Slashdot Mirror
P2P Fans Pound Comcast In FCC Comments
Not Comcastic writes "Two weeks after officially opening proceedings on Comcast's BitTorrent throttling, angry users are bombarding the FCC with comments critical of the cable provider's practices. 'On numerous occasions, my access to legal BitTorrent files was cut off by Comcast,' a systems administrator based in Indianapolis wrote to the FCC shortly after the proceeding began. 'During this period, I managed to troubleshoot all other possible causes of this issue, and it was my conclusion (speaking as a competent IT administrator) that this could only be occurring due to direct action at the ISP (Comcast) level.' Another commenter writes 'I have experienced this throttling of bandwidth in sharing open-source software, e.g. Knoppix and Open Office. Also I see considerable differences in speed ftp sessions vs. html. They are obviously limiting speed in ftp as well.'"
Well, whatever. It's not like their throttling has affec@G#TG%2yv24*SA$FNO CARRIER
Go to this page and put "07-52" into the "Proceeding" field.
Comments are in PDF form, so turn off "View in Browser" in Acrobat.
For example, my local cable ISP has marked ALL encrypted traffic as having a lower priority over non-encrypted content in their "war on P2P filesharing" (this means, amongst other obvious drawbacks, downgraded performance using ssh and sftp) reference. I am not sure on the specifics or legality of this kind of "filtering" but it would seem that nobody has made such a big fuss yet up here. Their practice is grey-zone at best I would think and it will be interesting to see what happens with the issue.
old monopolies don't die, they just find new ways to rip you off.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Although FCC comments are all well and good, talking to Comcast's CSR (customer service reps) will have more impact. If every balky P2P connection results in a $5-$10 in call-center time, then Comcast will think differently about it's filtering policy.
The key to solving this is to make unfettered P2P connections the least cost option for Comcast. That means increasing the costs of not providing those connections. FCC fines might do it (assuming the FCC acts), but high customer service cost certainly will.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I've got mod points, and I was going to moderate in this thread, and then I saw this and needed to reply.
:80/tcp has been horrendous. Most pages take a good 10-30 seconds to connect to the server, and never mind the number of pictures that can be on some sites.
I've got Comcast at home, and lately anything over
I grabbed my laptop, hit the OpenVPN button to my server in a datacenter in Atlanta, and surprise! The pages loaded instantly.
Between P2P throttling and general crappy service, I sincerely hope that this suit changes things for the better.
I'm on Comcast, and I upload pictures to my photography website via SCP. The uploads get throttled after the first couple of MB. Encryption makes no difference to what they're doing. They don't need to know what's in the packets to decide whether or not to throttle them -- they can make that decision based on what's in the header.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Throttling is IMHO only a problem when the customer doesn't know about it.
I have specifically chosen an ISP who promise they don't use any kind of throttling. On the other hand I did'nt go with the cheapest ISP I could find. My ISP has a "true flatrate" policy. No maximum usage and no throttling. The price is accordingly a little higher.
Most of my family does not use P2P in any way, and rarely download anything at all. For them, a low price is more important. And lets face it: this kind of bandwidth throttling was only invented because 5% of the customers consume 90% of the ISPs backbone resources. If this wasn't an issue, nobody would have invented the damn thing.
I don't think throttling should be illegal. It should only be illegal to use throttling and not tell customers about it. Throttling keeps the price down for ISPs, and they should be perfectly allowed to implemented - as long as all their customers are aware of it. In that way, if you don't want an ISP/product with throttling you can simply choose another ISP/product.
Bandwidth costs money. Free competition dictates that all ISPs will be seeking ways to lower their costs and in that way offer the consumers lower prices. This is a good thing, as long as customers know what they are buying.
Therefore: Allow throttling, but force ISPs to clearly state which products are subject to throttling. In that way, customers can buy the product they find suitable for their needs, and the "heavy users" can pay a higher price for their actual usage.
It is no different than your (cell)phone bill: if you call people 24/7, of if you buy a true flatrate product, it will cost more than just calling your mom for 5 minutes twice a month. Just as it should.
- Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
"these people are horribly incompetent and have horrible customer service"
Say what you will, but they are the ONLY ISP who didn't roll over and provide their customers info to the RIAA. Theyd
fought for their customers right of privacy to the Supreme court and PREVAILED.
In this day and age... that means something.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
They rolled over for the NSA. They fought when it was convenient for them. Being inconsistent means nothing.
The Yasashii Syndicate ||
You're right! In order to stop this smuggling, I move that all truck traffic must observe a maximum speed of 45 mph.
There! That'll fix it.
Just a note (perhaps you know this, but others may not), but the reason VPN works and SSH tunnels don't is because Sandvine targets long-lived TCP connections. By default, OpenVPN tunnels over UDP; the control messages for session handling is done by OpenVPN and is unreadable by intermediaries. With SSH tunnels, they can't read your data, but they can forge TCP control messages, which isn't encrypted.
Ironically, Comcast may be really hurting themselves in the long run; if it gets bad enough, P2P software writers will switch to UDP, and manually do the in-order/reliable delivery stuff themselves. TCP has a lot of fancy congestion control, and I doubt that the P2P writers will bother with it...
"let's compare national security, and rolling over to a government agency, as required by law"
The phone companies didn't have to turn over anything "as required by law". The government made a request, and all the others gave them what they wanted when it WASN'T required by law. It wasn't a legal demand, because the government didn't have the legal right. Qwest basically said "show us the warrant and you can have any of the information it specifies". Seeing there never was any warrants, nothing was turned over by Qwest.
"But this one goes to 11!"
That is a terrible idea. Your analogy falls flat when you realize that the Internet isn't a truck. It's a series of tubes.
disclaimer: this post was made out of jest. Any offense taken from it will be ignored.
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!