Legal Trouble For Multiple ISPs 303
Ars Technica reports that Comcast has been hit with three new class-action lawsuits due to the company's traffic-shaping practices. "The lawsuits ... ask that Comcast be barred from continuing to violate various state laws, in addition to unspecified damages." Meanwhile, members of the US House Telecommunications Subcommittee have asked Charter Communications' president to stop testing a program which uses Deep Packet Inspection to track the habits of its customers. A number of privacy groups have voiced their support (PDF). As if that weren't enough, it seems the City of Los Angeles is suing Time Warner for fraud and deceptive business practices. The Daily News notes, "... the City Attorney is seeking $2,500 in civil penalties for each violation of the Unfair Competition law as well as an additional $2,500 civil penalty for each violation described in the complaint perpetrated against one or more senior citizens or disabled persons."
TWC was ousted from Minneapolis (Score:4, Informative)
Now we have Crapcast and I'm paying $20 more per month for less service.
--Minneapolis dev.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cable television is a perfect example of one of the fatal flaws in the dog-eat-dog capitalism models of the Chicago School of economics, so beloved by various Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists etc. It is an illustration of a rather obvious real-world property of the so-called "free market" which, contrary to carefully fudged "models", allows for (and in fact inevitably leads to) formation of large industry/geography-specific monopolies, even without any governmental interference whatsoever.
That is so simpl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cable television is a perfect example of one of the fatal flaws in the dog-eat-dog capitalism models of the Chicago School of economics, so beloved by various Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists etc. It is an illustration of a rather obvious real-world property of the so-called "free market" which
Sorry, government interference *subsidized* the construction of cable fiber optic infrastructure. Your "free market" criticism is thus null and void. You also might want to check out the Austrian School of Economics being at the top of the food chain these days. Granted, other schools, such as Harvard, Stanford, London School, MIT, are a distant third tier from the Chicago School.
Try not to fall in a trap of blasting loaded words like "capitalism" and instead focus on the economic and epistemological reali
Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis (Score:5, Insightful)
Which has no bearing on the matter whatsoever. Subsidies are wholly unrelated to the problem of physical limitations of last-mile cabling.
Non-sequitur.
Yes, the "school" which rejects empirical evidence in favor of ideologically motivated "deductions". A fringe lunacy even amongst other fundamentalist capitalist lunacies.
Oops. That would not be in line with the Austrian School's main premise that observation and empirical evidence takes a second seat to the priesthood's "deductions". Even you cannot keep these fruit-cakes straight.
Nobel Prize in economics is like the Buttville Chicken Farmers' Award for the longest piss from the roof of Orville's farm. Except that the pissing farmhands cannot cause anywhere near the misery, suffering and death these Nobel "winners" did. Macroeconomics, as a whole, is an exercise in pseudo-scientific shamanism of the highest order. None, I repeat, none of the so-called "models" developed by any of these "schools" have been demonstrated to have even the slightest of predictive powers or most tenuous relationships to reality. Which of course never stops these frauds from pompous posturing and lecturing sanctimoniously.
The last time these Nobel "winners" have tried to apply their oh-so-superior understanding of economics to something practical we ended up with a wee little oopsie called the "Long Term Capital Management" hedge fund. Look it up.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of telco monopolies.
LOL. That is one of the Holy Dogmas of the Capitalist Religion. In practice people trade hoping to receive value equal to that what was paid. Sometimes receiving far less. The extra "value" in excess of the trade itself is supposed to be a systemic property and as such never enters the mind of individual traders. And so the trade would have occurred irrespective of its presence.
This bit of illogical, rabid zealotry is pretty much self defeating. The trade always did and would occur if value of what you pay for is merely equal to what you get.
Say what?! Government is (at least in theor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Subsidies are wholly unrelated to the problem of physical limitations of last-mile cabling
They are directly related because subsidies cause the corporations to own the last mile rather than service the last mile.
Macroeconomics, as a whole, is an exercise in pseudo-scientific shamanism of the highest order.
"Monetary Theory" is indeed one of the weakest spots. Only individuals act. I share your criticism of macroeconomic theory whether its Keynesianism or Chicago School.
Here is your fundamental error:
LOL. That is one of the Holy Dogmas of the Capitalist Religion. In practice people trade hoping to receive value equal to that what was paid. Sometimes receiving far less. The extra "value" in excess of the trade itself is supposed to be a systemic property and as such never enters the mind of individual traders. And so the trade would have occurred irrespective of its presence. This bit of illogical, rabid zealotry is pretty much self defeating. The trade always did and would occur if value of what you pay for is merely equal to what you get.
