FCC Considers Taking Action Against Comcast

Presto Vivace writes "According to CNet the Federal Communications Commission is considering taking action against cable operator Comcast modifying peer-to-peer traffic, a subject we've discussed here in the past. 'It looks like Chairman Martin, and by extension the commission, sees Comcast as going beyond simply managing its network. But even if the FCC decides that Comcast has violated Net neutrality principles, it's unclear what the agency can actually do to Comcast. The principles are not agency regulation.'"

Comments

Government Controls Not Working!!!

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

When big business (or advocacy groups) can abuse consumers and no one intervenes until there is a problem (even when it is illegal, or wrong), and there is NO punishment for doing so ... why would they conform?

Re:Government Controls Not Working!!!

[iago-vL]

Well, in an ideal world, they'd end up with no customers. Of course, this world is far from ideal...

Re:Government Controls Not Working!!!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Plus, attempts at trying to move this world more towards the ideal will get you called a dirty liberal. Seems the powers that be have a convenient fiction of an already-just world that they'd like to maintain. If you demonstrate that good people don't often get rich by merely working hard and doing all the right things that puts a serious hole in their world view.

Probably Nothing

[techpawn]

But even if the FCC decides that Comcast has violated Net neutrality principles, it's unclear what the agency can actually do to Comcast

Run to the end of their chain and bark? If they fine the company all they'll be doing is a fine against the customer that where being hurt by Comcast to begin with. Seems like this dog has no teeth. Maybe it was all just for show for the media...

Re:Probably Nothing

[budgenator]

and sometimes the dog learns to run not quite at the end of his chain and just knows sooner or later his tormentor is going to stray in a little too close; that's when we find out if the dog really has teeth.

Re:Probably Nothing

[Bryansix]

Right. They don't need to fine them and they don't need to take away any status that they have or don't have. They need to call an end to Comcast and declare that they cannot do business any longer. Then put the little crackers in jail for tampering with thier customer's networks. Why is it that Crackers get so much immunity if they are working for a company?

Re:Probably Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Then put the little crackers in jail for tampering with thier customer's networks. Why is it that Crackers get so much immunity if they are working for a company? Nobody is cracking anything. Monitoring packets going over your own network is not cracking. It may not be legal (although it probably is), but it's completely different from cracking.

Re:Probably Nothing

[Bryansix]

They are not just monitoring the packets. They are interfering with them by sending spoofed packets to close the connection at both ends.

How about another action...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about taking another action against comcast for being a monopoly to those that have absolutely no alternatives because of where they live.

Take their license away?

[gnasher719]

Answering the question "what can the FCC do": I would assume that they could take their license away, as the final threat.

I don't think the Comcast situation has much to do with net neutrality. Lack of "net neutrality" would mean that a service provider slows down some traffic and not other traffic. So your bittorrent might take 12 hours instead of 1, but work without problems. But that is not what Comcast does: They actively manipulate the traffic that goes through their system, sending fake abort messages to bittorrent clients. That, I think, could be very much in violation of whatever license they need.

If I sent you a letter and it arrived in five days instead of one day, I would complain. If the post office deliberately threw away my letters, I would complain a lot louder.

Re:Take their license away?

[qortra]

sending fake abort messages to bittorrent clients.

If the post office deliberately threw away my letters, I would complain a lot louder. Given your description of what is going on, your metaphor is not apt. A better one:

The post office deliberately sends a soldier fake dear john letters, merely because they believe that soldier's girlfriend to be unscrupulous, or because they have grown tired of mailing that soldier's letters to his girlfriend.

Other than that minor point, I agree entirely.

Re:Take their license away?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I sent you a letter and it arrived in five days instead of one day, I would complain. If the post office deliberately threw away my letters, I would complain a lot louder.

You're analogy is poor, because dropping packets when a network is busy is part of the standard. Also, you failed to capture the fact that the rest packets are forged. The finally problem with you analogy is that it didn't mention cars.

Re:Take their license away?

[Anonymous Coward]

The finally problem with you analogy is that it didn't mention cars. Or Soviet Russia. Because, in Soviet Russia, the packets drop you.

Re:Take their license away?

[dkleinsc]

I would think that a really effective threat would be to take away their "common carrier" status and make Comcast legally responsible for all the traffic going through their network. For instance, since they actively manipulate their traffic, it can be argued they could stop all child pornography, copyrighted material, etc from traversing their network, and since they failed to do so they are liable for its distribution.

Re:Take their license away?

[CopaceticOpus]

Taking their license away would potentially hurt the customers even more. The solution is much simpler - money. Fine them, and keep raising the fines until it becomes more cost effective for Comcast to behave. Money is a fantastic motivator.

I don't know if the FCC has the authority and/or the will to take such an action, however.

Re:Take their license away?

[howdoesth]

The mindboggling thing is that his metaphor is far and away the best description of sandvining I have ever seen. The fact that you find it so unbelievable shows just how ridiculous what Comcast is doing really is.

Re:Take their license away?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think that a really effective threat would be to take away their "common carrier" status

ISPs are not and never have been "common carriers".

Re:Take their license away?

[Smidge204]

When it comes to internet analogies, you must use either "tubes", "trucks" or "clowns" - not cars.

=Smidge=

Re:Take their license away?

[hax0r_this]

Are you suggesting that the government should be allowed to punish people (or businesses) because what they did was "wrong" even though its not against any rule? Or are saying there is actually some rule against this, and you are simply not referencing it?

Don't get me wrong, I think Comcast needs to stop, and if they violated any actual regulations I hope they are punished for it, but if they didn't actually break any rules then what that means is not that they should be punished anyway, but that the rules need to be fixed.

Re:Take their license away?

[qortra]

That seems like a terrible idea. Honestly, they might just like that scenario. It would give them an excuse to turn their service into an AOL-like "portal" where you get Comcast news, Comcast voip, Comcast search, and if they're really in a bad mood, one single Comcast political candidate. Portals have become passé, but they really are a crap-ton more profitable. Imagine not only getting ISP monthly fees, but also all the ad revenue from a subscribers account, email bounties (selling your address down the river), and exclusive distribution for other "pay" services like voip and online games. All this added to the the fact that they can now effectively brainwash you to believe whatever they want because they control your information.

Re:Take their license away?

[snowraver1]

Nope, try this example:

Comcast is like a car, er wait, truck, no... HUMMER and you are behind them in traffic, but you drive a Pinto. All you can smell is the diesel exaust from the Hummer. Then the driver of the hummer gets out and kicks you in the face, but there is a dear john letter stuck to his boot, that is now stuck to your face. You can't see where you are going, so you go home, but when you get there your cat is hanging from the celing with a puddle of water on the ground. There is no evidence of struggle, so obvously your cat committed suicide by standing on a large block of ice and slowly hanging itself. You look at your cable modem and the "sync" light is slowly blinking... no internet. Damn! screwed by Comcast again!

Re:Take their license away?

[Phisbut]

Taking their license away would potentially hurt the customers even more. The solution is much simpler - money. Fine them, and keep raising the fines until it becomes more cost effective for Comcast to behave. Money is a fantastic motivator.

Won't Comcast then just increase the price of their service to cover the fines? Their customers can't change ISP to get a better now because they lack choice, they won't be able to change ISP to get a lower price then either.

Re:Take their license away?

[OldeTimeGeek]

Taking their license away would potentially hurt the customers even more. The solution is much simpler - money. Fine them, and keep raising the fines until it becomes more cost effective for Comcast to behave.

Which Comcast will turn around and pass on to their customers. Either way, Comcast customers are pretty much screwed. Comcast knows this and so does the FCC.

Re:Take their license away?

[noidentity]

Wow, that exact thing happened to me yesterday. Were you the driver in the Hummer by any chance?

Re:Take their license away?

[AKAImBatman]

ISPs are not and never have been "common carriers".

You sure about that? Some of us have actually sat down and read the laws we are bound by. :-/

Re:Take their license away?

[AnomaliesAndrew]

I've posted about this before, but whenever we run a Bit Torrent client for the better half of a day, our route to the internet gets lost. Everything still says we're connected and says the status is fine, we just can't get anywhere until we power-cycle the cable modem.

Additionally I am a Vonage customer, and would be unable to place a 911 call because of this. It's just plain irresponsible corporate greed, seems to me.

This happens even when Bit Torrent traffic is at a minimum. It's like Comcast is taking the RIAA/MPAA's dirty work into their own hands, and saying it's to make sure bandwidth use is fair for all customers.

I wonder then why I've never been disconnected like this for using the bandwidth for any other purposes, like hosting a radio stream or FTP server with equal or more traffic.

I would boycott them if only I had other realistic options, but I don't.

Re:Take their license away?

[compro01]

cable companies have never been common carriers as far as internet service goes. DSL providers used to be, but aren't anymore.

what would be the proper course of action would be to remove their DMCA safe harbour status, which would render them liable for any copyrighted material moving through them [that occurs without the right holder's permission].

Re:Take their license away?

[AKAImBatman]

Or are saying there is actually some rule against this, and you are simply not referencing it?

Bingo. From section 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:

A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or except as provided in subsection (i) for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement for the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or the intermediate and transient storage of such material in the course of such transmitting, routing or providing connections, if--

  `(2) it is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of such material by the service provider;

  `(5) the material is transmitted without modification to its content.

Forging packets would be considered modification to the content, and thus pierce the Common Carrier Status that the DMCA provides. Which means that Comcast may well have shot themselves in 'zee tootsies.

Re:Take their license away?

[dkleinsc]

If they do that, they can't truthfully advertise themselves as an "Internet Service Provider", which should put a nice big dent in their business and possibly throw a wrench into their monopoly deals in the markets where people can't easily switch to DSL or other broadband providers. Plus the portal thing isn't as profitable as it might look: Just ask AOL. The Internet tends to view attempts to filter content as damage and routes around it, as the old saying goes.

