Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking Communications

Comcast Discloses Throttling Practices 206

Posted by Soulskill
from the only-took-a-year dept.
Wired reports that Comcast finally provided information on its network management practices late Friday. In a report to the FCC (PDF), the cable company admitted to targeting P2P protocols Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FasTrack, and Gnutella. Quoting: "For each of the managed P2P protocols, the [Sandvine Policy Traffic Switch] monitors and identifies the number of simultaneous unidirectional uploads that are passed from the [Cable Modem Termination System] to the upstream router. Because of the prevalence of P2P traffic on the upstream portion of our network, the number of simultaneous unidirectional upload sessions of any particular P2P protocol at any given time serves as a useful proxy for determining the level of overall network congestion. For each of the protocols, a session threshold is in place that is intended to provide for equivalently fair access between the protocols, but still mitigate the likelihood of congestion that could cause service degradation for our customers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comcast Discloses Throttling Practices

Comments Filter:
  • by David Gerard (12369) <slashdotNO@SPAMdavidgerard.co.uk> on Saturday September 20, 2008 @07:25AM (#25084087) Homepage

    Shocked, shocked I am! Evil in the telecoms industry? Never! Well, hardly ever.

    Perhaps Google could develop a not evil telecoms company. (Or, as they did with the spectrum auction, play the evils off against each other and not actually spend ridiculous sums of their own money.)

    I think we need a Microsoft telecoms company. Their evil has been slipping lately [today.com]. It's not good enough, Mr Ballmer!

    (I'm picturing Steve Ballmer with his high-pressure used car salesman shout: "EVIL! EVIL! EVIL! EVIL!" Bouncing around the stage.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by l0stmage (1268502)
      I wonder if this will cause Comcast to change their advertising practices? Or perhaps they'll offer a truly unlimited service for more money. I think people won't mind paying the extra money if they know what they are truly getting is unlimited service, as opposed to 'throttled' service.
      • by theskunkmonkey (839144) on Saturday September 20, 2008 @08:47AM (#25084487) Homepage

        People forget what "unlimited" Internet means when used in marketing access plans. Back in the "old" days, your connection to the Internet was metered by time since everyone pretty much got the maximum available and you didn't have bandwidth tiering you have with today's massive capacities. You usually had X hours of service per month in your plan. This is the "limited" part of the sales pitch. Eventually the ISPs were able to offer "Unlimited" access, meaning you could leave it on 24/7 all month and only pay the monthly fee.

        Now some people are clamoring that they were sold "Unlimited" service and they are being cheated. Bullshit. Your still allowed to stay connected for an "unlimited" amount of time which is exactly what your paying for and my guess is that your service contract states this, you get X bandwidth available 24/7. Even then, that 24/7 isn't guaranteed but it's the exception not the rule when there's a problem with connectivity [Insert chosen ISP bashing here].

        I'm not saying this is a Good Thing(TM), but it's not like anyone has been cheated. It's just been a case of very slimy marketing by the ISPs.

        • by poetmatt (793785) on Saturday September 20, 2008 @09:51AM (#25084899) Journal

          Okay, simple example.

          Just like their "up to" line, they want to advertise more than they can do while lying, as many businesses do. This is like having a 160mph speedometer on a bicycle. Sure, you can do up to 160mph, or have unlimited usage, but they hid the reality, which is "no, you can't have what we promised or else we will disconnect you".

        • by ZorinLynx (31751) on Saturday September 20, 2008 @09:56AM (#25084919) Homepage

          The thing is, time is no longer an issue in modern connections because they are packet-switched down to the bare wire.

          In the old days you used a phone line, which was circuit switched, to call your ISP. They had a limited number of ports so they had to limit how long you could be online, otherwise folks would get a busy signal.

          Since these days there is no customer-initiated circuit switching involved in cable and DSL links, the concept of "unlimited" can *only* apply to data transfer. There isn't anything else to limit.

          Believe me, I remember the days of circuit switching and "hourly limits" quite well. I was on an ISDN connection from 2000 to 2004. Worrying about how *long* you're online is extremely irritating. Those are definitely "good old days" I wouldn't want to go back to.

          • by mikael (484)

            Worrying about how *long* you're online is extremely irritating. Those are definitely "good old days" I wouldn't want to go back to.

            That's the way wireless broadband works - if you exceed some large limit in your local region, or use your wireless modem while away from home (which is the whole point of going wireless in the first place) then you get bushwhacked for 10 pounds/megabyte. Not too fun when you are working at a remote site and need to download a PDF technical manual.

            Basically because the wireless

        • by eiapoce (1049910)

          If they sell you "xMbps bandwith unlimited 24/7" and they plan to cap you then they have been committing at least misleading advertising. In my personal point of view this is more like a scam.

          Want additional proof? Send comcast a letter that states "I am going to pay with "ulimited money transfers" and write in the small print underneath that the payment is capped to a maximum of 9.99$/month due to bank congestion. I guess they won't find it funny.

        • by ClintJCL (264898) <clintjcl+slashdotNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday September 20, 2008 @01:40PM (#25086559) Homepage Journal
          What about when you chat with pre-sales people and they tell you you can use 100% of your bandwidth 100% of the time, and then Speakeasy terminates you for downloading too much. Happened to me.

          There ARE people lying out there. Plenty.

      • by not_anne (203907) on Saturday September 20, 2008 @09:00AM (#25084555)

        Comcast hasn't advertised "unlimited internet" in many years. After a Google search, the only use of "unlimited" I could find in a current Comcast ad was associated with their phone service: "Make unlimited local and long distance calls with 12 popular features..."

    • by _merlin (160982)

      Perhaps Google could develop a not evil telecoms company. (Or, as they did with the spectrum auction, play the evils off against each other and not actually spend ridiculous sums of their own money.)

      Google make one that's not evil? Judging from their other ventures, they'd make it free, but use it as a data mining and advertising platform (I know this has been tried before and failed) and you'd sign away all rights on your online activities to Google. They only keep that motto to distract people from the

    • Perhaps Google could develop a not evil telecoms company.

      They did. [wikipedia.org] Kinda.

    • Shocked, shocked I am! Evil in the telecoms industry? Never! Well, hardly ever.

      Perhaps Google could develop a not evil telecoms company. (Or, as they did with the spectrum auction, play the evils off against each other and not actually spend ridiculous sums of their own money.)

      I think we need a Microsoft telecoms company. Their evil has been slipping lately [today.com]. It's not good enough, Mr Ballmer!

      (I'm picturing Steve Ballmer with his high-pressure used car salesman shout: "EVIL! EVIL! EVIL! EVIL!" Bouncing around the stage.)

      Shocked, shocked I am! Evil in the telecoms industry? Never! Well, hardly ever.

      Perhaps Google could develop a not evil telecoms company. (Or, as they did with the spectrum auction, play the evils off against each other and not actually spend ridiculous sums of their own money.)

      I think we need a Microsoft telecoms company. Their evil has been slipping lately [today.com]. It's not good enough, Mr Ballmer!

      (I'm picturing Steve Ballmer with his high-pressure used car salesman shout: "EVIL! EVIL! EVIL! EVIL!" Bouncing around the stage.)

      The only thing that would be different in a Google ISP is that they'd tie every website you visited to your permanent record.

  • Bullshit.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20, 2008 @07:34AM (#25084129)

    That is worded to basically say 'if the bandwidth is available, anyone can do anything' but from what I've been reading, those affected have been saying it's 'no p2p no matter what.'

    They're lying.

    But either way, the idea of throttling is bunk. If their networks cannot handle the service they sell, then they need to upgrade their networks.

    Anything an ISP limits - whether it be browsing certain sites, severely limiting upload speed, or throttling p2p - is limiting free speech. They need to watch themselves. It's not hard to see that the 'big media' companies essentially want the Internet to turn into cable TV - where the customers are zombies that cannot contribute.

    • Re:Bullshit.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stevey (64018) on Saturday September 20, 2008 @08:13AM (#25084333) Homepage

      I'm not an American - so my understanding may be off.

      I thought "Free Speech" meant literally that you couldn't be arrested for saying "stuff".

      Specifically it doesn't mean:

      • You have a right to yell "fire" in a cinema.
      • Whatever you want to say has to be listened to by anybody.
      • That your words must be broadcast as far as you want them.
      • That people must obey your commands.

      So, with that in mind. How is imposing a bandwidth cap in any way related to free speach?

