<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/stylesheets/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>The BFC Computing Weblog: Collateral Damage in Comcast vs. Bittorrent</title>
    <link>http://blog.bfccomputing.com/articles/2008/02/08/collateral-damage-in-comcast-vs-bittorrent</link>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>40</ttl>
    <description>My God, It's Full of Source!</description>
    <item>
      <title>Collateral Damage in Comcast vs. Bittorrent</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#8217;s already well known that Comcast &lt;a href="http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9802410-7.html"&gt;interferes with bittorrent traffic&lt;/a&gt; but what is less known is that their measures also take out other legitimate applications, such as &lt;a href="http://www.iconnectdots.com/ctd/2007/12/comcast-no-choi.html"&gt;iChat AV&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The trouble with interfering with some traffic is that you then have to defend why you don&amp;#8217;t interfere with other types of traffic, of a more pernicious nature.  One would think Comcast would save more money by building a decent network and defending its common-carrier status.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:25:00 -0500</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:f58274a2-e7be-4e99-aea0-410d9bc606ab</guid>
      <author>Bill McGonigle</author>
      <link>http://blog.bfccomputing.com/articles/2008/02/08/collateral-damage-in-comcast-vs-bittorrent</link>
      <category>Internet</category>
      <category>Telecommunications</category>
      <trackback:ping>http://blog.bfccomputing.com/articles/trackback/4731</trackback:ping>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
