimited service, you are getting a soft capped service that is labeled as unlimited. The big issue is that you probably don't even know what that cap even is.
Now a Tier based service may "cost more for unlimited" but it might actually BE unlimited.
Simple Question: Would you pay $20 more a month for truely unlimited service of which you could even run servers off of, if you so choose?
I would.
Fascism is sometimes defined as something more like what you might call Corporatism. In that sense the present day USA is very obviously and definitely fascist or fascist-leaning. Of course, this sense of the word is not the widely understood meaning, which is, as you say, totalitarian, dictatorial, agressively nationalist, etc.
I believe the term he meant to use was oligarchy which somehow gets confused with fascism over and over.
oligarchy: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=oligarchy
Surely you've been here long enough to realize that actual definitions don't matter in a political debate on slashdot. Or, you know, America for that matter.
If we actually understood the definitions of things, we couldn't call Bush Adolf Hitler. We couldn't call Al Gore Jerry Garcia, and you couldn't call Hillary a well trained irish setter. Really, where would the fun be in that?
Oh yeah, reasoned debate about the issues at hand... only losers do that.
Until then, I'm just going to be sad that a congressmen that I don't support financially, that I've never written or spoken to about my feelings on the issues, and whose name I hardly know - supports the people that do. It's exactly like a monarchy... apparently.
if you use Comcast DNS servers, you are also randomly being blocked from visiting www.google.com and the block is due to a reset command being sent from Comcast. Using a DNS server not managed by monkeys like opendns.com allows you back on Google. This has been occuring to people since Comcast started playing with BT traffic. Try a search of http://www.google.com/search?q=connection+reset+google+comcast&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a/ to see some people talking about it. Since they have the capability to block sites this way also, why is the RIAA not suing them for failing to block Pirate Bay?
If we want to be able to have a conversation at all, we need to stop confusing QOS with fraud. QOS sets attributes in packets which are designed to establish priority. Fraud (in this case) means posing as the customer and sending a fake message, then lying about sending the fake message.
For example, if a telco decided to cut sampling rates on telephone calls from 8khz to 7.6khz for residential service to customers of other carriers, that would be quality of service (QOS). If, on the other hand, the carrier were to use their equipment to dial everyone who called you who was not a customer of the same carrier, spoofing your phone number on caller ID, and using a voice filter which made their voice sound enough like yours to be convincing, and telling them "Don't call me anymore. Stop. I don't want to hear from you for at least a week. Got it? Yeah, I mean it. Stop calling for a while. Don't take that tone with me. Just stop calling. Yes, this is me. Who else would I be? Now Stop Calling." And then told you that they would NEVER do such a thing. That would be fraud.
Since telcos are being trusted with our identities (phone numbers, IPs, etc), our privacy (which they'd never violate without a warrant, as we've seen), and the functioning, as generally intended and advertised, of the Internet, character means something in this context.
I hope this helps us get our terms in agreement, so that we can have an argument, or even a conversation, on NN.
Comcast has politely reminded this wayward congressman that in America laws are paid for by bribes. Comcast then offered the congressman a "campaign contribution", silencing his dissent. The system works.
That is why F.C.C. rules should be changed to ban paid-for political ads on radio, tv, satellite and cable.
They should bring back the old rules where broadcasters commit on their license/renewal applications to a minimum amount of public affairs programming (which could included free political time) and limits on the maximum number of commercial minutesper hour. Broadcasters could pick their own numbers, but could be at a disadvantage at renewal time if a competing applicant wants to do more to serve the community.
What I suggest is not a restriction on free speech, only a restriction on what broadcasters can accept payment for.
Most of the corruption we see with our politicians relates to them selling out to obtain money for campaigns. Eliminating money from the picture for radio and tv would certainly lessen the need to raise money for campaigns.
We should go back to earlier much more restrictive rules on how many stations a licensee could own. I think we should go beyond that and require that some specified percentage (perhaps increasing over time) of stations in a region have licensees that live in the city-grade coverage area of their station. Having local licensees would go a long ways towards making broadcasters more responsive to serving the needs of their local communities.
Having a free and diverse press and broadcasters and a free flow of information is essential for democracy to function properly. We should not allow any corporate or special interest groups to own a sizeable chunk of our broadcast stations. These stations are supposed to be trustees of the public interest, not just cash cows for large companies.
Probably if Nixon had stalled for a time and then admitted some people in his committee to reelect had gone off on their own, and claimed he would clean it up, he would have been left to serve out his term. Nixon had several strikes against him that increased the seriousness of Watergate.
