NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Comcast using Sandvine to Interfere with P2P
I am curious about Comcast injecting their own reset packets to sever a TCP connection. If a packet is seen as a communication between two parties, would Comcast be breaking any laws by subverting communication between two parties? An example I can think of is the postal service opening up packages, envelopes, etc and determining whether they will continue delivering the parcel or return the parcel. The USPS is a pseudo-govermental entity that might have been given that prerogative by the people, but I do not think that an ISP has the right to use discretion when it inspects packets that it is not the intended party. On a related note, does copyright protect packets since the sending machine is the author of the bits in the packet? Is there some sort of DMCA/DRM =P solution to this since Comcast is inspecting packets for the type of traffic it represents? If they were not inspecting packets, then they could not make a decision as to what to do with any packet. Dan On Nov 8, 2007 4:04 PM, Barry Gold <bgold@matrix-consultants.com> wrote: > >> At 11:48 PM 11/7/2007, Robb Topolski wrote: > >>> Using the Comcast P2P interference as an example, in this case, > >>> Comcast has degraded the performance of a non-favored application. > > > > On 11/8/07, Brett Glass <nnsquad@brettglass.com> wrote: > >> Or, from Comcast's point of view, it is preventing network abuse and > >> stopping customers from violating the terms of their contracts. > > > > If this is Comcast's position, then there are many other ways to do > > this without forging and injecting RST TCP packets onto the Internet > > and to their customers. > > Robb Topolski wrote: > > Furthermore, what they are doing ultimately does not prevent "network > > abuse," nor does it stop customers from "violating their terms of > > their contracts" (which are overly broad and vague). As implemented > > by Comcast, the popular BitTorrent and eDonkey clients still can > > upload at full speed -- so what's being prevented? > > > Agreed. AFAIK P2P applications don't violate anybody's contract terms. > Using P2P to distribute or (arguably) download copyrighted materials > without the copyright holders permission probably does. But randomly > killing P2P connections penalizes the legitimate users just as much as > the illegitimate ones. > > And the protocol documents (RFCs 791 & 793) specify what these packet > headers and bits are for, and Comcast is in violation of those > protocols. This is just as much an abuse of the system as email spam, > SYN floods, and other attempts to either break the Internet altogether > or subvert it to purposes at variance with the interests of the vast > majority of users (both commercial and individual). > > _______________________________________________ > NNSquad mailing list information: > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad >