Not Comcastic writes "Two weeks after officially opening proceedings on Comcast's BitTorrent throttling, angry users are bombarding the FCC with comments critical of the cable provider's practices. 'On numerous occasions, my access to legal BitTorrent files was cut off by Comcast,' a systems administrator based in Indianapolis wrote to the FCC shortly after the proceeding began. 'During this period, I managed to troubleshoot all other possible causes of this issue, and it was my conclusion (speaking as a competent IT administrator) that this could only be occurring due to direct action at the ISP (Comcast) level.' Another commenter writes 'I have experienced this throttling of bandwidth in sharing open-source software, e.g. Knoppix and Open Office. Also I see considerable differences in speed ftp sessions vs. html. They are obviously limiting speed in ftp as well.'"
there is a solution - have the government force comcast to give 3rd parties access to their lines, for a rental fee. this will no doubt have in the same position we in australia have though, a company desperately trying to hang onto it's monopoly, though it has had limited success after many court battles.
old monopolies don't die, they just find new ways to rip you off.
there is a solution - have the government force comcast to give 3rd parties access to their lines, for a rental fee
In the US, this is how AT&T got broken, and POTS is now better and cheaper than before. (Yes, VOIP may be even better and cheaper, but the telephone benefits predated that.)
Thanks to the 100M cable limit, Ethernet can't be used easily for that without going to fiber optic or something else... so much for the easy cost.
I'm trapped with Comcast too. AT&T says they are deploying U-Verse near me (they've been doing the digging) but I expect it will be at least 1 year or two late. I can't wait to move off.
There are a few options. You can use WiFi links over long distances with better antennas and a good line of sight... but this requires the other person to be able to get som
On behalf of everyone who is stuck on dialup without the option of dsl or cable I would just like to say I hope your cable wraps around your throat and chokes the life out of you. have a nice day:)
disclaimer: this post was made out of jest. Any offense taken from it will be ignored.
For example, my local cable ISP has marked ALL encrypted traffic as having a lower priority over non-encrypted content in their "war on P2P filesharing" (this means, amongst other obvious drawbacks, downgraded performance using ssh and sftp) reference [michaelgeist.ca]. I am not sure on the specifics or legality of this kind of "filtering" but it would seem that nobody has made such a big fuss yet up here. Their practice is grey-zone at best I would think and it will be interesting to see what happens with the issue.
That's curious. How are they defining 'encrypted'? Particular known ports? Content that clearly isn't to a "known port that isn't encrypted"? I can imagine that the former is relatively easy to bypass (nonstandard ports, port redirectors, etc), and the latter being a major issue for gaming of any description... Does this apply to HTTP over SSL connections? Of course, they simply cannot tell the difference between HTTP over SSL and... well, anything else over "SSL"... And, of course, one could just run, say, bi
This might be a little off-topic, but the common wisdom is that Comcast and other cable companies have monopolies on providing high-speed internet access in many areas. I realize they have competition from DirectTV (Satellite TV) and Broadcast Television for providing varying quality in Cable/TV entertainment, and that there is up-and-coming competition from Verizon to provide high-speed internet.
Is there any way to extend the "Public Broadcast TV" metaphor into the internet space? I could live with whatever downstream connection is required to watch YouTube videos... and upload streams that would pale in comparison to anybody running P2P services. Seriously, though, "light" internet users like me to subsidizing it for everybody else.
As for as throttling, Comcast is behaving unethically by stopping legitimate uses of P2P networks (sharing F/OSS distributions) and they should be heavily fined (I'm going to pull a RIAA-style gross sum of money from my ass), how about $500,000 per unethical P2P blockage? So divide the number of FCC complains in half, and then add the words "Millions" after it, and hand Comcast the bill.
Is there any way to extend the "Public Broadcast TV" metaphor into the internet space?
Well, there is a way to extend the "public infrastructure" metaphor into Internet service. UTOPIA [utopianet.org] is (what looks to be) an awesome project that's been rolled out in Utah. It's a fiber-to-the-premises network. The fiber is publicly owned, over which providers then sell services (Internet, phone, etc).
