Slashdot Mirror
Comcast's New Terms of Service Disclose Traffic Management
cremou brings us word that Comcast has changed its Terms of Service to include policies on traffic management. This comes after the FCC's recent decision to investigate Comcast's P2P throttling. The language in the updated Terms of Service, according to Ars Technica, mirrors the FCC's 2005 Internet Policy Statement[PDF].
"According to Section III of the revised ToS, Comcast 'uses reasonable network management practices that are consistent with industry standards.' The company points out that it is not alone in the practice, saying that 'all major' ISPs engage in some form of traffic shaping. Comcast does it to keep its subscribers from suffering the heartaches of 'spam, viruses, security attacks, network congestion, and other risks and degradations of service' and to 'deliver the best possible Internet experience to all of its customers.'"
So... Comcast is saying that 5% of its customers aren't customers at all?
They did say ALL afterall.
I'm with Comcast and I don't see anXXXXnX XXong wXXX my serXXXe.
"The company points out that it is not alone in the practice, saying that 'all major' ISPs engage in some form of traffic shaping."
Translation: "They're all doing it too!"
"Comcast does it to keep its subscribers from suffering the heartaches of 'spam, viruses, security attacks, network congestion, and other risks and degradations of service'"
Translation: "if we don't shape your traffic, the boogeyman (or, one of at least 5 possible boogeymen) will get you".
"and to 'deliver the best possible Internet experience to all of its customers.'"
Translation: "It's for your own good. Really. You just don't realize it yet"
Hi, So I wonder, if they start throttling file sharing, will it improve the experience (reduce network latency) on sensitive apps like gaming and VoIP?
It seems like it hurts more to have your game experience be crushingly laggy versus having your ISO download take 5 extra minutes.
Of course I'm biased, but what's the rush to swap files?
I'd say that ALL ISPs do some kind of managment. It's the nature of a physical medium. My dialup ISP regularly kicks me off even though they advertise no limits on how long I can be online.
So now forging TCP packets is called traffic shaping and is an industry standard. Yeah right, maybe for the Russian mafia.
Who is John Galt?
Comcast does it to keep its subscribers from suffering the heartaches of 'spam, viruses, security attacks, network congestion, and other risks and degradations of service' and to 'deliver the best possible Internet experience to all of its customers.'"
I would call throttling the hell out of my connection to be a degradation of my service so obviously they aren't supplying the best possible experience to ALL of their customer, possibly most but certainly not all.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
"Hey, in light of that whole FCC investigation thing, we just thought we should let you know that we're fucking you out of the service and bandwidth you've been paying for. No hard feelings, just clearing things up. It's alright, you can use your internet just as long as you don't use much of it; You know, like most of what you're entitled to in your service plan. Oh, and in case you were wondering, everybody does this, so that makes it cool, alright? Glad we could get this sorted out."
FIOS will kill the shark. The shark knows it. Now more than ever, I'm happy I've passed gas sitting in CEO Brian Robert's office chair.
Does this include dropping packets, dropping connections, or what? Wasn't traffic shaping originally supposed to only *delay* some packets in favor of others?
Looks like they can call something "traffic shaping" and then do whatever they want with the traffic, including not meet any of their other commitments.
You can't send a takedown notice to an already printed newspaper.
packet shaping is not all that bad. I do not mind if my bandwidth limit is different for web surfing and for streaming media or anything else for that matter. I makes sure that I can connect to the sites that I would like and keeps me from killing all of the network traffic for my local group. I would still like an explanation as to why my Linux torrents are still being reset.
I wouldn't mind the P2P throttling so much if Comcast didn't offer such shitty service. Sometimes it seems like my internet is down every other day for an extended period of time. Maybe they should worry about making sure I remain a customer rather than worry about how much I'm downloading.
Yes, all the right buzz words to arguably be trying to protect the unwashed masses of people that believe whatever the government, fox news, or their ISP tell them. I'm personally sorry that we didn't listen to Mr Orwell's nightmarish vision of the future. It's upon us now.
By way of interpretation: We're going to blame the 5% percent of our customers who actually use the amount of bandwidth that they purchased. We know that if you had paid us only 50% of what we robb^H^H^H^H charge you, you would be happy with 1.5 Mbs download speed, but it sounds so much better if we promise you 3Mbs even though 90+ percent of you will never use it. This way we look like a super broadband provider to most of you, and to protect that false image, we're going to punish the few people who actually thought they were getting what they paid for.
It's not that we, Comcast, think our customers are fucking idiots, it's just that we know the damned good money we paid our congressional lobbyists is going to go a lot further than the whiney complaints of less than 5% of our consumer base.
So, we at Comcast want to assure you we are protecting you from the people who want to rob you of bandwidth so they can have the actual bandwidth that they paid for. By protecting you from these greedy bastards you can rest assured that we are doing all we can to keep your cash falling into our pockets every month. Thank you for being a Comcast customer.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Ahh yes, how dare those other greedy customers try to use the entire amount of bandwidth they paid for!!! Don't they realize that the only way we can all pretend to have high speed connections is if Comcast is able to sign us all up under the banner of "high speed" without expanding their infrastructure accordingly?!?!