If what you traded was *equally* valued then why wouldn't you infinitely trade back and forth the exact same things in an infinite loop? That would be absurdity. This is precisely why trade
Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis (Score:4, Informative)
Because it does not work. The whole idea is fundamentally silly, as the telco's "competitors" are forced to buy service from their main competitor. It leads to a situation where the dominant telco is able to pretend that it is selling access "at cost", while in fact obstructing those buying in many different ways, such as creating delays, purposeful technological incompatibilities and what not. In all the marketplaces in which it was tried the dominant telco always won resulting in these "competitors" withdrawing or ... irony ... being bought at bankruptcy prices by that very telco.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is that kind of regulation actually unconstitutional in the US, or are the po
Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis (Score:4, Insightful)
Because that solution depends on another point of systemic failure: litigation.
A system whereby the municipality owns the last mile (or conduits etc) requires no constant regulatory supervision as long as all competitors are given equal access. A system dependent on forcing an unwilling company, in whose best interest is to thwart all your attempts at forcing them to do this, requires constant monitoring, constant regulatory loophole fixing and as the final result endless litigation, all to questionable effects as all these measures are reactive and do not take effect for years after the harm to consumers was done.
One solution is simple, effective and has a few easily observable points where it could possibly go astray, the other is complex and depends on endless litigation and political maneuvering as primary mechanisms of control.
The only reason to prefer the complex, unwieldy and unreliable over simple and effective is ideological zealotry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free market is not "broken" (whatever that means). It is simply an imperfect, flawed economic system (one of possible many) which is applicable only to a particular subset of human activities, under specific conditions. My objections are not to the concept itself but to rampant and frankly quite maniacal attempts
wtf... (Score:5, Interesting)
"I am above ze law!" <adds goop to hair>
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This lawsuit will bring focus to the issue.
Re:wtf... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it more just to go after those who CHOOSE to break the law, or those that OPENLY do it because they are big business and feel they can do what they want when they want?
Re:wtf... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is that even a question? (Score:2)
If it's a choice, then raise taxes and hire more people to pursue more people (and corporations) who are breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a choice, then raise taxes and hire more people to pursue more people (and corporations) who are breaking the law.
It really doesn't need to involve raising any taxes. See, busting crack dealers costs money. Busting corporate criminals makes money because once you prove malfeasance on the part of a company officer, you can go after the company for money. But then, IANAL, maybe you can do it the other way around too. :P
Problem is that only the people who haven't paid up their bribe money and/or won't fall into line are actually ever busted. Look at the Billy Gates situation - they've got Microsoft red-handed for antit
Re:wtf... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:wtf... (Score:5, Funny)
PS: I'd love to see crack-dealer-style competition of gunning each other down amongst the cable/internet pimps...
Re:wtf... (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps they should be reallocated to BEA (B=bandwidth)?
Re:wtf... (Score:5, Funny)
I want them going after bandwidth shapers. They don't have jurisdiction over the CIA.
Re: (Score:2)
The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office is asking that the court permanently prohibit the company from further engaging in any unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices or deceptive advertising and take appropriate action to adopt measures to prevent future acts.
Do they ask the same of DWI's that kill people, or rapists? What the hell is the point of even making such a statement? Trying to save the city money by not having to prosecute again
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
yes the same applies to sex offenders and the like - ever heard of the 3 strikes laws ?
What do all 3 ISPs have in common? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What do all 3 ISPs have in common? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let it rot and demand the gov helps rolls out the "future".
Re:What do all 3 ISPs have in common? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to pay extra for access to YouTube, UDP traffic, images in HTML, Java Applets, Embedded Flash - and you must accept that we inject some commercials in the pages you visit.
Most disturbing image... (Score:5, Interesting)
The image?
19.99$: Basic service: Access to MSN, Yahoo, (various other sites)
29.99$: Premium service! Access to MSN, Yahoo!, Facebook, CNet, (other sites)!
49.99$: Extreme service! Access to over 100 web sites! Even youtube!
Re:Most disturbing image... (Score:4, Informative)
A sign of distorted economics in the ISP industry? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know consumers (myself included) enjoy not having to think about bandwidth usage, but maybe there could be a better pricing model that more appropriately sets the costs of the bandwidth for heavy users.
--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics! [nerdkits.com]
Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust (Score:5, Interesting)
You can always set up emergency tier 1 ISP lease plans where they lease you extra bandwidth so you don't end up short, although its less cost efficient than making an enormous profit off light users to subsidize the heavy ones.
The current way we deal with internet (consumer to corporation) is like charging X dollars/gallon for gas, but only if you buy less than 5 gallons a month....sure, the super light cars would live painfully, but the SUV owners (and other things that guzzle gas but are legit such as diesel, freight, airplanes) would be screaming out. For internet purposes replace diesel, freight, airplanes with fileservers, bittorrent, streaming video, and downloaders/gamers. Yes, at that extreme just like internet, people will stop using it as much, because at that point it becomes practically extortion (and in the case of gas, the oil industry would be kaputz/pay in blood for charging so much, however there is competition enough that if they all do that there are other gas options). When there are no options, this extortion has no retribution, thats where we're at now with internet.
This comparison isn't 100%, but it's the closest I could think of at the time.
Don't like comcast, time warner, etc? You have nowhere to go, and you're paying the 20$ no matter what you drive, even though they could be charging 2$ or 3$.
It's ridiculously cheap to make a fast wireless mesh network in a decent sized neighborhood even without subsidies....(say 600 people who can average comcast's download speed for upload as well ends up around 60$/month )kinda makes you wonder just how much is siphoned to CEO's, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree about limited bandwidth. The problem is that bandwidth is flexible, and cheap. If you don't buy enough that's no fault other than the ISP themselves.
This is not true at the last mile. It should be true for the telco equipment, but in reality you end up with crosstalk and all kinds of other problems. These problems are being reduced as the copper between the telco and your block is being replaced by fiber... but there's many miles of copper out there and lots of it is Shit. It's especially untrue for the cable companies just due to the nature of their distribution architecture as well. But then, a small percentage of a DOCSIS connection is a hell of a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In a supply and demand situation, scarcity doesn't mean just 'a limited supply' it also means 'a fixed supply'.
I understand what you're saying. However, the various oil companies are invested in biofuels and could conceivably be producing them in quantity, so they could probably make more. I can only assume that they're not doing this for one of two reasons based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the situation: either they're trying to milk the dino juice as long as possible because you don't change horses in mid-stream, or they're concerned about the OPEC response to anything that fucks with their monop
Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust (Score:5, Interesting)
We paid for their build out and have yet to see the benefits of that tax break. I call it even.
Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust (Score:4, Informative)
I don't mind having to pay extra if I use an unreasonable amount of the network, but my definition of reasonable and most ISPs seem to differ
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust (Score:5, Interesting)
No, they should not. (Score:3, Insightful)
Any company that tries to meter me to "improve customer efficiency" will get a reminder that customers are supposed to get what THEY want. They will get my service cancellation call, regardless of any potential contractual penalties.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They really need peak-time metering, like the power company (at least out here on the best coast, PG&E will come and switch you over to a time-of-use meter for free) so that they can give you a financial incentive to stay away from the peak hours. However, a certain number of peak hours or bits should be paid at a low rate, so that you can still check email and the weather without having to look at the clock.
Furthermore, I want to see this regulated. I realize that legislation is not the answer to all
How much are telecoms paying you to astroturf? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no reason to get self-righteous about this. It's not as if people go to jail if they choose NOT to buy the service because they dont like the idea of subsidizing heavy users. They as light users don't see noticeable service degradation from heavy users, and they still choose to buy it. there is no "injustice" being perpetrated.
There is NO CREDIBLE REASON to charge for internet like cellphone service. What kind of stockholm syndrom do you have where you can defend this practice?
Does fedex charge by the mile? I contest that people who ship using flat-rate envelopes to the neighboring state are subsidizing people who ship using the same envelopes cross country. Do you see how stupid this sounds?
Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidth (Score:5, Interesting)
For me bandwidth has been un-metered, un-throttled, un-shaped, unlimited and un-restricted in all senses of the word for the last decade or so. And while i do pay 50 euro's (~ 75USD) a month, i get 20mbit with great service, a personal home page, spam filtering and all the other services you would expect from an ISP, plus they never blocked any ports so running your own http/smtp/imap/etc server from home is no problem either. (there are a lot of cheaper options, you could get 4mbit with no restrictions for about 12 euro's a month but then you would loose a bit in the service and quality department).
I guess my question is
Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt (Score:4, Interesting)
That's about right. I have a choice between DSL and Cable for high speed internet (satellite is too high latency). Luckily my cable company treats me well (15mbps/2mbps for $55/mo) but the DSL service is horrible. If the cable company made changes like these I wouldn't have much of an alternative...
