<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Comcasts says it only &#8216;delays&#8217; BitTorrent traffic, doesn&#8217;t block it</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/23/comcasts-says-it-only-delays-bittorrent-traffic-doesnt-block-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/23/comcasts-says-it-only-delays-bittorrent-traffic-doesnt-block-it/</link>
	<description>Gadgets, gear and computer hardware.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:08:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: John Eddy</title>
		<link>http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/23/comcasts-says-it-only-delays-bittorrent-traffic-doesnt-block-it/#comment-495587</link>
		<dc:creator>John Eddy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crunchgear.com/2007/10/23/comcasts-says-it-only-delays-bittorrent-traffic-doesnt-block-it/#comment-495587</guid>
		<description>I'd rather they outright block than this 'delay' crap.

I can understand blocking traffic.  I can understand the desire for a company to block traffic.  I might not agree with it, I might not get behind it, but I can, at least, *understand* it.

But to *delay* it?  That's just... well, it seems completely against the whole basis of network protocols.  A packet is a packet is a packet.  If you're going to let it through, you let it through.  You don't put it in a friggin' holding pattern.  Packets don't get the opportunity to fire up a set of red lights and a siren to make all the other traffic pull over.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d rather they outright block than this &#8216;delay&#8217; crap.</p>
<p>I can understand blocking traffic.  I can understand the desire for a company to block traffic.  I might not agree with it, I might not get behind it, but I can, at least, *understand* it.</p>
<p>But to *delay* it?  That&#8217;s just&#8230; well, it seems completely against the whole basis of network protocols.  A packet is a packet is a packet.  If you&#8217;re going to let it through, you let it through.  You don&#8217;t put it in a friggin&#8217; holding pattern.  Packets don&#8217;t get the opportunity to fire up a set of red lights and a siren to make all the other traffic pull over.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.166 seconds -->
