NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Comcast using Sandvine to Interfere with P2P
>> At 11:48 PM 11/7/2007, Robb Topolski wrote: >>> Using the Comcast P2P interference as an example, in this case, >>> Comcast has degraded the performance of a non-favored application. > > On 11/8/07, Brett Glass <nnsquad@brettglass.com> wrote: >> Or, from Comcast's point of view, it is preventing network abuse and >> stopping customers from violating the terms of their contracts. > > If this is Comcast's position, then there are many other ways to do > this without forging and injecting RST TCP packets onto the Internet > and to their customers. Robb Topolski wrote: > Furthermore, what they are doing ultimately does not prevent "network > abuse," nor does it stop customers from "violating their terms of > their contracts" (which are overly broad and vague). As implemented > by Comcast, the popular BitTorrent and eDonkey clients still can > upload at full speed -- so what's being prevented? Agreed. AFAIK P2P applications don't violate anybody's contract terms. Using P2P to distribute or (arguably) download copyrighted materials without the copyright holders permission probably does. But randomly killing P2P connections penalizes the legitimate users just as much as the illegitimate ones. And the protocol documents (RFCs 791 & 793) specify what these packet headers and bits are for, and Comcast is in violation of those protocols. This is just as much an abuse of the system as email spam, SYN floods, and other attempts to either break the Internet altogether or subvert it to purposes at variance with the interests of the vast majority of users (both commercial and individual). _______________________________________________ NNSquad mailing list information: http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad