[ NNSquad ] Re: [OT?] NN definition(s?)

[Peter Eckersley <pde@eff.org>]

So what you're saying is, the Azureus developers added a configuration
option to their code that would allow its traffic priority to be set by
the user (possibly for the benefit of users trying to run VOIP at the
same time).

But because the developers left this feature off by default, they're as
bad as Comcast, who have started forging packets to kill connections in
categories they don't like, and won't even admit that they're doing it,
let alone discuss the details?

Richard, I know you're smart and well-informed, so why are you using
your talents to troll like this?

On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 21:13 -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:

> Here's one example: the Azureus implementation of BitTorrent allows the
> user to set a global TOS/DSCP label for all his transmit traffic. By
> default, this value is set to a value that uses the default value set by
> the OS, which in most cases is "Best Effort" in WiFi terms. 
> 
> I would contend that BitTorrent is the best example of "Background" or
> "High Througput" traffic ever devised, so its default TOS is too high.
> And because it's too high, it interferes with the user's own VoIP,
> video-streaming, and web browsing traffic unless the user has Phil
> Karns's sophistication and equipment (unlikely, of course.)
> 
> If others agree that this is an abuse of net neutrality, perhaps we can
> proceed to publicize it and have it corrected after a period of proper
> flogging and public shaming.
> 
> Just a thought,
> 
> RB
> 
-- 
Peter Eckersley                            pde@eff.org
Staff Technologist                Tel  +1 415 436 9333 x131
Electronic Frontier Foundation    Fax  +1 415 436 9993