[lrs]

The fact that Comcast is carrying this banner almost makes me want to switch to Comcast in support. I say "almost" because I quickly remember their frequent random connection drops, slower-than-promised speeds, intentionally misleading promotional advertising, legendarily bad customer service, and ruthless nationwide campaign against affordable municipally-provided high speed Internet access.

[ajross]

Also: DNS response forgery, bittorrent throttling via packet inspection and clear violations of the network neutrality principle by discounting their partners' content over their IP network. I'm as pleased as anyone with this, but honestly I think the scale still tips toward the "evil" side for Comcast.

That said, I'm a customer. They're my only good choice in broadband. And honestly I've been reasonably pleased -- it's reliable and fast, if not cheap.

[ars]

Also: Very easy to disable DNS forgery (unlike some), DNSsec on their entire network (which also disables the DNS forgery, but they knew that), IPv6, and since they got hit so hard on the bittorent thing, they won't dare do it again - which makes them perfect.

> clear violations of the network neutrality principle by discounting their partners' content over their IP network

That's isn't real. They are not doing that. Someone analyzed their TV over IP service a little while ago and verified it.

> the scale still tips toward the "evil" side for Comcast

Not me. They were evil when they did the bittorrent thing, but ever since then they've been great.

[ajross]

Most of that is a judgement call, and I won't argue.

But the network neutrality thing is very much real. They enforce a cap on general traffic, but lift it for partner streaming. That's a discount. The analysis merely showed that the packets were distinctly labeled for the routers, and thus they were (plausibly, technically) within the letter of network neutrality. They were quite clearly violating the spirit.

[ars]

They do the same thing for PPV. It makes no difference that it's TCP/IP vs some other protocol. Those packets do not flow over your internet connection, they flow over the dedicated wires comcast runs to the customer specific for video.

They don't prioritize it over other traffic - it uses a totally different channel which you pay extra to get. It's exactly what they should be doing.

> The analysis merely showed that the packets were distinctly labeled for the routers

No, that's not correct. The packets used a different DOCSIS channel, after the cable modem the packets were not special.

If the packets went over your regular connection AND were prioritized, then that would be a violation. Anything else is not a violation, not the letter, not the spirit.

Comcast is a video provider, I bought some video and they used their wires to provide it to me. Other providers don't have the same access to the customer, but that's because they have no wires to the customer.

For network neutrality, other providers should have the same internet access as the customer as comcast, but this service doesn't use your internet connection, so network neutrality simply doesn't apply.

[ajross]

Do you have a link for that analysis (I'm too lazy to check)? I swear you're wrong on that. I quite clearly remember that the packets were tagged with QoS fields on the local ethernet. Whether they go over a different provisioned channel or not isn't really the point. Clearly they're taking hardware they installed for general internet service and repurposing it for a private, privileged traffic. That traffic is "internet" traffic on teh local network, and it's "internet" traffic at the backend (where it's sourced from Xfinity partners networks over lines that I'm 100% sure aren't dedicated). How can you possibly not feel that this is a violation of the spirit of net neutrality?