Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: Comcast vs Net Neutrality

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Ohh Hell yeah.. Sava700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    24,052

    Comcast vs Net Neutrality

    Just another reason why Comcast ticks me off at times ... I hope they get really hammered by the FCC and the movie companies that are getting cut off from transfers!


    POWERBOOST and FAST internet!! - But only as long as we want you to have it!

    Under fire from consumer groups and law professors who have issued formal complaints to the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast has told the FCC that hampering some file-sharing by its subscribers was a justifiable way to keep Web traffic flowing for everyone.

    The groups say Comcast (the second-largest ISP in the U.S.) has breached the principle, known as "'Net Neutrality," of treating all Internet traffic equally. Comcast says it must curb some file-sharing traffic because some subscribers would otherwise hog the cables with their uploads and slow traffic in their neighborhood.

    Comcast also said it was justified in using "reset" packets to break off communications between two computers. Comcast sometimes inserts these packets in the data stream to kill a file-sharing session. The move "fools" each computer into believing the other computer wants to end the connection. The return addresses of Comcast's packets indicate they're from one of the file-sharing computers when they are in fact from Comcast.

    They also say the company was hampering movie downloading services because they might compete with Comcast's cable TV business.

  2. #2
    Certified SG Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    29,514
    in the end, file-sharing people are going to end up ****ing all of us over.

  3. #3
    SG Enthusiast Kyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Burke View Post
    in the end, file-sharing people are going to end up ****ing all of us over.
    In the same way the terrorists will?

  4. #4
    Certified SG Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    29,514
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    In the same way the terrorists will?
    The government is already looking for ways to limit our web access. the MPAA and RIAA are powerful enough lobbies that I can foresee government using the massive piracy line as a reason to force us into a Chinese-style online ID system, where aliases and nicks are trashed in favor of actual names being used in order to track down "offenders." At first it'll be the pirates, eventually anyone speaking out against the state.

  5. #5
    SG Enthusiast Kyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,851
    Quote Originally Posted by Burke View Post
    The government is already looking for ways to limit our web access. the MPAA and RIAA are powerful enough lobbies that I can foresee government using the massive piracy line as a reason to force us into a Chinese-style online ID system, where aliases and nicks are trashed in favor of actual names being used in order to track down "offenders." At first it'll be the pirates, eventually anyone speaking out against the state.
    Exactly, my comment meaning that the ISPs and lawmakers are as quick to point to "stopping the file sharing" as an excuse for their measures as the government is to point to "stopping the terrorists" as an excuse for it's own "security" measures.

    But don't forget, they're protecting Mr. Average Joe law biding citizen, and of course if you are obeying the law you have nothing to fear...

  6. #6
    Ohh Hell yeah.. Sava700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    24,052
    more info on the subject

    Rep. Edward Markey, chairman of a House subcommittee on the Internet, has introduced legislation in support of "net neutrality". The bill would prevent broadband Internet providers from unreasonable interference with subscribers' access to content. Some service providers, such as Comcast, say they need to take reasonable steps to manage traffic on their networks.

    Some believe that government intervention is required to preserve the "open architecture" of the Internet and prevent content providers from being subjected to "unreasonably discriminatory practices by broadband network providers." Others believe that the government should have no role in regulating the Internet although Markey denies that his bill would do that. The bill also would require communications regulators to study the issue and hold public hearings.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    4,059
    aww, but your precious gov. said this would never happen!

  8. #8
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,877
    "Comcast says it must curb some file-sharing traffic because some subscribers would otherwise hog the cables with their uploads and slow traffic in their neighborhood."

    I applaud them...I don't want my connection bogged down because 2-3 kids on the same street/node as me run warez downloading/sharing computers 24x7 sucking up the bandwidth that's intended for all other normal users on the node.
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  9. #9
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,983
    Quote Originally Posted by YeOldeStonecat View Post
    "Comcast says it must curb some file-sharing traffic because some subscribers would otherwise hog the cables with their uploads and slow traffic in their neighborhood."

    I applaud them...I don't want my connection bogged down because 2-3 kids on the same street/node as me run warez downloading/sharing computers 24x7 sucking up the bandwidth that's intended for all other normal users on the node.

    I agree with that part, the reset packets and the legit movie downlaod sites part though is messed up.

  10. #10
    Ohh Hell yeah.. Sava700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    24,052
    Quote Originally Posted by YeOldeStonecat View Post
    "Comcast says it must curb some file-sharing traffic because some subscribers would otherwise hog the cables with their uploads and slow traffic in their neighborhood."

