Encrypted BitTorrent Party Over? Rogers users say the ISP has evolved traffic shaping efforts As more and more ISPs began to throttle customers who used Bit Torrent, a growing number of BitTorrent clients began to implement encryption to try to get around the traffic shaping. Resident users of Canadian cable broadband provider Rogers say their encrypted BitTorrent clients are no longer working. They surmise that Rogers has updated Cisco traffic-shaping hardware to perform more sophisticated deep packet inspection to again limit BitTorrent bandwidth consumption. Some users are using VPN software SecureIX to get around the new traffic shaping efforts, with mixed results. Of course, like RCN admits to doing, providers can also limit the number of overall connection BT clients can make, which also makes encryption largely useless.
|
  Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
kudos:2
2 edits | Go figure... BT was bound to lose this one. If nothing else, it's always been easy to detect BT traffic just because of all the connections it makes.
The big question I have:
Why is it always these Canadian Cable ISPs that trottle?
In the good ol' USofA we need to get some Net Neutrality laws on the books so if my Charter ever decides to pull something like this I can whoop their @ss in court.
They should really be calling it "filtered" Internet access. | |
|  | | | | | | | |  SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | Re: Go figure... His ignorance, stupidity and bad case of the "morans" didn't even dignify his post with a direct reply.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca | |
| | | | | |
| | | | STFU. A big reason why CDN ISP's are first to throttle these protocols is cuz it's not really illegal to download digital content here; so therefore damn near everyone does it regularly. When you get into the States people are so fearful of the **IA's that most people abstain. | |
| | | | SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | Re: Go figure... said by AnotherAnon :
A big reason why CDN ISP's are first to throttle these protocols is cuz it's not really illegal to download digital content here; so therefore damn near everyone does it regularly. When you get into the States people are so fearful of the **IA's that most people abstain. You, sir, deserve a gold star. You hit the nail right on the head. Though, I would argue, that it happens in the USA just as often, only that users are afraid to admit the legal liability of using P2P software and therefore won't speak up when something "illegal" works poorly.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca | |
| | | | | ecoPremium
join:2001-11-28
Wilmington, DE | Re: Go figure... I'm from the US. I don't know a single person who doesn't pirate. Try again. | |
| | | | | | SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | Re: Go figure... said by eco:I'm from the US. I don't know a single person who doesn't pirate. Try again. I'm sure you and all kiddies get home from school every day and are right on to your favourite torrent sites. Can you say the same of every Tom Dick and Harry, from the mothers to the 85-year old Grandfathers? Can you say that 70% of the population has high-speed Internet to actually make use of such wonderful services as bittorrent? I just tried again, looks like you need to do some work.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca | |
| | | | | | |  John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:2
1 edit | Re: Go figure... said by Snickerdo:...looks like you need to do some homework. Father stands at son's door...yelling.
"Did you get your HOMEWORK done yet??!!"
"I'm downloading doing research online."
"You need to GET OFF THE DAMN INTERNET and finish your homework!!"
Father walks away, mumbling to himself "When I was a kid..." mumble, mumble...
--
A is A | |
| | | | | | | ecoPremium
join:2001-11-28
Wilmington, DE | As of Sept. 2006 over 76% of internet subscribers in the US were broadband subscribers. Maybe I can't say 70% of the total population, but then again, my country has 10 times as many people as you with a MUCH larger rural population percentage. Our broadband subscriber total does however equal to 2 and a half times your total population.
Oh, and it's a shame so much of that 70% of your population has to put with with bandwidth throttling and data caps that we don't have to deal with. | |
| | | | | | | | SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
1 edit | Re: Go figure... said by eco:Oh, and it's a shame so much of that 70% of your population has to put with with bandwidth throttling and data caps that we don't have to deal with. Hah, but see, you have no proof to show that Canadians have to deal with data caps and throttling exclusively, and just the same you have no proof that Americans aren't dealing with this already. In fact, to the contrary, I regularly see people bitching and moaning about 'hidden' Comcast caps - is not Comcast the largest cable company in the USA with the most cable subscribers, in a similar market position as Rogers is in Canada? Looks like you lose there, buddy. Your argument, for the most part, is all conjecture. That in itself throws your 'argument' to the wind. Claiming that poor ISP practises don't affect the US is stupidity at its finest.
Last I had read, our adoption rate among Internet subscribers was over 80%, with 60% of the total overall population using broadband. We had the same level of broadband penetration back in 2003 that the USA has now. It's just the way the game is played, and we're starting to tap out our subscriber base. Bitch and moan all you want, but when it comes to availability we're in a better position than the USA and as a result more users have made the switch. Our rural populations are almost identical - USA is 21%, Canada is 20%, so you lose that argument right there, and I highly recommend you do some research into the demographics of each country. Both countries are expected to top out at around 80% based on the number of users who 'want' Internet access. That's just the way it is. No need to get into a pissing match about it.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | |  MysticGogetaThe Robot DevilPremium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX | said by AnotherAnon :
STFU. A big reason why CDN ISP's are first to throttle these protocols is cuz it's not really illegal to download digital content here; so therefore damn near everyone does it regularly. When you get into the States people are so fearful of the **IA's that most people abstain.
I'm not afraid I download every day and I dislike Canada because I thought there people I met there were extremely rude.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight | |
| | | | | SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | Re: Go figure... said by MysticGogeta:I'm not afraid I download every day and I dislike Canada because I thought there people I met there were extremely rude. You of all people, being from Texas, should probably put your money where your mouth is and keep quiet when talking about labelling an entire culture/region just because of the way a few people think/act. Way to stereotype people because of a bad experience, tex.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca | |
| | | | | | MysticGogetaThe Robot DevilPremium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX | Re: Go figure... First impressions leave a impact you of all people should understand that until I'm proven wrong.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight | |
| | | | | | | SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | Re: Go figure... said by MysticGogeta:First impressions leave a impact you of all people should understand that until I'm proven wrong. If we're going to stick to the sterotypes...
Why the hell should I believe anything a stupid ignorant Texan says? If you brought your Texan superiority attitude with you to Canada, you deserved everything you got. Don't come back, we don't want you here.
... did you enjoy that? No? Exactly. Smarten up.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca | |
|
| | | |  TOPDAWGPremium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON | Yeah Canada sucks why must I live here  Cold taxes are way to high crap health care system. | |
| | | | | |  JammerMan79Premium,VIP
join:2004-05-13
Prince George, BC
kudos:10 | Re: Go figure... uhuh...
New york state has pretty much the same weather as the toronto region, where are you in canada?
"crap health care system"? Could be worse.. could have a system that leaves people "out in the cold" so to speak. You've got more than 40 million people without health insurance.
--
I may work for, but do not necessarily represent the views and beliefs of TELUS Communications. | |
|
|  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Go figure... said by Jerm:BT was bound to lose this one. If nothing else, it's always been easy to detect BT traffic just because of all the connections it makes. The big question I have: Why is it always these Canadian Cable ISPs that trottle? In the good ol' USofA we need to get some Net Neutrality laws on the books so if my Charter ever decides to pull something like this I can whoop their @ss in court. They should really be calling it "filtered" Internet access. Net neutrality will not stop ISP's from blocking protocols. Net neutrality laws will only apply to discrimination "by site or company". If a protocol block is applied evenly to all companies it will pass legal muster. But feel free to sue away. I hope you are very rich in order to pay the lawyer.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | Re: Go figure... said by thender2:Another TCH anti-fair post. Yeah, but for once he is totally right in what he stated. (unless you posted on the wrong post of his)
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Go figure... said by RayW:said by thender2:Another TCH anti-fair post. Yeah, but for once he is totally right in what he stated. (unless you posted on the wrong post of his) For once? I am almost always right. It is just that most here don't like the answers, even when they are correct. 
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Go figure... Right? Hardly... If you READ the net neutrality laws, they specifically PREVENT the ISP from blocking any LEGAL APPLICATION. That could be web browsing, that could be ftp, that could be bittorrent.
"Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online."
If THAT's the definition of net neutrality, then it most certainly means the ISP CANNOT block bittorrent, any more than the ISP can block HTTP.
»www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| | | | | | | SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | Re: Go figure... said by karlmarx:If THAT's the definition of net neutrality, then it most certainly means the ISP CANNOT block bittorrent, any more than the ISP can block HTTP. They're shaping, not blocking. Big difference legally.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca | |
| | | | | | | John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:2 | said by karlmarx:If THAT's the definition of net neutrality, then it most certainly means the ISP CANNOT block bittorrent, any more than the ISP can block HTTP. Most providers have provisions that DO allow them to take measures to prevent "damage" to their networks.
As biobob  states, BT is a nasty creature when it runs uncontrolled. That is what providers bitch about...they could care less that it is "BT".
--
A is A | |
| | | | | | | | | said by karlmarx:Right? Hardly... If you READ the net neutrality laws, they specifically PREVENT the ISP from blocking any LEGAL APPLICATION. That could be web browsing, that could be ftp, that could be bittorrent. Please provide a link to the "net neutrality laws". All I saw on the google link was speculation of what might happen.
said by karlmarx:If THAT's the definition of net neutrality, then it most certainly means the ISP CANNOT block bittorrent, any more than the ISP can block HTTP. ISPs are not common carriers in the sense that telephone companies are. ISPs can do pretty much whatever they want to within the bounds of the contract that you agreed to.
I like your thinking to the extent that I should be able to run my own web server and email server...but both are blocked on the ATT network. Then again, my terms of service state I can't run a server..grrr. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Go figure... Unless something has changed recently, ATT (former SBC) allows customers to set up servers on DSL connections. The TOS restriction for running servers was dropped years ago. | |
|
| | | | Net neutrality will not stop ISP's from blocking protocols. Net neutrality laws will only apply to discrimination "by site or company". If a protocol block is applied evenly to all companies it will pass legal muster. But feel free to sue away. I hope you are very rich in order to pay the lawyer.
To be fair, it's difficult to saw what net neutrality laws will apply too, if they ever exist.
That said...people need to read their contracts when they sign on for a year or two with any ISP, especially with an ISP affiliated with a local utility. Just because they don't enforce a contract term today doesn't mean that they won't tomorrow.
Funny how we all run around in a fantasy land about what we consider "internet access".
Perhaps we, as customers, need to define "internet access" and compare it to the contracts we committed to! Should be telling at the least! | |
|
| SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | said by Jerm:Why is it always these Canadian Cable ISPs that trottle? Oh please, it happens in the USA just as much, and it certainly does not happen with every provider in Canada. It's just that...
a) Studies have shown that Canadian users are more tech-savvy and take notice of stuff like this.
b) Canadian users expect top-notch service, and don't consider poor performance 'the norm' and will bitch and moan quite loudly until it is fixed.
c) Canadian users don't live in fear of the MPAA and RIAA sending them a lawsuit to ruin their life, nor do they consider sharing files a 'moral' issue, and therefore are much more open about the way they use P2P programs and how they perform.
c) We know how to voice our concerns in such a way that people take notice.
Anyone who thinks that this isn't happening in the USA is specific to only Canadian is more naive then one would originally assume.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca | |
| | | |
| | | said by Jerm:The big question I have: Why is it always these Canadian Cable ISPs that trottle? Agreed. The thing is in Canada, people don't sue like they do in the states. We have no balls to stand up to the big CO's, and we are sheep that accept whats thrown to us.
However, seeing that we have rights here that protect what we can download which is different than in the states. I can see this slapping Rogers upside the head if people got together and made a class-action.
But alas, we don't sue em all here like in the states. | |
| | Troyus
join:2005-06-26
Richmond Hill, ON | I just noticed this tonight...went to download a torrent, and the speed was messed! I usually get about 500-700KB/s and this time, it started off fast...then dropped to 150KB/s! And that was the highest I could get it...usually around 90KB/s now
I just installed SecureIX, so I'm seeing how that will help.
