Comcast Unfazed By Traffic Shaping Media Heat - Continues forged packet practice, BitTorrent creator impressed...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

Comcast Unfazed By Traffic Shaping Media Heat
Continues forged packet practice, BitTorrent creator impressed...
(old news - 12:30PM Friday Jan 25 2008)
tags: Fileswapping · business · bandwidth · cable · networking · net-neutrality · Comcast
San Francisco Weekly finds that Comcast continues to throttle upstream p2p traffic using forged TCP packets. Of course that shouldn't be too surprising, given that Comcast's practices probably don't infringe upon the FCC's intentionally wimpy guidelines covering network neutrality versus "reasonable" network management. Most probably, the only thing Comcast can get in trouble for is for not being honest about the practice with consumers. At most, that means an easily-swallowed fine and some additional fine print in your contract.

Click for full size
Like the AP and our users before them, SFWeekly uses Wireshark to sample the traffic as it makes its way across the Comcast network from San Fran to Melbourne. They also talk briefly with BitTorrent creator (and Comcast customer) Bram Cohen. Cohen says he's creating a "more bandwidth-conscious" version of the now closed-source BitTorrent client this year, and shares his thoughts on the practice:
"My whole idea was, 'Let's use up a lot of bandwidth,'" he laughs. "I had a friend who said, 'Well, ISPs won't like that.' And I said, 'Why should I care?'". . . "Whoever came up with [forging RST TCP packets], I have to hand it to him," Cohen says. "It's well thought out."
The process used to test for packet forgery, for those interested in testing it with your own ISP, was outlined recently in a tutorial (you'll want a modicum of networking knowledge) created by the EFF. Using it, we discovered that Cox was using a similar technique to thwart eDonkey transfers. The major difference between Cox (now a private company) and Comcast is that Cox is being forthcoming about the practice.

Related:
  1. The EFF 'Test Your ISP' Project
  2. NY Attorney General Investigating Comcast
  3. Comcast Tells FCC To Butt Out
  4. Comcast Gets Investigated While Cox Gets Free Pass
  5. What's Behind Comcast's Sudden Love of P2P
  6. Comcast Begins Testing 'Protocol Agnostic' Network Management
  7. Comcast, Cox, Trot Out Their Worst 'Bandwidth Hogs'
  8. Beating Comcast's Sandvine On Linux With Iptables
Links: New Topic
Forums »

patcat88 @ 25th Jan 12:42PM:
nothing will change

They aren't stupid to suddenly get rid of it, and have all their users calling in that they are getting dialup speeds. Nothing will change until ATT/Verizon do a smear campaign about it. Internet is unregulated, so is Comcast. If you want a real internet connection, rent a lamba/fiber to Equinix.
reply
dr3yec @ 25th Jan 12:43PM:
Just stupid!

Well they can look foward to losing customers. I dont even use p2p much anymore. But any company blocking any traffic, doesnt deserve my business. I am gone from comcast in 28 days. For this reason and there price hikes. To me the 2 great evils in this country are Comcrap and At&t. Just cant see myself giving any of my hard earned money to these companies anymore.
reply
ninjatutle @ 25th Jan 12:46PM:
Don't see a problem here.....

less speed slowdowns due to the pirate crowd.
reply
B @ 25th Jan 12:47PM:
BitTorrent Grown Up and Left Dad?

Does anyone at all still use or want the original BitTorrent client or its current closed incarnation now that Bram has turned semi-evil (or rather, wants to make some money for his work)?

Hasn't BitTorrent, per se, moved on without him in just about every conceivable way?

I'm not pontificating -- I'm really asking. (It's not something I've closely followed.)

As to throttling, I suppose Bram considers the other means companies use to corrupt file sharing (fake trackers and corrupt or incomplete connections or "bait" or whatever it's called) equally clever and admirable?

I guess the guy's a genius, but he may also be a tool.

-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function

reply
telcolackey @ 25th Jan 12:50PM:
Comcast TOS

User agrees not to

# 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;

[Just a point, not making a statement on the issue]

--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik

reply
Karl Bode @ 25th Jan 12:54PM:
Re: BitTorrent Grown Up and Left Dad?

I think you're probably right that things having moved on.

His big solution to avoid throttling (right around the time he was trying to monetize the client into the form of a store) was to make the client closed source and really push ISP level caching, which as far as I know, no ISP has invested in.
reply
eugenegill @ 25th Jan 12:57PM:
Comcast -> AOL

If an ISP is filtering, throttling, blocking ports, redirecting DNS or otherwise messing with packets, it violates internet protocol. The ISP is no longer offering an internet service and should be prevented from advertising it as such under truth-in-advertising laws.

Instead, I propose they call their crippled network something else, AOL comes to mind.
reply
bogey780 @ 25th Jan 12:58PM:
tiering...

'And I said, 'Why should I care?'"'

And that is why ISPs want tiering. Content creators or distributors do not care how much kludge they create. The ISPs have two choices, increase network ability at a cost to the people who pay for access, or to cut access.
reply
b10010011 @ 25th Jan 01:05PM:
monoply power rules

If Comcast had any REAL competition in most area they would stop.

Sorry, DSL, Cleawire, and satellite is not REAL competition.

Does anyone know of Comcast is doing this in areas where FIOS is also deployed? Anyone know if Verizion has plans for the same type of crap?
reply
ricep5 @ 25th Jan 01:19PM:
Re: monoply power rules

said by b10010011 :

Does anyone know of Comcast is doing this in areas where FIOS is also deployed?
A legitimate question and one that should be checked out.
reply
Karl Bode @ 25th Jan 01:20PM:
Re: tiering...

quote:
Content creators or distributors do not care how much kludge they create.


I don't know. Most of them at least try to do something vaguely resembling efficiency with their products.
quote:
The ISPs have two choices, increase network ability at a cost to the people who pay for access, or to cut access.


How about taking the $5 per user from the sale of clickstream data, the additional revenue from behavioral advertising deep packet inspection (from companies like NebuAd), and the advertising revenue from DNS redirection services, some of the cash from the sale of cars and homes, and put it into the network? :)

On top of the $65 being charged for stand alone 6-8Mbps service, and with the money saved from using crap subcontractors and offshore labor, I kind of feel like maybe that's enough revenue for most ISPs to operate a broadband network without forging packets? I dunno. Maybe I'm daft.
reply
offspring07 @ 25th Jan 01:26PM:
Cancel Comcast

Everyone who has Comcast should cancel if they have an alternative ISP to switch too.
reply
Camelot One @ 25th Jan 01:35PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

said by ninjatutle :

less speed slowdowns due to the pirate crowd.
If they didn't constantly oversell their available bandwidth, there wouldn't be an issue to begin with.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler

reply
axus @ 25th Jan 01:40PM:
Re: BitTorrent Grown Up and Left Dad?

He bought uTorrent, I don't think the python client is the one they push anymore.
reply
MJRudzik @ 25th Jan 01:41PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

Thank you. I've been saying that for a long time. Everyone acts like Comcast is attacking bt entirely when all they are doing is preventing upload via BT. Im sure that if there was a huge flood of traditional ftp servers on Comcast Residential then there would be a blockade on port 21. Sheesh I get tired of people whining about not getteing what they agreed they weren't entitled to. Buy Commercial service already.
reply
Mike @ 25th Jan 01:45PM:
Re: Cancel Comcast

Comcast in my city = 8mb down.

Verizon (only other thing) = 3mb down. Verizon is also $15 a month more.
reply
MJRudzik @ 25th Jan 01:47PM:
Re: Cancel Comcast

Why? I like my Comcast. Fast Internet clear phone good tv. Sometime I think its a little pricey but when I do the math its pretty competitive with Satellite, DSL, and land line phone service. Both ways the 3 services come out to about the same price around $130. The only Difference is that my Comcast is about 8x faster than the fastest dsl in my neighborhood. Both in speed and latency. And I have yet to have a bad service experience. I have always gotten freindly helpful people when I call in. Maybe I've just been lucky but I'm staying.
reply
swhx7 @ 25th Jan 01:49PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

Uploading on bittorrent is not the same thing as running a server. Uploading (seeding, in bt terminology) works with both remotely and locally initiated connections.
reply
Boogeyman @ 25th Jan 01:52PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

But um, by that wording, I am also banned from sending a pic of my newborn to my mom over an IM, since that is considered "file sharing". Of course, no one in thier right mind would consider that "unacceptable", but what if it was a 2hr HD video of the birth? Would that still be acceptable? What if I was away on business (say as an over-seas contractor) and missed all of my sons little league games and my wife uploaded them to me?
reply
openbox9 @ 25th Jan 01:53PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

And if they didn't constantly oversell their available bandwidth, customers wouldn't be seeing 10 Mbps connection for $49/mth. The problem is, the old model of scaling and planning for network usage doesn't play well with a few abusers and some of the new applications/protocols being used. Additionally, it's not necessarily about bandwidth usage, it's also about the number of connections that BT brings to the network. It truly is a hog of a protocol in every respect. Cohen even cockily admits that he designed it to be so. It's a broken design that's become too popular to passively ignore any longer.
reply
swhx7 @ 25th Jan 01:55PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

Please get your facts straight before you rely on a cliche to make excuses for an abusive practice.

1. File sharing is not only "pirates", it also comprises lots of legal users.

2. Comcast is blocking certain types of transfers regardless of the traffic amount. Customers are prevented from seeding torrents to non-Comcast addresses even if they're using only a little bandwidth.