At least Comcast let's me run a mail server and smarthost through their's.
Bellsouth/AT&T simply blocks 25. I hate that.
Not that I like defending an evil corporation.
We should start tagging articles with the logical fallacies they use!
Remember office environments a few years ago... with a T1 (ideally) or xDSL (better than ISDN)?
And you would track down the one or two users that consumed the entire pipe 24/7? And no matter where, there was always one or two of 'em?
Comcast oversold their capacity. They did not count on the number of subscribers who would exceed their ill-prepared estimates. Now they want to deny service to those subscribers... induce them to find another provider. They can do what they want, you can always choose to not do business with them.
Take their bait. Comcast is at best a reasonable solution to light users (or maybe people who swallow the entire Comcast pill-- VIOP + web hosting + email hosting, etc?). Get Fios if you can, or even a fast DSL. It is "better" access.
I. Prohibited Uses and Activities What uses and activities does Comcast prohibit? [...]
Conduct and information restrictions
.. Snip
09:F9:11:02 - 9D:74:E3:5B - D8:41:56:C5 - 63:56:88:C0
I have hated comcast for their customer service and service quality since I first subscribed to cable back in the very early 90s. Thank the gods for DirecTV introducing competition to this market of city and county sponsored monopolies.
Unfortunately, I recently moved back under comcast's umbrella and had no other options for internet within my budget. And now I'm suffering latencies as high as three seconds whenever I download a torrent. As soon as I stop torrent downloads, my latency returns to 25ms.
This is not traffic shaping. This is crap.
Shaping involves prioritizing and queing packets so that every process gets fed, regardless of what's running. You can also force downloads like BT, FTP, and even HTTP to take the slow path, moving icmp and ssh to the front of the line. This is quite easy with tc and other professional tools.
However, what comcastic seems to be doing is more akin to load leveling back in the days of mainframes. In those situations, you find that a user is hogging the resource and you would load level ALL of that users processes, regardless of function. As a result, if I'm downloading a torrent, my ssh sessions take 30 seconds to establish and keystroke confirmation lags three seconds behind my typing. Since I type about 60 words per minute, that's about three words or more behind my fingers. Wow.
Nice way to show your colors comcast. Once again, you are guaranteeing that:
1. as soon as I can, I'm dumping you.
2. I'm already telling EVERYONE to avoid you
3. I will go out of my way to starve you of customers
4. I will seek out and endorse your competitors
Good luck. May you soon die a well deserved and early death.
These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
# restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or otherwise disrupt or cause a performance degradation, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to the Service or any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) host, server, backbone network, node or service, or otherwise cause a performance degradation to any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) facilities used to deliver the Service; So, if I generate any traffic that might lower the download speed of another, I'm in violation or if I run into a telecommunication pole, I'm in violation?
This and even more fun @ http://www6.comcast.net/terms/use/,the linked article
import system.cool.Sig;
They are putting words into their competition's mouths by stating that they shape traffic as well. That can be pretty much slammed as libel and slander in a court of law.
Comcast has been overreaching and overselling their trunk for a long time now. And they figure that they can wring a few cents more out of their bulging tracks by screwing with packets. I say BUNK!
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
The sad truth is, in most cases, Comcast can do whatever they want and the customers are just stuck with their complaints. The reason is that there aren't any real choices. In my area, for broadband alternatives there is WOWWAY Broadband cable and AT&T DSL. I've used WOW's product, it was cheaper but the cable tv quality lacked and broadband speeds were not on par with what I was used to getting from Comcast. Everyone knows that DSL is not even in the same league as broadband cable, so AT&T is out of the question. What is needed is real competition. I, for one, am waiting for Verizon FIOS to be deployed. That's when I'll switch.
And what does this have to do with bandwidth? you pay comcast for the bandwidth not the content. It is not their business what your traffic is. They just use that as an excuse. Let the RIAA run after the 'pirates'
Pretty sure Verizon don't do this...or are they somehow not a major ISP?
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
It's all fine then, since after all I have the option of simply terminating my internet service with Comcast if I don't like the new Terms of Service, which have been posted conveniently to Slashdot for my perusal.
So I'll just have to go with my other option, AT & fucking T DSL, and I'm sure their much more civilised terms, eh? You think that's what they've got, some decent terms of service? Do you?
expandfairuse.org
Let me see. How can I respond to Comcast's statements in a manner commensurate with their honour, forthrightness and basic corporate decency? Ah, I think I have it: When is somebody going to take these scummy, deceptive shitsacks to court? I think that captured it properly.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
A couple of things that may have escaped your attention:
One, it's not the ISPs business to determine what is or is not acceptable traffic. That's a moral/legal judgment that they have no authority to make, are not equipped to make, and could not under any conditions be trusted to make. I don't pay them to monitor my communications and tell me what is right and what is wrong. Let the copyright holder go after me if he or she really believes that I've infringed upon any of their legal rights.
Two, owning up to copyright infringement may or may not be the right thing to do from an ethical perspective, but it's the exact wrong thing to do if you don't want to end up penniless. Keep firmly in mind that the media companies (not all, just the majors that are funding the likes of the RIAA) have no interest whatsoever in redress of grievance. They have no concern with such niceties as "right" and "wrong", as most of us understand the terms. They want deterrence. That means they need to destroy as many people as they can before they're stopped, because that's what they've determined is their best course of action.
Go check out this blog if you want to learn more about what's really going on, and why the infringers are not the real evil here.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Shouldn't that be [No Carrier] at the end? Or was it transcribe over VoIP? :]
...
Anyhow, even if they call this 'reasonable network management' in order to mirror the language of the FCC policy, that doesn't actually make it 'reasonable'
This has nothing to do with BitTorrent or illegal file sharing. It has everything to do with people's right to do what they want with the bandwidth that they paid for. Comcast has oversold itself and now it's panicking when people actually use the bandwidth they supposedly bought since this "degrades" the service for other people - ultimately, this is Comcast's fault though, because Comcast divvied up a pipe among too many users, to put it simply. If they provided sufficient infrastructure so that each use could theoretically use the bandwidth they paid for then this wouldn't be an issue - there would be room for everyone on the tube, so to speak. By "traffic shaping" Comcast is limiting people's ability to use bandwidth that they paid for as they please.
BitTorrent traffic doesn't mysteriously take up more bandwidth per bit than any other form of traffic - it costs as much bandwidth as anything else, though people may send or receive more BitTorrent traffic than other forms of traffic. The same bandwidth limit should apply to it however. BitTorrent is not illegal and it's ridiculous for you to assume that just because someone is torrenting that they are downloading copyrighted material. It is certainly not a basis to shape BT traffic, or any other form of traffic for that matter.
A programmer is a machine for turning pizza into code.
Speakeasy. I dare you to prove they screw with their customers' connections.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
is did Comcast inform every customer in writing that they were changing the ToS/AUP?
A previous discussion and reference
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/07/29/1747205.shtml
seems to imply that's a no-no and a breach of contract if they did not.
Enlightenment? It's just a flush in the pan.
Comcast's policies on traffic shaping are fine. There's nothing wrong with what they SAY they are doing. There is nothing wrong with prioritizing traffic based on traffic type (as long as it doesn't differentiate by source). Indeed, running a network without this type of traffic shaping would be foolish. However, this is NOT what Comcast is doing to bittorrent connections. They are actively disrupting them by doing a man-in-the-middle attack and impersonating one of the parties in the connection. This is not only immoral, but also probably illegal.
Eighty one comments all pretty much toeing the party line. Now who here is going to complete this sentence? "Hi I'm a comcast subscriber and my responsabilities to other comcast subscribers, not only on my node but the rest of the network is..."
They keep using those words. I don't think they mean what Comcast thinks they mean...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Does anybody know if ISPs in Vancouver, Canada are doing anything like this?
Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Even if there is no lock-out deal with the Government, you're not ever going to see two companies laying two different networks of underground fiber. That would mean tearing up the roads over and over again for each city-wide network.
Monopoly or not, you're only going to have one or two cable internet providers at the most in a city unless someone is forced to share.
You'll have better luck with DSL.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
"Hi, I'm Angela, how may I help you today?"
"Hi Angela. I was looking through the terms of service and wanted to make sure I am not in violation of my agreement. Is it true that I'm not allowed to view or download pornographic material?"
"Uhmm..."
"I have downloaded a LOT of porn through the Comcast service. Everything is legal-- everyone over 18, and amateur material only rather than pirated commercial material. I prefer the amateur work anyway, it's more real, you know? Have you viewed or published anything pornographic using Comcast service? I'd feel a little more comfortable if I knew I was in good company. Also, do you want to trade?"
Does this sound like an information restriction? (well the section is called "Conduct and Information restrictions")
Does this sound like an information restriction that might involve content of that information?
Does this sound like it might fly right in the face of their common carrier status?
post, store, send, transmit, or disseminate any information or material which a reasonable person could deem to be indecent, pornographic, harassing, threatening, hateful, or intimidating;
No hateful speech? Does this mean downloading "Mein Kamf" would violate their TOS?
Would a reasonable person think a picture of Mohammad in Wikipedia is "hateful"? Hmmm.