Regarding the previous post about Sympatico, when did they impose 30GB caps? I never heard of that...could you link me? | |
| | | | | Re: sad but true... Just check their web site... they are hiding it in the small print now
All new users = 30-gig cap | |
| | | | Troyus
join:2005-06-26
Richmond Hill, ON | Re: sad but true... found it, that's definitely not good heh. | |
|
 thender2Glamour ProfessionPremium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY | Good job at alienating any potential customers. a) Good job wasting money on all of the hardware to do this.. how about using it to make a network that doesn't suck?
Before anyone responds - does anyone in their right mind think an ISP that throttles all bittorrent traffic, not just JAMITALLTHEWAYUPMYASSXXX.avi, is not bad?
b) The more they fight this, the more publicity they receive as a weakass ISP. Do I want to signup for the ISP that doesn't care what I do, or for the one that limits, caps, or downright stops me from using legitimate services just because that would mean I'm using my connection?
Like the AT&T with the 100 GB/month cap, or OOL with their random capping, I'm sure Rogers has some stupid silly high bandwidth connection to flash on banner ads, commercials, and brochures to make up for their crippled network, and people won't leave until they find out the hard way.
Rogers is a scam..
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
 Xec
join:2005-05-30
Canada
1 edit | SecureIX doing the job for now... It's a pain having to login into secureix just for BT and logout (kinda gave that up after the 56k days) but it gives decent 80-200KB/s speeds enough for my needs. If it weren't for rogers low pings I would of switched to bell. | |
| | | | Re: SecureIX doing the job for now... Why not just stay logged in? I didn't notice any surfing slowdowns etc.. | |
| | | Xec
join:2005-05-30
Canada | Re: SecureIX doing the job for now... Secureix yields higher pings and I play online games. | |
| | | | | | Re: SecureIX doing the job for now... Gotcha, we have a gamer! | |
|
 LaZ3RPremium
join:2003-01-17 | Yes... Rogers is a scam, but they're also a f***ing monopoly, what the hell other choice to the majority of Canadians who want internet access have to resort to?
There's so little option to choose from, and especially in my area where I either have Bell, or Rogers and that's it.
--
Life is a game of blackjack. You keep playing until you bust. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | time for something new Its time for steganograph and auto updating in BT, if everything looks like a AIM Direct IM or Voip call or Youtube request, or web browsing or email (POP3) The moment you wrap a jpg header around it, they cant touch it without disabling your entire browser, and then they arent selling anything. Just scrambling the data so it doesnt make sense doesnt work anymore, since most people use "known" protocols. | |
| |  Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | Re: time for something new said by patcat88:The moment you wrap a jpg header around it, they cant touch it without disabling your entire browser, and then they arent selling anything. No, they can still easily take care of it because:
a. BT looks and acts like BT no matter what you wrap it in.
b. They don't have to block BT to take care of it all they have to do is throttle it and if they throttle it the right amount you likely won't notice much of an impact in 90% of the other stuff that uses most peoples connections.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | Re: time for something new Yep, about the only way you're really going to "hide" BT is if you encapsulate the session in a VPN. But then you've got to have a central hub for all of the VPNs to connect to which kind of goes against the whole premise of BT in the first place. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by Combat Chuck:said by patcat88:The moment you wrap a jpg header around it, they cant touch it without disabling your entire browser, and then they arent selling anything. No, they can still easily take care of it because: a. BT looks and acts like BT no matter what you wrap it in. b. They don't have to block BT to take care of it all they have to do is throttle it and if they throttle it the right amount you likely won't notice much of an impact in 90% of the other stuff that uses most peoples connections. Then change how many connections BT makes, and have BT make connections in bursts to simulate image loading. Tracker talking and inter peer talk can be encapsulated in AJAX JSON. The transfer algorithems, only upload for short bursts really fast to other peers, then disconnects, making it seem like a email or file upload rather than long sustained slow sending like of p2p. It can all be messed with, the only block would be having whitelists of "acceptable" sites that arent BT clients, and then you just opened national censorship can of worms. | |
| | | | Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | Re: time for something new said by patcat88:Then change how many connections BT makes, and have BT make connections in bursts to simulate image loading.... The transfer algorithems, only upload for short bursts really fast to other peers, then disconnects, making it seem like a email or file upload rather than long sustained slow sending like of p2p.... If you're going to do that then you might as well not use BT as you're not going to get decent speeds. It takes a while to get a torrent set up and going, you cannot just establish a connection and go, it won't work.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
|
 dslextremePremium,VIP
join:2001-02-23
Canoga Park, CA | Can we get some net-neutrality now? I know this is Canada... but here is a real world example. | |
| | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Can we get some net-neutrality now? Filtering BitTorrent is hardly a net neutrality issue. In fact it's no different than an ISP filtering outbound port 25 or SMTP traffic, which hardly anyone here is whining about.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus! | |
| | | dslextremePremium,VIP
join:2001-02-23
Canoga Park, CA | Re: Can we get some net-neutrality now? Port 25 filtering is done to reduce spam. As matter of fact we allow our users to uncork that if they do not get complaints.
