posted
So MSNBC says today that tests have shown that Comcast is blocking some internet traffic (mainly uploads of P2P files). They say it is in the name of saving bandwidth, but nothing is clarified about "who" and "what" they decide to block.
Now this brought about a discussion at work as to the future of the internet, when controlled by companies like Comcast, AT&T network, etc. etc. Up to this point in time, we have all been cheered by the fact that the internet is pretty much unregulated.
Which would be worse - having the government "decide" what we should and/or shouldn't have access to via internet -- or having these large companies "decide" it instead, simply by quietly choosing what to block and what to release?
I would think there would be an uproar over what Comcast is doing.
What are you thoughts on how this affects the future of internet traffic overall?
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the steadily increasing availability of alternate solutions, I expect competition to take care of this pretty readily. It used to be that if I didn't want Comcast cable internet, I was stuck with dial-up; now I have four other options in the Seattle area for broadband. If one, two or even three of them decide to throttle or block my bandwidth usage, I'll take my business to a company that doesn't do it.
Edit to expand: and if all the available providers throttle, I'm betting it won't belong before a new company springs up that won't.
posted
Well, that was my first thought and response. However, while there are various ISP providers, there is somewhat of a monopoly on who actually owns the physical data (transmission)lines, no?
Although satellite would be an option if that arena became blocked..
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Well, that was my first thought and response. However, while there are various ISP providers, there is somewhat of a monopoly on who actually owns the physical data (transmission)lines, no?
Although satellite would be an option if that arena became blocked..
Relatively new, but this sort of technology directly bypasses monopolization of physical data transfer methods.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's been an uproar about what Comcast is doing in the torrent community, but when you consider that it's primarily an outlaw community, people outside of it don't really care. They might start caring when it's their turn, but it's more likely that they'll blame the torrent folk for getting Comcast riled up in the first place.
I have Comcast, and I'm aware that they're using a program called Sandvine to throttle torrent uploads. But some of the developers of some torrent clients are planning on incorporating code in their next versions that will get around this.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with erosomniac. I think other providers will continue to step up and that will force comcast to fix it or leave the arena. I really disagree with their nonsense about saving badnwidth by blocking P2P torrents.
I have comcast right now just because they were the typical go-to guys when it came to high speed internet. But it feels like comcast has grown too comfortable with its niche and is largely ignoring many of the alternate ISP's perks and benefits. It seems like provo digital wants my business far more than comcast. When I had comcast setup where I live now, the following happened and this is not exagerated in anyway. Bear in mind I was placed on hold for about 10-15 minutes every time I called before talking to an operator.
1: Male, sounded like he was in his 20s 30s told me that there would be no problem setting up cable TV/high speed internet and quoted me a price of $95 a month for the most basic package. I asked him about introductory prices as they always have them and he said there was no such thing. I asked him to please hold, muted my phone and cited the price to my wife for the OK. Within 8 seconds I was back on the line only to find he had hung up on me. (Perhaps we got disconnected but I doubt it)
15 minutes later,
2: Female, 20s or 30s. Informed me that they did not have cable lines up at my new abode and that I could try calling them again in January of 08 to see if they have any plans to install lines at my house. Confused I explained that I had gotten comcast 3 years ago at a location within the same complex without any problem and that my neighbors across the street and 2-3 houses down all had comcast, there were even hookups in the house from the prior residents. She insisted that there was nothing she could do and I thanked her for her time.
3: I called back immediatly hoping to get a new operator and 15 minutes later I got a hispanic man in his 30s or 40s. He said internet/cable tv would be no problem at my location, informed me of a 6 month introductory price at 50% lower then the standard cost of their basic package and setup an appointment at the soonest available time slot, he also put me on standby in case somebody failed to be home for their installation appointment thus diverting technicians to my location.
My previous apartment had another ISP/Cable company and it was solid service without any problems. Honestly as I am moving in about 3 months I am going to just stick with comcast for now, but I am going price shopping before I move into a new apartment this time around as I know comcast is not the only sherriff in town these days.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a huge problem with them stopping illegal bit torrent activity - but what about legitimate high volume uploads? Things that are legal? How are they determining one from the other in their filter?
