Carobit Lounge Conversation: net neutrality

Your Connection

guest
Log out
Log in or Sign Up

Site Navigation

Home
Forum Home
Closed Conversations

For Members

Support
Feedback
Member Search
Carobit Mail

Helpful Links

Smilies
Formatting
Preview

Originator:	Paullkha	Printable Version
Title:	net neutrality

Back to Lounge

Attachments Add Attachment

History

From: Paullkha	On: 2007/03/27 06:24:30
what is your view on this? what is your understanding? Three companies Cablevision ATT Goggle My understanding is that Cablevision is run by one set of rules, whereas ATT is run by another, and ATT doesn't like it. Goggle having its content slowed down by ATT seems like there would be a ton of backlash. Would it not be advantageous to have VOIP given priority over say a P2P download? Is ATT allowed to do this now, with Net Neutrality? If ATT did attempt to charge for a 'fast lane', what would stop all the provideres (all the pipes/hops a packet goes through) from doing the same?

From: stone5150	On: 2007/03/27 06:40:05
The fact that there are many ways to get from point A to point B on the net. Someone puts up a roadblock, everyone will go around and the company that did that will die or change.

From: JOK	On: 2007/03/27 09:21:14
...or lobby the gubbermint to change the rules in their favoUr.

From: stone5150	On: 2007/03/27 11:47:00
The gubmint would never screw the public unless it meant they could make a ton of money and still get reelected.

From: Hooligan	On: 2007/03/30 06:07:21
my understanding is that blue is neutral, green is live and brown is earth (obvius, because earth is soil and soil is brown, grass is green and it's alive, blue is UN troup and they're neutral). Lets just check that by fitting a new plug to my mothers 1956 metal electric fire, I'm going to use it whilst having a bath, conveniently situated within arms reach for adjustment) Catch you guys later, after my bath of course :-)

From: stone5150	On: 2007/03/30 20:52:35
It might get kinda hot quickly so it would be best to get in the bath before pluggin it in.

From: Analog_Kid	On: 2007/04/03 09:30:41
Net neutrality? I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

From: behenderson	On: 2007/07/07 16:59:32
You should without Net Nuetrality your provider decides what sites you can go to and which sites you can't what if all of a sudden you could not go to any sites that compete with Comcast or Time Warner. The entertainment industry is already a monopoly the net result of no Net Nuetrality will be that you have to pay more for services that actually work on the internet.

From: Analog_kid	On: 2007/07/12 16:04:34
Actually I was just joking (by posting on the net that I'm neutral on the matter) Really I agree with you completely. It is a very important issue to me as well. Though I'm not sure how my opinion can count for much.

From: Analog_kid	On: 2007/07/12 19:53:19
Bush administration proposes retroactive immunity for phone companies http://arstechn...mmunity-for-phone-companies.html

From: stone5150	On: 2007/07/13 06:42:28
It sounds a lot like a CYA (Cover Your Ass) action. I think Bush and his cronies need to start practicing the line, "Senator, I do not recall at this time"

From: Analog_Kid	On: 2007/10/20 08:14:33
http://news.yah...ylt=ArwA5eATmUvg_1dZRKNORoWs0NUE 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. The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee. Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers. Comcast, the nation's largest cable TV operator and No. 2 Internet provider, would not specifically address the practice, but spokesman Charlie Douglas confirmed that it uses sophisticated methods to keep Net connections running smoothly. "Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent," he said. Douglas would not specify what the company means by "access" — Comcast subscribers can download BitTorrent files without hindrance. Only uploads of complete files are blocked or delayed by the company, as indicated by AP tests. But with "peer-to-peer" technology, users exchange files with each other, and one person's upload is another's download. That means Comcast's blocking of certain uploads has repercussions in the global network of file sharers. Comcast's technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one BitTorrent user attempts to share a complete file with another user. Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer — it comes from Comcast. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye." Matthew Elvey, a Comcast subscriber in the San Francisco area who has noticed BitTorrent uploads being stifled, acknowledged that the company has the right to manage its network, but disapproves of the method, saying it appears to be deceptive. "There's the wrong way of going about that and the right way," said Elvey, who is a computer consultant. Comcast's interference affects all types of content, meaning that, for instance, an independent movie producer who wanted to distribute his work using BitTorrent and his Comcast connection could find that difficult or impossible — as would someone pirating music. Internet service providers have long complained about the vast amounts of traffic generated by a small number of subscribers who are avid users of file-sharing programs. Peer-to-peer applications account for between 50 percent and 90 percent of overall Internet traffic, according to a survey this year by ipoque GmbH, a German vendor of traffic-management equipment. "We have a responsibility to manage our network to ensure all our customers have the best broadband experience possible," Douglas said. "This means we use the latest technologies to manage our network to provide a quality experience for all Comcast subscribers." The practice of managing the flow of Internet data is known as "traffic shaping," and is already widespread among Internet service providers. It usually involves slowing down some forms of traffic, like file-sharing, while giving others priority. Other ISPs have attempted to block some file-sharing application by so-called "port filtering," but that method is easily circumvented and now largely ineffective. Comcast's approach to traffic shaping is different because of the drastic effect it has on one type of traffic — in some cases blocking it rather than slowing it down — and the method used, which is difficult to circumvent and involves the company falsifying network traffic. The "Net Neutrality" debate erupted in 2005, when AT&T Inc. suggested it would like to charge some Web companies more for preferential treatment of their traffic. Consumer advocates and Web heavyweights like Google Inc. and Amazon Inc. cried foul, saying it's a bedrock principle of the Internet that all traffic be treated equally. To get its acquisition of BellSouth Corp. approved by the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T agreed in late 2006 not to implement such plans or prioritize traffic based on its origin for two and a half years. However, it did not make any commitments not to prioritize traffic based on its type, which is what Comcast is doing. The FCC's stance on traffic shaping is not clear. A 2005 policy statement says that "consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice," but that principle is "subject to reasonable network management." Spokeswoman Mary Diamond would not elaborate. Free Press, a Washington-based public interest group that advocates Net Neutrality, opposes the kind of filtering applied by Comcast. "We don't believe that any Internet provider should be able to discriminate, block or impair their consumers' ability to send or receive legal content over the Internet," said Free Press spokeswoman Jen Howard. Paul "Tony" Watson, a network security engineer at Google Inc. who has previously studied ways hackers could disrupt Internet traffic in a manner similar to the method Comcast is using, said the cable company was probably acting within its legal rights. "It's their network and they can do what they want," said Watson. "My concern is the precedent. In the past, when people got an ISP connection, they were getting a connection to the Internet. The only determination was price and bandwidth. Now they're going to have to make much more complicated decisions such as price, bandwidth, and what services I can get over the Internet." Several companies have sprung up that rely on peer-to-peer technology, including BitTorrent Inc., founded by the creator of the BitTorrent software (which exists in several versions freely distributed by different groups and companies). Ashwin Navin, the company's president and co-founder, confirmed that it has noticed interference from Comcast, in addition to some Canadian Internet service providers. "They're using sophisticated technology to degrade service, which probably costs them a lot of money. It would be better to see them use that money to improve service," Navin said, noting that BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer applications are a major reason consumers sign up for broadband. BitTorrent Inc. announced Oct. 9 that it was teaming up with online video companies to use its technology to distribute legal content. Other companies that rely on peer-to-peer technology, and could be affected if Comcast decides to expand the range of applications it filters, include Internet TV service Joost, eBay Inc.'s Skype video-conferencing program and movie download appliance Vudu. There is no sign that Comcast is hampering those services. Comcast subscriber Robb Topolski, a former software quality engineer at Intel Corp., started noticing the interference when trying to upload with file-sharing programs Gnutella and eDonkey early this year. In August, Topolski began to see reports on Internet forum DSLreports.com from other Comcast users with the same problem. He now believes that his home town of Hillsboro, Ore., was a test market for the technology that was later widely applied in other Comcast service areas. Topolski agrees that Comcast has a right to manage its network and slow down traffic that affects other subscribers, but disapproves of their method. "By Comcast not acknowledging that they do this at all, there's no way to report any problems with it," Topolski said. ___ Associated Press Writers Ron Harris, Brian Bergstein, Deborah Yao and Kathy Matheson contributed to this story. ___ On the Net: http://www.comcast.com http://www.bittorrent.com http://www.sandvine.com

