dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2007-10-19 11:47:29: A few months ago, an astute user in our forums started noticing that Comcast (in addition to their invisible download limits) was using Sandvine traffic-shaping hardware, installed at the CMTSs, to limit the effectiveness of BitTorrent seeding. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

3 recommendations

Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems).

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

LeftOfSanity
People Suck.

join:2005-11-06
Dover, DE

Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by FFH5:

Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems).

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
I agree. It's their network. Move on if you don't like it.

knightmb
Everybody Lies

join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN

Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by LeftOfSanity:

said by FFH5:

Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems).

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
I agree. It's their network. Move on if you don't like it.
Or go Business Class. So far my BT is full power, no limitations, not even using encrypted links. I've pumped out more than 100GB in the last few weeks according to BT counter and the only reason it doesn't go more is because I'm using the built in scheduling to limit transfer rates during the day (business hours) and let it go full throttle at night between midnight and 8:00AM.

EverAndAnon

@verizon.net

1 recommendation

Managing a network is one thing. Falsifying network data/packets to defraud your customers is another.

Network neutrality is all about providing a neutral network regardless of how you define it.

And there's nothing neutral about this.

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by EverAndAnon :

Managing a network is one thing. Falsifying network data/packets to defraud your customers is another.
Ok. So what's the difference in net effect if they filter this traffic by blocking it outright vs closing the connection with TCP resets?
rahvin112

join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

1 recommendation

Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

Public knowledge. If they admitted and were forced to put in their advertising that they toss the packets, instead of denying they do it and sending forged packets, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Consumers would be able to make real decisions about what service they want and whether they wish to stay with a provider who is making determinations about what kind of traffic they will allow to pass.

Under the policy Comcast is currently operating under they don't even acknowledge that they are intercepting the communication and interfering with it. This leads people to believe that the problem isn't with the Comcast service. To me it's fraud, it should be an announced policy that is forced to be carried in their advertisements so consumers can make informed decisions about their Internet provider. The real test on how fraudulent the behavior is relies on whether Comcast would be willing to make the knowledge public. In fact their own careful wording and pseudo-denials indite their fraud. They won't talk about it publicly because they know it will cost them customers. That's what's dirty about it, and that's why it should be illegal. The policy is in every single way counter to what they say and imply in their advertisements.

It saddens me every time people get up and defend what is essentially false advertising. As a country we were pioneers in making sure that advertisements were truthful and supported by fact. Thanks to the political polarization of this country pioneered by the Neo-cons we are abandoning all the ideas that made this country strong. Ideas like truth in advertising and use of the public airwaves for the public good.

Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
said by espaeth:

Ok. So what's the difference in net effect if they filter this traffic by blocking it outright vs closing the connection with TCP resets?
No Bittorrent if they go the other way. Someone call the Judean People's Front, crack suicide squad.
--
Mooooooo!!!

jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
said by espaeth:

Ok. So what's the difference in net effect if they filter this traffic by blocking it outright vs closing the connection with TCP resets?
See my post here. I think it answers question. Though your phasing "net effect" suggest a dismissal of ethics, legality, customer relations and intelligent technical management.
Expand your moderator at work

jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx

Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by EverAndAnon :

Managing a network is one thing. Falsifying network data/packets to defraud your customers is another.
Correct. And this article should not be titled "shaping" for the same reason. It's easy to assign BT packets a low priority relative to others and I support that practice. Complete neutrality has never existed and is a pipe dream.

Note that Topolski analyzes Comcast as falsifying peer responses only at the boundary and not within their own network. That's both a cost-cutting move and a marketing manipulation which he rightly emphasizes. Sandvine is lying in the name of users both in connection requests/acceptance and in BT-specific communications by changing message packets which say "I need this chunk to complete this file piece" to "I've completed this file piece." It's fundamentally different to lie in someone else's name than to prioritize packets network-wide.

It surprises that Comcast is relying on packet headers to ID the BT protocol when protocol (header) encryption has been a push-button feature in all dominant clients for over a year. It's a piece of cake to ID by user connection patterns ... just not at the boundary. Unlike Topolski's expressed opinion I consider the boundary-only practice a poor one even if it was done above board. It's a walled garden approach, albeit a half-step at the moment, and antithetic to global openness of the internet. Content originates from all over the world and Comcast's practice, if adopted by others, means content would have to be imported to each network by some other transport like FTP then re-published via p2p. Stupid and utterly anti-customer, anti-user.