Sorry, but bit torrent filtering is simply abuse of the net-neutrality principle. You should be allowed to use your bandwidth any way you like. | |
| | | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Can we get some net-neutrality now? Sadly, you run an ISP too. This is precisely why nobody who counts gives a shit about "net neutrality".
There is NO DIFFERENCE between filtering SMTP traffic and BitTorrent traffic. You are too cheap to build a proper network so you hamstring BitTorrent, and are also too cheap (and lazy) to go after spamming customers so you just shut off everyone's port 25. Very nice.
What's next, NNTP?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus! | |
| | | | SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | said by dslextreme:Sorry, but bit torrent filtering is simply abuse of the net-neutrality principle. You should be allowed to use your bandwidth any way you like. The exact same principle applies to Port 25 filtering. As long as the ISP is the one providing you with the service and dictating the terms of use, they don't owe you squat in that regard. If you don't like it, you can vote with your pocketbook and find another provider or start up an Internet Service Provider of your own.
And no, I don't like the idea of BT throttling, but an unthrottled network is something they certainly do not 'owe' to us. Read your AUP next time you sign up for an ISP and stop complaining about something you were forewarned about.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca | |
| | | | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Can we get some net-neutrality now? Who are you talking to? Me? Him? You know he runs an ISP, right? | |
|
| | hmmmmm The real issues for us is not bt its our providers.
We have only two for example in toronto rogers and bll.
There our other dsl ones but they get it from bell so it ends up the same in the end.
Both are basicly a joke for the most part and way behind what you get in the states or elsewhere.
Rogers is badly oversold and outdated and bell is badly run and outdated.
So we end up with bt being choked and caps to keep the whole unstable mess running.
Bt isn't going away and both rogers and bell are going to have to figure out a better solution to things beyound what there doing now.
This is made more important with so many companies and industries using bt now.
We need more providers and then we shall see some serious service for our money but not tell then. | |
| | | | Re: hmmmmm Whats more interesting is that as Rogers killed encrypted BT, while Bell-Sympatico (the only competition to Rogers) adds a BandWidth cap of 30-gigs.
Now both being part of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (changed to CATA now), and do this at the same time, one has to wonder if their is some *fixing* going on with Canadian internet.
Either price fixing or bandwidth fixing, and/or cost of. Seems to much of a coincidence for both COMPETITORS to do this at the same time. | |
|
| |  Rogers cutoff inet for game torrent dload!
I'm in Toronto Canada. Is this legal? I dont see how it could or should be. im not selling or reproducing this software, in fact i havent even tried it yet. besides, i dont see how aquiring something that someone has provided to the world via the world wide web for free as illegal on my part. my reasoning behind this is, for example i create a copywrightable work of art, then publish it online, i am therefore surrendering the piece to anyone willing to view it. once their eyes set sights on it, can i then sue anyone who may have viewed it? computers after all must make a copy of the image onto the local hard drive before anyone views it.
please provide advice if any | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
 SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·magicjack.com
| So If I get throttled, do I get a discount? If I pay for for a service and get less then what I pay, wont that give the right to file a complaint with the FCC and BBB? Even possible the chance of sueing the company?