From: Analog_Kid	On: 2007/10/20 08:17:04
AP tests Comcast's file-sharing filter http://news.yah...ylt=AuKcQRaxA_9jSb.pDu_.nvas0NUE AP tests Comcast's file-sharing filter By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer Fri Oct 19, 1:13 PM ET NEW YORK - To test claims by users that Comcast Corp. was blocking some forms of file-sharing traffic, The Associated Press went to the Bible. An AP reporter attempted to download, using file-sharing program BitTorrent, a copy of the King James Bible from two computers in the Philadelphia and San Francisco areas, both of which were connected to the Internet through Comcast cable modems. We picked the Bible for the test because it's not protected by copyright and the file is a convenient size. In two out of three tries, the transfer was blocked. In the third, the transfer started only after a 10-minute delay. When we tried to upload files that were in demand by a wider number of BitTorrent users, those connections were also blocked. Not all Comcast-connected computers appear to be affected, however. In a test with a third Comcast-connected computer in the Boston area, we were unable to test with the Bible, apparently due to an unrelated error. When we attempted to upload a more widely disseminated file, there was no evidence of blocking. The Bible test was conducted with three other Internet connections. One was provided by Time Warner Inc.'s Time Warner Cable, and the other came from Cablevision Systems Corp. The third was the business-class connection to the AP's headquarters, provided by AT&T Inc. and Cogent Communications Group Inc. No signs of interference with file-sharing were detected in those tests. Further analysis of the transfer attempt from the Comcast-connected computer in the San Francisco area revealed that the failure was due to "reset" packets that the two computers received, carrying the return address of the other computer. Those packets tell the receiving computer to stop communicating with the sender. However, the traffic analyzer software running on each computer showed that neither computer actually sent the packets. That means they originated somewhere in between, with faked return addresses. In tests analyzing the traffic received by a computer on Time Warner Cable that was trying to download a file from a large "swarm" of BitTorrent users, more than half of the reset packets received carried the return addresses of Comcast subscribers, even though Comcast's 12.4 million residential customers make up only about 20 percent of U.S. broadband subscribers. It was the only U.S. Internet service provider whose subscribers consistently appeared to send reset packets (which are occasionally generated legitimately). Comcast subscriber Robb Topolski, who discovered the blocking earlier this year and traced it to reset packets, pointed out that a Canadian company called Sandvine Inc. sells equipment that promises to save bandwidth for Internet service providers by managing and redirecting file-sharing traffic. BitTorrent Inc. President Ashwin Navin said that the interference method on Comcast's network is consistent with Sandvine's technology. Sandvine did not respond to a request for comment. Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas would not confirm that the company uses Sandvine equipment. "We rarely disclose our vendors or our processes for operating our network for competitive reasons and to protect against network abuse," he said.