Limiting both throughputs by protocol and connections per second at the account level during periods of high network load is perfectly reasonable. It solves all the loading issues of P2P and it's verifiably above board. I am continually mystified by the stance & behavior of ISPs on their responses to p2p. Neither the business practices nor technical aspects are obscure or complicated. P2P users would be happy to have their traffic slow down during peak times if they were confident traffic was elsewise unmolested. It's not like p2p content is time-critical like VoIP.

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

1 edit

Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by jap:

And this article should not be titled "shaping" for the same reason. It's easy to assign BT packets a low priority relative to others and I support that practice. Complete neutrality has never existed and is a pipe dream.
It's really easy to talk about this and discuss the theory of it, but the actual implementation of such a system is plagued with complexity and technology limitations. Anyone who has ever implemented large scale IDS/IPS deployments knows all about the scaling factors that make this challenging. For this to work as you suggest the inspection probes would need to be placed in-line at all of the points that are being monitored today so that the packets could be touched/marked. Then you have the problem of how you place the traffic into a different class of service. Traffic shaping means queuing, and that's going to require memory on your routing hardware. Assuming right now Comcast is able to get everything done with a single queue per end-station attachment, what you propose would double the number of queues each CMTS needs to manage (one regular and one P2P queue for each end station), which could potentially drive expensive CMTS upgrades or even CMTS splits where adding more capacity to the existing hardware isn't possible.
said by jap:

Note that Topolski analyzes Comcast as falsifying peer responses only at the boundary and not within their own network. That's both a cost-cutting move and a marketing manipulation which he rightly emphasizes. Sandvine is lying in the name of users both in connection requests/acceptance and in BT-specific communications by changing message packets which say "I need this chunk to complete this file piece" to "I've completed this file piece." It's fundamentally different to lie in someone else's name than to prioritize packets network-wide.
That's reading *way* too much into what is taking place. Sandvine isn't interacting with the BT protocol, or touching the payload of packets at all. It's sending a packet with the RST bit set to 1 in the TCP header. To a certain degree it is a cost cutting move, but really it's a matter of balancing access to somewhat limited resources at the edge of the network.

I find it interesting that people are treating network communications between machines as the equivalent of constitutionally protected human free speech. The only way that legal argument is even plausible is if you personify the packets in an effort to describe what is taking place. If you're going to go on a moral tirade about injected RST packets to close connections in the name of bandwidth mitigation, then you better have the same fervor in arguing against satellite providers who are performing ACK spoofing to allow TCP connections to overcome latency limitations and allow for higher transfer rates. If something is legally wrong, it's not just wrong in the cases where you don't benefit from it. Manipulation of protocols is a common practice; technologies like random early detection intentionally discard certain TCP packets to trigger TCP to make flow adjustments, Intrusion prevention systems will inject TCP resets for connections where malicious signatures are detected, and routers will spoof the ARP response of devices off-segment to allow machines with improperly set subnet masks to still function.

said by jap:

It surprises that Comcast is relying on packet headers to ID the BT protocol when protocol (header) encryption has been a push-button feature in all dominant clients for over a year. It's a piece of cake to ID by user connection patterns ... just not at the boundary. Unlike Topolski's expressed opinion I consider the boundary-only practice a poor one even if it was done above board. It's a walled garden approach, albeit a half-step at the moment, and antithetic to global openness of the internet. Content originates from all over the world and Comcast's practice, if adopted by others, means content would have to be imported to each network by some other transport like FTP then re-published via p2p. Stupid and utterly anti-customer, anti-user.
I'm not sure what you are defining as "the boundary"; this implmentation is most likely taking place at the distribution / aggregation layer between the individual CMTS hardware and the upstream Internet access routers. According to posts in the forum this connection limiting is taking place even between connections that only take place on Comcast's network. This make sense because the key point of contention is not the Internet access circuits; Internet bandwidth is dirt cheap and easy to come by, especially when you have your own nationwide fiber backbone like Comcast has built out. The key limitation is the capacity available between the cable modem and the cable head-end -- that's a tougher nut to crack which carries greater expense.