And I don't buy that your ISP completely controls the information you see. Even if we take as given that they can control the entirety of what's visible to you over the Internet, they don't control your local NPR station or your local paper, and they definitely don't control what your friends and neighbors can say to you. Take off your tinfoil hat.

Re:Take their license away?

[glindsey]

Then how about this: the phone company decides to disconnect your line because although they advertise that their customers can talk for an unlimited amount of time, they think you're just talking way too much, possibly about something they deem inappropriate. You can call right back and continue talking, but they'll keep periodically disconnecting you. When you complain about this to the phone company, they claim that they aren't stopping you from having your conversation; they're just slowing it down a lot in order to manage the number of phone calls on their lines.

Is that a bit more appropriate to you? It's still grossly unacceptable.

Re:Take their license away?

[gnasher719]

You're analogy is poor, because dropping packets when a network is busy is part of the standard. Also, you failed to capture the fact that the rest packets are forged. The finally problem with you analogy is that it didn't mention cars. You are looking at this at the wrong level. The individual packets are not the letters. The complete file transfer equals the letter. If a few packets are dropped, even if a few percent of all packets are deliberately dropped, then the protocol copes with it by resending the packets (that would be an analogy to the postman missing a few letters before he starts his round; they will be delivered on the next day). The single forged packed makes sure that the complete file transfer doesn't happen, which is the same as throwing the letter away.

Re:Take their license away?

[Drooling Iguana]

At night, the ice weasels come.

Re:Take their license away?

[funaho]

Man you need to lay off the 'shrooms. ;-)

Re:Take their license away?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

OK, lets move it from dear John letters to the IRS. But for the analogy to hold, it would have to be that the IRS throws away a percentage of all the submitted tax returns from certain states (but not favored states) and forces them to resubmit (which is what happens with the packets and lost connection). After resubmitting, there is again a probability that your submission will be thrown away. You are "just slowed down", not "stopped", because if you continue to submit, eventually the odds suggest you will get through. Right.

Re:Take their license away?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Two clowns sign up with Comcast. Both are brutually murdered.

How do you kill a clown? Give them a free Comcast account.

So this cannibal walks into a bar and sits beside these clowns. The cannibal wacks one clown on the head and they start eating him. Suddenly the second clown looks up and says, "Hey, do you taste something funny?"

Two hobo clowns were waiting at the bus stop along with a nun with her leg in a cast. The first hobo asked, "Sister, how did you break your leg?" The nun replied, "I slipped in the bathtub." The second hobo asked the first, "What's a bathtub?" The first hobo replied, "How should I know, I'm not Catholic!"

Re:Take their license away?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Unless the fines are severe enough to put them out of business. Whoever takes over would be unlikely to make the same mistake. Would suck to be a Comcast customer, sure, but like, hey...it *sucks* to be a cCmcast customer.

Re:Take their license away?

[MarcQuadra]

Wrong.

I'm a Cox customer, and they're using the same methods in my area. After several minutes on Gnutella (any client) or bittorrent (again, any client), my machines keep connected, but the -application- can't communicate -at all- with other hosts. I can close the app and reopen it and get a minute or so of P2P time, but then it's disconnected again.

What Comcast (and Cox) are doing is sniffing the packets (so you can't 'just use port 80', they actually sniff the traffic for P2P data packets),, and injecting packets to cause the machines to 'disconnect' from the P2P network without interfering with other services on the machine.

Now I would -totally- understand if they packet-shaped P2P to hell, I wouldn't mind if my P2P traffic was put on the bottom of the list so that everyone else could browse at top-speed, but that's NOT what they're doing.

I actually have a feeling that this is just a few people at Comcast who don't really understand how to admin a network correctly, and they're using blunt trauma instead of a scalpel because it suits their ego. I worked with an admin once who was at his happiest when he knew users were blocked from stuff, I imagine Comcast has a similar admin somewhere very high up in the chain.

Re:Take their license away?

[stretch0611]

If you are in a Pinto, and Comcast is in a Hummer, do the rest of the world a favor, cut him off in traffic and force him to rear end you. You will both die in the resulting explosion but everyone will sing praises of your sacrifice to take out one more evil (local) monopolist.

For the ever present "young people" on slashdot you can read about the pinto's reputation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

Re:Take their license away?

[nuzak]

I've posted about this before, but whenever we run a Bit Torrent client for the better half of a day, our route to the internet gets lost. Everything still says we're connected and says the status is fine, we just can't get anywhere until we power-cycle the cable modem.

This is quite likely not Comcast's fault. P2P clients open lots of connections, and this often overflows various tables in home routers and crashes them.

Re:Take their license away?

[TheoMurpse]

I believe you forgot

I just the other day got, a traffic was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the roads commercially.

Re:Take their license away?

[KDR_11k]

Also AOL still let you access the regular internet, the described scenario sounds more like no regular internet access at all (and they'd have to block that if they don't want to be the newest pinata of the RIAA).

Re:Take their license away?

[Detritus]

I've been seeing the same problem recently and it isn't a router problem. My router is a separate box and has no problems handling bittorrent traffic. I can reset the cable modem and get reconnected to the Internet if, and only if, I kill all bittorrent programs that are running on my computers. Even worse than forging RST packets, Comcast appears to be disconnecting cable modems when they detect bittorrent traffic.

Re:Take their license away?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Yes. Accept for saying "no". But the rest is not wrong. Well except for beginning by saying "no".

Re:Take their license away?

[MarcQuadra]

Whoops, didn't mean my first comment (starts with 'wrong') to you, meant it to another comment, but I'm not used to the new layout, so I guess I posted to you.

Re:Take their license away?

[nuzak]

I still think this is an equipment problem. Your cable modem doesn't have much in the way of configurability as a home AP/router box, but it still does route (they haven't been mere CSU/DSUs since they started being sold off the shelf), and still has the same sort of problems with lots of connections.

I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast was temporarily blacklisting cable modems that exceeded some kind of transient cap, but I still think the more plausible explanation is that your firmware is crap.

Verizon

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the check cleared.

Don't hold your breath

[RingDev]

While I am hopeful that the FCC does act, I have about 0 faith in Kevin Martin.

Kevin Martin was an aide to Bush/Cheney in the 2000 election, he worked the Florida recount, he was coat tailed in as an aide in the transition from Clinton, was appointed to an advisory position once Bush took office, his wife was given a job as one of Cheney's aides, and since late 2007 he has been under investigation by Congress for abuse of power, and working to reduce the effective power of the FCC.

-Rick

Re:Don't hold your breath

[Anonymous Coward]

Also fun, read into his actions concerning the telcos in the past 8 years as opposed to the cablecos.

Interesting contrast there.

Re:Don't hold your breath

[nitebriar]

This is an invalid point. The FCC can only regulate communications in relation to the laws. Currently there aren't any real laws that the FCC can use to put against Comcast in net neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_the_United_States). If there was a law and Kevin Martin violated it then you would have reason for concern. If you look most of the laws posed do not relate provide net neutrality to illegal content. A good amount of content over a Bittorent is illegal according to the DCMA, which Bill Clinton signed into law. This is the same law that has given more power to the RIAA which in return is putting pressure on Comcast to behave how it is. So before pointing fingers at any single person, a good understanding of all the factors involved is needed. Without the DCMA ever being passed this issue with Comcast may never have come up.

Re:Don't hold your breath

[jimrob]

While I am hopeful that the FCC does act, I have about 0 faith in Kevin Martin.

Kevin Martin was an aide to Bush/Cheney in the 2000 election, he worked the Florida recount, he was coat tailed in as an aide in the transition from Clinton, was appointed to an advisory position once Bush took office, his wife was given a job as one of Cheney's aides, and since late 2007 he has been under investigation by Congress for abuse of power, and working to reduce the effective power of the FCC.
So what you're saying is that you don't trust the guy because he works with a political team you apparently don't agree with, and the opposing party is investigating him because they don't like him either.

Re:Don't hold your breath

[RingDev]

It's called nepotism. He was awarded and maintained his position based on his personal relationship with the Bush family. The Bush administration has constantly come down in favor of deregulation and business interests. So it would come to no surprise for him to continue on the path that the Bush administration is dictating.

As for the opposition's investigation, it's slightly more than a "dislike". I would classify it as more of a well documented history of trying to subvert the will of the FCC's commissioners, abusing his powers in specific regulatory areas, and all but abandoning regulation in other areas. I'm very interested in hearing more on that investigation, but as of yet, there isn't a whole lot of public knowledge on it (so far as I know).

I mean, just look at the guy's regulatory record. The only thing he hates more than Cable franchises, is consumer protection. Hell, even the Republicans are wondering what the hell this guy is doing.

-Rick

And now the screaming and yelling starts

[pitchpipe]

... because the telecomm lobbyist have mucho congresscritters in their pockets.

It definitely seems that the volume of calls from **elected officials** for the restructuring of the FCC is directly proportional to the FCC's attempts to reign in non-neutral networking practices.

Comcast is safe...

[OglinTatas]

As long as they don't flash a nipple on TV, the FCC won't do anything. It's like Ed Meese or John Ashcroft work there.

Penalty phase

[edwardpickman]

Excerpt from ruling......

Bad Comcast, Bad Comcast, Bad.

We're sorry we had to be so harsh.

Re:Penalty phase

[Zak3056]

Bad Comcast, Bad Comcast, Bad.

If you think the FCC will go that easy on Comcast, you're mistaken. It will be "Bad Comcast! Bad Comcast! Bad!" The exclamation points are critical. :)

Anyone remember Michael Powell?

