"we take proactive measures to ensure that bandwidth intensive applications do not negatively impact their service"

That is exactly what a RST does; impact their service.

What they should say is so that it does not impact the service of others.

"In essence, Cox is preventing P2P users from seeding files"

No, it's breaking a fairly important RFC and a number of applications and games, one of which is related to BitTorrent, which has allready been worked round.

The apps and games? Will remain broken. Because they were silly enough to follow a RFC.

How on Earth can you "negatively impact" something? It makes no sense. Why can't they just say "negatively affect" if that's what they mean? Semi-literate Merkin twits.

"Cox actively manages network traffic through ... protocol filtering. Cox does not ... discriminate against any specific services in any way"

Unless the service just happens to use a filtered protocol, I guess.

Meh.

Are these ISPs offering 'all-you-can-eat' style connections?

And if there is a 'pay-as-you-go' option, do they still play funnies with the RST on it?

Last I checked most had gone eMule - especially with the illegal termination of the eDonkey client, threaten people with a court order for more money than they can defend themselves with, t'is the 'merkin way.

@AC: Ever looked "merkin" up in a dictionary?

Seems to me that the service sold, and to be managed, is simply the delivery of customers' data. So any management should consist of ensuring sufficient bandwidth for the demand they have taken money to supply, and the routing the data in the best possible manner.

Deliberately introducing what is effectively errors into a customer's data stream isn't management; at best it's discrimination. In effect a type of data apartheid. It sounds a highly immoral practice, so no doubt has the legal court's blessing.

I've seen a similar thing in my ED2K logs connected via plus.net - doesn't matter which server I connect to.

You heard it here first... :o)

Surely these RST packets must be sent from the IP address of the customers system.

I can see a couple of issues with this.

If the ISP is sending packets on your behalf that you are not sending yourself and sending them from your IP address they are claiming to be you. Under US case law I though you were your IP address. In piracy cases the fact that the traffic came from your IP address is accepted as evidence that you sent the packets. So if they are inserting packets into your communication they are claiming to be you and must therefore be guilty of identity fraud. Isn't this a criminal offence?

Secondly, the flip side to this argument is that if your ISP is sending network packets on your behalf then the likes of the RIAA can no longer use your the fact that traffic came from your IP address as proof that you sent them. All you would need to do is put Cox on the witness stand and get them to admit under oath that they do send extranious packets from your IP address and there is no longer any proof that you sent any particular packet. There is reasonable doubt that the packet could have been sent by your PC or it could have been sent by the ISP.

Interesting dilemma?

The eDonkey client died years ago, but the eDonkey protocol/network continued, and emule is the most popular client by far.

'Ever looked "merkin" up in a dictionary?'

YES and ,It still fits some of them.ROFLMAO!!!!

The current versions of Emule allows obfuscated connections and

there is an option to allow obfuscated connections only.

I wonder if that could beat that filtering?

All that talk earlier about servers being taken down didn't really

matter because eMule also uses Kademlia for non centralized servers.

'you gotta pay to see this happy ho' says the heiress.

"To help our customers make the most out of their Internet experience, we take proactive measures to ensure that bandwidth intensive applications do not negatively impact their service."

Folks, if I'm a P2P user you don't help me making the "most out of" my Internet connection when you interfere that way. Instead you should live up to the terms and conditions the customers was lured by into signing the contract and provide appropriate bandwidth for everyone.

If you accept more users than your network can handle and they simply use their connection as advertised ("cable modem technology that gives you a boost of speed for video, photos, music and any large file access") you are the problem, not them.

Or are you just trying to find a way to sell your on-demand video services?

...we wouldn't have to do this to ya. -- Cox

I never have used P2P or online gaming, but I expect this to be Cox's answer to break the net neutrality stuff. On the other hand, if Cox had their own way, you'd pay double for "P2P and online gaming support", and throw the *@$#*#!! RST in anyway.

It's a conspiracy, I tell ya! A Conspiracy!! ;-)