dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
4

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo to jig

MVM

to jig

Re: Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P Connections

said by jig:

9 and 14 don't mention bittorrent
#14:
run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;

jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA

jig

Member

said by SpaethCo:

Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
when i run a bittorrent client i'm not running a file sharing server or services. unless you mean to say that me using gmail is against Comcast's TOS.

when i run my bittorrent client, all i'm doing is taking advantage of someone else's tracker services in order to get the file i want.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

You seem to have missed the part that says that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network). When you register your client with the tracker, you are advertising that you are available to provide content.

jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA

jig

Member

said by SpaethCo:

You seem to have missed the part that says that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network). When you register your client with the tracker, you are advertising that you are available to provide content.
i'm not providing services, and i'm not providing content. i'm getting the content from someone else who is providing it to everyone in the swarm. we are all using services provided by whoever is running the tracker.

if you think i am providing network content, then, under that same definition of providing network content, i can't send an email or email attachment to anyone outside my LAN without running afoul of the TOS, which would suck balls. i talk to those jerks too much as it is...

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

1 recommendation

NormanS

MVM

said by jig:

i'm not providing services, and i'm not providing content. i'm getting the content from someone else who is providing it to everyone in the swarm. we are all using services provided by whoever is running the tracker.
If you are using BitTorrent, you are uploading, as well as downloading. When you are uploading, you are serving content to everyone else in the swarm. Everybody in a torrent is serving content to everybody else. That is the nature of BitTorrent. This is why you have to put pinholes through your firewall for a BitTorrent client to work. So your BT client can serve content to another BT downloader. BT is a distributed service.
if you think i am providing network content, then, under that same definition of providing network content, i can't send an email or email attachment to anyone outside my LAN without running afoul of the TOS, which would suck balls. i talk to those jerks too much as it is...
When you send email, you are not serving content. People don't connect to your computer in order for them to get email from you.

jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA

jig

Member

said by NormanS:

If you are using BitTorrent, you are uploading, as well as downloading. When you are uploading, you are serving content to everyone else in the swarm. Everybody in a torrent is serving content to everybody else. That is the nature of BitTorrent. This is why you have to put pinholes through your firewall for a BitTorrent client to work. So your BT client can serve content to another BT downloader. BT is a distributed service.

When you send email, you are not serving content. People don't connect to your computer in order for them to get email from you.


if they meant serving content, why didn't they say that instead of providing services? people (google) do connect to my computer in order to get email and other data from me (gchat). and what if i run an email filter in outlook or whatever client i use that automatically generates a reply when certain people send me messages with certain content? that meets your definition, and i'm not running a server or providing network services.

no matter what i'm doing, surfing, email, bittorrent, whatever, i'm always uploading as well as downloading. always. i'm uploading to facilitate getting what i want, email, a web page, a forum remark, a torrent file.... and it's exactly the same thing when i'm in a swarm. i'm uploading data to facilitate getting data sent to me, and it's all part of one process. distinguishing bittorrent as a process just because the overhead is more than what is required for a web page request is, potentially, valid, but the TOS you mention don't make it valid. i'm not providing services, certainly not in the aggregate, and i'm not running a server, i'm explicitly running a client. running my BT client is closer to running an email client than running a server, even if all we're doing is comparing data out/data in.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

1 recommendation

NormanS

MVM

said by jig:

