Comcast told to stop blocking Web tool

[Dutch Raven]

Just read about this news: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2008/08/03/Comcast_told_to_stop_blocking_Web_tool/UPI-14611217789146/

Wonder if this ruling will change this: http://www.skinheads.net/forums/showthread.php?p=403051#post403051

WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 (UPI) -- Broadband Internet customers of cable television giant Comcast should be free to use file-sharing software, the Federal Communications Commission says. The commission voted Friday to order Comcast to stop blocking its Internet customers from using BitTorrent, an online software application that enables users to share large movie, TV show and music files, The Hollywood Reporter said.
Commission Chairman Kevin Martin (http://www.upi.com/topic/Kevin_Martin/) split with his Republican colleagues to join the two Democratic members to produce a 3-2 vote against Comcast. The (NASDAQ:CMCSA (http://www.upi.com/finance/stock-quote/CMCSA/)) precedent-setting decision was hailed by supporters of so-called net neutrality, which maintains Internet service providers should be barred from discriminating among various types of traffic.
"It was unreasonable for Comcast to discriminate against particular Internet applications, including BitTorrent," Martin wrote in his majority opinion. "They delayed and blocked customers using a disfavored application even when there was no network congestion."
Other commissioners, however, said Internet engineers need to regulate traffic flow and say the ruling will nudge providers toward instituting volume-based pricing

[PapaSkin]

wow..that's very cool - now just a few blocks to go! I want my damn colo back at my house! hahaha

[Dutch Raven]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-martin-responds-to-comcast-lawsuit-we-still-want-answers.html

Martin responds to Comcast lawsuit: we still want answers (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-martin-responds-to-comcast-lawsuit-we-still-want-answers.html)

By Matthew Lasar (http://arstechnica.com/authors.ars/Matthew+Lasar) | Published: September 04, 2008 - 09:20PM CT
Federal Communications Commission Chair Kevin Martin said today that he was "disappointed" by Comcast's decision to sue (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080904-comcast-sues-fcc-wants-p2p-throttling-order-overturned.html) the FCC over its move to sanction the company for P2P throttling. But Martin said he's glad that the cable giant says it will still comply with the Commission's Order (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080801-fcc-spanks-comcast-for-p2p-blocking-no-fine-full-disclosure.html) requiring the company to reveal its Internet management policies, because the agency has lots of questions.


"Given Comcast's past failure to disclose its network management practices to its customers, it is important Comcast respond to the many still-unanswered questions about its new management techniques," Martin warned in a statement released this afternoon. Most notably, what exactly does Comcast mean when it says it will have a "protocol agnostic" management system in place by the end of the year?
And as for the bandwidth limits (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080828-its-official-comcast-starts-250gb-bandwidth-caps-october-1.html) that Comcast has now announced: "How will consumers know if they are close to a limit?" Martin asked. "If a consumer exceeds a limit, is his traffic slowed? Is it terminated? Is his service turned off?"
Anticipating Comcast's arguments that the FCC has no jurisdiction to sanction its behavior, Martin reminded the company that when the FCC approved (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-266394A1.pdf) it and Time-Warners' acquisition of Adelphia Communications in July of 2006, the FCC "put Comcast on notice" that it would act on complaints of degraded Internet content. "Comcast nonetheless chose to close on that deal," Martin noted.
The FCC still wants answers, Martin's statement concludes. "Perhaps more importantly, Comcast's subscribers deserve to know the answers."
Other critics of Comcast's traffic-management practices responded to the news with varying degrees of bravado and anxiety.
Gig Sohn of Public Knowledge said that PK expected Comcast to appeal the FCC's decision. "The company opposed it every step of the way, even as they failed to disclose their throttling of Internet traffic," Sohn stated. "We believe the Commission will prevail and the rights of Internet users will be protected."
The question, of course, is whether they will prevail in this particular court case. The Open Internet Coalition's (OIC) press release warns that Comcast's appeal may "roll back" the progress that the FCC made in its Order. The move also raises questions "whether the Commission's Broadband Policy Statement (http://www.lasarletter.net/drupal/node/614), guaranteeing consumers the right to access content and applications of their choice over the ‘Net, has the force of law." The OIC statement calls on Congress to provide leadership on the issue.
While Free Press's Ben Scott also calls Comcast's actions "predictable," his comments concur that Capitol Hill has to address the problem. "The future of the Internet is too important to let Comcast tie it up in legal limbo," Scott said. "Congress should act now to pass net neutrality laws that clear up any uncertainty once and for all."
This case will now go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/content/judges), which has a long history of dealing with FCC controversies, in some instances siding with the Commission.
In June of 2006 the DC Circuit famously upheld (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060613-7042.html) the FCC on the constitutionality of its enforcement of the Communications Assistance Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which requires private ISPs to open their networks to the cops. In May of this year the DC Circuit yet again backed the FCC (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080619-sprint-nextel-asks-fcc-for-break-in-800-mhz-spectrum-makeover.html), this time rejecting Sprint's bid to delay a plan to reorganize the 800MHz spectrum band's public safety region.
Both times the court upheld the FCC's statutory right to enforce its rules, the big question that Comcast will doubtless raise when the matter comes to the bench.


Looks like the fight is not over yet.

[surfer5]

does anyone know if this is done through blocking port 445? i have heard that is a popular file sharing port and the reason i ask is that i switched over to comcast a week or so ago and as my version control software, which uses port 445, stopped working. i can ping the IP, i can remote into the server, but i can't map a path. i was talking to my system admins here and they say its because comcast is blocking 445 which i need for mapping paths.

anyway, when comcast came out (and when i talked to them on the phone several times) they swore up and down they don't block any ports. but, after seeing this, i am re-questioning that.

they are letting me cancel my service and i am going back to DSL. but i am still curious.

[PapaSkin]

Yep... 445 is the SMB (Server Message Block) protocol used among other things for file sharing in Windows NT/2000/XP....VERY WELL LOVED BY HACKERS....so ya, I'm sure they would block it. Virus's propgate on that port all the time...along with others...kind of surprising, but none-the-less, I'd bet money on it...it's safer that they block it for you ... unless you're using it for something else, like it sounds like you might be.

[surfer5]

that is what i figured. i see why they would block it it just sucks for me. we (unfortunately) use Visual SourceSafe for our version control and we don't have it set up to use it over HTTP. so i have to map a drive.

in other words, i am dead in the water. i can't get to my source control, i can't work. sucks. thus the move back to DSL.

[grouchybastid]

There is no way in HELL I would run any service via port 445 over the 'net. Your sysadmins need to get on the stick.

[Freezingmaw]

Shit, they unblock that and just impose the 250gb bandwith limit on you each month.

[Dutch Raven]

Shit, they unblock that and just impose the 250gb bandwith limit on you each month.

That's 50 DVD's. Could be worse.

[surfer5]

There is no way in HELL I would run any service via port 445 over the 'net. Your sysadmins need to get on the stick.

i got the impression it wasn't a property you could set. but i'm not a sysadmin. and i hate visual sourcesafe anyway. but now i'm worried about that port being open on the server. i mean, it's just a dev server. but still.

maybe i'll talk to them more about it.

[Tokyohoon]

i got the impression it wasn't a property you could set. but i'm not a sysadmin. and i hate visual sourcesafe anyway. but now i'm worried about that port being open on the server. i mean, it's just a dev server. but still.

maybe i'll talk to them more about it.

Even if it can't be set, it can be rerouted, or you can use a VPN tuinnel... you're talking about running open file sharing over the net without encryption and on a port that's known to attract hacker attention. Bad news.

(Notice that you have a unanimous opinion from three techs so far?)

[surfer5]

Even if it can't be set, it can be rerouted, or you can use a VPN tuinnel... you're talking about running open file sharing over the net without encryption and on a port that's known to attract hacker attention. Bad news.

definitely talk to them tomorrow. see if we can route over HTTP/80. i had no idea 445 was such a hacker playground. live and learn i guess.

(Notice that you have a unanimous opinion from three techs so far?)

yep. and 3 that i respect. i'll definitely bring it up tomorrow.

[PapaSkin]

NOT port 80 either ... pick a port that has no real use - go High...then just filter it at the office with the firewall - set it up so only certain IP's or ranges of IP's can even see it...or better yet, like Hoon said, tell them to setup a VPN and get it out of the DMZ all together...Citrix server to use as a proxy box to jump thru - anything is better than wide open on the internet.

Port 80 is hacked more than 445 (which is mostly used for virus's) - plus then on port 80 you got all kinds of routing shit they'll have to do to make it work on the back end.

[grouchybastid]

To add to what Papaskin's saying, if you HAVE to use HTTP, at the very least use SSL. There are commercial plugins for Visual SourceSafe that allow it to be used remotely with security, it's not really designed for it out of the box.

Or, you could always use Subversion. :biggrin: