dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2008-03-27 10:06:26: Comcast and BitTorrent this morning jointly announced that by the end of this year, Comcast will migrate "to a capacity management technique that is protocol agnostic. ..

prev page · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · next

nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to FFH5

Re: What if pirates don't use the new friendlier BitTorrent S/W?

said by FFH5:

And what if the pirates don''t use the new friendlier versions of BitTorrent and continue to use versions that don't play nice with the ISPs? What then?
we will obviously have to shut down the internet to save the movie and music industries' archaic business model. It will be a sad day, but clearly well worth it to rid the world of bandwidth hogging, illegal content pirating, thieving, infringing, no-good P2P users.

besides, it will give people more time to spend with their children and play outdoors without the internet to distract them.


DHRacer
Tech Monkey

join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
reply to FFH5

Re: Don't assume anything

How does one define hog? I mean, are there terms in the TOS that say you can only use your connection that you paid for between the hours of 8am to 5pm? If you paid for it, you should be able to use it 24/7. And if you happen to be an avid downloader or uploader who paid more moeny for a faster connection, what's it to you?

You'll notice that I didn't mention whether the content of the downloading or uploading is legal or illegal material, but frankly my stance is the ISP shouldn't care. That's law enforcement's problem. ISPs should just be the straw you use to suck and backwash into the great big internet pool.

--
"No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing /3M Corp.)

Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Yes. And they should take actions to stop illegal content. And also to reign in the bandwidth hogs(top 5% of users).
Bandwidth hogs I'm cool with. Let Comcast go after them all they want to—as long as it really is just the top 1% or whatever and the limits are publicly defined. The main problem I have with Comcast is how opaque their practices are. They really need to be a lot more open about what they're doing.

On the other hand, I don't think stopping piracy or any other illegal content is any of Comcast's concern. Yes, they should cooperate with warrants and subpoenas, but I don't want my ISP monitoring my traffic at the behest of the **AAs unless someone's got a damn good reason, like solid evidence that I'm a pirate or kiddie porn trader or whatever.

priller

join:2000-10-20
Gainesville, VA

3 edits
reply to bngdup

Re: What good is DOCSIS 3.0 if there are inivisible caps?

It's all marketing. They don't actually want anybody to use it!

.... other than for delivering their own content.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to nasadude

Re: What if pirates don't use the new friendlier BitTorrent S/W?

said by nasadude:

we will obviously have to shut down the internet to save the movie and music industries' archaic business model. It will be a sad day, but clearly well worth it to rid the world of bandwidth hogging, illegal content pirating, thieving, infringing, no-good P2P users.
Very well put!!
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


JasonD

@comcast.net

1 recommendation

reply to dadkins
You're not stealing bandwidth. They (the content providers using bt or p2p) are. In fact, you've been duped. They're using you to get free access to your ISP's bandwidth and make a buck.

Think about it.


factchecker

@cox.net
reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :

YES! At minimum it's stealing bandwidth without paying for it, regardless if the content is legal or not. The argument "I already paid for that bandwidth" doesn't fly when it clearly is an extension of someone elses business model.
That argument falls flat when the FACT is presented that EVERYONE on the internet pays for bandwidth. Come back when you've had to purchase bandwidth for corporate environments and a myriad of business users before you talk about "stealing" bandwidth, because such a thing does not exist in the real world.


pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

reply to dadkins
said by dadkins:

Stealing bandwidth?
WTF is it that I am paying Comcast for each month then friend?

I am paying for______ to come across that coax.
Now, explain for everyone that reads this... what is coming across that coax that I pay $52.95 each month for.



Are you saying that DSLReports getting requests from me to display this very page is stealing too?
EXACTLY!
I pay Comcast to provide me with a connection.. it's up to me how I use it. Period.


factchecker

@cox.net
reply to Doctor Four

Re: If they actually make good on their promise

said by Doctor Four:

Even though I may disagree with those who consider file
sharers thieves or those who use BitTorrent bandwidth
hogs, they do have a point: BT is one of the more traffic
intensive protocols - it can easily overwhelm most
consumer routers if connection limits aren't set in the
client. If it is doing that to routers, imagine what it
is doing to ISP network equipment.
ISP backbone routers don't have to track sessions like your Linksys or Netgear router running NAT. The nature of the problem isn't related to the number of TCP connections open, instead, it is the shear number of small packets that is the problem.

As for the routers themselves, most of the newer routers can handle BT traffic well. Most Windows operating systems can barely generate enough packets to bring down a carrier class router/switch. Not to mention that the SOHO routers most people have would fall over before enough packets could be generated to also bring down a carrier router.

The effect is cumulative, though, so more users, the greater the effect of BT, but it would have to be many thousands of users.

nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

2 recommendations

reply to FFH5

Re: What if pirates don't use the new friendlier BitTorrent S/W?

didn't know you actually wanted to go that far, but what the heck, go for it.

I recommend you to lead the way and stop using the internet for good to show your solidarity with the forces of anti-P2P.


factchecker

@cox.net
reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :

You're not stealing bandwidth. They (the content providers using bt or p2p) are. In fact, you've been duped. They're using you to get free access to your ISP's bandwidth and make a buck.
OKay, JasonD, no one has been duped. Almost everyone who uses BT is aware of how it works. Everyone who uses BT does so willingly, knowing exactly what is going on. To say that people are being duped is false.

Additionally, people are willing to share content in order to get content because, in reality, everyone using the system benefits. The downloads are faster and the content distribution system is more resilient to network interruptions.

Yes, I agree that content providers should be seeding to the cloud themselves, but to say that people are being duped and are getting nothing in return when content providers use BT is false.


Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Seward, AK
reply to BabyBear

Re: Hazah!

While I dislike Comcast as much as the next guy here, I havent seen these rate hikes. In fact, we just noticed yesterday our bill was down $15 for some reason I still havent really figured out. As far as I can guess, its because the speed tier we signed up for a few years back (6/768) is no longer a $60mo tier ($60mo when we signed up, we did see a few rate hikes on that price throughout the past couple years, but I cant remember how much, that bill is the wifeys responsibility) now 8/768 is the highest they offer here and its now $52mo.


TZi

join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Corydon

Re: Don't assume anything

said by Corydon:

The main problem I have with Comcast is how opaque their practices are. They really need to be a lot more open about what they're doing.
I too believe that Comcast ought to be more upfront about just what constitutes over-use. However when you take into account how diverse the plants that they own are (750Mhz, 850Mhz, 1Ghz?) + (DOCSIS 1.1, DOCSIS 2.0 DOCSIS 3.0) , and even the different nodes within systems (100 subs on node A, 17 subs on NODE B), you can understand why it is somewhat difficult to put in the TOS a black and white definition of overuse. Not to mention the fact that services and subscriber load on a system could change on a weekly or daily basis.

If they defined "overuse" according to the most heavily subscribed node, it would mean a lot of users who could be taking advantage of free bandwidth are being denied unused resources whereas a policy based on the least subscribed node would ultimately result in poor service for all. By addressing the issue of "overuse" on node by node, system by system basis they can ensure that their network resources are most efficiently use.

I don't think they intentionally try to make the definition of overuse a secret, it's just that it's based on so many dynamic factors it's almost impossible to put in black-and-white, but I'm sure it is easy for them to identify in the network management software which can dynamically evaluate all those factors.
--
128kbps too much, 100GBps never enough!
Expand your moderator at work


Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to Anon

Re: Don't assume anything


FiOS (BPON and GPON ) is shared.

TIGERON

join:2008-03-11
Pacifica, CA

I'd like my money back please

Does this mean that for those former subscribers that have been booted off for violating the twilight-zone bandwidth limits do they get their money back?

djtr4in

join:2008-03-27
Frederick, MD

Comcast blows

I don't care what anyone says Comcast blows. Shit has been wack for years

TIGERON

join:2008-03-11
Pacifica, CA
reply to newview

Re: Truth as a Comcast concept

Facing a class-action lawsuit is the only way this company will be truthful. This is nothing more than a public-relations control.


Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
reply to FFH5

Re: What if pirates don't use the new friendlier BitTorrent S/W?

said by FFH5:

"In the spirit of openness and fostering innovative
solutions, BitTorrent will take the first step in enhancing our client
applications to optimize them for a new broadband network architecture.
Furthermore, we will publish these optimizations in open forums and
standard bodies for all application developers to benefit from," said
Ashwin Navin, co-founder and president of BitTorrent, Inc.
And what if the pirates don''t use the new friendlier versions of BitTorrent and continue to use versions that don't play nice with the ISPs? What then?
Pirates WANT to hide. If the cops issue a press release saying they aren't stopping blue cars anymore for traffic violations, the criminals aren't going to drive red cars. They will be the first ones to make a better blue.

TIGERON

join:2008-03-11
Pacifica, CA
reply to DHRacer

Re: Don't assume anything

THANK YOU

djtr4in

join:2008-03-27
Frederick, MD
reply to Matt3
direct opti line to my house...same speed through out the day compared to comcast which slows at peak hours..6pm-9pm due to everyone in the area home from work and relaxing and browsing the net.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

2 edits
reply to FFH5

Re: What if pirates don't use the new friendlier BitTorrent S/W?

said by FFH5:

And what if the pirates don''t use the new friendlier versions of BitTorrent and continue to use versions that don't play nice with the ISPs? What then?
That's an excellent question.

The current version is not unfriendly. The real question is whether a "smarter" location-aware version provides a better overall experience for P2P users.

IMHO:

I've used BitTorrent DNA. I've also used some of the other emerging features in Vuze and uTorrent. Ninety percent of the time, these features do provide at least the same or better performance for the end-user with no expense to privacy or coexistence with other uses.

"Better" will always win. "The Same" will take longer to adopt, but it does mean that these features that are normally turned off by default in current versions have been tested and can be turned on by default in later releases.

Part of the challenge will be to convince the ISPs that peer data caching will never catch on with users who feel that it may invade upon their privacy. Regardless, it is still a good idea as it will offload a significant portion.

