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."
Important, (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If it's Comcast... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Do you trust the EFF? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm leaving out any geeky reasons such as viewing the source code (which I don't see if they provide or not) or how simple the process is.
Re:Stop misusing "Network Neutrality" (Score:5, Interesting)
And, of course, the definitions vary in part because people have different opinions on what is "important." Supporters of net neutrality agree that data carriers should at a minimum be source/destination neutral (the version of neutrality you are referring to). However some people do indeed believe that carriers should also be neutral with respect to the devices allowed to connect to the network, and the types of traffic sent over the network.*
So, in short, there is a diversity of opinion about what the term means (or "should" mean, I guess).
[*] As an aside, my mind isn't made up, but I understand the logic for saying that traffic neutrality may be ultimately a good thing. Yes, it prevents certain QoS strategies on shared carrier networks (but not on closed private networks, of course)... but then again, do you trust your ISP (which has its own interests) to pick the QoS strategy that actually works best for you? (Or even for most customers?) Also, any QoS strategy inherently makes a judgment call about what is "important" and what isn't. So, it inherently limits new technologies/protocols we haven't yet dreamed of. And, it would seem inefficient because any QoS which degrades protocols that customers are interested in will be circumvented (e.g. by masking your traffic as a type of traffic that is "approved" for high-speed delivery). Certainly we wouldn't let other carriers discriminate based on the content (e.g. postal service that delivers boxes that contain videotapes slower than boxes that contain paper; phone carrier that delays voice calls to prioritize fax calls...).
EFF- thanks, it's the thought that counts (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously it was inflammatory, judging by the number of replies, but I think it's because from the title, readers were already expecting an offensive post before reading the content.
And, btw, my point was not "don't trust the EFF because they are tricking you with an app" but "As we already trust the EFF, there's no need to double check their results."
Re:Instead of denying what they are doing... (Score:4, Interesting)
All of this assumes that you are swayed by the advertising and don't really check up on the claims being advertised. Or, it states things in common everyday language that are backed up by the fine print saying something quite different.
There clearly are two kinds of people - those that understand what is being advertised isn't exactly what is being sold and those that have managed to get through life until their 16th birthday without realizing this. Sorry, time to grow up.
I still want to ask the car salesman about the speedometer. And ask if we can check if the car will really go that fast on the test drive.