dslreports logo
Comcast Changes TOS In Response To Traffic Shaping Firestorm
Begins to cover their posterior in face of FCC investigation...

Back in May of 2007 a Broadband Reports user named Robb Topolski first discovered that Comcast was throttling upstream p2p traffic by forging TCP packets. By August our users had already figured out how to get around the practice, and in October the Associated Press published an article that got the nation's attention. The resulting press firestorm (and FCC investigation) has so far resulted in Comcast changing nothing.

Well, that's not entirely true. Topolski e-mailed us this morning to note that Comcast has quietly implemented a new TOS, which includes an extensive section on network management and bandwidth limitations. The new revisions still lack any kind of specifics as to Comcast's monthly service cap, and of course they don't inform users that Comcast forges TCP connections to limit p2p connectivity. The new language is aimed largely at justifying Comcast's actions:

quote:
Comcast manages its network with one goal: to deliver the best possible broadband Internet experience to all of its customers. High-speed bandwidth and network resources are not unlimited. Managing the network is essential as Comcast works to promote the use and enjoyment of the Internet by all of its customers. The company uses reasonable network management practices that are consistent with industry standards. Comcast tries to use tools and technologies that are minimally intrusive and, in its independent judgment guided by industry experience, among the best in class. Of course, the company's network management practices will change and evolve along with the uses of the Internet and the challenges and threats on the Internet.
Click for full size
The primary goal of the TOS revision is to cover Comcast's legal posterior. The policy statement (pdf) that guides the FCC's hand in matters of network neutrality is not law, and is intentionally vague enough to allow providers to get away with anything short of an outright traffic blockade -- provided the traffic shaping can be shown to be "reasonable network management" by ISP lawyers.

While the FCC will likely ultimately find Comcast's practices "reasonable" by Kevin Martin standards, the commission may still fine the provider for not being forthcoming about the precise nature of their traffic shaping. If a network operator has the right to manage their network as they see fit, shouldn't a customer, shopping between -- say Verizon and Comcast -- also have the right to know which carrier interferes with upstream p2p traffic?
view:
topics flat nest 

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

1 recommendation

gatorkram

Premium Member

Sigh...

Why don't companies just put text in their TOS/AUP that states they don't have to do ANYTHING at all to keep you happy, and in fact they hate you.

telcolackey5
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA

4 recommendations

telcolackey5

Member

Re: Sigh...

Not sure it is possible to make everyone happy. Top 1% is not happy that bandwidth is not 100mb, unlimited and free. Bottom 20% don't care about unlimited BW and want it cheaper. Middle of the road think the bandwidth is fine, but are not happy that they are subsidizing the top 1%'s DVD download library.

Can't please them all.

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail

Premium Member

Re: Sigh...

said by telcolackey5:

Middle of the road think the bandwidth is fine, but are not happy that they are subsidizing the top 1%'s DVD download library.Can't please them all.
And I'm not happy that I had to subsidize the MoR's who couldn't be bothered to live somewhere with existing infrastructure so that I had to pay for their new lines to be run.

Since Everybody subsidizes Each Other, how is it a relevant discussion point?

NV

knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN

knightmb to telcolackey5

Member

to telcolackey5
said by telcolackey5:

Not sure it is possible to make everyone happy. Top 1% is not happy that bandwidth is not 100mb, unlimited and free. Bottom 20% don't care about unlimited BW and want it cheaper. Middle of the road think the bandwidth is fine, but are not happy that they are subsidizing the top 1%'s DVD download library.

Can't please them all.
Given that bandwidth is shared, the middle would only be affected if everyone else on their shared pipe was burning up P2P apps, in which case they would be the minority of the group instead of the "top" of everyone else left. So unless the top bandwidth users have found a way to "control" what is allocated to them, the arguments of them using all the bandwidth falls apart when you examine it from a technical standpoint.

So some confusion is:
Are they affecting network performance as a whole? Maybe.

Are they taking all of "your" bandwidth? No, they are sharing just like you.

Can the ISP better tune it's performance? Sure, that's what QoS and Traffic Shaping was invented for.

Is blocking traffic the same as QoS and Traffic Shaping? No, by definition, QoS and Traffic Shaping don't stop traffic, just control it's flow based on a set of rules. Blocking P2P is identical to blocking HTTP or PPTP traffic, except more people would get upset if they couldn't web surf or connect to the company VPN. Customer service nightmare for sure.

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI

Nightfall to telcolackey5

MVM

to telcolackey5
said by telcolackey5:

Not sure it is possible to make everyone happy. Top 1% is not happy that bandwidth is not 100mb, unlimited and free. Bottom 20% don't care about unlimited BW and want it cheaper. Middle of the road think the bandwidth is fine, but are not happy that they are subsidizing the top 1%'s DVD download library.

Can't please them all.
The only way to do that is to use a tiered pricing structure which Comcast is doing. Along with that though, they should be lifting bandwidth limitations for all users who get the top tier.
mikenolan7
Premium Member
join:2005-06-07
Torrance, CA

mikenolan7 to telcolackey5

Premium Member

to telcolackey5
Can't please them all, therefore we can advertise whatever we want, and they get whatever we give them. How on earth does "you can't please them all" justify false advertising to everyone?

There is a simple solution here. Advertised data rates should include a percentage of time that the data rate is available. Don't spout BS about that's what you pay extra for on a business connection. Lower the uptime and availability numbers from the business connections. No more 784kb/6mb connections that run at that rate 10% of the time, unless you advertise it that way. If you advertise 90% availability, and it only reaches that rate 10% of the time, you deduct 80% from the bill. End of arguments. End of excuses. Tell the truth and you won't have to spend so much on lawyers.

koitsu
MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
Humax BGW320-500

koitsu to gatorkram

MVM

to gatorkram
said by gatorkram:

Why don't companies just put text in their TOS/AUP that states they don't have to do ANYTHING at all to keep you happy, and in fact they hate you.
Which is funny, because it didn't used to be that way with providers 15 years ago. The utterly bizarre "anti-customer" corporate attitude is something fairly new (and I'm still baffled by the fact that it grows rather than diminishes).

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

1 recommendation

gatorkram

Premium Member

Re: Sigh...

I remember when all we had was dial up, and being that dial up, for the most part, didn't limit you to one provider, how nice and accommodating the local guys were, compared to the big boys..

I used to hang out at my ISP sometimes, just to talk with them, and watch all the modem lights blink..
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

1 recommendation

axus

Member

Re: Sigh...

Dialup really was the perfect competitive environment for internet access. The only limiter was your local phone company, pretty much every local zone would have an ISP or 10. Prices dropped to the minimum, and the fittest/most friendly flourished.

The thing dialup had going for it was the phone routing system, so you could dial anywhere that gives the best deal. A modern net connection goes to one place, and you need an account to even get there. Every competitor needs to bring you a separate line to your door, instead of going over one line. Its a shame that line-sharing could not be done in a way to make customers and the line-sharer happy.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram

Premium Member

Re: Sigh...

I so wish life could be that simple in the internet provider space..

Of course some will say, if the providers know they have to line share, they will have no incentive to upgrade their lines in the first place..

It seems to me, they already have little to no incentive to do that, and pretty much only roll out better services when they absolutely must.

Sad isn't it?

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Sigh...

There are some telcos that still have this kind of flexibility on their DSL service. Since DSLAMs just map each DSL connection into ATM PVCs, they can terminate the connection on any other ATM end-point on the same network.

When I lived downtown I was in Qwest territory and was able to order DSL with my choice of ISPs, so I was able to get provisioned to a local ISP that routed me a /29 and provided all kinds of nifty features like shell access on one of their user SunOS machines.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 edit

1 recommendation

Skippy25 to gatorkram

Member

to gatorkram
That is why I call for one nationwide network that any provider of any service can "lease" to get to any customer in any location that is willing to pay for one of their services.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram

Premium Member

Re: Sigh...

said by Skippy25:

That is why I call for one nationwide network that any provider of any service can "lease" to get to any customer in any location that is willing to play for one of their services.
I agree %100..

I have many posts, where I talk about how great it would be if anyone could provide me access.

I often compare it to how many different places can sell you web-hosting, or dedicated servers, etc etc etc...

All I really need, is a fiber line going back to my CO I guess, and then some company needs to have equipment there for me to plug into..

To bad it would cost me an arm and a leg, and then some if I wanted to pay for this on my own...
utahluge
join:2004-10-14
Draper, UT

utahluge to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25

UTOPIA

UTOPIA
Welcome to the network where I get to choose the provider over my fiber line. (Re: Dialup comment) I have the freedom to choose from a handful of providers. Why do you think Utopia is having such a hard time making its way into new cities?? The ''Big Boys'' are scared out of their pants!! They are doing all they can to force city officials from going with Utopia. If more of us let our cities know we want Utopia then we can make it happen. I know this will only start to break ice in Utah but enough of you push for it in your states I am sure it would quickly grow.

o rly
@enta.net

o rly to Skippy25

Anon

to Skippy25

Re: Sigh...

said by Skippy25:

That is why I call for one nationwide network that any provider of any service can "lease" to get to any customer in any location that is willing to pay for one of their services.
At least that's one good thing about the evil UK. BT has one or more DSLAMs in nearly every telephone exchange that they own (something like 5564 exchanges have ADSL out of 5592), and they (obviously) have to wholesale it. This means that I can choose out of over 100 ISPs, and if I don't like them, I can change with minimal downtime.

Speeds are pretty good too - I have 8Mbit down, 832k up and for the most part I get them.

Things should get better when BT finally trundle out ADSL2+ in the next few years (the reason for their lateness being that they're ripping out their whole phone/DSL network and replacing it with a shiny new IP one).

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo to Skippy25

MVM

to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

That is why I call for one nationwide network that any provider of any service can "lease" to get to any customer in any location that is willing to pay for one of their services.
You can get that today. You can order a DSx or OCx circuit from your local telco and have the end point be any carrier or ISP you wish. The problem is nobody but businesses and die-hard end-users are willing to pay for that kind of flexibility. (it comes at a steep price)
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Sigh...

Really, thats gives us one nationwide network not controlled by the current kingpins?

I think you missed the entire point and concept of my post.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Sigh...

Maybe so? Who are you suggesting would be responsible for operating this nationwide network?
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Sigh...

I would suggest 1 to 3 companies that are overseen by the government.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 edit

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Sigh...

said by Skippy25:

I would suggest 1 to 3 companies that are overseen by the government.
Verizon, ATT, and Qwest are 3 companies that cover the overwhelming majority of the US. They will all sell you data circuits on copper (DS1/3,etc) or fiber (OC3-768) to any destination endpoint you wish. Moreover, the pricing on these connections is regulated by tariffs set by the Public Utilities Commission (the government).

For example, I currently live in an Embarq territory. If I wanted to get a DS3 to Savvis, I could just call up Savvis to order the circuit and they will in turn contact Embarq for the actual delivery of the end-point of the circuit at my house. My monthly bill would only come from Savvis, and they would get charged by Embarq a standard tariff rate set by the PUC.

