Scanlyze

The Online Journal of Insight, Satire, Desire, Wit and Observation

Comcast versus the Net

The following is written in response to: Comcast: We’re Delaying, Not Blocking, BitTorrent Traffic on the Bits blog at nytimes.com.

The allegation made against Comcast by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and reported by the Associated Press is that Comcast have allegedly been inserting forged reset (RST) packets into the datastream. This is not analogous to delaying a call. It is more analogous to the company disconnecting a call in mid-sentence because they have been listening in and classifying the type of conversation and don’t like what is being discussed or think it is likely a waste of time.

This is unethical if it is being done and also goes against the Internet technical documents, the RFC’s. Further there are several potential legal issues including potential violations of the:

* Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 USC § 2510.

* General Prohibition Against Traces and Traps 18 USC § 3121.

* The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030.

* The Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 551.

* State statutes such as Michigan statue Fraudulent Access to Computers, Computer Systems, and Computer Networks, MCL 795.791.

Whatever Comcast routing and Quality of Service provisions are in effect should be fully spelled out and transparent to regulators, internet technical experts and the general public so that citizens can make an informed choice about whether they want their internet unsurveilled, uncensored and uninterrupted… or whether they want Internet which is “Comcastic”.

See Comcastic?!? Not So Much…
Comcast and BitTorrent; a Complicated Relationship
Technorati posts tagged comcast bittorrent

See also An Open Letter to Rich Sheridan regarding the proposed insertion of spam by the Wireless Washtenaw Project
Seven Questions on ‘Net Neutrality’ for Ann Arbor City Councilman Ron Suarez

Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

23 October, 2007 Posted by | 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 18 USC § 2510, 18 USC § 3121, 47 U.S.C. § 551, allegations, Bits, BitTorrent, cable TV, Comcast, Comcastic, common carrier, computer networks, Computer Systems, EFF, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Electronic Frontier Foundation, forged, fraudulent access, General Prohibition Against Traces and Traps, internet, law, MCL 795.791, media, Net, net neutrality, network, New York Times, packet, policy, politics, privacy, regulation, reset, RFC, RST, scanlyze, surveillance, TCP/IP, The Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984, The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act | 1 Comment

Seven Questions on ‘Net Neutrality’ for Ann Arbor City Councilman Ron Suarez

Ann Arbor City Councilman Ron Suarez has been getting some good press for his putative support for ‘net neutrality’ — see Michigan City Councilman Fights for Net Neutrality. Ron has opened up his public blog for discussion of this issue.

I have some more questions arising from Cable Bill Threatens Community Access and Leaves Out Net Neutrality on RonSuarez.com:

Ron,

1) Could you please explain what the term ‘network neutrality’ means to you?

2) Are you for or against ‘network neutrality’ as you have defined it?

3) You said, Net Neutrality, besides helping non-profits and others who may never make a fortune, also helps innovators like the You Tube founders to leverage their creativity to make a fortune. Isn’t this the “American Dream?”

How would “net neutrality” help non-profits and “others who may never make a fortune”?

Do you think internet routing currently is “neutral” or “non-neutral”?

And I would say that “liberty and justice for all” is my ideal of the American Dream. “Make a fortune” is the opposite of that as far as I can see.

4) You said, There are countless web sites that I use, which would have never stayed afloat or even gotten started in the world that Comcast and AT&T would like to have.

Could you name such a site and explain how they would never have never stayed afloat or started and what would have made this difference?

And, how do you think “the world Comcast and AT&T would like to have” is different from how the “world” is now?

5) Please explain why it would be helpful or beneficial to replace the system of IETF committees and RFC’s with legislation? What penalties and means of enforcing compliance would you propose? What organization or body would oversee this? How would this be funded? How would or should it be imposed and enforced on the entire internet outside the US?

6) Please explain how Quality of Service routing would be accomplished under “net neutrality”?

see: INDEX RFC : QOS

7) Please explain why it should be illegal for a service provider to give priority to, for instance, data traffic from a trauma center which is a customer of that provider vrs. spam traffic from non-customers?

see also: Robert Kahn speaks out against ‘Net Neutrality’
Hands off my Router! Bad Government! — No to ‘Net Neutrality’!

Copyright © Henry Edward Hardy 2007

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

14 February, 2007 Posted by | Ann Arbor, AT&T, cable commission, city council, Comcast, government, IETF, internet, Michigan, net neutrality, policy, QoS, Quality of Service, questions, RFC, Ron Suarez, routing | 2 Comments