Comcast Gets Investigated While Cox Gets Free PassNew data from Glasnost project shows depth of Cox BitTorrent blocking.... 11:42AM Thursday May 15 2008 by Karl Bodetags: competition · Fileswapping · business · bandwidth · cable · telco · networking · net-neutrality · Comcast · Cox HSIEarlier this month I directed your attention to a new test dubbed the Glasnost Project, a Java applet project by the Max Planck Institute in Germany, aimed at testing whether ISPs are fiddling with user BitTorrent traffic. Preliminary results showed that the most frequent blocking (as they conservatively define it) is occurring in the United States and Singapore. The Associated Press has obtained a list of the offending ISPs (not originally included with the results) and seems shocked to learn that Cox is engaging in the same packet forgery P2P throttling as Comcast: Cox Communications appears to be interfering with file-sharing by its Internet subscribers in the same manner that has landed Comcast Corp. in hot water with regulators, according to research obtained by The Associated Press. . . Of the 788 Comcast subscribers who participated in the study, 491, or 62 percent, had their connections blocked. At Cox, 82 out of 151 subscribers, or 54 percent, were blocked. The AP shouldn't be surprised. Last November I reported that Cox was engaged in the same kind of packet forgery as Comcast. However, the story got little traction, and Cox managed to fly under the FCC radar while Comcast had the living hell beaten out of them by, well, everyone. Part of that is because Cox has been a little more forthcoming in their use of such systems, though even their statement to me last fall left a lot to be desired: To ensure the best possible online experience for our customers, Cox actively manages network traffic through a variety of methods including traffic prioritization and protocol filtering. Cox does not prohibit the use of file-sharing services for uploads or downloads, or discriminate against any specific services in any way. To help our customers make the most out of their Internet experience, we take proactive measures to ensure that bandwidth intensive applications do not negatively impact their service. These network management practices are outlined in our subscriber agreement and Acceptable Use Policy. So they engage in protocol filtering, but they don't discriminate against any specific services? That's still not particularly clear, and it certainly doesn't specifically tell customers exactly what's happening to their P2P traffic. The FCC has stated they want these practices specifically disclosed to broadband shoppers, so they know exactly what they're buying (and for once I agree with the FCC). So why the free pass for Cox? I'll note that Glasnost Project lead Krishna Gummadi tells the Associated Press that there are no phone companies on the list of offending ISPs. That's something else phone company marketing departments can put in their competitive ad arsenal, right beside caps and over-use fees. Something else of note is that the study shows cable operators are engaged in this blocking 24/7, though Comcast claimed it occurred only at moments of peak congestion. Unfortunately, our users say the Glasnost project must be on a strict budget, given the servers are consistently busy. I've also seen at least one blogger complain that when it does work, the test is delivering NSFW popups, something I've yet to confirm.
Related:- Cox Also Disrupting P2P Traffic
- The EFF 'Test Your ISP' Project
- Comcast Unfazed By Traffic Shaping Media Heat
- NY Attorney General Investigating Comcast
- Comcast Tells FCC To Butt Out
- Comcast Begins Testing 'Protocol Agnostic' Network Management
- Comcast, Cox, Trot Out Their Worst 'Bandwidth Hogs'
- Beating Comcast's Sandvine On Linux With Iptables
|
 |  | | | | primeangel
join:2001-01-03
Lancaster, OH | Re: Glasnost Project yeah ive been trying since they posted that story here originally...always says its busy | |
| | | | 
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs: | Re: Glasnost Project Same here, I never get through. | |
| | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by primeangel  :yeah ive been trying since they posted that story here originally...always says its busy I managed a result once; out of about ten tries. Said my ISP wasn't interfering.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | 
Jahntassa
What, I can have feathers
join:2006-04-14
Conyers, GA | I got it to work once last week at my in-laws place.. | |
| | 
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR | The load time for Java doesn't help matters, either. But I have successfully ran the test a number of times. Prior to this press cycle, I found that I could run a test within a minute or two -- I just had to keep retrying in order to do it. | |
| | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Wonder if their test methodologies are as flawed as their server resource allocation seems to be?  | |
| wxpwzrd
join:2003-12-21
Las Vegas, NV | Cox is blocking in Vegas I am a Cox subscriber in Las Vegas. I have run the application a few times. Each time the site has reported that Cox is forging TCP RST packets, but not throttling the download speeds. | |
| | 
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| Go for the big guys first... I think the FCC is investigating the bigger guys first, in this case Comcast. After the investigation, and if they have found Comcast guilty and fined them, they'll go after Cox.
