Good idea, but there's a trust issue. If I were Comcast I might
configure the box to lie about our backhaul network in order to spork
the p2pers.
On 10/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I can't think of an obvious way for a p2p client to detect this.
>
> Work through middl
On 10/22/07, Andy Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> In the UK at least, option 1) is financially more favourable for
> ISPs, since the data flow is
> vendor -> transit -> last mile -> end user,
> rather than
> end user -> last mile -> last mile -> end user.
>
> The last mil
In a message written on Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 07:12:35PM -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
> > In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 03:21:09PM -0400, Joe Provo wr=
> > ote:
> > > Content is irrelevent. BT is a protocol-person's dream and an ISP
> > > nightmare. The bulk of the slim profit margin exis
In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 03:21:09PM -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
> Content is irrelevent. BT is a protocol-person's dream and an ISP
> nightmare. The bulk of the slim profit margin exists in taking
> advantage of stat-mux oversubscription. BT blows that out of the
> water.
I'm a
First, that's not what I learned in my law classes.
Second, the "rent" has conditions (they may not publish them, but that
is entirely different matter which I likely agree with you on).
Comcast is under no obligation to let you misuse their service...
morally, ethically, or philosophically.
Thi
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I cannot access relevant pages on www.comcast.com due to me not being in
the US (or rather, they require an address first), could anyone please
paste or other way supply the wording/text they use in their fineprint,
to allow them contractually to disrupt customer TCP
Frank Bulk wrote:
2) DSL and fiber have limitations, too. The modulation and spectrum width
can vary, but most MSOs have their forward configured with a maximum of
around 38 Mbps (256-QAM, 6 MHz wide) and the return in the 9 Mbps range
(64-QAM, 3.2 MHz wide). Charts here:
Forward: http://www.
Communication of rules is fair... I was criticizing the "net
neutrality" argument. They should communicate the rules, I agree.
On 10/19/07, Justin M. Streiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
>
> > Since when did private companies no longer have the
Because you signed up to an AUP that allows what they are doing.
That, and in most states, if you rent my house, I can throw you out
for no reason given that I give you proper notice and enough time.
In this case, if you want to use rental analogies, that's like saying
a landlord can't evict you
On Oct 19, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Sean Figgins wrote:
You ever wonder why some places have cable modem but not DSL?
That's usually because the telcos can't get the bandwidth there.
That is a laughable statement.
In many places there is no real ability to tag the voice traffic
with a higher
Martin Hannigan wrote:
O&M, etc. We already know that the givens are that it's generally
socially unacceptable to filter, but without Comcast's motivation
being know, it's hard to speculate as to the "why" they did it. Let's
not.
It's not at all hard to imagine WHY. In fact, it's almost a gi
Eric Spaeth wrote:
It's worth noting that the traffic Comcast is filtering is called out in
their Terms of Use in the "PROHIBITED USES AND ACTIVITIES" section,
paragraph xiv. http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
That section could be applied to every application that you would run on
your
On 10/19/07, Patrick Giagnocavo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2007, at 3:42 PM, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
>
> >
> > Since when did private companies no longer have the right to regulate
> > their own property?
> >
> > I must have missed the Amendment...
>
> If you want to make a pro
At 03:10 PM 10/19/2007, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
I love how the framed it as "data discrimination". Let's just be
honest... 99% of it was illegal traffic taking up far more than their
fair share of bandwidth.
Let's be honest. The US ISPs have been advertising "unlimited"
service, but hea
On Oct 19, 2007, at 3:42 PM, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
Since when did private companies no longer have the right to regulate
their own property?
I must have missed the Amendment...
If you want to make a property argument, how do you explain them
denying me my right to enjoy my rental of
On 10/19/07, Clinton Popovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Who are we to say what is illegal traffic... I mean they could be
> downloading anything from p2p not just mp3's.. don't get me wrong I HATE WoW
> but it uses bittorrent to decentralize its updates.
At this point in Internet evolution,
Mike Lewinski wrote:
I wonder what happens to these network police appliances (Sandvine,
Packeteer etc) when the P2Ps implement encryption and tunnel it all over
443/tcp?
Most vendors claim to be able to look into the payload and determine
that it is p2p traffic instead of http/https traff
On 10/19/07, Mike Lewinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> With the remaining 1% being Linux ISOs.
>
> I wonder what happens to these network police appliances (Sandvine,
> Packeteer etc) when the P2Ps implement encryption and tunnel it all over
> 443/tcp?
They'll just monitor for streams that uti
---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Clinton Popovich
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:02 PM
To: 'Steven M. Bellovin'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Comcast blocking p2p uploads
This is old news man, that's been happening for at least
On 10/19/07, John C. A. Bambenek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Since when did private companies no longer have the right to regulate
> their own property?
>
> I must have missed the Amendment...
>
> (Yeah, ok, I exaggerated the 99%)
>
>
It's not a matter of them not being able to do what they want
Since when did private companies no longer have the right to regulate
their own property?
I must have missed the Amendment...
(Yeah, ok, I exaggerated the 99%)
On 10/19/07, Mark Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/19/07, John C. A. Bambenek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I love how the
On 10/19/07, John C. A. Bambenek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I love how the framed it as "data discrimination". Let's just be
> honest... 99% of it was illegal traffic taking up far more than their
> fair share of bandwidth.
And 84% of statistics are made up on site. If it is illegal it is
f Of John
> C. A. Bambenek
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:11 PM
> To: Steven M. Bellovin
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Comcast blocking p2p uploads
>
>
> I love how the framed it as "data discrimination". Let's just be
> honest... 99% of it was il
I love how the framed it as "data discrimination". Let's just be
honest... 99% of it was illegal traffic taking up far more than their
fair share of bandwidth.
On 10/19/07, Steven M. Bellovin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Comcast-Data-Discrimination
24 matches
Mail list logo