if they meant serving content, why didn't they say that instead of providing services?
Because "serving content" IS providing a service.
people (google) do connect to my computer in order to get email...
No. People using Google DO NOT connect to your computer to get email from you. If you are using GMail to send them email, you connect to Google to send your email, and the recipient connects to Google to receive your email. Google, not you, is providing the service.
...and other data from me (gchat).
Not having used "gchat", I don't know how it works. Using Windows Live Messenger (mostly), Yahoo! Messenger, and AOL Instant Messenger, you would connect to their respective servers to send your IM data, and the recipients of those message would, likewise, connect to the IM servers. Again, the IM provider, not you, is running the service.
...and what if i run an email filter in outlook or whatever client i use that automatically generates a reply when certain people send me messages with certain content?
I hope that you are not running auto responders. Technically, auto responders normally go through your ISP, or ESP mail servers, so they, not you, are providing the service. But auto responders are bad, unless they are configured to only send autoresponses to email addresses in your address book. Backscatter. Reportable as abuse.
...that meets your definition, and i'm not running a server or providing network services.
No, it does not meet my definition. A service is some application you run on your computer, which a remote computer has to connect with to get data. When you send email, you send it through somebody else' service, you don't provide your own service.
no matter what i'm doing, surfing, email, bittorrent, whatever, i'm always uploading as well as downloading. always.
Which is why I choose my words carefully. Uploading is not providing a service. Making data available for download from your computer is providing a service. BitTorrent makes data available for download from your computer. A BT client does not push data to a server, as does a web browser (using the HTTP "POST" command), or an email client (using the SMTP "SEND" command); rather, it announces that it has certain pieces of the file in the tracker available for download, and waits for the other BT clients to request specific pieces of the file (same as the HTTP "GET" command your client would send to a server, or the corresponding NNTP/POP3/IMAP commands for downloading news articles and email).
i'm uploading to facilitate getting what i want, email, a web page, a forum remark, a torrent file....
Try to understand, when you upload data to a server, you ARE NOT offering a service. HTTP, SMTP, NNTP uploads are initiated from your computer to a server. BitTorrent uploads are initiated by a remote client to a server; if your BT client is offering the pieces of the file, it is acting as a server. The key is: Who initiates the file transfer? Whey you initiate an upload, it is not the same thing as when a remote computer initiates a download from your computer.
and it's exactly the same thing when i'm in a swarm.
No, sir, it is not! You are not initiating an upload to another server, another client is initiating a download from you.

You don't forward ports to surf the web, or send email, or even to upload/download files from a remote FTP server.

You do forward ports to run a BitTorrent client. You forward ports to make it possible for remote client to download data from your computer.
i'm uploading data to facilitate getting data sent to me, and it's all part of one process. distinguishing bittorrent as a process just because the overhead is more than what is required for a web page request is, potentially, valid, but the TOS you mention don't make it valid. i'm not providing services, certainly not in the aggregate, and i'm not running a server, i'm explicitly running a client. running my BT client is closer to running an email client than running a server, even if all we're doing is comparing data out/data in.
Running a BT client is exactly the same as running a mail server. I run a mail server. I forward ports through my router to make it possible to run my mail server. But I don't let other people download email from my mail server.

I run a BitTorrent client (currently BitTornado T-0.3.18). I forward ports through my router to make it possible to run my mail server. But I do allow other people to download pieces of the current file I am downloading from my BT client; which is acting exactly the same as my mail server; with the modest exception that nobody else on the Internet has an email account on my mail server, so, unlike my BT client, my mail server is not providing a service outside of my premises.

BitTorrent clients do not push/pull data, as other clients do. BitTorrent clients pull data, as any other client does, but they also present data to be pulled, as any other server does.

jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA

jig

Member

had to step away for a bit. I'll try to incorporate recent posts where applicable.
said by NormanS:

Because "serving content" IS providing a service.
no it's not. i can serve content to someone either directly or by using a service provided by someone else WITHOUT providing a locally run service myself. for example, through email: google is providing the service through which i can provide or serve content, either through user interaction OR automatically using a local email client and rules/user scripts.

