Net neutrality update

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Now, again, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services, right now?

How many times over how many months must the same thing be repeated over and over. Comcast was not blocking services. Comcast was subverting them ... and got caught doing so.

[Undertoad]

Why is Comcast not subverting other voice services, right now?

[xoxoxoBruce]

As I recall Comcast was blocking streaming video, not voice.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Why is Comcast not subverting other voice services, right now?

Why are they no longer using the software they bought to do that? How many times must this be posted. They got caught and exposed.

[Undertoad]

Stop dodging and weaving and simply, logically, answer the question.

Why is Comcast not subverting other voice services, right now?

[sexobon]

Special Counsel Undertoad has been examining the witness who has been evading a direct line of questioning. The Special Counsel has questioning options like fill in the blank (i.e. "Comcast is not subverting other voice services, right now; because, _________________________."), True - False questions and Multiple Choice questions. These options; however, risk leading the witness. There is much speculation on how the Special Counsel will proceed and bookmakers in Las Vegas are watching the situation closely.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Stop dodging and weaving and simply, logically, answer the question.

You are on trial for posting similar lies that also proved Saddam had WMDs. You even denied reality after George Jr admitted it was a lie.

Stop ignoring reality. Comcast was caught subverting internet traffic. Data Transporters must transport all data irregardless of its content. And since you do not get it, data transporters must transport data regardless of content - since that makes the internet successful and productive. Separation of data transporters and content providers make free market competition work. Extremists hate that.

Comcast can increase profits by subverting net neutrality. They even got some (people who can even be brainwashed by Fox News, Donald Trump, and Cheney lies) to believe that is good.

Answer the question. Why do you so hate free markets as to even want to destroy net neutrality? Why do you preach a mantra from Comcast to increase their profits? Why do you deny that net neutrality made the internet successful. Do you hate net neutrality (like an extremist) because Clinton's 1996 successful legislation made a previously stifled internet possible and successful? Clinton did it. So it must be wrong?

That destruction is what extremists advocate with propaganda (lies). Why do you hate free markets? Why do you constantly preach what Fox News, et al order you to believe?

Comcast is quite good at getting others to pay more by subverting net neutrality. Even Netflix conceded to their strongarm tactics. Net neutrality means Comcast must invest profits into their network rather than in Philadelphia's tallest skyscrapers, NBC, mobile phone companies, Universal Studios, sport teams, and who knows what else. Destroying net neutrality explains why Americans now pay so much for diminished service. UT says this is good.

Answer the question. Why do you recite monopolistic propaganda from extremists - and not the concepts that made America great? Did you not learn after "Saddam's WMD" lies that extremist propaganda explains your mistakes then - and now? Even after George Jr admitted it was a lie, you continued to preach right wing extremist rhetoric - refused to admit Saddam did not have those WMDs. Continued to believe Fox News, et al lies.

Answer the question. Why do you so hate free market competition. And rules that make that successful? And BTW, not apologize for mistakenly advocating the massacre of 5000 American servicemen in Iraq for no useful purpose. Extremists even lied about that. Why do you so hate net neutrality and resulting free market competition - as advocated by extremists? Why do you hate free markets made possible when and because laws created net neutrality?

[sexobon]

The witness in Special Counsel Undertoad's investigation has been cited for contempt after witness impugned the integrity of the Special Counsel, in Trump-like fashion, to distract from witness noncooperation. The Court awaits Special Counsel Undertoad's report and recommendations as to whether or not the matter should be turned over to a Special Prosecutor. Bookmakers in Las Vegas are now giving odds on whether or not Special Counsel Undertoad would assume the Special Prosecutor role himself.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

Stop ignoring reality. Comcast was caught subverting internet traffic.

Voice traffic, according to you - and it's an easy $100 if you can provide the link.

[xoxoxoBruce]

All tw's charities groan... no money for us, sob sob.

[tw]

From an old NBC News report sometime at the end of 2007 and I believe originated by the
AP:

Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.

If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling
blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks....

The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.

Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers.

Comcast ... would not specifically address the practice, but spokesman Charlie Douglas confirmed that it uses sophisticated methods to keep Net connections running smoothly.

"Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent," he said. Douglas would not specify what the company means by "access" ...

Comcast did not block web sites as UT constantly misrepresents. Comcast subtly subverted traffic trying to make not obvious what they were doing. They skewed or subverted traffic - which violated the concepts of net neutrality. Of course, they would not subvert net neutrality if free market competition existed. All but the duopoly was quashed in the George Jr era.

As repeatedly discussed back then and today, net neutrality means Comcast invests profits in their network. Instead, Comcast offers less service to milk a massive expansion buying other businesses and real estate. Net neutrality only gets in the way of corporate takeovers - the expansion of their monopoly.

To harm net neutrality, one never blocks access. Destruction of net neutrality is a slow and subtle process starting with tactics such as intermittent skewing of Skype packets. And then restricting (not blocking - restricting) access of some content providers - especially those that might compete with Comcast's new 'content provider' businesses. Profits must be protected by subverting net neutrality.

We know Comcast was caught doing these two corrupt actions. They are not dumb. Other actions would be or are ongoing without us knowing. But what we do know - S Korea got about five times more data access for about one-fifth the cost. S Korean internet providers were upgrading their network - not buying TV networks, movie studios, mobile phone providers, building massive skyscrapers, etc.

To get its acquisition of BellSouth Corp. approved by the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T agreed in late 2006 not to implement such plans or prioritize traffic based on its origin for two and a half years. However, it did not make any commitments not to prioritize traffic based on its type, which is what Comcast is doing. ...

Paul "Tony" Watson, a network security engineer at Google Inc. who has previously studied ways hackers could disrupt Internet traffic in manner similar to the method Comcast is using, said the cable company was probably acting within its legal rights.

Ashwin Navin (of BitTorrent) ... confirmed that it has noticed interference from Comcast, in addition to some Canadian Internet service providers.

"They're using sophisticated technology to degrade service, which probably costs them a lot of money. It would be better to see them use that money to improve service," Navin said, noting that BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer applications are a major reason consumers sign up for broadband.

And yes, IEEE Spectrum confirmed that Comcast (and others) had purchased software to do just that. We discussed published facts about ten years ago. UT immediately denied it then - without any facts. He just knew; then and today.

Comcast terminated any exposed practices. How many others have not been exposed? We have no idea how many other shenanigans Comcast has done. But we do know such practices become a normal business practice when free market competition does not exist.

Consumer costs increased much faster than inflation. Netflix finally conceded to Comcast's strongarm tactics. Netflix paid for the network upgrades that were once paid by 'data transporters' - who did not use profits to buy other corporations and skyscrapers.

All this constantly denied by UT back then and today. We know that a free market was created by 1996 laws that created net neutrality and forced the so many 'we fear to innovate' companies to stop stifling packet switching and finally provide that 15 year old broadband. Subverting those 1996 laws and regulations (that once made rapid internet growth possible) has hindered internet growth and has created duopolies - that UT says are good. Why are the duopolies so expensive? There is longer free market competition. And UT says that is good - because Fox News said so.

Plenty of other sources also noted examples of net neutrality. But not extremist propaganda machines such as Fox News.

[Undertoad]

Correct! Comcast throttled BitTorrent, which congested its networks in 2012, making it harder to provide other services. That is the biggest example of an ACTUAL net neutrality violation in history.

But nowhere, in all that bluster, is a link to say Comcast was subverting VOICE traffic.

The software they may have bought (all this is from a lone press release from the company trying to sell them software) was for VOICE traffic, not BitTorrent. But we have no evidence they actually bought it, and no evidence they ever subverted voice traffic.

Understand this: it is utterly utterly trivial to detect throttling with packet sniffing software.

But evidence is not your strong suit. I ask for simple evidence, easy to provide. You just go off on a pathetic rant, believing that somehow that is evidence.

So: another failure, and no money for your charities.

How many times are you going to misremember this information?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

But nowhere, in all that bluster, is a link to say Comcast was subverting VOICE traffic.

IEEE said Comcast (and others) bought software to subvert VoIP traffic. Comcast bought software but did not use it? Then Skype, et al traffic was suffering quality and connection problems - intermittently but Comcast was not using it. UT knows Comcast does not subvert net neutrality even after caught subverting other traffic.

Voice over IP is not the entire internet. Net Neutrality means all internet functions work properly. Data transporters only transport all data. Content providers remains a separate industry to only provide that data. Then free market competition exists.

Once a company is both data transporter and content provider, then obvious conflicts of interest exist. Free market is compromised. Shenanigans such as packet skewing and data throttling mysteriously happen - and have happened. Net neutrality must be destroyed to make those shenanigans possible and more profitable.

Is net neutrality being subverted? Yes. Does that mean already obscene profits by the data transporters can be even greater. Of course. Is free market competition created by net neutrality. Obviously. Is that free market being subverted by duopolies? Obviously.

UT argues one tiny aspect - VoIP. If only VoIP packets are not being skewed, then net neutrality is not under attack and free markets exist? Nonsense. Right wing extremists (ie Fox News) are openly advocating the destruction of net neutrality and free markets. (Probably because Clinton successfully created it.) UT says that is good because VoIP (temporarily) is probably and currently not being subverted. UT then advocates removal of regulations that stopped VoIP skewing.

Wacko extremist logic is at play. Duopolies are a first step in destruction of net neutrality so that resulting monopolistic policies slowly can be implemented. Already, content providers will be charged for infrastructure that data transporters are suppose to invest in. UT says that is good - because subverting VoIP packets does not always happen.

Step one. Use propaganda to tell extremists what to believe. Net Neutrality was created by Clinton. So it must be evil. Fox News said so. Fox News disciples such as UT know it must be true. Learning facts before having a conclusion is not his strong suit.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

IEEE said Comcast (and others) bought software to subvert VoIP traffic. Comcast bought software but did not use it?

I found the 2006 (!) post where you pointed out the IEEE article

The article points out that Comcast was "a customer" of Narus, the network management company that build VoIP-subverting software. But Narus built a lot of network management software.

The article points out that Narus's software can "secure, analyze, monitor, and mediate any traffic in an IP network" and that "Comcast Corp., in Philadelphia, the country's largest cable company, is already a Narus customer; Narus declined to say whether Comcast uses the VoIP-blocking capabilities."

Which is normal. You don't disclose your customer's interests. This tells us nothing; Comcast bought software that did 100 things, and one of the 100 things was the capability to subvert voice traffic. Big deal. We would need to show they were using it.

But again, that is utterly simple. I've personally done that kind of debugging for Fax over IP calls, at my last job.

All the VoIP providers would have an interest in finding and showing this subversion. It was very much in their interests to do so, in the first rounds of net neutrality discussions. They DID find it at another, smaller ISP. They DID NOT find it at Comcast.

UT knows Comcast does not subvert net neutrality even after caught subverting other traffic.

It was trivial to show that other traffic was subverted. It would have been easy to show that VoIP traffic was subverted. But you can't find a link for that, even when provided a large motivation.

No money for you. 13 years of not being able to prove this. How long are you going to repeat your lie?

[Undertoad]

The 2006 thread is quite a treat

Originally Posted by tw in 2006

If your Skype phone does not work on Comcast, but your Comcast provided phone does, then who will most people blame? Comcast? Of course not. Blame will fall on Skype who in turn loses customers to Comcast. ...
Actions to subvert small VoIP (and other new technology) services suggests that these large IP companies may become so anti-innovative as to cannibalize on smaller fish (ie Skype) rather than grow and live off of innovation

How'd that turn out? Today:
Comcast Voice Services is now Xfinity Voice, with 10 Million customers
Skype, estimated 1.5 Billion customers

Originally Posted by tw in 2006

If Comcast and Verizon, et al were trying to compromise net neutrality, then it would not happen in six months as UT suggests. It would occur slowly over a decade plus.

LOL

Originally Posted by LA Times story from January 2006

Virtually since the Internet’s creation, its most devoted protectors have been wondering how long it would take for the forces of unrestrained commerce to throttle its freedom and innovation.

Now they have a date: Some people believe the breakpoint will come as early as Jan. 6, 2008.

LOL LOL LOL