EFF Releases Software to Spot Net NonNeutrality 73
DanielBoz writes in with word of the EFF's new initiative to help consumers detect if their ISP is spoofing packets. From the press release: "In the wake of the detection and reporting of Comcast Corporation's controversial interference with Internet traffic, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has published a comprehensive account of Comcast's packet-forging activities and has released software and documentation instructing Internet users on how to test for packet forgery or other forms of interference by their own ISPs."
Re:Do you trust the EFF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not tesing is not science (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop misusing "Network Neutrality" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do you trust the EFF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If it's Comcast... (Score:1, Insightful)
Bender: "I'm not reading that crap! Sum it up in one word!"
Leela: "Sabotage!"
Re:Stop misusing "Network Neutrality" (Score:2, Insightful)
It is completely acceptable for an ISP to shape traffic based on the customers' requested packet priorities, on a zero-sum basis; some types of packets are very time-dependent, and thus can be sent in a manner that ensures they'll arrive more quickly (in exchange, of course, for losing some overall bandwidth).
However, when an ISP begins prioritizing these things itself, against the wish of the customer (who believes he/she is paying for a generic "Internet connection"), this is a type of fraud. The ISP has no right to call it an "Internet connection" unless they explicity describe, when making the sale, that it is a specially limited type of Internet connection.
It isn't really full Internet connectivity. True internet connectivity necessarily entails packets routed to their destinations, regardless of their content (including port destination content, which is only the business of the sender and receiver). True internet connectivity necessarily entails a neutral carrier, who does not care about anything but routing a packet from one point to another.
The type of "QoS" being performed by these ISPs to limit types of communications they dislike thus goes beyond the acceptable. If they are concerned about certain users taking up more bandwidth than a fair share, then the ISPs should be honest about it: either charge per amount of bandwidth used, or implement bandwidth limits. But to pursue the matter as they are is at least fraudulent, and when performed by quasi-monopolies as cable ISPs are in the US, it has the flavor of an extortionate business practice.
Re:Stop misusing "Network Neutrality" (Score:4, Insightful)
I think how consumers are supposed to select their QoS strategy is with QoS labels. The question is not 'should we have QoS' (I don't know about you, but I would rather have my videoconference packets queued ahead of my ftp packets), it's should the ISP be overriding our choices to satisfy their own policies. This is the same issue as randomly dropped connections: a mechanism to drop connections should exist because the endpoints need it. The carrier should not be invoking it 'on your behalf' and in the face of your desires, or it simply isn't doing what it was paid to do.
There's a secondary issue of whether your operating system provides a good mechanism for QoS policy management at the endpoints (hint: no, it doesn't). But that's something to take up with the O/S vendor, or perhaps—an easier nut to crack—the router in your home. But in any case, it seems reasonably clear that QoS should be honoured or ignored end-to-end, and not randomly messed with in transit to the benefit of third parties.
...Unless I've misunderstood the technical situation completely....
Re:Do you trust the EFF? (Score:3, Insightful)