EFF Releases Software to Spot Net NonNeutrality

DanielBoz writes in with word of the EFF's new initiative to help consumers detect if their ISP is spoofing packets. From the press release: "In the wake of the detection and reporting of Comcast Corporation's controversial interference with Internet traffic, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has published a comprehensive account of Comcast's packet-forging activities and has released software and documentation instructing Internet users on how to test for packet forgery or other forms of interference by their own ISPs."

Comments

Re:Do you trust the EFF?

[Diss Champ]

Option 3: You know enough about networking to examine their source, and gain some appreciation as to whether it does what they say it does.

Not tesing is not science

[l2718]

First of all, the EFF may has not tested your ISP. You may trust them that in general ISPs are sending spoofed packets, but still want to know whether your ISP is using the tactic. Beyond that, however, just because you trust them doesn't mean independent verification has no value. Results mean something different if you obtained them yourself. Also, as in regular science, independent confirmation of results gives more than that: more people conducting tests will also give better data.

Stop misusing "Network Neutrality"

[bconway]

Network Neutrality refers to ISPs double dipping on charging/extorting fees for both users paying for their connections and web sites paying for prioritization of traffic according to origination and destination. It does not refer to protocol-based QoS. It does not mean a flat, unmanaged, unQoS-ed Internet. By repeatedly and deliberately misusing this phrase, its importance is being weakened.

Re:Stop misusing "Network Neutrality"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that it weakens the term "network neutrality" to use it when referring to QoS which extends beyond latency-vs-throughput tradeoffs.

It is completely acceptable for an ISP to shape traffic based on the customers' requested packet priorities, on a zero-sum basis; some types of packets are very time-dependent, and thus can be sent in a manner that ensures they'll arrive more quickly (in exchange, of course, for losing some overall bandwidth).

However, when an ISP begins prioritizing these things itself, against the wish of the customer (who believes he/she is paying for a generic "Internet connection"), this is a type of fraud. The ISP has no right to call it an "Internet connection" unless they explicity describe, when making the sale, that it is a specially limited type of Internet connection.

It isn't really full Internet connectivity. True internet connectivity necessarily entails packets routed to their destinations, regardless of their content (including port destination content, which is only the business of the sender and receiver). True internet connectivity necessarily entails a neutral carrier, who does not care about anything but routing a packet from one point to another.

The type of "QoS" being performed by these ISPs to limit types of communications they dislike thus goes beyond the acceptable. If they are concerned about certain users taking up more bandwidth than a fair share, then the ISPs should be honest about it: either charge per amount of bandwidth used, or implement bandwidth limits. But to pursue the matter as they are is at least fraudulent, and when performed by quasi-monopolies as cable ISPs are in the US, it has the flavor of an extortionate business practice.

Re:Stop misusing "Network Neutrality"

[porpnorber]

I think how consumers are supposed to select their QoS strategy is with QoS labels. The question is not 'should we have QoS' (I don't know about you, but I would rather have my videoconference packets queued ahead of my ftp packets), it's should the ISP be overriding our choices to satisfy their own policies. This is the same issue as randomly dropped connections: a mechanism to drop connections should exist because the endpoints need it. The carrier should not be invoking it 'on your behalf' and in the face of your desires, or it simply isn't doing what it was paid to do.

There's a secondary issue of whether your operating system provides a good mechanism for QoS policy management at the endpoints (hint: no, it doesn't). But that's something to take up with the O/S vendor, or perhaps—an easier nut to crack—the router in your home. But in any case, it seems reasonably clear that QoS should be honoured or ignored end-to-end, and not randomly messed with in transit to the benefit of third parties.

...Unless I've misunderstood the technical situation completely....

Re:Do you trust the EFF?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

I don't know if I trust EFF completely, but I trust them far more than I trust Comcast.

Re:If it's Comcast...

[Anonymous Coward]

Leela: "Here is the manual with a list of everthing wrong with the ship."
Bender: "I'm not reading that crap! Sum it up in one word!"
Leela: "Sabotage!"

Re:Do you trust the EFF?

[ScrappyLaptop]

Fantastic idea; a seti-at-home app that anyone can download (not just the Linux savy) and run on their Win32/64 boxes that sends results to a central location, just like Seti. Unfortunately, the EFF got a lot of press today with PR that says, "EFF releases tool for users". My wife emailed me with, "this isn't for users, it's for you network and Linux people". We need lots of automated samples that are effortless for the users to submit -THAT would be a tool for users".