Journal Degrees's Journal: Comment to the FCC redux 7
I sent it already.
I shaved 20% off it - although I know most of you wanted 60% shaved off. What can I say?
Well... apparently... too much.
<rimshot>
Anyway - I did want to get it out the door, in case something comes up that might take away all my time.
For the record:
Thank you for your time reading this.
I am a Comcast customer, and have been for a long time.
Two years ago, I installed a BitTorrent client on one of my PCs,
specifically to download an
run BitTorrent when I want to download the latest version of Linux.
Linux is Free Software - which means that it can be installed and used
by anyone for free. Because the software is free, the people who make
it available bear the distribution cost.
They pay for their internet connection, just as I pay Comcast for my
internet connection.
These downloads are a LOT of data. For the latest version of OpenSuse
Linux, more than 100 Terabytes (40,000 installations) were downloaded.
The OpenSuse people would have to pay ENORMOUS amounts of money if they
couldn't share the
The solution is to share the
This shifts a large portion of that data transfer from the OpenSuse
people, to every internet service provider with paying customers. I
paid Comcast to (essentially) subsidize the distribution of this file.
I pay a LOT of money for my Comcast internet service. For that, I
should get internet service that isn't deliberately sabotaged by Comcast.
In late September 2007, the latest version of OpenSuse was released. I
began the process of getting the OpenSuse 10.3 DVD
After a few minutes, my BitTorrent client told me that the download
would take two months. An hour later, the status screen said that the
download would finish in twenty-one days.
I called Comcast technical support.
The Comcast technician ran a diagnostic test against my cable modem and
told me that nothing was wrong - everything was fine.
I explained that the last time I downloaded an
couple hours. He said he didn't know what to tell me.
He suggested I examine my PC for some misconfiguration - shifting the
blame to me.
Of course, later it comes to light that Comcast had implemented the
Sandvine software to impersonate the 'other' end of the BitTorrent
client, which allowed them to forge reset packets to break the current
session.
I was looking at a twenty-one day download because Comcast was
deliberately interfering with my expensive service.
I let BitTorrent run. About fourteen hours after the start, the
download was done.
However, my 'sharing' ratio was zero. That is to say, although I
received 4 GB of packets; I didn't send 4 GB of packets back out to keep
the load off the OpenSuse people. Ideally, I would get to a share ratio
of one to one.
I did finally figure out a way to share out the
community that made it available to me.
However, Comcast still hurt me, as I tried to do it.
I have a small Cisco router here at home that I bought to teach myself
what I needed for Cisco certification.
The software that Comcast uses deliberately breaks established
connections. My little Cisco router still tried to keep those
connections open, in case the problem was just a glitch. The problem is
that the router wasn't designed to handle thousands of 'glitches' per hour.
Every few hours (for six or seven days) my Cisco router would run out of
memory and lock up. I had to power off the router to get my internet
connection back (every morning and evening).
Once I shared the
BitTorrent client. Magically, my Cisco router has been running
perfectly since then.
My point is that Comcast may try to tell you that their Sandvine
software doesn't actually hurt anything.
If they tell you that, they are lying to you.
Instead of allowing me to use my expensive internet connection to share
the burden of distributing this file, Comcast shifted the burden to
(all) other internet service providers who don't mess with their
customer's connections.
Further, for me to download the
Comcast network would get hammered as a huge file clogs it's network (if
only for a few minutes).
By using BitTorrent, the same file dribbles in over an hour or two
(assuming no interference), allowing the Comcast network to smoothly
handle it's traffic load.
To summarize: I occasionally use BitTorrent to relieve people who make
Free Software onerous download costs. I pay for expensive service, and
occasionally put that service to mild use above email and surfing the
web. Comcast implemented software to deliberately sabotage my use of
BitTorrent. When I called their technical support, they lied to me and
tried to tell me that it was my equipment that was faulty.
That's what Comcast did to me. I use my service in a legal manner, but
Comcast deliberately withheld service, and, lied to me about that.
I want the FCC to fine Comcast one month's fees per subscriber for
interfering with BitTorrent traffic.
Beginning in March 2008, if Comcast is caught interfering with
BitTorrent traffic again, I want Comcast to be fined again.
For each subsequent violation (per month), I want the fine against
Comcast to be doubled.
A simple fine, Comcast will pass along to subscribers. An exponential
fine will prevent them from future infringement.
I know this was long. Thank you very much for your time and attention
in this matter.
Excellent. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moo (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I know that it is long, but I wanted to provide a specific case that I think should stand on its own. I assume that most of the comments sent in by people were for the general case. I wanted to counter-balance that.
I did pull out some of the paragraphs that were distracting to the main message. :-)
Re: (Score:1)
There are some pros to that.