Post #316,500
10/31/09 10:00:45 AM
|
here ya go
We all know that e-mail is broken. The smart people you work with in the industry need to get together and come up with a modern mail transport protocol. I don't see much gopher:// traffic these days. ;-) If 90+% of email is spam (and I believe it based on my InBox), then SMTP needs to be enhanced or replaced. Yes, the transition would be painful, but it needs to be done. This is separate from Net Neutrality IMO. you misunderstand under net neutrality ISPs cannot block traffic based on canspam (which is useless) folks that are the equivalent of paid TV programming would be lining up in the courts screaming freedom of speech (ec3com) the only method of relief is an AUP that all mail will only be held for 60 days, then on day 61 a granma who treasures her grankids photos will find them gone. One ISP I know gets several terabytes of mail a day If they are to let it all in because all traffic is equal, they will need to erase it fast
(I would have no problem with blocking broken protocols if people are given enough time to make the transition, and if they don't have to pay monopoly rents for the privilege.) under the bill this traffic cannot be blocked
I almost never do any P2P stuff (I think I've used BitTorrent about twice to get copies of Debian, etc.). If it's throttled in an open way that's clearly explained to subscribers, then I'm fine with it. I suspect the vast majority of subscribers would be as well. People who have to get HD movies on their home TVs can pay a little extra. Pirates who have to collect every digital movie can wait a little longer. the industry would like that as well but the freetards have had the FCC charge comcast with withholding that traffic and they are in court now to defend that exact proposition
But I think a bigger problem is this: If a company is a utility, they shouldn't expect to be able to use their monopoly control of infrastructure to sell expensive services or limit competition. Cable companies should earn a fair profit as a regulated utility. They shouldn't aim to become the next Disney or Microsoft. They're utilities. If they want to be in the production business, they should sell off the lines. Maybe that's too old fashioned... :- an industry that has no market except a shrinking one thinks a bit differently, if they can sell content and 3rd party services to keep the lines open they should not be restricted. The reason comcast is trying to buy content is that the content providers are trying to collect a TON of money to allow the cable companies to show them. Remember every show you see on cable is paid for by the cable company, owning content stabilizes the prices of content allowing the cable company to accurately project costs. Remember in your market you have choices, cable or phone for the copper, vonage satellite tracphone are choices you can make. The cable company has to compete or you will change providers. YOUR cable company is aware of that. They are trying to provide better service, reasonable prices and will not block the neighbors traffic UNLESS it is impacting the other customers on YOUR shared line.
I haven't kept up with this closely, but it seems that Comcast has made a lot of subscribers angry for various (alleged) blocking activities, and they're apparently in talks to buy a big piece of NBC/Universal. I would be opposed to that. Distribution should be separate from production because of the pressures by companies to restrict access to competitors and drive up prices for customers. comcast did something stupid, they sat in the middle of a P2P transaction and sent a quit signal to the other end to kill massive movie downloads, they didn't think anyone would notice. They do understand that now and th abuse folks are blocking only perceived egregious behavior of downloading copyrighted material
And no, I don't think that the phone company competing with the local cable company is sufficient to keep prices in check and ensure competition. New, small ISPs need to be able to enter the business as well.
they can, they can lease a line from the cable/phone company or build a line to your abode build out the infrastructure and the customer support, just like the electric companies in california do like Enron, that is a good example
|
Post #316,517
10/31/09 1:03:04 PM
|
I still think you're misreading it.
The FCC is asking for comments. Write them. :-) http://fcc.gov/ - scroll down to 10/22/09 for various links.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.../DOC-294152A1.pdf (7 page .pdf):
p.3-4:
[...]
The Notice seeks comment on draft rules to codify the four principles the Commission articulated in its 2005 Internet Policy Statement. Specifically, under the draft rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not:
1) prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the userÂs choice over the Internet;
2) prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the userÂs choice;
3) prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the userÂs choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network; or
4) deprive any of its users of the userÂs entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.
The Notice also seeks comment on draft rules that would codify additional principles of nondiscrimination and transparency:
-The draft nondiscrimination principle would require that, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.
-The draft transparency principle would require that, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking.
Principles Subject to:
 Reasonable Network Management
 Manage congestion on networks
 Address harmful and unwanted traffic (viruses, spam)
 Prevent unlawful content (child pornography)
 Prevent unlawful transfers of content (copyright infringement)
 Other reasonable network management practices
 Emergency Communications
 Law Enforcement
 Public Safety and National and Homeland Security
Recognizing that the proposed framework needs to balance potentially competing interests while helping to ensure an open, safe, and secure Internet, the Notice seeks comment on draft rules that would subject all six principles to reasonable network management.
Under the draft rules, reasonable network management would include reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service:
- to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address quality-of-service concerns;
- to address traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful;
- to prevent the transfer of unlawful content, such as child pornography; and
- to prevent the unlawful transfer of content, such as to prevent copyright infringement.
The draft rules also permit other reasonable network management practices.
Further, nothing in the draft rules supersedes any obligation a broadband Internet access service provider may haveÂor limits its abilityÂto deliver emergency communications, or to address the needs of law enforcement, public safety, or national or homeland security authorities, consistent with applicable law.
[...]
It seems to me that this summary covers spam, UCE, botnets, P2P of commercial movies, etc. There's a lot of stuff that could fit under "reasonable network management practices".
It seems to me the clear purpose is to prevent Balkanization of the Internet.
The devil's in the details, of course. ;-)
I'll think on the other stuff. Thanks muchly.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #316,519
10/31/09 1:23:18 PM
|
why is comcast in court?
they were disrupting p2p movie transfers and the FCC swatted at them.
Comcast is fighting for their right to manage their own network. The outline is nice but NOT what the stated aim of the FCC which is to say that an ISP can only build and pay for maintenance of the pipes and nothing more.
