Congressman Tells Comcast, Hands Off BitTorrent 304
An anonymous reader writes "Just a few months back, the Net Neutrality debate was all but dead. Luckily for fans of a free Internet, the telcos are their own worst enemies. Recent stories involving Verizon Wireless blocking pro-choice groups, AT&T censoring Pearl Jam's anti-war comments from a streaming concert, and most recently, Comcast finally admitting to using anti-BitTorrent filters. The Net Neutrality debate would appear to be alive and kicking, with Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) being the first politician to make a public statement sharply criticizing Comcast's actions."
Comcast seems to be fast (Score:5, Interesting)
1286 K uploaded at a rate of 20KB/s. This is the first time in weeks I have seen upload speeds better than 0.0 KB/s and a transfered size larger than 0.1 KB. Since I am finally able to help spread Ubuntu, I'll let it run all day. Maybe I'll be able to upload more than I download for a change. Seeing any upload traffic after a completed download is highly unusual on Comcast lately.
Too late for Comcast (Score:5, Interesting)
What *did* annoy me, after the decision was taken, was that my difficulties with ichat [apple.com] over the last few months seem to be similarly down to Comcast policies.
I use iChat a lot to keep in touch with my family (all of whom have Macs, and 4-way video-conferencing can be pretty cool). There's several thousand miles between us, so this is one of the few ways we can actually see each other without major travel.
Until a few months ago, it all worked great. Now, I get less than a minute of great picture, and then everything breaks up. I was putting it down to transatlantic bandwidth issues, but then I tried it from work, and (lo and behold) had no problems whatsoever.
I pay (not for long, now though, the T1 arrives in 2 weeks) for the most bandwidth Comcast offer, and I cannot believe I average even 1% of that bandwidth. To have them limit me when I *do* want to use it, as a deliberate *general* policy of theirs, is infuriating. All I can do is cancel the service, and hope others do too. Eventually, hopefully, they'll get the message. Not everyone can cancel due to the monopoly they hold in some areas, but perhaps enough can to make a difference.
Now a T1 used to be a lot of bandwidth, but it's not so much any more (1.5Mbit/sec is pretty poor by advertised-bandwidth standards). I'm willing to trade off the small time-periods I actually can use that advertised bandwidth for the reliability of always having the smaller amount - it may not work for everyone, but it works for me
And so, Comcast lose another ~$200/month. Hopefully part of a trend, because won't anyone think of the network ? [grin]
Simon.
Isn't it strange... (Score:5, Interesting)
KISS (Score:3, Interesting)
1. All common carriers must allow other providers to connect to them on a naked pipe
2. All providers must support standard protocols.*
3. Providers may only prioritize data/bandwidth based on protocol, not orgin/destination.
5. No data/bandwidth throttling, only prioritization.
*I'd leave defining "standard" up to ICAAN, with these additional rules:
1. The protocol must be open - anyone can see how it works and get specs for it.
2. Usage or modification of the protocol must not be restricted by patents or copyright.
Simple soulation (Score:5, Interesting)
If Comcast, Verizon, AT&T or anyone else blocks any content for any reason, they are (from that point on) legally liable for all remaining content. This is because the have made an effort to control the content crossing there service and by default must agree that all remaining content is acceptable.
Then remind there legal department that it means "If you keep it up, we will hold you responsible for all the remaining content including but not limited to all the child porn, child predators, etc."
In other words, they have violated the common carrier clause and thus are not protected from prosecution!
Where is a lawyer when you need one?
Re:Isn't it strange... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you need to put your political affiliations aside if you simply want to point the finger at this administration as far as their track record on rights.
Sure, it's worse now than it has been in the memorable past but it seems that with each new administration, regardless if they be the jackass or the elephant, sells their candidates on bringing new change about instead of peeling back the layers of crap that the former administrations have done.
My question to the Democrats: Even if you get someone in the Whitehouse during the next election what are you going to do if they don't start repealing all of the crap that's gone on in the past 6+ years? Are you going to keep drinking the kool-aid?
The American political system simply does not have enough competition in it to provide real changes. Especially the changes we keep hearing people talk about on here.
I'd rather see a government that is hampered with infighting instead of one side of the fence simply pushing on the other just because they can.
The current political situation we find ourselves in goes back a long way. The big two parties are enjoying every minute of it regardless of wins and losses since you suckers keep coming back and buying more. The boycott of both parties by voting third party is the only way to send a clear message.
Re:Great start (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Interesting)
The ironic thing is that this is more likely to hurt people who download files by FTP or HTTP than BitTorrent. It should not be hard at all to tune BitTorrent use a larger number of shorter-lived connections. Of course, doing so would basically bring down Comcast's network pretty hard, as it would increase the overhead of BitTorrent traffic fairly dramatically.... I wonder if they've thought about what they are likely to create by doing this....
Re:Comcast Tesll Congressman: We Own Your Colleagu (Score:4, Interesting)
Good try! (Score:3, Interesting)
If we actually understood the definitions of things, we couldn't call Bush Adolf Hitler. We couldn't call Al Gore Jerry Garcia, and you couldn't call Hillary a well trained irish setter. Really, where would the fun be in that?
Oh yeah, reasoned debate about the issues at hand... only losers do that.
Until then, I'm just going to be sad that a congressmen that I don't support financially, that I've never written or spoken to about my feelings on the issues, and whose name I hardly know - supports the people that do. It's exactly like a monarchy... apparently.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, it is not about throttling, it is about killing entirely. When every attempt to connect is killed, you are not delaying traffic, you are stopping it entirely. But that is only one issue on the table with Comcast and its anti-BitTorrent activities, and quite frankly, it is a minor issue compared to the other.
More important to me, and hopefully to everybody else, is that Comcast is killing BitTorrent traffic by spoofing the users, and not always its own users. They are pretending to be their customers and the people they connect with, whether or not the people they are connected with are Comcast customers, to send the reset packets.
I don't know about you, but quite frankly, having
With a massive company such as Comcast faking its identity, it is out-and-out mortifying.
Throttling would be one thing. Killing by falsifying oneself as the customers they represent is another entirely.
Re:Nice glasses (Score:3, Interesting)
1. He was managing an unpopular war.
2. He'd claimed to have some secret plans that he couldn't reveal to fix the US's problems. There was a real spike in claims that the public would just have to trust its Executive branch, as so many things had to be kept secret. After 4+ years, more and more people were questioning why his administration couldn't reveal at least some more details.
3. He was arranging meetings with carefully picked members of the public and press, and trying to spin it so that these looked like spontaneous encounters where he had to field tough questions. That claim too was unraveling.
4. Corruption in his administration was known to extend to Agnew. It's hard to claim you were ignorant of acts by minor functionaries when one of them is your 2nd in command.
So there's two main differences between the Nixon administration and this one.
1. The press isn't asking the same kind of tough questions they asked Nixon.
2. The Vice President hasn't been charged with anything yet (probably because the press isn't asking tough questions there either).
Re:Simple soulation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sigh (Score:2, Interesting)
No, they are forcing the connections closed after a certain period of time, not preventing the connections from opening. That, in effect, is throttling the BitTorrent traffic by forcing it to reconnect to a different host or try again after a period of idle, not blocking it outright... and because it is an automated process in the BitTorrent client, the user should simply experience this as slower traffic.
Granted, this isn't the most polite way of doing what they're doing, but it certainly is throttling, not blocking. And it isn't falsifying anything. It isn't taking over the stream and sending bogus data. As I understand it, they are just sending a low-level TCP reset packet that disconnects the TCP stream. That could just as easily happen if a route goes away in a problematic way. As long as they aren't messing around at the application layer and are just faking packets specific to the transport/protocol layer, they aren't really masquerading as their users, IMHO.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, the easiest workaround would be to use a custom transport mechanism layered over UDP which includes authentication for connection management (i.e. there's no way to spoof the equivalent of a TCP RST.) The problem is that a LOT of research has gone into TCP congestion control algorithms in the past two decades, and the initial implementation of any custom congestion control scheme will likely be FAR less "fair" than TCP is.
Unfortunately, most current secure transport schemes were only designed to protect data from eavesdropping, not to protect against denial of service attacks against the connection. For example, SSL and TLS both need to be layered above a reliable transport layer (usually TCP), and it is TCP itself that Comcast is attacking.
Mexico is going that route right now (Score:5, Interesting)
Mexico has approved a reform to the current electoral legislation which does something similar.
The last presidential elections were so full of spots on TV that were more about bad mouthing the competitor than proposing solutions. A lot of money had to be raised and compromises were made by the competitors for sure.
The winner is the one who has the deepest wallet.
From now on, candidates can use only the government's paid time on TV.
The media is going crazy of course because they won't get a lot of money any more for the spots, and they're masquerading this worry as a "free speech" violation (because they won't be able editorialize the campaign coverage in any form)
It's not a coincidence that Dong Nguyen Huu has said that the Mexican electoral system is one of the most advanced in the world. Let's see how it goes.
The 14 points of Fascism (Score:5, Interesting)
Fascist Warning Sign #1: Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
If you're not with "U.S." you're a terrorist. Bills named the "Patriot Act" so sheeple feel warm and fuzzy.
Fascist Warning Sign #2: Disdain for the importance of human rights.
Suspension of Habeus corpus, illegal phone taps, "enemy combatants", black bag kidnappings, Patriot Act...
Fascist Warning Sign #3: Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
"Axis of Evil"
Fascist Warning Sign #4: The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
Bush has had the military deployed in combat for 6 years. His administration continues to suggest they will attack other countries if they don't follow our ultimatums.
Fascist Warning Sign #5: Rampant sexism.
This one maybe not so much. Our international talking head (Condoleeza) counts against #5 I would say.
Fascist Warning Sign #6: A controlled mass media.
Maybe not directly, but the networks kowtow in order to not be left out and really don't question much.
Fascist Warning Sign #7: Obsession with national security.
This one should be pretty obvious.
Fascist Warning Sign #8: Religion and ruling elite tied together.
In God We Trust.
Fascist Warning Sign #9: Power of corporations protected.
This one isn't just a Bush thing. This goes back decades.
Fascist Warning Sign #10: Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
See #9
Fascist Warning Sign #11: Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
Suppression of global warming research, laws/court rulings protecting IP while minimizing fair use.
Fascist Warning Sign #12: Obsession with crime and punishment.
Bush governed Texas, the state with a record for most executions. Before his time began the war on drugs. Even individual states are guilty of this.
Fascist Warning Sign #13: Rampant cronyism and corruption.
Abrahmoff, Halliburton no-bid contracts, etc etc
Fascist Warning Sign #14: Fraudulent elections.
Who can tell. Maybe not directly, but supporters running local campaigns have passed out false information pamphlets in attempts to keep.
So that's what, 2 of 14 I can't come up with something right off the top of my head. Viva Liberty!
Re:Comcast Tesll Congressman: We Own Your Colleagu (Score:3, Interesting)
Loving your country is one thing. Believing it can do no wrong is nationalism.
Re:The 14 points of Fascism (Score:1, Interesting)
You are really reaching right now...
I would rebut the rest of your "points", but I am already terminally bored by your weak rant.