To me this looks like an absolutely genius plan. Service providers get free infrastructure (i.e. a bigger market to sell
Although FCC comments are all well and good, talking to Comcast's CSR (customer service reps) will have more impact. If every balky P2P connection results in a $5-$10 in call-center time, then Comcast will think differently about it's filtering policy.
The key to solving this is to make unfettered P2P connections the least cost option for Comcast. That means increasing the costs of not providing those connections. FCC fines might do it (assuming the FCC acts), but high customer service cost certainly will.
Throttling is IMHO only a problem when the customer doesn't know about it.
I have specifically chosen an ISP who promise they don't use any kind of throttling. On the other hand I did'nt go with the cheapest ISP I could find. My ISP has a "true flatrate" policy. No maximum usage and no throttling. The price is accordingly a little higher.
Most of my family does not use P2P in any way, and rarely download anything at all. For them, a low price is more important. And lets face it: this kind of bandwidth throttling was only invented because 5% of the customers consume 90% of the ISPs backbone resources. If this wasn't an issue, nobody would have invented the damn thing.
I don't think throttling should be illegal. It should only be illegal to use throttling and not tell customers about it. Throttling keeps the price down for ISPs, and they should be perfectly allowed to implemented - as long as all their customers are aware of it. In that way, if you don't want an ISP/product with throttling you can simply choose another ISP/product.
Bandwidth costs money. Free competition dictates that all ISPs will be seeking ways to lower their costs and in that way offer the consumers lower prices. This is a good thing, as long as customers know what they are buying.
Therefore: Allow throttling, but force ISPs to clearly state which products are subject to throttling. In that way, customers can buy the product they find suitable for their needs, and the "heavy users" can pay a higher price for their actual usage.
It is no different than your (cell)phone bill: if you call people 24/7, of if you buy a true flatrate product, it will cost more than just calling your mom for 5 minutes twice a month. Just as it should.
Strawman, but not your fault: I just realized the article summary makes the same mistake.
This isn't about throttling. Some people bitch about throttling, but what Comcast has been doing goes far beyond that. It's the RST packet forgery that has people super-pissed.
I see that you support throttling (if done openly and exposed to market forces), and your arguments seem reasonable. But what do you think of packet forgery?
I occasionally consult for a wireless ISP, and we've become friends.
In order for him to avoid ppl saturating his network, he's implemented a burst feature. Shaw (here in Alberta, anyway) has something similar.
So a constant stream might yield15 kb/s, whereas web surfing seems fast. That's because the network will burst (in Shaw's case) up to 25 MB/s. Let that baby stream though, regardless if it's FTP,.torrent, HTTP, and it'll slow down to 50 kb/s or so.
I seriously doubt Comcast (although I don't know anything about them) is identifying and throttling any particular protocol or P2P stream...they've just done what Shaw, and my friend has; I'd bet.
I recently tried to FTP upload a home movie to my web site so my family could download it. I noticed my FTP speeds were incredibly slow - slower than dial-up speeds and I have a 6MB/384K cable connection.
I've noticed that my P2P traffic seems to upload OK but downloads very slowly.
And I don't know where the problem is.
Knology, my ISP, claims they don't throttle. But how do I know someone somewhere along the way isn't throttling?
Even if I bothered to dig into the problem, I'm sure all I would get for my troubles would be a lot of finger pointing.
The bottom line is, if the internet quits working the way I want to use it, I'll quit paying for it, because it will have become useless to me.
FiOS is available in some areas now. It got put in my old neighborhood right before I moved, so sad. My friend has it though and he claims it's faster than cable. I don't have any numbers but, what the heck even if it's just a little slower, anything's better than comcast...
You it's really bad when you have to flee TO Verizon. Trust me, these people are horribly incompetent and have horrible customer service. Nevermind that their various departments just cannot talk to each other. If you have phone service and Internet through them good luck getting either taken care of even though they are on the same damn bill. Still moving to Verizon might actually be the only option left (shudders).
"these people are horribly incompetent and have horrible customer service"
Say what you will, but they are the ONLY ISP who didn't roll over and provide their customers info to the RIAA. Theyd fought for their customers right of privacy to the Supreme court and PREVAILED.
They rolled over for the NSA. They fought when it was convenient for them. Being inconsistent means nothing.
