Slashdot Mirror


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."

7 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. Important, by SlipperHat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is there a website where we can post these results? Broadband Reports comes to mind, but maybe the EFF has a place set up?

  2. Re:If it's Comcast... by faloi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because the shaped packets coming from Comcast will get to the application more promptly than regular traffic. Traffic generated outside of Comcast will still take half of forever to arrive, if they arrive at all.

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
  3. Re:Do you trust the EFF? by Aladrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you were talking about a single person trusting a single entity, that is correct. We are talking about the internet and a ton of geeks. If there's anything hinky with EFF's program, it'll be found. And if there's not, even those who don't trust the EFF itself can trust the app with a fair amount of confidence.

    I'm leaving out any geeky reasons such as viewing the source code (which I don't see if they provide or not) or how simple the process is.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  4. Re:Stop misusing "Network Neutrality" by kebes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Network Neutrality refers to ISPs double dipping on charging/extorting fees ... It does not refer to protocol-based QoS. Unfortunately when it comes to the definition of Net Neutrality, there isn't yet consensus (e.g. see various definitions offered here, and associated references). Maybe we need to come up with new terms, like "Strict Net Neutrality" versus "General Net Neutrality" to distinguish between various implications of the term. As usual, though, it's very hard to get people to agree on definitions.

    And, of course, the definitions vary in part because people have different opinions on what is "important." Supporters of net neutrality agree that data carriers should at a minimum be source/destination neutral (the version of neutrality you are referring to). However some people do indeed believe that carriers should also be neutral with respect to the devices allowed to connect to the network, and the types of traffic sent over the network.*

    So, in short, there is a diversity of opinion about what the term means (or "should" mean, I guess).


    [*] As an aside, my mind isn't made up, but I understand the logic for saying that traffic neutrality may be ultimately a good thing. Yes, it prevents certain QoS strategies on shared carrier networks (but not on closed private networks, of course)... but then again, do you trust your ISP (which has its own interests) to pick the QoS strategy that actually works best for you? (Or even for most customers?) Also, any QoS strategy inherently makes a judgment call about what is "important" and what isn't. So, it inherently limits new technologies/protocols we haven't yet dreamed of. And, it would seem inefficient because any QoS which degrades protocols that customers are interested in will be circumvented (e.g. by masking your traffic as a type of traffic that is "approved" for high-speed delivery). Certainly we wouldn't let other carriers discriminate based on the content (e.g. postal service that delivers boxes that contain videotapes slower than boxes that contain paper; phone carrier that delays voice calls to prioritize fax calls...).
  5. EFF- thanks, it's the thought that counts by jayp00001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's nice of the EFF to spend time and money developing software that can detect what we know Comcast (and maybe others) are doing but without some sort of centralized data gathering operation to put together some sort of class action lawsuit what good is it? Knowing your packets are getting pummeled by Comcast allows you to... complain? I can't even get them to give me a clean cable tv signal- does anyone think they would listen to our complaints about packet loss? (does anyone think the average Comcast support rep would know what a packet is?) While others might be able to switch to another provider I think far too many of us (myself inculded)are stuck in monopohell with broadband providers. I'd prefer to see the EFF working on forcing Verizon (et al.) to drop fiber to the premises (after all we've been paying billions in infrastruture taxes for how long now??)

  6. Re:RTFA by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your post demonstrates unequivocally that you did not read the article or if you did, you didn't understand it. I read the article. What I didn't see was that there was a second linked article that described the software.

    Sheesh, I can forgive not knowing how networking works, but to post inflammatory comments when you are obviously ignorant is, well, ignorant. I didn't make the post to be inflammatory. I just wanted to express that giving an application to prove something you're saying is not logical. And no, I didn't know the software existed previously.

    Obviously it was inflammatory, judging by the number of replies, but I think it's because from the title, readers were already expecting an offensive post before reading the content.

    And, btw, my point was not "don't trust the EFF because they are tricking you with an app" but "As we already trust the EFF, there's no need to double check their results."
  7. Re:Instead of denying what they are doing... by cdrguru · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why when you buy a 100GB hard drive does it only have about 96GB available on it? How come my car has a speedometer that is calibrated to 180 but I can't drive at 180MPH? How come when you go to a "all-you-can-eat" restaurant they don't let you stay there for a week and keep eating?

    All of this assumes that you are swayed by the advertising and don't really check up on the claims being advertised. Or, it states things in common everyday language that are backed up by the fine print saying something quite different.

    There clearly are two kinds of people - those that understand what is being advertised isn't exactly what is being sold and those that have managed to get through life until their 16th birthday without realizing this. Sorry, time to grow up.

    I still want to ask the car salesman about the speedometer. And ask if we can check if the car will really go that fast on the test drive.