Net neutrality update

[Undertoad]

Now, again, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services, right now?

Don't talk about me, don't talk about children, don't talk about history, don't talk about emotion. It's a simple question, and you can either answer it in a single paragraph, pertaining only to the question, or you can say "I don't know" followed by nothing. Go.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Now, again, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services, right now?

How many times over how many months must the same thing be repeated over and over. Comcast was not blocking services. Comcast was subverting them ... and got caught doing so.

[sexobon]

The silence is golden.

[Undertoad]

Comcast was skewing packets and got caught. That does not change no matter how many times Fox News says otherwise.

Thanks for the reminder. You have failed to give us a link to any article showing this actually happened.

If you provide a link to a news article proving that Comcast did actually skew voice packets, I will donate $100 to a charity of your choice.

If you provide a link to a Fox News article saying despite protestations that they did, they actually did not, I will donate $300.

Go.

[Undertoad]

Why is Comcast not subverting other voice services, right now?

[xoxoxoBruce]

As I recall Comcast was blocking streaming video, not voice.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Why is Comcast not subverting other voice services, right now?

Why are they no longer using the software they bought to do that? How many times must this be posted. They got caught and exposed.

[Undertoad]

Stop dodging and weaving and simply, logically, answer the question.

Why is Comcast not subverting other voice services, right now?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Stop dodging and weaving and simply, logically, answer the question.

You are on trial for posting similar lies that also proved Saddam had WMDs. You even denied reality after George Jr admitted it was a lie.

Stop ignoring reality. Comcast was caught subverting internet traffic. Data Transporters must transport all data irregardless of its content. And since you do not get it, data transporters must transport data regardless of content - since that makes the internet successful and productive. Separation of data transporters and content providers make free market competition work. Extremists hate that.

Comcast can increase profits by subverting net neutrality. They even got some (people who can even be brainwashed by Fox News, Donald Trump, and Cheney lies) to believe that is good.

Answer the question. Why do you so hate free markets as to even want to destroy net neutrality? Why do you preach a mantra from Comcast to increase their profits? Why do you deny that net neutrality made the internet successful. Do you hate net neutrality (like an extremist) because Clinton's 1996 successful legislation made a previously stifled internet possible and successful? Clinton did it. So it must be wrong?

That destruction is what extremists advocate with propaganda (lies). Why do you hate free markets? Why do you constantly preach what Fox News, et al order you to believe?

Comcast is quite good at getting others to pay more by subverting net neutrality. Even Netflix conceded to their strongarm tactics. Net neutrality means Comcast must invest profits into their network rather than in Philadelphia's tallest skyscrapers, NBC, mobile phone companies, Universal Studios, sport teams, and who knows what else. Destroying net neutrality explains why Americans now pay so much for diminished service. UT says this is good.

Answer the question. Why do you recite monopolistic propaganda from extremists - and not the concepts that made America great? Did you not learn after "Saddam's WMD" lies that extremist propaganda explains your mistakes then - and now? Even after George Jr admitted it was a lie, you continued to preach right wing extremist rhetoric - refused to admit Saddam did not have those WMDs. Continued to believe Fox News, et al lies.

Answer the question. Why do you so hate free market competition. And rules that make that successful? And BTW, not apologize for mistakenly advocating the massacre of 5000 American servicemen in Iraq for no useful purpose. Extremists even lied about that. Why do you so hate net neutrality and resulting free market competition - as advocated by extremists? Why do you hate free markets made possible when and because laws created net neutrality?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

Stop ignoring reality. Comcast was caught subverting internet traffic.

Voice traffic, according to you - and it's an easy $100 if you can provide the link.

[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.

[sexobon]

Special Counsel Undertoad has been examining the witness who has been evading a direct line of questioning. The Special Counsel has questioning options like fill in the blank (i.e. "Comcast is not subverting other voice services, right now; because, _________________________."), True - False questions and Multiple Choice questions. These options; however, risk leading the witness. There is much speculation on how the Special Counsel will proceed and bookmakers in Las Vegas are watching the situation closely.

[sexobon]

The witness in Special Counsel Undertoad's investigation has been cited for contempt after witness impugned the integrity of the Special Counsel, in Trump-like fashion, to distract from witness noncooperation. The Court awaits Special Counsel Undertoad's report and recommendations as to whether or not the matter should be turned over to a Special Prosecutor. Bookmakers in Las Vegas are now giving odds on whether or not Special Counsel Undertoad would assume the Special Prosecutor role himself.

[Undertoad]

Correct! Comcast throttled BitTorrent, which congested its networks in 2012, making it harder to provide other services. That is the biggest example of an ACTUAL net neutrality violation in history.

But nowhere, in all that bluster, is a link to say Comcast was subverting VOICE traffic.

The software they may have bought (all this is from a lone press release from the company trying to sell them software) was for VOICE traffic, not BitTorrent. But we have no evidence they actually bought it, and no evidence they ever subverted voice traffic.

Understand this: it is utterly utterly trivial to detect throttling with packet sniffing software.

But evidence is not your strong suit. I ask for simple evidence, easy to provide. You just go off on a pathetic rant, believing that somehow that is evidence.

So: another failure, and no money for your charities.

How many times are you going to misremember this information?