using a BT client (at least the way I use it), i use the service someone else provides, the tracker, to get content. if i wasn't getting something, i wouldn't be connecting to the tracker to find the content. and each specific connection i make is purely to get access to the very specific content covered by the particular torrent file.
No. People using Google DO NOT connect to your computer to get email from you. If you are using GMail to send them email, you connect to Google to send your email, and the recipient connects to Google to receive your email. Google, not you, is providing the service.
you mistake my meaning. GOOGLE connects to my computer in order to exchange content. i get a listing of my emails, google sends me ads, and i send content to people on and off comcasts network using the service google provides. i don't explicitly poke holes in my firewall, but the data doesn't all get pushed through one port either. my web browser exchanges information on higher ports, negotiated through other ports my client (web browser) has specified. 3rd parties can connect directly to me through the service google provides. i can click on ads, i can click on embedded links in the email. once i do that, they can send me java apps that exchange data without user interaction etc. some of the 3rd parties connect directly through embedded links as well, so no need for me to initiate anything beyond viewing email.
Not having used "gchat", I don't know how it works. Using Windows Live Messenger (mostly), Yahoo! Messenger, and AOL Instant Messenger, you would connect to their respective servers to send your IM data, and the recipients of those message would, likewise, connect to the IM servers. Again, the IM provider, not you, is running the service.
well, that's not necessarily true. you might get a listing of the potential chat recipients from the servers, but many of the chat apps send the data directly to the chat recipients once all the handshaking is done. sounds a lot like a tracker/distributed client system.
Technically, auto responders normally go through your ISP, or ESP mail servers, so they, not you, are providing the service. But auto responders are bad, unless they are configured to only send autoresponses to email addresses in your address book. Backscatter. Reportable as abuse.
well, this is clearly a morality issue for you. what in the TOS disallows auto responses? So if i set up outlook to generate vacation messages (and leave it running while i'm away) i'm breaking some section of the TOS? i don't think so.
A service is some application you run on your computer, which a remote computer has to connect with to get data. When you send email, you send it through somebody else' service, you don't provide your own service.
Uploading is not providing a service. Making data available for download from your computer is providing a service. BitTorrent makes data available for download from your computer. A BT client does not push data to a server, as does a web browser (using the HTTP "POST" command), or an email client (using the SMTP "SEND" command); rather, it announces that it has certain pieces of the file in the tracker available for download, and waits for the other BT clients to request specific pieces of the file (same as the HTTP "GET" command your client would send to a server, or the corresponding NNTP/POP3/IMAP commands for downloading news articles and email)
Try to understand, when you upload data to a server, you ARE NOT offering a service. HTTP, SMTP, NNTP uploads are initiated from your computer to a server. BitTorrent uploads are initiated by a remote client to a server; if your BT client is offering the pieces of the file, it is acting as a server. The key is: Who initiates the file transfer? Whey you initiate an upload, it is not the same thing as when a remote computer initiates a download from your computer.
You are not initiating an upload to another server, another client is initiating a download from you.
You don't forward ports to surf the web, or send email, or even to upload/download files from a remote FTP server.
You do forward ports to run a BitTorrent client. You forward ports to make it possible for remote client to download data from your computer.
Running a BT client is exactly the same as running a mail server. I run a mail server. I forward ports through my router to make it possible to run my mail server. But I don't let other people download email from my mail server.

I run a BitTorrent client (currently BitTornado T-0.3.18). I forward ports through my router to make it possible to run my mail server. But I do allow other people to download pieces of the current file I am downloading from my BT client; which is acting exactly the same as my mail server; with the modest exception that nobody else on the Internet has an email account on my mail server, so, unlike my BT client, my mail server is not providing a service outside of my premises.

BitTorrent clients do not push/pull data, as other clients do. BitTorrent clients pull data, as any other client does, but they also present data to be pulled, as any other server does.
other than to say that i don't actually have to poke holes in my firewall to upload anything using a BT client with UP&P capability (just like i don't have to poke holes in my firewall to web surf and exchange data on ports other than 80), i think the best way to address all the above is this:

If you won't separate the data exchanges that happen when you web surf (or run windows updates, or send email) from initiating the contact with the web servers/email servers, then you can't arbitrarily separate the initial tracker connection, initiated by me, using my BT client, to get content, from the bittorrent traffic that results. you'd be using two different standards of looking at the applications and their processes, and the two standards aren't embodied in the TOS.

The only valid way i see to distinguish BT from any other user initiated data transfer is to compare the overhead involved in getting the content to the customer's computer. Unfortunately for Comcast, that distinction, or how to apply it to a specific user application, is not in the TOS sections you've pointed out.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

said by jig:

using a BT client (at least the way I use it), i use the service someone else provides, the tracker, to get content.
The tracker has no content to provide. All the tracker does is to track who has the desired content. You download the content from the other peers in the swarm. And you upload content to the other peers in the swarm.
if i wasn't getting something, i wouldn't be connecting to the tracker to find the content. and each specific connection i make is purely to get access to the very specific content covered by the particular torrent file.
you mistake my meaning. GOOGLE connects to my computer in order to exchange content.
Google does not connect to your computer. You connect to Google.
3rd parties can connect directly to me through the service google provides.
No, they can't. Your browser accesses remote port 80 on various server sites, and issues HTTP "GET" requests to the servers. They serve informatin in response to your browser get requests.
i can click on ads, i can click on embedded links in the email. once i do that, they can send me java apps that exchange data without user interaction etc.
When you "click", you send a "GET" request. The remote server responds by sending back content. They "serve" content; that is what "servers" are supposed to do.
some of the 3rd parties connect directly through embedded links as well, so no need for me to initiate anything beyond viewing email.
They do not send anything "through" links. Your mail provider sets up calls to ad servers. You get the ads in response to calls to those servers.
well, that's not necessarily true. you might get a listing of the potential chat recipients from the servers, but many of the chat apps send the data directly to the chat recipients once all the handshaking is done. sounds a lot like a tracker/distributed client system.
But trackers don't carry content. Just where do you think the content you download is coming from? It isn't coming out of the Ether!
well, this is clearly a morality issue for you. what in the TOS disallows auto responses? So if i set up outlook to generate vacation messages (and leave it running while i'm away) i'm breaking some section of the TOS? i don't think so.
You are not digging deeply enough. There is no part of your TOS which prohibits an autoresponse to somebody you know. But, if you are autoresponding to spam (and you will be, if you don't limit your autoresponse to only people in your address book), you will be sending your autoresponsed to the forged email addresses in the spam. When you broadcast your autoresponse to unwilling recipients, you are sending, "Unsolicited Bulk Email"; which makes you a spammer.
other than to say that i don't actually have to poke holes in my firewall to upload anything using a BT client with UP&P capability
Of course you don't. Your BT client does it for you.
(just like i don't have to poke holes in my firewall to web surf and exchange data on ports other than 80)
But surfing and sending email is client initiated activity, going out to a server.
i think the best way to address all the above is this:

If you won't separate the data exchanges that happen when you web surf (or run windows updates, or send email) from initiating the contact with the web servers/email servers, then you can't arbitrarily separate the initial tracker connection, initiated by me, using my BT client, to get content, from the bittorrent traffic that results. you'd be using two different standards of looking at the applications and their processes, and the two standards aren't embodied in the TOS.
But the tracker has no content to offer. It just points to the location of the content; which content is served up by other peers in the swarm. I urge you to take a look at the peer connections in the peer connection list of your next BT download. See if you can sort out which are the content servers, and which are merely downloaders. And see if you can tell whether those servers are not just other residential connections as your own.
The only valid way i see to distinguish BT from any other user initiated data transfer is to compare the overhead involved in getting the content to the customer's computer. Unfortunately for Comcast, that distinction, or how to apply it to a specific user application, is not in the TOS sections you've pointed out.
Only if you can't see that your BT client is serving content to the other peers.

jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA

jig

Member

i think i'll just reiterate.

if you, norman, want to distinguish servers and clients by looking at who initiates the conversation (the data transfer), then you can't ignore the fact that i initiate the bittorent conversation through my client by clicking on a link that causes my client to initiate a connection with a tracker that only then allows the rest of the conversation to take place. and, you can't ignore the fact that the ultimate reason behind the conversation is to get that very specific content to my computer, not to others.

as far as spamming is concerned, if i only reply to people who email me, i am by definition not a spammer. forged or not, it's not unsolicited.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

said by jig:

i think i'll just reiterate.

if you, norman, want to distinguish servers and clients by looking at who initiates the conversation (the data transfer), then you can't ignore the fact that i initiate the bittorent conversation through my client by clicking on a link that causes my client to initiate a connection with a tracker that only then allows the rest of the conversation to take place. and, you can't ignore the fact that the ultimate reason behind the conversation is to get that very specific content to my computer, not to others.
You keep overlooking the fact that your BitTorrent client responds to other BT clients seeking content from your HDD. That is the behavior of a server. Your BT upload is not the same thing as uploading a page to a web site, uploading a file to an FTP server, or sending email. Worse, your BT upload is a bigger strain on the Comast network than any amount of email you might send; which is apparently what Comcast is trying to control using Sandvine (according to a critic of one of my posts). Not to mention, if you are not an authorized distributor of a published work, and you are uploading it, you are in violation of copyright law.
as far as spamming is concerned, if i only reply to people who email me, i am by definition not a spammer. forged or not, it's not unsolicited.
If *I* receive email from you, as your autoesponder replies to a spam with my email address forged as the sender, *I* did not request the communication; therefore your autoresponder is sending Unsolicited Bulk Email...spam.

»www.spamcop.net/fom-serv ··· 125.html

Scan down to the section on "Challenge/Response"...
quote:
...However, forged from: and reply to: fields are often found in emails which propagate a virus or are sent as a result of a virus, as well as in spam. If one receives a challenge as a result of mail one did not send (i.e., the email address was forged into a from: or reply to: field) then the recipient may report that challenge as spam.