It's ridiculous. I hope somebody who actually has a brain gets in the FCC and forces the telcos to actually use the $200 Billion we've given them so far to improve the infrastructure...like we PAID them for with tax dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt (Score:2)
I live in L.A. and it just seems like I get 20mbit. Oh wait. You meant 20 Mbit.
Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt (Score:5, Insightful)
telecom lobbies have exercised regulatory capture for at least a decade now, and, while their agendas are much less invasive than the RIAA, have considerably greater lobbying grip on our legislatures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt (Score:2)
Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt (Score:2)
Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt (Score:2)
For me bandwidth has been un-metered, un-throttled, un-shaped, unlimited and un-restricted in all senses of the word for the last decade or so.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you had a T1 you would get 1.5MB both up and down with dedicated bandwith that nobody can interfere with, no matter what they are doing in your neighborhood.
Yes, it is more expensive than cable, but you get RELIABLE bandwidth and REL
"Vote with your wallet": Moving to a new house ... (Score:4, Informative)
Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad (Score:5, Informative)
- "PowerBoost(r) makes fast even faster! PowerBoost(r) helps power downloads of large files like videos, music, and games at speeds up to 12 Mbps!"
- "McAfee(r) Security Suite featuring a series of tools to help keep you, your family, and your home computers safe, protected, and virus-free. A $120 value."
- And for their phone service: "Utilizes Comcast's own secure network, not the public Intedrnet, for secure VoIP phone service".
So 3 counts of fraud on ONE ad! Comcast are going to have a problem defending themselves this time...Now, do I see a "boost" of speed when downloading videos, music, and games (legal ones) from BitTorrent? NO! I NEVER even get a good connection! And at the bottom of the flyer, in that long list of fine print, it says "PowerBoost(r) provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5MB of a file, respectively. So I don't even get PowerBoost for longer than a second! Theres one fraud.
I have McAfee, provided by Comcast, installed on my Windows OS (I use Linux most of the time). Guess what? ANOTHER LIE! Sure, it's free now, but in a year EVERY DAMN time you turn your computer on, McAfee nags you to buy a $120 dollar subscription. MORE FRAUD!
So your saying the NSA can't listen in? More fraud...
Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad (Score:4, Informative)
Now, do I see a "boost" of speed when downloading videos, music, and games (legal ones) from BitTorrent? NO! I NEVER even get a good connection! And at the bottom of the flyer, in that long list of fine print, it says "PowerBoost(r) provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5MB of a file, respectively. So I don't even get PowerBoost for longer than a second! Theres one fraud.
"McAfee(r) Security Suite featuring a series of tools to help keep you, your family, and your home computers safe, protected, and virus-free. A $120 value."
I have McAfee, provided by Comcast, installed on my Windows OS (I use Linux most of the time). Guess what? ANOTHER LIE! Sure, it's free now, but in a year EVERY DAMN time you turn your computer on, McAfee nags you to buy a $120 dollar subscription. MORE FRAUD!
And for their phone service: "Utilizes Comcast's own secure network, not the public Intedrnet, for secure VoIP phone service".
So your saying the NSA can't listen in? More fraud...
So 3 counts of fraud on ONE ad! Comcast are going to have a problem defending themselves this time...
Stop hating companies. If they really were making false or deceptive claims, the vulture lawyers would have tried to rake the company over for all that they are worth. If your position is right, it would be too easy!
Disclosure: I am an employee and shareholder of Comcast.
Exactly what is happening. (Score:3, Funny)
No kidding, you would have expected to see at least two, maybe even three, class action suits by now.
MB mb (Score:2)
10 MB
do you know what comparing apples to oranges means?
it takes 6.66 seconds to push 10 MegaBytes down a 12 MeagaBits pipe
Fines have gotten too low! (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF These fines are laughable. In fact we have to rethink our policy on fines. They should be based on a percentage of your gross annual income. This should be for individuals, organizations and corporations. I would be in favor of doing this for something as simple as a parking ticket. The way it is now, the corporate board just treats it as a cost of doing business.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It could add up even more quickly... (Score:5, Interesting)
I found myself (Score:3, Funny)
Hi there guys, I'm very new here.
Comcast lock in (Score:5, Informative)
What surprises me is that AT&T and Astoud.net is taking this lying down. I even went personally to Astound.net office and they say my apartment address is black listed in their database (essentially meaning they will not even try to make a connection here). At least AT&T technician from U-verse came here and argued with apartment manager with no success. I wrote a letter to AT&T U-verse and did not even get courtesy of a form letter reply. Yet U_verse is wasting their marketing dollars by sending me fliers almost everyday (and to everybody else in this complex) to sign-up with U-verse.
