You are here

EFF desperately trying to taint Comcast's network management as "packet forgery"

It appears that AP/ are panicking and have called for reinforcements to try and shore up their unreasonable characterization of Comcast's reasonable network managment of P2P traffic -- as somehow a net neutrality violation. 

  • The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has a new white paper ominously entitled: "Packet forgery by ISPs: A report on the Comcast affair."
  • Seems like they are desperate to try and add some "cyber-detective-story-drama" and new "buzzword blackmail" to get someone, anyone, to pay attention. 
    • This latest attempt by the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" net neutrality crowd, is obviously more focused on getting media attention than it is a serious attempt to influence the FCC.
      • News flash folks -- most all of the responsible press have caught on to your media and regulatory manipulation and tricks -- and are increasingly ignoring your desperate tantrums.  

One of the EFF's main claims in their report is supremely ironic and very telling:

  •  "There has been some confusion about the impact of Comcast's interference, with Comcast characterizing the impact on its customers as "delaying" some network communications. As both a technical and metaphorical description, this characterization is incomplete and misleading."
  • They have the gall to claim that Comcast's characterization is incomplete and misleading!
    • What sanctimonious hypocrisy!
  • The EFF's use of the new perjorative terms "forgery" and "Affair" is a classic negative political campaign tactic straight out of the daily playbook.
    • Isn't it "incomplete and misleading" for EFF to characterize Comcast's network management as packet "forgery?"
      • When were technical internal network management communications (RST/reset packet's) given the same legal standing as checks or other legal documents?
        • Did I somehow miss that law or regulation?
        • I don't think so.
      • Their implicit political "expectations" that Internet packets somehow have legal or constitutional "rights" are figments of the net neutrality movement's imagination.
      • Apparently, they hope that if they repeat their "buzzword blackmail" terms like "forgery" or "blocking"  enough times -- they can magically transform all the private networks that make up the Internet from private property into de facto public property. 
    • These net neutrality/information commons proponents have spent so much time fantasizing about their own grandiose dreams for a datatopian society where all packets are created equal and packets have constitutional rights like people -- that they have forgotten that there is no basis in reality, law, regulation or precedent for their political fantasy and dream.

This whole AP-manfactured net neutrality episode with Comcast -- is like a bad version of "regulatory second life" where activists and pressure groups have reimagined themselves as scappy heroes on a noble quest to vanquish the imagined evil network dragons. 

  • Packets are ones and zeroes; inanimate data traffic.
  • They are not damsels in distress that need rescuing from aliens.
  • Get a life folks.


For more debunking of this bogus charge by the pressure group network -- see the links below:

Why FreePress' Comcast Petition unreasonably defines "reasonable network management"

Kudos to Ou/Bennett for slam dunking the bogus FreePress Comcast petition!

The unreasonable extremes of the FreePress Comcast petition

Lawsuit against Comcast network management unlikely to go anywhere; court likely to defer to FCC