Sorry but.. in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20036263 en Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:04:58 EDT Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:04:58 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20043698 Dogfather : No, I think they should respond by taking the Cablevision approach of capping excessive uploaders at 150kbps or set upload caps of say 5GB.

Stop the seeding, you stop the problem.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20043698 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:05:13 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20043158 b10010011 :
said by Dogfather See Profile :

Meanwhile pirates have ruined P2P as ISPs respond to dipshits seeding their illegal crap 24/7 saturating upstream channels. So the 1 in a million who actually want a WoW update or Linux distro do so at a snail's pace.
So you are ok with this dipshit response to dipshits seeding their illegal crap. :huh:

Because it' the blocking "delaying" of the BT protocol that is causing the WoW update or Linux distro do so at a snail's pace.

I have downloaded plenty of Linux distro's and never had it come in slow until Comcast started blocking "delaying" things.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20043158 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:27:36 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20042729 Dogfather : No genius, tell us all what the most popular torrent search engines are then look at what the top items are.

Of course it's about piracy. Nearly all of the P2P traffic is piracy and EVERY popular search engine proves this is the case.

Anyone denying these simple truths is an idiot.

The ISP's only job is the run the ISP, not provide people with the means to pirate software, movies and music.

Meanwhile pirates have ruined P2P as ISPs respond to dipshits seeding their illegal crap 24/7 saturating upstream channels. So the 1 in a million who actually want a WoW update or Linux distro do so at a snail's pace.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20042729 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:02:59 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20042687 b10010011 :
said by Dogfather See Profile :

The PirateBay, the undisputed leader or torrent search engines tells the whole story.
Let's go the a site the is the main center for piracy and see if there is any piracy happening. :o Look at all that piracy :o

Congratulations, you win the Firm Grasp of the Obvious award for this thread.

How many times do we have to repeat it it get people to understand. This is not a bout piracy, this is not about taking away Comcast right to manage their network.

This is about Comcast using a flawed method of managing their network. Blocking "Delaying" an entire protocol is not the right way to do this because ANY data transfer protocol can be used for illegal file trading.

If Comcast was serious about manging their network and stopping "bandwidth hogs" then it would be very simple to monitor usage and warn/disconnect hogs. We have all seen stories here about Comcast's invisible caps so they can do it already.

What I think happened here was some former Comcast executive now work for Sandvine and talked his buddy at Comcast into buying this "solution". now Comcast has spent six or seven figures on this equipment and it not going to take a loss. But will spend another seven figures on damage control, in the end we will pay for it in increased rates.

As far as piracy, it is not the ISP's job to stop piracy. Is it the phone companies job to stop credit card scammers or to report all criminal activity that takes place over the phone? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20042687 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:54:44 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20042392 CUBS_FAN :
said by Dogfather See Profile :

The Top 100 is nearly 100% illegal movies, music, television shows and software and given I didn't notice any, let alone 8 out of the 100, I would say that piracy is way more than 92% of residential P2P traffic.

It's not rocket science. Anyone denying the P2P traffic is primarily piracy is just looking to legitimize the piracy.
Its a never ending battle to fight piracy. About 10 years ago all of these torrents was simply "Napster" and "Grokster" before the RIAA and FCC shut them down.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20042392 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:15:30 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20041802 Dogfather : The PirateBay, the undisputed leader or torrent search engines tells the whole story.

Just look at Piratebay and what is the most popular movers and how many seeders there are.

The Top 100 is nearly 100% illegal movies, music, television shows and software and given I didn't notice any, let alone 8 out of the 100, I would say that piracy is way more than 92% of residential P2P traffic.

»thepiratebay.org/top/all

It's not rocket science. Anyone denying the P2P traffic is primarily piracy is just looking to legitimize the piracy.

For the last 10 years everyone was talking about the "killer app".

The killer app is FREE STUFF and it's represents nearly ALL residential P2P traffic.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20041802 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:14:54 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20040896 Nightshade : As would I, since I can't find it anywhere where 95% of the P2P traffic is illegal. I guess that's because there hasn't been any studies done to determine what P2P traffic is legal and what is not.

If Comcast really wanted to go after these hogs they would of done so. I am sure all the Comcast users would of been all for it. I know I would. Rather, they took the easy and lazy route and as a result there has been a lot of misunderstanding and negative press about this whole thing.

Comcast has the right to manage their network, but yet they haven't managed to kick the hogs off their network. One wonders why. I know I do sometimes.
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20040896 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:39:54 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20040394 anon : Comcast is going after the bittorrent traffic because in the minds of many people bittorrent = illegal. That makes Comcast's position much easier to argue. After all, they are just taking their network back from the criminals for the benefit of all.

Once they have won the right to shape their traffic any way they want, once net neutrality is broken, then they are in the clear to mess with any other traffic. As in services offered by anyone they see as competitors.

Call me pessimistic, but I can totally see it going that way.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20040394 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:05:44 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20039770 Dogfather : Wow, a cable spokes-hole siding with cable.

Shocking.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20039770 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:10:31 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20037755 SilverSurfer :
said by Mutiny32 See Profile :

You cannot argue in court that these users are using a legitimate [...]
I agree with your overall general opinion on this matter but, actually you can argue whatever you want...you'll look like an idiot in front of the judge without appropriate cites, but that is a separate matter.

said by Mutiny32 See Profile :

You cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the protocol is obtrusive and degrading to a network for the sole use of trading and distributing illegal content.
Reasonable doubt only applies to criminal cases. This is civil. The significantly lesser burden is the preponderance of the evidence. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20037755 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:36:16 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20037399 en102 : Are all of Comcasts traffic shaping/throttling on upload only ?
Either way... I'll take my relatively unfiltered line over something that's having a flavor of the month filter added, with management not being very up front about it.

