Comcast blocking p2p uploads

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/te
chnology/AP-Comcast-Data-Discrimination.html

I cannot access relevant pages on www.comcast.com due to me
not being in 
the US (or rather, they require an address first), could
anyone please 
paste or other way supply the wording/text they use in their
fineprint, to 
allow them contractually to disrupt customer TCP session in
other way than 
delaying or dropping the packets (which I guess is accepted
industry 
standard).

Sending/spoofing RST on certain customer TCP sessions
doesn't qualify as 
normal network behaviour in my mind, so would be interesting
to hear how 
they word it legally.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmikeswm.pp.se

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> I cannot access relevant pages on www.comcast.com due
to me not being in 
> the US (or rather, they require an address first),
could anyone please 
> paste or other way supply the wording/text they use in
their fineprint, 
> to allow them contractually to disrupt customer TCP
session in other way 
> than delaying or dropping the packets (which I guess is
accepted 
> industry standard).
> 
> Sending/spoofing RST on certain customer TCP sessions
doesn't qualify as 
> normal network behaviour in my mind, so would be
interesting to hear how 
> they word it legally.
> 
They don't, Comcast is egregiously in violation of their own
AUP!

   http://www.comca
st.net/terms/use.jsp

vii. restrict, inhibit, or otherwise interfere with the
ability of any
other person, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to
use or enjoy
the Service, including, without limitation, posting or
transmitting any
information or software which contains a worm, virus, or
other harmful
feature, or generating levels of traffic sufficient to
impede others'
ability to send or retrieve information;

vii. restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or otherwise disrupt
or cause a
performance degradation, regardless of intent, purpose or
knowledge, to the
Service or any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) host, server,
backbone network,
node or service, or otherwise cause a performance
degradation to any Comcast
(or Comcast supplier) facilities used to deliver the
Service;

...

xxii. interfere with computer networking or
telecommunications service to
any user, host or network, ....

----

I'm on the horn to my legislators....  As a Comcast customer
at home, I'll
be looking into my legal position regarding "tortuous
interference".  As an
ISP owner, I'm not as sure about my standing, but also seems
that they are
interfering with "service to any user, host or
network".

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:08:50 +0200 (CEST)
Mikael Abrahamsson <swmikeswm.pp.se> wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/te
chnology/AP-Comcast-Data-Discrimination.html
> 
> I cannot access relevant pages on www.comcast.com due
to me not being
> in the US (or rather, they require an address first),
could anyone
> please paste or other way supply the wording/text they
use in their
> fineprint, to allow them contractually to disrupt
customer TCP
> session in other way than delaying or dropping the
packets (which I
> guess is accepted industry standard).
> 
> Sending/spoofing RST on certain customer TCP sessions
doesn't qualify
> as normal network behaviour in my mind, so would be
interesting to
> hear how they word it legally.
> 
See http
://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9800629-38.html for some
relevant
excerpts.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbi
a.edu/~smb

On Oct 20, 2007, at 4:08 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Comcast
-Data- 
>> Discrimination.html
>
> I cannot access relevant pages on www.comcast.com due
to me not  
> being in the US (or rather, they require an address
first), could  
> anyone please paste or other way supply the
wording/text they use  
> in their fineprint, to allow them contractually to
disrupt customer  
> TCP session in other way than delaying or dropping the
packets  
> (which I guess is accepted industry standard).
>
> Sending/spoofing RST on certain customer TCP sessions
doesn't  
> qualify as normal network behaviour in my mind, so
would be  
> interesting to hear how they word it legally.

It is interesting that this has come up before in a somewhat
related  
context

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/06/
ignoring_the_gr.html

Regards
Marshall


>
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmikeswm.pp.se

At 07:36 AM 10/20/2007, William Allen Simpson wrote:


>Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>I cannot access relevant pages on www.comcast.com
due to me not 
>>being in the US (or rather, they require an address
first), could 
>>anyone please paste or other way supply the
wording/text they use 
>>in their fineprint, to allow them contractually to
disrupt customer 
>>TCP session in other way than delaying or dropping
the packets 
>>(which I guess is accepted industry standard).
>>Sending/spoofing RST on certain customer TCP
sessions doesn't 
>>qualify as normal network behaviour in my mind, so
would be 
>>interesting to hear how they word it legally.
>They don't, Comcast is egregiously in violation of their
own AUP!
>
>   http://www.comca
st.net/terms/use.jsp

It is interesting to note that the terms of service given on

comcast.com say nothing about restrictions on use. I make
the 
distinction between comcast.net and comcast.com for an
important 
reason: comcast.com is where folks go to sign up.
Comcast.net is a 
portal for existing users. In other words, it appears this
AUP is not 
posted (at least not that I could find) on the
sales-oriented page. 
Does the user actually agree to this AUP prior to signing a

commitment with Comcast?