[gelfling]

The prior FCC's head. He said once, to the news, and I quote "I literally have no idea what the public interest is." unquote.

That pretty much sums up the FCC. So don't hold your breath, the FCC is there to mouth words that the the religious right wants to hear and to support the oligopolies that keep American telcom mired 10-15 years in the past.

Re:Anyone remember Michael Powell?

[langelgjm]

Well, since Kevin Martin has said "The public interest is not what any company wants," maybe FCC heads are getting progressively closer to the truth :-)

Maybe the next chairman of the FCC can learn from these two, and say something just as eloquent, like "The public interest is what the public wants... but I don't know what the public wants."

A Comcast customer

[betamaxV2.1]

I am a comcast customer (fortunately or unfortunately, take your pick). On the island where I live they are the only broadband internet provider. I haven't had any problems with speed or connectivity when using torrents and I will admit that while I do leave several legal torrents open at night and on the weekends there are those that are not so legal from time to time. I routinely can grab a CD's worth of data in an hour or two without any problems. Last night before going to bed I queued up over 4 GB worth of downloads and they were all finished by the time I got up 6 hours later.

I haven't experienced any of this slow down or even ask other comments have suggested the "end packets" or whatever that mess up my downloads. Perhaps it happens to be the fact that I live in a smaller metropolitan area that the rest of the /.'ers?

But in any case, what should I look for to see if it is happening to me? I admit I haven't had much interest in digging deeper since it doesn't seem to be happening for me, but would like to delve deeper if the signs of traffic shaping are more subtle.

Re:A Comcast customer

[Anonymous Coward]

My BT transfers usually top out at around 200k. My regular speed is 800-900k. Its strange, a week or so ago I was getting a good 800k on BT, and now its back to the slower speed.

Before this filtering, I would get whatever my max speed is on large torrents, which are usually the type I get. 1000+ seeds and such.

Re:A Comcast customer

[dwillden]

Look at your upload speeds during and after the D/l has finished. If you have any desire to not be a leech, you should be trying to maintain at least a 1:1 ul/dl ratio. Comcast lets the dl go fine and allows normal uploading while you are actively dl'ing your file, but as soon as your machine finished dl'ing the file the forged resets start going out to both your machine and any machines trying to dl packets from you thus breaking the connection and prventing you from effectively seeding. This makes it very difficult to upload sufficiently to maintain a proper ratio.

Many torrent sites require a balanced ratio or close to it to be able to participate on their trackers, Comcast makes it difficult (though not impossible) to maintain such a ratio.

Re:A Comcast customer

[budgenator]

My ability to down/up-load torrents has increased quite a bit since a little while before the FCC hearings, I also find that using Miro or Vuse runs better than using Pirate Bay as a tracker does. Comcast is much more careful to only sabotage bittorrent transfers during peak hours rather than around the clock like they did before. My last big one was 9.8 GB and it took 2 weeks off and on.

Re:A Comcast customer

[Mister Whirly]

More than likely Comcast didn't oversell in your area, so there is tons of bandwidth for few customers. They only tend to get pissy when a small percentage of their customers are using an inordinate amount of bandwidth. You probably haven't hit that limit yet. Either that or they are getting scared of the FCC already.

Re:A Comcast customer

[jc42]

I haven't experienced any of this slow down or even ask other comments have suggested the "end packets" or whatever that mess up my downloads. Perhaps it happens to be the fact that I live in a smaller metropolitan area that the rest of the /.'ers?

Perhaps. But more likely it's just that you're not living in one of their test areas. You see, they knew quite well that their packet-forging "traffic management" technique would be controversial, and probably illegal. Before they extend it to the rest of the network, they first need to determine what sort of fines the FCC will impose. If the fines are low enough to qualify as a "business expense", you can expect their new, improved traffic management techniques to be introduced to your area some time in the next year. You'll be billed a minor surcharge for pleasure of this improved service.

We can also trust that the other ISPs are watching carefully to determine whether they should be introducing similar traffic management tools.

This is what will happen...

[freedom_india]

FCC will issue a written warning to comcast to stop such practices, slap a $500 fine and close the file.
Comcast will continue to stop Bit Torrent until it can find a way to make money off it.
FCC's Martin will resign in Jan 2009 and join Comcast.

Impersonating me

[paulproteus]

The way Comcast's system works is, when Alice communicates with Bob, sending forged packets that impersonate Alice saying, "Bob, never mind - cancel the connection."

If I'm Alice, the Comcast customer, I would find it fraudulent to see a company sending forged packages as me. Why should it be hard to punish Comcast for impersonating me and disrupting my communication with someone else?

If Comcast is allowed to send forged IP messages, are they also allowed to forge emails from me that disrupt my communication with those people?

Re:Impersonating me

[Anonymous Coward]

As loose as the courts view "hacking", I would think Comcast actions would be criminal. As you pointed out, they are impersonating others online.

This is no different than Sprint intercepting phone calls to my mother and impersonating me with misleading information like "I don't want to talk to you anymore."

Re:Impersonating me

[girasquid]

You mean you actually /do/ want to talk to her?

Re:Impersonating me

[filekutter]

I may be redundant or incorrect here, but isn't the interception and reconfiguring of packets by another "entity" illegal? Hasn't this been one of the methods used by Federal agencies to prosecute those involved in system intrusion? I seem to remember the EFF attempting to use this in court filings to attempt to stop Comcast's practices but could be mistaken.

Re:Impersonating me

[Mister Whirly]

Yes. Technically what they are doing is a "man in the middle" attack. Even more they are looking inside the packets to decide what to do to them. That is a big no-no. If they want to start inspecting packets, they had better be ready to accept all responsibilities for what is inside them. Otherwise stay net neutral and don't look.

Re:Impersonating me

[filekutter]

Exactly what I thought. I understand that the software they're using does examine the packets searching for bytes unique to P2P applications (all of them as I understand), and when one is found the IP is extracted and a reset request sent to the destination computer forcing a new handshake/ack. Far as I know this IS illegal, and IS an invasion of privacy. Also, since its most probably being done to packets that cross national boundaries I'd dare to assume its a more than just a federal matter.

Local Monopolies

[iknownuttin]

Well, in an ideal world, they'd end up with no customers.

Yes! But, unfortunately, their lobbyists got the politicians to give them local monopolies. So, therefore, they won't lose customers unless their customers are willing to do without.

Re:Local Monopolies

[Alexandra Erenhart]

That I don't understand. I live in a country where connections are slow, and the quality isn't the best, but at least we can choose between 2-4 ISPs depending where you live. I would only assume that in a big country like the US, it should only be better, but seems like you guys/gals are stuck with what your zone's ISP is. That kind of monopoly should be fought just like any other, why is still that way?

Re:Local Monopolies

[Grimbleton]

Comcast can pay officials way more than we can. "We" being people who can tell the difference, and care.

Re:Local Monopolies

[utopianfiat]

Well, you have to understand the kind of civil religion that came about in the US during and after the Soviet Union- a lot of people in the states see the free market as the Holy Ghost, Milton Friedman as Jesus Christ, and Ayn Rand as the One True God.
And if you contradict that with "socialist ideas" (including but not limited to Keynesian economics, trustbusting, welfare, and civil projects), prepare to be derided as one who will "tax the country into poverty".
I'm not kidding.

Re:Local Monopolies

[tattood]

It isn't really a monopoly. Yes, they have the right to be the cable provider for a particular area, but that is not a monopoly for Internet and television service.

You don't like Comcast cable Internet? Switch to DSL or wireless(if it's available).
You don't like Comcast cable television? Switch to Satellite.

I do believe, however, that Cable companies should not be able to be the exclusive provider for cable access for any area.

Re:Local Monopolies

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Free Market => Holy Ghost yep

but, I'd suggest:
Ayn Rand was Jesus, and Milton Friedman is Peter, upon whom The Church was built at the University of Chicago School of Economics.

Re:Local Monopolies

[Chris Mattern]

Ah, so a government-created monopoly is an example of evils of the free market, not an example of problems with socialism. I see.

Re:Local Monopolies

[Danse]

It isn't really a monopoly. Yes, they have the right to be the cable provider for a particular area, but that is not a monopoly for Internet and television service.

You don't like Comcast cable Internet? Switch to DSL or wireless(if it's available).
You don't like Comcast cable television? Switch to Satellite.

I do believe, however, that Cable companies should not be able to be the exclusive provider for cable access for any area. You speak as if those things are equivalent. They're not. There's big differences in service levels and capabilities depending on where you live and what you use the service for. If there's only one cable company allowed to serve an area, then that is a government-sanctioned monopoly, by definition. By your definition, since I could use IP over Carrier Pigeon, the local cable company doesn't have a monopoly.

Re:Local Monopolies

[ccarson]

I'd make a comment here but I'm afraid Comcast is watching me. *Adjusts tin foil hat* Seriously though, they're always watching me.

Re:Local Monopolies

[Bagheera]

Yes! But, unfortunately, their lobbyists got the politicians to give them local monopolies. So, therefore, they won't lose customers unless their customers are willing to do without.

Even when there's only one Cable system in town, there are usually alternatives for broadband. Not many, and often not as cost effective, but they are there. DSL is available in most areas, and Satellite is an option even in areas where there's not Cable OR DSL service. If you really want to have first rate service, and can afford it, full T1's are down under $300/mo in some places. Sure it's 5 times the price of Cable broadband, but you're dealing with a whole world's different class of service.

Personally, I'd love to see the FCC smack Comcast silly for this crap. Cable ISPs and Telco's like to claim Common Carrier protections for a world of things. But they want to be able to filter content and manipulate traffic too, and the FCC needs to put it's Governmental boot down and say "No! You can filter, or you can be common carrier. Not both!"

Wishful thinking, I know.

Re:Local Monopolies

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast is not and never has been a common carrier and has never claimed to be.

Re:Local Monopolies

[illumin8]

... a lot of people in the states see the free market as the Holy Ghost ...

I agree with your comment 100%, but I would like to note that these companies like Comcast operate in anything but a free market. Free market != government sanctioned monopoly. I'd be fine with an Ayn Rand, objectivist, libertarian free market if the market really was free and had low barriers to entry. What we have in the US is closer to fascism (the merger of corporate and government power) than libertarianism.

Re:Local Monopolies

[mikael]

If you rent an apartment and don't have a South facing balcony or window, then you don't have the option to switch to satellite. Although, you do have the option of cancelling the higher rate cable subscriptions, if there are any. If you do have a south facing balcony, then you can purchase a Portable Satellite Dish" and set that up. One of my neighbours had fitted a full blown satellite dish onto an old halogen lamp stand. In my university, someone actually bolted a 1 metre satellite dish on to the wheel base of a old office chair.

Re:Local Monopolies

[darkpixel2k]

You speak as if those things are equivalent. They're not.

Cry me a river, hippie.

Comcast in my area is the fastest service, with next to no downtime. Their network is rock solid.
Satellite sucks, has the normal latency issues, costs a metric assload, and it totally inferior.
DSL is about the same price as Comcast, but you only get 5 down instead of 8, and 768 up instead of 1. ...and the actual numbers are great. I usually get around 15 down and 2 up from Comcast.

So this being a free market, I could switch to Satellite if Comcast pissed me off. But their customer service has always fixed their mistakes by offering me a free or discounted service.

And hey--if you want to start an ISP in my neighborhood, you are free to do so. Lease pole space from the PUD and string cable. Or you can put up antennas and provide WIFI. Hell, we have a provider here that provides fiber service to a huge chunk of the city at (what I think) are decent rates. 10/Mb for $280/mo and 100 Mb for $680. Their prices are apparently even less if you are just networking two offices with no need for internet service.

By your definition, since I could use IP over Carrier Pigeon, the local cable company doesn't have a monopoly.

Quit bitching, if Comcast decided to pull out of your town, there'd be no internet access.
There's no law that says someone MUST provide you with internet access and that it MUST be at a certain service level.

Grow up. The adults in this world have to pay MONEY for SERVICES. And the better the service, the more money.
If you think you can do better than Comcast, write up a business plan, show how you can provide better service than Comcast for an equal or better price...AND make money. Then submit that plan to investors...and then you can sit there and listen to whiny little hippies complain that you are not providing them with fast enough service or that QoSing torrents is wrong. Well..you'd be in the same boat as Comcast. It's their fucking network. They can do what they want with it. And if people like the FCC force them to stop limiting torrents, they will need to expand the capacity of their network. ...and where will they get the money. I'm guessing they'll either raise their rates or lay off workers.

Re:Local Monopolies

[Mr2001]

You can't entirely blame the government for cable/telco monopolies.

How low can the barrier of entry really get, when anyone who wants to start up a new cable company is going to have to wire up every house in the area? And how many different sets of wires do you really want running along those poles, anyway?

Maybe these problems can be solved with modern technology, but historically, at least, it made some sense for these companies to have monopolies.

Re:Local Monopolies

[Mr2001]

I'd be fine with an Ayn Rand, objectivist, libertarian free market if the market really was free and had low barriers to entry. This market wouldn't have low barriers to entry even without the regulations.

Cable TV/internet isn't a product that people can come to you to buy. If you want to sell cable, you have to run wires all the way across the city or county to every one of your customers' homes. That means you either spend $millions up front before you get any customers, or make your new customers wait for days or weeks before they can use the service they're paying for.

Re:Local Monopolies

[Danse]

Cry me a river, hippie. You're the one supporting government-sanctioned monopolies. So I'm the hippie and you're the commie? These networks were subsidized and protected from competition by the government. To say that those companies built those networks themselves is bullshit. They wouldn't have jack shit if the government hadn't granted them monopolies. Take your trolling elsewhere pinko.

Re:Local Monopolies

[Mr2001]

DSL is available in most areas, and Satellite is an option even in areas where there's not Cable OR DSL service. If you really want to have first rate service, and can afford it, full T1's are down under $300/mo in some places. DSL and wireless are the only alternatives that can really compete with cable, but they both suffer from limited coverage areas.

The laws of physics make satellite unusable for anyone who does anything real time: chat, gaming, VPN, VoIP. A T1 is much more expensive than cable and also much slower for downloading: 1.5 Mbps is nothing compared to the reliable 6 Mbps you can get over cable (with bursts up to 12 Mbps). Someone who does enough torrenting to worry about Comcast's interference is probably going to be unhappy capping his downloads at 180 KB/sec.

Re:Local Monopolies

[darkpixel2k]

So I'm the hippie and you're the commie?

I think one of us misunderstands communism.
To reduce it down to a few sentences, you own nothing. Anything you invent, create, make or do belongs to the 'everyone', and by 'everyone' I mean the government. Working harder doesn't get you anything. Working harder benefits everyone else, including those that do nothing. (Like my neighbor who sits at home all day and drinks beer in his bathrobe while collecting welfare)

In no way does having a business and a product which you sell to make more money and develop new products fit in to the communist way of life.

Now I won't argue that the government gave/gives telcos a huge tax-break for services they never provided--but hey, that's not the free market.

They wouldn't have jack shit if the government hadn't granted them monopolies. Take your trolling elsewhere pinko.

So what exactly did the government give Comcast? I'm not trying to troll here, but this town had NO cable network until Adelphia came in. Then they started providing cable internet. Then Comcast bought them out.

Now initially I'm guessing they (adelphia) made a deal with the city that probably got them a tax break for investing hundreds of thousands of dollars into the city. But there's nothing wrong with that if the citizens voted for it. I'm sure the citizens would want to sweeten the deal for Adelphia to get them to put in the network in the first place, rather than be stuck with Satellite or dialup.

If on the other hand the city granted Adelphia a monopoly, I would disagree with that. Just like with the telcos.

Re:Local Monopolies

[Talinom]

prepare to be derided as one who will "tax the country into poverty".

I'll be willing to listen to your reasoning as soon as you can find one country who has taxed themselves into prosperity.

Re:Local Monopolies

[theonlyaether]

Well, in the case of the small independent ISP I used to work for a few years back, in the beginning things were fine. We could resell DSL lines via Verizon at the same cost as anyone else, allowing us to compete based on services and whatnot. Then Verizon brought in their own ISP devision, and brought all the small ISPs to their knees. How they did this was rather simple, rather how it was explained to me when I asked the higher-ups was simple. Verizon the ISP was not the same as Verizon the Phone provider, in that the phone provider was still leasing their lines to the ISP to conform with the anti-monopoly laws. Verizon the ISP had one core advantage, however, in that Verizon the phone company offered bulk rates on DSL lines, so Verizon the ISP got a huge discount because they had the capital to just buy all the DSL lines for all their customers over vast areas.

There are some areas that had/have regional providers that could still compete, and still do. The smaller ISPs however got swallowed whole, and while I don't live in that state anymore, I understand that the few that did survive did so by forming highly competent web development teams and have moved over to more of a web host/email provider with a local office that gives locals a much more personal feel. Anyway this is all ancient history, and with fiber getting dropped in everywhere by the cable companies things changed again, and many DSL people flocked to the cable company. Interestingly, it was a regional cable provider until the fiber thing started, at which time Time Warner jumped in and bought everything.

Anyway this was just one small example in a small area, but I'm sure if you change the company names you'll find very similar stories just about everywhere in the US. I personally always look for a smaller regional provider when I move somewhere, and do what I can to support them, but that's just not always possible from a price perspective.

Re:Local Monopolies

[OhPlz]

The citizens do not get to vote. Right now, Verizon is pulling out of northern New England (NH, VT, ME). The public, by a very large majority, is against this move. Why? Everyone wants FiOS. Why do we want FiOS? Because it will compete with the monopoly cable TV company for both cable TV customers and Internet customers.

It will greatly raise the bar in terms of bandwidth. Without FiOS, there is no competition and there is no reason for the monopoly cable company to raise data rates or come up with lower priced options. They can bend us over and we either take it, or go without.

Sure, there's satellite. I'm a customer of theirs. It's fine if you own a home or an apartment where you can place a dish (despite the FCC, it's not always possible). You don't get any on-demand services and you don't get municipal channels. It's close, but not quite the same thing.

Then there's DSL. Yep, I have that too. It's god awful slow. Why? Because there are a lot of satellite customers like me that don't well to shell out the big bucks to get unbundled Internet from the cable company. It's only affordable in a package deal. So the DSL providers know they don't have to raise their bandwidth offerings, we're hostages.

But back to the point, why don't the people get to vote? Like I said, Verizon is pulling out. We're all against it. Hordes of people went to every public PUC meeting and put down this idea. Hordes wrote the papers, wrote the PUC, wrote their government officials. What came of it? The PUC approved the deal in all three states. Democracy indeed.

Re:Local Monopolies

[darkpixel2k]

But back to the point, why don't the people get to vote? Like I said, Verizon is pulling out. We're all against it.

Wow...are you actually telling me that you are pissed that you can't vote and FORCE Verizon to provide service in an area?

What the fuck? This is America, not Russia, Cuba, or Venezuela. You can't vote and force someone to do something like that. If you voted and the government stepped in and said "Verizon, you must provide service out there", do you really think you could force the employees to be helpful when you call--or be as responsive when there's an outage? Who would want to work when they are being FORCED? You can't make someone work unless they are a slave. (That's also the problem with Welfare. When you are being handed a check and you can't be forced to work, you are a drain on the system).

