Explore the Nikon D5100 HD-SLR.
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
-
Net neutrality becomes issue in presidential race
October 29, 2007 -
Obama pledges Net neutrality laws if elected president
October 29, 2007 -
AT&T calls censorship of Pearl Jam lyrics a mistake
August 9, 2007 -
Comcast denies monkeying with BitTorrent traffic
August 21, 2007 -
FCC urged to stop Comcast Internet blocking
November 1, 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., cable company, supporter, Webcast
33 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
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.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/10/comcasts-world-without-network.html" target="_newWindow">http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/10/comcasts-world-without-network.html</a>
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.
All you can do is send pictures via P2P with windows or mac os basic software and all the wesites are having to pay to give you access to their vids.
This does still let you produce youtube vids but dosen't really let anyone small compete properly nor does it let you get all the stuff you want.
What do you do?, your tied down at your connecting.
Even to have a vid on your web site you now have to pay youtube.
Horrid ain't it, horrid little horris rules again rest assure you'll only see of comming wars what your supposed to.
Surley there must be a clever way round such a problem.
Well compression is all about curves and that power you'll have in your home computer you'll be able to curve that data up loads more effectivley than you can today.
So you may have a little peice of software that reads special lossless pictures ona site as a video.
The software might also collect and send pictures similar to how bit torrent works allowing you to do all the stuff you could before the crack down on neutrality.
The software could also change things that it does to stop people stopping it doing what it does.
The flaw with controling people who have computers as opposed to people who have TV's is that they have computers not TV's and so long as theres data going round theres a loop hole in the control actions of others and no law can ever come out that can preempt your technical way around the law and the system.
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.
I admit, Comcast was dumb about this. If they had just stuck with restricting BT uploads and been forthcoming about it, no one would have made a big stink about it, since its their right to monitor and control the bandwidth on their network. However, they were idiotic enough to try and hide what they were doing, plus going the extra step and forging customers id's and sending abort msg's to both ends of a BT upload.
However, as being part of the telecommunications industry, I do not want to see the ISP's lose the right to manage their network, and on the flip side I dont want them to get too much control over what and how they control on their network. It all comes down to a balance, not one side over the other. But, this is American politics, so you know thats not gonna happen.
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
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://fakesteveballmer*blogspot.com" target="_newWindow">http://****************.blogspot.com</a>
You have bad service from 1 provider and thus you conclude that the Federal Government must come to the rescue?
Wrong. Capitalism works. And if you don't like Verizon's service, you'll go to another provider, and Verizon will lose money. Why do you need the federal government to solve all your problems? Haven't you realized yet that government regulation of the Internet is a "Bad Thing?"
Where you go wrong.. is that you only consider your own freedoms. It is a very selfish perspective. Essentially, what you are saying is... "I know exactly what kind of service I want, and I want the government to force ABC Company to give me that service."
Well... what just happened to ABC Company's freedom? You stomped all over it, didn't you. Providers need to be free to run their own networks. If you don't like their service, you'll find a new provider. Its just that simple. If a provider loses too much business, they'll be forced to switch strategies. It is sad that you thin "Saving" the Internet is somethign the Federal government can do. The Internet matured w/o government interaction, and will survive as a robust and ever-changing platform, so long as we keep government's meddling hands out of it.
Support freedom of the Internet. If I build MY network, and you connect to it, then I get to make the rules. If its your network, you make the rules. If you don't like my rules, pay somebody who has better rules. This is the essence of freedom. What you suggest is the opposite. You suggest government revocation of the rights of network owners. Why should you enjoy freedom while the people who build businesses to service you are forced into regulation?
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://fakesteveballmer*blogspot.com" target="_newWindow">http://****************.blogspot.com</a>
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.