      Sure I could see if they didn't let you visit some, politically derived, blacklist of websites then you could argue they were suppressing some topics. But otherwise?

      Hyperbole - and the more times you do that the less people pay attention. Cry Wolf, anybody?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        Actually the first amendment merely limits what Congress can and can't make into law. Private companies can do whatever the heck they want, provided you "agree" to it first before paying them for a service. I'm not saying what they do is right, but rather there's no constitutional case here.
        • by burris (122191)

          Sorry, but thats just ignorance. Some state constitutions have affirmative protections of free speech that can and do limit private entities. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)

          Private companies cannot "do whatever the heck they want." Private property is not absolute.

      • by mdmkolbe (944892)
        You have a better understanding of Free Speech than most Americans. I feel ashamed for my country.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by zippthorne (748122)

        In fact, you can say "fire" in a crowded theater, especially if there actually is one. But even if there isn't, you can't be arrested for saying it. Although you do assume some liability for any damages that might result, which even if no one is injured will probably amount to thousands of dollars in re-issued tickets (it was a *crowded* theater, after all).

        • by TubeSteak (669689)

          In fact, you can say "fire" in a crowded theater, especially if there actually is one. But even if there isn't, you can't be arrested for saying it. Although you do assume some liability for any damages that might result, which even if no one is injured will probably amount to thousands of dollars in re-issued tickets (it was a *crowded* theater, after all).

          I do not know where you got the idea that an adult cannot be arrested for yelling fire in a crowded theater.

          If you reasonably thought there was a fire, you have little to worry about. If you're doing it maliciously, your level of "I'm fucked" scales from not-fucked (just you in an empty theater) to semi-fucked (a misdemeanor charge) all the way up to totally-fucked (at least one person dies because you shouted fire).

          There are catch-all laws against inciting a panic, disturbing the peace, etc. which is the m

        • by jthill (303417)
          The rule is worded different ways in different places, but the basic idea is

          A person is presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his voluntary act.

          Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is going to produce panic, probably physical harm and possibly trampling deaths. Any sane person knows this. "Presumed" has a legal meaning: the court takes it as given unless you show otherwise. This is the same reasoning used to outlaw "fighting words" in a bar, inciting riot, and so forth; it's why you can be arrested for driving drunk without actually killing anybody. It's enough evidence

      • That You have "free speech" does not mean you are free from the results of said speech.
        The text in question in full

        "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

        the problem here is any kind of focused drop in your bandwidth that you paid for gives them the right to drop your bandwidt

      • Honestly, Iâ(TM)ve finally gotten to a point where Iâ(TM)m tired of the âoefreedom of speech doesnâ(TM)t mean you can run into a crowded theatre and yell fireâ. I actually think that should be protected speech. This is extreme, yes.

        If the idiots in the theatre trample each other in a mad rush from a fire that doesnâ(TM)t even exist, it was their own stupidity and lack of clearheadedness that killed them, not the person shouting fire. If your reaction to the mere threat of dan

    • by Joebert (946227)

      Anything an ISP limits - whether it be browsing certain sites, severely limiting upload speed, or throttling p2p - is limiting free speech

      That's preposterous.
      I agree not getting what you think you paid for is a crock of shit, but to say that this is "limiting free speech" is going a little too far.

      That's like saying a drunk driver is limiting free speech if they crash into someone, paralyzing them, and making it so that person has to communicate by blowing through a straw.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20, 2008 @07:38AM (#25084159)

    Comcast offers a voip product. Would anyone like to guess how the throttling practice was applied to traffic that was catagorized as VOIP but was not associated with Comcast's subscription service? Can anyone out there say anti-competitive practice? Real easy for Comcast to put those copyright infringers out front as the rationale for this policy but when one reads between the lines..... things are not quite as pristine as outlined. Connect the dots and get a clue.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anon E. Muss (808473)

      I have Comcast cable TV and Internet service. I have personal experience with them, and don't like 'em very much. It pains me to defend their sorry asses, but in the interest of intellectual honesty, I'll do it.

      Comcast doesn't offer a "VOIP product" -- they offer phone service. The handoff to the consumer is an analog POTS connection. Using VOIP as the transport mechanism is an implementation detail. As a facilities-based carrier, they have every right to dedicate bandwidth on their network to carry th

    • [citation needed]

      Look, I hate Comcast as much as the next guy and think this is all crap, but 'would anybody like to guess' what actually happens?

      That's right, nothing. Vonage works fine over Comcast - Comcast isn't that stupid.

      This is not official, only anecdotal, but from about 8 people scattered around the country with Comcast+Vonage... so it's a pretty fair statement.

    • by fatboy (6851)

      Comcast offers a voip product. Would anyone like to guess how the throttling practice was applied to traffic that was catagorized as VOIP but was not associated with Comcast's subscription service?

      I have never had any problems with my Vonage TA on Comcast. It just works.

    • by nweaver (113078) on Saturday September 20, 2008 @09:02AM (#25084565) Homepage

      This was put in place per Comcast's talk at the IETF largely to IMPROVE VoIP service from Vonage et al. You look back to 2006, before this was deployed, and there were lots of complaints about "Comcast is disrupting Vonage and other voip services..."

      Those complaints largely dissapeared after Comcast started policing P2P uploads.

    • by mi (197448)

      Would anyone like to guess how the throttling practice was applied to traffic that was catagorized as VOIP but was not associated with Comcast's subscription service?

      Whenever there is a shortage of any resource — such as bandwidth — somebody is going to receive less of the resource, than they would like. It is inevitable. So, somehow a decision has to be made on how to divide, what's available. Other things being equal, giving a higher priority to one's own customers can hardly be illegal in suc

  • Comcast blows (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20, 2008 @07:51AM (#25084219)

    Choice? I wish! In my area Comcast bought out everyone and now they are the only player in the game. Needless to say their service is horrible and their customer service is horrendous! Something really needs to be done about these ridiculous cable monopolies.

  • by whisper_jeff (680366) on Saturday September 20, 2008 @07:54AM (#25084237)
    You have to love how the text is carefully crafted to be virtually incomprehensible to the average person. Actually, check that - totally incomprehensible to the average person and virtually incomprehensible to all but the hardest core network tech geeks. Of course, it's intentional because saying, simply, "we slow down users who utilize programs we don't like" is too easy to understand and rally against, which, of course, is exactly the opposite of what Comcast wants. This Byzantine text just sounds like a lot of techno-mumbo-jumbo so it has to be ok, right? Thankfully, Slashdot is filled with hard core network tech geeks so I'll be reading comments with interest to get an informed synopsis rather than staring at Comcast's text and thinking "huh?"
    • by Zironic (1112127)

      Comcast claims they did this:

      For each protocol and geographical area they said that they will allow X connections, for example they might have decided that bittorent is allowed 1 million connections in new york(made up numbers).

      Then when someone tries to open connection one million and one comcast goes and says "No, we can't allow you to do that since we already have too many bittorrent connections in this area", they do this by sending fake reset messages (Which is arguably fraud).

      They also claim they only

      • Then when someone tries to open connection one million and one comcast goes and says "No, we can't allow you to do that since we already have too many bittorrent connections in this area", they do this by sending fake reset messages (Which is arguably fraud).

        Tbh that doesnt sound too bad, i mean at least your web browsing isnt effective. Im on virgin and i think they use the same software, but its configured so that whenever im 'caught' (what i need to do get caught varies on time, upload speed, number of unencrypted bittorrent handshakes*) i either get slowed down (google ping goes from ~20 -> 200) which is annoying but useable for browsing or beaten with the slow stick (ping go to ~3000) which makes browsing impossible.

        *is there any way to avoid these, all

    • by slimjim8094 (941042) <slashdot3@justco ... et minus painter> on Saturday September 20, 2008 @08:54AM (#25084521)

      "For each of the managed P2P protocols, the [Sandvine Policy Traffic Switch] monitors and identifies the number of simultaneous unidirectional uploads that are passed from the [Cable Modem Termination System] to the upstream router.

      Sandvine checks uploads without downloads. It does this 'above' (in the hierarchy) from the head-end of the cable network (neighborhood box).

      Because of the prevalence of P2P traffic on the upstream portion of our network, the number of simultaneous unidirectional upload sessions of any particular P2P protocol at any given time serves as a useful proxy for determining the level of overall network congestion.

