AP Discovers Comcast Traffic Shaping - Talks to our forum user who first discovered practice...

AP Discovers Comcast Traffic Shaping - Talks to our forum user who first discovered practice...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

AP Discovers Comcast Traffic Shaping
Talks to our forum user who first discovered practice...
(old news - 11:47AM Friday Oct 19 2007)
tags: business · bandwidth · cable · networking · Comcast
Tipped by jjoshua

A few months ago, an astute user in our forums started noticing that Comcast (in addition to their invisible download limits) was using Sandvine traffic-shaping hardware, installed at the CMTSs, to limit the effectiveness of BitTorrent seeding. The goal is to manage BitTorrent traffic without tipping off mainstream users that it's being done. Here's how it works, according to resident user Robb Topolski, who has been dissecting the practice for months:

"The Sandvine application reads packets that are traversing the network boundary. If the application senses that outbound P2P traffic is higher than a threshold determined by Comcast, Sandvine begins to interrupt P2P protocol sequences that would initiate a new transfer from within the Comcast network to a peer outside of the Comcast network. The interruption is accomplished by sending a perfectly forged TCP packet (correct peer, port, and sequence numbering) with the RST (reset) flag set. This packet is obeyed by the network stack or operating system which drops the connection."

When asked about the practice, Comcast consistently denies any application blocking, but chooses their words carefully. Ultimately, our users found they could get around the practice by enabling forced encryption on many BitTorrent clients. So far, the game of cat and mouse had been ignored by major outlets, given that the sanctity of TCP/IP doesn't make compelling mainstream news fodder.

The Associated Press changed that today by testing and confirming the practice using a copy of the Bible. The AP reporter gets the stock response from Comcast about the use of Sandvine gear, but also speaks to Topolski and BitTorrent companies (some of them obviously video competitors) impacted by the practice. It didn't take long for network neutrality supporters to lambast Comcast.

Comcast Installs DOCSIS 3.0 In Two New Markets

What's Behind Comcast's Sudden Love of P2P

Comcast Begins Testing 'Protocol Agnostic' Network Management

Comcast Confirms New Throttling Tests We Reported Yesterday

Comcast To Deploy Femtocells

Comcast, Cox, Trot Out Their Worst 'Bandwidth Hogs'

Beating Comcast's Sandvine On Linux With Iptables

Comcast Expands Switched Digital Video Trials

Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
TK Junk Mail @ 19th Oct 11:34AM:
Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems).

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
reply

LeftOfSanity @ 19th Oct 11:40AM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by TK Junk Mail :

Net neutrality was about being content provider neutral. It had nothing to do with being protocol neutral. Trying to tie protocol neutrality in to Net neutrality is just an attempt by the music and video thieves to protect the mechanisms of theft(that is their P2P systems).

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.

I agree. It's their network. Move on if you don't like it.
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 11:42AM:
get over it people

internet access is a privilege you pay a company to provide, not a right. you don't own the line, the equipment, hold the peering contracts, the providers do. traffic over their connections are only as equal as the providers grant. every major providers TOS clearly states this. don't like it? leave. that's how free markets work.
reply

en102 @ 19th Oct 11:44AM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

Shouldn't Comcast notify the customer about their traffic/usage, rather than interfering with p2p traffic?
Eg. If I flood TCP/ICMP, etc. I'd probably get disconnected until I call up CS.

Not all p2p is illegal.

The only equivalent of p2p I use is called Skype.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply

ronnie @ 19th Oct 11:44AM:
Re: get over it people

said by JasonD :

internet access is a privilege you pay a company to provide, not a right. you don't own the line, the equipment, hold the peering contracts, the providers do. traffic over their connections are only as equal as the providers grant. every major providers TOS clearly states this. don't like it? leave. that's how free markets work.

anon @ 19th Oct 11:44AM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

Trying to tie a particular protocol to piracy is asinine.

BT is an ever increasingly common method for distribution of legal software.

This has nothing to do with Piracy and everything to do with Comcast not being able to support the speeds they advertise.

To compete with telco wireline competition they make these huge multi-megabit promises, then on back side establish these phantom monthly DL caps and institute bandwidth throttling in their struggle to live up to these "BMW" speed claims.
reply

ronnie @ 19th Oct 11:45AM:
Re: get over it people

Kinda like the "unlimited" internet access that really isn't "unlimited", those TOS are the ones you are talking about?

That is why we have the court system.
reply

Madcap @ 19th Oct 11:49AM:
Re: get over it people

And to think we share a first name. *shakes his head*

You all seem to have little to no knowledge of the legal uses for sure technology. Let me drop one that get through to the kiddies.

World of Warcraft patches via p2p networking. So when you say "OMGZ mah patch iz slow!" Thank Sandvine.

For the cultured and up and coming,
Free artists and movie makers, as well as software companies that deploy hot fix patches using this protocol are basically shut out. It's well noted that in MANY areas there is not much competition against Comcast, so they can't just "leave it".

Back under your rocks people. Everything from snail mail to passing dvds in class can be used to pirate and steal. You're really, really going to have to get over your "p2p is just for thieves" attitudes.
reply

N3OGH @ 19th Oct 11:53AM:
This is now the top story on Drudge report

Wow, this story is now the top story on he Drudge report....
reply

abu maryam @ 19th Oct 11:54AM:
Comcast SUCKS

I am so happy that I am not a comcast customer. And if I was I wouldnt think twice about dropping their shady service.

I encourage others to do the same.
reply

TK Junk Mail @ 19th Oct 12:02PM:
Re: Comcast SUCKS

said by abu maryam :

I am so happy that I am not a comcast customer. And if I was I wouldnt think twice about dropping their shady service.

I encourage others to do the same.

And who are you a customer of that is so much better?
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
reply

espaeth @ 19th Oct 12:03PM:
P2P and Oversubscription are natural enemies

P2P traffic mitigation techniques are not going away anytime soon. Broadband networks are built to accommodate "normal" traffic patterns which have random bursts that tend to balance out the load. That's how with a single 38mbps downstream channel cable companies are able to provision multiple 16mbps connections with everyone appearing to be able to hit their maximum transfer speed.

P2P software operates under the assumption that there's all this "idle" bandwidth available to be tapped for transfers. The problem is that on an oversubscribed network your "idle" capacity tends to be your neighbors' "use" capacity. For being a "free" method of distributing content, P2P has expensive implications on capacity planning and network architecture.

There's only a few approaches to take with this, and any option that gets chosen is going to be unpopular.

1) Throttle traffic types that disrupt the experience for the overwhelming majority of your customer base
2) Convert to a usage-based billing system to fund infrastructure upgrades in areas where heavy use occurs
3) Increase the rates for everyone so that the oversubscription ratios can be lowered.
reply

CKizer @ 19th Oct 12:06PM:
Problem solved.

Qwest DSL is up and running. Comcrap has been fired. ;)
reply

dynodb @ 19th Oct 12:10PM:
Re: get over it people

And you can point to a section of their TOS that specifically states that they do this? Why the coverup by Comcast?

I agree that they have the right to do this- but they also have the responsibility to be open about it so that customers can choose services accordingly. If the ability to P2P unhindered is important to some people, they should have the right to know if Comcast is actively hindering BT traffic and take that into account when choosing a service provider.
reply

Sammer @ 19th Oct 12:12PM:
Re: get over it people

Unfortunately your argument is exactly the reason some people think the public should own the line. Those lines already cross our public rights of way and if each line was leased to more than one provider by the public there could be even more competition.
reply

telcolackey @ 19th Oct 12:14PM:
Re: Problem solved.

said by CKizer :

Qwest DSL is up and running. Comcrap has been fired. ;)

It's only a matter of time... If all the "hogs" flock to Qwest in your area, they will lose (more) $$ and find some way to address it.

•Caps - why get rid of your high usage customers?
•Shaping - done by many more ISPs than Comcast
•Usage tiers (incremental costs over XMbs,YMbs,ZMbs)

The last is my favorite. If someone doesn't mind sharing their bandwidth with businesses or the world 7x24, then they shouldn't mind paying for it.
reply

morbo @ 19th Oct 12:18PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

in some situations it is both.
reply

morbo @ 19th Oct 12:19PM:
Re: get over it people

what you said may lead to an onslaught of "guv'ment is bad!" posts. prepare thyself.
reply

espaeth @ 19th Oct 12:22PM:
Re: get over it people

said by dynodb :

Why the coverup by Comcast?

That is a good question. I can't see any reason for Comcast to be withdrawn about this, especially considering they took the time to spell it out as something they don't condone in their Terms of Service. Under Prohibited Uses and Activities, item #14:

run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;

Edit: Link to Terms of Use: »www6.comcast.net/terms/use/
reply

knightmb @ 19th Oct 12:25PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by LeftOfSanity :

I agree. It's their network. Move on if you don't like it.

Or go Business Class. So far my BT is full power, no limitations, not even using encrypted links. I've pumped out more than 100GB in the last few weeks according to BT counter and the only reason it doesn't go more is because I'm using the built in scheduling to limit transfer rates during the day (business hours) and let it go full throttle at night between midnight and 8:00AM. :D
reply

S_engineer @ 19th Oct 12:30PM:
Re: Problem solved.

You don't actually think an ISP would lower the ticket price on the 80% of people that don't use their alloted (for lack of better term) bandwidth, do you?
--
Burn a tire, but make sure you buy that carbon offset!
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 12:36PM:
i am constantly amazed and disappointed...

at the responses of people on BBR/DSLReports boards on topics such as Net Neutrality.

if Comcast is indeed filtering bandwidth based on specific protocols, THEY SHOULD SAY AS SUCH. telling customers that they aren't doing such filtering is deceptive.

furthermore, restricting specific protocols IS restricting specific internet services. THAT is counter to Net Neutrality. it is the SAME problem as ISPs degrading or blocking bandwidth for IP-based phone services that compete with the ISPs own internal phone service. this is HORRIBLY problematic.

also, if we're talking about the U.S. here, we should be working towards approaching internet access as if it were an essential utility accessible by ALL. if we want to be competitive in emerging technological fields, we can't be letting horribly-run corporations ruling over segments of internet users like fiefdoms. we need a country-wide strategy for broadband that drives increased capacity and open access.
reply

karlmarx @ 19th Oct 12:36PM:
The more they tighten their grip

The more the developers will find a way to get around it. The easiest solution would be to tell the client to IGNORE RST packets. That's what comcast is ILLEGALLY DOING. This is no different than an operator listing to your phone call, and saying to both parties "I've got to hang up now".

Of COURSE the developers will build an application to get around this. Don't be surprised if the next version of your favorite torrent client has the ability to ignore RST packets, and continue to communicate. There are MANY other ways to establish the status of the communications, but RST is the standard way to end a conversation.

Comcast will continue to spend billions trying to stop something they CANNOT STOP. Period. As long as I have the ability to address my information to another host, I can send it. If I NEED to, I can encrypt it, so they CAN'T tell what it is. If I REALLY need to, I can encapsulate it in a standard protocol like http, which they CANNOT block. PERIOD.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.
reply

cableties @ 19th Oct 12:36PM:
Hey Karl...others...

This may be off-topic but, I'd like to see some investigative reporting of the disparity between business broadband and the consumer, the regions and the dysfunctionalities of the contracts and communications companies.

For example, I once contacted Comcast to get their Business internet package. Our building is located in an industrial park (not a AAA-space business park but still has clients like Freightliner, Staples, ...) and unless we pay the tab for them to run broadband trunk from another road, we have to use the telco's options (which is also pretty steep). Oddly, we have fiber running into our building POE (dimark). Our only option are the resellers (Cavalier, XO...).

It kills me that my home internet is 3-10x faster than my work connection, and 30x cheaper. (yes, we can debate QOS, facility for server traffic, routers...but I see such a discrimination on region)

Just curious...keep up the great work!
reply

chrysrobyn @ 19th Oct 12:43PM:
Antagonistic questions all around

Everybody is concerned with "is it right", "it isn't right", getting the service paid for, mitigating customers using more than their fair share, etc. Why don't they work together?

Say Comcast finds and hires two developers of BitTorrent apps. I'd hope Azureus is one, but uTorrent is #1, I think. In order to work together, a Torrent client needs to detect where the network is "free" and where it hurts the ISP more. If my neighbor and I are using the same Torrent, we should have all caps removed and be screaming data at each other (dare I suggest a DOCSIS tier for caps within a neighborhood? very far out thinking). Maybe traffic within an ISP, but outside of a city has a higher cost, maybe connections that leave the ISP altogether cost ten times as much as that. This is known as tiered Torrents. I've lost the paper that documented it, but it's been implemented in the academic world for study, but I've not seen it released to the public.

Simplest, a torrent client could traceroute every new peer. Peers within the first "hop" or two have a cost of 0-0.5 (or something very low), peers a few hops away may be 1-5, peers that leave the ISP are 10. Heck, maybe each hop increases "cost" exponentially. Currently, the only factor that matters is how much clients share. We're not talking about a cost in dollars for the customer, by the way, we're talking about a cost against a weighted connection table for potential clients. Clients will be more "hesitant" to connect to clients far away, but will not necessarily refuse to do so. If there are 100 suitable peers, and we wish to connect to 50, you start with the list earlier in your traceroute, and everyone on the other side of your ISP is the same.

Everybody wins in this scenario. The network is more efficient, the ISP pays less. The user doesn't care, except that they get easier access to clients that aren't throttled. The ISP's biggest worry is the bandwidth that goes to another ISP -- if they can keep that constrained while the customers still get their data, everybody wins. Very popular torrents will likely be able to find a hand full of seeds within one large ISP.

The downside, aside from programming complexity, is that there are some fat servers out there that will now "cost more" and the maximum download may go down because you don't connect to them. But, if it keeps your ISP from throttling so much, even that may be a win.
reply

telcolackey @ 19th Oct 12:49PM:
Re: Problem solved.

said by S_engineer :

You don't actually think an ISP would lower the ticket price on the 80% of people that don't use their alloted (for lack of better term) bandwidth, do you?

Nope. Nor did I say that. I think they will/should add to the bill for the 5% to help keep the price the same or slower inflation for 95% of the users.
reply

S_engineer @ 19th Oct 12:52PM:
Re: Problem solved.

read in haste, apologies...
reply

dfxmatt @ 19th Oct 12:53PM:
Re: Problem solved.

RCN actually doesn't shape. However comcast doesn't share their lines in some areas where RCN deploys (I've tried to get the service myself).

It's not a matter of time either, its called fraudulent impersonation. Block torrents? Sure, fine, done. But falsifying identities is not the same.
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 12:55PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

Managing a network is one thing. Falsifying network data/packets to defraud your customers is another.

Network neutrality is all about providing a neutral network regardless of how you define it.

And there's nothing neutral about this.
reply

ieolus @ 19th Oct 01:00PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

I don't believe anyone has the right to forge TCP packets. They are fucking with the fundamentals of the Internet here, not just "their network".
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp
reply

deadzoned @ 19th Oct 01:01PM:
It would be interesting...

I will say this first: I have never used any type of Torrent software before so I know next to nothing about it. My opinions below stem from what I have heard and read, nothing more and nothing less, so I could be completely wrong about how I understood these things to work.

Anyway...

It would be interesting to see what would happen if everyone were to completely stop using Torrents and started using things like E-Mail clients and Web Mail services instead to send larger files.

I mean isn't the concept of a Torrent better for the Broadband Companies bandwidth issues since it breaks a large file up into smaller pieces before sending it?

What is better? Sending a 5GB file to someone all at once through G-Mail or using a Torrent? I don't know myself, so I guess I am asking. :)
reply

axus @ 19th Oct 01:02PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

Kindly tell us what Network Neutrality is about, then
reply

Sammer @ 19th Oct 01:03PM:
Re: get over it people

I tend to agree with the "guv'ment is bad!" people but the corporate swine feeding at the American consumers' trough sometimes need to be reminded just how fortunate they are.
reply

telcolackey @ 19th Oct 01:04PM:
Re: i am constantly amazed and disappointed...

Why should you be amazed and disappointed with people that have a different opinion than you do?

said by fightinfilipino :

we need a country-wide strategy for broadband that drives increased capacity and open access.

Ah.. yes... we need more government. That is the answer.[/sarcasm] As far as open access, we already have it. The words "Net Neutrality" are thrown around way to much. Each day someone posts FUD about "XXX Blocking". All of these turn out to be BS and make the poster look like chicken little.

In the case here, broadband ISPs (not just Comcast) are using traffic shaping to address problem areas, and in reality, running p2p 7x24 is violations of almost every broadband ISPs ToS. p2p is essentially "re-selling"(1) of the bandwidth ISPs sold you (not the world)

Understand not everyone will agree with the "Internet should be free and paid for by business, taxes, more government". Some of us think the speed and price are good, the free market is good and would rather avoid more taxes/government.

(1) providing your bandwidth in exchange for p2p download privs.
reply

espaeth @ 19th Oct 01:07PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by EverAndAnon :

Managing a network is one thing. Falsifying network data/packets to defraud your customers is another.

Ok. So what's the difference in net effect if they filter this traffic by blocking it outright vs closing the connection with TCP resets?
reply

r81984 @ 19th Oct 01:10PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

You have no idea what you are talking about!
Do you work for Comcast????

Net Neutrality means EVERYTHING on the internet.
How stupid do you have to be to say protocols are not part of the internet???
--
»www.ryanoneill.us
reply

pleekmo @ 19th Oct 01:13PM:
Making the Suits Happy?

I sense an impending lawsuit. With the use of BitTorrent by legitimate business operations, the (effective) blocking of the protocol may be grounds for a C&D suit because the blocking could be considered not business-neutral. Similarly, if Comcast were to embark on a business engagement with a particular client while blocking the protocol otherwise, this may be also grounds for a C&D or even an antitrust suit.
--
HCN: Because you deserve a rest!

Proud member of the Free Omelas Liberation Front.
reply

Madcap @ 19th Oct 01:16PM:
Re: It would be interesting...

said by deadzoned :

What is better? Sending a 5GB file to someone all at once through G-Mail or using a Torrent? I don't know myself, so I guess I am asking. :)

You pose an interesting question. I own multiple GMail accounts at their current 3.7gig (I think) limit. Allowing my own website has no limit on email size for listed accounts. What would they do if I backed up a ton of my personal files (photos, cam phone movies from less then bright friends, some kinky amateur footage of myself and ... true ladies who were drawn in by my ... charisma?). Spreadsheets, Unofficial transcripts, my comp sci materials. All of that and just let it email the rar to my website. Send it from GMail's interface to my own website of say a 7-9gig maybe double digit gig upload and see what happens.
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 01:25PM:
Companies dig their own graves...

It may make some customers mad and some happy. It doesn't matter to comcast how people feel about it as long as both of those people are still paying the monthly fee. The reason they did it was to make sure that they dont lose the non p2p using crowd by having their bandwidth and latency severly impacted.

Would I switch if I was using comcast? Fo Sho
reply

telcolackey @ 19th Oct 01:31PM:
Re: Making the Suits Happy?

Plaintiff: Bittorrent

ISP X is blocking us from reusing its infrastructure to deliver our goods at no cost to us, but substantial cost to ISP X. We feel it is in our right to reuse this bandwidth 7x24 and not pay anyone for it (not even our own ISP)
reply

espaeth @ 19th Oct 01:36PM:
Re: Making the Suits Happy?

They're going to be sued for throttling a traffic type they spelled out as being prohibited in their terms of use agreement?
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 02:08PM:
Re: get over it people

I do agree somewhat. But I pay for 4mb download speed and about 375 kbps upload, I expect that if I so wanted I should be able to use that capacity every second of the day, 24/7. But according to Comcast that isn't the case.
reply

DaveNJ @ 19th Oct 01:40PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by TK Junk Mail

Comcast is merely protecting their network from a peer to peer protocol that is extremely network management unfriendly.

:

But there doing in it, in a completely improper manner. Why not just impose rate limits ? or even better lower its priority on there network. But to send forged packets, and then say were protecting our network is lame.
reply

N O Y B @ 19th Oct 01:48PM:
In Essence, Practicality, & Reality

Comcast is without notice preventing their customers from fully utilizing the bandwidth of the service that was sold to them and paid for. This is fraud, plain and simple. As such it may even nullify the TOS & Acceptable Use agreements, thereby releasing the customers from abiding by these agreements.

Comcast should walk softly, collectively their customers may have a great deal of capability and power to take matters into their own hands to exact justice in such matters. And quite a poetic justice it may be.

reply

anon @ 19th Oct 02:08PM:
Re: The more they tighten their grip

Wanna bet they cannot stop http

It's called a proxy server so all your packets will need to traverse it and be approved by the content filtering agent.
end of open http as we know it

Here's the techincal description of a common unit

»www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc···5pdn.htm
reply

LeftOfSanity @ 19th Oct 01:53PM:
Re: The more they tighten their grip

said by karlmarx :

The more the developers will find a way to get around it. The easiest solution would be to tell the client to IGNORE RST packets. That's what comcast is ILLEGALLY DOING. This is no different than an operator listing to your phone call, and saying to both parties "I've got to hang up now".

Of COURSE the developers will build an application to get around this. Don't be surprised if the next version of your favorite torrent client has the ability to ignore RST packets, and continue to communicate. There are MANY other ways to establish the status of the communications, but RST is the standard way to end a conversation.

Comcast will continue to spend billions trying to stop something they CANNOT STOP. Period. As long as I have the ability to address my information to another host, I can send it. If I NEED to, I can encrypt it, so they CAN'T tell what it is. If I REALLY need to, I can encapsulate it in a standard protocol like http, which they CANNOT block. PERIOD.

I don't think its that they want to Stop it, they just need to manage it untill other (Docsis 3.0) remedies are available.
reply

LeftOfSanity @ 19th Oct 01:58PM:
Re: In Essence, Practicality, & Reality

said by N O Y B :

Comcast is without notice preventing their customers from fully utilizing the bandwidth of the service that was sold to them and paid for. This is fraud, plain and simple. As such it may even nullify the TOS & Acceptable Use agreements, thereby releasing the customers from abiding by these agreements.

Comcast should walk softly, collectively their customers may have a great deal of capability and power to take matters into their own hands to exact justice in such matters. And quite a poetic justice it may be.

Again..TOS
reply

espaeth @ 19th Oct 02:01PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by DaveNJ :

But there doing in it, in a completely improper manner. Why not just impose rate limits ? or even better lower its priority on there network. But to send forged packets, and then say were protecting our network is lame.

Differential prioritization would mean significant changes to how Comcast handles traffic, which would likely require more/different hardware than what's currently in place. Limiting the number of connections a bittorrent client can make (by closing some of the connections with resets) achieves the same rate limiting effect without adding more single points of failure in path and making the data delivery chain overly complex.
reply

ChicagoCPA @ 19th Oct 02:09PM:
Re: Comcast SUCKS

If AT&T DSL works, then Comcast gets the boot on Tuesday. So I will quit for you. :)
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 02:10PM:
Comcast and DSL

If I would have known how Comcast was treating their customers, I would have stayed with AT&T DSL. At least you know when you are trying to upload a file, it won't get blocked. I had issues just uploading a couple pictures to the internet. However companies run their own show should be known to the customers paying for the service otherwise we are not getting what almost all customers are expecting. Comcast doesn't have my vote in this and I will be choosing another provider very soon!
reply

telcolackey @ 19th Oct 02:12PM:
Re: Problem solved.

RCN business is failing... bad example.

Home Depot doesn't share it's shelves with Lowes... bad example

1 way vs another for addressing an issue = semantics
reply

telcolackey @ 19th Oct 02:15PM:
Re: In Essence, Practicality, & Reality

said by N O Y B :

Comcast is without notice preventing their customers from fully utilizing the bandwidth of the service that was sold to them and paid for.

The customer is violating the ToS (as said by many others), by reselling or sharing the bandwidth that was "sold to them" and not to Bittorrent, World of warcraft, etc. The customer is using p2p not only to download (fine), but to allow the world and businesses to reuse 7x24
reply

N O Y B @ 19th Oct 02:21PM:
Re: In Essence, Practicality, & Reality

said by telcolackey :

The customer is violating the ToS (as said by many others), by reselling or sharing the bandwidth that was "sold to them" and not to Bittorrent, World of warcraft, etc. The customer is using p2p not only to download (fine), but to allow the world and businesses to reuse 7x24

No this is not correct. P2P or BitTorent type applications does not necessarily mean one has to be a provider via Comcast residential service in order to utilize such services provided by others.
reply

Doctor Four @ 19th Oct 02:22PM:
Re: The more they tighten their grip

said by karlmarx :

Of COURSE the developers will build an application to get around this. Don't be surprised if the next version of your favorite torrent client has the ability to ignore RST packets, and continue to communicate. There are MANY other ways to establish the status of the communications, but RST is the standard way to end a conversation.

The newest beta of Azureus has the ability to ignore
these forged RST packets. By setting the encryption to
level 5, it can get around Sandvine traffic shaping.

And so the cat and mouse game continues.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)

reply

rahvin112 @ 19th Oct 02:23PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

Public knowledge. If they admitted and were forced to put in their advertising that they toss the packets, instead of denying they do it and sending forged packets, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Consumers would be able to make real decisions about what service they want and whether they wish to stay with a provider who is making determinations about what kind of traffic they will allow to pass.

Under the policy Comcast is currently operating under they don't even acknowledge that they are intercepting the communication and interfering with it. This leads people to believe that the problem isn't with the Comcast service. To me it's fraud, it should be an announced policy that is forced to be carried in their advertisements so consumers can make informed decisions about their Internet provider. The real test on how fraudulent the behavior is relies on whether Comcast would be willing to make the knowledge public. In fact their own careful wording and pseudo-denials indite their fraud. They won't talk about it publicly because they know it will cost them customers. That's what's dirty about it, and that's why it should be illegal. The policy is in every single way counter to what they say and imply in their advertisements.

It saddens me every time people get up and defend what is essentially false advertising. As a country we were pioneers in making sure that advertisements were truthful and supported by fact. Thanks to the political polarization of this country pioneered by the Neo-cons we are abandoning all the ideas that made this country strong. Ideas like truth in advertising and use of the public airwaves for the public good.
reply

RARPSL @ 19th Oct 02:23PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by axus :

Kindly tell us what Network Neutrality is about, then

Being a "Dumb Pipe" - ie: Transporting the packets the user sends (and asks to be returned to his computer by the computer at the other end of the session) without altering them and/or inspecting their payload content for use in deciding if to trigger content dependent special handling. This does NOT mean that the content of the TCP/IP Headers can not be inspected since that inspection is required to route the packets. The packets must also not be mis-routed (such as routing the long way to increase latency) based on the destination IPN. This also does not preclude using IPv6 QoS headers/flags to support time critical handling such as for Streaming Video or VoIP but this must based on the Flag Requests ONLY not on what IPN is in the Headers (ie: You must not give one treatment to your ISP VoIP and another to Vonage or Skype VoIP.
reply

telcolackey @ 19th Oct 02:33PM:
Re: In Essence, Practicality, & Reality

said by N O Y B :

]No this is not correct. P2P or BitTorent type applications does not necessarily mean one has to be a provider via Comcast residential service in order to utilize such services provided by others.

Let's not find corner cases or split hairs on this. The entire premise around p2p is to share the upstream you paid for with 3rd party businesses and the file sharing community.
reply

jvanbrecht @ 19th Oct 02:36PM:
Re: In Essence, Practicality, & Reality

They are not reselling (as there is no money changing hands, or any other incentive like gifts and what not), and as for sharing, well letting someone use your wireless, that is sharing and against the TOS, rebroadcasting traffic, although sharing, is not the same as meant in the TOS. For that matter, use of P2P technology actually saves money, based on that in many cases network remains within the local network rather then traversing peering points and gateway points outside of comcasts network.

Bittorent is being used increasingly in legitimate purposes, Valve uses it for distribution of legally purchased games, Blizzard uses it for World of Warcraft and other games (starcraft updates etc). Many OSS venders us it to distribute ISO's. It spreads out the bandwidth consumption, resulting in faster downloads for the end user, and balanced data consumption across many links
reply

jvanbrecht @ 19th Oct 02:38PM:
Re: get over it people

I also believe Microsofts Intelligent download service whatever they are calling is is a type of p2p technology being used in windows updates.
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 02:41PM:
Re: Comcast SUCKS

If you bothered to check the poster's profile, you would see it was Verizon FiOS which IS so much better than the ever horrid Comcrap.
reply

Ahrenl @ 19th Oct 02:42PM:
Re: Comcast SUCKS

Doesn't the fact that there is no one better (other than marginally) underline the competitive problem we have in this industry? They all screw over their customers and get away with it.. why? Government granted wire-line monopolies.
reply

telcolackey @ 19th Oct 02:42PM:
Re: Comcast and DSL

There is a big difference between uploading a couple of pictures and uploading 100's of Gig of copywrited or 3rd party data.