Re:Local Monopolies

[jwo7777777]

They're watching me too ... and I'm not even a customer ... yet ...

Demolition Man effect:
"...now all restaurants are Taco Bell."

State sanctioned monopoly corollary:
"...now all ISPs are Comcast."

Re:Local Monopolies

[jwo7777777]

What we have now, though, is the mindset that state-allowed monopolies exist for the benefit of the owners or shareholders rather than the people they are supposed to serve.

Re:Local Monopolies

[AIkill]

Someone please mod parent down with flamebait or troll.

Grow up. The adults in this world have to pay MONEY for SERVICES. And the better the service, the more money.
This is the kind of bull the corporations feed you. The amount of money you pay DOES NOT equal the quality of service or product. Its not the quality of the product that sets the price, its how much it costs to make (or perform) + some percent over that cost in order to generate profit. The thing is about Comcast is that they do not operate to serve their customers, they operate to generate a profit. Fact is, though, is that if another group tried to make an ISP like Comcast, they COULD operate it at a cheaper price. The only reason Comcast charges as much as they do is because they want to increase their profit. As for your earlier statements about Comcast and the free market, it should be noted that this is NOT a free market, just like how the US is NOT a democracy. In a truely free market, anyone could start a cable company to challenge Comcast, and they would only have to run the wires and provide the service. These days, you have to go through hoops of fire in order to start any kind of communications company, not to mention that Comcast will most likely try to acquire you (whether thru merger or gov sanctions). And finally, it may be Comcast's network, but that does not mean that they can screw over their customers in that way. In cases such as these, it is up to the carrier (or at least it should be) to notify you of planned changes to service. If they are going to stop your service for one reason or another, they should notify you. If they are going to start to block some types of transmissions, they should tell you. It sounds to me like you are siding with them just because of what they have said. O, and as an FYI, Comcast didn't limit torrents because of capacity problems with their current customers, they did it so that they could try to free up capacity so that they can sell it to new customers.

Re:Local Monopolies

[OhPlz]

Wow...are you actually telling me that you are pissed that you can't vote and FORCE Verizon to provide service in an area?

I should have addressed that, I just didn't want to ramble on and lose everyone. If Verizon wants out, yes, there's nothing really we can do about it. What I'm against is Verizon picking Fairpoint with no input from the people that are their potential and current customers. Fairpoint is a tiny company that has zero interest in providing next-generation services. Their only pitch is that they'll service rural areas with DSL. That offers nothing to the majority of the population that lives in urban areas.

This should have been put out to bid. Let other companies make offers to these states. Let them compete for the privilege of providing us with next-generation services. Heck, I'd like to see the defacto teleco monopoly go away, but that's not likely to happen. At the very least, the public had a right to choose the best company to take over our phone system. We shouldn't be forced to take on the worst by Verizon.

Re:Local Monopolies

[darkpixel2k]

This is the kind of bull the corporations feed you. The amount of money you pay DOES NOT equal the quality of service or product. Its not the quality of the product that sets the price, its how much it costs to make (or perform) + some percent over that cost in order to generate profit.

You make that sound so evil. Who do you work for? Would you rather have your company work to try and make a profit or would you rather have your company lose money?

Granted, paying more doesn't always equal a better product. I could go buy a POS Dell for $500 and have non-stop trouble. Instead I went to newegg.com and bought all the parts for $400 and built it myself.

The only reason Comcast charges as much as they do is because they want to increase their profit.

You know--I think you have a great idea. I'm going to start a company, but my goal is going to be to earn as little as possible. That'll attract investors, and employees.

it should be noted that this is NOT a free market, just like how the US is NOT a democracy.

You're right. The government keeps trying to regulate stuff and it is a problem. And you're right about us not being a democracy. We're a republic. It's so we aren't usually governed by knee-jerk reactions of the citizens.

These days, you have to go through hoops of fire in order to start any kind of communications company, not to mention that Comcast will most likely try to acquire you (whether thru merger or gov sanctions).

The hoops of fire are there because of the freakin' FCC who should all be dragged out of their offices and be forced to get 'real' jobs. Comcast acquiring you is simply a business decision. Do you want Comcast to acquire your business or not? If it's a privately held business and you say "no", Comcast can go suck it.

In cases such as these, it is up to the carrier (or at least it should be) to notify you of planned changes to service. If they are going to stop your service for one reason or another, they should notify you.

Comcast did notify me of outages. When I signed up I was told that Comcast has a maintenance window from 0100 to 0300 every morning, but that most of the time they don't use that maintenance window. Smokeping has been running on one of my computers for the last 8 months. I had two outages, both at night during the maintenance window for a total of maybe 20 minutes. Now if I don't pay my bill, they do notify me about stopping my service. It's called a past-due notice. Or are you talking about service interruptions like the maintenance window?

If they are going to start to block some types of transmissions, they should tell you. It sounds to me like you are siding with them just because of what they have said. O, and as an FYI, Comcast didn't limit torrents because of capacity problems with their current customers, they did it so that they could try to free up capacity so that they can sell it to new customers.

It's their network, they can do what they want with it as long as it doesn't violate the agreement I signed. Now even though I despise the FCC, Comcast still has to follow their rules unfortunately and part of that is probably the common carrier agreement (of which I know very little about), so they probably can't just block services--just like Qwest can't suddenly block AT&T calls. Of course Qwest or AT&T can disconnect or block someone who is degrading the network for others--but I would imagine this is very infrequent.

Now I don't know if Comcast is blocking torrents because they want to resell that capacity to other customers--and I doubt you know either. That sounds like an overhyped conspiracy theory. Do you have any sources for that? If they are blocking torrent traffic because they want that capacity to go to new customers, that sucks. But it's their business. (Unless it is affected by the common carrier status)

Someone please mod parent down with flamebait or

Re:Local Monopolies

[darkpixel2k]

What I'm against is Verizon picking Fairpoint with no input from the people that are their potential and current customers.

That sucks. I'm not familiar with the situation, but if Verizon wants to (subcontract?) with a company to provide service to a certain area, I think that's their right.

It's not my business to tell others run their business, and it's especially not the government's place to tell businesses how they must run.
To quote the grate Andrew Wilkow: "Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you."

Re:Local Monopolies

[OhPlz]

Yea, but they're not contracting. They're pulling out and they've agreed to sell their assets, employees, and service area to Fairpoint. To me, the assets and employees are theirs to transfer, the right to service these states is not. Of course the PUC approved it, so now we're screwed. I guess the beef is more with the PUC than with Verizon, but both had a hand in this Fairpoint mess.

To say there aren't monopolies.. I just think it's silly. There is very slight competition, and it's not apples to apples. It's certainly not the way it should be.

Re:Local Monopolies

[darkpixel2k]

Yea, but they're not contracting. They're pulling out and they've agreed to sell their assets, employees, and service area to Fairpoint. To me, the assets and employees are theirs to transfer, the right to service these states is not. Of course the PUC approved it, so now we're screwed. I guess the beef is more with the PUC than with Verizon, but both had a hand in this Fairpoint mess.

Oh--I see what you're saying. Verizon had an exclusive contract to your area and sold (along with assets, and employees) to another company.

The problem isn't that Verizon sold assets, employees, and existing contracts to another company. It's that the city/town/whatever appointed the contract in the first place. Now if the citizens voted for it, tough shit--but if the city just randomly appointed it, that's a grey area. Does the city have a legal right to do that? Did the citizens vote to give the city that right?

To say there aren't monopolies.. I just think it's silly. There is very slight competition, and it's not apples to apples. It's certainly not the way it should be.

Just because there is a lack of competition doesn't mean they are monopolies (in the anti-trust form of the word). There may be no competition simply because they provided better service and beat everyone else out. There may be no competition because no one wants to setup an ISP in the area.

I used to work for an ISP that kicked serious butt. They treated their customer well (Had a bowling party/kegger and invited all 8,000 subscribers) and they knew their stuff. They beat out all three other ISPs in the area, and now it's only them and the local telco.

One competitor started an ISP by buying the largest office space they could find, purchased hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of routers, servers, switches, phone service, etc...they brought on board well-trained staff and paid them very well...all before they had a single customer signed up. They went bankrupt after a year. They sold their customer list of 1,000 customers to us to help pay off their debts. And the worst part was that the customer list was almost entirely our 'bad' customer list. People who lived 30 billion miles from a telco switch whose phone service was so poor you could barely hear them over the crackling on the line--and they would bitch and threaten our support staff because their modem didn't work and it was our fault.

One other competitor was a one-man or two-man operation. He got busted for dealing drugs, and all his POPs revolted and shut off his equipment because he failed to pay bills.

So...are they a monopoly? Yes in the sense that they are pretty much the only option (except for Qwest). And no in the sense that they are not engaged in deceitful business practices to stop the competition.

Re:Local Monopolies

[utopianfiat]

Taxes pay for public transit.
Public transit allows people with less money to travel to places where jobs may be higher-paying, or more available, thus increasing effective employment.
Taxes, prosperity.

Setup

[iknownuttin]

I haven't had any problems with speed or connectivity when using torrents and I will admit that while I do leave several legal torrents open at night and on the weekends there are those that are not so legal from time to time. ..

I haven't experienced any of this slow down or even ask other comments have suggested the "end packets" or whatever that mess up my downloads.

Duduuuude! The FBI is setting you up! Get out!!! Now!

Pull "common carrier" status

[AJWM]

But even if the FCC decides that Comcast has violated Net neutrality principles, it's unclear what the agency can actually do to Comcast

If Comcast is messing with the content going over their cables, then they should no longer be allowed common carrier immunity for that content. This makes them liable for every bit of pirated media, kiddy porn, libel and spam sent over those cables.