Why waste time on Cox when Comcast is the bigger fish?
--
www.rr.cx | YourIP.US | MySite.cx | |
| 
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| /. None of the Glasnost servers are available not only because there's only a few of them to use, but -- right now -- mainly because Slashdot has a story up mentioning them.
Try again in about 2 weeks.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. | |
| |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
edit:
May 15th, @12:51PM
| Why DSLReports Readers Gave Cox A Pass Hi guys,
While I wasn't the first person to notice the interference on Comcast or Cox, I was the first person to analyze it sufficiently to determine that these two companies were using Sandvine to block P2P traffic. (With Cox, my findings were limited to ED2K because the BitTorrent traces at my disposal simply weren't good enough for me to put my reputation on the line.)
When I posted my first report about this back in May of 2007, the report was largely set aside. It wasn't so much that people disbelieved it altogether, it was more that people on DSLReports are networking experts, enthusiasts, and students and all off us -- at one time or another -- have either been troubled by or taken actions in response to the on-network behavior of somebody else. The story didn't take off until mid-August when it was covered by TorrentFreak.
Quite frankly, back in May 2007, Network Neutrality was such an immutable principle in my thinking that I didn't realize anyone thought it debatable. But we all know that the immutable principle had been violated before -- in tiny increments, with little to no backlash:
- ISPs blocked spam sources
- ISPs blocked certain incoming ports commonly attacked
- ISPs blocked certain outgoing ports commonly attacked
- ISPs blocked certain incoming service ports
- ISPs blocked spam based on message body attributes
So it seemed like a natural progression to DSLReports readers when it was revealed that ISPs had, for months, already been blocking P2P to some degree. Users in the Adelphia forum on DSLReports had discussed it at length and detail. Several here-and-there reports on other ISP forums indicated strange uploading issues or seeing RSTs where they weren't expected. As I was putting this all together, I found similar messages on the support forums ran by popular P2P applications.
I don't think DSLReports users gave it a pass. I think we're all fans of an open, standards-based Internet that provides the maximum amount of access to everyone. I just think that most users take it as an unfortunate fact that there are few choices among Broadband providers in most areas. Whether we like it or not, most of us have to take whatever they're willing to give us.
If ISPs have decided that P2P file-sharing was a scourge -- and even we as a reader base have been affected by it in one way or another -- it's easy to fail to look beyond the facts to the greater implications. We probably didn't overtly give it a "pass," we probably failed to take a position on whether such blocking is good or bad.
I'll say it again -- Comcast is not a bad ISP. They've been quite reluctant to do non-Neutral things like blocking outgoing port 25. So when I learned that they DO block P2P applications, it was pretty shocking to me (hence my report), but perhaps acceptable if they only "throttled back a little," or "only affected uploads," or "only did it during hours of congestion," (to name three assertions that I initially presumed that turned out to be ultimately untrue).
The GREAT NEWS is that RST is probably dead as a "Reasonable Network Management" method. Only Comcast and Cox were regularly using the method (the other MSOs apparently only tested it and declined). The FCC cannot possibly find that this was "Reasonable Network Management" and has no choice but to order the activity stopped.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| 
DivineDark
join:2001-08-30
Oklahoma City, OK
clubs: | not here Cox must only be picking trouble spots to block because my connection came back clean. Can anyone else in OKC report? | |
| | 
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Talala, OK
| Re: not here While my ISP isn't actually COX, they (COX) do provide the back-haul services to my ISP. In fact, I'm assigned a COX IP and most places, like here at DSLR, identify me as a COX customer.
With that bit of background info, I have run the tests and they showed no blocking or interference of P2P. So it could be that COX in Tulsa isn't blocking either. | |
| | | | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: not here said by MarkyD :said by DivineDark :Cox must only be picking trouble spots to block because my connection came back clean. Can anyone else in OKC report? BT seeding is working fine for me on Cox OKC. That site also gives me a clean report. I've noticed it in the last month on cox and the comcast work around isn't working on cox[where you cap your download while you seed at what rate you set]
downloads aren't capped[yet]
encryption doesn't seem to matter.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
·Cox HSI
| I don't know if they are now, but a couple of months ago they were indeed blocking seeding in Tulsa. As long as you were still downloading a particular torrent, you could upload, but as soon as it was done, their filter started sending RSTs like mad.
