RoadRunner Blocking Use of Kazaa

An anonymous reader submits: "You should know that RoadRunner is quietly blocking the use of Kazaa in certain markets. Particularly in Texas, they have some sort of port scanner in place which scans for Kazaa activity and then disables use of that port, rendering the program completely useless. Grokster, iMesh, and all other FastTrack programs are similarly affected. Yet RoadRunner is not disclosing the practice in any way. Not only that, I'm troubled by the possibility of them arbitrarily choosing to block other programs in the future. If this becomes more widespread, they will have many angry (and former) customers." The poster provides these four links to forum postings with more information: one; two; three; four.

Comments

What to do???

[msaulters]

As a user of Roadrunner in Austin, I don't see that I have much choice. Yeah, I can dump them, but then who do I use for high-speed access? DSL is priced higher, has terrible performance in the area. In fact, most of the DSL users I know have switched to Roadrunner. On the other hand, if they start blocking all the programs that make high-speed access worthwhile, there's not much point in paying $40/month to use it.

Re:What to do???

[kurowski]

what do you mean you don't have "much" of a choice? you have the quintisential (sp?) choice of the consumer: cheap, fast access through an isp with poor service, or more expensive, slower access through an isp that doesn't suck. most americans seem to go for the numbers- less money and more speed must be good, right? well, just keep thinking that way while you watch the utility of your net connection degrade until it's only good for viewing banner ads. then you'll regret the fact that the competition has gone under since nobody appreciates quality service...

not much of a choice... sheesh!

Re:What to do???

[jandrese]

Often times the choice isn't between Cable and DSL, rather the choice is between Cable and Modem/T1/ISDN. Modem is of course almost unacceptably slow for people who become accustomed to Cablemodem speeds (or even dorm ethernet speed). ISDN and T1 tend to be priced in the stratosphere (and ISDN is frequently only somewhat faster than modem and priced per megabyte and minute.)

I know locally if ComCast wants to start screwing it's customers even worse than usual the only choice we'll have is to go back to modem. In case anybody has any illusions let me spell it out: modem sucks. I don't want to loose my cablemodem, and I don't know what I'll do if I start getting screwed too hard.

Re:What to do???

[tonywong]

Instead of limiting programs and ports, ISPs should implement another scheme that monitors your traffic amounts and limits the speed in inverse proportion to the amount that you've transferred.

That way they can run uncapped cable modems. Infrequent users get maximum speed and transfer rates, moderate users get moderate transfer rates, and heavy users (eventually) get slow transfer rates.

To avoid a congested high speed consumption situation, resets of the rates are done on a rolling basis so everyone has a different monthly reset. A web page should give you your current stats (up, down traffic, current speed cap, amount transferred, reset date etc.)

That way everyone can be happy, running servers or p2p apps, and if they want to use up all their high speed bandwidth they can be stuck with modem like speeds for the rest of the month without suspension of service. I think you'd find that people who are serving without concern for bandwidth will all of a sudden monitor their own traffic a lot more.

This also takes the ISP out of the content monitor police service and relegates them to a bandwidth metering service, which is all they and everyone else wants them to do.

Legality

[daemones]

At what point of blocking a person's internet capability does this become a breach of contract? Once people realize that I can swap files using HTTP, will they remove my ability to browse the web?

I don't have a contract handy, so if it's covered so be it; But if it _is_ in your contract then maybe you should re-think who you pay $50 a month.

Re:Legality

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

You are only supposed to use it for email and web access, and on the ports they designate for this. You aren't allowed to delete spams, or close popup ads.

Anyone doing anything else, is obviously an evil hacker, and thank god the good legislators in this country have realized that all hackers are terrorists. You're all evil.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. The really annoying part though, is that I'm too close to the mark, in how these ISP's think...

Re:Legality

[Anonvmous Coward]

"At what point of blocking a person's internet capability does this become a breach of contract? "

If you're interfering with other people's connections, then you are breaching contract. I'm not talking about bandwidth hogging, I'm talking about IP addresses.

Let me share a little experience I had with you. I had Kazaa running for a couple of weeks to get some eps of MST3k. When I turned it off, I discovered my IP address was being bombarded with hundreds and hundreds of kazaa users sending requests to the port Kazaa used. The number of these requests was so high that I could barely use the internet, and Quake was a joke.

If ATT&T had rotated addresses, somebody else would have inhereted my garbage. Imagine that for a sec: One day, your internet connection goes to crap, and AT&T has no clue as to why. Chances are pretty good that'll cause customers to blame AT&T's service without realizing the true cause of it.

In that case, it is possible that your use of Kazaa could severely interfere with other people's internet experience. The more Kazaa users there are out there, the more likely it is going to happen to somebody. The one who gets burned the most is the ISP.

I don't agree with what they're doing (personally I think they should send me a cable modem that has a built in firewall so I can stop the kazaa traffic myself), but I understand it.

Only the ISP's know what their real intentions are, but that's something else to consider when you use a prog like that. Now you know why I stopped using it.

Re:Legality

[erpbridge]

Of course you had Kazaa users traffic bombarding your machine. The way Kazaa works is it queues up a transfer, and retries it every so often (just like almost all other P2P programs these days). After X number of retries (probably 10 minutes), it assumes you are not available, and removes you from the list. So, you'd have all this queued traffic attempting to connect to a non-existant node (your machine) using the Kazaa port.

This would be made even worse if you had any uploads/downloads being worked on when you closed Kazaa. The machines you were uploading to would suddenly not see you there, and attempt to reconnect, similar to the queue machines mentioned above.

You also have to take into account the Kazaa indexing capabilities, and remember that anytime someone wants a file, they do a search of random nodes on the network. (FastTrack was, and still is, originally based off a customized variation of Gnutella protocol.) You would still have machines attempting to search your node for shared files, until it filtered through the machines closest to you in the Kazaa network infrastructure that you were offline and should be removed from the tree.

Also, were you functioning as a SuperNode? (If you chose any type of connection other than 56K modem when setting up Kazaa, it automatically enables SuperNode.) SuperNode acts as a index reflector for slower nodes (namely 56K modems). They look toward the SuperNode nearest them to perform searches on their behalf and to hold their index lists on their behalf. This is done to try to cut back the problems Gnutella had with 56K users cutting back network efficiency.
These 56K users (of which there could have been quite a few) were probably lost because their SuperNode wasn't responding on first try, so they were probably trying to reconnect... and other machines out there were trying to hit your SuperNode to get the index list for those 56K machines.

Yes, you'd continue to get Kazaa traffic for a little bit of time after you shut it down. That's the nature of the program. However, the problem you suggest, about rotating IP's, would not be an issue unless your ISP had their DHCP server set to expire leases at 15 minute intervals and not allow renewal on the same IP address. Even so, the traffic would die down as soon as the changes filtered through the Kazaa network tree that your node no longer existed. This would not take DAYS, as you suggested.

"angry ex-customers"

[John_Booty]

True, but they don't really care about losing file-sharing customers. They eat up a disproportionate amount of the bandwidth, and they probably lose money on most of these customers.

Now I'm not agreeing with this ISP - this action totally sucks for the reasons the original poster outlined. They need a more diplomatic solution... a slightly-higher priced service plan that allows use of such programs, or maybe they could just throttle traffic on those ports. And above all else though, they need to disclose this practice- otherwise it's completely unethical, PERIOD.

But the point is they really don't care about losing that kind of customer from a business sense.

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[$carab]

Parent makes a very insightful point:
Roadrunner is saying "fuck off" to these customers, and they dont give a damn about whomever gets pissed off by this.

Users who get pissed off are going to be the largest consumers of bandwith - that 10% that consumes 90%. This is also why ISPs block ports 80, 21, etc.

I fully agree with the Roadrunner on this issue. It makes a great deal of sense if you look at it from a buiness perspective. The number of consumers who feel so adamantly about file-sharing that they will jump ship is relatively small - an overwhelming amount of net users dont even know what the hell "ports" are. Oh, and Roadrunner wont hafta service any more of those irritating DMCA-violation RIAA letters.

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[NightRain]

Roadrunner is saying "fuck off" to these customers, and they dont give a damn about whomever gets pissed off by this.

