AT&T Tech Support 360
November 2, 2007 1:34 PM PDT
Thanks to BitTorrrent, Net neutrality debate reignites
- Related Stories
-
File-sharing furor for Comcast
October 26, 2007 -
Net neutrality showdown
January 2, 2007 -
FCC changes DSL classification
August 5, 2005 -
Cable wins Supreme Court battle
June 27, 2005 - Related Blogs
-
FCC urged to stop Comcast Internet blocking
November 1, 2007 -
Comcast denies monkeying with BitTorrent traffic
August 21, 2007 -
AT&T calls censorship of Pearl Jam lyrics a mistake
August 9, 2007 -
Obama pledges Net neutrality laws if elected president
October 29, 2007 -
Net neutrality becomes issue in presidential race
October 29, 2007
(continued from previous page)
The problem for broadband operators is the protocol eats up huge amounts of bandwidth. To keep their networks moving smoothly, operators have installed equipment from companies such as Sandvine and Ellacoya that inspects packets to identify the type of application being used. Based on policies established by the provider, the traffic can be blocked or limited.
Earlier this year, bloggers noted that BitTorrent sessions appeared to be targeted and blocked by Comcast's service. Comcast repeatedly denied these claims. The Associated Press did its own test and reported last month that several Comcast broadband connections using BitTorrent had been slowed or blocked.
The SavetheInternet.com coalition, along with professors from Yale, Harvard, and Stanford law schools, have filed a complaint and petition with the FCC against Comcast asking the agency to take immediate action to stop Comcast's practices.
Comcast still denies claims that it is blocking any traffic. "Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise," David L. Cohen, executive vice president for Comcast, said in a statement. "We engage in reasonable network management to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience, and we do so consistently with FCC policy."
A Comcast representative said when it detects congestion in the network due to peer-to-peer traffic such as BitTorrent, it slows down that traffic in the network to make room for other kinds of traffic like Web surfing. The management mechanism is only used for the BitTorrent or other peer-to-peer traffic that is causing the congestion.
But in its filings, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition contends that the way in which Comcast manages its network deceives consumers and also violates the open-access principles outlined by the FCC.
Specifically, the group claims that Comcast is using a technique called "spoofing" to slow down or block the BitTorrent traffic. The way it works is that after a BitTorrent session has been established, Comcast interrupts the session like an operator interrupting a phone call who informs both parties that the connection has been disconnected. But instead of breaking into the connection as Comcast, the company pretends to be a customer participating in the BitTorrent session who is simply ending the session.
Net neutrality supporters say neither Comcast nor any other service provider should selectively limit any particular type of traffic. "No one is suggesting that there is no room for bandwidth management," Wu said. "But right now the operators can pick and choose the applications they want on their networks."
Simple quality-of-service networking technologies that limit the amount of bandwidth that each individual user gets could be the answer to this problem, say experts. But Wu believes the issue is not really about bandwidth management. It's about who controls the Internet.
"The whole Net neutrality issue is really about a power struggle," he said. "It all comes down to a scenario where the phone companies and cable operators want to call all the shots about which applications enter the market. And while that may be good for them, I'd argue it's very bad for the country."
See more CNET content tagged:
Net Neutrality,
Comcast Corp.,
Barack Obama,
cable company,
supporter
The carriers' plans are obvious. Is the FCC completely bought and paid for by the telco lobbyists? The answer is obvious even to a casual observer.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/10/comcasts-world-without-network.html
Who gets to make use of future changes to the internet infastructre.
How to make everything work in realtime and how to satisfy all our demands.
Adopting internet 2 advances into the internet at large.
How much should local governent make use of the future internet world to extend the commons.
Is it best to run everything from a giant central cluster or can the internet be so much more.
Should anything have a central server point at all.
How well can you make full use of global P2P systems and does making it hybrid with central servers help it.
To know how this should all unfold technically america needs atleast a 6 year of engagment
during which telecommunications companies should be allow to experiment and certian neutrality issues should be upheld amounst other mesures to ensure fainess and a really engagment towards the best future solution.
The probblem is mistakes will cost the potential extendend economy improvments can make orand cost potential growth and economy of systems allready in place.
This current wangle is just the tip of the iceberg.
intervention is needed and it's about making the right desisions to ensure the best possible future.
Does the electric company ask what you are using the electricity
for? No. Does the phone company ask what I'm going to be talking
about? No. Why should my supplier of Internet data ask what I'm
doing with the bits? It's not their responsibility.
The rest of use unless we want to pay millions will be out out of business and basically told who's information we can read and who we can do business with because gaining access to everything else will be slow and problamatic. This will set up the perfect environment also for blackmail and extortion type setups. If you don't think big companies would do things like this then you need to pull your heads out of the sand. Remember Enron, Health South, etc. etc.
Companies who's only goal is to make money can not be trusted to keep the web open and accessible for everyone. Greed will always win out this is why Comcast has increased their cable prices 93% over the last few years. Not because they give more, but because they just simply want more of your money. Greed will always win out over honesty and fairness.
Unfortunately, this also applies to the US government who is just run by a bunch of old idiot's. Who will do whatever the biggest contributor will ask them to do. As an example the DMCA!
Robert
nuff said
http://****************.blogspot.com
http://****************.blogspot.com
- WTF! Thanks to Comcast . . .
-
by criticny
December 1, 2007 12:26 AM PST
- The headlines for this article are so biased, I won't even bother to read it.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 33 Comments >>Who decided to attribute Comcast's recent bad behavior to a P2P app that's been around for years? Pheh. Pteui. Ach.
As for "Eating up bandwidth . . .", not even worth commenting on.