Comcast Internet connection is the pits these days. After a minute or two of good connectivity, it drops to almost 0 bytes per second. This creates havoc even in accessing gmail. My VOIP phone or chatting with my friends on iChat becomes impossible.
The whole situation makes "voting with our dollars" impossible. By the way, I found out that other apartment dwellers in SF bay area are in similar position.
Sue comcast under anti-trust law or file FTC compl (Score:4, Informative)
this falls afoul of anti-trust law, and denies customers choice.
File a complaint with the FTC or sue comcast.
Hmmm, Fines Eh? (Score:3)
This reminds me of the way a certain meat-packing plant a couple towns over operates. They employ (and underpay) illegal alien workers, they violate workplace safety codes blatantly, and they just pay the fines and judgments and go on as usual because the cost of compliance is more than the fines and judgments.
Until the financial penalties are a very significant percentage of their gross income, and/or CEOs and board-members are held personally financially and criminally liable, this kind of behavior will continue, and any costs imposed will be passed along to consumers.
The "corporate veil" of protections against personal civil and criminal liabilities of corporate heads and boards needs to be more easily pierced when it involves intentional abusive or illegal behavior on the part of corporations like the kinds of behaviors exhibited by Comcast and other cable ISPs, and corporations in the US as a whole.
If the people actually in charge of corporations knew that abusive and anti-competitive behavior by the corporations they head could land *them personally* square in the hotseat, much of the corporate bad-faith, "nothing counts but the bottom-line" behaviors so typical of the current corporate environment in the US would quickly undergo radical change.
Ah, to dream...
Strat
I don't mind paying $1 or two extra for (Score:2)
The fallacy light subsidizing heavy users... (Score:2)
first, this is a private service. Nobody is forcing anyone to pay for it it under threat of prison like taxes, so there is no reason to get self righteous about it.
Second, unlike the way taxation diminishes disposable income, light users don't see any noticeable degradation in service because of heavy users.
Third, NOBODY mentions the fact that light users h
Addendum to previous comment (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just an innocent first post. Of all my years at Slashdot, this is the first time I had the chance. Don't expect me to waste it.
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:5, Insightful)
If you run from injustice instead of fighting it, guess what, you are going to lose.
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:4, Informative)
And why doesn't it make sense that the pipes/wires/drainage belong to the people instead and then the service providers can all lease that from some management authority to gain access to the last mile and provide everyone service?
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem solved.
On my subnet Comcast blocks PirateBay.org (Score:4, Interesting)
here's the traceroute:
5 pos-5-0-0-ar01.albuquerque.nm.albuq.comcast.net
6 te-0-7-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net
7 te-0-0-0-0-cr01.stratford.tx.ibone.comcast.net
8 comcast-ip-services-llc-los-angles.tengigabitethernet6-3.ar4.lax1.gblx.net
9 tengigabitethernet6-3.ar4.lax1.gblx.net (64.211.110.153)
10 port80.ge-2-0-0.407ar1.arn1.gblx.net (207.138.144.102)
11 * *
As you can see it dies in comcasts network. I can still get to piratebay.org via anonymous proxy, so it's definitely a comcast issue.
Or maybe it's global crossing censoring websites? (Score:5, Informative)
whois 207.138.144.102
OrgName: Global Crossing
OrgID: GBLX
Address: 14605 South 50th Street
City: Phoenix
StateProv: AZ
PostalCode: 85044-6471
Country: US
ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.gblx.net:4321
NetRange: 207.138.0.0 - 207.138.255.255
CIDR: 207.138.0.0/16
NetName: GBLX-8
NetHandle: NET-207-138-0-0-1
Parent: NET-207-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NAME.ROC.GBLX.NET
NameServer: NAME.PHX.GBLX.NET
NameServer: NAME.SNV.GBLX.NET
NameServer: NAME.JFK1.GBLX.NET
Comment: THESE ADDRESSES ARE NON-PORTABLE
RegDate: 1996-05-20
Updated: 2005-03-02
RTechHandle: IA12-ORG-ARIN
RTechName: GBLX-IPADMIN
RTechPhone: +1-800-404-7714
RTechEmail: ipadmin@gblx.net
OrgAbuseHandle: GBLXA-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: GBLX-Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-800-404-7714
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@gblx.net
OrgNOCHandle: GBLXN-ARIN
OrgNOCName: GBLX-NOC
OrgNOCPhone: +1-800-404-7714
OrgNOCEmail: gc-noc@gblx.net
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/08/1354257# [slashdot.org]
OrgTechHandle: IA12-ORG-ARIN
OrgTechName: GBLX-IPADMIN
OrgTechPhone: +1-800-404-7714
OrgTechEmail: ipadmin@gblx.net
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-06-07 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
Re:On my subnet Comcast blocks PirateBay.org (Score:5, Informative)
Looks to me more like comcast hands it off to globalcrossing, who then takes it through what is actually their edge, and then PirateBay.org does not respond to your UDP requests, likely due to a firewall.
This can be verified with a TCP SYN based traceroute to port 80(which you know they allow). Heres one I did from a server with comcast.
TTL LFT trace to thepiratebay.org (83.140.176.146):80/tcp
** [firewall] the next gateway may statefully inspect packets
1 [AS7016] [CABLE-1] 73.201.88.1 6.2/9.7ms
** [neglected] no reply packets received from TTLs 2 through 4
5 [AS7922] [COMCAST-16] te-0-4-0-1-cr01.pittsburgh.pa.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.91.129) 18.4/13.8ms
6 [ASN?] [GBLX-13] Te6-4.ar2.DCA3.gblx.net (67.17.194.97) 14.6/25.3ms
7 [AS3549] [GBLX-8] port80.ge-2-0-0.407ar1.ARN1.gblx.net (207.138.144.102) 140.7/139.9ms
8 [AS16150] [83-RIPE] [target] thepiratebay.org (83.140.176.146):80 143.3/142.9ms
Now the fact that it jumps about 110ms in one hop is a little odd, but that just shows GlobalCrossing isn't exactly top of the line.
And just for another datapoint, heres the (tail of) the same route using ICMP ECHO requests instead of UDP datagrams:
5 te-0-4-0-1-cr01.pittsburgh.pa.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.91.129) 13.598 ms 14.115 ms 13.300 ms
6 Te6-4.ar2.DCA3.gblx.net (67.17.194.97) 14.536 ms 13.284 ms 16.724 ms
7 port80.ge-2-0-0.407ar1.ARN1.gblx.net (207.138.144.102) 137.295 ms 135.119 ms 136.846 ms
8 thepiratebay.org (83.140.176.146) 135.577 ms 133.808 ms 131.285 ms
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:5, Interesting)
Would it be ok for the USPS, FedEx, UPS, and DHL to all practice opening your packages and throwing out stuff to make it easier (cheaper) to deliver your package?
If they all did it or you only had one of them in your area then you don't have much of an alternative do you?
With corporations with more money in the bank than the GDP of many small nations, I think its time we start treating them as governments too and have some sort of restriction on how they behave.
Otherwise, one could only imagine they'd have no qualms encouraging the regular government giving them power to search your house without a warrant if it made them a quarterly profit.
BTW and kind of off topic... Do you know why oil is 136 a barrel? It is because speculative corporations like Goldman Sachs are driving the market trying to get $200 a barrel. So the next time you fill up your gas tank, thank those unregulated futures speculators.
I'm all for the free market, but when corporations behave like governments and as de facto monopolies then they either need to be regulated or dissolved into smaller yet competing bodies.
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be ok for the USPS, FedEx, UPS, and DHL to all practice opening your packages and throwing out stuff to make it easier (cheaper) to deliver your package?
With the manpower/resources involved in doing this, you wonder if it will work out economically in the long run. Minor nit-pick, but I understand the spirit of your comment.
I think, however, it is more interesting to look a the problem from the perspective of the government. Why bring such charges when the national security apparatus similarly invading the privacy of citizens via laws like the patriot act? I suppose one can get around the hypocrisy charge by asserting only the government - not private
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. OPEC, and prohibitive taxes and restrictions on domestic drilling, plus increased fossil fuels demand from developing nations.
No. Speculators perform a valuable function in the free market. You're only looking at one half of the picture (the half that allows you to demonize speculators).
Speculators buy a commodity in the hopes that the price will rise. In doing so, they decrease the supply, thereby further driving up prices. (this is the "bad part" that you've fixated on). However, by driving up prices, they decrease consumption (and *please* don't trot out the "but gas is price inelastic!" argument. It's not).
The part you've neglected to mention is what happens when speculators decide to start selling their stored commodities. When a speculator guesses that scarcity is at its peak, they start selling. This increases the supply, and drives *down* price, and allowing consumption to increase.
A better way to look at speculation is this: Speculators act as "buffers" for supply and demand. They actually smooth out the peaks and valleys of supply and demand. Also, you left out the fact that speculation is *not* a risk-free enterprise. Speculators take considerable risks in storing commodities. If the price decreases, they've lost out! In addition, consider the fact that the rising price in oil incentivizes energy companies to develop alternate forms of energy, and maybe will even help politicians in the thrall of mindless environmentalist special interest groups see the folly of preventing domestic drilling for fossil fuels, and the development of a nuclear energy infrastructure.
If your opinion is that we ought to be consuming less fossil fuels, then speculators are doing you a favor! If your belief is that fossil fuels ought to be cheaper, so we'll use more energy, then why not just advocate for the development of nuclear power, or drilling in ANWR? Why not vocally denounce the unethical price-gouging behavior of OPEC nations? There are a lot more culprits to blame for this than speculators. In fact, they're the least of our worries.
But just because they happen to be making out like bandits right now, they're easy targets for ill-considered and thoughtless rhetoric.
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with you in theory, if you add in leverage and valuation bubble driven lending I'm not so sure it works out that way. The game changes when lending creates money.
If the price decreases, they've lost out!
If the price decreases they go bust and the lender loses out, which apparently translates into the Fed and taxpayers bailing them out. Structured correctly over several deals, most of the speculative profit is retained anyway, and the losses get almost completely socialized.
Supporting the freedom of the market is one thing (and a good thing, IMO), but you also have to realize that certain segments of what we have today is nothing like a free market. The banking industry in combination with fractional reserve lending distorts the effects of what _should_ be rational (and market smoothing) speculation.
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When they take the "free" the money the Fed keeps printing and buy high, because they think the Fed is going to keep on printing "free" money and hence it's going to go higher still, they are not buffering. They doing the reverse, and making the peak higher, when the sell they'll make the low lower too - the opposite of smoothing things out.
But it's not their fault, they're being rational enough, it's si
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:4, Interesting)
Oil is a *futures* driven market. If the market fears the USA is going to attack Iran and lead to supply problems in the future, prices of futures contracts will reflect that in the present pricing of futures contracts. Absolutely every single good and service is priced *subjectively*, incorporating fears, dreams, beliefs, fashion, fads, you name it. Map out the price of oil over decades, hell map it out for the last century, and you'll see that price corresponds extremely closely to the devaluation of fiat currency, even in spite of a huge increase in demand and supply.
If the supply and demand remain constant, but you double the supply of money, what you expect to happen? That's right, the same amount of oil will trade for double the amount of money. Read the Creature from Jekyll Island which has a review on this site.
http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/26/1432203 [slashdot.org]
Here's an e-book about government interference manipulation of the supply and price of oil. It's far from a free market if private companies can't drill in Alaska.
http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html [reformation.org]
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:5, Informative)
In the futures market, a trader simply says something like: "I'll sell you a million barrels of oil for $150 per barrel on the first of next month". He doesn't own oil wells or a million barrels of oil, he is simply offering to sell something (which is probably still deep in the earth somewhere in the world) at a particular price on a particular date in the future. If I think that oil is going to be selling for more than $150 on the first of next month, I accept his offer to sell and guarantee to give him $150 million on delivery of the million barrels. This is a contract between me and him. If, when the futures market opens for trading the next morning, I offer to sell my million barrels of July oil for $160 per barrel and find a third trader willing to pay, I simply sell my contract with the first trader to that third trader.
The first trader is still on the hook to deliver the million barrels for $150 million and the third trader is obligated to buy a million barrels for $160 million. I'm out of the deal completely. The oil is still in the ground somewhere. Nothing has actually moved from the possession of one individual to another. The $10 million difference is mine to keep.
The student who wishes more insight into futures trading might want to watch the classic 1983 film "Trading Places".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is hedging, you're both long and short, usually farmers do that to help with large price changes.
Arbitrage, where you can exploit the differences of markets that offer the same type of futures but due to time or communication differences you can swoop in an make a
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:5, Interesting)
They'll be stealing it.
They'll be getting fired for not being able to make it to work anymore. They'll be living off of welfare/food stamps because they can't afford to move closer to the jobs.
The demand is going to go down from all of these people not being able to afford it. But the price drop will not be immediate. By the time the price starts to drop, output and refinery capacity will be reduced to compensate for the decreased demand. Speculators will still be playing the "..it could rise sharply at any time!" game.
Speculators hope that the price rises like they've been betting on so that they'll make more money.