Your reaction is unwarrented
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 02:43PM:
Re: Comcast and DSL

And what is worse, Comcast LIED to customers and everyone else about it.

They were specifically confronted with the question of whether or not they were throttling BT traffic and they flat denied it.

They're liars.

Brian "Leased BMW" Roberts can shove his lame overpriced capped and throttled service up his fat wallet covered a$$.
reply

Ahrenl @ 19th Oct 02:45PM:
Re: i am constantly amazed and disappointed...

1. There's no free market here.. move along.

2. I don't request more government, just correct government, there's plenty government in this business to go around.

3. Net neutrality is thrown around WAY too much, but mostly by people who don't understand it. It's still very important.
reply

kd6cae @ 19th Oct 02:45PM:
what about other methods of transfering data?

Why are ISP's such as Comcast so concerned with torrent traffic, when I thought the whole idea of torrent distribution was to lighten the load on distribution servers? There are other ways for me to use my upstream bandwidth if I so choose. Setting up an FTP server is one option, a web server is another option. I don't see Comcast blocking the use of home FTP servers. Why all this fuss over torrents? Linux ISO's for one I'm sure love torrents, since the load is distributed among many users and therefore their source servers aren't as bogged down with trafic. I can't imagine that a few 384k or 768k uploads are causing the backbone at Comcast to be overloaded!
reply

telcolackey @ 19th Oct 02:49PM:
Re: In Essence, Practicality, & Reality

said by jvanbrecht :

They are not reselling (as there is no money changing hands, or any other incentive like gifts and what not),

The incentive is the more you allow upload, the better your download is. This is why people leave this running for 3rd parties to use 7x24

said by jvanbrecht :

and as for sharing, well letting someone use your wireless, that is sharing and against the TOS, rebroadcasting traffic, although sharing, is not the same as meant in the TOS.

That is called file-sharing and against almost all TOSs

said by jvanbrecht :

For that matter, use of P2P technology actually saves money, based on that in many cases network remains within the local network rather then traversing peering points and gateway points outside of comcasts network.

Geo-IP is not used and this is not correct. upstream costs are real.

said by jvanbrecht :

Bittorent is being used increasingly in legitimate purposes, Valve uses it for distribution of legally purchased games, Blizzard uses it for World of Warcraft and other games (starcraft updates etc). Many OSS venders us it to distribute ISO's. It spreads out the bandwidth consumption, resulting in faster downloads for the end user, and balanced data consumption across many links

Whether it is ligitimate or not, it is a situation where a 3rd party is allowed to re-use or share the bandwidth that you purchased from the ISP (not the content provider). This increases the infrastructure cost on the ISP and drops the Internet cost of the content provider to $0. I know that content provider love the free nature of the access, but ISPs normally take issue with their increase costs of users running their network connections flat out while they are sleeping and away from home.
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 02:56PM:
Re: Companies dig their own graves...

I was thinking about getting that comcast triple play package. My son is in college and needs the internet, we want more TV channel selections, and I need phone service.

Now, with all this going on, for these services I want and need, what should I do?
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 02:52PM:
Re: Comcast and DSL

RTFA, the AP reporter tested the Comcrap throttling using a copy of The King James Bible...which is not copyrighted.

Comcrap doesn't pick and choose pirated from not pirated, they hammer everything.

Anyone who thinks BT is all about piracy is an idiot. BT is used for legit file transfers all the time.

What's next, throttle IM, usenet, FTP and HTTP since all can be used for piracy?

This is about Brian Roberts making promises of "BMW" speed when there is only a hamster under the hood. Roberts shouldn't promise speeds he can't deliver.
reply

telcolackey @ 19th Oct 02:57PM:
Re: Comcast and DSL

I don't disagree with any non inflammatory or speculative statements you made.
reply

jvanbrecht @ 19th Oct 03:03PM:
Re: i am constantly amazed and disappointed...

Not totally true, bittorrent and p2p are not the same thing. P2P is an over arching description of traffic between 2 entities. Bittorrent falls under that, as does kazaa and all those other file sharing tools. The major difference, is that many of those file sharing tools allow a user to transfer a file, or many files to another user, where as bittorrent is designed to distribute the load, 1 user downloading small portions of a file from many users, this distributes the load, and is not technically acting as a server in the traditional sense of the word "server".

You are not reselling anything, you are part of a legitimate connection, now if you tried to charge someone for your participation in data transfer, that is selling/reselling.

Also, traffic shaping is one thing, sending tcp resets, is totally different, and could technically constitute a criminal violation by comcast, yes it is there network, no they are not allowed to eavesdrop on your conversation (in the terms of data movement), same way Verizon/$telco cannot arbitrarily listen to you talking to you mother (don't even bring up the NSA stuff, thats a different ball game). I work in the IT security sector, and trust me, I know well the limitations an entity is allowed to use on traffic in transit, and technically what comcast is doing is illegal.
reply

telcolackey @ 19th Oct 03:05PM:
Re: what about other methods of transfering data?

Running p2p allows the entire Internet to upload the content you have downloaded or made available. Depending on the amount and demand for content you have, this could amount to using your max upstream bandwidth 7x24. Hundreds of gigs / month.

Running a private use FTP server so you can get at your home files while away is completely different.

If you made your FTP server anonymous and it contained high demand content (like video, music, porn, etc) and google, many sites linked to it with »ftp://, I think you would make the list of people that an ISP wants to talk to.
reply

jvanbrecht @ 19th Oct 03:07PM:
Re: The more they tighten their grip

Not really, you just start encrypting the traffic, and the proxy can eitehr drop all traffic it cannot read (will never happen), or pass it along. Additionally passing your traffic through a proxy is technically illegal, especially when people do banking online (yes its encrypted, but thats beside the point), and other PII related data may traverse the network. If they start to degrade encrypted traffic, you can bet your ass the politicians will crucify comcast.. hell they should be already, but thats a topic for another day.
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 03:19PM:
Re: The more they tighten their grip

said by jvanbrecht :

If they start to degrade encrypted traffic, you can bet your ass the politicians will crucify comcast.. hell they should be already, but thats a topic for another day.

As much as I wish this was true....

I doubt it
»www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/···01.shtml
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 03:28PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 03:30PM:
Re: Comcast and DSL

Yeah, "F" Cumcast. 5 more months of their @#$% service and I'm done with them. For me, uTorrent works just fine where other BT and P2P programs fail.
reply

N O Y B @ 19th Oct 04:19PM:
Re: In Essence, Practicality, & Reality

said by telcolackey :

Let's not find corner cases or split hairs on this. The entire premise around p2p is to share the upstream you paid for with 3rd party businesses and the file sharing community.

I am not the one splitting hairs, and sharing upstream is not the entire premise of applications such as BitTorrent.
reply

axus @ 19th Oct 04:20PM:
Re: Making the Suits Happy?

You're misinformed, Bittorrent is a protocol. There is a Bittorrent company, but they aren't distributing content or using bandwidth. The bandwidth is used by server operators (who pay for the connection) and end users (who pay for their connection).

I don't think Bittorrent needs to sue anyone, either, it would be the people who do pay for bandwidth that would do the suing, for the telecoms they are paying to fulfil their contract obligations.
reply

abu maryam @ 19th Oct 04:46PM:
Re: Comcast SUCKS

naw....you just need a new provider.
reply

tlcbob @ 19th Oct 04:53PM:
Re: get over it people

Ok - I usually side with anti-piracy, but better solutions - like drm free. But - this is off the wall. A privilege??? It is a privilege for YOU to have ME as a customer. It is a UTILITY. Something I pay to use. YOU have a responsibility to sell your product ethically. Which means, when I sign a contract for 2 years, YOU must disclose anything out of what is ordinary in terms of service. I don't use P2P or bit torrent, and I have FIOS anyway, but this is totally illogical.
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 04:53PM:
P2P

Reading part 2 of the article where the person is downloading the bible and recieves reset packets from comcast, can't he file a law suit therefore forcing comcast to release information on how they handle P2P traffic?
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 05:06PM:
way to go comast!

im glad comcast is filtering out all this p2p crap. all you people complaining should let comcast know by canceling your service with them. i doubt you would though since the majority of you whiners are children using your parents comcast account. bye bye bittorrent.
reply

espaeth @ 19th Oct 05:14PM:
Re: what about other methods of transfering data?

said by kd6cae :

I can't imagine that a few 384k or 768k uploads are causing the backbone at Comcast to be overloaded!

It's not the backbone or Internet access circuits, but rather the access segments on the cable plant that present the biggest obstacle today. With much of Comcast's infrastructure still being DOCSIS 1.x that means a 38mbps shared downstream channel and 10mbps shared upstream channels. Even assuming a couple upstream channels are allocated per node, 10mbps is pretty easy to saturate when you have more than a few 384 or 768k users hammering away.
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 05:23PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply

utahluge @ 19th Oct 05:28PM:
Re: Comcast SUCKS

I agree. I am EXTREMELY happy with iProvo/MStar (Utah) service I get. Fiber to the home and 24/7 10Mb consistantly. Yes, I can download at 1MB/Sec no problem!
reply

A P CC @ 19th Oct 05:28PM:
Re:wow,LAST cple of days,week

castrate,(i mean comcast) has sure been doing or trying to do, everything it can,except the RIGHT THING to get as much $$ as it can & give the least amount of service to its customers.
Can only say,THANK Goodness,some people aren't as ignorant as Comcast would like to believe they are.

Hangmn @ 19th Oct 06:48PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

OMG what a troll..If I as a consumer starting spoofing packets I would be accused of a DDoS, which is illegal. This practice is in effect illegal. Plus I believe there are merits to truth in advertising. If a service is advertised as unlimited then that would go by the definition of unlimited:
un·lim·it·ed /ʌnˈlɪmɪtɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-lim-i-tid] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

Does sending tcp resets sound unlimited to you? Or is there a neo-con dictionary that is unpublished?
--
»davescustompc.com
reply

Hangmn @ 19th Oct 06:52PM:
Re: get over it people

I take exception to your post the Internet was built on PUBLIC FUNDS including the inter-connects, with monies derived under false pretenses..Bell Atlantic received BILLIONS in concessions to deliver and failed too.
--
»davescustompc.com
reply

lordjim @ 19th Oct 08:01PM:
Re: get over it people

Sure ... if it were a free market. It isn't. That's the problem.
reply

qworster @ 19th Oct 08:11PM:
Wrong!

By doing what they are doing, Comcast is FORGING data! They are pretending it comes from YOU, when it does not. Your comment of: "It's their network" does not hold a DROP of water! I'll bet if you said on the phone: "I love you" to your girlfriend or wife and Verizon forged the packets so in your voice it came out: "FU*K you, bitch!", you'd be screaming bloody murder! But why can't they do that? After all, it's their network!

R I G H T???
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 08:50PM:
Re: way to go comast!

said by alice mackey :

im glad comcast is filtering out all this p2p crap. all you people complaining should let comcast know by canceling your service with them. i doubt you would though since the majority of you whiners are children using your parents comcast account. bye bye bittorrent.

I don't know where you live, but where I live (and pretty much the whole US), cable internet companies have a *monopoly* in whatever area they serve. That means, unless I want a crappy 300k DSL connection, I have no choice *by law* (I still don't understand why this is so in this country, where monopolies are normally not allowed).
Believe me, when I learned Comcast was limiting my internet usage, I said 'I'm switching right now!'... after an hour or so of checking my alternatives (or lack of them), I quit in frustration. If I could switch to a similar alternative... I would!
And to those saying that 300GB/month is too much, or 100GB/month is too much, and it only affects torrent 'pirates'... please, try and think forward just for once? We're not in the AOL dialup world of 1999 any more. Right now I use Internet phone (Vonage), not sure how much it uses for upload/download. I also like watching youtube videos. Also use Skype with my friends and family including video. I also play online games. I may want to check my kids' rooms cameras when I'm outside. I also am a Netflix customer, and they allow me to watch movies *legally*. And let's not even talk about high definition movies like Bluray and HD-DVD!
The fact is, a few years ago a cap of 100GB or 300GB may have seemed more than enough, but in this day and age, it's becoming nothing.
reply

Jah_rankin @ 19th Oct 09:20PM:
Re: Wrong!

You Have me Rolling on the FLOOR. Well where did you get that anaalogy from????
reply

anon @ 19th Oct 09:25PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply

Jah_rankin @ 19th Oct 09:33PM:
Re: Wrong!

said by qworster :

By doing what they are doing, Comcast is FORGING data! They are pretending it comes from YOU, when it does not. Your comment of: "It's their network" does not hold a DROP of water! I'll bet if you said on the phone: "I love you" to your girlfriend or wife and Nynex forged the packets soin your voice it came out: "FU*K you, bitch!", you'd be screaming bloody murder! But why can't they do that? After all, it's their network!

R I G H T???

You are FUNNY, You Have me Rolling on the Floor, How did you get to this analogy????
reply

Combat Chuck @ 19th Oct 09:40PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by espaeth :

Ok. So what's the difference in net effect if they filter this traffic by blocking it outright vs closing the connection with TCP resets?

No Bittorrent if they go the other way. Someone call the Judean People's Front, crack suicide squad.
--
Mooooooo!!!
reply

RangerTX @ 19th Oct 11:22PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

TCH is that an official or unofficial statement made on behalf of comcast?
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet
reply

jap @ 20th Oct 12:56AM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by EverAndAnon :

Managing a network is one thing. Falsifying network data/packets to defraud your customers is another.

Correct. And this article should not be titled "shaping" for the same reason. It's easy to assign BT packets a low priority relative to others and I support that practice. Complete neutrality has never existed and is a pipe dream.

Note that Topolski analyzes Comcast as falsifying peer responses only at the boundary and not within their own network. That's both a cost-cutting move and a marketing manipulation which he rightly emphasizes. Sandvine is lying in the name of users both in connection requests/acceptance and in BT-specific communications by changing message packets which say "I need this chunk to complete this file piece" to "I've completed this file piece." It's fundamentally different to lie in someone else's name than to prioritize packets network-wide.

It surprises that Comcast is relying on packet headers to ID the BT protocol when protocol (header) encryption has been a push-button feature in all dominant clients for over a year. It's a piece of cake to ID by user connection patterns ... just not at the boundary. Unlike Topolski's expressed opinion I consider the boundary-only practice a poor one even if it was done above board. It's a walled garden approach, albeit a half-step at the moment, and antithetic to global openness of the internet. Content originates from all over the world and Comcast's practice, if adopted by others, means content would have to be imported to each network by some other transport like FTP then re-published via p2p. Stupid and utterly anti-customer, anti-user.

Limiting both throughputs by protocol and connections per second at the account level during periods of high network load is perfectly reasonable. It solves all the loading issues of P2P and it's verifiably above board. I am continually mystified by the stance & behavior of ISPs on their responses to p2p. Neither the business practices nor technical aspects are obscure or complicated. P2P users would be happy to have their traffic slow down during peak times if they were confident traffic was elsewise unmolested. It's not like p2p content is time-critical like VoIP.
reply

jap @ 20th Oct 01:16AM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by espaeth :

Ok. So what's the difference in net effect if they filter this traffic by blocking it outright vs closing the connection with TCP resets?

See my post here. I think it answers question. Though your phasing "net effect" suggest a dismissal of ethics, legality, customer relations and intelligent technical management.
reply

jap @ 20th Oct 01:22AM:
Re: Wrong!

said by Jah_rankin :

You are FUNNY, You Have me Rolling on the Floor, How did you get to this analogy????

Probably qworster arrived at his/her conclusion by reading & comprehending the article. Data sent by your computer to another is intercepted and altered to say the opposite of what you sent. That's how Sandvine works.

Your chiding claim of humor is misplaced.
reply

qworster @ 20th Oct 02:17AM:
Worse-you could be accused of terrorism!

If YOU OR I did this, we'd be committing a federal felony. Doing a computer crime like this gets investigated by Homeland Security.

But I guess when Comcast does it, it's AOK-especially by many of you....
reply

qworster @ 20th Oct 02:22AM:
WRONG!

Internet access has been so 'de-regulated' that in many areas there is BUT ONE BROADBAND PROVIDER! This makes them a DE FACTO MONOPOLY!

These days, the Internet is as important as phone and electricity. It is NOT a 'privilege', it is a NECESSITY!

How would YOU feel if someone in your house had a heart attack and you picked up your phone to call 911 and Comcast's packet shaping trashed your VOIP call? Someone will likely DIE due to this crap. You don't think this can happen? THINK AGAIN!!!

But don't worry, Comcast will go scot free! See, they've buried their "get out of jail" pass somewhere deep in their TOS!

I CAN NOT UNDERSTAND how so many of you are SO IN FAVOR of letting BIG COMPANIES SCREW YOU!!! Are you masochists or morons?
reply

ross @ 20th Oct 02:24AM:
Re: The more they tighten their grip

said by MikeR :

said by jvanbrecht :

If they start to degrade encrypted traffic, you can bet your ass the politicians will crucify comcast.. hell they should be already, but thats a topic for another day.

As much as I wish this was true....

I doubt it
»www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/···01.shtml

Well, that was disgusting! Fucked over by the Telcos through the FCC, and now the inJustice Dept. chimes in on the side of evil...
reply

tdumaine @ 20th Oct 02:39AM:
Like i said in the thread...

Isn't it computer trespass or some nonsense since they are forging the packets?

Couldn't this really be considered a man in the middle attack?
reply

anon @ 20th Oct 02:40AM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply

supergirl @ 20th Oct 03:25AM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

Well said. Cox dumps Bittorent freaks too called "powerusers" from my understanding. And, I hope they do, sick of powerusers running 24/7 downloading and providing since it affects other users experience. When @Home was around on Comcast, they had to throttle upload for everyone because idiots were running servers.

I don't think the TOS of any ISP allows illegal downloading. Now, if they were blocking Vonage, Comcast would be wrong. Bittorent, 99% illegal, good riddance!

Business class is what they should be offered.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl
reply

qworster @ 20th Oct 03:30AM:
Hmmm....does The AP's analogy make more sense to you?

From the Associated Press:

"Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer — it comes from Comcast. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."

Who's laughing AT YOU now, dude?
reply

Kzbd @ 20th Oct 04:42AM:
Not entirely their network

They're using public rights of way to deliver a utility to feed their corporate behemoth, therefore they have a greater obligation not to cheat their customers, which is what they're doing by discriminating against some types of traffic to decide that they can actively deprive me of the advertised, agreed upon, and already limited bandwidth. I'm sure you realize that they will sell you increased upstream bandwidth at a higher price.

If they want to implement some total transfer allowance and be forthright about it that's their right if they do so transparently and in compliance with the lease that my municipal government representatives sell to them, this however, is fraud.
reply

anon @ 20th Oct 05:08AM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

What?! I'm paying $60/mo for service*--both upstream and downstream, and I actually want to use it?! Shame on me. (*but I'll be dropping Comcast presently)

"99% illegal"... you so funny. :D Make up some more statistics, why don'tcha. You clearly don't use Linux. (Actually, the courts have been striking down TOS clauses as illegal over the past year or so. You can expect to see more of this.)
reply

tlcbob @ 20th Oct 08:44AM:
Re: get over it people

Wow - have never seen so many "guest comcast trolls!" Look at the @comcast.net PR people.
reply

telcolackey @ 20th Oct 09:45AM:
Re:wow,LAST cple of days,week

Jazzy1120, before you post, perhaps you should ask yourself if what you are providing is informational value to the conversation or just a repetitive vent against a company that (by now) everyone knows you dislike.
reply

telcolackey @ 20th Oct 09:53AM:
Re: Making the Suits Happy?

You are misinterpreting... Bittorrent is a company that is distributing content by sharing the bandwidth that broadband users have paid for.

This is like the car wash that taps into your apartment faucet. In exchange for this, you get "free" car washes. Your water is paid for in your rent, but not expected to be used by others.
reply

supergirl @ 20th Oct 09:54AM:
Re: Hey Karl...others...

cableties, Karl is too busy dreaming up slanted, corporate-hating articles to do something as noble as that.

To answer your industrial park question: umm, well, that is the cost of doing business. Sure, if a huge company that gives them a few million dollars a year in business moves in, they may discount the connection charges (or the stupid city would have it built in for the tax breaks).

BBR would have far more people actually view this place if they did more honest reporting (never seen a newspaper use some blog news as a source). The only reason I stick around is to make fun of a lot of obviously stupid people that think illegal is a-okay as long as the Net can do it.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl
reply

Ulmo @ 20th Oct 11:03AM:
Re: Comcast SUCKS

said by abu maryam :

I am so happy that I am not a comcast customer. And if I was I wouldnt think twice about dropping their shady service.

I encourage others to do the same.

All good and wonderful sentiment, until you see how much faster their service is than the only other competitor that's near in price range in a particular location (high speed DSL does not reach many areas that Comcast does, for instance, mine, in which Comcast averages 2 times and peaks 5 times as fast outbound and averages 10 times and peaks 20 times as fast inbound). Of course, my limiting qualifier is "in a particular location": one could always move to someplace else where other ISPs are available, and I have done so a few times, but for some reason I'm holding on to stability in other aspects of my life. Probably not a wise decision, though.
reply

Ulmo @ 20th Oct 11:12AM:
Re: P2P and Oversubscription are natural enemies

Thank you for a well written post.

It is true that BT is heavy in net use; optimally, content would be distributed in a less burdensome way. However, protocols and business practices for such more optimal distribution have been very slow to be created and meet each other. Business practices overcompress with suboptimal codecs and overly low resolutions and bitrates and other problems and generally set the quality standard too low, and have incapable pricing models (advertising vs. pay per use, and supposed cream-skimming which in fact simply bankrupts various PPV attempts with all of the Libertarians quick to support such attempts), and distribution models follow suit, being designed not to be the most efficient, but instead designed to be the most efficient at what is left over, which generally is much different, and not so efficient, but does well what it is designed to do (i.e., the current BT situation).
reply

zachary1 @ 20th Oct 02:15PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

It's not stealing, it's sharing.