A few lawsuits ought to wake them up, I'm sure Comcast has pockets deep enough to attract a few contingency lawyers.

Re:Pull "common carrier" status

[techpawn]

then they should no longer be allowed common carrier immunity for that content.

I didn't think cable companies had common carrier

Re:Pull "common carrier" status

[Anonymous Coward]

parent is correct. mod up.

Re:Pull "common carrier" status

[AKAImBatman]

I didn't think cable companies had common carrier

As a cable provider, they don't. As an internet and phone provider, they do.

It's all about control. Cable companies have control over their content and thus can be held liable for their content. Internet and phone providers, however, do NOT have control over the data that passes over their wires. Thus they cannot be reasonably expected to be held accountable for that data. Unless they demonstrate that they are actively attempting to control the content. Then the legal veil is pierced and the common carrier status is lost.

Re:Pull "common carrier" status

[nurb432]

The status is lost if they actively filer and it goes to court, and they lose, unless they happen to get immunity from the feds first.. "for our protection"

Re:Pull "common carrier" status

[Richard_at_work]

From my understanding of the common carrier laws, only their phone service qualifies - ISPs have never had common carrier status.

Re:Pull "common carrier" status

[AKAImBatman]

You again? You really are batting a million today, aren't you? Go read section 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and then come back and tell me that again. Here, I'll even be nice and link to it for you:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512

Re:Pull "common carrier" status

[compro01]

IIRC, that's the "safe harbour" provisions. similar concept to common carrier, but not the same thing.

Re:Pull "common carrier" status

[AKAImBatman]

No, that would be section 512(c) of the DMCA which provides indemnification (so called "safe harbor" protection) for ISPs that are hosting user content. 512(c) is what protects web hosting providers and service providers like YouTube against copyright infringement claims.

That's different from 512(a), which establishes common carrier status for Internet Service Providers.

What about a fine?

[evil agent]

Can the FCC fine Comcast? I look forward to them passing down the losses to me. :(

The Remedy

[Nom du Keyboard]

The remedy against Comcast for this is to say that because you're not getting the service you paid for, that the price you've paid needs to be reduced to the level of the service you're actually receiving.

I'd say that a 70% reduction in broadband rates -- retroactive -- is very much within the ballpark for this.

New Speak

[Nom du Keyboard]

Comcast has argued that it doesn't block P2P traffic. Instead, it says it simply slows down packets so that it can better manage its network.

That's like the phone company saying that you talk too much, and in order to slow down your talking they will suddenly and without warning hang up both telephones on the two ends of the conversation for you. Since you have a Redial button, this should only be a minor inconvenience for you at most.

Re:New Speak

[u-235-sentinel]

That's like the phone company saying that you talk too much, and in order to slow down your talking they will suddenly and without warning hang up both telephones on the two ends of the conversation for you. Since you have a Redial button, this should only be a minor inconvenience for you at most.

that is unless Concast terminated your account. Then you are without service for 12 months.

Yeah I thought it was a joke until January 19, 2007

then I learned how sick this company really is.

Another reason I submitted to youtube and vuze.com my testimony about Concast and why this is a problem and needs to be resolved.

Otherwise you will hear about more people like me being terminated. The video services on the internet aren't getting smaller. They are consuming more bandwidth today than ever before.

It's already happened to several people on my street. I guess the termination rate is higher than the .001% they 'claim' it is.

What? Concast lie? that would never happen right ;-)

Wait....

[crhylove]

The FCC is actually going to do something by, for, or of the people? I think every rational constitutionalist in the country just had a collective heart attack. Aren't these the same guys that effectively gave every radio station and television network to these five corporations:

AOL/Time Warner
Viacom
News Corp
Bertellsman
Disney

?

I'll believe it when I see it. Until then I have my rifle loaded and my FM transmitter on high.

Re:Wait....

[Shakrai]

Until then I have my rifle loaded and my FM transmitter on high.

Good. That'll make it easier for us to take you out with this bad boy ;)

Move along citizen, nothing to see here....

Re:Wait....

[crhylove]

Wow, by the looks of it, that would blow my whole suburb apart, and how does that not accidentally hit the nearest wifi hotspot instead?

managed networks

[not_anne]

Any ISP that says they do not manage their network is lying.

Any ISP that does not filter out spam, viruses, and trojans is doing a disservice to their customers.

I agree that communication from ISPs and their customers could be better about their policies, but the real issue is that a tiny fraction of cable customers use a majority of bandwidth. These customers need to be delt with, and the rest need to be left alone.

maybe get local govts involved?

[Sloppy]

Comcast's business model largely depends on making deals with local governments to get a monopoly. Deliberately making their service unreliable, could be viewed as some sort of acting-in-bad-faith breach of contract.

Guess the FCC will get the $1,000,000 rate hike

[heroine]

Guess Comca$t will just put the FCC on the $1,000,000 cable plan.

Re:Guess the FCC will get the $1,000,000 rate hike

[hakr89]

You should see what they charge for wiretaps.

Re:Guess the FCC will get the $1,000,000 rate hike

[shentino]

Maybe that's why the FBI's wiretaps got cancelled

Well..

[pak9rabid]

Unfortunately, I'm sure it's nothing that a big canvas bag with a money sign on it can't fix.

Dissolving the company and selling their

[crovira]

assets to somebody else would take care of that problem.

There would be NO ComCast bills passing on the cost because there would be NO MORE ComCast.

It is perfectly ethical to TERMINATE ComCast when they do something illegal.
(They're NOT a living being. You can't kill them. But you can dissolve them.)

Imagine how delighted one of their current competitors would be at picking up their assets and their customers at fire sale prices.

Re:Dissolving the company and selling their

[afidel]

Better would be to auction off a bunch of spectrum and block all current last mile providers from participating and banning them from acquiring the company that wins the auction. Imagine having a fully independent third provider for last mile service, I do and my bill is significantly lower because of it (in my case it's an overlay cable provider but a national player would be nice). Simply selling their assets to a current "competitor" does nothing to help the consumer/citizen, it only fattens the wallet of the acquiring company.

Re:Dissolving the company and selling their

[crovira]

As much as I would love the alternative you suggest, I'll settle for vengeance from the dissolution of ComCast and sale of their assets.

Yes it fattens the wallets of the acquirerer, but at least its not at our expense.

Uh...

[Aegis Runestone]

I hope this doesn't affect my net storage there. :/ I've stored a lot of my stuff on my account and I hope it doesn't get deleted.

Go After Individual Management Executives

[monxrtr]

You threaten the CEO, the CFO, the CIO, et al, with charges of fraud under Sarbanes-Oxley. See WorldCom. See Enron. Back up the truck with all the motions and charges copies + pasted to Comcast executives. If the FCC cannot handle this itself, then forward on to the Department of Justice. Also notify the GAO, Congressional Committees and Subcomittees that the FCC is incapable of performing their duties, and recommend dissolving of the FCC and/or firing of the members of the FCC. The FCC can get a written statement signed by the CEO that Comcast will not in the future discriminate against arbitrary file types or traffic and settle now for a paltry $1 million fine, without admitting or denying guilt. If Comcast refuse, onward to swearing in the executives under oath, and investigating them the same way Major League Baseball steroids were just investigated.

This currently need not to be any more than a warning shot across the bow of the Comcast, as long as in exchange you put into the record the intent of Comcast not to discriminate against traffic and file types in the future, such as fake packets terminating P2P connections. If they refuse, gather testimony from businesses who have data which may be effected by Comcast abuse, such as from Vonage.

This would be a win for the FCC, making them look good (and let's face it, they desperately need some good PR), a win for consumers, and a win for businesses which compete against Comcast. A 3-2 vote to draft the settlement letter is of sufficient political expedience.

Laws are not needed.

[RingDev]

The FCC can issue regulations with out the existence of precise laws to back them up. For instance, there is no law (at least not that I am aware of) that specifically states that the words shit, fuck, cunt, tits, motherfucker, and cocksucker are barred from use in public broadcast, yet the FCC can yank your license for saying them. Yet pussy, twat, turd tapper, asshole, etc... are acceptable.

If Comcast is a common carrier, it is by definition serving the general public under the license and limitations of the FCC. The FCC can regulate them how ever they want. Hell, they could make 'Hawaiian Shirt Friday' a mandatory event for any organization that wishes to remain licensed as a common carrier.

The FCC's power is a bit like patents. It is only as strong as the lawsuit that would ensue. While most proactive leaders would use their power to push the boundaries of regulatory power forward, the regulatory powers under Bush's watch have largely abandoned their powers. Heck, it took a lawsuit from MA just to make the EPA to regulate green house gases in exhaust from cars.

So if someone sues the FCC, or any government regulatory body, the can use existing laws to force the body to change the regulations. They can lobby congress to pass laws that change the body's ability to regulate. But the specific regulations are up to the regulatory body.

-Rick

Re:Laws are not needed.

[nitebriar]

For a matter of fact the obscenity regulation is a federal law. Look at the FCC's site for once before spatting off (http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/). It is illegal for a government body to restrict a business or person for actions that are not deemed illegal by a law. I'm not saying Comcast is doing the right thing, but it is not in the power of the FCC to do anything until the Legislature passes a law relating to it. How would you like it if the government told you that you would be put in prison because they didn't like how you treated someone? It's the same thing for business.

Re:Laws are not needed.

[RingDev]

In order to be put in jail you have to be convicted of a crime. Breaking a regulation is not a crime. The FCC can not throw anyone in jail for breaking a regulation.

Also, as we have just seen with the EPA and the supreme court, the regulatory bodies can do what ever they want, until someone sues them. Their decision to act, or to not act, is entirely their own. And those decisions are based on their interpretation of the laws, but the laws don't explicitly tell them what to do.

