Print 48 comment(s) - last by Hacp.. on Oct 27 at 12:23 AM

ISP Giant Compares Its Filtering with a Busy Signal

Lawyers and privacy groups are reportedly “circling the waters” over Comcast, who stands accused of using an aggressive kind of traffic shaping that impersonates individual P2P users and compels their computers to automatically disconnect.

Comcast’s actions are perfectly permissible under the terms of use described in its contract with customers, which states that Comcast reserves the right to “refuse to upload, post, publish, transmit or store any information or materials, in whole or in part, that, in (its) sole discretion, is … undesirable or in violation of (the) agreement.”

However, many are concerned that Comcast’s actions with regards to BitTorrent traffic – that is, impersonating users’ computers – may not entirely be legal as many states have laws regarding impersonation. In the state of New York, for example, section 190.25 of the penal code describes the crime of “criminal impersonation in the second degree,” in which one may not “[pretend] to be a representative of some person or organization and does an act … with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another.”

While legal grounds may be shaky at this point, the EFF has reported that it has received numerous calls from various firms that are considering legal action.

Meanwhile, Comcast has adjusted its response. The original response, says Brad Stone of The New York Times, seems to have caught Comcast’s PR department off-guard. The new response reads, “Comcast does not block access to any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services like BitTorrent … we have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience and we use the latest technologies to manage our network so that they can continue to enjoy these applications.”

The reality, however, is more complicated says Stone. Speaking on anonymity, a Comcast internet executive told The New York Times that Comcast was indeed manipulating traffic, through data management technologies designed to conserve bandwidth. As part of that process, the company will attempt to delay P2P traffic to preserve other users’ quality of service. He described the process as being akin to the busy signal in a phone call: users are perfectly able to hang up and try again later.

“In cases where peer to peer file transfers are interrupted,” writes Stone, “the software automatically tries again, so the user may not even know Comcast is interfering.”

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: I'm really torn on this.
By mindless1 on 10/23/2007 7:33:21 PM , Rating: 5
IMO, there is no "other hand".

They advertise the service, they cap the cable modem. If you see a speed limit on the expressway, stating 65MPH, would it be ok if you got a ticket for trying to always drive a steady 65MPH instead of going 65 for a few seconds, then 25, then 45?

What about Jane and John checking their email? If they notice even the slightest delay due to someone else using the bandwidth they paid for, point the finger at the cable company because they are the one who ran out of bandwidth, who oversold their network capability.

If you don't blame the ISP, what will stop them from further and further overselling their capacity? Nothing. They'll gladly keep taking in money and only upgrade the network when their perceive customer satisfaction is at issue. How do they know it's an issue? When you tell them instead of blaming someone else.

As for John and Jane, many ISPs have tiered service, if John and Jane don't use much bandwidth they can opt for the lowest tier of service.

I really don't see a case on both sides. This is a service for access and bandwidth, not a matter of subjective judgement as to what that bandwidth is used for.

Suppose I hated you favorite UTUBE videos but you love to watch them all the time. Is it ok if you get throttled back because I and a few others think your videos aren't a waste of time/junk/etc? Of course not, because you paid for the bandwidth to do with as you please. If Comcast wants to stipulate further limits to their users they can do so, but when they've been directly asked about such things they have shifted from (is it ignorance or a lie to say "No" when the truth is "yes") denial to vagueness to PR blurbs, never coming clean about specifics of what a maximum bandwidth per month is.

If they want to institute any kind of policy it has to be an official, disclosed term of the account that cannot be witheld from the customer paying for that account. There's no two sides to it, no grey area, no nothing except their practices bording on breech of contract. You (Nor they) can't just make vague references before a contractual agreement is made then expand those rights without limit after the agreement has been met, unless the other party agrees. Legal precedent is fairly consistent about this, generally abhors open-ended god clauses.

RE: I'm really torn on this.
By jtemplin on 10/23/2007 11:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
Very cogent arguement, and well put : )


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates
Related Articles
Comcast Screws with File-Sharing Traffic
October 19, 2007, 8:07 PM

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki