New Tech Throttles Encrypted Bit Torrent Traffic The game of cat-and-mouse continues... Since we broke the story that Canadian cable provider Shaw was throttling Bit Torrent traffic, the tactic has spread to a number of providers, who use increasingly sophisticated gear. Customers are avoiding the blockades by using the new breed of encrypted Bit Torrent clients like Azureus. Bit Torrent creator Bram Cohen, who's trying to strike deals with the entertainment industry to gain royalties from legit file distribution, isn't so keen on the idea. The only way he can stand to profit from major studio deals is if the ISPs aren't indiscriminately throttling his application, or the bandwidth it consumes. Cohen's solution, implemented in the latest Bit Torrent client release, utilizes the "Cache Discovery Protocol” developed in cooperation with Cachelogic. The protocol makes it easy for ISPs to detect the most popular torrents, cache the data, and seed the torrent - assuming they want to. It may still be easier and cheaper for them to simply keep throttling the application. In the latest chapter in the cat-and-mouse saga, Allot Communications says they're the first company to offer hardware that can detect and throttle encrypted Bit Torrent traffic. Assuming it actually works, the ball may again be in the BT client developers' court.
|
  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | This is terrible! We need network neutrality now. If I am paying for my connection I should not be block or impeaded from using it how I see fit. | |
|  |  tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: This is terrible! Just don't use it illegally. | |
| | |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: This is terrible! But do we want our ISPs/carriers "listening in" to the files we're downloading to determine "legality"? I think not. There are legal reasons to use BT, to use encryption, and to transfer very large files.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | Re: This is terrible! said by calvoiper:There are legal reasons to use BT, to use encryption, and to transfer very large files. Indeed, transfer a large linux iso and don't want it throttled. Legal reason to use linux, encrypt the transfer and it be a large file. | |
| | | | | | | Re: This is terrible! I tried downloading a Fedora ISO using BT and it was slower than downloading from the Redhat site. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: This is terrible! Ubuntu linux was faster off of BT. *shrug* | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: This is terrible! I don't care if you're using the service to do something illegal or not. The service is there for you to do with what you please. You can do legal or illegal things with your car, your phone, your electric supply, and gas supply, the internet shouldn't be any different. | |
| | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: This is terrible! According to the TV ad I saw last night that the cable companies ran, this network neutrality stuff is all just a bunch of "MUMBO JUMBO!!!" (exact words of the ad)
What killed me even more was the ridiculous claim they made at the end: if network neutrality laws are passed, then we the consumers will end up paying more for the products and services offered by the "Silicon Valley giants." I'm sorry, but can anybody remember the last time you had to pay Google, Microsoft or Yahoo to use their search engines? | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Bright House
| said by calvoiper:But do we want our ISPs/carriers "listening in" to the files we're downloading to determine "legality"? I think not. There are legal reasons to use BT, to use encryption, and to transfer very large files. calvoiper It's not the files they are after, it's the packet headers, and consistencies in the payload. No ISP is going to monitor your traffic like that. The ISP has the right to keep their costs down by throttling bandwidth to users who are using it for services they pay for, and according to many TOS's, they don't have to allow everything, it's all based off of fair use. It's not fair if I need a virus update, but because everyone in my node is using P2P, I can't get it as fast. Whereas on the flip side, if you are sharing files, and it has been known that the majority of the files on P2P is illegal, I would throttle you in a heartbeat, simply because it makes since, you're trashing my network with all this traffic, while legitimate normal applications usually don't hog as much.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
| | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: This is terrible! If my ISP is marketing my download capability as X Mb/s, then I deserve X Mb/s -- and I don't really care what weaselly bait and switch scheme they try to justify by putting fine print in the TOS.
Phatteig, if your ISP can't download your anti-virus update at the speeds they've claimed to provide you, that is THEIR problem, not the fault of some other user who is just trying to use the bandwidth they've sold him. If the ISP can't support you both, it shouldn't sell both of you the capacity.
BT only exists because ISPs continue to "throttle" upstream traffic. If upstream speeds matched downstream speeds, the advantage of BT (downloading one file from many sources) would disappear.
