Comcast Sued Over P2P Blocking 268
CRISTAROL writes "Comcast has been sued by a California resident for blocking BitTorrent and other traffic. 'John Hart describes himself as a Comcast customer who has seen performance hits when using "Blocked Applications" targeted by Comcast's traffic management application, Sandvine. In his complaint, Hart says that Comcast severely limits "the speed of certain internet applications such as peer-to-peer file sharing and lotus notes [sic]." Comcast accomplishes this by "transmitting unauthorized hidden messages" to the PCs of those using the applications.' The lawsuit comes on the heels of an FCC complaint over the same issue."
Re:Government-granted monopoly leads to no alt. IS (Score:3, Informative)
-Peter
Ars Janked This Story From Wired (Score:1, Informative)
Its about time... (Score:3, Informative)
Sandvine (Score:4, Informative)
The local newspaper had an article [baheyeldin.com], which I blogged about a few days ago, on Sandvine's technology and how it is involved in the Comcast debacle.
Re:Government-granted monopoly leads to no alt. IS (Score:5, Informative)
With all due respect, that's not really accurate. I wrote a 'Net Neutrality For Dummies' column [livejournal.com] in our local weekly, so I won't repeat myself unnecessarily. Suffice it to say that nobody minds having traffic rules. What we don't want is to have traffic rules that get selectively enforced according to the whims of a given Internet provider.
Re:Charging for the 'hidden' messages (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Pay to steal (Score:2, Informative)
Re:But isn't in-house cheaper? (Score:3, Informative)
You are correct, and that is (according to statements provided by whistle blowers) what Comcast is doing: to wit, they block any upload greater than a few megs (2MB? 3?) from within Comcast's network to any server outside of it.
The problem, however, is that people with "more legitimate" network connections than P2P -- such as the Lotus Notes mentioned in the summary, VPN connections, or file upload to public services (YouTube et.al.) are NOT going to be remaining in the local Comcast network, and their service is being disrupted as well.
Really, the problem is that for Comcast, upload bandwith is more expensive/scarcer than download bandwith, but they sell their customer base the promise of "unlimited" bandwith, and now people are discovering interesting, new ways to utilize home upload bandwith....Re:Government-granted monopoly leads to no alt. IS (Score:3, Informative)
He made this same argument in another story about Comcast and stopped replying to posts when people asked him to name a few ISPs that do this.
While I'm sure there are small remote ISPs that NAT their customers by default (and by remote I mean remote... think Alaskan wilderness), it's not even close to being a standard practice in the United States and the number of people affected by it are so small that it hardly bears mentioning.
A few people have claimed that AOL does it. They didn't used to (over a decade ago I had them... always had globally valid IPs when I went outside of AOL and used internet apps), but it might have changed for all I know. In any case, I'd hardly call AOL an "ISP".