I can understand that their backbone can only have X amount of traffic. If that means I get a reduced rate of service, then my mothly bill should get a discount.
Better yet, maybe if enough of us pull the plug on imternet service all together, they'll [the service providers] will get a clue.
--
Say no to the IRS.. Yes to the Fair Tax! This beer is for: 464th bat. 98th div. Combat engineers. Hillside Ave schenectady NY. | |
| | | | Re: So If I get throttled, do I get a discount? yeah they can pull the plug.. and jump-ship from rogers who started packet-shapping to Sympatico who JUST happened to drop their B/W cap to 30-gig.
I'll take double the allowed bandwidth at 150kB/s over sympatico at 250kB/s and a 30-gig cap + 30$ B/W over-charges.
This has been fixed. | |
|
| | | Real reasons why ISPs kill p2p traffic ISP's designed their network to handle x amount of traffic. Then they calculated, based on average usage, how many people that amount will support. Then they set their prices based on that information. You may think you are buying a 1/3/5 mbit connection, but you are not. You are actually buying 100-200 kbits of bandwidth. They based their price on average usage before p2p was considered.
We'll the big telephone companies decided to start a price war with the cable companies. Now they both have cut their margins in an effort to gain users. They are selling accounts at less than their intended rates and they are dealing with massive amounts of bandwidth usage. Something has to give. They have a choice, they can raise rates and loose customers or reduce the bandwidth to what they intended to sell to you. Since a large number of people don't use p2p they figured they can afford to loose the bad apples in an effort to save the whole crop.
Now my beef is that they are not up front about it. They should just disclose that you can burst to 1/3/5 mbits but your average must be below 64/128/what ever... kbits and allow the end users to pay more for a higher CIR (committed information rate). Do they do that? No, they are too busy trying to put the little ISPs out of business with inflated claims of performance and predator pricing.
Until the big ISPs start playing fair, I'm going to do my best to thwart any traffic shaping they come up with. The SecureIX.com VPN project is a very good start. Due to the encryption they can't prove it's illegal p2p traffic, if they block/throttle our VPN servers it will violate net neutrality because they have targeted one company. Let's see what happens.
One other note, P2P usage is NOT illegal. There are tons of LEGAL files being swapped. A prime example is the CentOS DVD images. You can only get them through bittorrent. Many companies use bittorrent legally to reduce bandwidth costs on large files. | |
| | | | Re: Real reasons why ISPs kill p2p traffic [Hang on folks, this one got long as I ranted away...]
Finally, somebody's talking about the physical reality behind this instead of ranting about "rights". While I find the big pseudo-monopolies in Canada frustrating as hell, and I'm quite certain they're raking in excess profits thanks to this advantage (whatever they may claim about their margins), the reality is that you're not buying 3-5 Mbps of download or 384 kbps of upload bandwidth to do whatever you want with at all times, and your contract tells you that (sort-of). You're buying an averaged, time-shared piece of a smaller aggregated pipe. Typical systems are designed with a 50:1 ratio (though that's been dropping), meaning that if everyone had a 5 Mbps service and tried to max it simultaneously, you'd each get about 100 kbps, regardless of what data was flowing. I'd argue that they're not actually selling at "less than intended rates" either, I'd say it's at "exactly intended rates", but the usage model has fundamentally changed and users are not really aware of those "exactly intended rates".
What makes P2P traffic require special consideration is the impact it has on upload traffic. Residential internet infrastructure was designed primarily with web surfing and e-mail in mind, or more generally, a "client/server" relationship where the user is always the "client". That's why you have 5 Mbps download bandwidth but only 384 kbps of upload. P2P is nasty because it drives larger volumes of upload traffic (from the seeding servers) than the network was intended for.
A similar thing happened with dial-up traffic over the POTS (Plain Old Telephone System), which changed the assumed usage model and nearly broke the network. They eventually adapted (somewhat), but that problem is effectively what drove the development of separate data networks.
