[IP] Re: Comcast Admits Interfering with Internet Traffic

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Date: October 24, 2007 2:58:30 PM EDT
To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>
Cc: dave@farber.net, lauren@vortex.com
Subject: Re: [IP] Comcast Admits Interfering with Internet Traffic


Brett,

You're going to lose this argument if you really want to use
Comcast's behavior as a positive example.

a) They were conducting this behavior in secret -- with no apparent
   informing of their customers that legit protocols were being
   altered.

b) They apparently routinely refused to acknowledge that such behavior
   on their part was taking place, until they got caught spoofing
   packets and exposed publicly.

c) They are in violation of network protocols by forging/spoofing
   packets in this manner.

Like I said, if Comcast or other ISPs have a problem with particular
sorts of traffic, let 'em come to the IETF and work on a solution
in the light of day, not play "hack the packets" with user data.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
   - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com

 - - -

> Dave, Lauren, everyone:
>
> Lauren's article is disturbing for a number of reasons.
>
> To claim that optimizing one's network, prioritizing packets, and
> preventing abuse constitutes "interfering with" or "tampering with"
> Internet traffic is akin to saying that traffic lights "tamper with"
> automobile travel by artificially restricting it. Internet service
> providers have every right to contractually and technically limit
> what people do on their networks so as to prevent abuse, stop illegal
> activity, and preserve quality of service. In fact, none can stay in
> business if they do not do it.
>
> In the specific case of Comcast, the provider is preventing customer
> equipment from acting -- with or without the customer's knowledge --
> in ways which would compromise the integrity of the network, hog
> network resources, violate contracts (especially provisions which
> prevent the operation of servers on residential connections, whose
> pricing depends upon this contractual provision) and/or violate
> copyrights.
>
> Only when behavior is anticompetitive should it be considered to
> be actionable -- and then not by the end user but by the party which
> was the victim of the anticompetitive behavior.
>
> --Brett Glass


-------------------------------------------