Where is FOIS? It sure as hell isn't here.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
My IP address is changed by Comcast on a near daily basis. The updates Comcast sends to my cable modem are not readable by a plain Jane Motorola Cable modem and hence I'm forced to reboot said cable modem nearly every other day. The fees for just turning on my cable and running one line via the wall space (Rather than up the outside of my house like the fine service man wanted to do)even though I had to show the kid how to do it when I got home from work, $300. The cable here goes out at least once every three or four days. We can be sitting watching a movie at 8pm and with a loud crash of static and blinding white snow the cable signal is lost for about five minutes. Speaking of that loud static... The sound on our cable is absolutely attrocious and our TV's volume has never been set higher, ever. We just moved to the east coast and left the midwest and compared to Charter (Which sucked) Comcast is complete shit. First tier cable and Internet - $100 a month. I don't P2P at all. I find P2P software to be far to insecure to run. Doesn't this just say it all?
Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
I'm seeing a lot of responses indicating that folks could just go to AT&T DSL instead of Comcast. In case you didn't know, the Comcast IP network is managed by none other than AT&T. Remember when it WAS AT&T's cable network? (Mike Armstrong anyone?) Well, one of the things that came out of the cable asset sale was a management contract for the IP network. Comcast = AT&T.
Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
I think this refers only to their "residential" service. I'm on a business account, and haven't really had many issues with them except for some technical issues (orders not being put in and adding static ip's for a couple of examples).
This isn't to say "buy a higher tier service, or suck it," but perhaps comcast should just put hard speed caps in place and only advertise up to that speed, and not outrageous speed 'but only for what we approve.' Not only that, but where are a lot of their problems happening? Is it on the nodes in local areas or is it in their back end connection to the whole of the internet. I don't know much about the super technical workings of TCP/IP but isn't there a way that they could route p2p traffic between their customers inside their network and infrastructure without jamming up traffic to external sources with little to no impact to other services?
One thing I'd like to know is, how are Comcast and other cable ISPs connected to the internet? Are they all networked together through a cable system with endpoints at telcos?
Does the Comcast TOS really matter to the people who have gotten frustrated and just started stealing Comcast high speed internet service?
:D
About cable modems:
Cable modem's work just like most of your other electronic devices. It runs firmware (that you aren't supposed to change but can) and software (a config file that you aren't supposed to touch but can). After upgrading your firmware using 1 of 20 methods, you are able to change settings like MAC address, config file, and the IP of the TFTP server that holds all the config files for your provider. Your speed is determined by the config file that is downloaded to your cable modem from by your cable modem from the TFTP defined on your cable modem.
Because it's your cable modem you can tweak, twist, and or violate it however you so fantasize.
www.tcniso.net
www.fibercoax.net
Comcast security issues:
Comcast has some serious security problems that make this idea of speed throttling users who use more bandwidth just plain silly.
Many Comcast config files are still based on docsis 1.1 compliance because they are still need to support older surfboard (along with a few other) cable modems that don't support docsis 2.0. None of the Comcast configs I have ever seen are tied to MAC addresses so anyone can download and use any config file that is written for their hardware on their hardware. Furthermore thier docsis 2.0 configs are not tied to MAC's or SN's so they are just as vulnerable as their 1.1 counterparts. Most places I have been that have Comcast as a service provider, Comcast provisioned my unknown cable modems with a config that has a 0 download and 0 upload limit (this config can of course be changed to a different one if you have changed the firmware). Because you are provisioned, this means you are able to sniff your segment with your cable modem for 1. Working MAC's and 2. The config's assigned to them. This means you don't even need to subscribe to any of their services to get into their network. use their bandwidth, and see their bandwidth. Because your firmware update allows you to change your MAC, with a very small script you are able to rotate MAC addresses on your modem. This means that you really become harder to find.
As a side note, you are able to multiplex over a single peice of coax although I recommend each modem having it's own line to the tap.
www.howtoforge.com/network_bonding_ubuntu_6.10
support.microsoft.com/kb/323431
www.ezplanetone.com/xwiki/bin/view/Router/ WRT load balancing
Your segment supports up to 42.88 (38 after overhead) Mbit/s Download and 10.24 (9) Mbit/s upload.
Torrents and my final thoughts:
Sandvine box sending out RST packets gotten you down? Try new and improved Encryption! From the makers of Math comes Encryption!
Because you are able to still able to connect to the Torrent trackers, download freely by forcing protocol header encryption, and seed via ssh socks proxy these ongoing policy changes seem like a total waste of everyones time and a complete nightmare for people who are actually still paying for their service. Mean while people who don't pay and subsequently don't care about a TOS continue abusing Comcast networks.
Keep in mind that taking more bandwidth than you are alloted is theft of service. Also violating the TOS could mean loss of service and being banned from their network.
Comcast's terms of service have always prohibited P2P usage and running servers. If Comcast had simply enforced those TOS and canceled the contracts of people who violated the TOS (instead of playing around with throttling), they wouldn't have gotten into this mess.
$40 doesn't buy you a guarenteed 6 mbit connection 24/7. If you have a problem with the way they sell their bandwidth, send them a complaint to lower their cap so you can't burst to higher speeds. If you want a legit 6 mbits per second 24/7 for yourself, go buy 1/8th of a T3. Just one problem: splitting a T3 8 ways is gonna cost QUITE A BIT MORE than $40 a month.
What comcast is doing is screwed up (the exact way they're killing bittorrent traffic) but the only reason they can sell you a "6mbit connection" for $40-$50 a month under the current system is the assumption that you're, like most web browsers, not using it more than about 10% of the time. They could charge less, but that wouldn't fund their system upgrades without everybody in their company taking a pay cut (whether their CEO deserves to make however much he does or not is a whole different story).
So the options are: Complain until they price the service for 24/7 operation, complain until they lower the quality of the service to what they can afford to sell for $40 a month and guarentee 24/7 bandwidth, or just accept that $40 a month doesn't get you a guarenteed 1900 gigabytes of traffic per month. Yes, 1.9 terabytes. There is a reason (a multitude of reasons actually) why 45 mbits on a T3 line costs a LOT MORE than $300 when 6 mbits on a cable line costs "only $40-$50." Yes, comcast sucks. No, broadband providers can't realistically be expected to cater to the Homer Simpsons sort that would sue an all you can eat buffet for kicking him out after consuming every bit of food in the establishment. You're paying for a connection that is unlimited with connection time, but its NATURALLY limited with respect to data speed/total data transferrable in a month/number of customers sharing your coax loop.
When I installed it it asked me if I would like it to encrypt all my torrent traffic. Not being a USanian I have no need for this, but wouldn't this in fact foil their evil plot?
its for our own good, the press release even says so!
...when they turned off the torrents For I was not a torrent user...
At Starbucks: "I'd like a grande latte". "here you go". "uhm, why is it in a thimble?" "what? You actually want a grande sized drink? You're ruining it for everybody else, you thief!"
.... On second thought, bad example.
At Arco: "I got charged for a full tank of gas, but it only filled up half way." "You want a full tank? You're ruining it for everybody else, you thief!"
At the record store
At H.R. at the office, "How come I only got half my pay?" "You want a full paycheck? You're ruining it for everybody else, you thief!"
In other words, in what other industry are you treated like a thief when you expect what you pay for?
-- Will program for bandwidth
Did all their existing customers sign the new contracts?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Unfortunately I'm moderating in this discussion, so i have to AC this.. but from what I've gathered (see candidates @ google video with paul), he opposes mandated net neutrality. In other words, he sees the market as being able to sort it out. Company A is evil and throttles bandwidth. Company B doesn't. Everyone moves to company B, and company A learns a lesson.
Unfortunately this is a bit idealistic of an approach, I think. I mean, yes, eventually, that may very well happen-- but for a good 5 or 10 years, a LOT of people are going to deal with some serious bullshit forced on them by ALL the providers until each provider incrimentally backs off a bit to compete with the other "more evil than us!" providers. Look at cell phone companies and their slow progression towards unlimited minutes/texts/etc from the crazy rates of the 90's (and in another 5 years, we'll probably have $20/month 3G unlimited calls and texts plans). Or look at AOL and other dialup providers and their slow progression of increasing the number of monthly minutes, until you have unlimited minutes (which, imo, is fairly parallel to the idea of providers choking your bandwidth or capping it.. and then eventually they will slowly back off.. after they have all made a kajillion dollars in profit).
Obama, on the other hand, has a great (slashdot friendly) stance on neutrality mandation. I like paul a lot (first time I've donated to any candidate), but I don't love his stance on this issue so much. Then again, I could be wrong, maybe the market will sort it out without it coming to *ALL* providers fucking everyone over.. but i doubt it.
I for one just hope the FCC screws them over for their bittorrent violation. If you want to fuck with the service you give people who are paying you for it, you better sure as hell have it in the contract to start with. Changing it after the fact like this is just bad business, and a good way to get yourself in trouble if you violate any laws/statues.
If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
Nowadays, Comcast is simply committing fraud with this kind of legal cover-up. Hell just read some of Comcast's terms :
This includes, but is not limited to, posting, storing, transmitting or disseminating information, data or material which is libelous, obscene, unlawful, threatening or defamatory, or which infringes the intellectual property rights of any person or entity, or which in any way constitutes or encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, or otherwise violate any local, state, federal, or non-U.S. law, order, or regulation;
No obscene or defamatory information against ANY person or entity??? Well, holy shit, thats like 99% of the internet right there. Oh and you'd have to include this post too because 'holy shit' is obscenity against the entity best known as God.
"Comcast does it to keep its subscribers from suffering the heartaches of 'spam, viruses, security attacks, network congestion, and other risks and degradations of service' and to 'deliver the best possible Internet experience to all of its customers."
if (restricting_freedom == true)
do
print "For your safety"
print "It's good for you"
enddo
endif
FCC will put people like us in Jail if we use ham radios or hack a transmitter for our school experiment.