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I don't have a huge problem with them stopping illegal bit torrent activity - but what about legitimate high volume uploads? Things that are legal? How are they determining one from the other in their filter?
As far as I know, they don't. But then again I am not sure many government facilities use comcast.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm torn. I support Net Neutrality in general, but at the same time I know that the Internet connection I'm paying for is slowed down by other users hogging the limited bandwidth, sometimes with illegal activities.
I don't want MY access, or access in general to be overly controlled by whatever watchdog, be it the government or the ISP, but I also don't want rogue users to be able to abuse others by their activities.
I hope a compromise of some sort can be reached, high-traffic users paying a premium for the greater bandwidth they use, for example.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I'm torn. I support Net Neutrality in general, but at the same time I know that the Internet connection I'm paying for is slowed down by other users hogging the limited bandwidth, sometimes with illegal activities.
I don't want MY access, or access in general to be overly controlled by whatever watchdog, be it the government or the ISP, but I also don't want rogue users to be able to abuse others by their activities.
I hope a compromise of some sort can be reached, high-traffic users paying a premium for the greater bandwidth they use, for example.
A big part of the problem here is the inherent dishonesty in ISP advertising. "3 mb connection! Blazing fast 10 mb connection!!!!!!!!" They don't tell you that you share bandwidth with all the other users in your area, and that disproportionate use affects everyone else: in fact, they imply the exact opposite.
If ISPs were more honest about the nature of the connections they offer and how they're shared, I think many users would be more supportive of throttling the bandwidth use of people who exceed their quota.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't even have Comcast here (as far as I know) so I'm not worried about the Comcast policy, per se. I'm worried about the precedent it may set, and whether other ISP providers might think to go that way.
(specially, I was thinking of the types of things Chris Bridges just pointed out above -- NetFlix downloads, etc.)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a thread at one point complaining about comcast as well. They were supposed to set up phone service, never showed up, cut off our regular phone service and then told me it was my fault. My husband finally called and they set up an appt for the next day, then the next, then the next and then they finally showed up. I waited around for four days for that repair man and went a week without phone. I called them on my cell phone and since they routinely put me on hold for an hour, I ended up using $70 in cell phone minutes fixing this. In the end, they gave me free installation and twenty bucks.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'm easily annoyed by the whole concept of high speed internet and easily influenced to think ill of comcast and its ilk.
And if they have the ability to identify this kind of traffic, they should figure out some other way to deal with it, either by charging for it or slowing it down.
I thought part of bittorrent's strategy is to distribute during less busy times.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if they have the ability to identify this kind of traffic, they should figure out some other way to deal with it, either by charging for it or slowing it down.
It's not very hard to do. I'm kind of surprised that Comcast doesn't just do that rather than cut it off altogether or discontinuing service to "abusive" users.
quote:I thought part of bittorrent's strategy is to distribute during less busy times.
There is no inherent scheduling element to bittorrent, it's just a particularly effective method of distributed file transfer.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I don't have a huge problem with them stopping illegal bit torrent activity - but what about legitimate high volume uploads? Things that are legal? How are they determining one from the other in their filter?
You don't have a problem with your ISP examining everything you send online, then choosing which parts it will permit to go through? It's akin to a government listening in on all your phone conversations, and bleeping out whatever it doesn't want you to be able to say.
I'm all for keeping regulation off the Internet. But for that, the ISPs need to be kept from regulating it.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I might be mistaken, but hasn't this issue with comcast and throttling bittorrent traffic by sending the kill signal for the connection to both parties by emulating the other party been around for some time? I seem to recall reading that the main reason that that might be immoral/illegal not because they were shutting down traffic, but because they were essentially posing as someone they were not.
Posts: 1466 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They started it in August. And they're continuing to lie about it. That's a big part of the issue as well. By refusing to admit to it, they make it impossible to analyze problems that it may be causing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