This would also apply to a vacation responder.

jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA

jig

Member

said by NormanS:

You keep overlooking the fact that your BitTorrent client responds to other BT clients seeking content from your HDD. That is the behavior of a server. Your BT upload is not the same thing as uploading a page to a web site, uploading a file to an FTP server, or sending email. Worse, your BT upload is a bigger strain on the Comast network than any amount of email you might send; which is apparently what Comcast is trying to control using Sandvine (according to a critic of one of my posts). Not to mention, if you are not an authorized distributor of a published work, and you are uploading it, you are in violation of copyright law.
i'm not overlooking anything. you are making distinctions about technology that have no basis in the general details of client-server interaction OR in how BT actually works, and your distinctions further have no basis in Comcast's TOS. If you can ignore the full process involved in entering a swarm and pick it apart until you see a server, then i can certainly ignore the aspects of email and interactive web surfing that tend to make them not look like servers. if you don't think a BT transaction is exactly like getting an email that directs me to ftp a file somewhere (or send some more automated response, then you don't understand the protocol.

as far as bt being a bigger strain, that's not true. a properly apportioned BT connection uses less than 80% of the available bandwidth while it's up. an FTP transfer uses everything it can, as does email, and pretty much all other user uploads (though they often tend to be limited artificially by the receiver). You can only make the strain argument if you say "in the aggregate", which is NOT covered in the TOS sections you mentioned before (it would have to be something like: your use of your connection will be severely restricted if many other people start using their connections in the same way... which is ridiculous).

finally, in typical Comcast fashion, you bring up illicit content for no apparent reason. i'm not talking about getting illegal content.
If *I* receive email from you, as your autoesponder replies to a spam with my email address forged as the sender, *I* did not request the communication; therefore your autoresponder is sending Unsolicited Bulk Email...spam.

This would also apply to a vacation responder.
reporting something as spam does not mean it is spam (spamcop is just saying they don't expect you to make a correct distinction at that point). a vacation responder is not bulk email. if we're going to fully analogize this system to a BT swarm, then all the requests are by definition solicited. and the sections of the TOS you cited allow this.

pflog
Bueller? Bueller?
MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA

pflog

MVM

said by jig:

a properly apportioned BT connection uses less than 80% of the available bandwidth while it's up. an FTP transfer uses everything it can, as does email, and pretty much all other user uploads (though they often tend to be limited artificially by the receiver).
People don't leave their email client unattended for hours on end sending and receiving GBs of data. Likewise, I doubt there are many people out there saturating their connections with FTP for many hours a day.

I'm not condoning what Comcast is doing, but it does appear that they are targeting P2P since it taxes their upstream capacity (as SpaethCo See Profile said). Since P2P traffic represents probably the majority of the upstream traffic (versus email, ftp), that's what they're going after.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to jig

MVM

to jig
said by jig:

i'm not overlooking anything. you are making distinctions about technology that have no basis in the general details of client-server interaction OR in how BT actually works...
Okay. So tell me where I can download a BitTorrent server. Please.
..and your distinctions further have no basis in Comcast's TOS.
I have argued, in the past, that the Comcast TOS prohibition against servers shouldn't apply to customers running same for their own purpose. And been shot down by the Comcast "Fanbois" for so saying.
if you don't think a BT transaction is exactly like getting an email that directs me to ftp a file somewhere (or send some more automated response, then you don't understand the protocol.
I understand the protocol full well. You have to download your file from a server somewhere. So, please, direct me to a BitTorrent server.
as far as bt being a bigger strain, that's not true. a properly apportioned BT connection uses less than 80% of the available bandwidth while it's up.
Ten Comcast customers, running their BT clients with the upload throttled to just 80% of their upload caps will use 6.144Mbps of the upload capacity of a node (assuming a 768kbps upload profile). I don't know what the actual upload capacity of a node is, though.

