US Cable Support > Comcast HSI > Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P Connections

reply to EG

Re: Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P Connections

said by EG:

said by jjoshua:

My traffic is my property.

Hmmm.... I wonder if the federal government agrees with that ?

By using a P2P client, you are allowing remote users to download files from your computer; this essentially makes your computer a server, which is specifically prohibited by the TOS and AUP.

Personally, I'm not real crazy about the decision.

However, it seems to me that if Comcast chooses to implement technology that prevents users from violating the TOS and AUP, they are well within their rights to do so.

Not quite. Bittorrent doesn't work that way. When you think of server you think of one entity serving up files. When you're defining bittorrent traffic and the way it works it cannot be deemed that anyone seeding is running a server. I suppose if you were the only seeder one could argue that point. It is a gray area.

Either way, the issue to most people I believe is not whether they are breaking any TOS/AUP. But whether it is right for Comcast to implement technologies that are basically unwrapping your packets.

reply to jjoshua
I think you would have a difficult time trying to make the case that Comcast is not within their rights to shape and prioritize traffic as they see fit on their network. They do it every day for VoIP and other latency-critical traffic.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?

reply to SirchMeister

reply to jjoshua
Ignorance can certainly be bliss....
--
Let us never forget 9/11

reply to jjoshua

said by jjoshua:

said by EG:

said by jjoshua:

My traffic is my property.

Hmmm.... I wonder if the federal government agrees with that ?

What does the government have to do with this discussion?

When you send a document via FedEx, do they open the package, look at the document, decide if the contents are 'acceptable' and make modifications to it? Of course not.

Comcast, or any other ISP, should be no different. I create the packets and they deliver it - end of story.

reply to SirchMeister

reply to jjoshua

reply to NormanS
Upon reflection, I do not wish to post. (my point was was covered by another poster)

reply to jjoshua

Like I hope I mentioned at the top of the thread, BitTorrent seems to be the least affected overall of the protocols that I tested. I was able to hit and maintain my top requested speed and number of connections with BitTorrent. However, in reviewing the packets I received using Comcast vs. non-Comcast, the number of RST-driven drops was multitudes higher with Comcast.

With Sandvine, the goal isn't to prevent P2P. The goal is to reduce the cost of your P2P connections. If Sandvine can cause your client to drop an expensive connection, your client will seek a new connection -- and hopefully find one that is either within the Comcast network or one that takes a less expensive or congested route outside of the network.

Tip: For some reason, the injected RST triggers the WINSOCK error 10053, which is (Connection Aborted by local software) and not the 10060 (Connection Reset by Peer.) So if you're not looking at packets, but you are looking at logs from your P2P client -- look for 10053.

Edit: I see that I didn't mention that BitTorrent seemed the least affected of the protocols that I tested. In my tests: Gnutella uploading was completely stopped. ED2K uploading was heavily affected. And BitTorrent uploading was the least affected. Interestingly, that list tends to inversely follow the current popularity of each protocol.

--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
~ Keeper of the D-Link FAQ ~ Did you Search? ~ More features, Free! Join BBR! ~

reply to NormanS