The EFF 'Test Your ISP' Project - Group takes aim at Comcast, RST packet forgery
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

The EFF 'Test Your ISP' Project
Group takes aim at Comcast, RST packet forgery
(old news - 01:53PM Wednesday Nov 28 2007)
tags: business · hardware · bandwidth · cable · networking · net-neutrality · consumers · Comcast · Cox HSI
Tipped by funchords
It was recently discovered that Comcast was using forged TCP/IP packets to throttle upstream p2p bandwidth. While the Associated Press got credit for the discovery, it was actually one of our forum users that first uncovered the practice. In fact, site user Robb Topolski had already discovered how to thwart the system months before it even hit the AP's radar. Earlier this month, we had him confirm that Cox was doing something similar.

The Associated Press report ignited an Internet firestorm, and today the Electronic Frontier Foundation is adding fuel to the fire. The outfit has released a series of reports on Comcast's traffic shaping, as well as a guide allowing ISP users to test for packet forgery or other forms of traffic interference by their ISPs.

"Comcast is discriminating among different kinds of Internet traffic based on the protocols being used by its customers," says EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann. "When confronted, Comcast has been evasive and misleading in its responses, so we decided to start gathering the facts ourselves." Those facts are compiled in this report, and the EFF cites Topolski's May findings from our forums.

Click for full size
Comcast has argued that the practice falls under the realm of "reasonable network management." This language is important, because while there is no law outlawing such activity, the FCC does have a policy statement (pdf) that insists consumers are "entitled to run applications and services of their choice." That is, unless an ISP is restricting access to protect their network from harm.

The EFF however does not buy Comcast's justification:
It is true that some broadband users send and receive a lot more traffic than others, and that interfering with their traffic can reduce congestion for an ISP. This does not imply that protocol-specific packet forgery is a necessary or legitimate means of responding to the congestion; there are more reasonable mechanisms available to ISPs to ensure that low-volume users are not crowded out by high-volume users.
They say that the packet forgery does not discriminate between high consumption users and regular use:
we saw no evidence that Comcast was targeting their jamming efforts at customers based on their individual consumption of bandwidth. For example, an attempt to seed a 500KB file to a single BitTorrent downloader, instigated after the seeding Internet connection had been idle for the preceding day, triggered the injection of forged RST packets. The pattern of interference by Comcast was exactly the same after the user had uploaded 500MB or so of data over the following day.
Click for full size
In other words, Comcast cannot hide behind the excuse of reasonable network management because the forging of packets is not reasonable, and the practice does little to reel in high-consumption users specifically. The EFF argues that Comcast "did not exhaust the reasonable, user-friendly, and standards-compliant responses before they began taking decidedly less reasonable measures."

As our recent Cox report shows, Comcast is not alone in the use of forged RST packets as a heavy handed solution to network congestion. To get a better handle on how many ISPs are engaged in these kind of practices, the EFF has offered this guide that walks users through the use of Wireshark to help test for protocol discrimination (note: networking knowledge required).

"If ISPs won't give their customers accurate information about their Internet traffic controls, we have to detect and document them for ourselves," says EFF Staff Technologist Seth Schoen.

Related:
  1. Comcast Unfazed By Traffic Shaping Media Heat
  2. NY Attorney General Investigating Comcast
  3. New Buzz Phrase: 'Protocol Agnostic'
  4. Comcast Gets Investigated While Cox Gets Free Pass
  5. What's Behind Comcast's Sudden Love of P2P
  6. Comcast To Deploy Femtocells
  7. Comcast, Cox, Trot Out Their Worst 'Bandwidth Hogs'
  8. Friday Morning Links
Links: New Topic
Forums »

anon @ 28th Nov 01:42PM:
Interesting...

I'm happy someone in our forums beat the big boys to it. But, what does this hold for the future?
reply
SilverSurfer @ 28th Nov 01:46PM:
EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

Yet another case that demonstrates the EFF is the only thing standing between Internet censorship/throttling/blocking by the corporately consolidated providers and the consumer. If not for EFF, the entire Internet in the Western Hemisphere would be controlled by AT*T and Verizon.
reply
gatorkram @ 28th Nov 01:59PM:
My ISP does it too...

I have used wireshark a few times to verify that my isp is also sending out the RST packets, blocking unencrypted upstream seeding.

What we need now, is an automated site and script, that people can submit their wireshark logs to, as proof, and to also filter out the normal stuff, and make a public log of the actual fake/forged packets.

It is my understanding, the way this system is working, it not only sends fake packets to people on the isp that is running this sandvine equipment, but it also sends fake packets to the other peers involved.

It seems to me, some of these other victims isps might want to know that forged and abusive packets are being sent to their end users...
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240

reply
anon @ 28th Nov 02:00PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

Surely you jest. Bittorent is the scourge of the internet and should be stopped, Comcast is doing it way too politely. As for the EFF, well their focus should be on where it would matter most for consumers. Instead of frivolous suits and claims against corporate entities (which is bad for business and raises prices for consumers) they should be investigating and going after phishers, scammers, spammers, and online pirates.
reply
openbox9 @ 28th Nov 02:01PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

How exactly has the EFF done this great miracle? The EFF is a mouthpiece that occasionally has valid arguments of concern for the Internet populace, but I fail to see how they've been a savior for the Western Hemisphere. BTW, what percentage of the market does AT&T and Verizon own?
reply
NOCMan @ 28th Nov 02:07PM:
Just enable QOS define bittorrent and such as "Bulk"

QOS was designed to deal with these problems and would be very effective if used properly to ensure people are getting the service they expect.

There are devices out there as well that can do deep packet inspection to identify those who would try to circumvent normal port based QOS and mark their packets accordingly.

Comcast is just doing this as a means of saving face where they've oversubscribed areas beyond what they're comfortable in spending on a upgrade.
--
Mac Chatter
»www.macchatter.net

reply
dadkins @ 28th Nov 02:07PM:
*ANY* user, *ANY* BT traffic

This is bullshit!
No ISP should be doing a blanket protocol kill!

Guy down the street, running wide open 24/7 and every movie/music file known and chewing hundreds of GB? Boot him!
You or I trying to do a little "Distributed Bandwidth"(WoW/software patchs, Linux, LEGAL HD Videos, whatever) and maintain a 1:1 ratio but we get hosed by this nonsense?
Eat me!

While I have basically moved on to better sources for "things", there is the occasional BT use for LEGAL items done here.
My ratio is getting trashed.
Low ratios get you less speed.
Low ratios can get you banned.

Gee! Thanks! :uhh:
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply
Mashimaro @ 28th Nov 02:08PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

Says the anonymous Comcast employee.
reply
Mashimaro @ 28th Nov 02:12PM:
Re: *ANY* user, *ANY* BT traffic

Please show me some legal torrents where low ratios get you banned.
reply
Zaber @ 28th Nov 02:12PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by JasonD :

...Bittorent is the scourge of the internet...
Justify your statement.
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime

reply
SilverSurfer @ 28th Nov 02:16PM:
Re: *ANY* user, *ANY* BT traffic

said by Mashimaro :

Please show me some legal torrents where low ratios get you banned.
Here ya go, sparky. Unlike the **AAs, who are hellbent on making themselves obsolete, the NHL wants to generate interest in the sport of ice hockey.
reply
SilverSurfer @ 28th Nov 02:19PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by openbox9 :

How exactly has the EFF done this great miracle?
You can familiarize yourself by starting here. There are a number of factual, actual, quantifiable, qualitative case histories sufficient to get you started.

said by openbox9 :

The EFF is a mouthpiece that occasionally has valid arguments of concern for the Internet populace, but I fail to see how they've been a savior for the Western Hemisphere.
Your conjecture and opinion.

said by openbox9 :

BTW, what percentage of the market does AT&T and Verizon own?
Irrelevant in the face of the simple fact that the telcos have been vying for role of gatekeeper since the Net's inception.
reply
Da Geek Kid @ 28th Nov 02:22PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

surely yer full of $#!t...

Comcast should never be in a business that can't handle the load. We all know they cannot handle that much traffic per customer...
reply
ptrowski @ 28th Nov 02:24PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by JasonD :

Surely you jest. Bittorent is the scourge of the internet and should be stopped, Comcast is doing it way too politely. As for the EFF, well their focus should be on where it would matter most for consumers. Instead of frivolous suits and claims against corporate entities (which is bad for business and raises prices for consumers) they should be investigating and going after phishers, scammers, spammers, and online pirates.
Wow, it looks like the Comcast shills are at the party already!
I would tend to think that the EFF is going after scammers as Comcast is trying to scam their customers under the guise of "network management".
--
"A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org

reply
dadkins @ 28th Nov 02:25PM:
Re: *ANY* user, *ANY* BT traffic

Go to the tracker of your choice where you are a member.
One where you are logged and your ratio is displayed.
One where they state that if your ratio falls too low or you do nothing bet leech - banned!

Remember Demonoid? Sure you do!
They had a few legal torrents.
They also had a ratio policy.
Demonoid is gone now though.

If Demonoid was still up, and I were to continue downloading - whatever, and Comcast was trashing my upload, guess what would happen... Yep! Ban City!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply
spanglo @ 28th Nov 02:25PM:
Re: *ANY* user, *ANY* BT traffic

Mashimaro don't be a douche.

Throttling EVERYBODY is wrong. Gross Offenders should be the ones throttled if they bust the cap - no one else. Otherwise there's a whole bunch of us who feel like we're not getting the service we're paying for.
reply
ptrowski @ 28th Nov 02:28PM:
Re: *ANY* user, *ANY* BT traffic

said by dadkins :

My ratio is getting trashed.
Low ratios get you less speed.
Low ratios can get you banned.

Gee! Thanks! :uhh:
And game, set, match Comcast achieves exactly what they set out to do.
--
"A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org

reply
en102 @ 28th Nov 02:29PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

Yup... I suspect it as well.

CableCo/Telco will raise bandwidth rates IF there's low usage.
Eg. 20Mbps connection isn't an issue if there's low usage.

This works similar to an old fashioned Telco CO, where there's a fixed capacity for lets say 40% at any one time (i.e. 40% of the phones can be calling at the same time).
Typical Internet usage (browsing, video clips,downloads) support this model

Bittorrent is a chatty protocol, and many would see this as excess traffic, or consider it as 'running servers', in a method to deter the usage of p2p/Bittorrent. An old telco equivalent would think of this as having multiple people connecting to a local # and leaving the 2 connections open. Get enough of this, and capacity issues arise.

I don't justify it... if they can't support 20Mbps, then don't offer it. Offering it, then packet shaping / filtering / throttling apps at their discression is not the answer.
Why not do it the old / AOL style:
5Mbps 'Internet' (unrestricted) = $60
20Mbps 'proxied/filtered/restricted Internet want to be' $45

This will solve this issue. Sell the Internet as the what it is. Sell a proxied/ad filled/content pushed/cookie based/data mined AOL wannabe as an alternative.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

reply
gateguy @ 28th Nov 02:30PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

I use the Bittorent client built into World of Warcraft to send and receive patches. That is the only time I use any sort of P2P software (that I am aware of).

Does that make me part of the scourge?
reply
dadkins @ 28th Nov 02:40PM:
Re: *ANY* user, *ANY* BT traffic

said by ptrowski :

said by dadkins :

My ratio is getting trashed.
Low ratios get you less speed.
Low ratios can get you banned.

Gee! Thanks! :uhh:
And game, set, match Comcast achieves exactly what they set out to do.
Yeah, so much for everyone that may have an actual use for BT.
Horseshit!

It would be one thing if it was competing for something offered by Comcast or a Comcast affiliate(payola) - but it's not!
Me and my Network Killing 30GB(Thirty Gigabyte)*TOTAL* monthly use is waxing their bottom line, huh?
30GB per month(Total, both ways) is not harming ANYONE ELSE! Period!
Let alone what little of that is actual BT traffic. :huh:
But... my paltry BT usage is getting trashed along side Joe Bandwidth Hog.

Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense, don't it? :hmm:
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply
morbo @ 28th Nov 02:46PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

yes.
:D
reply
N O Y B @ 28th Nov 02:49PM:
ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service


ISPs have every right to enforce the TOS you have agreed too:
1) by blocking outbound traffic from servers being operated on residential service.
2) by blocking customers who provide their residential service to third parties by hosting and distributing content for them.

So get over it and start abiding by the TOS you have agreed too. Then there will be no issue.


reply
Tsume @ 28th Nov 02:58PM:
Re: My ISP does it too...

said by gatorkram :

I have used wireshark a few times to verify that my isp is also sending out the RST packets, blocking unencrypted upstream seeding.

What we need now, is an automated site and script, that people can submit their wireshark logs to, as proof, and to also filter out the normal stuff, and make a public log of the actual fake/forged packets.

It is my understanding, the way this system is working, it not only sends fake packets to people on the isp that is running this sandvine equipment, but it also sends fake packets to the other peers involved.

It seems to me, some of these other victims isps might want to know that forged and abusive packets are being sent to their end users...
I know for a fact that COX in Humboldt County, CA (Eureka/Goleta area) was doing this before they sold to Suddenlink, so it would be no surprise to me if other Suddenlink areas are doing the same.
reply
karlmarx @ 28th Nov 03:00PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

Using outbound traffic is against the TOS? Please show me in the TOS where I'm not allowed to send traffic. Hell, ANY protocol could be considered a 'server' by your logic. If I upload an FTP, that's outbound traffic. Running a CLIENT isn't running a SERVER. The fact that I'm SENDING data can't be against the TOS, cause otherwise I couldn't GET data. And please explain how a CLIENT is providing service to a third party. I REQUEST data, I SEND data. Hell, by posting this I am doing BOTH.

The simple fact of the matter is that comcast CAN'T PROVIDE what they are selling, and they are using ILLEGAL tactics to try and prevent people from USING what they paid for. If a comcast node can't SUPPORT 1mb upstream, then they shouldn't SELL 1mb upstream. Provide what you sell, and then there will be no issue.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.

reply
ptrowski @ 28th Nov 03:31PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by N O Y B :


ISPs have every right to enforce the TOS you have agreed too:
1) by blocking outbound traffic from servers being operated on residential service.
2) by blocking customers who provide their residential service to third parties by hosting and distributing content for them.

So get over it and start abiding by the TOS you have agreed too. Then there will be no issue.


Your posting history shows that you have some form of vendetta against any definition of server other than your own, even when some very talented people have explained to you in detail what may/may not be a server.

Why is that?
--
"A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org

reply
bi0tech @ 28th Nov 03:34PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

I often wonder how many of these type statements on a variety of subjects are true shills, overzealous non-sanctioned employee opinion, or just true believers of nonsense on their own accord.

JasonD care to fill us in?
reply
jericho @ 28th Nov 03:41PM:
Most isp's throttle

unfortunately most isp's in Canada/USA are doing this, it's just we only hear from the big dogs like Comcast and Cox , a lot of the smaller isp's are also doing this it's nothing new. My isp, Eastlink here in Nova Scotia Canada is also throttling the hell out of there so-called 15mbit service. It gets frustrating trying to do just about anything these days with all the packet shaping these isp's are doing. Like one or more have said here, if they cannot allow users to use there advertised speed cause of possible slowdowns on nodes then they really shouldn't be offering the speeds that they offer if there network cannot handle it.
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 28th Nov 03:59PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

The EFF is nothing but a mouthpiece for music and movie thieves.
reply
RangerTX @ 28th Nov 04:08PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by TK Junk Mail :

The EFF is nothing but a mouthpiece for music and movie thieves.
Is that an offical or unoffical position by comcast, just asking for clarification.
reply
ptrowski @ 28th Nov 04:18PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by bi0tech :

I often wonder how many of these type statements on a variety of subjects are true shills, overzealous non-sanctioned employee opinion, or just true believers of nonsense on their own accord.

JasonD care to fill us in?
I bet you it will be the "true beleiver" category from him.
reply
Jerkface @ 28th Nov 04:19PM:
Re: *ANY* user, *ANY* BT traffic

uhhh your dumb.

i think we need a "pwned" in here somewhere

oops
reply
jester121 @ 28th Nov 04:37PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by karlmarx :

The simple fact of the matter is that comcast CAN'T PROVIDE what they are selling, and they are using ILLEGAL tactics to try and prevent people from USING what they paid for. If a comcast node can't SUPPORT 1mb upstream, then they shouldn't SELL 1mb upstream. Provide what you sell, and then there will be no issue.
How do you know what Comcast can provide? The Sandvine issue is relatively new; I haven't had any problems with my Comcast speed before or since it was implemented.

Oh, and PUTTING every other WORD in CAPS doesn't MAKE what you SAY a FACT.
reply
Jason Levine @ 28th Nov 04:38PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

Because, of course, a user like gateguy trying to use World of Warcraft's built-in BitTorrent client to pull down a patch or a Linux user using BitTorrent to get a new ISO are such thieves!

It's one thing if they blocked BitTorrent to someone who downloaded 20GB of data in the past week and admit to it. It's quite another to just block BitTorrent entirely while denying that any such blocking it occurring.
reply
jester121 @ 28th Nov 04:39PM:
Re: My ISP does it too...

said by gatorkram :

It seems to me, some of these other victims isps might want to know that forged and abusive packets are being sent to their end users...
Abusive packets? Victim ISPs? Boy, you really know how to paint a word picture.

You do know that RST is a perfectly useful part of the TCPIP protocol suite, right? They don't cause shorts in cables or cause routers to crash or anything like that.
reply
jester121 @ 28th Nov 04:41PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by TK Junk Mail :

The EFF is nothing but a mouthpiece for music and movie thieves.
They're actually becoming the tech world's equivalent of the ACLU -- and that's not a compliment.
reply
SilverSurfer @ 28th Nov 04:52PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by jester121 :

[They're actually becoming the tech world's equivalent of the ACLU -- and that's not a compliment.
Unless, of course, comes an event and/or time that you, personally need the EFF on your side (as in a DMCA matter), then you will be singing an entirely different tune, I suspect. And that's not a compliment, either.
reply
anon @ 28th Nov 04:54PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by N O Y B :


ISPs have every right to enforce the TOS you have agreed too:
1) by blocking outbound traffic from servers being operated on residential service.
2) by blocking customers who provide their residential service to third parties by hosting and distributing content for them.

So get over it and start abiding by the TOS you have agreed too. Then there will be no issue.


Bittorrent is a client. If you think of it as a server then many on-line games would also be considered servers.
That is just stupid.
reply
jester121 @ 28th Nov 05:08PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by SilverSurfer :

said by jester121 :

[They're actually becoming the tech world's equivalent of the ACLU -- and that's not a compliment.
Unless, of course, comes an event and/or time that you, personally need the EFF on your side (as in a DMCA matter), then you will be singing an entirely different tune, I suspect. And that's not a compliment, either.
Sure, since I certainly shouldn't be held responsible for my actions if I break the law. :uhh: If I choose to violate the DMCA I'll be sure to pay for my own lawyer, or defend myself.

But isn't it interesting that the EFF and ACLU type organizations are only interested in helping people whose plight or position is closely aligned with their own politics? How very magnanimous of them.

(I realize you're parroting my statement, but I don't think anything you said could be mistaken as a compliment. Nice try at sarcasm, though...)
reply
gatorkram @ 28th Nov 05:12PM:
Re: My ISP does it too...

said by jester121 :

said by gatorkram :

It seems to me, some of these other victims isps might want to know that forged and abusive packets are being sent to their end users...
Abusive packets? Victim ISPs? Boy, you really know how to paint a word picture.

You do know that RST is a perfectly useful part of the TCPIP protocol suite, right? They don't cause shorts in cables or cause routers to crash or anything like that.
Just because an RST packet is part of the normal operation of the tcp/ip protocol, doesn't mean unexpected or other abuse of the packet doesn't cause issues.

People used to disconnect clients from IRC and entire servers using such attacks. It can indeed be very disruptive.

So, to allow one isp, to send these packets to another, in my book, is a form of abuse.

Maybe you don't understand what the sandvine equipment is doing?
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240

reply
Tsume @ 28th Nov 05:13PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

Nearly everything is a server.

Saying you cannot run a server in your TOS is like saying here's a 5,000mbit optical fibre connection, but you can only browse webpages and check your email.

Hosting a Warcraft III game is banned by the ToS/AUP. Using VNC is banned by the ToS/AUP. Using Bittorrent to download the latest edition of Linux Mint is banned by the ToS/AUP.

Give me a break. Their adverts indicate I can do above things, voiding their own ToS.

A couple lovely snippets from my ISP's page selling their HSI [emphasis by me]:

# PowerBoost

* Cable modem technology that gives you a boost of speed for video, photos, music and any large file access

ANY large file access. Implies I can access the large file any damn way I want.

Great for Gaming

Which means it is not against the "no servers" rule to host a game of WarIII, Starcraft, D2 (all of those Blizzard games act as a server), or run a Battlefield 2 server for friends. You can't call it great for gaming if you can't play with your friends the way you'd like.

As for them allowing VNC... their own little esupport tool is a derivative of VNC. They are breaking their own rule? I'm aware that their version may act as a client and not a server, but that doesn't make it any less obvious that a big fat blanket "no servers" rule should not exist in any way shape or form.
--
"Did you know that when one little panda pulls on another little panda's underwear, that's sexual harassment? That makes me a sa-a-a-a-ad panda." --Sexual Harassment Panda

reply
JTRockville @ 28th Nov 05:20PM:
Re: Most isp's throttle

Then good on those who don't, like Verizon. :)
reply
Mashimaro @ 28th Nov 05:21PM:
Re: *ANY* user, *ANY* BT traffic

Yes that must be a legit site. Obviously the NHL contracted this Steven Dale fellow from the UK to build a profanity laden torrent site for them.
reply
jester121 @ 28th Nov 05:57PM:
Re: My ISP does it too...

said by gatorkram :

Just because an RST packet is part of the normal operation of the tcp/ip protocol, doesn't mean unexpected or other abuse of the packet doesn't cause issues.

People used to disconnect clients from IRC and entire servers using such attacks. It can indeed be very disruptive.

So, to allow one isp, to send these packets to another, in my book, is a form of abuse.

Maybe you don't understand what the sandvine equipment is doing?
No, I'm pretty much up to speed. On the other hand, you've shown pretty clearly that you have no clue about what's happening. Just because a feature of technology gets used for a purpose that it wasn't intended for doesn't mean it's "abuse".

There are plenty of perfectly legitimate uses for RST packets in a network. Sandvine uses what I think is a pretty clever method to take this functionality and shut down unwanted P2P connections. I'd liken it to the early spam blocker services that took the functionality of DNS and used it to create very efficient, fast blacklists of spammer IP addresses. DNS was never intended to support such functionality but it's become a very useful tool against spammers over the years.
reply
N O Y B @ 28th Nov 05:58PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by karlmarx :

Using outbound traffic is against the TOS? Please show me in the TOS where I'm not allowed to send traffic. Hell, ANY protocol could be considered a 'server' by your logic. If I upload an FTP, that's outbound traffic. Running a CLIENT isn't running a SERVER. The fact that I'm SENDING data can't be against the TOS, cause otherwise I couldn't GET data. And please explain how a CLIENT is providing service to a third party. I REQUEST data, I SEND data. Hell, by posting this I am doing BOTH.