    I applaud them...I don't want my connection bogged down because 2-3 kids on the same street/node as me run warez downloading/sharing computers 24x7 sucking up the bandwidth that's intended for all other normal users on the node.

    But they pay the same you pay for the service..why should their internet use be punished yet still charged the same monthly fee vs yours? I think comcast like the others just need to build their systems and increase bandwidth to keep up with the demands of these power users. But I believe this all comes down to some people downloading via torrents for legal movies. If they want to punish those that are doing warez like you say..then they should go after just them and not the rest that do it legit.

  11. #11
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Sava700 View Post
    But they pay the same you pay for the service..why should their internet use be punished yet still charged the same monthly fee vs yours? I think comcast like the others just need to build their systems and increase bandwidth to keep up with the demands of these power users. But I believe this all comes down to some people downloading via torrents for legal movies. If they want to punish those that are doing warez like you say..then they should go after just them and not the rest that do it legit.
    So they pay the same amount and should be able to block up all the traffic?

    Nope.

  12. #12
    Ohh Hell yeah.. Sava700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    24,052
    Quote Originally Posted by YARDofSTUF View Post
    So they pay the same amount and should be able to block up all the traffic?

    Nope.
    well I also said
    If they want to punish those that are doing warez like you say..then they should go after just them and not the rest that do it legit.
    We are both on the same page here...

  13. #13
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Sava700 View Post
    But they pay the same you pay for the service..why should their internet use be punished yet still charged the same monthly fee vs yours? I think comcast like the others just need to build their systems and increase bandwidth to keep up with the demands of these power users.
    Because what you've not realized yet (based on many posts of yours) is that ISPs set home internet connection prices based on an "average usage", they have formulas based on bandwidth use per client. There is an "oversubscription formula"..meaning they sell (and all ISPs do this) more bandwidth that they have available, knowing that only a % of users will be online at any one time using % of available bandwidth. No they do not want you the end user to max out your full 8 megs of downloading 24x7x365. Believe it or not...like it or not...your contract with your ISP does not state you can use all of that bandwidth maxed out 24x7x365. You can use it "within reason". And "up to" speeds.

    This is one of the reasons business accounts cost more....because they know a business will be online all day long...heavier traffic, more workstations online, a mail server perhaps...thus logically more bandwidth used. Using more of the ISP resources costs more.

    Upping the nodes (at great costs) just to satisfy the teensy tinsey percentage of users who are P2P bandwidth abusers...guess what....COSTS A LOT OF MONEY. And the rest of us users suffer from that...via increased monthly bills. P2P users probably constitute less than 3% of overall broadband users. Yet...take the leash off of them...they would probably suck up over 75% of the available bandwidth. So 97% of the regular users suffer and have to pay more just to keep 3% of the users happy?
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  14. #14
    Ohh Hell yeah.. Sava700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    24,052
    Quote Originally Posted by YeOldeStonecat View Post
    Because what you've not realized yet (based on many posts of yours) is that ISPs set home internet connection prices based on an "average usage", they have formulas based on bandwidth use per client. There is an "oversubscription formula"..meaning they sell (and all ISPs do this) more bandwidth that they have available, knowing that only a % of users will be online at any one time using % of available bandwidth. No they do not want you the end user to max out your full 8 megs of downloading 24x7x365. Believe it or not...like it or not...your contract with your ISP does not state you can use all of that bandwidth maxed out 24x7x365. You can use it "within reason". And "up to" speeds.

    This is one of the reasons business accounts cost more....because they know a business will be online all day long...heavier traffic, more workstations online, a mail server perhaps...thus logically more bandwidth used. Using more of the ISP resources costs more.

    Upping the nodes (at great costs) just to satisfy the teensy tinsey percentage of users who are P2P bandwidth abusers...guess what....COSTS A LOT OF MONEY. And the rest of us users suffer from that...via increased monthly bills. P2P users probably constitute less than 3% of overall broadband users. Yet...take the leash off of them...they would probably suck up over 75% of the available bandwidth. So 97% of the regular users suffer and have to pay more just to keep 3% of the users happy?