What really has the gutless, cheap ISPs worried is that they see more applications which use the bandwidth they claim to be providing. What's next? Are ISPs going to "throttle" live video because it harms their (horribly oversubscribed and underbuilt) network?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | | Re: This is terrible! Up to X MB/s | |
| | | | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: This is terrible! Well, the government prevents car manufacturers from saying that you can get "up to 50 miles per gallon" when you'd have to drive 17.356 mph exactly, with only a 60 pound driver and nobody else in the car, to get that.
If the ISPs are going to play stupid games like "Up to X" without ever intending to deliver X, then they are going to see more government regulation, the way government mileage tests are regulated.
It's BS cr@p like this, and the shills who defend it, that bring on the regulation the ISPs hate so much.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | | | | | Your not getting because your rated speed from the carrier because of other issues probably. Your internal network, your OS is restricted it, the server your going to is slow.
I've always got what my ISP advertised so if your not then switch or fix issues that aren't there fault.
As far as them snooping, snoop on them. Do to them what they are doing to you. | |
|
| | | |  ZaberWhen all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH | said by phattieg: The ISP has the right to keep their costs down by throttling bandwidth to users who are using it for services they pay for, Does the store have a right to charge me for a gallon of milk, then have issues with with me drinking more than a quart?
It is very simple if they advertise X, and I buy X I expect to get X not X-Y. If the ISPs are incurring too many losses that is their fault for selling it below costs
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime | |
| | | | | |  superdogI Need A DrinkPremium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA | Re: This is terrible! said by Zaber:If the ISPs are incurring too many losses that is their fault for selling it below costs Hmmmm..........Then I guess You would rather pay the actual cost for 6Mb down and 1Mb up?. If You do that?, You would need 12 bonded T1's just to get the 6Mb down part(A fractional DS3 would be a little cheaper). The bonded T1's would give You that bandwidth You paid for, AND they wouldn't throttle Your bit torrent traffic. So lets see, If it is the ISP's fault for not charging enough, than I guess You would be really happy if they stopped throttling Your bandwidth and sent You a bill in the mail for the actual cost of the bandwidth?. Hey, what the hell?, my bill is $4800 a month, but they're not choking any traffic?. 
--
»www.wavecrazy.net Join WISPA today! »www.wispa.org/ | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: This is terrible! I think I looked up the price of a oc128 before and if you divide the bandwidth up so all users have a full 100mbit up and down it's only $100 a month. So a 10mbit up and down line should only be $10 a month. And that's guaranteed, no sharing involved. Since the cable and dsl companies don't have enough bandwidth for every line they are basically stealing from us. Not to mention all bandwidth is symmetrical at some point, so all the upload your paying for and aren't getting is being sold off for hosting. So the ISPs are making a crap load of money on something they shouldn't be able to. | |
| | | | | | | |  mikef1Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA | Re: This is terrible! Exactly how fast is this oc128?
I'm not familiar with that beast.
--
mike
HouseOfMike | |
| | | | | | | | |  LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | Re: This is terrible! an't find OC128, but Wikipedia knows about the one above and below 128:
quote:
OC-96
OC-96 is a network line with transmission speeds of up to 4976.64 Mbit/s (payload: 4810.752 Mbit/s; overhead: 165.888 Mbit/s). Implementations of OC-96 in commercial deployments are rare, if ever used at all.
[edit]
OC-192
OC-192 is a network line with transmission speeds of up to 9953.28 Mbit/s (payload: 9621.504 Mbit/s; overhead: 331.776 Mbit/s). This is the fastest connection commonly available to the Internet.
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) | |
| | | | | | | | | | mikef1Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA | Re: This is terrible! said by LilYoda:an't find OC128, but Wikipedia knows about the one above and below 128: Which was my point.
$100 for 100Mb doesn't work, at least not yet.
--
mike
HouseOfMike | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: This is terrible! it probably was oc192, I couldn't remember all I remember was that when dividing the cost up so each person has 100mbit, the cost is 100 a month. I did this like 5 years ago. So prices are definitely cheaper now. | |
| | | | | | | | | |  IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | Re: This is terrible! said by insomniac84:it probably was oc192, I couldn't remember all I remember was that when dividing the cost up so each person has 100mbit, the cost is 100 a month. I did this like 5 years ago. So prices are definitely cheaper now. So how do we deliver this bandwidth to each user, magic?
Oh wait, unless all these 100 people live in a datacentre someone has to pay for an access network.
There's a lot more to it than just bandwidth.  | |
| | | | | | | | | | mikef1Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA | Re: This is terrible! said by Ignite:said by insomniac84:it probably was oc192, I couldn't remember all I remember was that when dividing the cost up so each person has 100mbit, the cost is 100 a month. I did this like 5 years ago. So prices are definitely cheaper now. So how do we deliver this bandwidth to each user, magic? Oh wait, unless all these 100 people live in a datacentre someone has to pay for an access network. There's a lot more to it than just bandwidth. OC192 gives you 9621.504 Mb of usable bandwith.
If each customer is getting 100Mb of speed this works out to about 96 customers. Heck lets oversell just a little and make it an even 100 customers. If they each pay $100 a month then the oc192 can’t cost anymore than $10,000 a month. What does an oc192 line go for these days? Broadband.com advertises oc3 (155 Mb) starting at $7,500 a month, I’m sure an oc192 would be much higher.
For argument sake lets say these customers are in an apartment complex. Technically it can be done with fiber runs to each apartment from where the oc192 comes into the building. But it would just be too expensive at least here in the US. What about the cost of the ISPs internet connection itself. If every customer has 100Mb, with thousands of customers the ISP will need multiple oc192s to multiple peers, who is going to pay for that? You also have to consider other businesses expenses and yeah they want to make a profit too.
--
mike
HouseOfMike | |
|
| | | | | | |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | A new take on the spurious arguments about "fair" bandwidth practices.
Did your calculations cover the cost of hardware to hook that circuit to? Don't forget maintenance on the hardware, plus UPSes, plus customer-side equipment, plus a few qualified people to manage all that stuff.
Of course they didn't... | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | LilYodaFeline with squirel personality disorderPremium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains | On top of the circuit itself, you have to pay for your actual bandwidth with your internet backbone connection provider. That ain't cheap.
If you don't oversubscribe, you also have to pay for the same amount of circuit and bandwidth on the other side, to go to your subscribers (via lots of DSL circuits, cable distributions, etc...)
That ain't cheap either
As other said, to run such a distribution layer, you'd probably have to invest a lot in hardware (you don't run those speeds on a linksys. It's Cisco or *maybe* Juniper hardware, mandatory)
That ain't cheap either
Then you have to pay your employees, the lease of the white room where all this equipment is stored, maintenance, fancy offices, call center in Cairo or Bangalore for angry users, CEO's golden parachutes, etc...
That ain't cheap either.
All but the last one are mandatory 
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) | |
|
| | | | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | said by superdog:....Then I guess You would rather pay the actual cost for 6Mb down and 1Mb up?. ... Well, I'd rather at least KNOW what the cost is, so that I could make a rational decision, rather than having to guess because the ISP is playing some sort of deceptive bait-n-switch game on what they "offer" and what they "provide".
If the ISPs can't provision their "all you can consume" pricing strategies, they should admit it and start charging more for people who use huge amounts of the data capacity they buy. Pretending that there are no usage fees and then throttling certain types of traffic is like advertising an "all you can eat" buffet and then deliberately running out of food.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | ZaberWhen all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH | said by superdog:Hmmmm..........Then I guess You would rather pay the actual cost for 6Mb down and 1Mb up?. If You do that?, You would need 12 bonded T1's just to get the 6Mb down part(A fractional DS3 would be a little cheaper). The bonded T1's would give You that bandwidth You paid for, AND they wouldn't throttle Your bit torrent traffic. So lets see, If it is the ISP's fault for not charging enough, than I guess You would be really happy if they stopped throttling Your bandwidth and sent You a bill in the mail for the actual cost of the bandwidth?. Hey, what the hell?, my bill is $4800 a month, but they're not choking any traffic?. Actually I would. Just for the record 12 bonded T1s would yield 18M not 6M. While the $725 for 5M quote we just received is a little high for my home use, it is nowhere near the $4800 you mentioned. Consumer ISPs are using the fact that it is a "best effort" service with no SLA as an excuse to avoid the costs of upgrading their networks. While I understand that there will be slowdowns on their networks, the ISPs need to upgrade them instead of just telling people that they are not allowed to use the connection they are paying for only part of the time.
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime | |
|
| | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | What if the ISPs returned us all to the 1.5Mbps packages? Then they probably wouldn't care if folks used BT.
From where I sit, ISPs are no different than CPU, WiFi, video and hard disk companies. Each is trying to make something faster/bigger to keep their price point stable. If they don't, the empirical laws of technology require falling prices.
What makes this different, however, is unlike the hardware manufacturers who almost always deliver a faster/bigger product, ISPs increase speeds and turn to shaping/capping to ensure that they don't have to invest in their infrastructure. This is what we get while the stable revenue stream from subscribers reduces debt load and increases profits -- not that there's ANYTHING wrong with this. This is fundamental capitalism. The problem is the product isn't being provided in a truly competitive environment. If it was, I totally agree that there would be no need for government oversight. Competitive forces would take care of the issue because the majority would get what they want. If that turned out to be shaped traffic, so be it. If that turned out to be a fat, dumb pipe, so be it. However, until something steps in to provide true competitive forces against the oligopoly and in many cases, monopoly of the incumbent cable and telco carriers, regulation is required to keep them honest.
Imagine if Intel provided a 10Ghz chip that only worked at 10Ghz for three seconds. After 3 seconds the chip overheats. To compensate, Intel reduces the speed of the chip to 3Ghz. As soon as you quit using it and it cools, you can get another 3 second burst. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: This is terrible! said by rradina:What if the ISPs returned us all to the 1.5Mbps packages? Then they probably wouldn't care if folks used BT. From where I sit, ISPs are no different than CPU, WiFi, video and hard disk companies. Each is trying to make something faster/bigger to keep their price point stable. If they don't, the empirical laws of technology require falling prices. What makes this different, however, is unlike the hardware manufacturers who almost always deliver a faster/bigger product, ISPs increase speeds and turn to shaping/capping to ensure that they don't have to invest in their infrastructure. This is what we get while the stable revenue stream from subscribers reduces debt load and increases profits -- not that there's ANYTHING wrong with this. This is fundamental capitalism. The problem is the product isn't being provided in a truly competitive environment. If it was, I totally agree that there would be no need for government oversight. Competitive forces would take care of the issue because the majority would get what they want. If that turned out to be shaped traffic, so be it. If that turned out to be a fat, dumb pipe, so be it. However, until something steps in to provide true competitive forces against the oligopoly and in many cases, monopoly of the incumbent cable and telco carriers, regulation is required to keep them honest. Imagine if Intel provided a 10Ghz chip that only worked at 10Ghz for three seconds. After 3 seconds the chip overheats. To compensate, Intel reduces the speed of the chip to 3Ghz. As soon as you quit using it and it cools, you can get another 3 second burst. It all comes down to what this poster has written. Its very simple yet nobody seems to get it. This is not the free market at work as there is no competition. Free market principles cannot be applied. Most people do not have the choice to drop ISP 'A' and sign up with ISP 'B' because they dont like the product they are receiving. This could be lack of choice or unaffordable price points. The free market does work...but you have to have one first | |
|
| | | tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
1 edit | I don't disagree, Cal. The determination isn't something that can really be done by the ISP. So, instead, they punish legitimate uses for the burden on their network (regardless of legality).
They aren't throttling it for the legal/illegal reasons; it's all about the popularity. And, honestly, this just showcases the shortfalls of the system. There is a huge demand out there, and BT is one of the applications that has sprung up that can bring that desire to fruition.
The ISPs really should be stepping up to the plate, rather than swatting it back down.
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. | |
| | | | Diddy1
join:2003-07-19
Sidney, NE | said by calvoiper:But do we want our ISPs/carriers "listening in" to the files we're downloading to determine "legality"? I think not. There are legal reasons to use BT, to use encryption, and to transfer very large files. calvoiper They won't be 'listening in' on the actual files. It could be porn, illegal/legal MP3, or Mary Poppins Greatis Hits. Just controlling it. | |
|
| | | | Its still my choice whether its illegal or not. Now if I have to deal with the consequences of said choice then that is something I have to deal with. My choices are none of the ISPs business, unless they break the TOS and last I checked using my connection to file share to whom I see fit is not breaking the TOS.