If it were only a restraint of large bandwidth use, it would be less objectionable. The problem is that it's selective blocking of connections which only approximately correlates with any interests of other users.
reply
digitalfreak @ 25th Jan 01:55PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

You again?
reply
Boogeyman @ 25th Jan 01:57PM:
Re: tiering...

Just think how much infrastructure could be purchased with those $50m exec bonus's they seem to like to hand out on a whim.
reply
jester121 @ 25th Jan 02:00PM:
Comcast Unfazed By Traffic Shaping Media Heat

... because no one other than BBR gives a good damn?
reply
openbox9 @ 25th Jan 02:01PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

Right back at ya...
reply
jester121 @ 25th Jan 02:02PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

The files you're uploading are TO your mom, and from your wife TO you. That's the difference (which I'm sure you already know).

If you'd have put them on a publicly available FTP server or hosted your own webpage on your residential Comcast connection, then you're in violation.
reply
Matt @ 25th Jan 02:04PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

said by ninjatutle :

less speed slowdowns due to the pirate crowd.
I know it seems laughable and a cop-out, but my CentOS 5 DVD went bad, so I have the CentOS 5 DVD and CentOS 5 7 CD set coming down via BT right now. There's 10GB or so in one day via BT.

I try to respect the network though and I limit my torrent client to 100 GLOBAL maximum connections. I throttle it to only about 1/8th of my upload and download during peak hours as well.

It's the script kiddies who leave uTorrent at 400 connections, or worse, 800+ and leave the upload and download to unlimited that cause the issue.

I don't think BT would be such a concern if people were a little more respectful of the network they connect to.
reply
jester121 @ 25th Jan 02:04PM:
Re: Comcast -> AOL

What does "violates internet protocol" mean, and who says so? Should there be a protocol court? A packet sheriff? How about OSI layer marshalls?

:uhh:
reply
jester121 @ 25th Jan 02:06PM:
Re: tiering...

said by Boogeyman :

Just think how much infrastructure could be purchased with those $50m exec bonus's they seem to like to hand out on a whim.
Precious little. $50 million is peanuts in this biz.
reply
jester121 @ 25th Jan 02:07PM:
Re: monoply power rules

I'd certainly hope they're doing it everywhere -- as a customer who doesn't want or need bittorrent, it's making my internet experience better by keeping the bandwidth hogs at bay.
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 25th Jan 02:12PM:
Re: tiering...

said by Karl Bode :

quote:
Content creators or distributors do not care how much kludge they create.


I don't know. Most of them at least try to do something vaguely resembling efficiency with their products.
But efficiency to them means keeping their costs as low as possible while pushing the majority of the costs on to the ISPs. But in the end the consumer has to pay for it one way or another. So the issue is one of who gets more of the profits - the ISPs or the content providers.

The only thing really going on is that the content providers are winning the PR battle. They have the customer believing they are providing a free or very low cost service, when in the end they aren't. They have just SHIFTED the costs elsewhere. And the ISPs aren't doing a good job getting out the facts that what the content providers are doing is nothing but cost shifting.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

reply
TK Junk Mail @ 25th Jan 02:14PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

said by openbox9 :

And if they didn't constantly oversell their available bandwidth, customers wouldn't be seeing 10 Mbps connection for $49/mth. The problem is, the old model of scaling and planning for network usage doesn't play well with a few abusers and some of the new applications/protocols being used. Additionally, it's not necessarily about bandwidth usage, it's also about the number of connections that BT brings to the network. It truly is a hog of a protocol in every respect. Cohen even cockily admits that he designed it to be so. It's a broken design that's become too popular to passively ignore any longer.
Right on every count. Bittorrent is cost shifting and nothing more.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

reply
bluedyedvd @ 25th Jan 02:17PM:
Re: Comcast Unfazed By Traffic Shaping Media Heat

Just set your BT client encryption to forced to get around comcast throttling
reply
espaeth @ 25th Jan 02:21PM:
Re: tiering...

Upon reflection, I do not wish to post.
reply
openbox9 @ 25th Jan 02:22PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

said by Matt :

I don't think BT would be such a concern if people were a little more respectful of the network they connect to.
What? Obviously this is your first visit to BBR :D Your statement is in contradiction to what many believe in this forum. Yes, if we did a better job policing ourselves, we wouldn't have to worry as much about somebody else doing it...like almost everything else in life.
reply
BabyBear @ 25th Jan 02:24PM:
Re: tiering...

said by jester121 :

said by Boogeyman :

$50m exec bonus's.
Precious little. $50 million is peanuts in this biz.
Wow, they hand out bonuses that are considered "peanuts"!?! :mad: Those poor exec's, how do they get by on f'ing peanuts!?! :p My Koresh, what troopers! :uhh:
reply
Cabal @ 25th Jan 02:36PM:
Re: Comcast -> AOL

said by eugenegill :

If an ISP is filtering, throttling, blocking ports, redirecting DNS or otherwise messing with packets, it violates internet protocol. The ISP is no longer offering an internet service and should be prevented from advertising it as such under truth-in-advertising laws.

Instead, I propose they call their crippled network something else, AOL comes to mind.
False. You're thinking of AT&T with their pondered content filtering. Comcast's BitTorrent actions operate well below that OSI level and have no effect on their common carrier status.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?

reply
patcat88 @ 25th Jan 02:37PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

Yep, you pay with your bandwidth, guess why companies love to distribute things through it.
reply
patcat88 @ 25th Jan 02:41PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

AIM allows you to use their proxy server for file transfers if both sides are firewalled. If you use the proxy server, there is nothing wrong with it. Also sharing it through 1 click hosting would be fine also. Another solution is to rent a webserver.
reply
viperpa33s @ 25th Jan 02:42PM:
Comcast has no worries, every1 will be the same

Comcast has no worries because they have accomplished what they planned to do all along. The customers that Comcast want to get rid of switch to another provider. Then that provider will have to deal with it and then end up doing the same thing that Comcast has done. In the end the everyone is the same. The customers who can't switch, they are just out of luck.
reply
patcat88 @ 25th Jan 02:44PM:
Re: Comcast -> AOL

They don't sell "Internet", they can sell "Broadband" (only a speed issue, where it goes, I dont think is specified in law), or they can sell "DSL", or they can sell "High Speed Access" or "High Speed Online", or use custom brandnames. People won't know the difference, and legally they would be 2 different products, a "real internet" and a "AOL walled garden with limited access, except there is no original content".
reply
Jerm @ 25th Jan 02:45PM:
Re: Cancel Comcast

Mike, as a Mod I'd think you'd be more careful about posting possibly incorrect information.

VZ has dry loop service now that costs $5 more, so thats roughly $35 for 3mbit without phone service. You mean to tell me you get 8mb Comcast for $20/month?

Also, VZ now has 7mbit DSL service now (~$45/month). (ala frontpage news on BBR a couple wks ago)

BTW I use my local Charter cable for internet, so I'm not a telco fanboy, but figured this incorrect information should be corrected.
reply
patcat88 @ 25th Jan 02:47PM:
Re: tiering...

They already do that, and sell your clickstream data with your demographics too. Although their statistics are messed up when they say 1/3rd of the vistors to rape reality porn website are women. ;-) I guess its the people who pay for the connection, not the users, whose demographics are included. Example of such data would be »www.quantcast.com/
reply
kd6cae @ 25th Jan 02:54PM:
Comcast's goal is what exactly?

what exactly is Comcast trying to acomplish by doing a blanket blocking of torrent seeding in the sneaky way they do, and not openly admitting to doing it?
They don't exactly provide the highest speeds I know of, heck 384kbps upstream is quite common for a comcast user. I have mixed thoughts on the BT protocol itself, after having used it for severl years. I personally prefer to download via a server if possible, just because I'll get constant speeds from the beginning of the download, whereas BT always starts slow and may or may not increase speed over time. However with popular files, web servers will be overwhelmed with traffic whereas torrents you'll be able to do the download.
Back to my point though, if Comcast is so in to this whole messing with the connection so we can manage our network thing, then why are users with FTP servers still able to go at full speed without issue? Just what does it matter whether it's bt uploading at full speed or an FTP server or someone uploading their gigs of backups to an off site online backup site, like I do? Comcast should just let the traffic pass already, who cares what the hell it is!
reply
Mike @ 25th Jan 03:02PM:
Re: Cancel Comcast

and you're not from Pittsburgh.

That's what my price list says. So tell Verizon to get their information right.

I pay $55 a month for VZ. Comcast was just introduced and they're doing some sort of lifetime offer deal thing that is $30 a month.
reply
telcolackey @ 25th Jan 03:09PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

said by swhx7 :

Uploading on bittorrent is not the same thing as running a server. Uploading (seeding, in bt terminology) works with both remotely and locally initiated connections.
you say pot-A-to, I say po-TA-to, but it is still "public file sharing to the masses"
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik

reply
telcolackey @ 25th Jan 03:12PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

said by Boogeyman :

But um, by that wording, I am also banned from sending a pic of my newborn to my mom over an IM, since that is considered "file sharing". Of course, no one in thier right mind would consider that "unacceptable", but what if it was a 2hr HD video of the birth? Would that still be acceptable? What if I was away on business (say as an over-seas contractor) and missed all of my sons little league games and my wife uploaded them to me?
Those are not "public services" and isolated to a specific audience.

Now if you shared the conception of that child to the general Internet and had 1,000's of downloads, then that would meet the public file sharing definition.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik

reply
fiberguy @ 25th Jan 03:14PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

said by swhx7 :

Uploading on bittorrent is not the same thing as running a server. Uploading (seeding, in bt terminology) works with both remotely and locally initiated connections.
That's like saying you lit the match but didn't throw it into the forest which started the forest fire.

People will believe what they want to in order to justify their desires and wishes. BT is a server.. when you turn on the ability to send out files to other people, it's a server and there is no way to spin it from being such.

The two common arguments against it being a server is simple:

1) It's not a server. :uhh:

2) "Well, if BT is a server, than so is Yahoo and so is my web-cam".. which is the best spin of all.

Uploading on bittorrent IS a server and there is simply no way to say otherwise. There is no sense in arguing the point anymore people those that are fighting for their side will NEVER see reality because it would mean self defeat, so why bother. If you wanted to tell someone who believes the sky is purple that it's really blue, they will NEVER listen to anything you say if it means they can't believe the sky is purple.
reply
Boogeyman @ 25th Jan 03:18PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

But the point is that both of those instances are technically "filesharing".

And why should I have to rent a webserver? I upgraded to the highest tier of service CC offers here explicitly for the higher upload. Mainly I use the extra upload because I have multiple devices on the connection and hated getting lag when I game online while someone else in the house was playing on youtube. Which is perfectly fine under the TOS. But I also wanted to not have to wait 20min to send an email with a bunch of pictures in it, or when I was getting someone to photoshop something we would send the pic back and forth 30-40 times in a few hours everytime a change was made. But technically, thats called "filesharing" and is not allowed in the TOS. Anytime you upload ANY file to someone, or something (youtube, myspace, flickr, your own webpage), you are sharing that file.

The the problem is vague TOS/EULA with sporadic enforcement of the policies. Sure they arent going to tell Average Jane Grandma that she cant send pics of her grandkids to her bridge club, but due to vague wording, they could do so.

My point is that we are paying them to be able to upload things as well as download. And when they tell me that I am breaking the TOS when I try to send my legal personal videos to someone, I get a little upset because it is one of the reasons I wanted a faster service, and now I am a "bandwidth hog" and "network abuser" just because I want to use the service for what it was intended for.

BTW, I dont have any children, those were just examples.
But thanks for the info with AIM, if I ever install it again, I now know an easier way to share pics. (Thats actually what I used to use when getting photoshop help, posting the pic inline in the convo was really helpful for that kind of thing).
reply
fiberguy @ 25th Jan 03:18PM:
Re: tiering...

Karl, that's the same as one telling you to get a second job because the government wants more tax money meaning they are going to take MORE from you for things like remodeling meeting rooms, or those who want to go from a Ford Taurus to an SUV instead.. and so on.

Extra revenue from the sources you talk about - which you are against in the first place, is not and should not have to be, or simply be, used to subsidize the increased needs of others who want to abuse the service.

I'm from the school of if you want to use more, pay for more.
reply
Boogeyman @ 25th Jan 03:23PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

I agree that if I am personally initializing the connection, it shouldnt be considered filesharing or a server. But thats not how most TOS/EULA's are written.

The point I was trying to make was that even though I am using the connection for somehting that most people, even CC, would consider reasonable, if it was a large file(s) and it ate up a lot of bandwidth, they could say I violated the TOS and boot me.
reply
telcolackey @ 25th Jan 03:28PM:
Re: tiering...

said by Karl Bode :

quote:
Content creators or distributors do not care how much kludge they create.


I don't know. Most of them at least try to do something vaguely resembling efficiency with their products.
Yes the Content company moves to P2P which removes their costs (free bandwidth) and puts the additional traffic burden on the ISP via the users (the people that now have to pay)

said by Karl Bode :

How about taking the $5 per user from the sale of clickstream data, the additional revenue from behavioral advertising deep packet inspection (from companies like NebuAd), and the advertising revenue from DNS redirection services, some of the cash from the sale of cars and homes, and put it into the network? :)

On top of the $65 being charged for stand alone 6-8Mbps service, and with the money saved from using crap subcontractors and offshore labor, I kind of feel like maybe that's enough revenue for most ISPs to operate a broadband network without forging packets? I dunno. Maybe I'm daft.
If you assume they are already doing then the $$'s are already accounted for. Adding substantially more capital costs to pay for the content providers new P2P CDN network would hit their free cash flow bottom line sinking all their stock even lower. Good for whom?

If you assume they are not doing everything you are saying, would you want them to start to fund the third party usage of their infrastructure so the third party content provider gets a free ride on your data and the ISPs dime?
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik

reply
lordofwhee @ 25th Jan 03:30PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

Simple solution: spend the bloody money to upgrade crappy gear. I'd be willing to bet people would be willing to pay more for faster speeds (gasp!), especially if that service didn't drop out every month or so for three days.

Oh, and it's $55 here.
reply
Boogeyman @ 25th Jan 03:30PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

See, you said public filesharing. The TOS that someone quoted just stated "filesharing".

And then you can get into a grey area. Back in the late 90's/early 00's I used IRC a lot (almost addiction level a lot). And sometimes I would need to send lots of stuff to my cousin, so I would write a little script that let her request the files as they were done downloading on her end, she could just get the next when she was ready. Since I wasnt personally initiating the send, I guess that would have been against the TOS as well, but it sure saved us a bunch of headaches not having to deal with file recieve windows popping up in mid sentence while trying to chat.
reply
telcolackey @ 25th Jan 03:35PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

said by Boogeyman :

See, you said public filesharing. The TOS that someone quoted just stated "filesharing".
quote:
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;


Sharing content with your friends and family is very different than sharing high demand content (porn, music, movies, software, etc) with the entire Internet.

Split hairs all you want... read into the details the way you want, but be honest with what is really intended with the ToS language. Sharing your Internet with the masses / third parties is just plain wrong.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik

reply
b10010011 @ 25th Jan 03:36PM:
Re: monoply power rules

said by jester121 :

I'd certainly hope they're doing it everywhere -- as a customer who doesn't want or need bittorrent, it's making my internet experience better by keeping the bandwidth hogs at bay.
I am not so sure if they are using it in my area.

I do use BT to download Linux .iso images, and then share that image. I also use Veoh »www.veoh.com and Joost »www.joost.com, all three are legit uses of the bit torrent protocol, and peer to peer technology but have not noticed any slow downs.

Besides this does not keep the bandwidth hogs at bay as you would think. This only effects UPLOADING so unless you are on a BT tracker that holds people to strict U/D ratios it really does nothing.
reply
Boogeyman @ 25th Jan 03:49PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

said by telcolackey :

Sharing your Internet with the masses / third parties is just plain wrong.
(emphasis mine) Not trying to be beligerent (even if I cant spell it either), I just feel that I am paying for it. To me its kind of like letting someone use my cellphone.

They also state "not limited to" (kind of reminds me of when I told my boss that something he asked me to do wasnt in my job description, he handed me the paper and at the bottom it clearly stated "and other miscilianeous tasks assigned" so he could tell me to do whatever and it was covered in my job description, due to broad wording). Also, arent distributed computing clients public services? Again, I'm not trying to twist what you said so much as I am trying to interperet what the TOS says.
reply
Doctor Four @ 25th Jan 03:49PM:
Re: monoply power rules

It could be like Time Warner/Roadrunner's traffic shaping
in that it is only being implemented on nodes that are
at or above their capacity.

When Time Warner first began doing their traffic shaping
of Usenet and Bit Torrent, I was downloading a lot from
the former, and never saw the speed slowdowns others were
reporting in the TWC forum.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)

reply
openbox9 @ 25th Jan 03:58PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

said by lordofwhee :

Simple solution: spend the bloody money to upgrade crappy gear.
ISPs are spending money to upgrade the infrastructure. Listen to conference calls and look at the balance sheets for the public companies.
said by lordofwhee :

I'd be willing to bet people would be willing to pay more for faster speeds (gasp!)
Relatively few people are willing to pay more for additional bandwidth, evidenced by the popularity of telecoms' low cost offerings of 768 kbps tiers and cablecos "retention" priced tiers.
reply
Matt @ 25th Jan 04:01PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

said by openbox9 :

said by lordofwhee :

Simple solution: spend the bloody money to upgrade crappy gear.
ISPs are spending money to upgrade the infrastructure. Listen to conference calls and look at the balance sheets for the public companies.
said by lordofwhee :

I'd be willing to bet people would be willing to pay more for faster speeds (gasp!)
Relatively few people are willing to pay more for additional bandwidth, evidenced by the popularity of telecoms' low cost offerings of 768 kbps tiers and cablecos "retention" priced tiers.
The popularity of those tiers are for the remaining people on dial-up. They are there to get people to upgrade to broadband and nothing more.
reply
openbox9 @ 25th Jan 04:06PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

The retention offers are to obtain new customers? More like to retain customers tired of paying high fees.
reply
telcolackey @ 25th Jan 04:19PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

said by Boogeyman :

said by telcolackey :

Sharing your Internet with the masses / third parties is just plain wrong.
(emphasis mine) Not trying to be beligerent (even if I cant spell it either), I just feel that I am paying for it. To me its kind of like letting someone use my cellphone.
Let me rephrase... Sharing the Internet connection the ISP sold just to you is just plain wrong.