What makes 80% a "proper proportion", if I may ask? Why not let it run full bore? I used to throttle my upload to just 60%; but now I let it run full bore.
an FTP transfer uses everything it can, as does email, and pretty much all other user uploads (though they often tend to be limited artificially by the receiver).
All uploads are limited by the down capacity of the downloader's connection.
You can only make the strain argument if you say "in the aggregate", which is NOT covered in the TOS sections you mentioned before (it would have to be something like: your use of your connection will be severely restricted if many other people start using their connections in the same way... which is ridiculous).
Yet is is that aggregate which drives Comcast to send "The Letter", and make "The Call", and use Sandvine.
finally, in typical Comcast fashion, you bring up illicit content for no apparent reason. i'm not talking about getting illegal content.
Eh? Where did I mention anything about content? Or are you referring to my comment about copyright violation. AFAIK, most of the content moved by P2P is not "illicit". The only thing "illegal" about P2P is the unauthorized distribution of copyright protected works. Kinko's won't make a photocopy of copyrighted material. I had to sign an affidavit attesting that I was not using a copy of the front cover of in violation of copyright law before they would make a copy. One copy, which I was going to cut up and put pieces on five Christmas stocking cutouts for a charity drive at work. No way would they have photocopied the entire comic, or even just one story out of the comic.

Ripping the tracks from any CD I have, and burning copies to give to my friends, is also a violation of copyright law; though I can't imagine how it would be enforced.
reporting something as spam does not mean it is spam (spamcop is just saying they don't expect you to make a correct distinction at that point). a vacation responder is not bulk email. if we're going to fully analogize this system to a BT swarm, then all the requests are by definition solicited. and the sections of the TOS you cited allow this.
You are the one who wanted to make autorsponders an analogy for BT downloads. You can't say that an autoresponse to an email sent to you under my forged email address is "solicited" by me. You can make an approximate distinction of whether such an email was sent under a forged email address by testing against your address book. If my email address is not in your address book, then the message is likely using my email address without my authorization. Don't respond to it, or expect an abuse complaint.

SolarPup
Office365 Rockstar
Premium Member
join:2002-03-07
Windsor, CO

SolarPup to pflog

Premium Member

to pflog
Supposedly this sandvine device also allows Law Enforcement onto the network to check for child porn usage, etc.

jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA

jig to pflog

Member

to pflog
said by pflog:

People don't leave their email client unattended for hours on end sending and receiving GBs of data. Likewise, I doubt there are many people out there saturating their connections with FTP for many hours a day.

it does appear that they are targeting P2P since it taxes their upstream capacity. Since P2P traffic represents probably the majority of the upstream traffic (versus email, ftp), that's what they're going after.
granted. but the ability to go after this specific type of traffic isn't covered in the two provisions of the TOS we were discussing.

as far as ftp, i used to saturate my connection with ftp transfers (of legal content) for many hours at a time, but the process became buggy because of network instabilities. even with auto-resume, it was taking too long and would suddenly end at various times. there was even evidence that these symptoms were intentionally introduced by the ISP... anyway, i moved away from that and towards torrents because the transfer was so much more robust for the medium (though the overhead for point to point transfers was a bit too high).
jig

jig to NormanS

Member

to NormanS
said by NormanS:

Okay. So tell me where I can download a BitTorrent server. Please.
why do we need to designate something the server?
I understand the protocol full well. You have to download your file from a server somewhere. So, please, direct me to a BitTorrent server.
if i ping your ip and get a response, who is the server?
What makes 80% a "proper proportion", if I may ask? Why not let it run full bore? I used to throttle my upload to just 60%; but now I let it run full bore.
if you run full bore, you degrade your download capability, partially because there is contention with the overhead for each chunk being exchanged, partially because (i think) the way the caps are enforced either at the modem or at the head end causes the connection to get unhealthy when the upload gets saturated. in fact, i think that whatever problems there are with many customers uploading at once, the issues are exacerbated when each one of the individual customers is banging up against their upload cap. possibly there are truncated or packet fragments generated, or maybe it's just the built in "nice" feature of BT clients is unable to tone down the deluge and other parts of the protocol start having problems.
Yet is is that aggregate which drives Comcast to send "The Letter", and make "The Call", and use Sandvine.
right, but they aren't using the sections of the TOS you mentioned, they're using the general "we can do what we want to make our network better' clause. the problem is, not everyone is agreeing that what they are doing is making anything "better", or that what they are doing is allowed by other requirements in the service agreement OR by state, local, or federal laws.
are you referring to my comment about copyright violation.
i'm just saying that BT isn't just about copyright violation.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

said by jig:

why do we need to designate something the server?
What would you call the computer which responds to your request for data?
if i ping your ip and get a response, who is the server?
The device at that IP address responding to ICMP echo requests.
if you run full bore, you degrade your download capability, partially because there is contention with the overhead for each chunk being exchanged...
ACK contention. That affected my connection when I was running the Westell WireSpeed DSL modem (an old transparent bridge). Hasn't been a problem with the new SpeedStream modem (seems to have return ACK prioritization).
partially because (i think) the way the caps are enforced either at the modem or at the head end causes the connection to get unhealthy when the upload gets saturated. in fact, i think that whatever problems there are with many customers uploading at once, the issues are exacerbated when each one of the individual customers is banging up against their upload cap.
Doesn't seem to be an issue with a DSL circuit. Possibly because (I think SpaethCo See Profile mentioned this) the ATM circuit from the DSLAM to the aggregation router is symmetric (and the route from there to the Internet, as well).
right, but they aren't using the sections of the TOS you mentioned, they're using the general "we can do what we want to make our network better' clause. the problem is, not everyone is agreeing that what they are doing is making anything "better", or that what they are doing is allowed by other requirements in the service agreement OR by state, local, or federal laws.
As I said, whenever I opine that the Comcast TOS clause prohibiting servers does not apply to "personal use", the "Fanbois" tell me otherwise.
i'm just saying that BT isn't just about copyright violation.
True enough for Linux distros, and purchased material. I have, maybe, downloaded five items not covered by copyright. I don't download .mp3s (mostly; maybe two dozen from out-of-print CDs), but 100% of the fansub anime I have downloaded is protected under copyright. Not licensed for U.S. distribution, but I believe the U.S.A. and Japan have reciprocal copyright agreements. I have one incomplete anime series. Nobody has announced a license for U.S. distribution, but the Japanese copyright holder asked a U.S. anime distributor, who has licensed other work they publish, to send "Cease and Desist" demands to the two fansub organizations working on that project. The U.S company has legal standing to file for damages in the U.S. courts, as a result of their business relationship; those two groups didn't have the resources to challenge the order.

In any case, based on what I know about my own downloading, I'd have to agree with those who claim that a high percentage of P2P (not just BitTorrent) is trading in copyright protected material. I won't trade in stuff the **AA owns; mostly because it isn't worth buying from the 50% off rack at Costco, much less "stealing" (I am not really sure that equating downloading pirated material can be classified as "theft"; no material property has been lost to anybody).

Strictly speaking, if I were to limit my file sharing to only material not protected by copyright, BitTorrent would be an esoteric application that I would use once in a Blue Moon.

In the end, I don't really care that Comcast customer are using BitTorrent; and Comcast's forging of RST packets is probably not proper. But BT can be a strain on a network which hasn't got the capacity to support it. I am not sure that DSL could stand up to the strain if they didn't already have a BW limitation built into the technology. I'd be surprised if more than half of DSL customers had connections faster than 1.5M.

Bottom line is, Comcast is just trying to manage their network to minimize the clogging caused by the small handful of 500-600GB per month users.

There may be better ways, but there are certainly worse ways, as well.
n2f
join:2004-11-14
Silver Spring, MD

n2f

Member

said by NormanS:

In any case, based on what I know about my own downloading, I'd have to agree with those who claim that a high percentage of P2P (not just BitTorrent) is trading in copyright protected material. I won't trade in stuff the **AA owns; mostly because it isn't worth buying from the 50% off rack at Costco, much less "stealing" (I am not really sure that equating downloading pirated material can be classified as "theft"; no material property has been lost to anybody).

Strictly speaking, if I were to limit my file sharing to only material not protected by copyright, BitTorrent would be an esoteric application that I would use once in a Blue Moon.
Sure, but what difference does that make? There's material not protected by copyright, which is probably an insignificant fraction of BT traffic. Then there's copyrighted material, some of which is freely downloadable (Linux ISOs, losslessly compressed shows from bands that allow taping, etc), and some of which is not freely downloadable. Obviously the latter category is illegal to download, but there are tons of people downloading many terabytes of freely downloadable copyrighted material.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

So let me rephrase that. I have traded in far more files which I was not authorized to distribute (fansub anime; remember that "unlicensed for U.S. distribution" != "fair game" under international copyright law) than files which I was authorized to distribute (four versions of Knoppix).

I don't think it is possible to make an exact determination of the ratio of unauthorized distribution to authorized in BT. But, if it is any kind of TV show, odds are it isn't authorized for distribution, if the BT downloader isn't getting it from a site which charges for the download.