The network you describe already exists today.
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25
If the government controlled it, we'd all have ISDN lines

WeSRT4
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL

WeSRT4 to koitsu

Member

to koitsu
said by koitsu:

said by gatorkram:

Why don't companies just put text in their TOS/AUP that states they don't have to do ANYTHING at all to keep you happy, and in fact they hate you.
Which is funny, because it didn't used to be that way with providers 15 years ago. The utterly bizarre "anti-customer" corporate attitude is something fairly new (and I'm still baffled by the fact that it grows rather than diminishes).
Companies like Wal-Mart started this type of corporate attitude by instituting things like absurd return policies. Customers then started demanding more and more for companies to bend over backwards to please them. Now those corporations have back-lashed against the customer. They finally realized it is impossible to make everyone happy, so they no longer even try.

I'm not taking up for the corporate attitude but rather simply explaining where it comes from.

MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Katy, TX

MysticGogeta to gatorkram

Premium Member

to gatorkram
said by gatorkram:

Why don't companies just put text in their TOS/AUP that states they don't have to do ANYTHING at all to keep you happy, and in fact they hate you.
I for one think they might as well slim it down to two words, first word starts with a F, and the second with a Y. They really just want money and try to dance around the fact their screwing you hard.
swiffatek
join:2003-12-20

swiffatek

Member

subject goes here

They probably should have stated some type of hard cap, because as it is my ability to use their network is already limited. It's limited by the tier of service that i pay for.

hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium Member
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA

hopeflicker

Premium Member

Re: subject goes here

The company uses reasonable network management practices that are consistent with industry standards

What a load of dog crap!!

Throttling is not STANDARD

koitsu
MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
Humax BGW320-500

koitsu

MVM

Re: subject goes here

said by hopeflicker:

The company uses reasonable network management practices that are consistent with industry standards

What a load of dog crap!!

Throttling is not STANDARD

Clarification: injecting falsified/unsolicited TCP packets into a stream (sent bidirectionally nonetheless) is definitely NOT a standard.

Throttling (traffic shaping via QoS, rate-limiting, or even via packet loss) is a general standard.

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather

Premium Member

Re: subject goes here

In Canada maybe.

BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Nite-Owl
join:2007-01-11

1 recommendation

BabyBear to koitsu

Member

to koitsu
said by koitsu:

Clarification: injecting falsified/unsolicited TCP packets into a stream (sent bidirectionally nonetheless) is definitely NOT a standard.

Throttling (traffic shaping via QoS, rate-limiting, or even via packet loss) is a general standard.
Really? CISA* would disagree with you.

*Comcastic International Standards Assoc.
firewire9999
join:2004-07-11
Livonia, MI

firewire9999

Member

What are they thinking?

"Comcast manages its network with one goal: to deliver the best possible broadband Internet experience to all of its customers. High-speed bandwidth and network resources are not unlimited."

That quote from the article sounds they have the Public Relations and/or Lawyers writing the TOS now?

LOL

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: What are they thinking?

said by firewire9999:

they have the Public Relations and/or Lawyers writing the TOS now?

Lawyers always wrote the TOS. Just a byproduct of our sue-happy society and the fact that there are too many law schools pumping out too many lawyers.
OwlSaver
OwlSaver
Premium Member
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA

1 recommendation

OwlSaver

Premium Member

Re: What are they thinking?

I am no defender of Lawyers or Comcast. However, your comment about lawsuits and lawyers does require some clarification. First, corporations file far more lawsuits than individuals. So, if sue happy refers to companies suing each other and their customers (a very strange policy but all too common), then you are correct. If you are referring to consumers suing companies, then you are following the Insurance industry line. Please do some research on both sides of this issue and you will find that there is ample evidence that it is companies that are sue happy and not consumers.

Yes, law schools do produce far too many lawyers. The result however is not as bad as one might expect. I do not have current statistics, but I believe that close to 50% of law school graduates are practicing law after five years. So, it is the law students (and their parents in many cases) who pay the price for too many lawyers.

Take Care

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

4 recommendations

POB to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Lawyers always wrote the TOS. Just a byproduct of our sue-happy society and the fact that there are too many law schools pumping out too many lawyers.
Just as there are too many B schools "pumping" out too many MBAs and generating too many marketing morons and white collar CEO criminals.

••••

jgkolt
Premium Member
join:2004-02-21
Avon, OH

jgkolt

Premium Member

time warner

i would like to see time warnewr they are managing their network to provide optimum speeds to everyone as i barely get 10-5% of what is advertised speeds. as long as att doesn't go nation wide with the filter program I will be glad i switched. I say this seeing as the cable industry seems to copy each other.
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA

cornelius785

Member

seem reasonable but...

the question still remains if essentially forging/altering packets is reasonable and should be allowed. in my opinion altering how someone experiences the internet should not be done (messing with packets, dns redirection, and similar, but not bandwidth allocation). i think they should just decrease bandwidth allocated to a user as the network load increases, starting with those that use the most.

i'd be curious to see how much bittorrent traffic actually effects comcast's network. does it really slow down sections of thier network? which could be solved by upgrading maybe? since comcast is not a tier 1 ISP, is the bandwidth caused by bittorrent costing them a lot of money?

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather

Premium Member

Now ADVERTISE it

Now instead of claiming "lightning fast downloads" in all yer advertising, put that part of the TOS in bold print in all the advertising so customers aren't mislead and know exactly what they're signing up for.
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

1 recommendation

Rick5

Premium Member

IMHO..

We need to move on from this issue.

Those who this is ultimately affecting are the extreme..way over the top users who feel that they have the right to everything and anything for one low price.

I..and the vast majority of Comcast customers are very satisfied with our service and expect this company to do whatever it takes to preserve exactly that and to deliver a quality experience for the majority of us..not the minority.

What regular visitors to the comcast forum at this site know is that Comcast has VERY liberal usage policies allowing for upwards of 20Mb speeds with powerboost..as well as VERY generous "caps" exceeding 200 to 300 Gigs per month of downloading.

What we have ALL seen is other isp's who..when pressed to the wall on this issue..have THEN had to state their policies to allow for perhaps only 20 to 30 gigs.
Comcast hasn't done that..but what is being risked here in continuing to press them on this issue is that they will be FORCED to do that. Obviously they don't want to..and haven't...but if this minority is allowed to continue to speak on this issue..and given this continued voice to do so by BBR in the process...then that is most likely exactly what could wind up happening.

Comcast..nor any isp for that matter..does not owe any customer these kinds of speeds and download amounts for this kind of a price on an absolutely unlimited basis 24/7.
These networks have limitations that can cause the service to totally crash for the rest of us..and it is comcasts responsibility to protect us from that which is exactly what they are doing.

This company is more than fair in what they allow the vast majority of us for this kind of price..and I believe are even going above and beyond what they even need to do in the interest of delivering us a very quality product and experience.

If the bandwidth hogs want what they want..then they should seek out other resources and isp's to get that.
Perhaps they should pay for their own unlimted 20,000k pipe that would probably cost them 10,000 or more per month.
WE..as their regular customers..do not owe that to them.
Nor do we want to subsidize their activities any longer.

If they have a problem with this..then move to another isp's territory. Or split their usage up among a second connection.

BBR should STOP promoting their interests which is, in fact..endorsing them. Publicly posting under the guise of "news" workarounds as to how they can get around this only puts yourself in the light of being something that you really shouldn't be yourselves IMHO.

Comcast..keep right on doing what you're doing.

The vast majority of us respect you for it..and appreciate it.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
blips
join:2001-04-17
Addison, IL

blips

Member

P2P, bandwidth hogs, et all

It may start with P2P and the "bandwidth hogs" but where will it end. Will they interfere with VoIP providers, movie download services, site providing TV over the internet or anyone else that my be a potential competitor in the future. Where does it end and when will they be accountable? I can careless about P2P downloaders and bandwidth hogs, but I get nervous when they can shape my traffic and interfere with any other services I use or might use in the future. You give them an inch and you better believe they will take the whole mile.

