Omega
Displaced Ohioan
Premium
join:2002-07-30
Cheyenne, WY
clubs: 
 ·Bresnan Online
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Comcast
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to supergirl
Re: COMCRAP
said by supergirl  :said by TKJunkMail :said by LiberalKing :WILL ALWAYS BE COMCRAP and if cablevision fOllows this fraud ILL SUE THEM Sue away. You will just be throwing your money down a rat hole. You have no chance of winning. Agreed. Stupid to sue over your lack of being able to download illegal stuff.  I play World of Warcraft. Created by a legitimate company (Blizzard), bought and paid for legally. The folks over at Blizzard have determined that the best way to distribute updates for the game is via a client that uses the same protocol as bittorrent.
So, if I was to have comcast, you are pretty much saying they have every right to block the needed data in order for me to play the game.
Just because it CAN be used for something illegal doesn't give them the right to block the protocol entirely. If that was the case then we wouldn't have Xerox machines, CD/DVD burners, VCR's, the list can go on and on.
Plus allowing companies to block stuff like this could set a dangerous precedent. What if Comcast suddenly decides that DSLR should be blocked because they have negative articles about the company? |
|
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| said by Omega :I play World of Warcraft. Created by a legitimate company (Blizzard), bought and paid for legally. The folks over at Blizzard have determined that the best way to distribute updates for the game is via a client that uses the same protocol as bittorrent. So, if I was to have comcast, you are pretty much saying they have every right to block the needed data in order for me to play the game. Just because it CAN be used for something illegal doesn't give them the right to block the protocol entirely. If that was the case then we wouldn't have Xerox machines, CD/DVD burners, VCR's, the list can go on and on. Plus allowing companies to block stuff like this could set a dangerous precedent. What if Comcast suddenly decides that DSLR should be blocked because they have negative articles about the company? They aren't "blocking" you from getting the file from what I am reading, once it's done and you start sending is when this is happening. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to Omega
said by Omega :Plus allowing companies to block stuff like this could set a dangerous precedent. What if Comcast suddenly decides that DSLR should be blocked because they have negative articles about the company? [sarcasm]
Corporations can do whatever they want... You don't mean crap and you are subservient to the desires, wishes and profit motives of those companies and to believe otherwise is un-American. So bend over and take it like a good American.
[/sarcasm]
Okay, I don't believe that, but that is the basis of the arguments in favor of this type of activity by Comcast.
And quit giving upper management ideas... 
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| reply to Omega
said by Omega :I play World of Warcraft. Created by a legitimate company (Blizzard), bought and paid for legally. The folks over at Blizzard have determined that the best way to distribute updates for the game is via a client that uses the same protocol as bittorrent. Best?
Or cheapest (for blizzard)? Rather than Blizzard have a large number of high capacity servers, and paying for high capacity connection at peak bandwidth rates, they seed a few hundred/thousand torrents a spread the cost and bandwidth demand to others.
even if comcast is blocking torrents specifically (so far un-PROVEN) I would doubt they know or care about the legality of the content, merely that it is interfering with the operation of their network. |
|
Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| reply to Cheese
The Sandvine product is meant to block seeding (uploading after finishing a downloaded torrent), but in reality they also are rate limiting the download side of things too. They may be using a bucket method of rate limiting, or they may simply limit the number of possible connections to something relatively low, like 50 or 100 concurrent connections per modem. That would in effect slow your torrent download because you're unable receive as many pieces of a torrent at a time.
World of Warcraft is an excellent example of a legitimate use of P2P technology. Blizzard doesn't want to have to pay for bandwidth, so instead of hosting their own files in massive data centers (as some might argue that they should), they rely on ISP's to carry bare the burden of their game file transfers. Definitely a win-win scenario for Blizzard, not so much for the ISP's.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| reply to tshirt
said by tshirt :Best? Or cheapest (for blizzard)? Rather than Blizzard have a large number of high capacity servers, and paying for high capacity connection at peak bandwidth rates, they seed a few hundred/thousand torrents a spread the cost and bandwidth demand to others. even if comcast is blocking torrents specifically (so far un- PROVEN) I would doubt they know or care about the legality of the content, merely that it is interfering with the operation of their network. You beat me to it (see above) -- you hit the nail right on the head. Good post, especially the part about the ISP not caring about the legality of the files being transferred. Your ISP cannot be held liable for what you do with their service, as long as it's not hosted on their servers. Their only interest is in keeping the network unsaturated.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
4 edits | reply to Cheese
said by Cheese :said by Omega :I play World of Warcraft. Created by a legitimate company (Blizzard), bought and paid for legally. The folks over at Blizzard have determined that the best way to distribute updates for the game is via a client that uses the same protocol as bittorrent. So, if I was to have comcast, you are pretty much saying they have every right to block the needed data in order for me to play the game. They aren't "blocking" you from getting the file from what I am reading, once it's done and you start sending is when this is happening. When you upddate WOW through the client it uses bit torrent protocol.