From: Analog_Kid	On: 2007/10/20 08:21:42
Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide http://www.alternet.org/story/65671/ The case against expanding surveillance powers for a White House that's already out of control. "I've got nothing to hide, so electronic surveillance doesn't bother me. To the contrary, I'm delighted that the Bush Administration is monitoring calls and electronic traffic on a massive scale, because catching terrorists is far more important that worrying about the government's listening to my phone calls, or reading my emails." So the argument goes. It is a powerful one that has seduced too many people. Millions of Americans buy this logic, and in accepting it, believe they are doing the right thing for themselves, their family, and their friends, neighbors, community and country. They are sadly wrong. If you accept this argument, you have been badly fooled. This contention is being bantered about once again, so there is no better time than the present to set thinking people straight. Bush and Cheney want to make permanent unchecked Executive powers to electronically eavesdrop on anyone whom any president feels to be of interest. In August, before the summer recess, Congress enacted the Protect America Act, which provided only temporary approval for the expanding Executive powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). These temporary powers expire in February 2008, so Congress is once again addressing the subject. The FISA amendments: the administration is seeking immunity for miscreants Because of the way electronic traffic is directed from foreign countries through the United States, the FISA Court had previously rejected requests to intercept certain foreign-person- to-foreign-person communications in the United States. It was a technical problem, arising from the fact that FISA was written before modern data routing had been designed, and FISA thus needed fixing. On this, everyone agreed. However, when the Bush Administration asked for the necessary fix to FISA, it also requested much more, including immunity under the existing laws for all the telecommunications companies that have been assisting the government in its illegal warrantless surveillance. Significantly, this practice -- justified by reference to the "war on terror" -- apparently started well before 9/11 under the Bush Administration. Ironically, in requesting this immunity, the Bush White House has refused to disclose exactly what type of activities Congress would be retroactively immunizing. Preliminary congressional inquiry has revealed that a massive amount of electronic surveillance of Americans has gone on under the Bush/Cheney Administration. For example, one of the telecom giants, Verizon, reported that between January 2005 and September 2007 they provided information on 94,000 occasions. These numbers suggest that Verizon was operating as merely another (and a secret) extension of the federal intelligence establishment. Many of the companies appear to be violating a number of federal criminal statutes -- such as 18 U.S.C. 2511, which requires a warrant for such surveillance and 18 U.S.C. 2702, which prohibits any "entity providing an electronic communication service to the public" from knowingly divulging "to any person or entity the contents of a communication" without a court order. Currently, the telecoms are not likely to be particularly worried about being prosecuted by the very same government that instructed them to violate the law, and is leading the way in doing so itself. But what about under the next Administration? The five-year statute of limitations will make them potentially criminally liable after Bush is gone -- at least, unless the Bush Administration gains for them retroactive and future immunity. In a new Administration, the telecoms may be viewed not as cooperative patriots, but rather as criminal co-conspirators. Civil liability appears to be driving the immunity request Meanwhile, civil liability for these companies is also a realistic prospect. For example, in a San Francisco federal court, AT&T customers are seeking to protect their privacy with actions under laws like 18 U.S.C. 2520, which provides a civil remedy and hefty damages -- ranging up to $10,000 per day per violation. Since it is possible that, over five-plus years, there have been tens upon tens of thousands of such violations, the, if liable telecoms could be looking at hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars of damages. The Bush Administration clearly wants to help its partners in crime; it also wants to avoid accountability for what it has done and is still doing. If the civil litigation proceeds -- and one judge already ruled that the "state secrets" privilege does not prevent the plaintiffs from going forward -- the Bush Administration faces the risk of a federal court's forcing it to disclose its unsavory surveillance activities. Privacy advocates are horrified at the prospect of Congress's potentially protecting this activity through immunity legislation. Yet, in sharp contrast, most people could care less. Indeed few people seem to care about their loss of privacy, notwithstanding the fact that, like an invisible pollutant to our air or water, it is increasingly eroding our freedom. Unfortunately, it seems that the invasion of our privacy, like the destruction of our atmosphere, may be tolerated until it is too late to fix it. One of the leading causes of both problems is ignorance. Privacy is a highly complex issue, so people easily accept the claims of those who assert that, if you are not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to be concerned about government surveillance, and if you are, you have no right to privacy to break the law. Understanding the misunderstanding about privacy For several years I have been reading the work of George Washington University Law School Professor Daniel J. Solove, who writes extensively about privacy in the context of contemporary digital technology. The current apathy about government surveillance brought to mind his essay "'I've Got Nothing To Hide' And Other Misunderstandings of Privacy." Professor Solove's deconstruction of the "I've got nothing to hide" position, and related justifications for government surveillance, is the best brief analysis of this issue I have found. These arguments are not easy to zap because, once they are on the table, they can set the terms of the argument. As Solove explains, "the problem with the nothing to hide argument is with its underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things." He warns, "Agreeing with this assumption concedes far too much ground and leads to an unproductive discussion of information people would likely want or not want to hide." Solove's bottom line is that this argument "myopically views privacy as a form of concealment or secrecy." In his work, Solove addresses the reality that privacy problems differ: Not all are equal; some are more harmful than others. Most importantly, he writes, "to understand privacy, we must conceptualize it and its value more pluralistically." Through several years of work, Solove has developed a more nuanced concept of privacy that rebuts the idea that there is a "one-size-fits-all conception of privacy." The concept of "privacy" encompasses many ideas relating to the proper and improper use and abuse of information about people within society. Privacy protects information not only because it would cause others to think less of the person at issue, but also simply to give us all breathing room: "Society involves a great deal of friction," Solove writes, "and we are constantly clashing with each other. Part of what makes a society a good place in which to live is the extent to which it allows people freedom from the intrusiveness of others. A society without privacy protection would be suffocation, and it might not be a place in which most would want to live." Professor Solove's work -- much of which he makes available online -- helps clarify thinking about privacy in its fuller context, and helps explain what is wrong with reductive dismissals of privacy using the mantra, "I've got nothing to hide." Before rushing to give the Bush Administration more ways to invade our privacy, not to mention absolving those who have confederated with him to engage in the most massive invasion of America privacy ever, members of Congress should look at Solove's work. Too many of them have no idea what privacy is all about, and grossly underestimate the value of this complex and essential concept.