      P2P is used a lot, and fairly consistently. Therefore, the number of one-way uploads (not SSH or rdesktop like somebody else said) can be used to extrapolate the total congestion for much less 'thought' (for Sandvine)

      For each of the protocols, a session threshold is in place that is intended to provide for equivalently fair access between the protocols, but still mitigate the likelihood of congestion that could cause service degradation for our customers."

      We count the number (like, only 500 BitTorrent sessions) and cut off after that.
      --
      My thoughts: I don't think this helps anything. I doubt anybody has much of a problem with them legitimately throttling P2P protocols, as long as it's done consistently and fairly (no need to throttle with plenty of upstream, right?). The real problem are the RSTs which impersonate each side of the connection to the other, saying that the other closed the connection. That's like Bob passing messages between Alice and Candice, and telling Candice that Alice called her a bitch, and telling Alice that Candice called her a bitch.

      QoS isn't that hard, and I'm sure they know how. It's fairly easy to throttle back without sending RSTs, and allows for the full utilization of 'open' bandwidth.

      This statement explains the rationale, but not the choice of methods.

    • by LordMyren (15499)

      I dont get what you want. You can either explain how it works, or explain it to the public: they start by explaining it to the public, then they tell you how they actually do it. The public facing stuff is mildly deceptive (doesnt mention their throttling severely breaks TCP) & the how they do it stuff is actually fairly acurate.

      I just dont get what your ask is. To the average person TCP/IP doesnt mean a damned thing. How do you propose they discuss a TCP/IP centric topic in a way a "average person"

  • by Saint Stephen (19450) on Saturday September 20, 2008 @08:08AM (#25084309) Homepage Journal

    our big fancy piece of software slows your download speed to a trickle if you use hardly any of your upload speed. so god forbid you try to ssh or rdesktop into your box

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by amayain (1186069)
      Although Comcast has brought my p2p to a crawl, i have never had problems with rdesktop. Anyone else?
  • by superid (46543) on Saturday September 20, 2008 @08:13AM (#25084335) Homepage

    For well over a year I have had intermittent but persistent dropouts during primetime (Comcast). I've put in about a dozen service calls and had a tech at my house just the other day. I've had two new cable modems and the tech confirmed that the signal is fine.

    I used tcpdump to show him the traffic scroll by at a nearly constant rate (I have a very active home network) and then *bam* it's dead. He looked at the lights and from his point of view says "the signal is fine". It's not my network because I see the same dropouts when connected directly to the cable modem, and it's apparently not the signal.

    So that leaves the network. I think it's saturated. I can see 30+ ARPs per second immediately after service comes back up. And if this new policy helps that, then I'm all for it.

  • Sounds like the marketing guys got to answer to the FCC.

  • Cable (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Shenzhov (1299257) on Saturday September 20, 2008 @09:14AM (#25084649)
    Personally I don't thinks this has anything to do with what they claim. I see it more as comcast realizing that people are starting to get content from iTunes, or off the Xbox 360 or from Netflix and they are going to lose cable advertising dollars as well as customers paying for pay per view or home box office type services. Cable companies do not have a history of being customer friendly and have pretty much always taken the position of "you will pay us through the nose for our crappy signal and you will damn well like it" attitude. Now consumers are getting some choices of how to get their entertainment and I'm sure this just burns them up. So if they give you a 250 gig limit now, you can bet it won't stay that high and you can bet that if they can start throttling traffic they will. If it takes mom 14 hours to download that episode of Lost in HD, you can be sure she will just go back to the lovely ad packed version on TV. Just like newspapers, cable tv has become irrelevant and we all just want pipes to our homes, not the crap they give us over them. Just like when AOL came along and shook up the industry with the one price for all you can eat internet, someone will come along again and kick these greedy crooks in the nuts.
    • Cable companies are in a tight spot and they really do not want to sell us the rope (bandwidth) that we will hang them with (lost advertising dollars) by ultimately allowing other people to provide content and undermine their primary business model, infotainment content delivery.

      I'm not sure they will "win" though in the long run. There will be too many other options for both data and content delivery --- even though the menu is small and the content kind of crappy, cell phones are already showing TV and p

  • ... Can't they ensure minimum bandwidth as well? Why not sell a plan that guarantees a certain minimum bandwidth 24/7, so that the people who feel they need to download so much material constantly can do so without worrying that (favorite pr0n) 7 might take longer to download than did (favorite pr0n) 6?

    For that matter, isn't that was the "business-class" broadband does?

    Maybe I'm just not angry about this enough yet. I use a cable modem (though not through comcast) and haven't really been found bandwid
  • What a joke FAP and caps. Other ISP do it in better way like have A download threshold when if you go over it you get slowed down for as long as it takes for you to Recover it but they also have FAP free times and / or a Pay for the data over the limit with no CAP. Some ISP do have FAP free zones but COMCARP dose not even want to do that.

  • I have Comcast in Denver. I can not get a VPN connection to work now. The packets get to the gateway but get dropped on the way back. Also, I cannot load www.parts-express.com, it consistently fails when I know the site is up. This has been consistent for a month. Will Comcast fix this if I call with a tracert, or is Qwest an alternative?
  • by Danathar (267989) on Saturday September 20, 2008 @10:01AM (#25084947) Journal

    And move the TCP part into the application. You can't break a session where there is none to break.

    Azureus already has UDP support, but it very rarely falls back to UDP unfortunately.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      very good observation!

      in fact, in my world (snmp) its ALL udp for this very reason. as I explain it, the same 'work' is done by tcp or udp based apps by the time the top 'layer' edge is reached; but the diff is WHO does the work - the app or the stack. in snmp, its the app since the app 'knows better' how to manage its segmentation, retries and timeouts. letting tcp do that is convenient but rarely optimal. that's why a lot of protocols run on udp - they want more control over the aspects of their comms

    • by amorsen (7485)

      And move the TCP part into the application. You can't break a session where there is none to break.

      There's still a session. The fact that you have moved the session-state bits into a different part of the packet won't stop them for long. You can add encryption, but then key distribution becomes a problem -- without that, Comcast can just MITM everything.

      It's an arms race, and Comcast will win it, simply because they can cancel the account whenever it discovers that it is losing to someone. There are two solutions: Real competition and government intervention. You probably don't get the first solution wit

    • by LordMyren (15499)

      This is a bollocks suggestion.

      UDP requires clients to know how to throttle. If your clients and the clients you are connected to do not throttle correctly you will overload your pipe and there is no long term recourse except to continually drop packets.

      Admitantly usually incoming data is not where people have problems-- its outgoing where its your client thats in control-- but I really think UDP is a poor choice for P2P protocols based on its complete lack of bandwidth control.

      • by Danathar (267989)

        I never suggested that it's BETTER than TCP, but it would probably work better than TCP through a sandvine box.

        And you completely ignored the first part of my post. You would still have to have some sort of TCP like mechanism higher in the application stack.

  • by corsec67 (627446) on Saturday September 20, 2008 @10:46AM (#25085255) Homepage Journal

    Per that PDF, on page 10 Comcast described how they "delay" the packets, using "reset packets." Stop letting them get away with calling forging reset packets "throttling". Instead, they are blocking connections via forgery.

    Except, they admit that packets with the reset header are only supposed to be used by the two end computers, and not by any of the routers in between, which should be handled by ICMP [wikipedia.org].

    They say, in that pdf, "As used in our current congestion management practices, the reset packet is used to convey that the system cannot, at that moment, process additional high-resource demands without creating risk of congestion.", which is just crazy.
    Reset isn't a "slow down" message, it is a "stop sending me any kind of data on this connection" message.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dunnius (1298159)
      Wow, I actually had to read that page for myself to verify that. So they actually admit that they are engaging in "man in the middle attacks." I hope they get in big trouble for hacking and forgery, since that is what they admit to doing.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mkraft (200694)

      That's Comcast old (current) policy. Their new policy is documented in this page [comcast.net] on their web site.

      On page 11:
      "As described above, the new approach will not manage congestion by focusing on managing the use of specific protocols. Nor will this approach use 'reset packets.'"

  • They throttled my iChat video conferences to less than dial-up speeds, effectively making it useless.

  • When the number of unidirectional upload sessions for any of the managed P2P protocols
    for a particular Sandvine PTS reaches the pre-determined session threshold, the Sandvine PTS
    issues instructions called âoereset packetsâ that delay unidirectional uploads for that particular P2P
    protocol in the geographic area managed by that Sandvine PTS. The âoeresetâ is a flag in the
    packet header used to communicate an error condition in communication between two computers
    on the Internet. As used in o

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...