NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Comcast using Sandvine to Interfere with P2P
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Dan Doyle <dan.c.doyle@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
The phrase "Net Neutrality" has been bad for our side. The right word is "common carriage". Under the rule of common carriage, when you and I send Net packets over the various pipes between us the transport companies must not wiretap and they must not whimsically degrade our streams. Paying for bandwidth is not a violation of common carriage. Wiretapping and arbitrary degradation of our packet streams are violations of common carriage.
oo--JS.
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