For instance, in the sample you have provided, Congress has specifically charged the FCC with ensuring decency in broadcasts. But they didn't specify what was obscene, or indecent, they left that to the FCC. The FCC has not only determined what is indecent and what is obscene, but has also establish safe harbor hours in which indecent programming is allowed. The FCC made that decision, they were sued, and the courts upheld their decision.

So I say again, the FCC can issue what ever regulations they want. But the strength of those regulations is bound to the lawsuit that will be sure to follow. So the FCC could issue a regulation against Comcast's P2P killing, Comcast would sue, and it would be up to the courts as to whether or not the FCC has the power to create and enforce such a regulation.

-Rick

Not enough...

[MaWeiTao]

While throttling bandwidth is important I think the government should expand their investigations to include general business practices. And they should include all service providers including cable, satellite, mobile phones, etc. Start by investigating pricing structure.

What justification do these companies have to raise rates every year? Why have mobile phone companies raised text messaging rates to 20 cents per message when it probably costs them a fraction of a cent to transmit them? We pay more for our internet than most of the rest of the world and suffer with subpar service.

Why are pricing packages offered by all competitors virtually identical. I don't mean somewhat similar; I mean exactly the same, beginning pricing and ending with so-called incentives and features. They love signing people up for features they didn't request and locking them into contracts.

Why do the people at these companies feel compelled to resort to dishonest business practices? They talk about the importance of the free market but then seem eager to do everything they can to drive people to embrace regulation. The sad thing is that people really have more control in all this than they'd like to believe. But unfortunately most consumers seem content to put up with this crap. In some ways I see why; we don't have any choice.

I can choose not to have a mobile phone, which I've considered doing. I can dump my internet service. But for various reason they've become necessary tools. So in the end I'm stuck dealing with this garbage regardless of what provider I choose. So in the face of all these problems that FCC investigation is insignificant and doesn't address the larger issues.

Re:Not enough...

[compro01]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think all the stuff you are wanting investigated would fall under the purview of the FTC rather than the FCC.

Re:Not enough...

[MaWeiTao]

I'm not saying it should be the FCC investigating them, I'm just saying they should be investigated.

Re:Not enough...

[freedom_india]

Answers to your philosophical questions given below:

Start by investigating pricing structure Politicians: Nope. Can't be done. Who will pay for campaign funds tomorrow? You? You are not even man enough to check the $3 contribution to public funds.

What justification do these companies have to raise rates every year? None. We are a duopoly and you have to come to one of us. You can't play us against the others, because we made sure there are no others. Just Verizon, AT&T and that stupid company called T-mobile.

Why are pricing packages offered by all competitors virtually identical. To prevent you from thinking too much and instead start enjoying the benefits of your plan. After all you don't want to spend 8 hours analyzing each word in the contract.

Why do the people at these companies feel compelled to resort to dishonest business practices? What you call as dishonest, we call as legal. Look; as long is it is NOT illegal for us to do something, we do it. And if its illegal, our friends in congress are ready to give us retroactive immunity, even if some are richer than us.

I can choose not to have a mobile phone, which I've considered doing. I can dump my internet service. That's a sure way to end up in Gitmo. I mean come on; the 9/11 terrorists did not use mobiles or internet. So if you don't subscribe to any of our plans, and canvas others to avoid us, we could have you flagged as a terrorist and send you to Gitmo via business class. How do you think we nailed that SoaB Spitzer?

FCC investigation is insignificant Exactly! Which is what we have been saying from begining. FCC belongs to us. You poor souls think FCC is helping you against hungry corporates. Wrong. We are the Borg, and we assimilated FCC long back.

Oh please? Please please please FCC?

[Grimbleton]

I'll even take back one of those fuck yous, and stop listening to that "Fuck the FCC" song quite as often...

Net Neutrality vs OOXML?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish that OOXML was as much a controversial subject as net neutrality.

Net Neutrality Principles, Uber-Parent?

[MSTCrow5429]

So you guys couldn't convince voters to approve of an effective government take-over of the entire US-based internet, so you made up "Net Neutrality Princples," and go caterwauling when the world doesn't pay attention to your novel, made-up "principles?" This isn't reporting, this is loser POV pushing.

Government controls are not the answer

[sysopd]

The proper place for this is in the courts. If Comcast violates its customer contract, they should be sued. Believe me there are more than enough trial lawyers out there that will pay for this themselves on the hope of future earnings. Its their network and whether or not you and I believe net neutrality is moral, right, wrong, legal or illegal, they have the right to control, patrol, fuck with, etc, their own network to the extent that they don't violate their contracts or the law. There are no net neutrality laws AFAIK, and I personally think giving the government ANY regulation powers or control of the internet is a horrible idea. If Comcast continues to limit availability of certain protocols then competing ISPs and community sponsored networks will fill the void. This has already happened in many areas.

I think a good analogy is if your bank limited how many ATM transactions you could have in a month and you didn't like it. You could try and pass a law to make the bank give you more or unlimited transactions. Or you could join a community bank such as a credit union with like-minded people and set the policy to allow unlimited transactions. If enough people agree with you they'll switch to the credit union. After the bank lost a significant number of customers they might remove the limit as well. Now if the bank had agreed NOT to limit transactions when you signed up, then you could sue the bank for violating their contract.

Regarding the FCC... The FCC has no authority in this domain (nor in most other) and is not even a legitimate agency under the US Constitution. Their only power with even a tenuous link to legitimacy is controlling radio frequency distribution and protecting property rights claims on said frequencies. Their content-control and fines are contrary to freedom and they should be completely dispanded or at least radically shrunk in size and scope.

Re:Government controls are not the answer

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Regarding the FCC... The FCC has no authority in this domain

Yeah, I'd suppose that the FTC would be more appropriate. That said, this is a perfect place for the feds to stomp on Comcast. I know, contracts are holy writ, but sometimes it makes more sense just to pass a law.

Re:Government controls are not the answer

[civilizedINTENSITY]

The fact that they can say, "Its our network, we'll screw whoever we please when we please", *is* the problem. If we allowed roads to all be privately owned, we'd likewise be screwed. We need to nationalize the "tubes" ( ;-) hehehe ) and lease bandwidth back to any- and everybody who wants to be an ISP. Can you imagine if the telephone companies decided that too many people were dialing 800 numbers? If they started hanging up 1/2 of the 800 calls, people wouldn't be saying, "Well, they own the phone system, they can cut me off if I dial a number they don't like."

Re:Government controls are not the answer

[Danse]

There are no net neutrality laws AFAIK, and I personally think giving the government ANY regulation powers or control of the internet is a horrible idea. Too late. It's government regulation that brought us these monopolies to begin with. They created the monster, it's their duty to reign it in if it tries to run amok.

If Comcast continues to limit availability of certain protocols then competing ISPs and community sponsored networks will fill the void. Yeah, that hasn't been going so well. Competing ISPs often don't exist, or if they do, they're phone companies who are also local monopolies that do whatever they feel like with their network.

What we really need is municipal ownership of the infrastructure, which would allow for any number of ISPs to offer services to the customers and create true competition in that market. Right now, due to the mounds of regulations that have accumulated over the years, we have companies that have no incentive to compete or improve their networks beyond the basics. Others are shut out of the infrastructure and we have no innovation or real choice in the market.

Re:Government controls are not the answer

[sysopd]

We need to nationalize the "tubes" ( ;-) hehehe ) and lease bandwidth back to any- and everybody who wants to be an ISP.

You do realize what happened when we nationalized the broadcast radio spectrum? Freedom was lost in the process. Now the FCC regulates what can and cannot be said on the radio.

Nationalizing the internet would be the worst idea for keeping the internet free (as in speech) and in the process would also end up making it less free (as in beer). Right now you have thousands of companies providing access. If you have a problem with one (such as Comcast) you can choose an alternative, or pressure/advocate the company into changing. With so many alterntives its likely there's a choice out there for you. If the system was nationalized, and you didn't like something they were doing you have no choice, no alternatives. You can still try advocacy except you now have a much smaller voice than you did before.

Can you imagine if the telephone companies decided that too many people were dialing 800 numbers? If they started hanging up 1/2 of the 800 calls, people wouldn't be saying, "Well, they own the phone system, they can cut me off if I dial a number they don't like."

800 numbers are paid for by the person who owns the 800 number. Your phone company gets paid when you call an 800 number, so why wouldn't they want you calling them?

Re:Government controls are not the answer

[sysopd]

What we really need is municipal ownership of the infrastructure, which would allow for any number of ISPs to offer services to the customers and create true competition in that market. Right now, due to the mounds of regulations that have accumulated over the years, we have companies that have no incentive to compete or improve their networks beyond the basics. Others are shut out of the infrastructure and we have no innovation or real choice in the market.

Out here in the pacific northwest there is a lot of money going into new infrastructure. Verizon is laying out a fortune building their FIOS network and Comcast keeps spreading like the plague. There is money going into WiMax, and cell phone companies are releasing their own home internet solutions. Less regulation is the key. Look at cell phone providers, you have multiple carriers overlapping the same physical space. Government regulation created the phone and cable monopolies which stifled innovation and lead to stagnant infrastructure growth.

With wireless such as WiMax et. al, we have a hope for a truly competative market with many choices like in the days of dialup ISPs. But unfortunately many cities are being coerced into so-called "community" or "municipal" "free" wireless networks which are just government sponsored monopolies and more of the same.

Re:Government controls are not the answer

[Mr2001]

Right now you have thousands of companies providing access. If you have a problem with one (such as Comcast) you can choose an alternative, or pressure/advocate the company into changing. With so many alterntives its likely there's a choice out there for you. No, that's exactly the problem: there aren't thousands of companies providing access. In huge parts of the country, the only alternatives to cable are dialup and satellite (in other words, jack and shit).

If the system was nationalized, and you didn't like something they were doing you have no choice, no alternatives. You can still try advocacy except you now have a much smaller voice than you did before. Smaller... or larger? It seems to me that my opinion is more likely to matter to my elected representatives than it is to the suits at Comcast.

The suits at Comcast know that they're going to have customers no matter what, because if you don't have cable then you're stuck with rabbit ears and dialup (unless you live in an area serviced by DSL, in which case you still need the rabbit ears but you can get screwed by Qwest instead of Comcast for your internet service).

Elected representatives, on the other hand, need continued support from voters to stay in office, and a few dozen people mounting the right kind of campaign can put enough fear into their hearts to get those changes made.

Re:Government controls are not the answer

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Somehow there seems to be this preconception that freedom is maximized by doing away with the rule of law. Some of the people who rail against federalism would be less than happy to be associated with anarchism. Yet how else could it be perceived? Agreed: if there was effective competition then providers of service wouldn't be able to abuse their customers. The idea that federal regulation would limit freedom isn't wrong. However, the freedom to rape *should* be limited. Likewise other abuses of power. Seems obvious, but oh well...

Re:Government controls are not the answer

[geekoid]

"Freedom was lost in the process. " hyperbole much?
"Now the FCC regulates what can and cannot be said on the radio."
Incorrect. The people do. Sadly the only peple who seem to make an effort are those that want to force there crap down our throats. Honestly, have you contacted the FCC? Did you inform them of your feelings about what happened?
Very few people did, myself included, I'm sad to say.
The point is, a organized solid effort that knows what it is doing needs to get involved.

You have more power with a government body then you will ever have with a corporation.
If I have a problem with my street, it gets taken care of quickly. The one time we had a problem it was fixed 4 hours later.

"800 numbers are paid for by the person who owns the 800 number. Your phone company gets paid when you call an 800 number, so why wouldn't they want you calling them?"

And if the charged the 800 number ANYWAYS?

Re:Government controls are not the answer

[sysopd]

"Now the FCC regulates what can and cannot be said on the radio." Incorrect. The people do. Sadly the only peple who seem to make an effort are those that want to force there[sic] crap down our throats.

The people most certainly do not, the FCC does. The FCC commissioners are not elected, so you cannot even make the argument that the people are in control through representative government.

Honestly, have you contacted the FCC? Did you inform them of your feelings about what happened?

The FCC is restricting free speech and your argument is that I should write a strongly worded letter to unelected officials of an illegitimate organization that is acting extraconstitutionally. Let me know how that worked out (spoiler: it didn't).

You have more power with a government body then you will ever have with a corporation.

This is just irrational absolutism, and incorrect. In certain respects an organized populace has more power over government bodies. However the people make decisions on what a company does through their shareholders, the board of directors, the press, direct pressure, and litigation. All the while its getting more and more difficult to sue government. If the news about Comcast's torrent killing gets some bad press or gets sued for it, it will impact stock prices which could in itself lead to a policy change without you doing anything.

If I have a problem with my street, it gets taken care of quickly. The one time we had a problem it was fixed 4 hours later.

Yet for over 30 years the FCC still hasn't been "fixed", but in the meantime private satellite radio, cable and satellite tv have appeared and allow more freedom of speech and expression.

Also you cannot equate local government with federal government. Everyone has a bigger voice the smaller and more local the government is. The same could be said with corporations.

And if the charged the 800 number ANYWAYS?

This sentence is incoherent.

Dirty Liberal = Not a slur.

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

You know, only in the US is calling someone 'liberal' or 'a liberal' a slur. Everywhere else (important? lol) in the world (Okay, well - the EU and canada), liberal is just saying that someone has a left-ist view of politics.

Anyways, the government thinks that by regulating cable, it is keeping prices down - which it might be (the cost of infrastructure is lower, because you only need ONE system) ... but if they don't regulate the companies themselves, then it is pointless!

Re:Dirty Liberal = Not a slur.

[xenocide2]

"Liberal" is a slur because every politician's trying to satisfy everyone. There's no great battle of ideas anymore. The game is lying to everyone but saying little enough to hope nobody finds out. Calling so and so a "liberal" hurts their moderate credentials. Interestingly, W's campaign decided that since the Dems had all moved to moderate positions during the Clinton administrations, tacking to the right would help get him votes. Despite his declarations that he was a uniter, not a divider, both his campaigns relied exactly on that.

Re:Dirty Liberal = Not a slur.

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

how does telling someone that they're liberal (free, open, available to options) = slur? Only in america, I suppose.

Re:Dirty Liberal = Not a slur.

[xenocide2]

If you identify as a conservative, then you may feel that calling someone a liberal is the same as calling them an idiot. Or at least, you may feel that liberals are idiots and apply the logic yourself. In many liberals circles, calling someone a conservative is no more than calling them a dumbass conservative, or evil, etc. So as a politician, they do their best in a world nearly evenly split between liberals and conservatives to appeal to both wings, and to the marginal crowd of swing voters.

I'm not sure why the conservative label hasn't caught on in quite the same way. But the point is, it's only a slur to people who already don't like liberals.

Re:Dirty Liberal = Not a slur.

[KDR_11k]

The liberal party here is more centrist/right-leaning.

Re:Dirty Liberal = Not a slur.

[KDR_11k]

The weirdest part is that liberals and conservatives are pretty much the same thing.

This isn't about NN

[Shadow-isoHunt]

Really, it's not. It's about Comcast performing MITM attacks on a mass scale. We've got laws to cover this shit, I'm just waiting for the suit to come in. Calling this network neutrality is only going to hurt the overall arguement for it.

Re:This isn't about NN

[jayp00001]

It's also not about the FCC. These guys own the cable between you and them. Only your local authoritiea have any standing in the matter. Until the FCC gets the ability to issue cable licenses, the only stick they have is to remove the CARS license (allowing them to rebroadcast over the air TV), and believe me being "forced" to only carry paying channels would not be much of a stick.

Re:This isn't about NN

[jerunamuck]

Sure it would, If I have to pay for Cable and the premium channels I'd cancel my Cable. They're on thin ice already with me, it would not take much to convince me I can do without them.

Comcast's spoof RST packets broke federal law

[Paul Johnson]

Comcast didn't just "shape" the traffic, they actually sent spoof packets to cause P2P applications to drop connections. That is a Denial of Service attack and violates federal law.

For a full analysis see my blog post for more details.

TCP MD5 signatures

[jroysdon]

I haven't paid much attention to this as I don't use BitTorrent that much to download to my house, where I have Comcast. I typically download to my colocated box with BitTorrent, and then download via FTP to home once it completes.

However, a thought occurred to me, as a work-around until this issue is "fixed." The problem, from what I've read, is that Comcast is sending spoofed TCP RST packets. I'm assuming this causes the peers to tear down, or at a minimum have to re-establish a TCP session.

How much overhead would it add to add TCP MD5 signatures? I know we use this with BGP so that no one can fake RSTs which would cause routing peers to drop and major routing flaps (RFC 2385).

Could TCP MD5 signatures just be added to RST packets? What method would be used to share the key (and how to prevent a man-in-the-middle attack?)? I just use BGP and TCP MD5 signatures already built into Cisco products, I didn't design any of it and don't have time to look into these details, however it seems to me that it would solve the problem.

I'm not sure if TCP MD5 signatures work with NAT, so that may be a problem if they do not. Perhaps MD5 is too old, and SHA or something else should be used instead - again, I don't know the technical details, but someone should use the same principle to solve this RST problem, especially if BT is ever going to be a major business software deployment model.

Re:TCP MD5 signatures

[Stray7Xi]

It would be harder then implementing IPSec which already has authentication.

You can't just change the TCP header to add signatures because every piece of equipment out there works on the standard.

Re:TCP MD5 signatures

[jroysdon]

Using the TCP MD5 signature that BGP uses doesn't break TCP, which was my point for bringing it up. No hardware/software inbetween the hosts would have to be modified. However, TCP MD5 is a hard thing to get working without root access to the host (I found out after looking into this).

Beyond wishful

[Kaseijin]

Personally, I'd love to see the FCC smack Comcast silly for this crap. Cable ISPs and Telco's like to claim Common Carrier protections for a world of things. But they want to be able to filter content and manipulate traffic too, and the FCC needs to put it's Governmental boot down and say "No! You can filter, or you can be common carrier. Not both!" ISPs don't claim to be common carriers. The FCC has classified them "information services" and therefore not subject to regulations concerning "telecommunications services". Hoping for a timid FCC to finally flex its muscle would be wishful thinking; you're hoping for an aggressive FCC to reverse course.

not just bit torrent

[Tsumari]

When bit torrent is running on any PC on my network, comcast does not just slow down torrents - even a basic ping to google can take two full seconds. And I'm talking about with a torrent downloading at 10kbps and uploading at 5. I am in the Knoxville area, and I wonder if they are only doing that here because I do not hear about this part of it much.

Original Wall Street Journal Article

[SailorBob]

Original Wall Street Journal Article

Solution is Simple Really

[bratwiz]

Let's all just get together and put together an online payment system that's based on Peer-to-Peer communication (and we'll throw in some DRM just for spite). Then we'll send our Comcast payments through the new Peer-to-Peer DRM'ized Payment system and we'll see how quick they are to fuck with the packets then... Also, we'll add specific requirements as to how they can spend the money, how much they can pay their Board and CEO, how often they can jack up their rates, and other fun things-- isn't DRM grand??? Its a terrific system-- especially when its applied EQUALLY in BOTH directions!