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 middleboxes
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
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.
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 exists in
] [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 3 months now.
Clinton Popovich
Systems
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:
OM, 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
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 right to
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:
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
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
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
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 property argument,
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 framed
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 illegal traffic taking up far more than their
fair share of bandwidth.
On 10/19/07, Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http
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 not
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Comcast-Data-Discrimination.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Comcast-Data-Discrimination-Tests.html
Not a lot more I can say, other than argghhh!
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
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.html
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
