[GRLUG] Comcast and net neutrality

Sun Oct 21 20:20:40 EDT 2007

Thanks that exactly what I was looking for.

On 10/21/07, Bob Kline <bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know that I'd call it boiler plate,
> but you're welcome tweak the letter I
> sent if that's helpful.  Keeping in mind
> that at most you'll get a form letter
> back from your "representatives,"  and
> it might not even pertain to the issue
> you wrote about,  it's probably more
> important to just send something than
> to worry too much about the details.
> Some aid probably just puts the e-mails
> in to piles and sees which is higher
> anyway.  i.e.,  your "representative"
> probably never reads them.
>
> You might also mention support for S.156,
> which keeps states from taxing the Internet
> for a while longer.
>
> I'd say the goal here is to ensure that the
> Internet doesn't become the ad soaked
> useless medium that TV has.
>
> And what Comcast is doing might not
> actually be illegal.  The problem is that it
> is effectively a monopoly in many areas.
> It's well known that it and other large ISPs
> treat people in different geographic areas
> differently depending on how much
> competition they figure exists.  This too
> they are not very forthcoming about.
>
>    -Bob
>
> ++++++++++++++++++
> Cable provider Comcast is already
> clearly violating what is called net
> neutrality - the practice of treating
> all Internet traffic equally.  While it
> of course denies this, the Associated
> Press has verified through tests that
> in fact Comcast is prioritizing Internet
> traffic.
>
> The Internet,  despite some problems,
> has proven to be overall a valuable
> enabling technology, and positively
> affects many segments of US business,
> science, and technology,  in addition to
> serving as a vast library for millions.
> It would be unconscionable to let Comcast
> and others to now do to the Internet what
> has been done to radio,  cable, and satellite
> TV.  Now so laden with advertising that
> each 30 minutes of programming can
> contain 12 to 15 minutes of advertising,
> rendering each medium at the least mind
> numbing, and and the worst useless.
>
> It was the intent of the net neutrality
> legislation to ensure that this does not
> happen.  By controlling traffic based on
> content and source,  Internet companies
> will attempt to force users to upgrade to
> premium services,  much like cable and
>  satellite TV,  in order to view any content
> without also accepting  incessant advertising.
>
> People have recognized for years now that
> companies like AT&T,  Comcast, Verizon,
> and others should not be allowed to own
> the backbone fibers that route much of the
> Internet traffic in the US.  Their fears have
> proven to be justified.
>
> I'd ask that the welfare of the little people
> in the US be taken in to consideration on
> this issue, and that Congress make more
> permanent arrangements to ensure net
> neutrality.  The Internet is simply too
> valuable to let happen to it what Comcast
> apparently has in mind.  The Internet should
> be equally available to all Americans, and
> free of additional fees just to get back to
> what they currently have for the most part.
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
> On 10/21/07, Joe Vanderstelt <thisboyiscrazy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm also a Comcast customer than has been effected. I would like to
> > write a letter to Levin and Stabenow but write was never my best
> > subject. Does any have a boiler plate  type letter I would use?
> >
> > On 10/20/07, Bob Kline < bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I did that yesterday.  Congress has been
> > > slow to act on net neutrality legislation,
> > > making me think they are in the back
> > > pocket of the industry on this issue too.
> > > Industry says legislation is unnecessary,
> > > which suggest it wouldn't hurt then either.
> > >
> > > But it's what we can do.  I'd like to see the
> > > tax payers have their own backbone fibers,
> > > that can be used by private ISPs,  but not
> > > controlled.
> > >
> > > Of course the tax payers have Internet2 - not
> > > to be confused with Internet 2.  A high speed
> > > Internet backbone that only gov't labs and
> > > schools can use.  It's been around for 8 years
> > > that I know of,  and is supposedly a vehicle
> > > for researching high speed networks.  That part
> > > I think is a crock, and doubt that it will ever be
> > > opened up to ordinary tax payers.  Too much
> > > fun the way things are...  :-(
> > >
> > >     -Bob
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/20/07, Michael Mol < mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Both me and a friend of mine have encountered Comcast's filtering.
> > > > Since I found out that it's there, I can't help but wonder if any
> > > > given spurious RST packet came from them.
> > > >
> > > > However, there may be a way around it, but it requires delaying action
> > > > on received RST packets to see if normal packets follow, which would
> > > > require modification of the TCP stack of the host and any NAT in
> > > > between.
> > > >
> > > > I think I'm going to send Levin and Stabenow a couple more letters
> > > > regarding Net Neutrality.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 10/20/07, Bob Kline < bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Those of you with Comcast might be interested in this:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/10/19/comcast/
> > > > >
> > > > > For those of you that don't have Comcast,  what one
> > > > > company does others might follow.  Comcast has been
> > > > > less than forthcoming about its activities, and was dug
> > > > > out by the Associated Press.
> > > > >
> > > > > The head of SBC,  and later AT&T,  mumbled a couple
> > > > > of years ago that he didn't see why people should be
> > > > > able to use "his" fibers to put competitive services on.
> > > > > In that case phone service like Vonage.
> > > > >
> > > > > While companies like Comcast are trying to snow
> > > > > Congress in to thinking there is no need for net neutrality
> > > > > legislation,  clearly there is.  The alternative is to let
> > > > > outfits like Comcast do for the Internet what it and
> > > > > DirecTV have done for TV - just a sea of ads, with the not
> > > > > so subtle hint you might want to buy some premium
> > > > > services if you want to actually watch any programming.
> > > > >
> > > > > With the Internet we might end up paying for premium
> > > > > services just to stay where we are now.  Otherwise
> > > > > Comcast might just want to make your life miserable.
> > > > > And don't forget that it is a monopoly in many of the
> > > > > areas it serves.
> > > > >
> > > > >     -Bob
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > grlug mailing list
> > > > > grlug at grlug.org
> > > > >
> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > :wq
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > grlug mailing list
> > > > grlug at grlug.org
> > > >
> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > grlug mailing list
> > > grlug at grlug.org
> > > http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > grlug mailing list
> > grlug at grlug.org
> > http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> grlug mailing list
> grlug at grlug.org
> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug
>