Screw the haterz, keep sharing!
reply

anon @ 20th Oct 03:39PM:
it's just more greed.

Why is it that they have to further degrade the service that they neglect to honor.
Paying year after year for a 7MB connection...or what ever the max non-Bus class service is in your area..and in most cases getting less than 1/2 of the contracted amount.
I know the plans say that "the advertised speed is not a guarantee of service" .... but how would they like it if my checks were not a guarantee of payment?
I guess my point would first be to get the network up to par and give the customer what they ACTUALLY pay for...and then worry about those that use the system beyond the norm?
How many refunds or credits are given out when THEY have an outage? They may have to pay the FCC a fine...but how about a refund to the customer?
This whole traffic shaping is nothing more than greed tactic to line their coffers.
Every packet they block puts money in their pockets.
reply

espaeth @ 20th Oct 06:19PM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

said by jap :

And this article should not be titled "shaping" for the same reason. It's easy to assign BT packets a low priority relative to others and I support that practice. Complete neutrality has never existed and is a pipe dream.

It's really easy to talk about this and discuss the theory of it, but the actual implementation of such a system is plagued with complexity and technology limitations. Anyone who has ever implemented large scale IDS/IPS deployments knows all about the scaling factors that make this challenging. For this to work as you suggest the inspection probes would need to be placed in-line at all of the points that are being monitored today so that the packets could be touched/marked. Then you have the problem of how you place the traffic into a different class of service. Traffic shaping means queuing, and that's going to require memory on your routing hardware. Assuming right now Comcast is able to get everything done with a single queue per end-station attachment, what you propose would double the number of queues each CMTS needs to manage (one regular and one P2P queue for each end station), which could potentially drive expensive CMTS upgrades or even CMTS splits where adding more capacity to the existing hardware isn't possible.

said by jap :

Note that Topolski analyzes Comcast as falsifying peer responses only at the boundary and not within their own network. That's both a cost-cutting move and a marketing manipulation which he rightly emphasizes. Sandvine is lying in the name of users both in connection requests/acceptance and in BT-specific communications by changing message packets which say "I need this chunk to complete this file piece" to "I've completed this file piece." It's fundamentally different to lie in someone else's name than to prioritize packets network-wide.

That's reading *way* too much into what is taking place. Sandvine isn't interacting with the BT protocol, or touching the payload of packets at all. It's sending a packet with the RST bit set to 1 in the TCP header. To a certain degree it is a cost cutting move, but really it's a matter of balancing access to somewhat limited resources at the edge of the network.

I find it interesting that people are treating network communications between machines as the equivalent of constitutionally protected human free speech. The only way that legal argument is even plausible is if you personify the packets in an effort to describe what is taking place. If you're going to go on a moral tirade about injected RST packets to close connections in the name of bandwidth mitigation, then you better have the same fervor in arguing against satellite providers who are performing ACK spoofing to allow TCP connections to overcome latency limitations and allow for higher transfer rates. If something is legally wrong, it's not just wrong in the cases where you don't benefit from it. Manipulation of protocols is a common practice; technologies like random early detection intentionally discard certain TCP packets to trigger TCP to make flow adjustments, Intrusion prevention systems will inject TCP resets for connections where malicious signatures are detected, and routers will spoof the ARP response of devices off-segment to allow machines with improperly set subnet masks to still function.

said by jap :

It surprises that Comcast is relying on packet headers to ID the BT protocol when protocol (header) encryption has been a push-button feature in all dominant clients for over a year. It's a piece of cake to ID by user connection patterns ... just not at the boundary. Unlike Topolski's expressed opinion I consider the boundary-only practice a poor one even if it was done above board. It's a walled garden approach, albeit a half-step at the moment, and antithetic to global openness of the internet. Content originates from all over the world and Comcast's practice, if adopted by others, means content would have to be imported to each network by some other transport like FTP then re-published via p2p. Stupid and utterly anti-customer, anti-user.

I'm not sure what you are defining as "the boundary"; this implmentation is most likely taking place at the distribution / aggregation layer between the individual CMTS hardware and the upstream Internet access routers. According to posts in the forum this connection limiting is taking place even between connections that only take place on Comcast's network. This make sense because the key point of contention is not the Internet access circuits; Internet bandwidth is dirt cheap and easy to come by, especially when you have your own nationwide fiber backbone like Comcast has built out. The key limitation is the capacity available between the cable modem and the cable head-end -- that's a tougher nut to crack which carries greater expense.

I do believe that you're invoking the freedom of the Internet incorrectly here. This isn't censorship on the content, this is a limitation on the method of distribution. The freedom of the Internet is indeed a great thing, but there are costs involved in moving bits. The premise of the network has always been that as long as you were willing to pay for the cost of distribution you can pretty much move whatever content you want (subject to legal restriction). The issue here is that people have a very distorted view of how much of the actual transport costs their $42.95/mo covers. The cost model works quite well for normal traffic (surfing, email, youtube, typical downloading) but breaks horribly when heavy P2P loads are applied. There's only 2 ways out of this: reduce consumption or raise prices. If Comcast had their entire user base vote on what should be done, I think you know how that'd turn out.
reply

theelviscerator @ 20th Oct 10:04PM:
Good

If it keeps my connection faster I am all for it.

I dont use Bit torrent.

Add another class then for the users who must have it..

150 a month!
reply

anon @ 21st Oct 08:50PM:
(Really?) Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neu

Shaping traffic based on bandwidth management needs is one thing.

Providing a bandwidth limit for customer who use more than a certain allotment is tolerable if it's noted in the contract and not applied in a discriminatory way.

Stopping it altogether is denial of service.

Think about the outcome if all ISPs do denial of service based on protocol. Everyone will will start encrypting everyting. What was gained? Nothing.
reply

bicker @ 27th Oct 08:03AM:
Re: Net Neutrality is NOT about being protocol neutral

Absolutely. I don't want my service adversely affected because other folks are excessive users. As a matter of fact, if they cannot do THIS, then I want the authorities to require Internet service be provided by metered bandwidth -- pay per megabyte uploaded and downloaded. Un-metered service REQUIRES respect for other users of the service.
reply

anon @ 27th Oct 09:19AM:
comcast are idiots

We complained about being dumped several times. After thethird time they said we would be charged if they came out again. It seems they knew what the problem was all along. The problem still exists if my son downloads. No problem unless the downloading occurs.

The last tech who came to our home said a supervisor would call. HA! Have not heard from them since and now we read it the local newspaper about the traffic control techniques they are using. What creeps!

The tech literally told my son that we did know what we were talking about. My son went to school for computers and he knew they had the problem on their side. Now we know it was intentional. Comcast is an arrogant company.
reply

anon @ 28th Oct 05:51AM:
Re: Good

This type of mindset is what is wrong with the world today.

It doesn't effect me, so let the big corporation do whatever they want. Screw everyone else, because I'm happy.

Meanwhile Comcast takes in all the money. Promises something that they cant provide. Blames it on Bit-torrent users. Secretely does something that they know will make them lose customers, while denying the whole thing.

But... It doesnt concern me, so go ahead and do it.

Anyone that sides with Comcast on this issue needs to wake up and look around a little. See anything wrong?
reply