Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: Comcast Admits Interfering with Internet Traffic
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:52:51 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com> Date: October 24, 2007 2:58:30 PM EDT To: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net> Cc: dave () farber net, lauren () vortex com Subject: Re: [IP] Comcast Admits Interfering with Internet Traffic Brett, You're going to lose this argument if you really want to use Comcast's behavior as a positive example. a) They were conducting this behavior in secret -- with no apparent informing of their customers that legit protocols were being altered. b) They apparently routinely refused to acknowledge that such behavior on their part was taking place, until they got caught spoofing packets and exposed publicly. c) They are in violation of network protocols by forging/spoofing packets in this manner. Like I said, if Comcast or other ISPs have a problem with particular sorts of traffic, let 'em come to the IETF and work on a solution in the light of day, not play "hack the packets" with user data. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com - - -
Dave, Lauren, everyone: Lauren's article is disturbing for a number of reasons. To claim that optimizing one's network, prioritizing packets, and preventing abuse constitutes "interfering with" or "tampering with" Internet traffic is akin to saying that traffic lights "tamper with" automobile travel by artificially restricting it. Internet service providers have every right to contractually and technically limit what people do on their networks so as to prevent abuse, stop illegal activity, and preserve quality of service. In fact, none can stay in business if they do not do it. In the specific case of Comcast, the provider is preventing customer equipment from acting -- with or without the customer's knowledge -- in ways which would compromise the integrity of the network, hog network resources, violate contracts (especially provisions which prevent the operation of servers on residential connections, whose pricing depends upon this contractual provision) and/or violate copyrights. Only when behavior is anticompetitive should it be considered to be actionable -- and then not by the end user but by the party which was the victim of the anticompetitive behavior. --Brett Glass
------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Comcast Admits Interfering with Internet Traffic David Farber (Oct 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Comcast Admits Interfering with Internet Traffic David Farber (Oct 24)
- Re: Comcast Admits Interfering with Internet Traffic David Farber (Oct 24)
- Re: Comcast Admits Interfering with Internet Traffic David Farber (Oct 25)