|
Posted by Bill Horne on March 1, 2008, 6:47 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Bill Horne wrote:
>> The Comcast Corporation, faced with criticism of it's port-blocking
>> practice, appears to have "packed" a public hearing conducted by the
>> Federal Communications Commission at Boston. According to an advocacy
>> group, Comcast paid "seat warmers" to take up all available spaces and
>> exclude complainants from the hearing.
>
> THAT was not democratic behavior and Comcast will be bashed rightly
> for that.
Actually, it _is_ Democratic behavior: packing public meetings, voting
"on the view", and similar skulduggery are as old as the hills. It's the
blatant use of this old tactic in an electronic age that scares me:
Comcast is either _very_ desperate or _very_ arrogant, or both, to
pull a trick that is so obvious and so easily documented.
>> This is very serious business, and I urge those readers who reside in
>> the United States to make their voices heard. Comcast is a
>> media-distribution company: their business model is that they are paid
>> to gateway electronic media on its way from providers to their
>> customers, and Comcast appears to feel that they are entitled to block
>> traffic they're not being paid extra to allow on their network, no
>> matter what its origin or ownership may be.
>
> I, a Comcast customer, support the idea of limiting the abuse of the
> bandwidth simply because I use part of that bandwidth. At the moment
> this is the only way to have a remotely "Fair" distribution.
>
Whoa! Stop!! Misconception alert!!!
NOBODY is saying that abuse of bandwidth should be tolerated. NOBODY is
claiming that Comcast or any other ISP doesn't have a right to manage
their network.
_If_ I, as a (thankfully former) Comcast subscriber, deprive other users
of the service they pay for because I'm doing a BitTorrent download of
Ubuntu HardyHeron during the Monday morning email rush hour, then
Comcast is entitled to throttle or cut off my access until such time as
it can take place without interfering with others. I was a network
manager at a small ISP, and I know how hard it is to deal with bandwidth
hogs. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT.
What Network Neutrality is about is requiring Comcast, which enjoys
common-carrier protections against being sued for the actions of its
users, from SELECTIVELY throttling traffic based on non-technical
criteria. If my HardyHeron download is cut off because I'm hogging the
bandwidth others need, that's tough for me - but if it's cut off because
Comcast has a secret agreement with Microsoft to discourage the use of
open-source software, then I'm entitled to judicial relief.
> As an analogy, London now charges a toll on vehicles entering the
> city core. This practice will spread.
As well it should: governments have an obligation to protect their
citizens from each other's folly, and discouraging people from driving
to a crowded city center is a legitimate government duty. However, the
analogy changes when the reason for the restriction is based on
something other than openly debated public policy: how would you like
being charged a toll based on which dealer sold you the car or which
store you intend to visit - or which suburb you live in?
>> I don't often get involved in political debates, and I usually
>> discourage them in the Digest, but this is about the very heart of the
>> Internet - the concept of Net Neutrality. The Internet's "pipe and
>> ping" providers, Comcast among them, should be held to a "bits are
>> bits" standard, and prohibited from discriminating against either any
>> *type* of traffic or any *author* of traffic. Make no mistake: the
>> conglomerates that provide the pipes are trying to put in electronic
>> toll gates that they can close or open or squeeze slowly shut at their
>> whim, with the aim of turning the Internet (a system whose design was
>> paid for by U.S. taxpayers, BTW) into a tightly controlled
>> distribution network where all content is approved by - and a tithe
>> paid to - Comcast and its friends.
>
> Net Neutrality sounds simple AND democratic. But it is not as simple
> as it would appear. The Backbone should be net neutral, but the last
> mile should be subject to bandwidth restrictions. I suspect there
> are some gray areas in between.
The last mile _is_ subject to bandwidth restrictions: they're called
"the laws of physics". Nobody is demanding that any one customer get
preferential treatment: Net Neutrality says exactly that. If I'm
downloading a song from itunes, I should have no more _and_ no less
bandwidth than the guy across the street who's downloading a song from
Napster, because Napster should be prohibited from paying Comcast to
give their downloads priority!
>> The news media have already proven that Comcast has been choking
>> traffic created by BitTorrent, which can be used to download movies
>> but can also be used to download the latest version of Linux. In
>> addition, Comcast has been selectively enforcing a "no servers" clause
>> in its user agreement, blocking traffic bound for web sites (like the
>> one I run for my son's Boy Scout troop) and email servers (like to one
>> I run to provide me with "throwaway" email addresses that dilute the
>> value of Comcast's email lists), according to an algorithm that
>> Comcast denies exists. Those who complain (I'm one) see the problem
>> disappear for a few days, and then it returns without notice, without
>> warning, and without explanation.
>
> This rant sounds a tad paranoid to me.
Who was it that said "Even paranoids have enemies"? I wasn't making that
up: the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other watchdogs confirmed
that it's going on: see http://tinyurl.com/2g3aeo for details. Moreover,
members (I'm one) of the Boston Linux & Unix Group have also confirmed
selective port blockages.
>
>> Lest we forget - Comcast is a CLEC! VoIP traffic on Comcast's cable
>> Internet access system is a _DIRECT_ competitor to Comcast's own "out
>> of band" VoIP offering (which "service", by the way, is execrable: I
>> recommend you avoid it like the plague) and also a _DIRECT_ competitor
>> to the Baby Bell's traditional circuit-switched telephone services.
>> Comcast's Internet connections are often provided via pipes that
>> Comcast leases from Ma Bell - need I say more?
>
> I use CallVantage and have used the [old] Comcast phone service. There
> was a LOT OF GRIEF switching!
>
>> ...Comcast still has a vested interest in preventing competition to
>> its primary source of income, which is the movement of content
>> provided by the entertainment industry. After all, they must pay
>> royalties to the movie studios, and thus to the media conglomerates
>> who have been making a very easy living sitting atop the choke point
>> in the old-world entertainment business, which is the manufacture and
>> distribution of records, CDs, and DVDs.
>
> Very True - too bad the anti-trust laws have been circular filed!
>
>> Do not be misled by claims of "piracy": Comcast and its cronies want
>> the public to believe that these blocks are necessary to prevent
>> theft of copyrighted content. It's a red herring: copying has _always_
>> been a marginal cost to the entertainment industry, and it has noting
>> to do with the Net Neutrality debate. What the cokeheads in California
>> are *REALLY* afraid of is that the artists, performers, and authors
>> now coming up in the old system will have a collective attack of
>> common sense, and will realize that they can distribute _their_ work
>> directly to _their_ audience, without paying Sony or Buena Vista or
>> Comcast for the privilege.
>
> You are right again: it is a red herring.
>
>> The younger generation of singers and songwriters - and even movie
>> directors - are realizing that getting one person in ten to pay you
>> for a download from _your_ website is a lot more profitable than
>> getting one dollar out of a hundred from Hollywood. (1) Comcast and
>> its peers (pun intended) are seeking to have "copyright protection"
>> serve as a stalking horse for their real agenda , which is putting
>> their choke hold around the net. This is a debate where nobody should
>> be neutral.
>
> What should we do?
Glad you asked! Here's my idea:
1. Get Mad.
2. Get Together.
3. Demand that the FCC _and_ the Congress address the issue
in open public forums. Either Comcast is a common carrier
or it's not: there can't be any gray area or hidden agenda.
Thanks for taking time to write.
--
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
Telecom Digest
(When sending a post to the digest, please put "[Telecom]"
{without the quotes but _with_ the brackets} in your subject
line, or I may never see your mail. Thanks!)
(Remove QRM from my address for direct replies.)
| 
NewsGroups 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map