The problem of course is that they will also piss off the occassional users of p2p software, that don't place much burden on the network. It seems a better idea would be to do the same thing that Optus cable here in Australia is doing.

Simply throttle the speeds on the ports in question. Low end users can still get access to p2p, and don't mind so much about the slower speeds, and the high usage p2p customers are still forcefully moderated in their usage

Ray

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If this kind of thing becomes wide-spread, you can expect an arms race in the technology. It won't take long for the p2p guys to come up with stuff that is able to dynamically change ports as often as needed. Eventually the ISPs will either have to accept it and work with it or give up.

Meanwhile, don't forget that cable companies sell other services, like television and in some cases telephone. Right now I get all three from my cable company (ATT) but I am on the verge of going to satellite for my tv. If my provider tries something like that, it will probably be enough to push me over the edge to DSL (which is priced competitively in my area) and satellite tv, as well as the old baby bell for my telephone service - and I am not even much of a p2p user.

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[Chasuk]

I work for an ISP in the Pacific Northwest, and we block access to all p2p file-sharing programs.

These programs {KaZaA, etc.) are blocked because the owners feel that they promote activities which are immoral and wrong. Yes, that _is_ the primary reason. If you can demonstrate to them that you have reasons for using a p2p file-sharing program which do not violate their principles, then they will remove the block for you individually.

As a beneficial side-effect, getting rid of, or limiting the 5% of our users who used these programs, saved us over 50% of our bandwidth. We are not weeping at their loss.

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[waytoomuchcoffee]

I work for an ISP in the Pacific Northwest, and we block access to all p2p file-sharing programs. These programs {KaZaA, etc.) are blocked because the owners feel that they promote activities which are immoral and wrong.

You are basically saying the medium is immoral somehow, without regard to the message. Given this logic, you can just as easily say FTP, HTTP, email, usenet, and every other port can "promote activities which are immoral and wrong". Hell, I would guess that kiddie porn is transmitted through each of the above protocols everyday, so why aren't you blocking them?

Why stop there? Most of the files transmitted through p2p can just as easily be sent through the mail on a disk. Why not ban mail?

It's pretty sad when your users have to "demonstrate" their piety to use a particular protocol. What ISP did you say you worked for again?

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[marxmarv]

These programs {KaZaA, etc.) are blocked because the owners feel that they promote activities which are immoral and wrong.

Would you mind naming this ISP, so that the rest of us can, uh, give them our God-fearing Merkin-loving business?

-jhp

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[Chasuk]

If ftp, http, e-mail, usenet, etc., had been designed for the *primary* purpose of aiding and abetting thieves, then my employers would not be in the ISP business.

I am not defending their decision, but nor am I condemning it; they are following their own conscience, and I admire anyone who values principle over business considerations.

The reason I contributed to this thread was not to engage in a discussion regarding the morality of exchanging warez via a p2p network, but rather to indicate that RoadRunner might be blocking access to KaZaA for reasons that hadn't been yet suggested.

Not all businesses are run by predatory immoral bastards.

To further clarify, I have not expressed my own views regarding p2p file-sharing because it isn't relevant within the context of this thread.

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[Baki]

An ISP should not intervene in what is right and what is wrong to transmit/receive. Once they start doing that, IMO the ISP ackknowledges that they are responsible for what happens on their network, whereas normally the ISP is just a medium .

Also, if this becomes widespread, you can be sure that the filesharing apps shall be changed such that they are hardly to track to discern from 'normal' WEB usage.

Should the amount of traffick be the real point (thus money/costs being the issue): that is legitimate. In that case the only logical (though impopular) solution is to introduce limits on monthly bandwidth usage, and have the cusomer pay per amount of data.

Re:"angry ex-customers"

[Chasuk]

I realize you are not the ISP you work for. However, while you are distancing yourself from their decision, you also said that "we are not weeping at their loss". You can't have it both ways.

When posting hurriedly in the middle of the night, it is often difficult to remember which hat one is wearing.

Okay, that isn't the only explantion for my "I/we" dualism.