Even if it was the TOS I'm apt to believe it would be something on the books but something that isn't really notice or is swept under the rug so customers continue to feed the telco/cable industry. | |
| | | | | Ever heard of your "Terms of Service" | |
| | | | | | Re: This is terrible! They are contracts of adhesion. Often there is only one high speed ISP covering an area. Call them up and say, I am interested in purchasing your service. You are asking X for your service with the following TOS. HOw much more would you ask to provide me your service dropping that provision?
Don't think about Torrents. Let's talk about VOIP which is contrary to many of the TOSs out there. I work at home a great deal and simply getting work e-mail on my home cable connection violates a number of Terms of Service.
What happens when the advertising gives and the TOS takes. Should that count for something? What happens if the sales person calls and offers me unlimited bandwith for $50 a month. I record the call and say -- does this include torrents and he says aboslutely and I say "in that case I agree." What should control the TOS that I don't see until later or what they agreed to on a recorded phone call.
Stu | |
|
| |  peter_mPremium
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC
1 edit | said by tsu9:Just don't use it illegally. LOL, legality has nothing to do with it:
1) I pay for connectivity and expect to have the same speed what ever software I use.
2) The ISP is not a legal entity that can decide what is legal and what is not.
3) What if I am not using illegal file sharing and I download tones or linux distributions? Why should I be slowed down?
4) Unless the ISP has spoken to a judge and the judge granted them permission to spy on me, the ISP has no business looking at my internet use. | |
| | | farbelow
join:2006-09-20
Salt Lake City, UT | this is bull...the MPAA rapes people for millions per year & has virtually given up on the box office due to dvd sales...it doesnt cost them that much to make a damn movie & actors dont need to make millions per year for what they call a "job". if there's anything that can be done to hurt this business along with the music industry we should all do it!! | |
|
| | | I had thought that the law's basic assumption is "innocent until proven guilty" but now any download that's using p2p are all being "judged guilty?" | |
| |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by r81984:We need network neutrality now. If I am paying for my connection I should not be block or impeaded from using it how I see fit. Playing Devil's Advocate here....
You aren't paying for just any connection. You are paying for a residential connection. Your $29.95 or whatever you pay doesn't even come close to paying for the amount of bandwidth you consume with heavy bittorrent (or any other P2P) application.
If you want a unencumbered network connection, your welcome to pay for a business level connection with guaranteed bandwidth.
--
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? | |
| | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: This is terrible! If the ISP is so worried about overall consumption, then they should charge for it. If heavy BT use does, in fact, heavily load part of the ISP network, then I have no problem with the ISP charging for that.
What I have a problem with is the ISP claiming high broadband speeds and then throttling it back because they are too cheap and too dishonest to deliver the product they've promised.
It's not about "If they don't do this, they'll have to do that," it's about them lying about what they ARE doing, RIGHT NOW. (And yes, I consider advertising one thing and putting something different in the fine print TOS to be lying--and so does the Federal Trade Commission.)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| bohn
join:2006-05-30
Scarborough, ON | The internet has gone in reverse in canada. We get throttled bandwidth caps slow speed no newsgroups pay triple what americans pay when we used to pay half and now they are going to block sites thanks to people like richard warman. Thank god we can still get directway dsl or dialup from america. I guess soon canada will pass laws so you we can't get the internet from an american company just like with satellite television in canada. | |
|
 c0de
join:2004-10-14
Richmond, VA | FREEDOM! this is bullshit! that is like being blocked from what you can buy at the supermarket because it might be bad for your diet. FREEDOM!!!! You pay for a service you should be able to do what you want with it, if you break the law and get caught, then you will have to pay the price for breaking the law! | |
| | dhaas
join:2001-12-02
Alma, MI | Re: FREEDOM! how the hell do you figure it like that??
If you go by your logic..I should be able to go down to the local drug store and buy some cocaine..even though it is illeagl it is not anyone's job to tell me I can't buy it...I think not...This is just like the isp saying you can't host servers off your cable modem cause it uses too much bandwidth...
EVERYTHING you can leagally download via BT is availile elsewhere...its just the illeagel stuff your crying about and I dont feel bad for anyone that downloads illegal stuff. | |
| | | | | Re: FREEDOM! but don't you think we would live in a better world if you could go to a drug store and get a bit of cocaine and some downers instead of costing feeding the legal/law industry?
these providers offer not only caps on use but also throttle what you can use it the pipe for.