As far as cell phone... If you hooked that phone up to the Internet and allowed anyone to make calls through it, you would get a whopping bill (usage based). Are you saying that is what ISPs should do? Because that is one option that this is driving.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik

reply
i1me2ao @ 25th Jan 04:36PM:
Re: monoply power rules

very true. they keep running commercials here how much faster than they are than dsl. but we have no dsl..
--
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/

reply
anon @ 25th Jan 05:39PM:
Re: Cancel Comcast

said by offspring07 :

Everyone who has Comcast should cancel if they have an alternative ISP to switch too.
Heck no. I can live with this "bittorrent traffic" issue. I use to have Verizon DSL and it was way worse service, slower service, and it cost almost the same as Comcast in my area.

I switched back to cable. I still like the 8+mb speeds! :D
reply
N O Y B @ 25th Jan 04:54PM:
Speaking of Neutrality, Where is Yours Karl?


It is obvious by the unsubstantiated charges you make, like “intentionally wimpy” and your incessant harping on and trying to make an issue of something that is covered in the Comcast HSI residential terms of service and acceptable use policy.

All your incessant harping does is show your true bias. Which makes for poor reporting.
How about covering the terms of service and AUP the users have agreed to abide by but then seem to ignore.


--
Be a Good Netizen - Read, Know & Honor Your ISP Terms of Service
Comcast: »www.comcast.net/terms/index.jsp
Verizon: »onlinehelp.verizon.net/consumer/···0707.pdf

reply
SilverSurfer @ 25th Jan 05:03PM:
Re: monoply power rules

said by jester121 :

I'd certainly hope they're doing it everywhere -- as a customer who doesn't want or need bittorrent, it's making my internet experience better by keeping the bandwidth hogs at bay.
Regardless of whether any of the alleged "bandwidth hogs" are using the BT client won't matter worth a damn very shortly because guess what - HBO and Amazon have just thrown their hats into the ring and are offering streaming video. Note: Nothing to do with BT or any other P2P app, however streaming video does, in fact, suck up just as much bandwidth if not more. So any micro blip increase of speed you may have noticed will be entirely short lived once streaming video really takes off as other vendors enter the Internet marketplace.
reply
MiloMindbender @ 25th Jan 05:07PM:
Not really that novel

"Whoever came up with [forging RST TCP packets], I have to hand it to him," Cohen says. "It's well thought out."
I wouldn't give them too much credit, there, Bram. :) After all, tcpkill (part of »monkey.org/~dugsong/dsniff/) is _how_ old now? And that's just the earliest example of that approach that I'm aware of...
reply
Boogeyman @ 25th Jan 05:07PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

Before anyone else points it out, I am assuming that when you said "just to you" you meant "just to your household".

Ok, now with your cellphone analogy, I understand what you are getting at. I think a better example would be using your cell to make a 3 way call, and then just leave it on so the other two parties could talk to eachother using your dime.

I dont see a problem with usage billing as long as its reasonable. The story about TWC having 5-40gb limits though is not reasonable. If you only have a 5gb limit, what happens if you need to reformat a pc or two? If you want linux, that 5gb is gone in one dvd iso. I never bother to check how much I use when I have to reinstall windows and get all the patches and SP's, but since sometimes it can take a while to dl, I assume its at least a gig or so (depending on how old the install disk is). And then you have us users who have multiple pc's. Everytime I get a new HDD, I usually use that to back up everything, then reformat all of my pc's so I can re-arrange things as I like. (ie one drive for movies, one for install files/back ups, one for music, games, etc, right now I have porn spread across 4 different drives in I dont know how many dir's).

I like to compare how ISP's work right now to Costco. You pay a monthly fee to use the service (or yearly, whatever). Now, if Costco got so popular that they were packed all the time and there was no room to park, they'd expand instead of limiting what both parties already agreed to. I know its kinda apples/oranges, since one person can only use so much space, but think about those really large people who block the isle with a wide butt, the retired couple who parked thier RV across 4 parking spaces, the family that fills multiple carts, and it doesnt seem so apples/oranges then.
reply
Jerm @ 25th Jan 05:30PM:
Somethings fishy...

Your "price list"? Are you getting service from Verizon Online?

See:
»www22.verizon.com/content/consum···lans.htm

Verizon does NOT use regional pricing. National pricing is always $29.99/month (1 year contract) for 3mbit and +$5 for dry loop.

No offense, there has got to be some kind of disconnect here. I actually consider the national pricing really nice with VZ. My area is not one that was competitive at all for a long time broadband wise, and when 3mbit first became available at the $30 price it was an amazing deal (as the only other options were way overpriced). Back when GTE was running things $55/month got you 256kbps. Isn't progress great?

P.S. Your review of VZ mentions $34/month...
reply
Mike @ 25th Jan 05:42PM:
Re: Somethings fishy...

I'll have to look at my bill... and update my review. I know I pay them in the 50s for stupid dsl service.
reply
Karl Bode @ 25th Jan 05:50PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

Weird huh? Companies who provide bandwidth finding out that people will fill that bandwidth? Outrageous.
reply
Matt @ 25th Jan 05:51PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

said by openbox9 :

The retention offers are to obtain new customers? More like to retain customers tired of paying high fees.
The lower speed tiers.
reply
anon @ 25th Jan 05:52PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

You can talk about it being a server when you demonstrate enough technical knowledge to demonstrate that it is no different than other programs that behave the same way - peer to peer games, file transfers via IM programs, etc. So far, you have not demonstrated the technical knowledge about protocols, etc. for YOU to deem BT a server.
reply
knightmb @ 25th Jan 05:59PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

said by Matt :

I try to respect the network though and I limit my torrent client to 100 GLOBAL maximum connections. I throttle it to only about 1/8th of my upload and download during peak hours as well.

It's the script kiddies who leave uTorrent at 400 connections, or worse, 800+ and leave the upload and download to unlimited that cause the issue.

I don't think BT would be such a concern if people were a little more respectful of the network they connect to.
I feel terrible then for leaving mine at a maximum 22,000 connections global then, but only because my router can handle that kind of load doing a 10Mbps download, plus the tcpip.sys hack for windows to disable the 10 half-open connection restriction. But, even with all of that, some torrents hit the 10Mb limit and others barely get over 50 kbps sometimes, so it's hard to say if it's residential customers only or if it excluded business customers like myself as it appears to me anyway.
reply
anon @ 25th Jan 06:02PM:
Re: tiering...

Here's a better one that jives more with the facts, unlike your unfounded and unsupported opinion - ie. that content providers not caring about the amount of content they produce)...

With major ISPs, like ATT for example, making nice profits (att - $3.1 billion in JUST the 4th quarter), the ISPs are UNDER-investing in capacity to meet the demands of the future of the internet.

Companies like ATT, Comcast, etc. are showing that they have no clue about or interest in the future of the internet. Instead of investing more in their networks - which they have the cash to do - THEY are holding back the development of the internet by trying to keep customers on a usage model that was devised YEARS ago - low bandwidth webpages with few images, sparse media content and no applications like VoIP or on demand video.
reply
anon @ 25th Jan 06:06PM:
Comcast should face the same penalties as other abusers...

Just try and forge IP packets and watch what happens when you get caught...

The idea that Comcast can get away with something that is objectively harmful to the network is disgusting.

There is no viable or ethical defense for forging IP packets, just as there is no viable or ethical defense for forging documents and signatures.
reply
openbox9 @ 25th Jan 06:13PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

I agree that those tiers are popular in some part for those still utilizing dial-up. However, it only furthers my point that cost does matter and a large number of people are not willing to pay more for service simply for the luxury of having more bandwidth as lordofwhee stated.
reply
anon @ 25th Jan 07:18PM:
Re: Speaking of Neutrality, Where is Yours Karl?

The ToS doesn't ban the use of Bittorrent...
reply
thebulldan @ 25th Jan 06:38PM:
Re: Comcast Unfazed By Traffic Shaping Media Heat

Thank you bluedyedvd!!! I am ULing just fine on my Comcast connect... take a look. Encryption forcing it is!
reply
bogey780 @ 25th Jan 06:41PM:
Re: tiering...

Cool name. I like the avante-garde nature of how you named your anonymous name something completely divergent from the thrust of your post.

I really don't see your rant on "Big Telephone" having ny bearing with the reality of the marketplace. ATT stays in the black by selling people that which they're willing to buy for a price they're willing to pay.

When I was a kid I too wondered why they couldn't just grow enough food and build enough homes for everyone and give us all a pony. I understand the problem though some people have. I mean, thinking just isn't some people's strong suite.
reply
anon @ 25th Jan 07:37PM:
Re: nothing will change

you can add cincinatti's Fuse.net to the list of DSL ISP's that use forged packets.
reply
anon @ 25th Jan 07:04PM:
Re: tiering...

said by bogey780 :

Cool name. I like the avante-garde nature of how you named your anonymous name something completely divergent from the thrust of your post.
Ah yes, some one who tries to sound smarter that they actually are...

I really don't see your rant on "Big Telephone" having ny bearing with the reality of the marketplace. ATT stays in the black by selling people that which they're willing to buy for a price they're willing to pay.

When I was a kid I too wondered why they couldn't just grow enough food and build enough homes for everyone and give us all a pony. I understand the problem though some people have. I mean, thinking just isn't some people's strong suite.
Clearly you have an amazing ability to self diagnose since reading comprehension, spelling and thinking isn't your "strong suite" (sic)...

To classify the post as a "rant on 'Big Telephone'" is to totally miss the point. ATT was used purely as an example since its earnings data was easy to locate, so perhaps you should get the hard on you have for ATT under control and drop the ATT is perfect BS, and take the use of ATT as an example less personally.

Secondly if providers are making multi-BILLION dollar PROFITS, there is PLENTY of money available to the company for capital expenditure while still offering a return to the investors.