From: Analog_Kid	On: 2007/10/20 08:24:12
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/65248/ Bush and the Phone Companies: Partners in Crime Phone companies have opened a new front in their campaign against the free flow of information. This time they've found a powerful ally in the White House. AT&T and Verizon have already shown their disdain for free speech and Net Neutrality, and their eagerness to let government spies lurk on our phone calls. Now, their lobbyists have teamed with President George Bush to strong arm Congress into granting full immunity for a disturbing array of illegal and unconstitutional acts. A handful of legislators, though, are holding out against the pressure, which is no small feat given the extreme powers behind the amnesty grab. Money, Politics and the Law Both Verizon and AT&T spend hundreds of millions of dollars on campaign contributions, congressional junkets, Washington lawyers, lobbyists and PR campaigns. Much of this political clout is now being focused on one issue: elevating phone companies above the law so they can invade our homes via phone lines, the Internet and other modern communications -- acting as the ultimate gatekeepers against the free flow of information. Earlier this year they were caught handing over customer phone records to the National Security Agency (NSA). The phone companies first denied it and then started a quiet campaign with the White House to gain immunity from any lawsuits. The campaign got a lot louder on Wednesday, when President Bush told reporters that he would veto a new FISA eavesdropping bill that doesn't grant retroactive immunity to the phone companies. Continues>> http://www.alte...org/workplace/65248/?page=entire

From: Analog_Kid	On: 2007/10/27 08:27:33
Senators want probe on content blocking http://news.yah...ylt=ApPuAiuPDjbC6RDZjtYCRUas0NUE Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said the incidents involving several companies, including Comcast Corp., Verizon Wireless and AT&T Inc., have raised serious concerns over the companies' "power to discriminate against content." They want the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee to investigate whether such incidents were based on legitimate business policies or unfair and anticompetitive practices and if more federal regulation is needed. ... Verizon Wireless in late September denied a request by Naral Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group, to use its mobile network for a sign-up text messaging program. The company reversed course just a day later, calling it a mistake and an "isolated incident." AT&T reportedly changed a service agreement that previously included language permitting the company to cancel accounts of Internet users who disparage the company.

Enter your comments here

As a guest you will only be able to see what a comment posted by you would look like by clicking the Preview button. You can't actually participate by posting comments to this conversation.

Number of viewers: 21