I do believe that you're invoking the freedom of the Internet incorrectly here. This isn't censorship on the content, this is a limitation on the method of distribution. The freedom of the Internet is indeed a great thing, but there are costs involved in moving bits. The premise of the network has always been that as long as you were willing to pay for the cost of distribution you can pretty much move whatever content you want (subject to legal restriction). The issue here is that people have a very distorted view of how much of the actual transport costs their $42.95/mo covers. The cost model works quite well for normal traffic (surfing, email, youtube, typical downloading) but breaks horribly when heavy P2P loads are applied. There's only 2 ways out of this: reduce consumption or raise prices. If Comcast had their entire user base vote on what should be done, I think you know how that'd turn out.
Expand your moderator at work
qworster

join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS

2 edits

2 recommendations

By doing what they are doing, Comcast is FORGING data! They are pretending it comes from YOU, when it does not. Your comment of: "It's their network" does not hold a DROP of water! I'll bet if you said on the phone: "I love you" to your girlfriend or wife and Verizon forged the packets so in your voice it came out: "FU*K you, bitch!", you'd be screaming bloody murder! But why can't they do that? After all, it's their network!

R I G H T???
Jah_rankin

join:2006-11-12
Clinton, MD

1 recommendation

Re: Wrong!

You Have me Rolling on the FLOOR. Well where did you get that anaalogy from????
Jah_rankin

join:2006-11-12
Clinton, MD
said by qworster:

By doing what they are doing, Comcast is FORGING data! They are pretending it comes from YOU, when it does not. Your comment of: "It's their network" does not hold a DROP of water! I'll bet if you said on the phone: "I love you" to your girlfriend or wife and Nynex forged the packets soin your voice it came out: "FU*K you, bitch!", you'd be screaming bloody murder! But why can't they do that? After all, it's their network!

R I G H T???
You are FUNNY, You Have me Rolling on the Floor, How did you get to this analogy????

jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx

Re: Wrong!

said by Jah_rankin:

You are FUNNY, You Have me Rolling on the Floor, How did you get to this analogy????
Probably qworster arrived at his/her conclusion by reading & comprehending the article. Data sent by your computer to another is intercepted and altered to say the opposite of what you sent. That's how Sandvine works.

Your chiding claim of humor is misplaced.
qworster

join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS

3 edits

Hmmm....does The AP's analogy make more sense to you?

From the Associated Press:

"Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer — it comes from Comcast. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."

Who's laughing AT YOU now, dude?

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

1 edit
Shouldn't Comcast notify the customer about their traffic/usage, rather than interfering with p2p traffic?
Eg. If I flood TCP/ICMP, etc. I'd probably get disconnected until I call up CS.

Not all p2p is illegal.

The only equivalent of p2p I use is called Skype.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

WRONG

@nextweb.net

1 recommendation

Trying to tie a particular protocol to piracy is asinine.

BT is an ever increasingly common method for distribution of legal software.

This has nothing to do with Piracy and everything to do with Comcast not being able to support the speeds they advertise.

To compete with telco wireline competition they make these huge multi-megabit promises, then on back side establish these phantom monthly DL caps and institute bandwidth throttling in their struggle to live up to these "BMW" speed claims.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
in some situations it is both.

ieolus
Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT

1 recommendation

I don't believe anyone has the right to forge TCP packets. They are fucking with the fundamentals of the Internet here, not just "their network".
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp
axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
Kindly tell us what Network Neutrality is about, then

RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by axus:

Kindly tell us what Network Neutrality is about, then
Being a "Dumb Pipe" - ie: Transporting the packets the user sends (and asks to be returned to his computer by the computer at the other end of the session) without altering them and/or inspecting their payload content for use in deciding if to trigger content dependent special handling. This does NOT mean that the content of the TCP/IP Headers can not be inspected since that inspection is required to route the packets. The packets must also not be mis-routed (such as routing the long way to increase latency) based on the destination IPN. This also does not preclude using IPv6 QoS headers/flags to support time critical handling such as for Streaming Video or VoIP but this must based on the Flag Requests ONLY not on what IPN is in the Headers (ie: You must not give one treatment to your ISP VoIP and another to Vonage or Skype VoIP.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·row44
said by FFH5:

Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems).

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
You have no idea what you are talking about!
Do you work for Comcast????

Net Neutrality means EVERYTHING on the internet.
How stupid do you have to be to say protocols are not part of the internet???
--
»www.ryanoneill.us

DaveDude
No Fear

join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
said by FFH5 See Profile

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
:

But there doing in it, in a completely improper manner. Why not just impose rate limits ? or even better lower its priority on there network. But to send forged packets, and then say were protecting our network is lame.