With comcast, most likely the FCC will impose a $10,000 fine (which is like 2 cents for comcast) and that's it.
Maximum the FCC can do is to censure Comcast and reprimand it for violating ToS.
Comcast is a a corporation.
Corporations by default cannot be convicted of any crime in US. (Read Exxon Valdez case). They are immune to any criminal violations (Sony rootkit) which, if we individuals commit, would result in 20+ year sentences (unauthorised tapping of phones).
The maximum the government or the judiciary can and will do is to make reprimand them verbally or fine them 2 cents.
Beyond that corporations or its CEO or its Board cannot be jailed or even bankrupted.
Am willing to bet a day's pay that comcast will come out of FCC smiling as they either settle on undisclosed terms or the FCC fines them a few dollars. Specifically if comcast execs are jailed (not even conviction is necessary) for this, i agree to donate my one days's basic pay to a charity of your choice.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet
Do any other candidates support net neutrality?
You can get 5mbit connection as a fractional OC3. And that (100% full time) will cost you about $150 pcm. Share with four people (extremely lax, this is a lot better than business class which is 20 sharing) and you're less than $40.
Get a fractional OC480 which costs what? 150k a month, but giving 5mbit for about $40.
While I agree with most of your post, I wonder about the point where extreme overselling turns into fraud. As in, the advertisements promise great network performance but what you actually get is a dial-up-like crawl.
C - the footgun of programming languages
It always pays to be skeptical of statistics, especially those
profferred in an attempt to sell products. However, it's also
important to note that Mr. Godwin's skepticism is itself
self-serving, coming as it does from a long time advocate of P2P.
In this particular case, the statistics actually do jibe with what
most ISPs report.
Here are some more statistics from our own ISP, which -- like all
others -- is caught in the middle between eager customers (who
would quit if we cut off their P2P connections), the record
companies (who, we fear, will attempt to use us as a bulwark or as
scapegoats in their battle against P2P), and bandwidth costs (which
are coming down, but not nearly rapidly enough).
While we are located in a college town, only about 1/3 of our
clients are college students. (This is because the University
provides them with subsidized Internet access if they live off
campus, or practically free access -- via the government-funded
Internet2 no less -- if they live in the dormitories.) Yet, about
2/3 of our traffic is demonstrably P2P: Kazaa, BitTorrent, etc. And
this is a conservative estimate; it's only what our patterns
detect. One student, without bandwidth restrictions, could easily
soak up 10 Mbps of continuous backbone bandwidth, which in our
location can cost as much as $6,000 per month wholesale.
That's why we were among the first ISPs to implement P2P
mitigation. Had we not done so, those users -- perhaps unwittingly,
because many of them did not realize that they were transmitting as
well as receiving illegal copies of music -- would have choked off
those engaged in legitimate activities and we would have lost their
business. Many P2P applications, upon discovering an unfettered
fast "pipe," quickly make the computers on which they're running
major hubs in the P2P network, consuming all the bandwidth they can.
Also, of all of the P2P users we've queried about their activities
over the years, we have found only two who are using P2P for legal
downloads. In both cases, they are obtaining software which is
licensed in such a way that it may be freely redistributed. All of
the rest were downloading music and similar media.
Thus, CacheLogic's claims seem to be substantially accurate, at
least from our measurements. And we do face a great dilemma: we
will lose our customers if we do not allow downloads and will not
have sufficient bandwidth for customers' legitimate needs if we do
not throttle P2P activity to a sane level.
--Brett Glass Source
If your copy got lost in the stack, or you'd rather read the Cliff's notes, this week's translation focuses on my top pick from the 2006 collection: A meticulously researched look into how the file-downloading scheme known as BitTorrent affects broadband networks.
The short answer: Badly.
# There is a misconception that there is bandwidth savings for the end user. If you want to download a 1gb size file, 1gb of data will be delivered to your PC. There is no savings of bandwidth on the client side. In fact, the client is charged a bandwidth premium because after they have received the entire file, they are asked to participate in the peering by delivering parts of the file to other users.
i wonder, what is the situation with cable providers like in other countries? here in germany almost everyone uses dsl, although internet via tv cable is available in most of the bigger cities. afaik, there are (or were?) some dsl providers who tried to kick users with excessive bandwith usage by offering them money to quit their contracts, but this is history i think. the few people i know who have cable (mosltly "Kabel BW") seem to be very happy with their providers, but this might just be because they still have the capacities, and they have to match the quality dsl providers offer to you (in most big cities 16/1 mbit/s or even 50/10 are possible, without any so called traffic shaping).
They can do anything they want and there's nothing I can do.
I live in an outlying area 16,000 feet from the CO. The telco has a sub-station they use for their DSL subscribers but they're only forced into CO access. What that means is competition like Speekeasy quoted me $99 a month for 144k. So it's ATT (which isn't any better) or Comcast where I'm clocking 20-30meg/sec downloads. It's not a legal definition of no choice but, I've got no choice. I've submitted a formal complaint to the FCC, written my representatives, etc. and keep paying my bill...
They have a Point of Presence [POP] there. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Speakeasy+Atlanta+POP Perhaps, what you mean is that they aren't available at your residence.
Subject says it all. I'm so glad I fired them over a year ago.
. . . and seed via ssh socks proxy
Yes, but to do that, you need access to another connection running the proxy that itself has enough bandwidth to accommodate the seeding--and if you have that, why would you even bother with Comcast to begin with?
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
The GP has it right. Storage in this context refers to the usage of Comcast's lines. If you download files from houseofnasty.com you are retrieving them. They are stored on your local server which from Comcast's perspective is not storage. From Comcast's perspective, it becomes "stored" the moment it is "retrieved" across their lines, but not a second before.
Disclaimer: Though I have no affiliation with Comcast and do not use their services, I hope they get a stick in their eye real soon.
blog
If you download over a MB a day, they come to your house and hit you with a bat.
It says you can't have a web hosting or file sharing service.
They're basically saying you can't run an FTP server.
They do not prohibit P2P usage.
Files can be shared through a server and client network or through a peer to peer network. (P2P)
P2P is not mentioned in any way in your TOS post.
Mever nind the typos.
Compare:
Thou shalt not kill.To:
If the company didn't manage its network, its customers would be subject to the negative effects of spam, viruses, security attacks, network congestion, and other risks and degradations of service.One's from God. He made ten rules, and the first one is "Fuck you, I'm God." The other is from Comcast, which thinks it's God, but their version of "Fuck you, I'm Comcast" is written in hopes you'll be racing to get out the lubricant.
The Agreement says a whole lot of very slippery things, most of which boil down to (a) this is how it is, (b) you agree with us forever even if we change our minds, which (c) we can do whenever we want to without actively informing you, and (c) if you disobey we can either (1) kick you out (and sue you (you agreed we can)) or (2) upsell you to a faster and much more expensive Plan that may even do what we promised you this one would. Yep it even says it's binding after you cancel -- presumably even if you cancel because you refuse to abide by the Agreement. A lawyer could pick this apart very quickly in court. But you're not going to court, because you agreed to binding arbitration in a venue and format of their choosing.
The quote above is part of a bit about "part of managing our network is throttling bandwidth." It uses a special type of bullshit called equivocation. They're implying:
The Agreement, which has never showed up in my Comcast e-mail, uses the word "reasonable" five times, including, most ominously, the term "reasonable attorney fees."
I especially like this whiney "But all the other cool ISPs are doing it" line:
The need to engage in network management is not limited to Comcast. In fact, all large Internet service providers manage their networks. Many of them use the same or similar tools that Comcast does.There's that equivocation thing again:
- Our network management includes choking your bandwidth, and
- Other ISPs manage their networks. Therefore
- Everybody does it.
The oily part is that the "similar tools" in question are hardware like routers and software like "ping," not hardware like Sandvine and software that sends forged RSTs over your signature.And are you ready to suck up to the conformity police?
Comcast reserves the right to suspend or terminate Service accounts where bandwidth consumption is not characteristic of a typical residential user of the Service as determined by the company in its sole discretion.IOW not only can the company attack you for not being like everybody else, they get to decide how everybody's supposed to be.
As an aside, every time I type "Comcast," Firefox says it's a mistake. I just wish these fucking fascists weren't the only game in town where I live.
This is not my sandwich.
I used to do technical support until I got sick of it in Nov. They don't bock port 25 by default. They will block it if they get a lot of spam complaints or see ridiculous amounts of traffic leaving your IP via port 25. This does happen a lot since a lot of general computer users are ignorant of computer security concepts or even updating their computer. Even though there are free anti-virus programs and Comcast offers McAfee for free people don't bother. I was surprised by the amount of people who's computers were being used as spam mail relays. Generally Comcast will block them and if the customers ever called to complain or check their Comcast webmail they'd know what was going on. We'd then walk them through using port 587 to send mail via Comcast w/ authentication or set them up to SSL. Anyway, I didn't work at the top of the totem pole so I can't say your reading the mail theory is wrong. But it is highly unlikely and you are definitely wrong about port 25 being blocked.
I use iChat a few times a week to talk to family that's scattered across the continent. In the past few couple of months something changed in the Houston market that negatively impacts video conferencing. The call starts out fine, but after a minute my parents or brother can no longer understand what I'm saying and my image breaks up. I can still see and hear them fine. Disconnect and reconnect and it will work fine for another minute.
Others have noticed this problem too - Comcast: No iChat, No Choice.
Last week I finally found a workaround - in iChat's Audio/Video preferences is an option for Bandwidth Limit which defaults to NONE. I just kept lowering the limit until the connection remained clear.
You know I'm sick and tired of that argument. Of course you pay way too little for the bandwidth you get. And you won't get T3 quality in a million years either. But there is a little thing called truth in advertising. I don't care what they were thinking when they sold me contract. I don't care if their numbers didn't turn out the way they hoped. They promised me 6mbit 24/7 unlimited, so you know what? They can suck on it. And give me my damn speeds.
Of course, P2P is a "filesharing service", both in common usage and in terms of their definition. Even if your hair splitting actually applied, the TOS clearly say that they can restrict any service they like anyway; they're just giving you examples of things that definitely are not acceptable.
If you want to run any kind of file sharing service, get the commercial subscription; it's a little more expensive, but you can do what you want. Don't complain that you get restrictions when you get the cheapest subscription there is.
Apparently a "News for nerds, stuff that matters" site doesn't understand how P2P works. Let alone plain ordinary "clear as day" language. Are you certain you're not a lawyer?
From Comcast's FAQ
Do you block access to peer-to-peer applications like BitTorrent?
No. We do not block access to any Web site or applications, including BitTorrent. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites, VOIP applications like Vonage, and thousands of other applications online.
They will unblock it if you call up that # they leave you or tech support gives you. I used to have it memorized (used to work there). I'm sure it's on the ugly ass comcast.net portal somewhere.
It takes a while though, they're pretty backlogged in the abuse dept. There's so much crap to deal with they won't even talk to advanced tech support agents directly. The only we an agent can relay info to them is to submit it in a ticket, which they take on a 1st come 1st serve basis. But basically if you tell them something like, I reformatted and installed a virus scanner & spyware/trojan scanner, they'll lift it. It's that they're just so paranoid about the average dumbass leaving the problem forever.
Make sure when you call you ask the agent for the ticket #, it wouldn't even hurt to ask them to repeat the info in it. Cause yes some agents are lazy and don't care. You don't get paid much, the corporation treats you like some loser and all the customers think the agent is directly able to change corporate policy or is the person they should take out all their frustrations on. Well, at that point, certain agents will just toss it.
Unless company A offers a 1500 kbps connection to the Internet, and company B can only offer 48 kbps because it has to go over company A's copper. In a libertopia with strong protections of real property[1], how would an ISP get consent to lay new copper or fiber over a non-subscriber's land to reach a subscriber?
[1] Real property is the exclusive right to the use of a parcel of land.
This is taken directly from their website:
So I guess you're wrong. (very wrong)
It did seem ridiculous
Mever nind the typos.
I completely disagree with you and so does Comcast.
Of course Comcast isn't saying they are blocking P2P. If they were, we wouldn't be discussing this in a thread called "they should simply have kicked violators". The point is that, according to the TOS, Comcast has the contractual right to kick P2P users. The FAQ represents customer service, and the TOS represents a legal and network management view, and they disagree. That is the problem.
It's because of childish attitudes like yours, namely that if you can get away with something sometimes, it becomes your right, that Comcast should have kicked violators, as they have every right to under the TOS.
Germany has tried this in a half-assed way too, but in this case the small telecoms without infrastructure seem to suffer more.
The telecommunications part of the former Bundespost was split off and sold to the public as "Deutsche Telekom". It is now a publicly traded company. The Deutsche Telekom also got ownership of the infrastructure, but has to rent the "last mile" of cable to the customer's house to the competition, if said customer wants to get his connection from the competition. A new regulation authority was introduced to set a "fair" price for this.
As usual both sides are complaining, the Deutsche Telekom says they deserve more rent and the "Joe Blow's Fly By Night telecoms" say they are being ripped off. To me, the price of currently 10,68 Euros per month for maintaining the cable seems too high rather than too low, so the incumbent has no reason to complain.
So a lot depends on the rent that is set by your regulation authority, and you get the usual political wrangling about it.
I think a better idea would have been to keep the cable as public infrastructure and rent it to any interested telecom at the same price.
C - the footgun of programming languages
(And almost every ISP "plays around with throttling") You are saying that the information posted on Comcast's website is not approved by Comcast? So P2P users (over 1/3 of their customers) are "getting away" with something, even though Comcast's website says "The companys customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing peer-to-peer sites, communicating over VOIP applications, and for thousands of other applications." Doesn't sound like they're "getting away" with anything, now does it?
You know is childish? Not being able to admit you were wrong.
Mever nind the typos.
Applying a degradation of service to subscribers in order to keep subscribers from suffering a degradation of service? Doing A to prevent A?
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
You do know that the TOS are written by lawyers, intended to be interpreted by by lawyers.
Mever nind the typos.
This is found in "Comcast Agreement For Residential Services" Here's what it actually says in the Acceptable Use Policy under "Network and usage restrictions" Wow, that was really convenient of you not to post the second part. Maybe you didn't see it?
Notice how there's a distinction between servers and programs?? Could my point be proved any further?
So far you've called me childish and a moron. What have you got say now?
Nothing, I bet.
Mever nind the typos.