The result of passage is tightly capped bandwidth, monitored and billed for overages at a high rate. That is what the telco's and the Cable co's are working on now to have it ready to put in place the minute these rules start getting enforced. You and myself and others dont use the net that much but you will be surprised at actually how much you do use. That will also kill the work from home crowd.
As for writing them, there are lobbyists to do that :-) cablepac for instance, send them a buck or two
thanx,
bill
|
Post #316,522
10/31/09 1:40:33 PM
|
Why? Looks like they repeatedly lied to the FCC.
http://www.savethein...look-comcast-case
[...]
Let's recap the Comcast case, shall we? The company secretly blocked legal uploads of content for years, and then lied about it  repeatedly  to the FCC until they were caught red-handed. Free Press and Public Knowledge filed a complaint, and a bipartisan majority of FCC commissioners agreed with us that ComcastÂs actions were illegal. The FCC didn't issue a fine, but told Comcast to stop the practices and to disclose what it had done and how it planned to manage its networks in the future. Comcast complied, but also appealed the order, arguing that the FCC didnÂt have the legal authority to impose any rules on Internet access services, and also that the FCC didn't use the proper procedures in decrying its order.
Our filing shows that ComcastÂs arguments are baseless. HereÂs a quick summary from our legal department at Free Press:
Jurisdiction: Does the FCC have the legal authority to order Comcast to stop blocking Internet traffic? Yes. The FCC issued its order under Âancillary jurisdiction. In a nutshell, this means that the FCC determined it must issue the order to fulfill other related duties and policies as established by Congress. The doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction started with the FCC's first rules for cable television. Before Congress passed any laws dealing with cable TV, the FCC established rules to guide the nascent industry. The courts upheld these rules  all the way up to the Supreme Court  on the grounds that they were Âreasonably ancillary to the FCC's other statutory duties.
Since then, the D.C. Circuit, the Supreme Court and other courts have upheld a long history of ancillary jurisdiction cases. In its appeal, Comcast has largely ignored this history and seems to suggest that the doctrine shouldn't exist. Certainly, some people believe as a matter of policy that the FCC should not have ancillary jurisdiction. A lot of these people also believe that there shouldn't be an FCC, or at least not an FCC that has any authority to make policy. But like it or not, ancillary jurisdiction is the law. Until Congress says otherwise, the FCC should interpret its authority to the best of its abilities, and courts should review those interpretations with deference to the agency.
Finally, as a policy matter, if the FCC is not authorized to prevent bad behavior by Internet service providers, the resulting damage to competition, service price and quality, and consumer interests is frightening to imagine.
[...]
IANAL, use a grain of salt in reading that site, etc., etc.
Doesn't look so onerous to me. They were told to stop blocking legal stuff and tell their customers what they're doing.
Sorry, but I cannot take the view that the cable operators and giant ISPs are the victims of the FCC here. The FCC is trying to ensure that the giant ISPs don't become monopoly choke points that stifle innovation and drive up consumer costs through monopoly rents. Your telling us that they've got plans in place to drive up everyone's costs and strangle users' bandwidth doesn't convince me they're in the right either. (Do what we want or you're gonna PAY!) :-/
(I know this is a tender subject. Thanks.)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #316,538
10/31/09 7:32:34 PM
|
less than 5% of users in American ISPs
acoount for 85% of the bandwidth, that is the issue yet everyone wants the same price.
|
Post #316,543
10/31/09 8:26:26 PM
|
Then don't effing...
Advertise *UNLIMITED* and expect nobody to use it!
|
Post #316,544
10/31/09 8:54:18 PM
|
no one advertizes that, give me an example
|
Post #316,555
11/1/09 12:08:13 AM
|
It is implicit
Relentlessly market high speeds and high bandwidth applications without mentioning any limits? If they dont say '2', they sure are saying '1+1'. That is the message Comcast is carpet bombing their cable customers with, and ATT has an app for that too.
And speed is the wrong measure anyway. It is the volume that is the killer. I don't see where "everyone" claims to want it all for the same price. Tiered pricing based on volume works very well in continental Europe. Prices are a lot lower for higher bandwidth with fewer restrictions.
(I excluded the UK because the ISPs there have already created the mess the US is heading for.)
|
Post #316,556
11/1/09 12:35:35 AM
|
16Mbit/sec
Against the 250G "limit" they NEVER mention is a grand total of 4.5 hours of download time.
Oh sure... that means I get GREAT stuff I am paying for. I pay $67/month for it as it is. Business Class Comcast doesn't change the limits any.
I don't care if I have to pay $99... give better service and not filtering of DNS or other core services (SMTP disallow is fine as long as I can use the alternate ports). This 2-3 times a day having to reboot my Cable Modem to resync with the QAM timing SUCKS.
|
Post #316,550
10/31/09 11:24:12 PM
|
It's not unlimited...
It's "Up to 15 mbps download" or whatever.
Catch is -- if you start USING 15 mpbs the companies get ticked off. They've oversold their network so if you start using that much, they need to throttle you back.
Really - it's not that Hulu provides competition for Comcast...honest.
|
Post #316,585
11/1/09 11:14:09 AM
|
Re: It's not unlimited...
there's a rumor going around that Hulu will start charging next yearT
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from."
-- E.L. Doctorow
|
Post #316,534
10/31/09 6:39:58 PM
|
Spoofed traffic
They disrupted all P2P, not just movies. And they did it not by throttling but by injecting spoofed RST packets. That is why everyone got up in arms.
Now they are hijacking NXDOMAIN DNS lookups. And the opt-out is a non-functional joke.
|
Post #316,537
10/31/09 7:25:32 PM
|
I've already...
opt'd OUT and ummm... its made my connection flaky as all get out.
|