Oh, but it does. If you're worried about the NSA, you're... well, stuffed, really. Encrypt everything you can, and check for hardware keyloggers on the cable every morning before you log on.
Most of us, in practice, aren't worried about the NSA other than in the abstract. We're not organising political protests or anything. We're doing nothing to attract their attention. But we are worried about the MAFIAA, because a lot of us are... well, we are doing things to attract their attention. Gigabytes of things. Daily. An ISP that will stand up for its customers against those guys is golden.
Most of us, in practice, aren't worried about the NSA other than in the abstract. We're not organising political protests or anything.
The mere fact that you can state you "aren't worried about the NSA" and in the same paragraph say "we're not organizing political protests or anything" is pretty depressing. And I don't know which part is worse -- thinking that you might actually have a reason to fear the NSA because of political protects (First Amendment, what??) or me being cynical enough to understand why you would draw that conclusion.
Absolutely! One thing we're missing in today's society that we seem to admire most is integrity and courage to do what is right and lawful even [especially] under threat of retaliation! We've heard of many journalists being put in jail for not violating their ethics and principles. Many people find that extremely courageous while others think it's stupid. That's part of the difference in long-term thinking versus short-term and it has become our national bad-habit to go for the short-term gains and giving up our long-earned legacy.
"let's compare national security, and rolling over to a government agency, as required by law"
The phone companies didn't have to turn over anything "as required by law". The government made a request, and all the others gave them what they wanted when it WASN'T required by law. It wasn't a legal demand, because the government didn't have the legal right. Qwest basically said "show us the warrant and you can have any of the information it specifies". Seeing there never was any warrants, nothing was turned over by Qwest.
Actually, they were required by law to tell the NSA to go fuck themselves and get a FISA warrant. I mean, FISA is a rubberstamp secret court, but at least it keeps a trail and is there to prevent exactly the same sort of dragnet that they installed in the first place.
Is it really a Democrat or Republican thing whether the word of the Executive is law? Last I looked, martial law was not in effect.
They typically convert your copper POTS line to a fiber based one. From the point of view of your telephone service, there is no difference. You can't have DSL over it though. You can however request that they leave your copper phone line alone if you desire DSL from an CLEC. There is no sunset date for existing Verizon copper but one day eventually Verizon wants will turn off all copper and at that point you will be SOL.
I don't play WoW, so someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it uses Torrents for updates and patching. GP is pretty naive to assume that just because you've had to use a torrent it means you're a big pirate. It's a legitimate way of moving huge files around the 'net. That's like saying all truck drivers are smugglers just because a few people use semi-trucks to smuggle drugs into the country.
Yes, WoW does use Bittorrent for it's updates. I'd be rather unhappy if it were to be further restricted.
I was quoted in the Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] article. Here is the text of my FCC comment.
Dear Commissioners,
As a longtime customer of the Comcast Corporation (CMCSA) I feel it is necessary for me to provide you with my views and opinions regarding their use of throttling bandwidth for point to point (P2P) users that access their network.
File sharing is a gray area with regards to the law. It can be used
Well with the Warcraft updates, Blizz DOES have a server which you can download from. If you are behind a firewall the blizz client will sometimes connect to their own server to download the content from, it's just slow as hell. The nice thing is that with the supposed 10mil customers they now have, it makes it a lot quicker to get EVERYBODY patched then it would be if everybody was having to connect to the same choke-point to download the latest 300meg patch to be able to connect to the server.
I've got mod points, and I was going to moderate in this thread, and then I saw this and needed to reply.
I've got Comcast at home, and lately anything over:80/tcp has been horrendous. Most pages take a good 10-30 seconds to connect to the server, and never mind the number of pictures that can be on some sites.
I grabbed my laptop, hit the OpenVPN button to my server in a datacenter in Atlanta, and surprise! The pages loaded instantly.
Between P2P throttling and general crappy service, I sincerely hope that this suit changes things for the better.
Just a note (perhaps you know this, but others may not), but the reason VPN works and SSH tunnels don't is because Sandvine targets long-lived TCP connections. By default, OpenVPN tunnels over UDP; the control messages for session handling is done by OpenVPN and is unreadable by intermediaries. With SSH tunnels, they can't read your data, but they can forge TCP control messages, which isn't encrypted.