Now here is the problem, if you watch the download will get to 99% and stay there a while. This is because you are required to SHARE a certain amount of the update (That means sending data) before you are allowed to get to 100% complete and continue.
If they block you from sending then they are also blocking you from receiving the update.
Gaming on Comcast is Comcraptic, I had better ping times to game servers ten years ago on dial-up. |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| reply to Cheese
said by Cheese :They aren't "blocking" you from getting the file from what I am reading, once it's done and you start sending is when this is happening. But that is how BT works. If nobody is allowed to seed, nobody can download, either. That is why it is called file sharing. |
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| reply to Done_Posting
said by Done_Posting :The Sandvine product is meant to block seeding (uploading after finishing a downloaded torrent), but in reality they also are rate limiting the download side of things too. They may be using a bucket method of rate limiting, or they may simply limit the number of possible connections to something relatively low, like 50 or 100 concurrent connections per modem. That speaks to aspect of the other problem.
from a network management view even if available bandwidth is far less limited as with fiber, a client that persistantly attempt to make dozens to hundreds of connection across multiple ports, looks a lot like worm or DoS activity, something that ISP's have an obligation (morally, if not legally) to block/restrict. |
|
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to b10010011
said by b10010011 :Now here is the problem, if you watch the download will get to 99% and stay there a while. This is because you are required to SHARE a certain amount of the update (That means sending data) before you are allowed to get to 100% complete and continue.. That isn't true, I've downloaded 100% without uploading a single byte. It happened recently so I'm guessing it was caused by the upload blocking.
That said if Comcast users are blocked from uploading then the amount of seeders drops dramatically (since Comcast is the largest ISP in the U.S.). If the number of seeders drops too low, then downloading will be very, very slow.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to tshirt
said by tshirt :even if comcast is blocking torrents specifically (so far un- PROVEN) I would doubt they know or care about the legality of the content, merely that it is interfering with the operation of their network. The statement that Bittorrent is "interfering with the operation of their network" is also an "un-PROVEN" statement...
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
1 edit | said by bmn :said by tshirt :even if comcast is blocking torrents specifically (so far un- PROVEN) I would doubt they know or care about the legality of the content, merely that it is interfering with the operation of their network. The statement that Bittorrent is "interfering with the operation of their network" is also an "un- PROVEN" statement... Notice the if (I'm not yet convinced it is happening) In fact I am convinced that ComCast would only choose to do this, if in fact it was interfering with network operations or under legal duress (which I am sure we would have heard about by now.)
The third Problem large numbers of torrents could cause for network operations is the sheer number of connections.
Let's say 2 of CC's 12 million HSI customers are running BT or similar with an average of 50 connections, that's 100 million connections above the normal/expected traffic hitting CC's routers, DNS, CRAN, etc.
If you have been reading the boards here for even a couple years, you might have read about the rapidly rising route congestion, CC routers dropping packets, DNS failing to respond, etc.,etc.
Just like some basic home routers become overwhelmed by excessive connections, so do their big brothers at CC given enough traffic.
|
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | reply to Cheese
Simple then. cap your download until you've seeded how much you want.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| said by dvd536 :Simple then. cap your download until you've seeded how much you want. This really is a good idea, folks.
For any particular torrent, set your upload limit at 20kB/s, set your download limit to about 15kB/s of this. You should be able to complete your download with a great ratio every time!