•••••

factchecker
@cox.net

factchecker

Anon

Industry standards ?

The company uses reasonable network management practices that are consistent with industry standards.
I'll call bullshit on this one. There was just a long discussion on the North American Network Operators Group mailing list and forging IP packets clearly is anything but an industry standard method of network management.

Yes, you had a couple of hard liners who agreed with the boneheaded stance of breaking the network, but a majority of the posters disagreed with it and felt that caps are a better method of controlling bandwidth waste (ie - leaving a torrent seeding forever).

Cruzinmy64
@ameritech.net

Cruzinmy64

Anon

FORCED to advertise ONLY the bandwidth they Can dish 24x7

If we pay for bandwidth that is what we should get. They should be FORCED to advertise ONLY the bandwidth they CAN SUSTAIN 24x7. Don't lie to me saying I have 12mbits download / 3mbits upload when in fact I don't. I am lucky to see 256kbit to 512kbps upload on Comcast! I want a consistent experience not a "maybe you can get that speed". If they can't handle P2P, I say they should be forced in 1 or 2 possibilities. Either shut their mouths and provide TRUE UNLIMITED bandwidth or advertise and deliver a constant "throttled" internet which can be maxed out 24x7 if I choose.If I buy 512kbs upload I want 512kbs ALL the time, not when they feel like it. Much rather have them be HONEST saying you only have 512k not the 3Mb outright LIE. What about legitimate traffic? Why do I have to stress about too much video conferencing with my loved ones? Why do I have to stress about watching a LEGAL downloaded movie from Netflix upsetting Comcast? Why do I feel like I should only be able to watch my Slingbox a little bit because of the fear of getting capped?? I ordered DSL and while their advertised speeds are much lower than cable, I actually get a HIGHER throughput!!! F'' cable!

ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN

1 recommendation

ctceo

Premium Member

World of Warcraft Updater

If you are a comcast customer having difficulty updating or are encountering errors (corrupt files) after updating your World of Warcraft MMO, You must disable all P2P ports, and download the update at 16kb/s from only the HTTP and/or FTP server provided directly by Blizzard. It may take a while to download that 350+mb patch, but it will not corrupt files embedded in the .mpq during the process.

Sorry about your luck but if you have comcast you may want to consider another broadband provider to avoid these issues altogether.

LOL:

They should have added a section to their TOS that states:

During the process of attempting to "manage" our internet connections you may experience difficulty or corrupt files in updating your favorite MMO games that utilize direct p2p technology for faster updating times, and may have to resort to using a ~160kbps connection to update your game correctly.
jobias
join:2006-01-18
Knoxville, TN

jobias

Member

Re: World of Warcraft Updater

Greetings WoW player:
Despite the fact that we make millions of dollars each month, we're too cheap to properly host an update file. Instead we rely on you, the paying customer, to front your own bandwidth in order to distribute our required monthly updates to our paying customers in a timely fashion. Without you, where would we be? O, that's right, a few hundred thousand dollars less rich. Thank you paying customer, for degrading the service of everyone on your node on patch day, just so we can earn a extra few pennies from each of you.
Signed,
Blizzard

I seem to remember playing other MMO's that had patches that you could download from a variety of locations, each hosted on commercial grade servers. At high speeds. Via Http or FTP. Blizzard's updater isn't some sort of awe inspiring great new tool. It is just a way to lower their cost per player per patch. While I support that kind of tool for indie developers that really can't afford to distribute everything themselves, I think blizzard might... just might be rolling in enough dough to start paying for (more of) the patch bandwidth themselves, instead of relying on a tool that leaches upload bandwidth from everyone that plays (I know, you can turn it off. But it's there by default, and the masses... they don't know)
NbWY1
join:2003-05-23
Columbia, MD

NbWY1

Member

Re: World of Warcraft Updater

I have such a love/hate relationship with Blizzard.. to me that downloader is just icing on the cake.