Ironically, Comcast may be really hurting themselves in the long run; if it gets bad enough, P2P software writers will switch to UDP, and manually do the in-order/reliable delivery stuff themselves. TCP has a lot of fancy congestion control, and I doubt that the P2P writers will bother with it...
I'm on Comcast, and I upload pictures to my photography website via SCP. The uploads get throttled after the first couple of MB.
Encryption makes no difference to what they're doing. They don't need to know what's in the packets to decide whether or not to throttle them -- they can make that decision based on what's in the header.
While I'm not a pro-comcast person or anything, what you're seeing is disclosed - it's the 'powerBoost' feature which gives you a bucket of really fast bits up/down stream, after which you throttle down to the speed you've purchased (8/1 or 6/384k or whatever).
So, I can get like 3mbit upstream for a bit, but then it scales back to 1mbit/sec. If I stop the transfer and wait a bit, then start again, I'll get the fast speed again for a little bit. Same is true on downstream - I'll get ~24mbit/sec down for a bit, then it'll throttle back to the 8mbit I pay for.
What, you get what you pay for? Lucky bastard. I usually don't get more than 30KBps out of the 6Mbps I pay for. Tops maybe I'll dl at 120KBps, but that's in the dead of night only.
That's false. There are numerous (Wireshark-confirmed) reports of RST injection happening on ANY TCP stream with a signficant amount of upstream bandwidth for more than a very short period of time.
For example, there's a well documented incident where Comcast's RST injection is killing Lotus Notes sessions where moderate sized (>1MB) attachments are sent.
.. but seriously? Bittorrent is a horrendous resource hog. I'm/glad/ comcast is throttling it, because a significant number of paying customers don't want to watch their connectivity slow to a crawl
So, you prefer them watching their connectivity slow to a crawl because of the hundreds of thousands of YOUTUBE users. Oh guess what. If you have a favorite youtube video, there's no easy way to download it. You need to re-download it again and again and again.
Want to download your favorite videos? Download them
Well, whatever. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, whatever. (Score:4, Funny)
+++
Parent
fortunately (Score:5, Insightful)
As for myself, I plan to dump Comcast right away and switch to... oh wait, Comcast is my only option for Internet access. Well.
Perhaps I'll go dig out the ol' 2400 baud modem, maybe I can find a BBS to call.
Re:fortunately (Score:5, Insightful)
old monopolies don't die, they just find new ways to rip you off.
Parent
MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Interesting)
In the US, this is how AT&T got broken, and POTS is now better and cheaper than before. (Yes, VOIP may be even better and cheaper, but the telephone benefits predated that.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks to the 100M cable limit, Ethernet can't be used easily for that without going to fiber optic or something else... so much for the easy cost.
I'm trapped with Comcast too. AT&T says they are deploying U-Verse near me (they've been doing the digging) but I expect it will be at least 1 year or two late. I can't wait to move off.
There are a few options. You can use WiFi links over long distances with better antennas and a good line of sight... but this requires the other person to be able to get som
Re:fortunately (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
How to view submitted complaints (Score:5, Informative)
Go to this page [fcc.gov] and put "07-52" into the "Proceeding" field.
Comments are in PDF form, so turn off "View in Browser" in Acrobat.
Some Canadian ISPs are going a step further (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this apply to HTTP over SSL connections?
Of course, they simply cannot tell the difference between HTTP over SSL and... well, anything else over "SSL"...
And, of course, one could just run, say, bi
Make it Public (Score:4, Interesting)
This might be a little off-topic, but the common wisdom is that Comcast and other cable companies have monopolies on providing high-speed internet access in many areas. I realize they have competition from DirectTV (Satellite TV) and Broadcast Television for providing varying quality in Cable/TV entertainment, and that there is up-and-coming competition from Verizon to provide high-speed internet.
Is there any way to extend the "Public Broadcast TV" metaphor into the internet space? I could live with whatever downstream connection is required to watch YouTube videos... and upload streams that would pale in comparison to anybody running P2P services. Seriously, though, "light" internet users like me to subsidizing it for everybody else.
As for as throttling, Comcast is behaving unethically by stopping legitimate uses of P2P networks (sharing F/OSS distributions) and they should be heavily fined (I'm going to pull a RIAA-style gross sum of money from my ass), how about $500,000 per unethical P2P blockage? So divide the number of FCC complains in half, and then add the words "Millions" after it, and hand Comcast the bill.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, there is a way to extend the "public infrastructure" metaphor into Internet service. UTOPIA [utopianet.org] is (what looks to be) an awesome project that's been rolled out in Utah. It's a fiber-to-the-premises network. The fiber is publicly owned, over which providers then sell services (Internet, phone, etc).
To me this looks like an absolutely genius plan. Service providers get free infrastructure (i.e. a bigger market to sell
FCC vs. CSR (Score:5, Interesting)
The key to solving this is to make unfettered P2P connections the least cost option for Comcast. That means increasing the costs of not providing those connections. FCC fines might do it (assuming the FCC acts), but high customer service cost certainly will.
Giant wake-up call for Comcast? (Score:3, Funny)
Only a problem when it is unknown (Score:5, Insightful)
I have specifically chosen an ISP who promise they don't use any kind of throttling. On the other hand I did'nt go with the cheapest ISP I could find. My ISP has a "true flatrate" policy. No maximum usage and no throttling. The price is accordingly a little higher.
Most of my family does not use P2P in any way, and rarely download anything at all. For them, a low price is more important. And lets face it: this kind of bandwidth throttling was only invented because 5% of the customers consume 90% of the ISPs backbone resources. If this wasn't an issue, nobody would have invented the damn thing.
I don't think throttling should be illegal. It should only be illegal to use throttling and not tell customers about it. Throttling keeps the price down for ISPs, and they should be perfectly allowed to implemented - as long as all their customers are aware of it. In that way, if you don't want an ISP/product with throttling you can simply choose another ISP/product.
Bandwidth costs money. Free competition dictates that all ISPs will be seeking ways to lower their costs and in that way offer the consumers lower prices. This is a good thing, as long as customers know what they are buying.
Therefore: Allow throttling, but force ISPs to clearly state which products are subject to throttling. In that way, customers can buy the product they find suitable for their needs, and the "heavy users" can pay a higher price for their actual usage.
It is no different than your (cell)phone bill: if you call people 24/7, of if you buy a true flatrate product, it will cost more than just calling your mom for 5 minutes twice a month. Just as it should.
- Jesper
Forgery, not throttling (Score:5, Insightful)
Strawman, but not your fault: I just realized the article summary makes the same mistake.
This isn't about throttling. Some people bitch about throttling, but what Comcast has been doing goes far beyond that. It's the RST packet forgery that has people super-pissed.
I see that you support throttling (if done openly and exposed to market forces), and your arguments seem reasonable. But what do you think of packet forgery?
Parent
ISP's aren't throttling...they're adding burst (Score:3, Interesting)
Is the Internet becoming useless? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've noticed that my P2P traffic seems to upload OK but downloads very slowly.
And I don't know where the problem is.
Knology, my ISP, claims they don't throttle. But how do I know someone somewhere along the way isn't throttling?
Even if I bothered to dig into the problem, I'm sure all I would get for my troubles would be a lot of finger pointing.
The bottom line is, if the internet quits working the way I want to use it, I'll quit paying for it, because it will have become useless to me.
Re:Failure of the natural monopoly (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Failure of the natural monopoly (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Here we come Verizon (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:5, Informative)
Say what you will, but they are the ONLY ISP who didn't roll over and provide their customers info to the RIAA. Theyd
fought for their customers right of privacy to the Supreme court and PREVAILED.
In this day and age... that means something.
Parent
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, but it does. If you're worried about the NSA, you're... well, stuffed, really. Encrypt everything you can, and check for hardware keyloggers on the cable every morning before you log on.
Most of us, in practice, aren't worried about the NSA other than in the abstract. We're not organising political protests or anything. We're doing nothing to attract their attention. But we are worried about the MAFIAA, because a lot of us are... well, we are doing things to attract their attention. Gigabytes of things. Daily. An ISP that will stand up for its customers against those guys is golden.