Speculators fail to realize that if they trigger an economic depression that their money won't be worth a whole lot anymore. Inflation will more than make up for any gains they have made off of the market.
In the end? Everyone loses.
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:4, Insightful)
The world is waking up to the fact that every fiat currency in the world is a house of cards game of hot potato nobody wants to be holding when the music stops. Say hello to the new gold, say hello to the new money. It's called oil.
Who thinks it's a good idea to save your money at 2% interest rate as the Federal Reserve counterfeits so much money that your saved money is worth 10% less next year than it was last year? That's precisely why people took on debt to speculate on houses (even if it meant buying a bigger house than you otherwise might have bought) to avoid having their savings stored in rapidly devaluing fiat currency. Now that we have ran out of new suckers to pay the highest prices for houses, it's a better bet to convert savings into commodities.
So you wrongly demonize speculators, and give government interference in the free market a free pass? No voluntary willing trade occurs between any two people unless by definition that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. If both parties to the trade didn't simultaneously profit in strict economic terms, the trade would not occur. Demonizing speculators makes about as much sense as some third party making your computer hardware and software purchases for you without your consent.
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:5, Funny)
They already do charge by weight to make stuff easier and cheaper to deliver, you raving neo-Bolshevikite/Trotskyite anarcho-communo-crypto-statist Marxo-Marxite-Marxist retro-phyto-gangreno-Guevarite proto-postulo-pappado-vivido-pappado-pappado-vivido-Blarite/Brownite-Barakist/Clintonite unreconstructed loon.
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:4, Interesting)
So in other words, you're in favor of a free market. The chief problems with the government running things is that it's an overly-powerful body that can exert undue influence, and they aren't subject to the normal market forces that would keep things running well. Monopolies have the same problems.
You can be in favor of the free market, with no qualifications, and then there's a separate question: What do we do with the markets that are run by monopolies, and therefore aren't free? Thinking the government should regulate those monopolies does not make you a communist. Particularly not when, as in the case of cable/telephone companies, the monopoly is enforced by the government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And "loosely" enforcing (aiding and abettin
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, of course, you mean that the US will nuke any company that steps out of line. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:4, Informative)
OT but I have to respond because the theory of speculation just doesn't work out. When people talk about oil in the U.S. they refer to light sweet crude, which is traded on NYMEX, a regulated futures market. (Another popular market, Intercontinental Exchange, is not regulated but only trades North Brent crude.) It's a delivery contract, meaning that when the contract expires (and all contracts have an expiration date), you must take physical delivery of 1,000 barrels per contract owned.
So if there are so many speculators able to push the price up, they have to sell the front-month contract to avoid taking delivery of oil -- they're in the contract to make money, not get oil, after all. So they should be selling the day before contract expiration, and all of the speculators trying to sell at once should cause the price to drop, right? If oil isn't selling off sharply right before expiration, then either the people who are holding contracts for delivery are keeping the price up or the speculators are taking delivery of oil. Unless you argue that people are lying about oil delivery on a regulated exchange (NYMEX) the argument of speculation just doesn't hold water.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I read Greenberger's testimony, and here's the important part of what he said:
So in a market where there are no CFTC rules or government o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
if oil price is 'cause of speculation... (Score:2)
The classic example of speculators raising the price _and keeping it high_ is DeBeers/diamonds. And we all know they have enormous inventories of diamonds, because they buy up any surplus any given year.
So where are the oil inventories?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So where are the oil inventories?
Locked in the ground.
http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html [reformation.org]
Controlling energy prices controls movement and controls people. The government thanks you for your dependency on water, food, and oil.
Pharmaceutical companies push a lot of drugs by marketing. How much marketing is involved in the diamond industry, from engagement and wedding rings to jewelry for special occasions? Gotta have those bling bling rims spinners around the fingers and hanging from necks and ears. Otherwise what's the status
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:5, Insightful)
Without control by government busy-bodies you'd have companies using sawdust as filler in their sausages... Pressing chalk dust into tablets and calling it "aspirin"... Paying children $1/day to work in hazardous conditions... You get the idea.
And without control by government busy-bodies, as we're seeing now, companies will sell you 20 GB/month and call it "unlimited".
Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want (Score:5, Insightful)
A paying customer has an absolute right to use what they paid for. Dropping packets, snooping on the flows, overselling their capacity, et cetera are all inexcusable.
Really, with Comcast and Time-Warner, all we need to look at is what these company's core business is. They are content providers whose business model is threatened by the Internet.
Really, they seem to be trying to recreate the "old days" of closed and propreitary services like Compuserve or AOL.