NEW YORK - Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally. The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users. If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content. Would You Like To Know More? Frankly, this is a good example of why "Net Neutrality" is a good idea, IMHO. I don't think imposing corporate censorship of the Net will be healthy.
I think this is some sick crap. Net neutrality is the cornerstone of the internet. I read up on it a little, and apparently Comcast is spoofing or something like it... sending out fake reset packages to disrupt connections... Jerks.
One, "net neutrality" would stifle innovation and competition to provide faster service, it assumes that fees for higher speed would not eventually be cheaper as demand for service rises. Hell, everything gets cheaper over time, otherwise there wouldn't be a LCD TV in my den. Who are you to demand that a company can not charge more for a higher degree of service or a better quality of product? Two, even the article says that this is not what Comcast is doing... How does that relate to "net neutrality"?
It's the beginnings of corporate censorship. What are you gonna do when they cut off your porn? Or keep you from downloading something from iTunes (because iTunes won't pay them fifty dollars a download?)
I can see both sides of it. Comcast is not a Tier 1 service which means they pay by the bit for all traffic that their clients use. Also they incur cost every time the MPAA or RIAA subpoenas them for information about file-sharers. Not really sure where I stand on this one. Oh and by the way, Net Neutrality is not necessarily good. Certain types of connections require a steady stream of regularly timed bits, while others do not. Streaming audio, video, VoIP, gaming, etc all are things that should be granted more regular timeslots... things like file transfer do not depend on arriving at a certain point in time so they can be displaced. The way the internet works now is basically that all traffic is treated equally which may not be ideal for future applications.
My issue with this move is this: they are changing the data being exchanged. Don't want your users doing this? Detect it and terminate their accounts. But changing content starts us down a slippery slope. What's next? Changing posts when any one criticizes Comcast in any way? Because as we all know, Comcast is run by a bunch of mother...s, wonderfully responsive, community oriented working mothers whose goal is to make life better for everyone always.
I read 2 related articles about the issue that address exactly what comcast is doing, why, and how it relates to net neutrality. Even this article addresses it.. Comcast is not treating traffic equally. Whether or not you agree with Net Neutrality or not, this behavior by Comcast is most certainly related. There are a gazillion reasons why net neutrality is important. I have no objection, for example, to paying extra money for extra bandwidth. That has nothing to do with net neutrality. Comcast, however, is restricting bandwidth customers have already paid for based on the type of traffic. Bad, bad form.
The issue was not charging more for better service, but rather some companies were trying to extort money out of various other companies. Currently you can imagine the internet as being a network of roads and highways. Some privately owned, some by the government. With net neutrality rules, all traffic through them is treated as equal. Some providers were saying that those neutrality rules were unfair because they were unable to discriminate based on where traffic is going, and wanted to essentially double charge. It's as though some highway owners came to you and said "oh, by the way even though these trucking companies have paid the toll we make everyone pay to use our roads, we aren't going to let them through to carry your goods unless you pay us again". Extortion, pure and simple.
No one else will arise to offer competitive services? Censorship depends on a monopoly, which is why only governments can pull it off.
Besides the net neutrality issue Comcast's action is almost certainly illegal if not then it should be. Forging RST packets is like committing fraud i.e. imagine your mail carrier sending forged letters to you pretending to be someone that you know.
[action=Order2Chaos]marks down a tally in the Evidence Against column on the "Is Potn a Goldwater Republican?" table[/action] Comcast should be sued for fraud here, and they should lose and lose hard. I also think that the way to deal with net neutrality is to have someone sue an ISP who fails to be neutral for false advertising; they are not, in fact, providing Internet (with a capital I) service by definition if they implement these kinds of things.
So require them to disclose the practice in their service contract. That removes the only legitimate complaint.
This is an example of a corporation committing abuse because it can. If the wet dream of unrestricted capitalism came about, can you imagine what they might try then?
Given the speed at which the internet and it's associated technology is progressing, it seems pretty ludicrous to limit it's evolution in any way. "Net neutrality" will seem a quaint antiquated notion when we're all downloading Wordforge via worldwide WiFi into our wearable computers complete with contact lens monitors.
Nothing we don't willfully facilitate. When we have a choice, even an unpalatable one, we are not victims.
The problem here is that these users already paid for this service. If Comcast doesn't have the actual bandwidth to support giving everyone 6mbps, perhaps they should re-evaluate their quotas, instead of screwing over paid customers.
I think Comcast has been doing this for a few months now. They restrict uploads on P2P programs so that their customers can only upload to other Comcast customers, because I guess uploading to non-Comcast customers costs a lot more than downloading. I think it's kinda sleazy to restrict customers' internet service without notification or the chance to drop out of whatever contract they may be in. They're punishing the customers for utilizing the product they purchased to its maximum potential. It's Comcast's own damn fault they don't have enough bandwidth to provide to their customers. I'm pretty sure high speed cable companies oversell their product more than airlines do. Edit: and keep in mind, P2P programs have uses other than for piracy.