Parent
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:4, Insightful)
The mere fact that you can state you "aren't worried about the NSA" and in the same paragraph say "we're not organizing political protests or anything" is pretty depressing. And I don't know which part is worse -- thinking that you might actually have a reason to fear the NSA because of political protects (First Amendment, what??) or me being cynical enough to understand why you would draw that conclusion.
How far we have fallen.
Parent
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:5, Informative)
The phone companies didn't have to turn over anything "as required by law". The government made a request, and all the others gave them what they wanted when it WASN'T required by law. It wasn't a legal demand, because the government didn't have the legal right. Qwest basically said "show us the warrant and you can have any of the information it specifies". Seeing there never was any warrants, nothing was turned over by Qwest.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, they were required by law to tell the NSA to go fuck themselves and get a FISA warrant. I mean, FISA is a rubberstamp secret court, but at least it keeps a trail and is there to prevent exactly the same sort of dragnet that they installed in the first place.
Is it really a Democrat or Republican thing whether the word of the Executive is law? Last I looked, martial law was not in effect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw some billboards around here (put up by Comcast) that said
"Three words: We're Not Verizon"
Which I thought was a funny ad campaign, since in my experience, they're so much worse than Verizon.
I mean, Verizon sucks too, but at least they're not Comcast.
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:4, Funny)
Please turn in your grammar-nazi badge at the door.
In traditional grammar, a contraction is the formation of a new word from one or more individual words. [wikipedia.org] -- This is the very first sentence in the referenced article by the way.
Parent
Re:Here we come Verizon (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Trading one monopoly for another? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, from what I'm guessing, it you don't like your ISP providing the FIOS connection, you cannot get another ISP that can use that FIOS connection.
IOW: you are just locking yourself into another monopoly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Trading one monopoly for another? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not if the power goes out and your FiOS backup battery dies....... at least POTS on copper is line powered.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:u didnt share that HBO show? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:u didnt share that HBO show? (Score:5, Insightful)
There! That'll fix it.
Parent
That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was quoted in the Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] article. Here is the text of my FCC comment.
Dear Commissioners,
As a longtime customer of the Comcast Corporation (CMCSA) I feel it is necessary for me to provide you with my views and opinions regarding their use of throttling bandwidth for point to point (P2P) users that access their network.
File sharing is a gray area with regards to the law. It can be used
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Y
Re:Bit Torrent has been hijacked by thieves (Score:5, Informative)
Overselling isn't the problem. Way, way overselling is. Some things can be oversold without a problem, including bandwidth.
Parent
Re:Industry move (Score:5, Interesting)
I've got Comcast at home, and lately anything over
I grabbed my laptop, hit the OpenVPN button to my server in a datacenter in Atlanta, and surprise! The pages loaded instantly.
Between P2P throttling and general crappy service, I sincerely hope that this suit changes things for the better.
Parent
Re:Industry move (Score:5, Interesting)
Ironically, Comcast may be really hurting themselves in the long run; if it gets bad enough, P2P software writers will switch to UDP, and manually do the in-order/reliable delivery stuff themselves. TCP has a lot of fancy congestion control, and I doubt that the P2P writers will bother with it...
Parent
Re:Industry move (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Industry move (Score:4, Informative)
So, I can get like 3mbit upstream for a bit, but then it scales back to 1mbit/sec. If I stop the transfer and wait a bit, then start again, I'll get the fast speed again for a little bit. Same is true on downstream - I'll get ~24mbit/sec down for a bit, then it'll throttle back to the 8mbit I pay for.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Industry move (Score:5, Funny)
*sigh* I know. Wasn't it a magical time when the internet was ALL porn and NO javascript??
Parent
Re:So about that witch hunt... (Score:5, Informative)
For example, there's a well documented incident where Comcast's RST injection is killing Lotus Notes sessions where moderate sized (>1MB) attachments are sent.
Parent
I'll color you wrong, thank you. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you prefer them watching their connectivity slow to a crawl because of the hundreds of thousands of YOUTUBE users. Oh guess what. If you have a favorite youtube video, there's no easy way to download it. You need to re-download it again and again and again.
Want to download your favorite videos? Download them