Actually, I'm glad that George Ou posted a rebuttal to the testimony to the FCC, because I do owe him an apology. I misunderstood something and argued back that he was pointing out clearly allowed behavior. After replying the testimony, I see that I misunderstood what he said. In the end, the exchange added nothing to the debate. It's about 75% through this video. Nobody likes to be told that they're wrong when they're not wrong. Now that I've seen the video, I owe him the apology that I gave, regardless of the fact that we both were off track.

Dear George, I noticed that you consulted with Brett Glass and Richard Bennett before posting your article. You certainly have my permission to consult with me, too. Why should we be on completely opposing sides of this debate? You know how to find my phone number. FIRST, AN APOLOGY: At the Stanford hearing, you reported that some smart gateway/router devices know when a host behind it has gone offline, and will issue RSTs in lieu of forwarding to the known-offline host. At the hearing, I misunderstood what you were saying and I countered that you were describing behavior covered in the standards. While I don't know of any particular smart devices that do this, if they do (and it makes sense to me that they do so), then I was incorrect to counter you without acknowledging that gateway devices might do this exactly as you described. For that, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY APOLOGIZE. Had I understood your statement (which is clear enough in the video --- the fault of misunderstanding is all mine), the behavior you described is probably not in the standards (AFAIK). However, the device sending the RST is acting as the end point and was instructed to do so by some administrator. It was not a secret. It was not DPI changing the behavior of the Internet. As far as the Internet peers were concerned, the SYN-RST exchange was completely expected. The entire discussion ended appropriately when Professor Peha, countering both of us, made the entire discussion moot when he pointed out that these are not examples of using RST for congestion control. You weren't wrong in what you said. I WAS WRONG to dismiss it as errant and I apologize for doing so. SECOND: "P2P download typically used 10 to 30 TCP streams at the same time." This is essentially correct, but moot. Also the statement is true only for DOWNLOADING WITH BITTORRENT specifically. It is not true for eMule or Gnutella. It is not true while BitTorrent is only uploading. While partly true, the statement is completely unimportant. The important direction is the upload direction -- because the transmitting host handles congestion control on the Internet, because the last-mile congestion is the congestion we are discussing (this is the uploader's first mile), and because P2P uploads is what Comcast is tearing down. With BitTorrent, only 3-4 streams are allowed to upload simultaneously. This is a major flaw in YOUR testimony to the FCC and other bodies (I'm referring to your article and graphic showing a single connection comparison to 11 connections). Limiting the uploading connections to 3-4 is a specific feature of the BitTorrent protocol designed to prevent congestion by quickly responding to changing network conditions. See http://wiki.theory.org/BitTorrentSpecification#Choking_and_Optimistic_Unchoking to understand how this feature is designed to prevent congestion. THIRD: ... (see the the linked post for the rest)...