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

Important,

[SlipperHat]

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

Re:If it's Comcast...

[faloi]

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.

Re:Stop misusing "Network Neutrality"

[kebes]

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...).