Perhaps before you lecture people on thinking not being anyone's "strong suite' (sic), you should think first.
reply
KrK @ 25th Jan 07:53PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

Isn't it amazing how they promise you everything but then get pissed if you actually try to take them up on it.

So, they sell you on a fast connection. Then cap you/block you/reset you/filter you if you actually want to use it.
reply
fiberguy @ 25th Jan 07:57PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

Please - get an account AND an education in the field.

It is not I, or other that are on the same page here, that have to prove anything... it is, rather, you and your cohorts that have the burden of proof.

I don't think I've yet heard one BT defender prove or demonstrate why BT isn't a "server"...

Care to take a whack at it?

The ball is in your court, Mr. Anon.
reply
dvd536 @ 25th Jan 08:29PM:
Re: tiering...

said by Karl Bode :

quote:
Content creators or distributors do not care how much kludge they create.


I don't know. Most of them at least try to do something vaguely resembling efficiency with their products.
quote:
The ISPs have two choices, increase network ability at a cost to the people who pay for access, or to cut access.


How about taking the $5 per user from the sale of clickstream data, the additional revenue from behavioral advertising deep packet inspection (from companies like NebuAd), and the advertising revenue from DNS redirection services, some of the cash from the sale of cars and homes, and put it into the network? :)

On top of the $65 being charged for stand alone 6-8Mbps service, and with the money saved from using crap subcontractors and offshore labor, I kind of feel like maybe that's enough revenue for most ISPs to operate a broadband network without forging packets? I dunno. Maybe I'm daft.
But Karl if they did that, their CxO's would STARVE TO DEATH!
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth

reply
bogey780 @ 25th Jan 09:23PM:
Re: tiering...

So despite an article where a guy says that "it's not his problem [that he clogs up a network]" there is no proof that content people don't care about kludge?

Perhaps you need to bone up on what "profits" are as well.

And I love how you think anyone who isn't enamored with the idea that AT&T grinds up babies for their VRAD batteries thinks AT&T is perfect. Because you see, I didn't say they were perfect, you on the other hand chastised them and berated them for...you know, earning a profit.

Oh, and I added an "e" in my rush to post. You know that's important because the typos prove a lack of intelligence. It's Internet Fact #213.
reply
anon @ 25th Jan 09:44PM:
Re: tiering...

said by bogey780 :

So despite an article where a guy says that "it's not his problem [that he clogs up a network]" there is no proof that content people don't care about kludge?
That is what is called an outlier in statistics... Secondly, one person does not even come close to being a representative sample of what content providers believe or do.

Considering content providers have bandwidth and equipment costs, they most certainly care about the content they generate and the bandwidth it consumes. The fact that he doesn't care that last mile networks are having difficulty is based on the fact that it is NOT his problem, it is the problem of the operators of those networks, be it satellite, cable, wireless or telco.

Perhaps you need to bone up on what "profits" are as well.
I know what profits are, thank you very much.

And I love how you think anyone who isn't enamored with the idea that AT&T grinds up babies for their VRAD batteries thinks AT&T is perfect. Because you see, I didn't say they were perfect, you on the other hand chastised them and berated them for...you know, earning a profit.
No, it is because all of your posts are so blatantly biased in favor of ATT that it appears you think that ATT is the second coming. In the posts from you I've read, I've never seen you point out anything wrong with ATT.

As for berating them for making a profit, incorrect. I'm pointing out that "the money isn't there" excuse to upgrading their networks to keep up with the changing internet doesn't hold water. When ATT, just as example, is claiming $3.1 billion in profit for one quarter, there certainly isn't a shortage of cash for investment. And other large providers are doing the EXACT same thing.

Oh, and I added an "e" in my rush to post. You know that's important because the typos prove a lack of intelligence. It's Internet Fact #213.
On the contrary, the typo was just the easiest thing to have fun with...
reply
N O Y B @ 25th Jan 10:01PM:
Re: Speaking of Neutrality, Where is Yours Karl?


Though Bittorrent is not explicitly cited, Comcast ToS/AUP bans the type of use that is required for Bittorrent.


reply
N O Y B @ 25th Jan 10:06PM:
Re: Comcast should face the same penalties as other abusers...


When a customer violates the ToS/AUP the ISP is no longer under obligation to provide any particular level of service.


reply
Phattieg @ 25th Jan 10:48PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

said by Karl Bode :

Weird huh? Companies who provide bandwidth finding out that people will fill that bandwidth? Outrageous.
Whats outrageous is the fact that said company is only protecting the network from VERY FEW people who are using the protocol enough to cause the problem in the first place. I can tell you I don't have problems with BitTorrent, but I'm using Azereus (misspelled)... I download lots of stuff, and I don't have any issues with completing the download... I think the issue is coming from the folks who host the file, and have 150 people hit them at the same time for the file, then the UBR rejects it by sending an RST packet. That makes sense, because BitTorrent is not bandwidth friendly, so on a 384k upstream, that would suck the life out of your connection.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1.

reply
Camelot One @ 25th Jan 11:04PM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

No one has issues with downloading. Its the upload they are blocking. And while people like yourself think that is fine, since you can still download, I'll remind you that without people uploading, no one can download.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler

reply
anon @ 25th Jan 11:48PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
bogey780 @ 25th Jan 11:56PM:
Re: tiering...

Yea...quick reply ate the post.

I'll just keep this to your stupidest of fallacies then.

'Secondly, one person does not even come close to being a representative sample of what content providers believe or do.'

Because no one uses BT? Man, you just don't get out.

'The fact that he doesn't care that last mile networks are having difficulty is based on the fact that it is NOT his problem, it is the problem of the operators of those networks, be it satellite, cable, wireless or telco.'

Kinda like how when a person tosses antifreeze into a lake, it's not his problem. The gov't just needs to clean it up better.

'As for berating them for making a profit, incorrect. I'm pointing out that "the money isn't there" excuse to upgrading their networks to keep up with the changing internet doesn't hold water.'

AT&Ts job is not to expand their network to allow for the flawed business models of content creators and distributors to prosper.

Do not mistake your greed for their vice. You're not being noble or magnanimous by standing up and proudly... and anonymously... declaring AT&T needs to cut their profits so you can feed at their teat. Why don't you log into your account and help me out.
reply
Vchat20 @ 26th Jan 12:23AM:
Re: tiering...

said by bogey780 :

'The fact that he doesn't care that last mile networks are having difficulty is based on the fact that it is NOT his problem, it is the problem of the operators of those networks, be it satellite, cable, wireless or telco.'

Kinda like how when a person tosses antifreeze into a lake, it's not his problem. The gov't just needs to clean it up better.
This analogy does not fly. The fact is all these ISP's advertise a specific tier of service with a set speed despite the fact that 90% of the time, their infrastructure is far from capable of handling multiple customers using that full speed. And when people decide to actually use what they pay for, the ISPs come down on them and give them hell for it. It's like me opening my front lawn to public use and saying 'ok, free to use! no restrictions!' and then later screaming at them because my yard has become crowded with people. Not their fault, but mine. I opened up the lawn without actually thinking with more than one braincell and realizing 'DUH! They're going to use it!'

I'm sure if ISPs instituted PUBLICIZED caps that fell in line with what they were capable of REALLY offering, lifted any packet shaping/filtering tactics, etal, and offered an easy way for customers to track their usage, none of this would even be a concern and over time customers would be at ease with the idea. If not, they would just move to a competing ISP if they hadn't already begun this business model. And this is where competition benefits consumers.

Fact is you have one side of the broadband industry advertising 'unlimited' connections, others that have invisible caps where customers basically walk through a minefield and have to worry when their service will be terminated for 'excessive usage', and then those who do packet shaping tactics to limit what customers can do just to cut down on usage. All of them are really lousy ways to correct the problem at hand.
reply
bogey780 @ 26th Jan 12:33AM:
Re: tiering...

'This analogy does not fly.'

The analogy fits the arguments. He doesn't care that his program will cause problems with networks as they're set up currently.

You can't really gauge bt usage easily as it's not a KB cap thing. usually what hoses the network is the connections opening and closing rapidly.

This is hardly a minefield as almost users won't be bothered by caps.

To use your analogy though, it's as if a family of 4 walk up and ask if they can pass through your property to get to a beach. So you tell them they can and suddenly their extended family of a few hundred come over the hill and start stomping through your garden.

Internet prices are set based on expected usage. Like I said, you got two choices, higher prices or soft limits on usage. TANSTAAFL.
reply
jsouth @ 26th Jan 08:08AM:
Re: Speaking of Neutrality, Where is Yours Karl?

All Karl does is put up interesting stories from the news that have been submitted to him. Apparently you have missed the stories on AT&T and the other Telcos, Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about neutrality.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead?

reply
james1 @ 26th Jan 08:20AM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

I don't agree with openbox9's opinion but what exactly is the point of your post? Oh no! He's giving his opinion! How dare he? Amirite? I mean, he's only been a member of this site for two years more than you.
reply
james1 @ 26th Jan 08:36AM:
Re: Comcast TOS

Are you trying to say fat people should be banned from the internet? Because I agree with you there.
reply
JTRockville @ 26th Jan 10:03AM:
Re: monoply power rules

said by b10010011 :

If Comcast had any REAL competition in most area they would stop.

Sorry, DSL, Cleawire, and satellite is not REAL competition.

Does anyone know of Comcast is doing this in areas where FIOS is also deployed? Anyone know if Verizion has plans for the same type of crap?
FiOS is available here. I'm not sure if Comcast cripples BT here, but they surely terminate heavy users: »www.post-gazette.com/pg/07251/815726-28.stm

Verizon has the opposite attitude - they assume you've subscribed to internet service because you intend to use it.
reply
anon @ 26th Jan 10:19AM:
I support throttle-ing

I own a small cable system with Hi-Speed Cable Modem Service....I have no problem shutting customers OFF that use p2p sharing sites. It is easy to spot them as their bandwidth usage chart head north and stays on constent upload for hour if not days at a time......When I see these charts in consant upload I throttle thier modem to 128/128 making them call in. Then I tell them to knock it off.
Its my network, my money built it and I'll manage how I want. Comcast/Time Warner/Verizon have the same right.
reply
swhx7 @ 26th Jan 01:18PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

telcolackey, fiberguy, factchecker, and fiberguy:

At first I wasn't going to reply because I thought someone else would, and it didn't seem important enough. But here goes.

First, it makes no sense to say that Bittorrent is or is not a server. Bittorrent is a protocol - a set of rules for a program to follow in order to participate in a particular method of exchanging data. "server" and "client" can be characteristics of programs or devices, not of protocols.

Second, whether a program or device is or is not a server is not a matter of opinion. And it has nothing to do with bittorrent, nor with the merits of file-sharing. It is a factual, technical question.

"Server" in the IT world means a device or process that waits for requests, and when it accepts them, gives responses. It is distinguished from a client which is a device or process that makes requests to a server.

A Bittorrent progarm, such as Azureus or uTorrent, is called a client to distinguish it from a tracker. In fact, however, it can operate in client or server mode. Normally it does both. When running a Bittorrent program, you can look at your current connections and see that some are locally initiated (the program is acting as a client in those connections) and others remotely initiated (the program is acting as a server in those connections).

But it's the user's choice. For server mode you need to forward ports or use UPnP. If you turn these off, you're in client mode exclusively. It is possible to seed either way (although seeding works better with server mode enabled).

Thus, my comment was correct. Statements such as "bittorrent is a server" make no sense and reflect an ignorance of networking terminology.
reply
bogey780 @ 26th Jan 01:47PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

It's not written by a techie but rather in legaleze...

"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;"

They have enough room to hang anyone who stickes their neck out.
reply
fuziwuzi @ 26th Jan 04:00PM:
get what you pay for?

So Comcast sells a service they advertise as having certain capabilities (6Mbps/384Kbps, always on, etc.). But, if you actually USE that service they will penalize you or cap you or even disconnect you.

So, you complain that you're not getting the service you thought you were paying for, only to be told that buried somewhere in the legalese agreement to have the service is the clauses that let them do whatever they choose and you have no rights to actually get the service they advertise or pay for, and their shills in any online forums will quickly denounce you as a whiner or worse because they have no life and can't understand why anyone would want to actually use the service and all those Mbps for anything other than to send grandma an email.

So, how wonderful that they provide all this speed, and make grandiose announcements about future speed enhancements. But how much speed do you actually need when you're limited to sending/receiving text emails from grandma lest you run the risk of having your account capped or cancelled for "abuse"?
reply
anon @ 26th Jan 05:00PM:
Re: tiering...

said by bogey780 :

Yea...quick reply ate the post.

I'll just keep this to your stupidest of fallacies then.

'Secondly, one person does not even come close to being a representative sample of what content providers believe or do.'

Because no one uses BT? Man, you just don't get out.
Clearly you need to learn what fallacies are then, huh?

NOW you are talking about Bittorrent... First you were talking about content providers and now you change the argument to Bittorrent. Classic red herring. Incorrectly assert that someone else is committing fallacies while committing them yourself.

So which are we discussing, content providers (Joost, Netflix, iTunes, etc) or Bittorrent (little Johnnie neighbor kid downloading Debbie Does Dallas, ISOs, etc.) ?

'The fact that he doesn't care that last mile networks are having difficulty is based on the fact that it is NOT his problem, it is the problem of the operators of those networks, be it satellite, cable, wireless or telco.'

Kinda like how when a person tosses antifreeze into a lake, it's not his problem. The gov't just needs to clean it up better.
Strawman. This situation is so fundamentally different from the situation of content providers and last mile ISPs that it isn't even equivalent. Another fallacious argument.

Content providers pay for all of the costs of their product delivery - hardware, colocation/data centers AND bandwidth.

The antifreeze example, however, has nothing to do with costs, but rather shear stupidity, poor judgment and laziness.

'As for berating them for making a profit, incorrect. I'm pointing out that "the money isn't there" excuse to upgrading their networks to keep up with the changing internet doesn't hold water.'

AT&Ts job is not to expand their network to allow for the flawed business models of content creators and distributors to prosper.
You have yet to demonstrate how content creators and distributors have a flawed business model.

And if you are going to argue that their business model is flawed because they aren't paying the ISPs, that one olds no water and you would probably be arguing the other way if you worked at a content provider.

Do not mistake your greed for their vice. You're not being noble or magnanimous by standing up and proudly... and anonymously... declaring AT&T needs to cut their profits so you can feed at their teat. Why don't you log into your account and help me out.
Circumstantial Ad Hominem... Look it up.

Before you attempt to accuse other poster of fallacious arguments, you should perhaps not commit them yourself.

Secondly, you have yet to actually address anything I have said, rather you have simply feinted and dodged your way along.
reply
anon @ 26th Jan 05:09PM:
Re: tiering...

said by bogey780 :

Internet prices are set based on expected usage. Like I said, you got two choices, higher prices or soft limits on usage.
And the FACT is that "expected usage" patterns evolve over time. The Internet has changed so dramatically from when most ISPs got into the business and the FACT is that most are NOT keeping up with the changes - I see it first hand. The usage model that most ISPs are using for contention, oversubscription, etc. do not take into account the new services being offered on the Internet. And because those models are no longer applicable (streaming audio, for example, wasn't a consideration when the models came about), the pricing and "expected usage" calculations are all off.

As for higher prices, I already pay and am willing to pay a much higher price for my internet to have truly unlimited access - have a home office.
reply
anon @ 26th Jan 07:56PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

"Public services and servers" is not the same as "private" e-mail or file sharing with your mom or spouse.

Now to be fair though, you could use BitTorrent for "private" file sharing.
reply
anon @ 26th Jan 11:57PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
bogey780 @ 27th Jan 12:38PM:
Re: tiering...

You r entire argument is akin to a 14yr old yelling "it's not fair".

His remark and various other things that cause kludge across a network is the reason why providers want tiering and your whole specious argument that "well AT&T has enough money to take one for the team" is so horribly flawed and mind-numbingly wrong that the only people I'm sure would agree with you are other jerks who I really wouldn't consider worthy of trying to have a rational conversation with.

One final thing,

'do not take into account the new services being offered on the Internet'

That's really what it comes down to. Someone creates a program that slowly brings the network to it's knees and your whole argument is "get with it, ISPs". that's why the antifreeze analogy works. Becuase you just consider anything that's going on perfectly fine and others have to just learn to accept it. As I said, you're mistaking your vice for AT&T's greed.
reply
zachary1 @ 27th Jan 12:50PM:
this is crap

I'm not impressed. Bram Cohen is a sellout to big media and DRM.
reply
anon @ 27th Jan 03:51PM:
Re: tiering...

said by bogey780 :

You r entire argument is akin to a 14yr old yelling "it's not fair".
If you say it is, it must be so, right? The fact that you still have yet to successfully counter any of my points proves otherwise and that they only person here that has an argument "akin to a 14yr old yelling" is you. And the quoted section above proves it. If that is your counter to my arguments, then you have nothing.

His remark and various other things that cause kludge across a network is the reason why providers want tiering and your whole specious argument that "well AT&T has enough money to take one for the team" is so horribly flawed and mind-numbingly wrong that the only people I'm sure would agree with you are other jerks who I really wouldn't consider worthy of trying to have a rational conversation with.
More opinion and no fact to back it. You fail purely on the basis alone that you merely state that it is "horribly flawed" and yet provide no basis for that claim. On the contrary, you perhaps should sit down and learn how the internet works and is structured before posting on such topics.

And you successfully feint the issue that many providers are missing - the nature of traffic on the internet has changed and the USAGE MODELS ARE OUTDATED. Period. Blaming content providers and applications for the fact that the models used to calculate usage, demand, contention, etc. are still built on the assumption of small, text only emails and static, media light webpages loaded over short sessions is absolutely fallacious. The number of users for which that usage model no longer applies grows DAILY.

That's really what it comes down to. Someone creates a program that slowly brings the network to it's knees and your whole argument is "get with it, ISPs". that's why the antifreeze analogy works. Becuase you just consider anything that's going on perfectly fine and others have to just learn to accept it.
Sorry, but the whole anti-freeze argument is specious. It is not the application/protocol designers responsibility to take into account the provider networks. It is the providers responsibility to worry about their networks. Applications should be designed to work efficiently, yes, but the fact is the network isn't their concern - learn the OSI and IP models for why this is the case.

The content providers are not willy nilly dumping data onto the network. That would be akin to a DDoS. Rather, subscribers are requesting the data and are creating the demand for bandwidth.

The antifreeze argument fails because it is akin to a content provider just flooding a network with traffic based not on demand, but just the ability to do it.

User demand for bandwidth has increased due to a myriad of applications - streaming audio, VoIP, video, online gaming, conferencing, media rich websites and even long distance sex - and IT IS the responsibility of providers to meet the demand created on THEIR NETWORKS by THEIR CUSTOMERS. If that fact alludes you, then there is no reason to continue this discussion because it means you lack the knowledge to argue rationally and with facts.

As well, if are under the impression that QoS is going to improve the situation, perhaps you should brush up on what happens when demand exceeds capacity and class based QoS affects traffic flows and force packets to be dropped.

As I said, you're mistaking your vice for AT&T's geed.
Baseless ad-hominem... Like I have said, you probably would actually THINK differently if you weren't an ATT employee (based on your post history) because all you are doing to restating the same things that the ATT management (and other companies like Comcast) has been spewing forth.
reply
bogey780 @ 27th Jan 04:29PM:
Re: tiering...

'The fact that you still have yet to successfully counter any of my points proves otherwise'

A common tactic of the Sophist is to claim his points, no matter how divergent to the argument, have not been rebutted. Thus he can shirk any further response and continue to expound upon how awesome he is and how stupid everyone else is.

'You fail purely on the basis alone that you merely state that it is "horribly flawed" and yet provide no basis for that claim.'

As I stated earlier you've fallen back to this tactic. The flawed business strategy is creating a kludge producing protocol that forces network admins to either increase bandwidth or have their network fail. Go on ignore it and pontificate.

'Blaming content providers and applications for the fact that the models used to calculate usage, demand, contention, etc. are still built on the assumption of small, text only emails and static, media light webpages loaded over short sessions is absolutely fallacious.'

Well they'll just block the traffic that damages their network so the existing model can contiunue without nihilistic jackasses ruining everyone fun. How ya like them apples?

'It is not the application/protocol designers responsibility to take into account the provider networks.'

Ok, you can just be booted and your traffic blocked then. There, they've taken care of the problem.

'The content providers are not willy nilly dumping data onto the network.'

Yes, they are. You need to pay attention more. Network admins aren't snuffing bittorrent just to be dicks.

'If that fact alludes you...'

Remember how you were bashing me over a typo I made? Yea, you might want to watch the homonyms.

'...then there is no reason to continue this discussion because it means you lack the knowledge to argue rationally and with facts.'

And there's that "I'm smart and you're stupid" sophistry I have come to expect.

'Baseless ad-hominem...'

Because we all know how much Anonymous hates ad-hominems.

'Like I have said, you probably would actually THINK differently if you weren't an ATT employee (based on your post history) because all you are doing to restating the same things that the ATT management (and other companies like Comcast) has been spewing forth.'

Maybe if I wasn't involved in the industry I'd be an uninformed jackass and be more likely to agree with you.

Now, go on and report this post for flaming. You know you want to considering I'm "uninformed and ignorant" as you've claimed.
reply
anon @ 27th Jan 10:10PM:
Re: tiering...

said by bogey780 :

A common tactic of the Sophist is to claim his points, no matter how divergent to the argument, have not been rebutted. Thus he can shirk any further response and continue to expound upon how awesome he is and how stupid everyone else is.
Before one blindly casts stones, perhaps you should realize that the quoted text applies to you. I guess that is the danger of copying and pasting blindly. Starting the discussion framed in the context of talking about content providers and the trying to move the discussion to the BT protocol certainly falls under the modern definition of Sophistry.

As I stated earlier you've fallen back to this tactic. The flawed business strategy is creating a kludge producing protocol that forces network admins to either increase bandwidth or have their network fail. Go on ignore it and pontificate.
Content providers did not produce the "kludge producing" protocol. If fact, the bittorrent protocol was developed as an alternative to the traditional CDN model. You would know that if you were informed on the issue.

And I'm waiting for you to expound on this "kludge" because the technical community sits around talking about technical topics in terms of "kludge" and "thingamajigs" and "whatchamadoodles" all day.

Well they'll just block the traffic that damages their network so the existing model can contiunue without nihilistic jackasses ruining everyone fun. How ya like them apples?
Yes, so instead of fixing the outdated models used to determine network demand, pricing and infrastructure, and adjusting your enterprise appropriately, you just block traffic and cripple the network. In other words, screw everyone else for not adjusting your enterprise to the changing nature of the internet. Brilliant proposal, because we all know that businesses that don't adjust and evolved to changing markets, competition and technologies all survive.

Ok, you can just be booted and your traffic blocked then. There, they've taken care of the problem.
And you can kiss your customers good bye... And here you are lecturing other people on flawed business practices.

Yes, they are. You need to pay attention more. Network admins aren't snuffing bittorrent just to be dicks.
Let's try this again, slowly. The content providers are not blindly dumping data onto networks, the users are creating the increase in bandwidth. End users are the one's who start bittorrent sessions and request media rich content. To blame content providers for increase in bandwidth is to ignore the role of the user. Users are driving the increase in data usage rates because they want the media on the internet and services like VoIP, etc. But hey, let's just blame the content providers.

And no, the network admins at those ISPs aren't blocking bittorrent to be dicks, but because the networks, as they are, can not handle the changing internet - VoIP, video, streaming audio, etc. Bittorrent is the current whipping boy, but the fact is that the issue isn't just Bittorrent.

Customers are using more bandwidth and network intensive applications. PERIOD. Carrier and ISP equipment and circuits can not and will not handle future traffic types and flows indefinitely. PERIOD. The fact is that the applications are changing faster than the hardware can handle. PERIOD. This trend will NOT stop. PERIOD.

And there's that "I'm smart and you're stupid" sophistry I have come to expect.
Casting stones again... What's that saying about people in glass houses ? Because we all know that the little lecture about Sophists at the beginning of your post was entirely on topic and not a "look at how smart I can sound" maneuver.

Because we all know how much Anonymous hates ad-hominems.
Right, because registered users are so much better about the whole ad-hominem issue. Oh wait, no they aren't... Not by a LONG shot.

Maybe if I wasn't involved in the industry I'd be an uninformed jackass and be more likely to agree with you.
Really, so you are a network/systems admin? Are you a peering coordinator? Are you a network engineer?

With that, I'll just take a line from your book...

"Can you pick a subject I have no knowledge of so I can pontificate likewise?"
reply
bogey780 @ 27th Jan 10:31PM:
Re: tiering...

'Content providers did not produce the "kludge producing" protocol. If fact, the bittorrent protocol was developed as an alternative to the traditional CDN model.'

And it produces kludge. And the creator doesn't care. and content distributors like his idea. Follow the ideas here.

'And you can kiss your customers good bye...'

You mean the 1% of customers impacted by this? Okay, good riddance. I'll enjoy my fast "old model" internet and you can enjoy nothing.

'But hey, let's just blame the content providers.'

The ones who use BT and others who use network taxing protocols. Sure.

'Right, because registered users are so much better about the whole ad-hominem issue. Oh wait, no they aren't... Not by a LONG shot.'

I don't see why you don't just log in with your regular name and post as yourself instead of staying anonymous. You seem to like to dig through my posting history to make certain assumptions about me and my job. Yet you post anonymous to prevent me from doing so.
reply
anon @ 27th Jan 11:24PM:
Re: Speaking of Neutrality, Where is Yours Karl?

said by N O Y B :

Though Bittorrent is not explicitly cited, Comcast ToS/AUP bans the type of use that is required for Bittorrent.
Then, for the sake of clarity and transparency to their customers, Comcast might want to clarify that.

In reality, Bittorrent differs a great deal from other servers in that it is not completely unattended. Comcast should clarify that it considers the Bittorrent application a server and then enforce that.

If they want to prohibit Bittorrent or limit bandwidth usage, make an explicit statement to that affect - ie. no BT usage or post a clear usage limit.
reply
anon @ 27th Jan 11:52PM:
Re: tiering...

said by bogey780 :

And it produces kludge. And the creator doesn't care. and content distributors like his idea. Follow the ideas here.
Still haven't spelled out specifically what you have defined as "kludge"...

Additionally, the content distributors who use BT do not like the "kludge", rather they like the distributed model because it is faster and more reliable than traditional CDNs.

Just because content distributors like and use BT does not mean they like/support the yet defined "kludge".

You mean the 1% of customers impacted by this? Okay, good riddance. I'll enjoy my fast "old model" internet and you can enjoy nothing.
Actually, there are more than 1% of users out there using the BT protocol and you can find this out with a quick search or two. The BT protocol is no longer limited to standalone P2P apps like ABC. It is found in mainstream software like World of Warcraft for one. And the World of Warcraft community is pretty damn big, in fact larger than 1% of the end user community.

I don't see why you don't just log in with your regular name and post as yourself instead of staying anonymous.
Simple answer - because I can.

You seem to like to dig through my posting history to make certain assumptions about me and my job.
And they probably aren't far off... It is pretty certain that you aren't a network or system administrator/engineer.
reply
bogey780 @ 28th Jan 02:06AM:
Re: tiering...

'Additionally, the content distributors who use BT do not like the "kludge", rather they like the distributed model because it is faster and more reliable than traditional CDNs.'

And it costs them less...and the system resources that it taxes are pushed from their servers to the network it's on...and it creates additional demands that network ops have to put up with. Or the network ops can just ban or shape resource and bandwidth intensive apps. Which I'm sure will get a rant or two about how evil they are from the agitprop here.

'Simple answer - because I can.'

The strength of convictions meets the cowardice of reality.
reply
anon @ 28th Jan 03:29AM:
Re: tiering...

said by bogey780 :

And it costs them less...and the system resources that it taxes are pushed from their servers to the network it's on...and it creates additional demands that network ops have to put up with.
And you are surprised by this concept ? If I am not mistaken, reducing one's costs is how business is suppose to work. Hmmm...

What providers should be doing, instead of bitching and whining that their users are stressing out the network is work with content providers to improve the behavior of these applications. Even better, if they aren't going to upgrade to handle the traffic, offer or increase the number of local caches at PoPs for content like game patches, etc. to eliminate the need for BT. Slapping content provider traffic in queues and degrading the performance of their applications doesn't exactly create an environment under which content providers will be willing to work with access providers.

If you think that the solutions currently being employed are the best fix for the problem, that isn't the case...

Or the network ops can just ban or shape resource and bandwidth intensive apps. Which I'm sure will get a rant or two about how evil they are from the agitprop here.
Actually, if providers want to limit the service and resources their Residential users can consumer, fine, as long as those limits are stated clearly and explicitly. If an ISP wants their Residential users to only download 20GB on a given package per month, spell it out clearly. When providers advertise an unlimited service, it encourages the usage patterns that the heaviest users exhibit - running torrents full throttle 24/7 - because the consumer no longer sees bandwidth as a finite property of the network. After all, its "unlimited".

Whether or not you accept it, this problem is partially the creation of the providers for doing exactly that - advertising an unlimited service they can't deliver. And that BS argument being about "unlimited" referring only to connect time - ask the consumers and tell me how many of them are aware of that definition of "unlimited".

And, of course, you still only deal with Bittorrent. You still leave out the plethora of other protocols that are resource intensive - video, VoIP, the new generation of games, media rich sites, etc.

In the long run, though, shaping and/or banning protocols is back-assward way of trying to maintain a network. It is like trying to put out a forest fire by pissing on it. It may make some affect in the near term, but over time the problem gets no better. Usage patterns are changing; consumers are and will continue to have greater bandwidth demands and providers need to at least make an attempt to keep up or shut up.

The strength of convictions meets the cowardice of reality.
Again, what's that statement about people in glass houses casting stones ? Oh, that's right, they shouldn't.

The irony of your statement is that it is coming from someone who posts under a pseudonym himself/herself. I doubt your parents named you "bogey780".
reply
anon @ 28th Jan 03:41AM:
Re: Comcast TOS

said by fiberguy :

Please - get an account AND an education in the field.
Last time I checked, being registered here wasn't a requirement... As for the education comment, perhaps you are the one that needs it.

It is not I, or other that are on the same page here, that have to prove anything... it is, rather, you and your cohorts that have the burden of proof.
Wrong. The burden of proof is NOT on those to prove something is not, rather it is on those who say it is. You have to prove why Bittorrent is a server and that it fulfills EVERY requirement of the definition of a server under the client-server model.

Additionally, you can not prove a negative.

I don't think I've yet heard one BT defender prove or demonstrate why BT isn't a "server"...
Probably because those that say it is a server seem to lack an full understanding of the client-server architecture. Just because an application sends data out on the network does not make it a server.
reply
anon @ 28th Jan 03:43AM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 28th Jan 03:53AM:
Re: Comcast should face the same penalties as other abusers...

said by N O Y B :

When a customer violates the ToS/AUP the ISP is no longer under obligation to provide any particular level of service.
While I agree with that point, I have two problems with it.

1. If the ToS/AUP is not clear to the user about what exactly constitutes abuse, how does the user know what they can and can not do. If an ISP classifies BT as a server, spell it out explicitly, especially since BT does fit under the server column based on the classic definition of a server (or service).

2. While you are correct that the level of service is contingent upon following the rules, the method of enforcing those rules (a) should not violate the rules that govern the users (mounting MITM attacks, forging IP packets, etc) because (b) such methods should not interfere with other permitted traffic (VPNs, etc.). The problem with the Sandvine solution is that it can and does mis-classify traffic. There are much better and far more ethical solutions to forging IP packets.
reply
anon @ 28th Jan 04:05AM:
Re: Don't see a problem here.....

said by Matt :

It's the script kiddies who leave uTorrent at 400 connections, or worse, 800+ and leave the upload and download to unlimited that cause the issue.
You have nailed it.

It would be nice if the client authors would simply write them so that you can't have such a ridiculously high connected peer count. There is, in reality, no reason that anyone needs more than 100 concurrent peer connections.

In fact, people need to learn that having too many peers can actually degrade performance.
reply
MJRudzik @ 28th Jan 09:21AM:
Re: Comcast TOS

said by swhx7 :

Uploading on bittorrent is not the same thing as running a server. Uploading (seeding, in bt terminology) works with both remotely and locally initiated connections.
Sorry but you can't seed unless you have the file to share. So yes it is the same as serving: you have a file, you are making it available to the masses, hence a server.
reply
bogey780 @ 28th Jan 10:10AM:
Re: tiering...

'And you are surprised by this concept ? If I am not mistaken, reducing one's costs is how business is suppose to work.'

And providers are reducing their costs by limiting their network.

Remember, this started about why providers want to tier. To them tiering is the best response. It gives them more money from those creating the most problems with their network. Meanwhile the guy who does a ton of http transfers doesn't get jerked around.

'The irony of your statement is that it is coming from someone who posts under a pseudonym himself/herself. I doubt your parents named you "bogey780". '

It's basic anonymity. The last thing I need is some psycopath tracking me down to my real name and hassling my work and home life. But I have a posting history and haven't employed any subterfuge. For all I know, you're supposed to be a "neutral" person and rambling about how evil the industry is can affect how people read your advocacy posts.
reply
anon @ 28th Jan 12:29PM:
Re: tiering...

said by bogey780 :

And providers are reducing their costs by limiting their network.
I agree with this point. However, as someone who works in the industry, I can tell you that it is only a short term fix. And in the long run, access providers are going to have to address the issue better.

Remember, this started about why providers want to tier. To them tiering is the best response. It gives them more money from those creating the most problems with their network. Meanwhile the guy who does a ton of http transfers doesn't get jerked around.
If you are talking about the concept of charging content provider X more for a higher QoS class than provider Y, there is a massive problem with that - it creates a competitive advantage to those content providers, like Google's Youtube, over much smaller, but better offerings like, say Revver. The pay to play concept eliminates what was basically a level playing field to the users who visited sites in terms since IP doesn't show preference for companies with larger budgets.

If providers are interested in implementing QoS across their networks, they should simply create higher priority classes than bulk data and apply them totally across the board (granting one company QoS and not another would create more problems than it would solve) - HTTP and email above bittorrent/P2P and VoIP/Video/SSH above all the rest. Keep in mind that using class based QoS can also have the byproduct of creating more spurious and inefficient flows further escalating the problem - TCP retransmits across several hundred open sessions times several dozen or hundred hosts ain't pretty.

It's basic anonymity. The last thing I need is some psycopath tracking me down to my real name and hassling my work and home life. But I have a posting history and haven't employed any subterfuge. For all I know, you're supposed to be a "neutral" person and rambling about how evil the industry is can affect how people read your advocacy posts.
I've browsed around the site enough to know that having an account can have disadvantages - people harassing each via "site IM" and the email function... No thanks.

As for my position - it mostly comes out of the fact that I would love to see all of these companies do well but despise what appears to be an utter lack of desire to deal with the ongoing issue of backhaul and last mile capacity. It may appear that I hate them and think they are "evil" simply because they are the phone or cable company, but the truth is that I dislike what they do and how they operate sometimes.

The problem is the damn investors who want a short term profit. Look at how investors are raking Verizon across the coals for "doing it the right way" in the long term.

Addressing capacity issues now is good for both providers and the customers - providers can offer MORE services and earn more revenue while consumers can have access to more services and are able to have a better experience.
reply
anon @ 28th Jan 03:08PM:
UTorrent, Traffic Shaping, Comcast and FiOS

I am on a FiOS (Verizon) connection 15/2 MB.
I use uTorrent all the time, with no problems
It is throttled during the day so the rest of the house can use the connection, wide open at night. HOWEVER - I found that leaving the number of connections at the default level caused my ActionTek router (supplied by Verizon) to choke.
Since reducing the Global number of connections to 100, I still upload at the maximum speed available, and during the day when the upload speed is throttled by the scheduler, the rest of the house has fast Internet access.

Time Warner (nee Comcast) is the other provider in the area, and I have not heard any reports the T/W is interfering with Torrent transfers. They have enough problems dealing with the hordes of subscribers abandoning them for FiOS.
reply
anon @ 29th Jan 05:46PM:
Re: Comcast TOS

said by MJRudzik :

So yes it is the same as serving: you have a file, you are making it available to the masses, hence a server.
Simply sending files out of your connection to someone else does NOT qualify that application as a server - otherwise your email client would be a server.

The fact is that the term server is being abused here.
reply
MJRudzik @ 7th Feb 11:46AM:
Re: Comcast TOS

said by factchecker :

said by MJRudzik :

So yes it is the same as serving: you have a file, you are making it available to the masses, hence a server.
Simply sending files out of your connection to someone else does NOT qualify that application as a server - otherwise your email client would be a server.

The fact is that the term server is being abused here.
There is some truth in what you say. But you are ignoring the issue of scope.

You are correct in saying "sending files to someONE else is not a server". This why an email client is not a server.

But that isn't what is happening with Bit Torrent is it? Everyone knows that you make the file available to the hordes. By default Bit Torrent clients will initiate 800 or more uploads. That's hardly the same as email. Anyone saying it is is just in denial.

Two things together make Bit Torrent a server.
1 ongoing access to shared files
2 acccess is allowed to the genereal public
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2008 silver matrix LLC