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.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120658178504567453.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Excerpted 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.

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.

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.

said by MysticGogeta :

I have a feeling they will try something else. I don't think this will be the end.

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

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.

said by SuperWISP :

The best thing to be doing is to prevent P2P from appropriating ISPs' bandwidth without compensation.

--Brett Glass

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).

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.

said by SuperWISP :

YIM isn't a server. It doesn't accept incoming connections from all and sundry. BitTorrent does.

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.

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.

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!):

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.

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.

said by tacouch :

There is so much dark fiber in this country it's not even funny. Capacity isn't and was never the problem!!!!

said by SuperWISP :

It's completely irrational and impossible for someone to expect to download an infinite number of bytes.

Lariat traces itself back to a computer users' group that decided, in the early 1990s, to take into its own hands the problem of good Internet access in a city of only 25 000 residents. After setting up a bank of dial-up modems, Glass and his friends considered the needs of Laramie's small businesses.

At the time, a standard U.S. Internet connection cost $3500 a month, buying a data rate of about 1.5 Mb/s. Lariat found it could buy radios and provide 2-Mb/s connectivity for a one-time fee of $3500 and monthly charges of $600 (nowadays, only $125 for setup and $125 per month). Thus in 1994, when most people were first hearing of the Web and PC modems were just breaking the 28-kb/s barrier, Lariat was offering wireless Internet access at data rates that are still unavailable to many people today.

»www.buffalowireless.net/what_s_n···less.htm Broadband A Go-Go, Steven M. Cherry; IEEE Spectrum archive Volume 40 , Issue 6 (June 2003)

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.