The simple fact of the matter is that comcast CAN'T PROVIDE what they are selling, and they are using ILLEGAL tactics to try and prevent people from USING what they paid for. If a comcast node can't SUPPORT 1mb upstream, then they shouldn't SELL 1mb upstream. Provide what you sell, and then there will be no issue.

Did not say outbound traffic is against TOS. Suggest you read again and keep my statement complete instead of removing key elements that do not suite you.

Protocol being used has nothing to do with it. Servers are not limited to only certain protocols.

Correct, running a client is not running a server. But this issue is not about clients but about servers.

Correct sending data is not against TOS. But running a server is.

Hosting content for third party and making that content available via your residential ISP service to fourth parties is in fact providing your residential service to a third party.

Comcast’s inability to provide what they are selling is irrelevant. They have the right to block servers and providing the service to third parties.


reply
N O Y B @ 28th Nov 06:00PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by ptrowski :

Your posting history shows that you have some form of vendetta against any definition of server other than your own, even when some very talented people have explained to you in detail what may/may not be a server.

Why is that?


Oh yes some very talented people who tried to justify BTs by claiming browser are servers too because of cookies. And when I called them on it they could not dispute me. You all are grasping at straws to justify your violation of the TOS you have agreed too.


reply
N O Y B @ 28th Nov 06:04PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service


The issue is not with you accessing files any way you want. The issue is with you running a server to host them for third parties.


reply
N O Y B @ 28th Nov 06:07PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service


said by Hehe :

Bittorrent is a client. If you think of it as a server then many on-line games would also be considered servers.
That is just stupid.

We have already been down that road in another thread. But whether or not games, browser, etc. are servers is irrelevant to whether or not bit torrents are servers. Which they are. And they violate at least two items in most residential TOS.


reply
gatorkram @ 28th Nov 06:11PM:
Re: My ISP does it too...

A fake and forged packet, is a fake and forged packet, no matter what you want to dress it up as.

For anyone to use a device that not only sends these forged packets across their own networks, but across to someone elses, is clearly abuse.

I hope some network operators that don't support these sandvine devices step up to the plate, and address these issues.

If I was sending out forged packets, you can bet I'd be in trouble.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240

reply
anon @ 28th Nov 06:15PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
snorpus @ 28th Nov 06:21PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by SilverSurfer :

But isn't it interesting that the EFF and ACLU type organizations are only interested in helping people whose plight or position is closely aligned with their own politics?
Uh, not quite. One of the most famous instances of ACLU involvement was in supporting the right of white supremacists to demonstrate in a largely Jewish suburb of Chicago.
reply
Tsume @ 28th Nov 06:27PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by N O Y B :


The issue is not with you accessing files any way you want. The issue is with you running a server to host them for third parties.


If the way to access the file automatically includes that caveat, that isn't my problem.
--
"Did you know that when one little panda pulls on another little panda's underwear, that's sexual harassment? That makes me a sa-a-a-a-ad panda." --Sexual Harassment Panda

reply
SilverSurfer @ 28th Nov 06:46PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by jester121 :

Sure, since I certainly shouldn't be held responsible for my actions if I break the law. :uhh:
No idea what that means - Are you saying that anyone who employs the help of the EFF should go directly to prison without due process, including the services of an attorney?

said by jester121 :

But isn't it interesting that the EFF and ACLU type organizations are only interested in helping people whose plight or position is closely aligned with their own politics? How very magnanimous of them.
As evidenced by the many instances of having represented Skinheads/NeoNazis, the ACLU represents civil liberties, period. Politics doesn't even come into play.

said by jester121 :

(I realize you're parroting my statement, but I don't think anything you said could be mistaken as a compliment. Nice try at sarcasm, though...)
As to sarcasm, if I wanted to hit you with any kind of wry wit, I wouldn't use your words to do it.
reply
anon @ 28th Nov 07:29PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

Okay, so playing on Xbox Live is also against Comcast's TOS? Yet you don't see them banning users on that service, yet.

What has been and is currently the goal of Comcast's TOS is to minimize the amount of bandwidth a user consumes at any given time, reducing their cost to run their network. Comcast's problem is they've oversold their network and instead of upgrading capacity they've chosen to filter specific traffic.

Using restrictions like no servers may be operated on this connection are problematic because as the internet has evolved so have the applications. Even people that don't download movies or music (like me) still end up running servers, like when I play Halo or other games online.

Comcast's TOS is grossly out of date in terms of what people expect out of their ISPs today. If you wanted to take it verbatim like you are doing then Comcast needs to kick off a good 50% of their users, because at some time, they have ran a server.

In the end what Comcast done is applied a blanket solution to filter all BT content, when in all reality they need to reduce speeds so the network can support the users, or upgrade capacity.
reply
N O Y B @ 28th Nov 07:02PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by Tsume :

If the way to access the file automatically includes that caveat, that isn't my problem.

Correct. It is the problem of the persons hosting the content you are accessing. Which in the case of bit torrents it is likely being "throttled" due to the person hosting the content being a on a residential service and thus violating their TOS.


reply
Jason Levine @ 28th Nov 07:28PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by jester121 :

Sure, since I certainly shouldn't be held responsible for my actions if I break the law. :uhh: If I choose to violate the DMCA I'll be sure to pay for my own lawyer, or defend myself.
Would you be willing to pay for your own lawyer to defend yourself if a big company was using the DMCA to silence you from posting something negative about them online? Even if that negative thing was true and didn't violate the DMCA? Paying for a lawyer is expensive and many people wouldn't be able to afford to defend themselves. There are some companies out there that realize this and try to use the DMCA (and other laws) as the basis for SLAPP lawsuits knowing that the average person will have no choice but to fold.
reply
Tsume @ 28th Nov 07:28PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

Where in the ToS, or in the law even, does it say it is okay to pretend to be someone else? I believe that's forgery, and is against the law. That's what they are doing with the RST packets.
--
"Did you know that when one little panda pulls on another little panda's underwear, that's sexual harassment? That makes me a sa-a-a-a-ad panda." --Sexual Harassment Panda

reply
N O Y B @ 28th Nov 07:36PM:
Re: Most isp's throttle


What most ISPs are doing is enforcing the terms of service their residential customers have agreed to abide by.

1) not to use the service for running/operating/hosting/etc. servers.
2) not to provide the service to third parties.

Some people apparently think it is their bit torrent downloads that are being throttled. But in fact it is the up stream of the person who is hosting and serving that bit torrent content on a residential service that is being throttled.

So download away, but do not blame your ISP for the content providers inability to properly host their content on a business service that permits operation of servers.


reply
hopeflicker @ 28th Nov 07:42PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

Just remember boys and girls, you can not allow grandma to access your private ftp server to get your vacation movies, you can not BT the new movie trailer to your neighbor, you can not send your new fave song to your girlfriend via AIM/ICQ all because it's against the TOS.

Why do they even give us upstream if they dont want us to push data? ***sarcasm or was it*****

The TOS is written by lawyers with many loopholes that is used to the advantage of the money taker.
--
People pray to God because they're told to.

reply
N O Y B @ 28th Nov 07:54PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service


Hey, you (and others) are the one(s) who agreed to their TOS. So you have no one to blame but yourself(s).


reply
jester121 @ 28th Nov 08:29PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by SilverSurfer :

said by jester121 :

But isn't it interesting that the EFF and ACLU type organizations are only interested in helping people whose plight or position is closely aligned with their own politics? How very magnanimous of them.
As evidenced by the many instances of having represented Skinheads/NeoNazis, the ACLU represents civil liberties, period. Politics doesn't even come into play.
You're right -- just think of all the dozens of times the ACLU has come to the aid of anti-abortion activitists, Republicans whose privacy was ignored by the Clintons, and on and on. To say nothing of the fact that it was founded by a dedicated group of communists. :uhh:

:end sarcasm
reply
lcnoble @ 28th Nov 08:49PM:
Re: Interesting...

I am looking for more understanding of this issue. Why do providers stop communication? I.E., does P2P really take up that much more bandwidth, are the networks so overloaded that they are forced to control traffic, any other issues? I do question the over capacity answer while the providers offer higher tiers. If P2P is preferred, why use other protocols? At this point in the conflict, it appears that using P2P is not illegal, so is it legal for the ISPs to block it's use? I.E., a free speech issue might want to use P2P to get a message to more users, probably cheaper and faster, not much different than campaign laws. If capacity is not an issue, why not use P2P as opposed to other protocols, especially given it's popularity? Encryption is thought of as a cure to packet spoofing, but I would think that encryption adds to the size of the packet. I assume that the issues with the EFF are part of this thread and would like to remind everyone that they are also fighting possible domestic spying justified by non-existent WMDs, among other things! Did I just step in something or what?
reply
N O Y B @ 28th Nov 09:18PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service


said by Tsume :

Where in the ToS, or in the law even, does it say it is okay to pretend to be someone else? I believe that's forgery, and is against the law. That's what they are doing with the RST packets.

I nor anyone else here are who you need to convince of that. File a law suite if you think they are engaging in illegal conduct. Then you will be given the opportunity to convince those who can actually do something about it.


reply
N O Y B @ 28th Nov 09:21PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by hopeflicker :

Just remember boys and girls, you can not allow grandma to access your private ftp server to get your vacation movies, you can not BT the new movie trailer to your neighbor, you can not send your new fave song to your girlfriend via AIM/ICQ all because it's against the TOS.

Why do they even give us upstream if they dont want us to push data? ***sarcasm or was it*****

The TOS is written by lawyers with many loopholes that is used to the advantage of the money taker.

So you can upload your content to an appropriate host.

If you do not like your ISPs TOS then why did you agree to them. Try writing your own TOS and see if they will agree to them.


reply
hopeflicker @ 28th Nov 09:26PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

oh, so now it's an "appropriate host"

So uploading (like in the examples above) is breaking the TOS.

That's nice. :hmm:
--
People pray to God because they're told to.

reply
N O Y B @ 28th Nov 09:30PM:
Re: *ANY* user, *ANY* BT traffic

said by dadkins :

Go to the tracker of your choice where you are a member.
One where you are logged and your ratio is displayed.
One where they state that if your ratio falls too low or you do nothing bet leech - banned!

Remember Demonoid? Sure you do!
They had a few legal torrents.
They also had a ratio policy.
Demonoid is gone now though.

If Demonoid was still up, and I were to continue downloading - whatever, and Comcast was trashing my upload, guess what would happen... Yep! Ban City!

So subscribe to business class service that permits operating servers. Then you would have a case.


reply
N O Y B @ 28th Nov 09:34PM:
Re: *ANY* user, *ANY* BT traffic

said by spanglo :

Mashimaro don't be a douche.

Throttling EVERYBODY is wrong. Gross Offenders should be the ones throttled if they bust the cap - no one else. Otherwise there's a whole bunch of us who feel like we're not getting the service we're paying for.

I do not believe they throttle everyone. I believe they are only throttling residential subscribers operating servers, but not business subscribers.


reply
N O Y B @ 28th Nov 09:46PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service


said by hopeflicker :

oh, so now it's an "appropriate host"

So uploading (like in the examples above) is breaking the TOS.

That's nice. :hmm:


Always has been about "appropriate host".

When you host content for third parties with your residential service, which is the case with bit torrents, yes that is a violation of TOS.

1) running a server
2) providing the ISPs service to a third party

If you wish to share your content with others upload it to a legitimate hosted server. That way your residential up stream bandwidth gets used only once, even though the content may be viewed/downloaded/accessed/etc. many times by many others.


reply
hopeflicker @ 28th Nov 09:55PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

So in my examples above, do they satisfy the "server" definition?
--
People pray to God because they're told to.

reply
N O Y B @ 28th Nov 10:02PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service


said by hopeflicker :

So in my examples above, do they satisfy the "server" definition?

Be specific to which examples you refer. Restate each specific example.


reply
nasadude @ 28th Nov 10:06PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by TK Junk Mail :

The EFF is nothing but a mouthpiece for music and movie thieves.
don't hold back TCH, er I mean HCT, tell us how your company, er I mean you, really feel.

oh, by the way, the RIAA and MPAA are nothing but mouthpieces for rapacious, clueless, "megacorps".
reply
nasadude @ 28th Nov 10:11PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

that's OK, jester21 sounds like a republican so that means he has lots of money. shoot, he probably keeps an attorney on retainer to sue people that piss him off.
reply
Mr Den @ 28th Nov 10:47PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by N O Y B :

If you do not like your ISPs TOS then why did you agree to them.
Sometimes you have to take the only game in town spuds, face it..

No competition in a market unfortunately does not fare well for the consumer.
reply
hopeflicker @ 28th Nov 10:56PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by N O Y B :


said by hopeflicker :

So in my examples above, do they satisfy the "server" definition?

Be specific to which examples you refer. Restate each specific example.


you can not allow grandma to access your private ftp server to get your vacation movies,

you can not BT the new movie trailer to your neighbor,

you can not send your new fave song to your girlfriend via AIM/ICQ
--
People pray to God because they're told to.

reply
Tzale @ 28th Nov 10:57PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by snorpus :

said by SilverSurfer :

But isn't it interesting that the EFF and ACLU type organizations are only interested in helping people whose plight or position is closely aligned with their own politics?
Uh, not quite. One of the most famous instances of ACLU involvement was in supporting the right of white supremacists to demonstrate in a largely Jewish suburb of Chicago.
That is their politics... They're in the politics of following the Constitution to the 'T'.... Some people have a problem with this, so they call them liberals.... Sometimes they defend far right issues and that is used as an example that they are not a "liberal" organization. The truth is that they theoretically are independent... It just happens that the Republicans are infringing on our rights nowadays and therefore it makes the ACLU look liberal. I'm an independent an I support a Republican for president. Don't bother flaming me, I'm not a liberal.

-Tzale
reply
bradt @ 28th Nov 11:17PM:
Re: My ISP does it too...

I say we use sandvine to RST all of jester121's HTTP packets. Keep his ignorant rantings off the board.

What's good for the goose...
reply
backness @ 28th Nov 11:37PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

you do know that TOS is not law right?
reply
N O Y B @ 29th Nov 12:10AM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service


said by backness :

you do know that TOS is not law right?

Yes. It is an agreement the ISPs customers have agreed to abide by. And the ISPs have every right to enforce the terms of service.


reply
N O Y B @ 29th Nov 12:24AM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by hopeflicker :

(1) you can not allow grandma to access your private ftp server to get your vacation movies,

(2) you can not BT the new movie trailer to your neighbor,

(3) you can not send your new fave song to your girlfriend via AIM/ICQ
(1) Violation of most residential TOS.
Solution: Upload to an appropriate server.

(2) Violation of most residential TOS.
Solution: Upload to an appropriate server.

(3) your girlfriend may be violating her ISPs residential TOS.
Solution: Upload to an appropriate server.

Though technical violations of most ISPs residential TOS, YMMV though in regard to ISP enforcement in the cases above.

Though non of the case above are relevant to whether or not servers are a violation of residential TOS nor whether or not bit torrents are servers.


reply
N O Y B @ 29th Nov 12:30AM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by Mr Den :

said by N O Y B :

If you do not like your ISPs TOS then why did you agree to them.
Sometimes you have to take the only game in town spuds, face it..

No competition in a market unfortunately does not fare well for the consumer.

Does not justify breaching TOS.


reply
dadkins @ 29th Nov 12:31AM:
Re: *ANY* user, *ANY* BT traffic

Don't need a server.
If you really want to go there *I* am a server!
Ban me? The paying party? Doubt it!

BT is getting Sandvine-ified across the board.
Business class is irrelavent.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply
N O Y B @ 29th Nov 12:39AM:
Re: *ANY* user, *ANY* BT traffic

said by dadkins :

Don't need a server.
If you really want to go there *I* am a server!
Ban me? The paying party? Doubt it!

BT is getting Sandvine-ified across the board.
Business class is irrelavent.

They do not want to ban you. They like your money. So they opt to prevent the specific useage and keep collecting your money. How do you like being a Comcast SPAMCastic puppet now.

What is your evidence BT up stream traffic is getting Sandvine-ified on business class service?

reply
hopeflicker @ 29th Nov 01:22AM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by N O Y B :

said by hopeflicker :

(1) you can not allow grandma to access your private ftp server to get your vacation movies,

(2) you can not BT the new movie trailer to your neighbor,

(3) you can not send your new fave song to your girlfriend via AIM/ICQ
(1) Violation of most residential TOS.
Solution: Upload to an appropriate server.

(2) Violation of most residential TOS.
Solution: Upload to an appropriate server.

(3) your girlfriend may be violating her ISPs residential TOS.
Solution: Upload to an appropriate server.

Though technical violations of most ISPs residential TOS, YMMV though in regard to ISP enforcement in the cases above.

Though non of the case above are relevant to whether or not servers are a violation of residential TOS nor whether or not bit torrents are servers.


You say upload to an appropriate server. What if that option is not avail? Dont say there's many free options. Not everyone knows this.

So technically I can have my internet connection revoked for any of the 3 above examples? Then why do ISPs say "share" videos/pictures and they do not say "You can share pictures as long as you do not use your connection as a server"?
If they do not want you sharing files between 2 residential computers then they should say that in ENGLISH

And this is my whole point: In general, most people break their TOS on their residential connection. Most people dont even know what a TOS is and those that do couldn't careless about a contract that only lawyers can understand. People go around everywhere (especially here at DSLR and ALWAYS use that line, "It's against the TOS to do that", yeah, like it's a law.

TOS is only used by ISPs when it's to their benefit. What is really wrong is they will allow some to break the TOS and not even care but the will turn right around and terminate someone else for doing the same exact violation.
--
People pray to God because they're told to.

reply
N O Y B @ 29th Nov 01:48AM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

An appropriate server is available to everyone with internet access. Whether they know or not is irrelevant.

Yes, technically most ISPs have grounds to terminate just about anyone's residential service based on breach of TOS. Obviously it is not in their best interest to strictly enforce. But they have the right to do so if they wish. Apparently in the case of bit torrent servers many of them wish to prevent rather than terminate.

Kind of like some of the laws on the books that are regularly broken but not enforced. But they can be enforced if needed/desired for some end purpose.

They say share videos/pictures because you can do that without breach of TOS. The fact they do not point you to an appropriate server to do this without breach of TOS is irrelevant.

They have said so in English. No servers is pretty clear. Unless you wish to spin it to suite your own interests. However I do not believe that would be successful legal argument if it were to be taken to that.

I have never said TOS is a law. Though it would likely be held up it court as a binding agreement between the ISP and customer.

TOS can also be used by the customer to insure the ISP fulfills their service level commitment to the customer.

If you do not like the TOS cancel your service, work with your ISP to change the TOS, file lawsuit against ISP if you believe they have terminated your service or otherwise are not fulfilling their obligation without just cause. But complaining about it here and arguing with me about it, will not make it change.


reply
Tsume @ 29th Nov 02:54AM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by N O Y B :


said by Tsume :

Where in the ToS, or in the law even, does it say it is okay to pretend to be someone else? I believe that's forgery, and is against the law. That's what they are doing with the RST packets.

I nor anyone else here are who you need to convince of that. File a law suite if you think they are engaging in illegal conduct. Then you will be given the opportunity to convince those who can actually do something about it.


Sadly I probably wouldn't, the age of the judges in our court system suggests they'd have a hard time understanding the abuse of the technology.
reply
anon @ 29th Nov 03:33AM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 29th Nov 03:39AM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
karlmarx @ 29th Nov 05:42AM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

"Comcast’s inability to provide what they are selling is irrelevant"

WHOA! That's the MOST RELEVANT part of this entire discussion. That's like Ford selling a car that can only go 4000 miles a year. No one would ever stand for that. Why does comcast get to sell something they don't provide? I sure would hate to go shopping with you, where you pay for 2lbs of steak, but only walk out of the store with 6oz.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.

reply
Mr Den @ 29th Nov 06:03AM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

If you re-read my reply, you will find I did not make that statement.

I also did not reply to your post to argue with you, just to point out a fact.
reply
openbox9 @ 29th Nov 07:35AM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

Failure to explain the saving of the Western Hemisphere is not my conjecture or opinion. I'm not sure what you mean by gatekeeper.
reply
Morac @ 29th Nov 10:41AM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by N O Y B :


ISPs have every right to enforce the TOS you have agreed too:
1) by blocking outbound traffic from servers being operated on residential service.
2) by blocking customers who provide their residential service to third parties by hosting and distributing content for them.

So get over it and start abiding by the TOS you have agreed too. Then there will be no issue.
The TOS say that I can't disrupt the network. If you actually read the article you'd see that one of the tests the EFF did was try to serve a 500 KB file to one person using BitTorrent. This was blocked. Now I don't know how any one could say that trying to send 500 KB to someone is a violation of the TOS.

If Comcast wants to block the guy serving hundreds of MBs of data and tying up the network, well good for them, but Comcast is enforcing their own version of draconian justice against their users.

To make an analogy, it would be like the police shooting every person who is attempting to commit a crime no matter what it is, from attempted murder all the way down to jaywalking.
--

The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.

reply
N O Y B @ 29th Nov 04:37PM:
Re: *ANY* user, *ANY* BT traffic


said by N O Y B :

said by dadkins :

Don't need a server.
If you really want to go there *I* am a server!
Ban me? The paying party? Doubt it!

BT is getting Sandvine-ified across the board.
Business class is irrelavent.


They do not want to ban you. They like your money. So they opt to prevent the specific useage and keep collecting your money. How do you like being a Comcast SPAMCastic puppet now.

What is your evidence BT up stream traffic is getting Sandvine-ified on business class service?


That is what I thought. Apparently as usual you do not have any evidence to back up your claim.


reply
N O Y B @ 29th Nov 04:45PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by karlmarx :

"Comcast’s inability to provide what they are selling is irrelevant"

WHOA! That's the MOST RELEVANT part of this entire discussion. That's like Ford selling a car that can only go 4000 miles a year. No one would ever stand for that. Why does comcast get to sell something they don't provide? I sure would hate to go shopping with you, where you pay for 2lbs of steak, but only walk out of the store with 6oz.

Though it maybe, and likely is, an issue, it is not relevant to the issue of residential TOS violation by operating servers and providing the service to third parties.


reply
N O Y B @ 29th Nov 04:48PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by Tsume :

said by N O Y B :


said by Tsume :

Where in the ToS, or in the law even, does it say it is okay to pretend to be someone else? I believe that's forgery, and is against the law. That's what they are doing with the RST packets.

I nor anyone else here are who you need to convince of that. File a law suite if you think they are engaging in illegal conduct. Then you will be given the opportunity to convince those who can actually do something about it.


Sadly I probably wouldn't, the age of the judges in our court system suggests they'd have a hard time understanding the abuse of the technology.

Then I think you will just have to learn to live with it. Because they are well within their right of enforcing the TOS residential customers have agreed to abide by.


reply
N O Y B @ 29th Nov 04:56PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by Morac :

said by N O Y B :


ISPs have every right to enforce the TOS you have agreed too:
1) by blocking outbound traffic from servers being operated on residential service.
2) by blocking customers who provide their residential service to third parties by hosting and distributing content for them.

So get over it and start abiding by the TOS you have agreed too. Then there will be no issue.
The TOS say that I can't disrupt the network. If you actually read the article you'd see that one of the tests the EFF did was try to serve a 500 KB file to one person using BitTorrent. This was blocked. Now I don't know how any one could say that trying to send 500 KB to someone is a violation of the TOS.

If Comcast wants to block the guy serving hundreds of MBs of data and tying up the network, well good for them, but Comcast is enforcing their own version of draconian justice against their users.

To make an analogy, it would be like the police shooting every person who is attempting to commit a crime no matter what it is, from attempted murder all the way down to jaywalking.


Does not the residential TOS say you can not operate a server?
Does not the residential TOS say you can not provide the service to a third party?


reply
Tsume @ 29th Nov 05:04PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by N O Y B :


Then I think you will just have to learn to live with it. Because they are well within their right of enforcing the TOS residential customers have agreed to abide by.


Yes, they are perfectly able to enforce their Tos, if it is lawful. What they are doing is not, and I hope you can see that. What they are doing is forgery.

Learn to live with it? My bittorrent works and so does my eMule (encryption), so I guess I will. If/when that stops, then I'll have to look further... by then though I bet net neutrality laws will have been passed and we will be on a more fair (to the user and to the ISP) billing system (10/month for 2GB cap, 20/month for 25GB, 30/mo for 50GB max, 50/mo for 100GB Max, 75/mo for 175GB, 100/mo for 300GB... etc, you get the picture. Just an example).
reply
N O Y B @ 29th Nov 05:19PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service


Whether or not method of enforcement they are currently using is legal or illegal is something that will have to be determined in the justice system. Personally at best I think the method is slimy. But even if it were determined to be illegal, they would just use a different method. Such as dropping or significantly delaying packets.


reply
Tsume @ 29th Nov 05:29PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by N O Y B :


Whether or not method of enforcement they are currently using is legal or illegal is something that will have to be determined in the justice system. Personally at best I think the method is slimy. But even if it were determined to be illegal, they would just use a different method. Such as dropping or significantly delaying packets.


Very true, and a very sharp observation. It just so happened for the ISPs that Sandvine was there and that's just how it was done. They don't care how it's done, as long as it saves them bandwidth. The real issue is that the ISPs are not getting more money from those who use more bandwidth, and users who use virtually no bandwidth are overpaying and subsidizing users like myself who occasionally will blaze through ~100GB a month.

Right now it's like saying $50 dollars to fill up your gas tank. You would say "But my motorcycle only has a 4 gallon tank!!" They say too bad, that's the rate structure. Then you've got an increasing amount of SUV drivers with 30 gallon tanks the gas stations lose tons of money filling, more and more each year as the drivers of SUVs increase. They say no fair, they're using too much! They can only have a 4 gallon tank like the motorcycles!! *cry* I know, let's reduce the size of their gas tanks to 4 gallons! Brilliant. Now they can only drive 10 miles a month. The equivalent to not being able to use your internet connection the way you'd like.

What's happening is that the ISPs are not changing their pricing structure like they need to. Net neutrality laws would virtually FORCE them to do so, and that is why I am in support of them. They would have no way to run around dropping packets and delaying traffic instead of offering something they'd make a profit on.. and they would not have to waste $ on expensive shaping hardware.
reply
N O Y B @ 29th Nov 05:37PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service


There is yet another aspect. And that is that ISPs are losing out on business customers due to them using the services of many residential service customers to host their content via bit torrent servers.

Also I doubt net neutrality would not prohibit the use of such methods for the purpose of preventing unauthorized usage that violates TOS.

The way I view it is that if the customer breaches TOS then the ISP has no service level obligation to the customer. But they want the customers money so rather than terminating service they put measures in place to prevent the unauthorized, undesirable, residential TOS violating, usage.


reply
Morac @ 29th Nov 06:33PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by N O Y B :

Does not the residential TOS say you can not operate a server?
Does not the residential TOS say you can not provide the service to a third party?
I believe the first is listed. I don't know about the second. There is something that says you can't share your server with users outside your home, but that applies to sharing your Internet connection, not your files.

As for the first issue. While BitTorrent can be a server, it is not necessary to be one to seed files. For example I can "serve" a file using BitTorrent, but I can configure it (by blocking incoming connections) so that my computer is the one initiating all the connections. In that way it is no different than me sending an email or ftping a file to a bunch of people. Except in the case of using BT, Comcast will kill the connection.

If you want to be a stickler then anyone running Windows is violating the TOS since Windows opens many server ports by default so technically everyone is running a server.

Also normally violating the TOS, will get your account suspended. I have yet to hear Comcast equate their spoofing practice with enforcing the TOS. The only thing they've mentioned was protecting their network integrity.

Seeding a small file to one person causes less of a disruptions than sending a large attachment in an email, yet the former is blocked and not the latter.
--

The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.

reply
N O Y B @ 29th Nov 07:04PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service


You fail to take into account the other parties violation of their residential TOS, and them being "throttled".


reply
Morac @ 29th Nov 07:09PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

said by N O Y B :


You fail to take into account the other parties violation of their residential TOS, and them being "throttled".

Interesting that you mention that since there is no throttling done if both parties have Comcast. Throttling is only done if one person has Comcast and the other person has a different ISP.

So I'm not sure why Comcast would be applying their TOS to non-Comcast users.
reply
N O Y B @ 29th Nov 07:13PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service


In that case it would not be Comcast who would be applying their TOS to the other ISPs customer, but rather the other persons ISP. And it would still have a visible impact to you. Comcast is not the only ISP doing this.


reply
Tsume @ 29th Nov 08:42PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service

ISP's need to differentiate between their Internet offerings for Business and Residential services the same way they do for phone service.

You'll not see a residential phone customer disconnected for hosting a 3 way call, or talking on the phone 10x more than the average Joe. You'll really only see that if the phone is literally in use 24/7.

Blocking usage of servers is no longer practical for what residential customers wish to do with their connections. They need to find a productive, rather than limiting, way to make their business offering more appealing to businesses.
reply
N O Y B @ 29th Nov 08:47PM:
Re: ISPs Have Right to Enforce Terms of Service


Their business and residential services are already differentiated.


reply
KrK @ 29th Nov 09:54PM:
Re: Interesting...

said by lcnoble :

I am looking for more understanding of this issue. Why do providers stop communication?
For... Money. They want to sell you on a high speed, premium package... but then not actually deliver it. They want people to pay $50 a month for premium speeds, but use no more then someone on the budget plan.

It's all about profit, not service.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)

reply
KrK @ 29th Nov 09:56PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

I agree. The EFF kicks ass. They fight for freedom.
reply
KrK @ 29th Nov 09:58PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by gateguy :

Does that make me part of the scourge?
Yes. AND you worship Satan! :D
reply
KrK @ 29th Nov 09:59PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by TK Junk Mail :

The EFF is nothing but a mouthpiece for music and movie thieves.
Much as certain users on these forums seem to be nothing but mouthpieces for corporate douchebaggery.
reply
KrK @ 29th Nov 10:01PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by snorpus :

Uh, not quite. One of the most famous instances of ACLU involvement was in supporting the right of white supremacists to demonstrate in a largely Jewish suburb of Chicago.
Please, don't confuse them with the facts!
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)

reply
KrK @ 29th Nov 10:04PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by jester121 :

Republicans whose privacy was ignored by the Clintons, and on and on.
Amazing how reality can get flipped completely. Swap the positions of the words "Republicans" and "Clintons" and you have ACTUAL REALITY.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)

reply
KrK @ 29th Nov 10:19PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by jester121 :

You're right -- just think of all the dozens of times the ACLU has come to the aid of anti-abortion activitists,
Uh.... Ok, prepare to get pwned....

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union (2005) defended the rights of two teenage girls who, for religious reasons, sought to wear anti-abortion t-shirts to school after school officials threatened to punish them.

The ACLU of Ohio (2002) filed a brief in support of preacher who wanted to protest abortion at a parade, but was prohibited from doing so in an Akron suburb.

1999: The ACLU of Maryland assists the March for Life Committee in getting a permit for an anti-abortion march in Annapolis without having to pay a $5,400 fee the city was seeking. The ACLU worked with the American Center for Law & Justice to revise a proposed city ordinance so as to keep free speech free.

1997: Arizona Civil Liberties Union sues City of Phoenix to challenge an ordinance under which the City refused to allow the Children of the Rosary, an anti-abortion group, to place ads on City buses. The lawsuit was filed jointly with the American Center for Law and Justice.

1994: ACLU of Pennsylvania assisted a pregnant 17-year-old whose parents wanted her to have an abortion she didn't want. She had moved away from home to continue her pregnancy, but her parents called police to have her brought home. ACLU convinced officials to let her continue her pregnancy and live away from parents.

1993: ACLU of New Jersey files an amicus brief on behalf of anti-abortion picketers. "Our defense of freedom of speech clearly cannot vary, and has not varied, with the views expressed." -- ACLU attorney Frank Corrado.

1993: ACLU of Florida offers legal assistance to Operation Rescue, who refused the offer.

1992: ACLU of Rhode Island files a friend-of-the-court brief challenging a state judge's increase of bail for anti-abortion defendants, charged with obstructing a clinic, who refused to provide their Social Security numbers.

1991: ACLU of Northern California offers support for man arrested for displaying photographs of human fetuses.

1990: ACLU of Southern California files a brief supporting Operation Rescue's appeal of a federal judge's ruling upholding the use of "pain compliance" techniques by L.A. police.

1990: ACLU of Rhode Island files a friend-of-the-court brief in state Supreme Court in support of anti-abortion protesters challenging the constitutionality of a town ordinance limiting residential picketing.

ETC ETC ETC

Amazing how blasted the ACLU is by people--- who don't even know a damn thing about it except believe it when they hear someone call it a "Liberal-pinko-commie outfit"...

Owned.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)

reply
gaforces @ 30th Nov 09:20AM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

You got to wait till business hours so he can clock in first.
reply
gaforces @ 30th Nov 09:33AM:
Re: My ISP does it too...

Networks who abuse the internet by using sandvine should be cut off completely from the rest of us.
Then you can have your own private net, ripoff as many of your customers as you want, then it wont affect the rest of us who actually get what our ISPs advertise to us and can handle the loads.

Those networks using sandvine are putting strain on the rest of the WORLD's networks by thier blocking.
Taking money out of networks pockets world wide!
Should be thier new slogans.
reply
jester121 @ 30th Nov 01:09PM:
Re: My ISP does it too...

said by gaforces :

Those networks using sandvine are putting strain on the rest of the WORLD's networks by thier blocking.
Taking money out of networks pockets world wide!
Should be thier new slogans.
hehe... I've GOT to hear an explanation for this one. Are they hurting the environment and killing baby seals too?
reply
gaforces @ 30th Nov 01:37PM:
Re: My ISP does it too...

said by jester121 :

said by gaforces :

Those networks using sandvine are putting strain on the rest of the WORLD's networks by thier blocking.
Taking money out of networks pockets world wide!
Should be thier new slogans.
hehe... I've GOT to hear an explanation for this one. Are they hurting the environment and killing baby seals too?
The legal torrents that millions of people use every day, are being blocked by these networks using sandvine, which puts the load on the networks who dont block, its all there in plain english.
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon

reply
NOVA_Guy @ 30th Nov 10:55PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

said by KrK :

said by jester121 :

Republicans whose privacy was ignored by the Clintons, and on and on.
Amazing how reality can get flipped completely. Swap the positions of the words "Republicans" and "Clintons" and you have ACTUAL REALITY.
Yep. It wouldn't have anything to do with President Can't-Keep-It-In-His-Pants getting a BJ on company time on company property with a company employee, would it?

If anyone at my company tried the crap he pulled-- sexual impropriety and then BREAKING THE LAW by lying under oath about it-- they would be fired post haste. And their crime certainly wouldn't go unpunished either.

But then again most people I know are smart enough to not associate themselves with people like the Clintons-- for the same reason why you wouldn't want to put on your Sunday best and then go play in the mud with a bunch of pigs... you just don't want to get that dirty...
--
Some terrorists don't wear rags on their head, go without showers for weeks, and smell like camel crap. Instead they live in America and support Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for president.

reply
KrK @ 30th Nov 11:01PM:
Re: EFF Protects the Consumer's Interests

Yeah, nice twist there to try and make a bad analogy fit.

Company time, company employee, etc etc LOL

I'm betting if we had an unlimited budget and 10 years or so to conduct a witch-hunt on you something could be found to screw up your life with.

It's just a matter of prospective, really.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)

reply
mikedalb @ 2nd Dec 07:30PM:
If it's not bittorrent-

what's the next "scourge of the internet"? FTP? IRC? HTTP? When they selectively rst packets because vonage or something else becomes popular, will there be an outcry then?
reply
homenode @ 3rd Dec 01:13AM:
It's all about the contract

I think it's really down to contract enforcement.

Most ISPs offer "unrestricted" service to residential users, but preclude the operation of "servers". However, ALL applications that provide a bi-directional data exchange are "servers": email "clients", WEB browsers, FTP clients, games - all these can be classified as "servers" if the definition is used literally. What the ISP is actually saying is a "server" is any service or protocol that can generate more traffic than an "average" customer's internet usage should.

The average ISP contract doesn't usually enumerate the protocols or data volumes that constitute "server" use. After all, if I'm uploading a full week's vacation pictures to an ISP-sponsored photo sharing site, am I not loading as much traffic as a bittorrent? Is downloading thousands of SPAM emails an hour to my Outlook Express client considered to be "server" volume? How about 4-5 hours of YouTube every day?

If the contract doesn't explicitly enumerate the protocols restricted or the volume of traffic that constitutes "abuse", then the ISP is "guilty of stupidity". The only way out is to take an action - like RST forging - that is a "grey area" in the contract. It may not be illegal per se, but it's certainly against the principle of the contract.

Of course the ISP could use QoS or other tools to limit the impact of these "servers" - but it would then be violating it's own contract, as the use of QoS is certainly not outlined in any of the contracts I've had. The could also do as DirectWay does, and enforce a "Fair Use" volume limit. Once again, if the "Fair Use" policy isn't part of the contract, then the ISP is at fault for implementing it.

DirectWay explicitly states the limits of "Fair Use" in its contract: you buy more expensive service levels to increase the maximum volume allowed before the "Fair Use" policy kicks in. If you want to run torrents on DirectWay, expect them to take a LONG time, as you'll consistently hit your "Fair Use" limit, drop speed for an hour, then go and hit it again. No worries here: you knew the rules when you signed up, and that's what you play by.

The only reason that the major ISPs haven't implemented this in their contracts yet is to make their service look competitive to the average consumer and gamers. Seeing a QoS or "Fair Use" limit in the contract, or hearing about it from friends or in the news would get the average Joe looking for a new "unrestricted" ISP - even through neither restriction would ever impact them. It's the PERCEPTION that they're being "restricted" that sells - and surely another ISP or telco or cableco would jump all over this in a competitive market.

Hopefully this will take a turn for the better with the stink over the RST throttling getting mainstream news play, and ISPs WILL start including QoS and "Fair Use" restrictions in their contracts.

On the other hand I'd LOVE to see the DoJ bitch-slap the major ISPs with a Consumer Protection lawsuit over failing to be truthful in the interpretation of contract terms and failing to "educate" the customer on what they actually purchased - in plain language.
reply

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