Net neutrality update

[xoxoxoBruce]

All tw's charities groan... no money for us, sob sob.

[tw]

From an old NBC News report sometime at the end of 2007 and I believe originated by the
AP:

Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.

If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling
blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks....

The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.

Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers.

Comcast ... would not specifically address the practice, but spokesman Charlie Douglas confirmed that it uses sophisticated methods to keep Net connections running smoothly.

"Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent," he said. Douglas would not specify what the company means by "access" ...

Comcast did not block web sites as UT constantly misrepresents. Comcast subtly subverted traffic trying to make not obvious what they were doing. They skewed or subverted traffic - which violated the concepts of net neutrality. Of course, they would not subvert net neutrality if free market competition existed. All but the duopoly was quashed in the George Jr era.

As repeatedly discussed back then and today, net neutrality means Comcast invests profits in their network. Instead, Comcast offers less service to milk a massive expansion buying other businesses and real estate. Net neutrality only gets in the way of corporate takeovers - the expansion of their monopoly.

To harm net neutrality, one never blocks access. Destruction of net neutrality is a slow and subtle process starting with tactics such as intermittent skewing of Skype packets. And then restricting (not blocking - restricting) access of some content providers - especially those that might compete with Comcast's new 'content provider' businesses. Profits must be protected by subverting net neutrality.

We know Comcast was caught doing these two corrupt actions. They are not dumb. Other actions would be or are ongoing without us knowing. But what we do know - S Korea got about five times more data access for about one-fifth the cost. S Korean internet providers were upgrading their network - not buying TV networks, movie studios, mobile phone providers, building massive skyscrapers, etc.

To get its acquisition of BellSouth Corp. approved by the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T agreed in late 2006 not to implement such plans or prioritize traffic based on its origin for two and a half years. However, it did not make any commitments not to prioritize traffic based on its type, which is what Comcast is doing. ...

Paul "Tony" Watson, a network security engineer at Google Inc. who has previously studied ways hackers could disrupt Internet traffic in manner similar to the method Comcast is using, said the cable company was probably acting within its legal rights.

Ashwin Navin (of BitTorrent) ... confirmed that it has noticed interference from Comcast, in addition to some Canadian Internet service providers.

"They're using sophisticated technology to degrade service, which probably costs them a lot of money. It would be better to see them use that money to improve service," Navin said, noting that BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer applications are a major reason consumers sign up for broadband.

And yes, IEEE Spectrum confirmed that Comcast (and others) had purchased software to do just that. We discussed published facts about ten years ago. UT immediately denied it then - without any facts. He just knew; then and today.

Comcast terminated any exposed practices. How many others have not been exposed? We have no idea how many other shenanigans Comcast has done. But we do know such practices become a normal business practice when free market competition does not exist.

Consumer costs increased much faster than inflation. Netflix finally conceded to Comcast's strongarm tactics. Netflix paid for the network upgrades that were once paid by 'data transporters' - who did not use profits to buy other corporations and skyscrapers.

All this constantly denied by UT back then and today. We know that a free market was created by 1996 laws that created net neutrality and forced the so many 'we fear to innovate' companies to stop stifling packet switching and finally provide that 15 year old broadband. Subverting those 1996 laws and regulations (that once made rapid internet growth possible) has hindered internet growth and has created duopolies - that UT says are good. Why are the duopolies so expensive? There is longer free market competition. And UT says that is good - because Fox News said so.

Plenty of other sources also noted examples of net neutrality. But not extremist propaganda machines such as Fox News.