Much of today's P2P traffic is clear to download (example: Open-source software) and much is copyrighted but of little concern of the copyright holder toward enforcement (example: the latest OTA broadcast of the soap-opera "One Life to Live").

Downloaders have got to get over some things, too:

    •The hoarding mentality -- no, you don't need to download every file you can find on a private tracker somewhere. These will always be available. If you're eventually going to use them without paying, you can just download it later.
    •The 1:1 or 100% ratio as a measure of fairness -- no 'sharing' relationship is accounted for so closely as the relationship between file sharers. In Real Life (IRL), sharing relationships are often quite lopsided, with those that have more sharing more.
    •Ignoring copyright does not make it go away. The law has been lobbied and stretched to the point it is broken. Copyright was designed so that Walt Disney (now dead 40 years) could make a living on his creations. Mickey Mouse, now 80 years old, has fifteen years to go before he 'retires' into the public domain. Copyright is a good idea gone bad. Don't ignore it, fix it!

--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report.

TIGERON

join:2008-03-11
Pacifica, CA
Reviews:
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service

1 recommendation

reply to JasonD
Explain how is it stealing bandwidth when:

1. Comcast has stated record profits just last year even though their stock is down,
2. At almost $60 a month for each of the 12 million subscribers, Comcast is simply the conduit and it should NOT matter what is being is traveling on their network LEGAL OR NOT. It is not their responsibility to play traffic cop. That is law enforcement's job.
3. If you want to attack Bittorrent and its business model saying that its trouncing on some else's network for free, then you might as well attack iTUNES, Amazon.com (which sells digital downloads of audio and video) the ZUNE store, and many many others out there.


LeftOfSanity
People Suck.

join:2005-11-06
Dover, DE
reply to pokesph
The point being the content providers should provide the servers and bandwith to serve/host their content themselves.


TKJunkMail
Premium
join:2005-12-09

1 recommendation

reply to Rick

Re: Talk about cutting the Comcast naysayers off

I expect no less bullsh!t from you, Rick.

Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
reply to TZi

Re: Don't assume anything

said by TZi:

I too believe that Comcast ought to be more upfront about just what constitutes over-use. However when you take into account how diverse the plants that they own are (750Mhz, 850Mhz, 1Ghz?) + (DOCSIS 1.1, DOCSIS 2.0 DOCSIS 3.0) , and even the different nodes within systems (100 subs on node A, 17 subs on NODE B), you can understand why it is somewhat difficult to put in the TOS a black and white definition of overuse. Not to mention the fact that services and subscriber load on a system could change on a weekly or daily basis.
That's a good point, but Cox somehow manages to do it, and I'm sure they suffer from exactly the same issues that Comcast does.

A diverse plant actually is one of the areas where infrastructure upgrades does make sense. I have no doubt whatsoever that MSOs have network surveillance that monitor nodes for oversubscription, identify good candidates for upgrades, etc. I'm sure they do node splits and similar upgrades all the time as their business grows.

What I would like to see is a high cap on how much you can use the service in a month, one that would pretty much never catch 95% of their users (The MSOs routinely claim that only about 1% of users violate the invisible caps). Give people a way of tracking their usage on their website. Then selectively enforce the cap on those nodes where the heavy users are actually impacting others, while letting heavy users on other nodes that don't have the same impact skate by until they do.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to Matt3

Re: TCP Resets a Red Herring?

said by Matt3:

Now, instead of everyone yelling about the bandwidth hogs, they've accepted that the bandwidth hogs will be throttled, but everyone else won't be. The problem is, who determines what a bandwidth hog is or what is deemed excessive usage?

Very clever ... or as Monte Burns would say, "Excellent!"


Yeah, let's analyze this.

1. BitTorrent, Inc., who is not a party to the FCC complaint or rule-making petition, has "made a deal" with Comcast, who has never told a straight fact twice.

2. Comcast and BitTorrent both stipulate that
a. BitTorrent is the most popular P2P protocol, and
b. that it is the heaviest user of bandwidth.

3. Comcast will change its discrimination target from
a. the BitTorrent protocol, to
b. BitTorrent's users

4. Representing BitTorrent in these negotiations was Jessica "Is Chicken of the Sea chicken or tuna?" Simpson.

Actually, I'm more optimistic than that -- but I have learned that Ronald Reagan's "Trust but Verify" policy was a good one.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42

1 edit
reply to Corydon

Re: Don't assume anything

quote:
That's a good point, but Cox somehow manages to do it, and I'm sure they suffer from exactly the same issues that Comcast does.
As an aside, Cox also uses the exact same packet forgery approach to throttle eDonkey traffic, but people generally ignored that when we pointed it out last year.


TKJunkMail
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to openbox9

Re: "Protocol Agnostic" means EVERYTHING

said by openbox9:

said by priller:

By saying "protocol agnostic", that means they will target ALL types of traffic, not just BT!
Yes, based on this press release, Comcast users can expect to see a wider swath of traffic shaping. I'm sure everyone will be happy now that Comcast won't be picking on the innocent P2P protocols...
It actually IS a good thing. When they start slowing down ALL traffic, more folks than just the P2P users will start bitching. Hence more calls for network neutrality.