Of course the AUP starts with the usual big-business text
(popular 
with credit card companies too) that says the company is
free to make 
any adjustments to the AUP at any time. In all the years
I've been a 
Comcast customer at home, I don't recall any notices about
changes to 
the terms of service. The credit card companies at least
tell you, 
and advise if you don't agree you can cancel your account.

On Oct 19, 2007, at 7:40 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

>> I didn't know that you doing something illegal with
your application
>> made it OK to block my use of it.
>
> p2p protocols are illegal?  since when?

I specifically said "you _doing_ something illegal
_with_ your  
application", not that the application (or protocol if
you prefer)  
was illegal.

IOW: We are in agreement.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


> p2p protocols are tools.  like most tools, they can be
used for  
> good and
> for bad.
>
> randy
>

First, that's not what I learned in my law classes.

Second, the "rent" has conditions (they may not
publish them, but that
is entirely different matter which I likely agree with you
on).
Comcast is under no obligation to let you misuse their
service...
morally, ethically, or philosophically.

Third, the police handle criminal matters, not contract
disputes.

It wasn't my analogy to begin with.

I would imagine their AUP is written to allow them to take
"any
reasonable measure" to ensure the integrity of their
service.

P.S. I don't misuse my service so the debate doesn't effect
me.

PPS I think it was requested multiple times to take this
debate off
list, let's let it die.

On 10/20/07, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrickianai.net> wrote:
>
> On Oct 19, 2007, at 10:53 PM, John C. A. Bambenek
wrote:
>
> > Because you signed up to an AUP that allows what
they are doing.
> >
> > That, and in most states, if you rent my house, I
can throw you out
> > for no reason given that I give you proper notice
and enough time.
> >
> > In this case, if you want to use rental analogies,
that's like saying
> > a landlord can't evict you or otherwise take
action because you're
> > having loud parties and throwing appliances out
windows.  P2P is about
> > the exact opposite of "quiet
enjoyment".
>
> I am afraid your skill at analogies is lacking.
>
> First, in most states, you may NOT "throw [me] out
for no reason".
> Well, unless you consider "proper notice and
enough time" equivalent
> to "wait until the end of the lease".
>
> Second, eviction is totally different than the
discussion here.
> Comcast is still taking these people's
"rent", an evicted tenant does
> not pay.
>
> Third, the _police_ handle loud parties and vandalism,
not the landlord.
>
> Etc., etc.  But the analogy is flawed anyway.  A cable
modem is not
> an apartment, and the Internet does not fit well into
"normal" modes
> of operation.
>
> If the AUP does not allow this activity, then Comcast
has remedies
> detailed in their AUP.  I have not read the AUP, and it
is late, so I
> will not do so now.  However, would you care to take a
bet about the
> remedies listed?  I would guess it gives Comcast the
right to shut
> down the service.  I seriously doubt it gives Comcast
the right to
> randomly kill sessions while still billing the full
month's rent.
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
> P.S. Careful how far you defend this action lest your
own words be
> turned against you.
>
>
>
> > On 10/19/07, Patrick Giagnocavo <patrickzill.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 19, 2007, at 3:42 PM, John C. A.
Bambenek wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Since when did private companies no longer
have the right to
> >>> regulate
> >>> their own property?
> >>>
> >>> I must have missed the Amendment...
> >>
> >> If you want to make a property argument, how
do you explain them
> >> denying me my right to enjoy my rental of
their property?
> >>
> >> If Comcast were a landlord, they would be
interfering with my quiet
> >> enjoyment and my rights in possession.
> >>
> >> Interfering with my traffic rather than
blocking it, could lose them
> >> common carrier protection.  They are exerting
editorial control, in a
> >> fashion, over what I transmit and receive.
> >>
> >> --Patrick
> >>
> >
>
>

In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 03:21:09PM
-0400, Joe Provo wrote:
> Content is irrelevent.  BT is a protocol-person's dream
and an ISP
> nightmare. The bulk of the slim profit margin exists in
taking 
> advantage of stat-mux oversubscription. BT blows that
out of the 
> water.

I'm a bit confused by your statement.  Are you saying it's
more
cost effective for ISP's to carry downloads thousands of
miles
across the US before giving them to the end user than it is
to allow
a local end user to "upload" them to other local
end users?

Is this only a biproduct of the centralized downloads being
throttled
by thousands of miles of network, and/or a single
centralized server?

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknellufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bic
knell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-requesttmbg.org, www.tmbg.org