It would be like me leasing you a car that can go 100 miles per hour and as soon as you hop on the freeway i show up with my lame AUP and say "sorry, you can only go 20 miles per hour" | |
| | | MCheu
join:2002-06-10
Toronto, ON | > EVERYTHING you can leagally (SIC) download via BT is
> availile (SIC) elsewhere...its just the illeagel (SIC)
> stuff your crying about and I dont (SIC) feel bad for
> anyone that downloads illegal stuff.
True (mostly). However, not always conveniently or as quickly and there are a few instances where the limitations of a residential account puts serious limits on personal distributions.
1. Linux Distros. They're huge, and for months after a new distro release, the servers are swamped. It was 6 months before I got a hit on a server that didn't give me the "server full" message. A few months after that, Mandrake released a freeware distro (they had changed their name to Mandriva at some point). I managed to locate an unofficial torrent for the 10.1 discs. The speed wasn't great, at 4.5K, it's probably marginally faster than dialup downloading from a server, and took a while, but I got it sooner than 6 months of hit and miss trying the old fashioned way hunting for a server that isn't swamped.
2. Patches and demos. Some of these Demos take up 300-600Megs, so they're not small. A lot of gaming companies don't even offer their files on their own FTP server anymore. Many choose instead to outsource the upload to companies like FilePlanet where you can choose to pay to go to the front of the line to download these "free" files, or wait in line as number 120 using the free servers. A few have smartened up and offered torrent download as an option. There are some more friendly mirrors that have shorter wait times, but BT is a better option sometimes.
3. Occasionally, there are files which are ENTIRELY LEGAL to distribute, but which are offered exclusively via BT. There are a few fan film, indie film, or student film sites that offer their films for free download via BT. Residential DSL and cable aren't really suited to distributing files that are 200Megs even divx encoded, and getting a commercial account with FTP capabilities is a bit out of reach for distributing a student film. Dumping the movie to a site like YouTube is an option, but if your ISP has an issue with your bandwidth usage with BT, streamed movies will probably be their next target -- especially if the image quality/bit rates are improved as expected in the future. There could also be censorship issues with going through a 3rd party, and dealing with another's arbitrary morality and political stances.
4. Family movies might even make sense. You probably won't see the speed advantage of BT. However, the BT system allows download resuming and corruption detection on individual blocks on the fly. That's a very good feature to have when you're sending files that are 50+ megs in size. Not everyone can stay connected for hours downloading a file in one session. | |
| | | c0de
join:2004-10-14
Richmond, VA | i can buy cocain, not at the drug store but on the corner beside it. but thats buysing something per basis. it would be more like paying per byte. i have to pay a flat rate, and am promissed x speed, but only when they decied its okay. and drugs are a bad analogy, downing loading a movie is not going to kill you...
i personally think it is bad enough that ISP block ports (ie port 80) for publishing, i guess so they can save money so people dont publish thier own content on the internet and instead have to pay more money to use thier services. | |
|
Aleck79
join:2003-07-23
College Station, TX | which will last about 5 seconds ...won that just last until the encription is changed? | |
| |  Jim GurdPremium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI | Re: which will last about 5 seconds said by Aleck79:...won that just last until the encription is changed? How can they know what the traffic is if it's encrypted? I suspect they are classifying anything that can't be identified and is high bandwidth as P2P. In other words they're guessing.
--
Correlation does not imply causation. | |
| | | Aleck79
join:2003-07-23
College Station, TX | Re: which will last about 5 seconds If they broke the encryption, but I really doubt that one.
I dunno how they are pulling this one off, the press release from Allot is kind of vague, pretty much saying it works cause it works. I think that it works by looking at how packets behave, that would be a dead giveaway to a p2p application if the networks sees a lot of different open connections and how the data flows. The press release states that it will separate and be able to control unknown protocols, but I don't think they are just throttling everything unknown as it specifically states that in the PR that they can throttle specifically the encrypted BT data.
My guess is that it is label "unknown" until it is analyzed and the behavior of the protocol understood. | |
| | | | | | Re: which will last about 5 seconds said by Aleck79:If they broke the encryption, but I really doubt that one. I dunno how they are pulling this one off, the press release from Allot is kind of vague, pretty much saying it works cause it works. I think that it works by looking at how packets behave, that would be a dead giveaway to a p2p application if the networks sees a lot of different open connections and how the data flows. The press release states that it will separate and be able to control unknown protocols, but I don't think they are just throttling everything unknown as it specifically states that in the PR that they can throttle specifically the encrypted BT data. My guess is that it is label "unknown" until it is analyzed and the behavior of the protocol understood. can't they just look to see a user having multiple connections to a tracker; regardless if it's legal or not, encrypted or not, and just slow it down? | |
| | | | | Aleck79
join:2003-07-23
College Station, TX | Re: which will last about 5 seconds they could, but that would create an issue another issue. The list of torrent trackers would have to be constantly edited and modified. Then you have to track down the actual list of trackers.
It would become to complex and cost prohibitive to be an effective solution. | |
|
| IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | Perhaps you need to learn about this stuff before commenting technically.
Who says they need to completely break the encryption? Breaking it enough to detect the traffic as Bittorrent is quite acceptable. End of the day it's a man in the middle attack.
You need to give the makes of these devices more credit they've been at this for a long time now. | |
|
| | cat and mouse is bad for everyone Countermeasures to avoid measures and on and on is BS. I agree that there needs to be clear ENFORCEABLE rules placed on the providers as to what they can and cannot do. That way all providers have an equal playing field. Competition will increase and we will benefit.
Whatever is done, you can't rely on gov'ts for anything. It would need to be done some other way. | |
| | IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | Re: cat and mouse is bad for everyone said by phoneboy2 :
Countermeasures to avoid measures and on and on is BS. I agree that there needs to be clear ENFORCEABLE rules placed on the providers as to what they can and cannot do. That way all providers have an equal playing field. Competition will increase and we will benefit.
Whatever is done, you can't rely on gov'ts for anything. It would need to be done some other way.
Would you be in favour, then, of rules being placed on all users of ISPs, such as monitoring of what they download and upload for potentially illegal content?
Didn't think so. | |
|
 owenhomekeeper of the magic blue smokePremium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR |  Who said ISP's were "fart smellers"?
I can understand why the ISP's would throttle BT, it does use an enormous amount of BW, but are they not simply shooting the messenger?
Hopefully, for all of us, some day in the near future, ISP's will be forced to let us use the amount of BW we purchase for whatever we choose to. I doubt it will ever happen, but I hope it will. Failing that, we will face similar situations, time after time, forever.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
| | |
 koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:19 | Awful for many reasons, but this one irks me the most. "Cache Discovery Protocol", a.k.a. CDP.
CDP is an already-used acronym in the networking industry. Anyone who's familiar with Cisco Discovery Protocol will surely become irritated when some torrent kids start talking about "CDP".
Plus, "cache" is an ambiguous word as well. *sigh*
Someone will eventually come out with a BitTorrent alternative. It's pretty obvious BT is going downhill...
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. | |
| | | | Re: Awful for many reasons, but this one irks me the most. I hate to say this guys but there are a LOT OF SITES using bit torrent as a source of downloading. And that's NOT for illegal purposes actually for legal files and downloads such as patches and other things.
So throttling Bit torrent right now is stupid, and should not be done. | |
| | | | >Someone will eventually come out with a BitTorrent alternative. It's pretty obvious BT is going downhill...
I doubt there's an alternative. The whole reason BT is successful is because it is using ordinary users' upstream that normally they wouldn't use. BT is maxing out the upstream so what's the alternative? Downstream from major hosting sites, which is what we were doing before.
In order to do that, you still have to upload your file to a hosting site and you can't even do that easily. That's where I'm sitting right now, I have a website I'm trying to run and my cable upstream is garbage. | |
| | IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
2 edits | I doubt that most people really care about Cisco Discovery Protocol and it certainly won't be the only thing that shares an acronym. IGMP = Internet Gateway Message Protocol, Internet Group Management Protocol? If it really irks you get out more.
Cache is hardly an ambiguous word in this context, you may want to check out »www.cachelogic.com ? Peer to peer content caching? Been about for a while now in testing in the uk.
Oh and yes some sites do use Bittorrent to distribute content, because they don't want to pay to. End of the day why should ISPs be picking up the tab for sourcing their content? Yes users are paying their ISPs but it's another issue entirely whether they are paying them to distribute content to others.