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

1 edit

1 recommendation

Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by DaveDude:

But there doing in it, in a completely improper manner. Why not just impose rate limits ? or even better lower its priority on there network. But to send forged packets, and then say were protecting our network is lame.
Differential prioritization would mean significant changes to how Comcast handles traffic, which would likely require more/different hardware than what's currently in place. Limiting the number of connections a bittorrent client can make (by closing some of the connections with resets) achieves the same rate limiting effect without adding more single points of failure in path and making the data delivery chain overly complex.

Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
OMG what a troll..If I as a consumer starting spoofing packets I would be accused of a DDoS, which is illegal. This practice is in effect illegal. Plus I believe there are merits to truth in advertising. If a service is advertised as unlimited then that would go by the definition of unlimited:
un·lim·it·ed /nlmtd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-lim-i-tid] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

Does sending tcp resets sound unlimited to you? Or is there a neo-con dictionary that is unpublished?
--
»davescustompc.com
qworster

join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA

Worse-you could be accused of terrorism!

If YOU OR I did this, we'd be committing a federal felony. Doing a computer crime like this gets investigated by Homeland Security.

But I guess when Comcast does it, it's AOK-especially by many of you....

81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2
TCH is that an official or unofficial statement made on behalf of comcast?
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet

supergirl

join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
said by FFH5:

Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems).

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
Well said. Cox dumps Bittorent freaks too called "powerusers" from my understanding. And, I hope they do, sick of powerusers running 24/7 downloading and providing since it affects other users experience. When @Home was around on Comcast, they had to throttle upload for everyone because idiots were running servers.

I don't think the TOS of any ISP allows illegal downloading. Now, if they were blocking Vonage, Comcast would be wrong. Bittorent, 99% illegal, good riddance!

Business class is what they should be offered.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl

EverAndAnon

@verizon.net

Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

What?! I'm paying $60/mo for service*--both upstream and downstream, and I actually want to use it?! Shame on me. (*but I'll be dropping Comcast presently)

"99% illegal"... you so funny. Make up some more statistics, why don'tcha. You clearly don't use Linux. (Actually, the courts have been striking down TOS clauses as illegal over the past year or so. You can expect to see more of this.)

ReformCRTC
Support Your Independent ISP

join:2004-03-07
Canada
It's not stealing, it's sharing.

Screw the haterz, keep sharing!
Shaping traffic based on bandwidth management needs is one thing.

Providing a bandwidth limit for customer who use more than a certain allotment is tolerable if it's noted in the contract and not applied in a discriminatory way.

Stopping it altogether is denial of service.

Think about the outcome if all ISPs do denial of service based on protocol. Everyone will will start encrypting everyting. What was gained? Nothing.
bicker

join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA

1 recommendation

said by FFH5:

Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems).

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
Absolutely. I don't want my service adversely affected because other folks are excessive users. As a matter of fact, if they cannot do THIS, then I want the authorities to require Internet service be provided by metered bandwidth -- pay per megabyte uploaded and downloaded. Un-metered service REQUIRES respect for other users of the service.

JasonD

@comcast.net

get over it people

internet access is a privilege you pay a company to provide, not a right. you don't own the line, the equipment, hold the peering contracts, the providers do. traffic over their connections are only as equal as the providers grant. every major providers TOS clearly states this. don't like it? leave. that's how free markets work.

•••••••••••••••

N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:2

This is now the top story on Drudge report

Wow, this story is now the top story on he Drudge report....
abu maryam

join:2006-05-16
Columbia, MD

Comcast SUCKS

I am so happy that I am not a comcast customer. And if I was I wouldnt think twice about dropping their shady service.

I encourage others to do the same.

•••••••

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

1 edit

3 recommendations

P2P and Oversubscription are natural enemies

P2P traffic mitigation techniques are not going away anytime soon. Broadband networks are built to accommodate "normal" traffic patterns which have random bursts that tend to balance out the load. That's how with a single 38mbps downstream channel cable companies are able to provision multiple 16mbps connections with everyone appearing to be able to hit their maximum transfer speed.

P2P software operates under the assumption that there's all this "idle" bandwidth available to be tapped for transfers. The problem is that on an oversubscribed network your "idle" capacity tends to be your neighbors' "use" capacity. For being a "free" method of distributing content, P2P has expensive implications on capacity planning and network architecture.

There's only a few approaches to take with this, and any option that gets chosen is going to be unpopular.

1) Throttle traffic types that disrupt the experience for the overwhelming majority of your customer base
2) Convert to a usage-based billing system to fund infrastructure upgrades in areas where heavy use occurs
3) Increase the rates for everyone so that the oversubscription ratios can be lowered.
Ulmo

join:2005-09-22
Aptos, CA

Re: P2P and Oversubscription are natural enemies

Thank you for a well written post.

It is true that BT is heavy in net use; optimally, content would be distributed in a less burdensome way. However, protocols and business practices for such more optimal distribution have been very slow to be created and meet each other. Business practices overcompress with suboptimal codecs and overly low resolutions and bitrates and other problems and generally set the quality standard too low, and have incapable pricing models (advertising vs. pay per use, and supposed cream-skimming which in fact simply bankrupts various PPV attempts with all of the Libertarians quick to support such attempts), and distribution models follow suit, being designed not to be the most efficient, but instead designed to be the most efficient at what is left over, which generally is much different, and not so efficient, but does well what it is designed to do (i.e., the current BT situation).

CKizer
Premium
join:2003-01-29
Tijeras, NM
kudos:2

Problem solved.

Qwest DSL is up and running. Comcrap has been fired.

••••••

fightinfilipino

@mindspring.com

i am constantly amazed and disappointed...

at the responses of people on BBR/DSLReports boards on topics such as Net Neutrality.

if Comcast is indeed filtering bandwidth based on specific protocols, THEY SHOULD SAY AS SUCH. telling customers that they aren't doing such filtering is deceptive.

furthermore, restricting specific protocols IS restricting specific internet services. THAT is counter to Net Neutrality. it is the SAME problem as ISPs degrading or blocking bandwidth for IP-based phone services that compete with the ISPs own internal phone service. this is HORRIBLY problematic.

also, if we're talking about the U.S. here, we should be working towards approaching internet access as if it were an essential utility accessible by ALL. if we want to be competitive in emerging technological fields, we can't be letting horribly-run corporations ruling over segments of internet users like fiefdoms. we need a country-wide strategy for broadband that drives increased capacity and open access.

•••

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL

The more they tighten their grip

The more the developers will find a way to get around it. The easiest solution would be to tell the client to IGNORE RST packets. That's what comcast is ILLEGALLY DOING. This is no different than an operator listing to your phone call, and saying to both parties "I've got to hang up now".

Of COURSE the developers will build an application to get around this. Don't be surprised if the next version of your favorite torrent client has the ability to ignore RST packets, and continue to communicate. There are MANY other ways to establish the status of the communications, but RST is the standard way to end a conversation.

Comcast will continue to spend billions trying to stop something they CANNOT STOP. Period. As long as I have the ability to address my information to another host, I can send it. If I NEED to, I can encrypt it, so they CAN'T tell what it is. If I REALLY need to, I can encapsulate it in a standard protocol like http, which they CANNOT block. PERIOD.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.

••••••

cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27

Hey Karl...others...

This may be off-topic but, I'd like to see some investigative reporting of the disparity between business broadband and the consumer, the regions and the dysfunctionalities of the contracts and communications companies.

For example, I once contacted Comcast to get their Business internet package. Our building is located in an industrial park (not a AAA-space business park but still has clients like Freightliner, Staples, ...) and unless we pay the tab for them to run broadband trunk from another road, we have to use the telco's options (which is also pretty steep). Oddly, we have fiber running into our building POE (dimark). Our only option are the resellers (Cavalier, XO...).

It kills me that my home internet is 3-10x faster than my work connection, and 30x cheaper. (yes, we can debate QOS, facility for server traffic, routers...but I see such a discrimination on region)

Just curious...keep up the great work!

supergirl

join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

Re: Hey Karl...others...

cableties, Karl is too busy dreaming up slanted, corporate-hating articles to do something as noble as that.

To answer your industrial park question: umm, well, that is the cost of doing business. Sure, if a huge company that gives them a few million dollars a year in business moves in, they may discount the connection charges (or the stupid city would have it built in for the tax breaks).

BBR would have far more people actually view this place if they did more honest reporting (never seen a newspaper use some blog news as a source). The only reason I stick around is to make fun of a lot of obviously stupid people that think illegal is a-okay as long as the Net can do it.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl
chrysrobyn

join:2001-09-06
Ballston Spa, NY

1 recommendation

Antagonistic questions all around

Everybody is concerned with "is it right", "it isn't right", getting the service paid for, mitigating customers using more than their fair share, etc. Why don't they work together?