The problem is infrastructure. Networks (and computer systems generally) become unstable and inefficient when they're highly utilized. (Think about what happens when you run too many apps simultaneously on an underpowered machine running XP - much slower than if you had run each process one-at-a-time.) If the ISPs just let P2P traffic run wild, enough users would eventually bring the entire network to it's knees. Then you'd be complaining about how slow EVERYTHING runs, rather than just P2P.
This problem could be solved by competition, if a competitor could actually go out and build an independent network that allows them to sell a GUARANTEED 384 kbps of upload service. The trouble is, that would cost billions of dollars and you'd probably have to pay $100+/month for that service. This is like a Service Level Agreement (SLA) contract that large companies pay hundreds or even thousands of $$$ / month for (e.g. T1 service). What you're getting for $10's / month is a "best effort" service, without any real guarantees.
"Competitive" ISPs are just buying service off of the same two infrastructures (Bell DSL and Roger's Cable), so they can't really change the physical realities, they can only play games with subscription ratios, pricing, etc.
Basically, the residential service you purchased wasn't designed for P2P traffic. If you want P2P (or to run servers for commercial purposes, etc.), SLA services are available - for a price that you won't like.
The other problem is mass consumer behaviour (yes, us, at least to an extent), and a fundamental marketing mistake. If Bell advertised "100k/30k guaranteed service (with burst speeds up to 5M/384k)" while Rogers advertised their "Up to 5M/384k" service, who would win? Very few people have the attention span, time, patience or background to read and understand the full details. Heck, I only finally read the details of my Roger's contract to write this e-mail  However, as SIX said, a big problem is that the ISPs don't really make any effort to explain any of this, and you certainly won't find any "guaranteed" minimum level of service. That's partly because there is virtually no way to measure or track these things effectively if somebody wanted to complain anyway. Again, that's what big, expensive SLAs are for. Residential service probably should never have been advertised in terms of specific data rates in the first place, though it's hard to avoid.
Now I know it sounds like I must work for an ISP, but I don't and I'll re-iterate that a lot of what they do pisses me off as a consumer. I just know something about their infrastructure and the reality of network costs. The alternative to managing P2P traffic through rate-limiting is to redesign the network to handle it. If it weren't for the parallel problem of P2P service being used mostly for "illegal" or at least "questionably illegal" content, I suspect Bell or Roger's would already be building and offering a P2P-friendly service at a somewhat higher cost (possibly throwing in rate-limited server support too). Heck, maybe they are. But right now, your $40 "5 Mbps" service is what it is, and I'm afraid the carriers don't have a lot of options other than to try to manage the traffic at that price point.
Of course, I could be wrong and the Internet could actually be built out of tubes with stuff flowing through it...
Note: The existence of that quote is why I have very little faith in the U.S. government taking the lead on any of this stuff.
A "good" net-neutrality arrangement will prevent ISPs from anti-competitive behaviour (i.e. VoIP service), while allowing them to manage network traffic for varying levels of service. Charging different rates for different types of service (i.e. P2P vs. web and e-mail) is perfectly reasonable and something you're already used to. You pay different bills for Cable TV, Internet and Phone service, right?
Current management of P2P traffic reflects the concept of "fair use" (where all users get roughly equal levels of access to resources), which then opens the door to different service levels at different prices. Thus, you could subscribe to a "web and e-mail" service for $20-$30, or a P2P service for $60. Average users get lower prices, while P2P users get what they want and pay for the costs to provide it.
Now, I'd also like to see all of those prices drop %20 with some real competition, but that's a separate topic...
(and yes, the idea that I'm actually defending Bell and Roger's does make me ill just on general principle) | |
|
| | SecureIX - Bittorrent's on Rogers Thanks for SecureIX tip. It works great!! | |
| | | Sux I use bitTorrent for getting stuff like Knoppix Live DVDs. BitTorrent is used for more than getting illegal files, we get 100% legal files too! | |
| | | Cable providers blocking BT... The vast majority of the BT-blocking Canadian ISPs are cable, not DSL.
My theory on this is that most peoples' bit-torrent downloads compete directly with the cable companies' entertainment offerings. If you've got cable coming into your house and want movies, you are expected to be financially hosed by subscribing to their premium content / view on demand services. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
Re: Go figure...