The exception might be old torrents that have few peers, but it's always been tough to make a ratio on those -- with or without Comcast's "management" getting in the way.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :said by tshirt :even if comcast is blocking torrents specifically (so far un- PROVEN) I would doubt they know or care about the legality of the content, merely that it is interfering with the operation of their network. The statement that Bittorrent is "interfering with the operation of their network" is also an "un- PROVEN" statement... To both of you --
I'm curious what further proof that you feel is needed? Have you read the thread that is linked to my sigline? The evidence is plain -- not to mention that the procedure is clearly spelled out in their patent! |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by funchords :I'm curious what further proof that you feel is needed? Have you read the thread that is linked to my sigline? The evidence is plain -- not to mention that the procedure is clearly spelled out in their patent! I need proof from people claiming that BT is "interfering with the operation of their [Comcast's] network."
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | reply to tshirt
Then it's time to upgrade to meet user demand. BT users may be a minority, but they are a significant minority. They bring in other low use customers and they may be a minority percentage wise, but in sheer numbers they are large. |
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| said by grandpinaple :Then it's time to upgrade to meet user demand. BT users may be a minority, but they are a significant minority. They bring in other low use customers and they may be a minority percentage wise, but in sheer numbers they are large. Which CC is constantly doing.
But you (they) don't just run down to walmart and buy 10,000 cisco routers and plug them in.
there are engineering studies, finding/build rack space which means adding power, backup power,power conditioning, cooling, fire suppression, etc. then you probably need to add backhaul fiber, node splits and so on. and more deskspace at the NOC to manage and monitor said equipment, plus more technical staff to maintain it.
Not only are you talking about millions/billion of $ (all within current budget, and with careful choices of equipment, so as not to become obsolete at the next major upgrade), but months/years of planning and design (wasted $ means higher bills to customers)
So demand will always out strip supply.
You suggest a massive, out of planned cycle upgrade to the plant for either
a}a small portion of the customer base, who are using far above the planned typical user resources, and already complain that what they pay is too much and that they will leave at the drop of the hat for other providers
or
b} a growing percentage of customers (10-20%) who have recent discovered much higher bandwidth applications, but are likely to feel priced out of the service, if asked to shoulder the true costs of the improvement and bandwidth bills
all of which while attempting to keep the service usable and affordable for the other 80-90% of your customer base (group C), who are paying 80-90% of the income for your business.
a Massive rush buildout for group a} (who are driving peak demand, MAY generate some additional low-use customers (but probably not as much as a similar $ spent on promos and plant area expansions), and certainly promote high churn rates) makes no sense.
a carefully planned buildout to meet the needs of b} as well as bandwidth control to keep it usable/affordable for c} make a better model for continued long term growth.
In this this case being in the a}'s (cutting edge, geeky, elite, greedy) pushes you outside their desirable customer envelope at least under the current flat rate/no contract model (yes there are several tiers, but that's more about speed than volume)
Should they go to a longterm contract, price per byte system?
That introduces something the cable companies have carefully avoided, becoming a creditor......unlike the current prepaid model PPB means you have to collect fees from the user after the fact even some ordinary users might end up using more that they are prepared to pay. and certainly some of the a} group would run up $$$ in bandwidth fees and default (my impression is many of the BT users down load movies, etc. and *nix etc. because it is "free") leaving the company and the remaining customers holding the bag/bill.
monthly fees to c} group would likely not drop, b} group would rise somewhat, and only the most dedictaed, well-heeled a}'s would remain. |
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to funchords
said by funchords : To both of you -- I'm curious what further proof that you feel is needed? Have you read the thread that is linked to my sigline? The evidence is plain -- not to mention that the procedure is clearly spelled out in their patent! I browsed through your other threads and agree something is effect your downloads in a sandvine like manner.
In most cases it appeared to be at the edge of the CC network or perhaps at the edge of the AT&T network, however you did post one example where it appeared to be effecting a purely CC to CC user transfer.
so I must agree that CC is using sandvine
|
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to bmn
said by bmn I need proof from people claiming that BT is "interfering with the operation of their [Comcast's : network." Well take a deep breath, hold it, hold it, hold it, and I'll get back to you soon.
Sorry, No PROOF will be provided
I put forth 3 possible reason why I believe comcast would choose to block/slow torrent activity
1}bandwidth usage
2}massive connections/virus like activity
3}massive connections/ router/network overload
any of which COULD be seen as interference
and none of which needs to meet your or my burden of proof to violate the TOS, the only burden of proof is
In the sole opinion of Comcast that it interferes or disrupts their network. |
|