1. He was managing an unpopular war.
2. He'd claimed to have some secret plans that he couldn't reveal to fix the US's problems. There was a real spike in claims that the public would just have to trust its Executive branch, as so many things had to be kept secret. After 4+ years, more and more people were questioning why his administration couldn't reveal at least some more details.
3. He was arranging meetings with carefully picked members of the public and press, and trying to spin it so that these looked like spontaneous encounters where he had to field tough questions. That claim too was unraveling.
4. Corruption in his administration was known to extend to Agnew. It's hard to claim you were ignorant of acts by minor functionaries when one of them is your 2nd in command.
So there's two main differences between the Nixon administration and this one.
1. The press isn't asking the same kind of tough questions they asked Nixon.
2. The Vice President hasn't been charged with anything yet (probably because the press isn't asking tough questions there either).
Who is John Cabal?
The questions are being asked, repeatedly. The executive branch doesn't answer them, or lies. And when the press is lied to it no longer gives a shit.
Mexico has approved a reform to the current electoral legislation which does something similar.
The last presidential elections were so full of spots on TV that were more about bad mouthing the competitor than proposing solutions. A lot of money had to be raised and compromises were made by the competitors for sure.
The winner is the one who has the deepest wallet.
From now on, candidates can use only the government's paid time on TV.
The media is going crazy of course because they won't get a lot of money any more for the spots, and they're masquerading this worry as a "free speech" violation (because they won't be able editorialize the campaign coverage in any form)
It's not a coincidence that Dong Nguyen Huu has said that the Mexican electoral system is one of the most advanced in the world. Let's see how it goes.
The best way to predict the future is to invent it
Disclaimer: My comments mostly point at occurrences under Bush. I feel Dems and Reps are equally shady, under handed parties. Other than cut/paste the list, I didn't dig around for anything other than what I came up with off the top of my head.
Fascist Warning Sign #1: Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
If you're not with "U.S." you're a terrorist. Bills named the "Patriot Act" so sheeple feel warm and fuzzy.
Fascist Warning Sign #2: Disdain for the importance of human rights.
Suspension of Habeus corpus, illegal phone taps, "enemy combatants", black bag kidnappings, Patriot Act...
Fascist Warning Sign #3: Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
"Axis of Evil"
Fascist Warning Sign #4: The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
Bush has had the military deployed in combat for 6 years. His administration continues to suggest they will attack other countries if they don't follow our ultimatums.
Fascist Warning Sign #5: Rampant sexism.
This one maybe not so much. Our international talking head (Condoleeza) counts against #5 I would say.
Fascist Warning Sign #6: A controlled mass media.
Maybe not directly, but the networks kowtow in order to not be left out and really don't question much.
Fascist Warning Sign #7: Obsession with national security.
This one should be pretty obvious.
Fascist Warning Sign #8: Religion and ruling elite tied together.
In God We Trust.
Fascist Warning Sign #9: Power of corporations protected.
This one isn't just a Bush thing. This goes back decades.
Fascist Warning Sign #10: Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
See #9
Fascist Warning Sign #11: Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
Suppression of global warming research, laws/court rulings protecting IP while minimizing fair use.
Fascist Warning Sign #12: Obsession with crime and punishment.
Bush governed Texas, the state with a record for most executions. Before his time began the war on drugs. Even individual states are guilty of this.
Fascist Warning Sign #13: Rampant cronyism and corruption.
Abrahmoff, Halliburton no-bid contracts, etc etc
Fascist Warning Sign #14: Fraudulent elections.
Who can tell. Maybe not directly, but supporters running local campaigns have passed out false information pamphlets in attempts to keep.
So that's what, 2 of 14 I can't come up with something right off the top of my head. Viva Liberty!
No sig for you!!
Seeing that the last moneymaker for RIAA/MPAA is income from fileshare lawsuit judgements, the last thing they'd want to see is fileshare traffic throttled. Time for RIAA to sue Comcast for loss of income.
You want it to be, sure. But when your city/town/state/country fucks up you go "Oh shit, lets fix this!" not "Lets see what Paris is up to on the next channel."
Loving your country is one thing. Believing it can do no wrong is nationalism.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Sounds like a pretty hardcore porn site.
I guess I don't understand the usage of this...or the danger of it. I mean, doesn't everyone want their country/nation to come out on top? Isn't that what a nation's government works for (supposedly)?
No, a national or federal government's job is to defend the nation and protect its citizens, but not as a nanny. "You can't do this, you can't eat that."
FalconShould there be a Law?
There are currently limitations on habeas corpus for aliens, not citizens.
The GP is right and you're wrong on this. All the Bush admin feels it needs to do is call someone an enemy combatant. This admin denied the US citizen Jose Padilla habeas corpus. CATO has called this a Dangerous Precedent.
FalconShould there be a Law?