They were doing the same in San Diego (to a business connection, no less!), but not in the Kansas market, at least at that time.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
| 
NIllinois
@comcast.net
| Stop the bandwidth pirates I am tired of some people paying the same price and sucking all the bandwidth. Bring on metered usage. If you use it, then pay for it. It's time broadband became like any other utility like electricity and gas. It's especially true because the total bandwidth is limited.This would be a whole lot better then filtering content. Maybe another option would be a tier system so you could buy a flat MB package like Cell phone companies do. It seems to me the only people who would complain about a metered system is the people that are the culprits of this problem.I think with more media downloads and more bandwidth hungry content that something will be done. | |
| 
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| Results are bogus We serve about 50,000 DSL users, and run our own network. We don't do any blocking or other odd stuff - just straight connections. (No PPPoE even - real bridged IPs, dynamic or static)
But, we are on their list. Thus, I think their testing methods are totally cracked. FYI!
-Dane Jasper
Sonic.net | |
| | battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| Re: Results are bogus That project is BS, plain and simple. They have no mechanism to determine why the test failed. A misconfigured router, company firewall, or even norton could cause this test to fail. All they are doing is matching up their fails with the whois on the IP, then falsely accusing the ISP of wrong doing. | |
| | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| Re: Results are bogus said by battleop :That project is BS, plain and simple. They have no mechanism to determine why the test failed. A misconfigured router, company firewall, or even norton could cause this test to fail. All they are doing is matching up their fails with the whois on the IP, then falsely accusing the ISP of wrong doing. The code is up for review. Review it.
It looks for very specific things at very specific moments, and repeats the tests.
And even if a particular installation is faulty, human beings review the data to separate noise from fact.
They have detected RSTs on 7 other ISP networks, but they've only named Comcast and Cox because the data consistently agrees across the population of tests.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | |
DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
clubs:
| Re: Results are bogus said by funchords :said by DaneJasper :But, we are on their list. Thus, I think their testing methods are totally cracked. FYI! I don't see SONIC.NET on their list... and you are one of the greatest ISPs in the world. Your user base is more technical than most - it wouldn't surprise me to see some user-generated noise in their results for SONIC.NET, but they have not concluded that your network interferes in any way. Thanks for the comments.
Sorry, I might be mixing up these results with results from another entity which was claiming that their analysis implicated AT&T and others. Their published list included us, which pointed toward the whole method being flawed in my opinion.
-Dane | |
| | | |
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| Re: Results are bogus said by DaneJasper :Sorry, I might be mixing up these results with results from another entity which was claiming that their analysis implicated AT&T and others. Those were the Vuze results -- these results are very, very different.
I know that Vuze deliberated before releasing their data. They knew it would be confusing. Personally, I suspect that unique user behavior added too much noise to the data, making it difficult to draw conclusions from it. But they also were under pressure to release what they had, since the FCC chair essentially asked for the data the week before.
In the end, it was what it was -- and I would never have interpreted the data to mean that AT&T was throttling. I think that idea came from AT&T itself.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| iliketoplay1
join:2006-02-06
Merrill, WI | Cant even get a ping I cant even ping the site, it says can not find host. | |
| 
seven001
join:2002-07-24
Richmond, KY
clubs:
| Time Warner too Seems like Time Warner is getting a free pass too. Not once have I seen any bad press about them throttling torrents, even though whenever I start one my connection goes to utter crap. As soon as I kill it, my connection returns to normal. Maybe they aren't doing it everywhere, but it's extremely obvious that they do it here.
What really sucks is that I'm not downloading illegally. I play WoW, and as everyone knows it uses a torrent client to download patches. I've also tried to use it to download America's Army and Ubuntu with the same results.
I'd love to see what would happen if they ended up in the news alongside Comcast and Cox. | |
| CopperMonkey
join:2007-12-18
united state | Successful test I got the test app running here (after 5 tries). Came back clean across the board as expected (it'd really surprise me if Qwest took to blocking/delaying anything). | |
| BubbaDude
join:2008-06-06
Livermore, CA | Glasnost is pathetic I verified that BT seeding was working on my Comcast account, and then shut it down and ran the Glasnost test. The test said 2 out of 2 connections were stuffed.
It's obvious crap that was never tested on a real broadband network. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
Glasnost Project
Comcast VP Cohen - Martin hate each other
·