funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
4 edits |  reply to funchords
News: Comcast to end P2P interference
Several breaking news stories reveal that Comcast and BitTorrent Inc. have struck an agreement to stop the RST interference.
The details are still cloudy...
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20080327_Comcast_agreement_in_dispute_with_BitTorrent.html Excerpted Key Points: Comcast says it will halt its practice of interfering only with BitTorrent file-sharing programs when the Internet congests and slows speeds for everyone. The Philadelphia cable company also will boost broadband capacity to make it easier to transmit online video and other rich media, it says. BitTorrent Inc., based in San Francisco, will make its free software more efficient and will make sure software developers learn of those efficiencies. (I presume this means that some proprietary "BitTorrent DNA" information will be openly shared. --Robb)Tony Werner, executive vice president and chief technology officer at Comcast Cable, said yesterday that the agreement had "an awful lot of promise" and that Comcast would move quickly to implement it. The cable giant would continue to manage traffic on the Internet, as other network operators do, but without singling out BitTorrent, according to the agreement. "We are working hard on a different approach that is protocol-agnostic during peak periods," Werner said. The Wall Street Journal seemed to have a relatively different set of the details ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120658178504567453.html?mod=googlenews_wsjExcerpted Key Points: Rather than slow traffic by certain types of applications -- such as file-sharing software or companies like BitTorrent -- Comcast will slow traffic for those users who consume the most bandwidth, said Comcast's Mr. Warner. Comcast hopes to be able to switch to a new policy based on this model as soon as the end of the year, he added. BitTorrent will also work to optimize its software to run more effectively over Comcast's network, said Mr. Navin. BitTorrent plans to publish its findings in technology forums so that other application developers looking to work with Comcast can benefit. BitTorrent's CEO spelled it out this way:http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-comcast-and-bittorrent-do-a-non-deal-deal-to-work-together/ Excerpted Key Points: Ashwin Navin, president of BitTorrent, provided additional information: 1. Network management will be protocol agnostic & disclosed to consumers… and there will be no more connection resets. 2. Network architecture will be optimized for media delivery a. Comcast is increasing capacity overall and particularly for upstream traffic (good for p2p) b. Bittorrent is developing new client features to optimize for ISP networks (eg, cache discovery protocol) c. Comcast/Bittorrent will jointly investigate a new network architecture for the benefit of our users (servers in the comcast network which will accelerate file transfer rather than impede it) 3. Openness: We will publish our findings and optimizations in open forums for the benefit of other ISPs and application developers… including our open source Bittorrent implementation. --
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. |
|
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| said by funchords  :Comcast says it will halt its practice of interfering only with BitTorrent file-sharing programs when the Internet congests and slows speeds for everyone. Am I the only one who read this 4 or 5 times before saying "Uh, WHAT?"
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. |
|
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs: | reply to funchords
I have a feeling they will try something else. I don't think this will be the end.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| said by MysticGogeta :I have a feeling they will try something else. I don't think this will be the end. Of course not, the article says quite explicitly that all traffic will be shaped, not just BitTorrent. I'm not exactly sure where the victory is here.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Well, the victory is that they claim the new traffic management will be "protocol agnostic", but yeah, the proof will be in the pudding.
»www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori···5&EDATE=
»Comcast Claims They'll Stop BitTorrent Throttling
I'm not sure anybody reasonably expects any cable operator to not engage in some form of traffic shaping. But getting away from packet forgery is at least a step in the right direction, assuming we're not talking about some arrangement where only official BitTorrent Corp. BitTorrent traffic is being treated fairly, which if that were the case the PR folk wouldn't have used the term "protocol agnostic" in the press release....
As always, we'll see. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by Karl Bode :which if that were the case the PR folk wouldn't have used the term "protocol agnostic" in the press release Are you new, here? 
Wow, Karl, you sure are generous in the morning!
 ComcasticTales.pdf 64057 bytes
History of Comcast's Statements regarding P2P interference
--Robb
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Well, my point is that with the threat of regulation looming, a second hearing coming, the FCC in the midst of an investigation, and the entire tech news media watching every word they say, it would be suicide to boldly lie via press release.
I've been buried in telecom PR for the better part of this decade. PR guys talked to one on one generally fib and flub. Press releases generally try to stay straight as lawyers and professional writers have had time to cook each word. If they were going to come back and throttle only "non-legit" BT traffic, the wording would be much more vague.
I imagine the new system likely won't target specific protocols...who knows what kind of pattern consumption they will target, and we won't probably know until the end of this year. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | I know. Sorry to have a little fun at your expense, but I did want to take that opportunity to remind people that what Comcast says is often interpreted differently by its customers.
In rental cars, you have "Hertz" and you have "Not exactly." In CATV Internet, Comcast is the "Not Exactly" company.
Well, my point is that with the threat of regulation looming, a second hearing coming, the FCC in the midst of an investigation, and the entire tech news media watching every word they say, it would be suicide to boldly lie via press release. Or to pay people to stuff a meeting, again.
Stanford is going to be a circus. Everyone in the gallery will be suspicious of everyone else in the gallery. (I, myself, will be wearing an assortment of highlighters.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. |
|
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| reply to funchords
This article implies that Comcast is going to go to shaping (e.g throtting back longer lasting connections), limiting of the number of simultaneously open connections, or both. This is not an uncommon method of traffic management. However, the problem with it -- from an ISP's standpoint -- is that it does not detect or stop the taking of bandwidth by third parties (e.g. Vuze). Furthermore, it means that any user who attempts to do P2P will have to be throttled back quite a long ways to allow the provider to even break even on the connection. (At $30 per month per subscriber, we would be lucky to break even if we let the user run even at 200 Kbps continuously, because that 200 Kbps would soak up $20 per month in bandwidth costs alone -- and we also have tech support, billing, and other functions to provide that would eat up the other $10.) In short, simple arithmetic dictates that both ISPs and users are likely to be unhappy with this approach, whereas before only would-be bandwidth hogs and third party companies trying to take bandwidth from ISPs were unhappy. Not an improvement, in my personal opinion. The best thing to be doing is to prevent P2P from appropriating ISPs' bandwidth without compensation.
--Brett Glass |
|
kelso
join:2007-04-06
Ashburn, VA
1 edit | said by SuperWISP :The best thing to be doing is to prevent P2P from appropriating ISPs' bandwidth without compensation. --Brett Glass I believe an ISP targeting p2p is not a good solution.
There must be a better solution.
We need the real "Brett Glass to the rescue" "http://www.brettglass.com".
Let just let customers use the bandwidth they paid for in what ever way they want (p2p, mail, news, or ssh tunnel).
edited...
|
|
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
3 edits | said by kelso :Let just let customers use the bandwidth they paid for in what ever way they want (p2p, mail, news, or ssh tunnel). This is not appropriate in the case of P2P, because they didn't pay for that bandwidth. Our terms of service for residential customers prohibit P2P and the operation of servers, and so the customer did not pay for bandwidth to use for those purposes.
We prohibit servers -- and hence P2P -- because P2P uses so much bandwidth that we'd lose money on every customer unless we doubled or tripled our rates. Customers want responsive, economical Internet, and that just isn't possible in the presence of P2P. |
|
comcastuser565
@comcast.net
|  said by SuperWISP :This is not appropriate in the case of P2P, because they didn't pay for that bandwidth. Our terms of service for residential customers prohibit P2P and the operation of servers, and so the customer did not pay for bandwidth to use for those purposes. We prohibit servers -- and hence P2P -- because P2P uses so much bandwidth that we'd lose money on every customer unless we doubled or tripled our rates. Customers want responsive, economical Internet, and that just isn't possible in the presence of P2P. sorry to say, but why does comcast used to day 'unlimited' (it has been removed now) but it had a soft cap..
the cap still exists however it is not in ANY print (fine or bold). So how does a customer know what he/she paid for.
also your 'server' argument does not hold.. there are lot of softwares which run on computers which could classify as 'server'.. (yahoo messanger is one of them). So do you mean to say that yahoo messanger is not allowed ? |
|
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| YIM isn't a server. It doesn't accept incoming connections from all and sundry. BitTorrent does.
As for the use of the word "unlimited" -- it never meant unlimited bandwidth or an unlimited number of bits. It was used in the early days, when most folks were on dialup, to indicate unlimited "connect time" -- that is, 24/7 connectivity. It's not used anymore because people now understand this -- not because management practices have changed.
As for bandwidth limits: the cable and telephone companies are locked in an advertising arms race in which they claim "up to" the maximum theoretical speed of your hardware, and then put a disclaimer in the ad (it's always there) which says that you're not guaranteed any speed at all. Neither one dares back down from this, because consumers always look for one number on which to peg their choice (just as they base their choice of computer on "megahertz" or "gigahertz" even though clock speed doesn't always reflect computing power).
Our ISP quotes guaranteed minimum throughput to the backbone (for activities we don't prohibit), and the users can verify that they're getting it. But believe it or not, this greater disclosure hurts us, because the quoted number is smaller. Again, it's not what the number means; it's just whether it's bigger. |
|
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| said by SuperWISP :YIM isn't a server. It doesn't accept incoming connections from all and sundry. BitTorrent does. Re: Yahoo: Bzzzzt, wrong. You should take the time to examine commonly-used programs; you will find many of them DO accept incoming connections "from all and sundry". Here's a very short list I made back in October (in this thread nonetheless!):
»Re: Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P Connections
If you explicitly state you block P2P applications in your TOS, then your customers indeed do not have the right to complain about said blocking. However, it would do you well to consider mentioning specific network protocols in your TOS, rather than just saying "P2P".
You can't say "any peer-to-peer applications which involve the transfer of files", because IM clients, IRC, and even Remote Desktop/Terminal Services fall under that category. So, you would be best stating explicitly what protocols you block -- and if you make an update to the TOS (to add a new blocked protocol), inform your users and provide them a changelog of the difference so they can read and understand what you've changed.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP :As for the use of the word "unlimited" -- it never meant unlimited bandwidth or an unlimited number of bits. It was used in the early days, when most folks were on dialup, to indicate unlimited "connect time" -- that is, 24/7 connectivity. It's not used anymore because people now understand this -- not because management practices have changed. Bullshit.
Maybe that's what it meant in the context of dialup, and I suppose they could have had errors in their early marketing, but I don't think so. I have advertising fliers that specifically say (for dsl and cable) - unlimited and always on, from ~1997 onwards. Your interpretation sounds plausible, but it sounds more like after-the-fact rationalization. Unlimited absolutely now means unlimited transfer amount, where the only real limit is your bandwidth cap (see iPhone data contracts). In fact, when buying any cell based internet access for the past 5 years (maybe longer), you could buy an "unlimited" plan where the contract was explicit: you didn't have to pay per byte.
Never say never. The only reason to make your argument now is to try to ease customers into new, much more limited contracts, and that's just not going to happen without a lot of grumbling (as if semantics is going to quell the uprising anyway). With severe enough byte/month restrictions, free dial-up starts making a lot of sense.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. |
|
comcastuser676
@comcast.net
| reply to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP :Our ISP quotes guaranteed minimum throughput to the backbone (for activities we don't prohibit), and the users can verify that they're getting it. But believe it or not, this greater disclosure hurts us, because the quoted number is smaller. Again, it's not what the number means; it's just whether it's bigger. umm.. so where is the 'quotes guaranteed minimum throughput' for activities which comcast doesn't prohibit ?
also you mean to say - if comcast discloses the lower guaranteed speed, it will hurt their business, so they are free to quote any speed upto any number (Gigabit lan anyone ??) and is rightful in doing so ?? to win customers it is okay to lie ?? wait till Martin at FCC hears it .. |
|
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
2 edits | reply to jig
said by jig :Maybe that's what it meant in the context of dialup, and I suppose they could have had errors in their early marketing, but I don't think so. I do. It's completely irrational and impossible for someone to expect to download an infinite number of bytes. What's amazing is how spoiled some P2Pers are. Not only do they want to break the law with impunity and steal all the intellectual property they want; they have the audacity to want to take infinite bandwidth from the ISP and slow down legitimate users as they do so. On the other hand, the lack of consideration inherent in the former sort of suggests that they wouldn't be considerate about the latter.
said by koitsu :You should take the time to examine commonly-used programs; you will find many of them DO accept incoming connections "from all and sundry". Here's a very short list I made back in October (in this thread nonetheless!): There was nothing in your list. I guess that means that you do not believe that any programs act as servers? 
Seriously: The YIM client is just that: a client. It connects to Yahoo's server. |
|
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| said by SuperWISP :There was nothing in your list. I guess that means that you do not believe that any programs act as servers? Seriously: The YIM client is just that: a client. It connects to Yahoo's server. There was nothing in the list? Yeah, I guess all that text is invisible, and funchords gave me a thumbs-up for no particular reason.
"" is right. |
|
tacouch
Wasn't Me
join:2001-12-26
Chandler, AZ
| reply to SuperWISP
It's completely irrational and impossible for someone to expect to download an infinite number of bytes. What's amazing is how spoiled some P2Pers are. Not only do they want to break the law with impunity and steal all the intellectual property they want; they have the audacity to want to take infinite bandwidth from the ISP and slow down legitimate users as they do so. On the other hand, the lack of consideration inherent in the former sort of suggests that they wouldn't be considerate about the latter. There was nothing in your list. I guess that means that you do not believe that any programs act as servers? Seriously: The YIM client is just that: a client. It connects to Yahoo's server.
There is so much dark fiber in this country it's not even funny. Capacity isn't and was never the problem!!!!
Giving up that big fat Gov incentives tit is.
Providers know that if they actually start using whats out there (many thousands of miles of fiber they got incentives to lay), the Gov is going to take away its incentives tit because theres no reason in hell to give a perfectly healthy industry help by paying for the same service twice.
By the way look up the definition of a server. Roughly 80% or more of todays applications are some form of a server+client and have been for quite a few years. |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP :It's completely irrational and impossible for someone to expect to download an infinite number of bytes. i think you need to read my post more carefully. the part about being limited by the available speed, just like all the cell providers currently contract for.
as far as being considerate, if my isp was a co-op, then maybe. even then, if the advertising is: unlimited! 24/7! downloads! games! streaming media! 10Mbit! (oh, and we don't guarantee our advertised speed, just our Best Efforts(tm). also, upload is 512k)!, then i'm going to use it exactly as advertised. |
|
