Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to espaeth
Re: I think it's interesting...
An independent third-party p2p video delivery system is the same thing as a zombie botnet? |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | If you look at nothing but the 10,000ft view of the TCP flows and traffic profile, yes, P2P and Botnets look identical. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Slight difference in that botnets are filled with unwilling participants who were conned into participating, and the collective effort is generally geared toward illegal activity. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| .. and that's different from kids who install BitTorrent because their friends tell them they can get free MP3s how?
Granted, it doesn't apply to the Vuze discussion directly. If Vuze is so concerned about the performance of people downloading their content, they should stand up more seed servers on their dime. |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to Karl Bode
Comcast CEO Brian Roberts explaining Comcast's traffic-shaping, "We are committed to providing all customers with an always on connection. People that require heavy bandwidth due to file-sharing and other activities, mostly illegal from our research, do have such applications shaped by our system to provide a positive experience for all customers. If such customers need heavy bandwidth, they can always get a Comcast business account. We do not traffic shape legitimate uses of our system such as VOIP providers, YouTube, for example, and other applications that require bandwidth."
Comcast tech explains it, "If you download illegal stuff, we throttle your connection to those apps. Simple, isn't it? We don't block porn either. I should know since I watch a ton of it everyday."
ROFLMAO!
But, I think Comcast traffic shaping illegal traffic is okay since it makes for a good experience for all. Bandwidth hogs, get a biz acct. Too cheap? Tough!
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| So Linux is an illegal app? It must be, since it is available via BT. And it's seeded by the Linux vendors themselves! IT MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!
I have a suggestion for Comcast. If they can't support their customers, then they should stop overselling their network. They like to say that BT content is somehow evil. Yes, much of it is illegal, but not all of it is. What's happened is that bandwidth demand is outstripping supply, so, instead of growing their network, Comcast is throttling.
But hey, I don't use that much bandwidth. I don't run BT very much at all. So, Comcast, where is my reward for not tying up your network? If you're going to punish those you would describe as bandwidth hogs, then where's my reward for not using a lot of bandwidth? |
|
IPingUPing
N4BFR
Premium
join:2002-08-30
Smyrna, GA
clubs:
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth  : If Vuze is so concerned about the performance of people downloading their content, they should stand up more seed servers on their dime. Or, even better, Vuze buy actual servers and bandwidth and become a real CDN instead of being leech-ware. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to supergirl
said by supergirl :.... But, I think Comcast traffic shaping illegal traffic is okay ... Q: how do they know it's illegal?
A: they don't
Someone did a P2P test using the bible (a public domain work), it was blocked by comcast. Comcast is not blocking illegal traffic, they are blocking P2P traffic |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Congestion is congestion, whether the traffic is legal or not. Individual TCP sessions all attempt to get the best performance they can, so the bigger question is why should a P2P app which opens up 30 TCP sessions get 30 times the shot at upload throughput that I get with my single TCP session to upload photos to my website?
Restricting the number of upstream sessions that a P2P app can establish increases the "fairness" of non-P2P sessions as a result. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch :So Linux is an illegal app? It must be, since it is available via BT. And it's seeded by the Linux vendors themselves! IT MUST BE STOPPED!!!!! Every major Linux distro has a wide array of HTTP/FTP/RSYNC mirrors that are used to distribute their content. P2P is but a single method used for distribution, and it's not the most used method.
said by ISurfTooMuch :I have a suggestion for Comcast. If they can't support their customers, then they should stop overselling their network. If they can support the speeds they advertise for all but one application, is reducing the level of service for everyone still the best option? |
|
Anonymister
@verizon.net | reply to supergirl
The problem with the business account is that the same invisible bandwidth cap limitations are in place. So why pay and arm and a leg for the same pathetic, troubled, and oversold network? Its a rip-ff. |
|
macaholic
Premium
join:2003-08-31
Jackson Heights, NY
| reply to IPingUPing
spoken like Comcrap shill.... no matter how many servers Vuze uses the bottom line is Comcrap is throttling the traffic. A gazilion servers could be on one end of the pipe and the traffic is still being throttled...
--
"You don't subject minority rights to a referendum." Justice Minister Irwin Cotler of Canada |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by macaholic :spoken like Comcrap shill.... no matter how many servers Vuze uses the bottom line is Comcrap is throttling the traffic. A gazilion servers could be on one end of the pipe and the traffic is still being throttled... Traffic is only being throttled in the upload direction. Therefore if there were a gazillion source servers outside of Comcast's network, your client would just need to download and not upload, and there would be no throttling involved. |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
1 edit | reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :said by supergirl :.... But, I think Comcast traffic shaping illegal traffic is okay ... Q: how do they know it's illegal? A: they don't Someone did a P2P test using the bible (a public domain work), it was blocked by comcast. Comcast is not blocking illegal traffic, they are blocking P2P traffic Well within the terms of their TOS:
»www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
said by Comcast TOS :
Prohibited Uses and Activities
Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment to:
...
xiv. 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;
So it seems that Comcast is just enforcing its TOS by limiting P2P uploading.... |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to ISurfTooMuch
With so many people claiming to be downloading Linux distros, you would think they would have more than an asterisk for desktop market share LOL. |
|
macaholic
Premium
join:2003-08-31
Jackson Heights, NY
| reply to MacLeech
pssst they changed the TOS regarding p2p yesterday or today.... to coincide with the their "legal" bullshit. Just because its in a TOS does not make it good business or even FCC approved/legal.
--
"You don't subject minority rights to a referendum." Justice Minister Irwin Cotler of Canada |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
| said by macaholic :pssst they changed the TOS regarding p2p yesterday or today.... to coincide with the their "legal" bullshit. Just because its in a TOS does not make it good business or even FCC approved/legal. I haven't ever seen a cable ISP that didn't prohibit SERVERS in their TOS.
Comcast may have clarified it recently, but I'm sure it's been there for years.
...and don't try to even say that a P2P program seeding is not a server. |
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :If they can support the speeds they advertise for all but one application, is reducing the level of service for everyone still the best option? That makes no sense. Speed is speed. For example, 6/768 is 6/768 no matter what app is using it. Either you support a speed or you don't. To use an analogy, roads have posted speed limits. They'll say "55 miles per hour", not "55 miles per hour as long as you're riding a bicycle".
I've worked Internet tech support and also sold access, and the dirty little secret with ISP's, especially in the dialup days, was that bandwidth was oversold. You could take 56k of downstream bandwidth and run at least seven simultaneous modem connections off it without anyone noticing. Why? Because Web surfing is not bandwidth-intensive. Sure, a user could conceivably pull close to 56k, but they only did it in short bursts after clicking a link or entering a URL, as the requested page was coming in. Then they'd likely sit there for several minutes reading the page before they clicked a link to request more data. As long as the users connected to those modems weren't clicking links at the same time, no one was likely to notice. The only time this scheme started to fall apart was when users did things that used lots of data, like downloading files or accessing streaming media. This could be a problem, but most users didn't do these things too much.
However, that model has changed, at least as far as users are concerned. They want to use the Internet for more than viewing static Web pages, and the ISP's have encouraged this by advertising blazing fast speeds. Well, if you advertise an information autobahn, then you have to expect that users will want to use all that speed for bandwidth-intensive apps, and BT just so happens to be one of them. And the ISP's can't act as if they're innocent, since they've been pushing faster and faster speeds. What did they think people were going to do with all that speed? Surf the Web at 6mbps?
Besides, throttling BT is only today's problem as far as speed is concerned. What happens if Netflix begins to offer set-top boxes for movie downloads? What happens if someone develops a box to stream live TV channels over the Internet to subs' televisions? I'll bet that being able to watch channels that aren't widely available on cable or satellite will be popular with segments of the population. Or maybe video calling will become popular. The point is, these things will eat up lots of bandwidth. What will companies like Comcast do? Throttle all of them? Whether they want to admit it or not, the days of the Internet being used just for e-mail, IM, and Web surfing are ending. We may not be there just yet, but give it another five years, maybe less, and we'll see that day come. |
|
macaholic
Premium
join:2003-08-31
Jackson Heights, NY
| reply to MacLeech
said by MacLeech :said by macaholic :pssst they changed the TOS regarding p2p yesterday or today.... to coincide with the their "legal" bullshit. Just because its in a TOS does not make it good business or even FCC approved/legal. I haven't ever seen a cable ISP that didn't prohibit SERVERS in their TOS. Earthlink, Roadrunner....
--
"You don't subject minority rights to a referendum." Justice Minister Irwin Cotler of Canada |
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :With so many people claiming to be downloading Linux distros, you would think they would have more than an asterisk for desktop market share LOL. First, many people download to try. They may or may not keep a given distro. When a new version of Ubuntu comes out, I'm sure a fair number of Mandriva users download an image to see what's going on on the other side of the fence. People want to know if they're missing out on something their distro isn't offering.
Also, some folks are on the verge of making the leap to Linux, but they may be waiting for just the right distro to come along.
Finally, many downloads are done by people upgrading to the latest version. They may do this because they want a clean install rather than upgrading an old version.
And although Linux on the desktop isn't widespread, many servers run it, and server admins are just as likely to get it via BT as are home users. |
|