    If your paying for 6meg package, your modem is provisioned to receive the download and upload speed. If little billy wants to download P2P crap all day long its not going to effect your provisioned bandwidth since its already allocated to you. Thats why alot of ISP's have once you hit a certain "invisible" amount of usage a month they will cut you off. Still the bottom line is if I pay 60$/month and you pay 60$/month for the same package of internet I expect to use what I'm alloted per my package provisioned any way I see fit at any rate be it 24/7/365..if the ISP has a issue with my usage going high then fine they would let me know or cut me off or whatever. But your usage isn't going to suffer...however if the ISP such as Comcast lets the nod get so saturated that its going to cause a problem they they need to invest and split the clients.

  15. #15
    I sort of agree with Sava that ..I pay for the service I should be able to do whatever I want with it in terms of downloading but I also agree with Burke that the overwhelming majority of traffic from torrents are copyrighted material. I guess I can't prove that my connection/speed has been affected by my neighbors behavior because if we're supposed to take the words only from our ISP's ....well they've already proven they cannot be trusted.

    just a couple thoughts

  16. #16
    Imperial Impotentate brembo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    crawlspaces
    Posts
    18,725
    LONDON (Reuters) - A file-sharing program called BitTorrent has become a behemoth, devouring more than a third of the Internet's bandwidth, and Hollywood's copyright cops are taking notice.

    For those who know where to look, there's a wealth of content, both legal -- such as hip-hop from the Beastie Boys and video game promos -- and illicit, including a wide range of TV shows, computer games and movies.
    An exec from NBC Universal recently made the claim that P2P activity accounted for 60-70% of all internet traffic as part of a comment saying the FCC should force ISPs to police their networks for copyrighted content that's being illegally shared. Such claims aren't new, and are often trotted out by ISPs complaining that bandwidth hogs are bogging down their networks, even though it certainly appears that they're overstating the problem. In any case, a new study from a maker of deep packet inspection gear (the stuff ISPs use to monitor and filter traffic on their networks) says that HTTP has surpassed P2P as the most prevalent type of traffic, thanks largely to YouTube. The study says that site now accounts for 10 percent of all traffic on the net, and has boosted HTTP traffic to now account for 46% of all traffic, with P2P responsible for just 37%.
    P2P traffic is dominating the Internet these days, according to a new survey from ipoque, a German traffic management and analysis firm. ipoque's "preliminary results" show that P2P applications account from anywhere between 50 percent and 90 percent of all Internet traffic. The final survey results are not yet available and will presented at the Emerging Technology Conference at MIT later this month.
    I don't think the experts know the full extent of what torrents are doing to the overall traffic "flow" on the net.
    Tao_Jones Cult Member since 2004
    I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.

  17. #17
    Conspiracy Fool knightmare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    6,046
    The USA ranks 15th in world in average broadband speed. And the honest truth is because the american people are getting squeezed slowly for premium rates, a little at a time.


    "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer."

    Bruce Lee

  18. #18
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,983
    Quote Originally Posted by knightmare View Post
    The USA ranks 15th in world in average broadband speed. And the honest truth is because the american people are getting squeezed slowly for premium rates, a little at a time.


    http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/I...speedchart.jpg

    One problem is the amount of cable thats needed to reach some areas for us. And that in turn means slower speed from dsl.

  19. #19
    Ohh Hell yeah.. Sava700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    24,052
    Quote Originally Posted by knightmare View Post
    The USA ranks 15th in world in average broadband speed. And the honest truth is because the american people are getting squeezed slowly for premium rates, a little at a time.


    http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/I...speedchart.jpg
    Well although this is true you have to remember that most of the lines and cables we are moving data through in the US have been here for many years vs japan and others that are just now building their systems using modern means thus they have the ability to transfer at higher speeds. Plus you look at thousands of people living in the same building in which a network would be fast vs someone in the US rural area that has a house miles away from the nearest major network.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    8,073
    Net Neutrality? This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Your breaking the law when you share or download copyrighted material. You also clog the network. Use encryption, don't download as much and for god sake stop with the ******** arguments; "If "insert evil corporation here" business model wasn't so screwed I buy all my stuff", or "All information should be free", or Some obfuscated definition of Net Neutrality. It makes people look dim. Stealing stuff shouldn't have a grass roots community.
    She's presenting like a mandrill!

Similar Threads

  1. THIS , is why comcast sucks...
    By AnionWeed in forum General Broadband Forum
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 10-31-11, 05:34 AM
  2. Net Neutrality in Canada
    By minir in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-15-07, 12:46 AM
  3. Net Neutrality! HALLELUJAH!!!
    By holokaustos in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-11-07, 06:53 PM
  4. Net Neutrality...
    By Brk in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-09-06, 02:03 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •