The internet is over!

[tw]

From CBSMarketWatch on 9 Mar 2007:

Tech giants' lobbying effort at a crucial turning point
Allied Microsoft-Google group sets key test in bid for free U.S. Internet access

MSFT prototype, delivered on behalf of the group, is a wireless device that could provide the public with free and more widespread access to the Web instead of relying on networks owned by big telecom and cable firms.

That breakthrough, tapping into an unused part of the nation's airwaves, is politically charged because it threatens to shift the Internet-access business away from telecom and cable companies that are historically well-connected in Washington, throwing open the field to a brand new batch of competitors. ...

The telephone companies are terrified they'll lose 40% of their wireless minutes, because you'll be able to connect from work or home and bypass their wireless networks," said J.H. Snider, research director of the wireless future program at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based policy institute that has long advocated to allow use of white spaces.

Every Congressman in PA gets a 'contribution' from both Verizon and Comcast so that WiFi - as Earthlink has installed in Philadelphia - cannot be installed in any other PA city. Net neutrality?

Officially, the telecom companies and other established Net-service providers stress that they're less concerned about new competition than they are about preventing interference in their service quality.

And officially that is a load of bull.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You've got to admit it's got a righteous ring to it though.

[tw]

From ComputerWorld of 12 Mar 2007:

Comcast: We'll blackball big downloaders with no warning
Comcast has begun canceling the accounts of people who perform lots of downloads, but the ISP refuses to reveal exactly what its download limits are. The Boston Globe {of 12 Mar 2007 Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users } reports that an increasing number of users are kicked off of Comcast for exceeding bandwidth limits. What are those limits exactly...or even approximately? Don't bother asking, because if you do, you'll feel you ended up in a Kafka novel.

According to the Globe, Amanda Lee of Cambridge, MA received a call from Comcast, warning her that she had to cut back on her downloading, or else the ISP would cancel her account for a year. Lee wanted to know how much she could download, so asked what the limit was.

The Globe reports, "When she asked what the download limit was, she was told there was no limit, that she was just downloading too much."

Then, one month later, he account was canceled for -- you guessed it -- exceeding the download limits, even though Comcast refused to tell her what those limits were.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It'll continue until enough people take them to court.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It'll continue until enough people take them to court.

From the NY Times of 28 Mar 2008 - or about 12 months after Bruce posted this:

Comcast Adjusts Way It Manages Internet Traffic
Comcast ... said on Thursday that it would take a more equitable approach toward managing the ever-expanding flow of Web traffic on its network.

The cable company ... has been under relentless pressure from the Federal Communications Commission and public interest groups after media reports last year that it was blocking some Internet traffic of customers who used online software based on the popular peer-to-peer BitTorrent protocol.

Comcast said it would change its fundamental approach to playing Internet traffic cop. Instead of interfering with specific online applications, it will manage traffic by slowing the Internet speeds of its most bandwidth-hogging users when traffic is busiest. ...

The change was part of an announcement by Comcast on Thursday that it had been working with BitTorrent ...

The companies said they have been working together for the last year on ways to optimize BitTorrent applications for the Comcast network. They said they would publish their findings to Web forums and standards groups so that other software makers, peer-to-peer services and I.S.P.’s could adopt them. ...

Comcast and BitTorrent said their collaboration showed the corrective power of the market and obviated the need for further federal oversight. But in a public statement, the commission chairman, Kevin J. Martin, vowed continued scrutiny and expressed concern that the old filtering practice would continue at least through the end of the year.

Marvin Ammori, general counsel at Free Press, ... “The only reason Comcast came to the table and made a deal with BitTorrent is because of the unrelenting pressure,” he said.

[tw]

From the NY Times of 26 Feb 2008:

F.C.C. Weighing Limits on Slowing Web Traffic
The head of the Federal Communications Commission and other senior officials said on Monday that they were considering taking steps to discourage cable and telephone companies from delaying the downloads and uploads of heavy Internet users. ...

Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company, has been the subject of a complaint after it acknowledged that it slowed down some Internet traffic of BitTorrent, a file-sharing service, because of heavy use of video-sharing applications.

If you are a heavy downloader on Comcast (ie listen to radio webcasts constantly), then Comcast may terminate your service without any explanation. This has been reported on NPR. If three users consume that much bandwidth, then the other 24 users who share the same coaxial cable will suffer diminished service. Comcast's solution is reported as to terminate heavy user service.

In a free market, Comcast would simply increase bandwidth or make other plans for the so many more who will be demanding more of the internet. Instead, Comcast suggests surcharges for services such as Google.

Earlier in this thread was software purchased by Comcast that can identify packets so as to delay them. Skype was a possible target cited by IEEE Spectrum. NY Times identifies another target - BitTorrent.

[toranokaze]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[mbpark]

TW,

The reason why for Skype: They already provide VOIP services and don't want to provide any space for competition.

The reason why for BitTorrent: They're getting major pressure from the MPAA and RIAA over pirated movies. Even though there are legit uses for BitTorrent, I figure at least 90% of it is for transmitting pirated software and movies.

The reason why for all of this, instead of spending money on technology: MBAs that underestimate the will of people to avoid paying for intangible things and get around artificial technology blocks.

[tw]

Originally Posted by mbpark

The reason why for Skype: They already provide VOIP services and don't want to provide any space for competition.

The way I read that:
The reason why restrictions on Skype: Comcast already provide VOIP services and don't want to provide any space for competition.

I disagree with that title

[Undertoad]

That's two years you're waiting for this conclusion of yours to come true.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Be sure and hit the tip jar before it goes.

[Undertoad]

This is the Internet, and we are in charge here.

While Comcast and the Gummint fight it out, the protocol has evolved to route around the problem. BitTorrent packets can now be encrypted with three mouse clicks. Any other protocol that has ISP filtering problems can adapt the same sort of procedure, at no cost. It's trivial.

http://torrentfreak.com/how-to-encry...rrent-traffic/

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

BitTorrent packets can now be encrypted with three mouse clicks.

Which means that Comcast cannot read the data. Only identify the packet and subvert it. What Narus software did for Comcast. Identify Skype packets. Not read any data inside the packet. Simply identify and subvert Skype packets to pervert the service.

Comcast can simply cancel your internet access without notice should you download what will soon be normal amounts of data? That's what these Comcast efforts are about. To subvert and limit the amount a data a customer can download; to filter where data comes from. Remember, Comcast even wanted to charge Google because so many Comcast customers were using Google. No regulation means Comcast can do just that. If Google does not pay, then Comcast can subvert those packets. Only FCC regulation stopped that.

What did Narus software do for Comcast? Identified patterns unique to Skype. Encrypted or not - those patterns exist. No internet service provider should identify and subvert data packets. And yet that will be legal if Comcast wins in court and if Congress does not regulate Comcast.

Only some industries require regulation because they are irresponsible. Because profits are more important than the product. Comcast has repeatedly earned the need to be regulated. Even encryption cannot solve that problem. Even encrypted packets can be identified and subverted.

[Undertoad]

That's four years you're waiting for this conclusion of yours to come true. Maybe I was right about this one?