Since Comcast left here (they were overpriced at the time anyways), its Time Warner in my area, which may end up adding caps, as they have been testing it in Texas markets.
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20037399 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:40:30 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20037141 jester121 :
said by en102 See Profile :

The question is..
What if you are NOT a bandwidth hog and 24x7 user, yet still hit these filters ?

Eg. A little email, a little web browsing, then go to a site to download a Fedora Core update over bittorrent, and have the +10Mbps line running worse than a 56kbps modem.

I'll gladly keep my DSL-Extreme 3Mbps/512kbps line... its cheaper and appears to have better throughput than Comcast's traffic shaped line.
Nothing you described in your analogy would be subject to throttling -- remember we're talking about uploads, right? :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20037141 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:57:33 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20037103 ptrowski : Great post, b10010011. I have always thought their solution to manage the networks was a BAD ideal. Forging packets is just a shady option IMO.

They know where the "hogs" as Rick puts it are. They should be more proactive in booting them. That would have given them much less negative press I think. You have a hog on your node? Get Comcast to boot them, not punish every user of the service.

And yes, Rick assumes 95% of P2P traffic is illegal. I would love to see where he comes up with these numbers.


--
"A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20037103 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:51:35 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20036647 anon : I agree 100% :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20036647 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:57:04 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20036665 devicemanage : This is such bs - just like they say they have the most HD content - they can only say this because of their on demand. Some of it really isn't tru hd too! Don't want to stray from the topic but this really urks me man!!!!

Does FIOS employ these type of practices?
--
»www.devicemanager.net]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20036665 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:47:07 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20036642 b10010011 :
said by Rick See Profile :

Comcast..and every other isp..has the right to reasonably manage their network. There are millions of us who use the service and whom expect reasonable access to it.
Yes but their management solution is bad. This is obviously a solution that was decided by management that really does not know much about networking. They were sold a simple fix to a complicated problem.

The proper solution is not to disrupt, delay, block, or whatever you want to call it, an entire protocol. The proper solution is to identify these "bandwidth hogs" you all seem to fear and kick them off.

said by Rick See Profile :

Sorry..but they just have no case and IMHO..Comcasts lawyers will eat them alive in court and possibly even expose their illegal file trading on top of it via the discovery process.

It should be very interesting indeed as these plaintiffs are forced to produce their illegally traded files.

One can only imagine that the riaa and others are drooling over that prospect.
You still seem to be under the impression that the Bit Torrent protocol can only be used for illegal file trading. Here is something to think about. Every file transfer protocol, even the most common HTTP and FTP can and are used for illegal file trading everyday and these cause much more network disruption than Bit Torrent. How long before Comcast starts blocking "delaying" these protocols?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20036642 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:42:39 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20036424 en102 : The question is..
What if you are NOT a bandwidth hog and 24x7 user, yet still hit these filters ?

Eg. A little email, a little web browsing, then go to a site to download a Fedora Core update over bittorrent, and have the +10Mbps line running worse than a 56kbps modem.

I'll gladly keep my DSL-Extreme 3Mbps/512kbps line... its cheaper and appears to have better throughput than Comcast's traffic shaped line.
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20036424 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:12:39 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20036356 Mutiny32 : You cannot argue in court that these users are using a legitimate (and highly efficient) file-trading protocol that creates a more distributed, dynamic, and therefore resilient environment (think, that's what the Internet was originally designed for) to commit illegal activities. In case you didn't know, There are many, MANY legitimate BitTorrent protocol implementations that you don't even know of. Steam, Vuze, NetFlix, and just plain users/developers of the countless number of Linux distributions that don't have the money to have a dedicated pipe to share a single whole file to thousands or even millions of users at one time.

You cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the protocol is obtrusive and degrading to a network for the sole use of trading and distributing illegal content. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20036356 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:01:11 EDT Re: Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20036315 CUBS_FAN : A burglar complaining about the homes that have bars on their windows is the way I see it. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20036315 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:55:39 EDT Sorry but.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20036263 Rick : I just don't see any reasonable court siding with the plaintiffs.

Comcast..and every other isp..has the right to reasonably manage their network. There are millions of us who use the service and whom expect reasonable access to it.

P2P bandwidth hogs do not solely own the network nor have a right to 24/7 use of it by saturating the entire bandwidth that's available. In addition, we all know that for the most part..what they're ALSO trading is illegal files.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any reasonable court or jury siding with them on this one. If the hogs want an unimpeded 24/7..20Mb line to the internet..let them go out and pay the thousands it would otherwise cost them to buy their own.
Otherwise..what they are subscribing to is a shared network where we all share that line...for a VERY reasonable cost to do so. For 95% + of Comcast customers..this simply is no issue at all and we're simply not here to subsidize the use..or the abuse as the case may be..of the other 5%.

Comcasts primary responsibility is to the vast majority of users who don't abuse this service..not to the 5% who do.
Not to mention that that 5% can probably also be broken down into 95% of them are breaking the law with their illegal file trading on top of everything else.

Sorry..but they just have no case and IMHO..Comcasts lawyers will eat them alive in court and possibly even expose their illegal file trading on top of it via the discovery process.

It should be very interesting indeed as these plaintiffs are forced to produce their illegally traded files.

One can only imagine that the riaa and others are drooling over that prospect.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20036263 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:46:38 EDT