Say Comcast finds and hires two developers of BitTorrent apps. I'd hope Azureus is one, but uTorrent is #1, I think. In order to work together, a Torrent client needs to detect where the network is "free" and where it hurts the ISP more. If my neighbor and I are using the same Torrent, we should have all caps removed and be screaming data at each other (dare I suggest a DOCSIS tier for caps within a neighborhood? very far out thinking). Maybe traffic within an ISP, but outside of a city has a higher cost, maybe connections that leave the ISP altogether cost ten times as much as that. This is known as tiered Torrents. I've lost the paper that documented it, but it's been implemented in the academic world for study, but I've not seen it released to the public.

Simplest, a torrent client could traceroute every new peer. Peers within the first "hop" or two have a cost of 0-0.5 (or something very low), peers a few hops away may be 1-5, peers that leave the ISP are 10. Heck, maybe each hop increases "cost" exponentially. Currently, the only factor that matters is how much clients share. We're not talking about a cost in dollars for the customer, by the way, we're talking about a cost against a weighted connection table for potential clients. Clients will be more "hesitant" to connect to clients far away, but will not necessarily refuse to do so. If there are 100 suitable peers, and we wish to connect to 50, you start with the list earlier in your traceroute, and everyone on the other side of your ISP is the same.

Everybody wins in this scenario. The network is more efficient, the ISP pays less. The user doesn't care, except that they get easier access to clients that aren't throttled. The ISP's biggest worry is the bandwidth that goes to another ISP -- if they can keep that constrained while the customers still get their data, everybody wins. Very popular torrents will likely be able to find a hand full of seeds within one large ISP.

The downside, aside from programming complexity, is that there are some fat servers out there that will now "cost more" and the maximum download may go down because you don't connect to them. But, if it keeps your ISP from throttling so much, even that may be a win.
deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Cypress, TX

It would be interesting...

I will say this first: I have never used any type of Torrent software before so I know next to nothing about it. My opinions below stem from what I have heard and read, nothing more and nothing less, so I could be completely wrong about how I understood these things to work.

Anyway...

It would be interesting to see what would happen if everyone were to completely stop using Torrents and started using things like E-Mail clients and Web Mail services instead to send larger files.

I mean isn't the concept of a Torrent better for the Broadband Companies bandwidth issues since it breaks a large file up into smaller pieces before sending it?

What is better? Sending a 5GB file to someone all at once through G-Mail or using a Torrent? I don't know myself, so I guess I am asking.

Madcap
Baby's on Fire
Premium
join:2004-06-26
Fpo, AP

Re: It would be interesting...

said by deadzoned:

What is better? Sending a 5GB file to someone all at once through G-Mail or using a Torrent? I don't know myself, so I guess I am asking.
You pose an interesting question. I own multiple GMail accounts at their current 3.7gig (I think) limit. Allowing my own website has no limit on email size for listed accounts. What would they do if I backed up a ton of my personal files (photos, cam phone movies from less then bright friends, some kinky amateur footage of myself and ... true ladies who were drawn in by my ... charisma?). Spreadsheets, Unofficial transcripts, my comp sci materials. All of that and just let it email the rar to my website. Send it from GMail's interface to my own website of say a 7-9gig maybe double digit gig upload and see what happens.

pleekmo
Triptoe Through The Tulips
Premium
join:2001-09-14
Manchester, CT

Making the Suits Happy?

I sense an impending lawsuit. With the use of BitTorrent by legitimate business operations, the (effective) blocking of the protocol may be grounds for a C&D suit because the blocking could be considered not business-neutral. Similarly, if Comcast were to embark on a business engagement with a particular client while blocking the protocol otherwise, this may be also grounds for a C&D or even an antitrust suit.
--
HCN: Because you deserve a rest!

Proud member of the Free Omelas Liberation Front.

••••

SofaKingWeToddIt

@pinellas.fl.us

Companies dig their own graves...

It may make some customers mad and some happy. It doesn't matter to comcast how people feel about it as long as both of those people are still paying the monthly fee. The reason they did it was to make sure that they dont lose the non p2p using crowd by having their bandwidth and latency severly impacted.

Would I switch if I was using comcast? Fo Sho

Please Help

@balticore.net

Re: Companies dig their own graves...

I was thinking about getting that comcast triple play package. My son is in college and needs the internet, we want more TV channel selections, and I need phone service.

Now, with all this going on, for these services I want and need, what should I do?

NOYB
St. John 3.16
Premium
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:1

In Essence, Practicality, & Reality


Comcast is without notice preventing their customers from fully utilizing the bandwidth of the service that was sold to them and paid for. This is fraud, plain and simple. As such it may even nullify the TOS & Acceptable Use agreements, thereby releasing the customers from abiding by these agreements.

Comcast should walk softly, collectively their customers may have a great deal of capability and power to take matters into their own hands to exact justice in such matters. And quite a poetic justice it may be.


••••••••

LitnJr

@focaldata.net

Comcast and DSL

If I would have known how Comcast was treating their customers, I would have stayed with AT&T DSL. At least you know when you are trying to upload a file, it won't get blocked. I had issues just uploading a couple pictures to the internet. However companies run their own show should be known to the customers paying for the service otherwise we are not getting what almost all customers are expecting. Comcast doesn't have my vote in this and I will be choosing another provider very soon!

•••••
kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime

join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
Reviews:
·Consolidated Sma..

what about other methods of transfering data?

Why are ISP's such as Comcast so concerned with torrent traffic, when I thought the whole idea of torrent distribution was to lighten the load on distribution servers? There are other ways for me to use my upstream bandwidth if I so choose. Setting up an FTP server is one option, a web server is another option. I don't see Comcast blocking the use of home FTP servers. Why all this fuss over torrents? Linux ISO's for one I'm sure love torrents, since the load is distributed among many users and therefore their source servers aren't as bogged down with trafic. I can't imagine that a few 384k or 768k uploads are causing the backbone at Comcast to be overloaded!

••••

The Narci

@204.50.7.x

P2P

Reading part 2 of the article where the person is downloading the bible and recieves reset packets from comcast, can't he file a law suit therefore forcing comcast to release information on how they handle P2P traffic?

alice mackey

@comcast.net

way to go comast!

im glad comcast is filtering out all this p2p crap. all you people complaining should let comcast know by canceling your service with them. i doubt you would though since the majority of you whiners are children using your parents comcast account. bye bye bittorrent.

wolfing

@comcast.net

Re: way to go comast!

said by alice mackey :

im glad comcast is filtering out all this p2p crap. all you people complaining should let comcast know by canceling your service with them. i doubt you would though since the majority of you whiners are children using your parents comcast account. bye bye bittorrent.
I don't know where you live, but where I live (and pretty much the whole US), cable internet companies have a *monopoly* in whatever area they serve. That means, unless I want a crappy 300k DSL connection, I have no choice *by law* (I still don't understand why this is so in this country, where monopolies are normally not allowed).
Believe me, when I learned Comcast was limiting my internet usage, I said 'I'm switching right now!'... after an hour or so of checking my alternatives (or lack of them), I quit in frustration. If I could switch to a similar alternative... I would!
And to those saying that 300GB/month is too much, or 100GB/month is too much, and it only affects torrent 'pirates'... please, try and think forward just for once? We're not in the AOL dialup world of 1999 any more. Right now I use Internet phone (Vonage), not sure how much it uses for upload/download. I also like watching youtube videos. Also use Skype with my friends and family including video. I also play online games. I may want to check my kids' rooms cameras when I'm outside. I also am a Netflix customer, and they allow me to watch movies *legally*. And let's not even talk about high definition movies like Bluray and HD-DVD!
The fact is, a few years ago a cap of 100GB or 300GB may have seemed more than enough, but in this day and age, it's becoming nothing.
Expand your moderator at work
tdumaine
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Seattle, WA

Like i said in the thread...

Isn't it computer trespass or some nonsense since they are forging the packets?

Couldn't this really be considered a man in the middle attack?
Kzbd

join:2006-10-01
Roselle, IL

1 edit

Not entirely their network

They're using public rights of way to deliver a utility to feed their corporate behemoth, therefore they have a greater obligation not to cheat their customers, which is what they're doing by discriminating against some types of traffic to decide that they can actively deprive me of the advertised, agreed upon, and already limited bandwidth. I'm sure you realize that they will sell you increased upstream bandwidth at a higher price.

If they want to implement some total transfer allowance and be forthright about it that's their right if they do so transparently and in compliance with the lease that my municipal government representatives sell to them, this however, is fraud.