Flat rate products are based around a large number of light users subsiding heavy ones, so those who are using a lot of bandwidth are not paying the full costs of their usage.
Bittorrent is sadly a major contributor to this in the upstream direction where cable bandwidth is weakest. | |
|
kd6caeP2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Palmdale, CA | p2p client imulating many protocols I agree with many users on this site that bit torrent traffic should be treated in the same way as web or ftp or streaming media traffic, in other words, don't mess with it!
I mean it's just packets of data after all. I find it quite interesting that ISP's are so willing to bloc various types of p2p traffick, not just BT, yet ISP's I've used that blocked my attempts to use p2p apps had no problem allowing me to use HTTP and FTP sites to download and upload data at full speed, the way it should be. I was also able to send multiple 256kbps audio streams to 3 different streaming servers, maxing out my upstream quite nicely. So ISP's are afraid of any packet that's p2p, yet other ways of maxing one's download or upload bandwidth, which the customer pays for, they have no problem with? Seems strange to me. I think what we need is a p2p app that can act as anything from an ftp or web server to a streaming media server or whatever protocol the user chooses to use, with multi-source download abilities of course. This insane thinking of well let's block just because it's peer-to-peer data it's rediculous and needs to stop. If I pay for say a 10mbps/1mbps connection that's always on, then who cares whether I'm using my connection for p2p traffic, streaming audio, or a giant ftp upload of a file backup to a remote server! quit telling us what apps we're able to use! | |
| | | | Re: p2p client imulating many protocols rodi packets present themselves as DNS, VoIP in the future | |
| | IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | Bittorrent is hugely resource heavy and comprises a large chunk of the total bandwidth usage on the internet.
Also unlike most of other uses of bandwdidth it's not interactive, you can just leave your client seeding and soak up bandwidth indefinitely, which is a major issue on upstream limited cable networks.
If BT weren't used so heavily it would be left alone, as it is we all love getting something for free. | |
|
 Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
1 edit | ? Well to my understand BT uses many connections and keeps on looking for more connections and could open 20 connections at once or set by the user.
Now if they simply look for encrypted connections that are sending mass amounts per data per each connection. I don't know of any other program which would cause so much traffic to pass over a secured link but not from one destination but to many other destinations. This is unique to BT. So this device could raise the red flag and cap the connection with encryption or not.
I think this device simply inspects network behavior and can determine what's BT traffic and what's not. | |
| |  John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:5 | Re: ? said by Michieru2:Well to my understanding BT uses many connections and keeps on looking for more connections and could open 20 connections at once or set by the user. BT will open 10,000 connections if the user lets it.
That is the default configuration.
--
A is A | |
| | | Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Re: ? Well don't you think that makes BT traffic stand out more? | |
|
| | Sounds nice If my ISP starts throttling my bandwidth, do I have the option to start throttling my payment? | |
| |
See 13 replies to this post | |
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Why Torrent Hurts ISP's You have to remember most ISP's are not network carriers with sharing agreements with other large telcos. Cable companies in some cases do transport traffic for the internet across their networks, but consumer traffic for most companies has to be paid for. They get great deals on downloads since it helps telco's get the upperhand in the traffic wars. As uploads increase it decreases the power of the downloads and telco's are probably raising fees for both directions to make up for the loss of carrying the traffic.
--
FIOS chat »www.fioschat.com MacChatter »www.macchatter.com | |
| | | | Re: Why Torrent Hurts ISP's You people need to be happy with what you got. I am a Hughes satelite internet user. On there consumer home service you have 160MB 4 hour time frame FAP (Fair Access Policy)both uploading and downloading count against it and if within that 4 hour period you go over you get FAPed and cut down to dialup speed. You have a recovery rate of 4Kbs and takes about 8 hours to gain back any real speed. Hughes is not upfront with this FAP but is listed if you dig for it.I hope for you people the Cable Co. don't see how well this works for Hughes and give it a try.
Later and be cooolll
Eric | |
| | |  BAFBafflesPremium
join:2004-02-22
Gansevoort, NY | Re: Why Torrent Hurts ISP's What is the point in giving us a shiny 10mb/1mb line if we can only max it out downloading for 160 seconds before being FAP'd? That's the worst system I've ever heard of.
--
BAF - BAFServ.com Webhosting | |
|
| |  Being watched?
| |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
·