I personally feel that sharing warez across p2p network is theft, and is justifiably discouraged. Let me add, however, that I consider it theft because consumers agree that it is. If you buy a piece of software covered by a particular EULA, and that EULA specifically forbids sharing copies with friends or strangers, then the only moral option is to return that software if you disgree with that contract. Whether you consider the contract fair or not is irrelavant, as is any other consideration (those who whine that the EULA can't be viewed before purchase, as an example). Virtually all EULA's contain such restrictions, so it shouldn't take a brain surgeon to realize that the Warcraft III EULA probably contains the same restriction.

I know that returning opened software can be difficult or impossible. If I bought a product which did not allow me to view the EULA beforehand, and I later objected to its provisions, I would first attempt to return the software. If return was impossible, I would protest to the software manufacturer. If they did not accomodate me, I would feel free to make as many copies as I could and distribute them widely. Consider these "spite" or protest copies, if you will, but I do believe that the principle is more important than the law, and, after attempting to right a wrong within the framework of the law, and failing, it is my natural inclination (and perhaps obligation) to ignore the law while attempting to change it by reasonable means.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the software industry does complain too much. The vast majority of software traded on p2p networks is traded by individuals who would never have bought it in the first place, but the thrill is in the collecting. As they were never potential customers, no theft is involved no matter how many copies they produce or cause to be produced. It is only theft when the software manufacturer has been denied their (due) profit.

I consider that the profit is "due" any time you, as a customer, agree to a EULA. You agree to a EULA everytime you purchase a product 1) with the foreknowledge that it will have an unnaceptable EULA and you buy it anyway, 2) or when, to you HONEST SURPRISE, you find the EULA unnacceptable but do not take reasonable measures to return it for a refund.

As I said before, if they don't honor their EULA by refunding your money when the EULA indicates that it will, then make as many copies as you want. Your obligation to them has ended.

Running a "server"?

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

I guess if you get completely technical, it could be considered a breach of contract. Most ISPs have clauses against running servers of any kind on their networks. P2P programs could be considered servers since they "serve" content to other clients who want it. I'd say they are justified, but it still kinda sux...

Oh well, at least the RIAA didn't force it on them, they had the initiative to do it on their own...

Re:Running a "server"?

[RickHunter]

Server clauses are total bull. They're basically generic "prevent any activity we don't like or find remotely inconvenient" clauses. Why? Well, what exactly is a server? Something that listens on ports? Ooops, you just banned ICQ, AIM, and normal FTP, in addition to countless other programs. Something intended to provide data in response to remote requests? Oops, same problem, and you've also just banned web browsers.

So, please, tell me. What exactly is a "server"?

But seriously folks...

[mark-t]

How many people use Kazaa for stuff that's legal that couldn't be obtained through other avenues? I've yet to find even one.

Napster was actually used legally by some people (albeit a far cry from the majority), I've never met anyone who's used Kazaa for anything but media piracy.

Re:But seriously folks...

[Reziac]

This is slander. Why, I've seen some people use Kazaa to share worms and trojans!

[thinking] Um. Wonder exactly *cough* who was doing said sharing??

Really?

[Rupert]

The symptoms they describe (gradually decreasing download speeds) don't sound like RR activity to me. If I were an ISP and wanted to block a port it would be blocked. I can't imagine RR going to great lengths to effect a bandwidth fade when they can just shut the whole thing off.

Is this really wrong

[ViceClown]

Im not trying to troll or draw flames but by the letter of the law - trading copy-writed music is illegal. I'de rather have the music swapping services shut down then have the record companies try more wide-spread cd protection that would further limit legitimate fair use. Im not saying I agree with the way the system works now... but Im not going to cry when I can't use music-swappers illegally anymore.

Come on

[scott1853]

The discussions are the result of a single post saying it's not working. Most replies to the primary posts say that everything is working fine for them. Other provide technically inaccurate information such as Kazaa "slowing down" before it just completely stops and then attribute that to port blocking. How about some general skepticism here before ranting about some mega-corp stomping all over the end users rights. Here's one of the initial posts:

"The only way i can search is if i log off and on real fast on kazaa. Doing that i can get one search off. I resume downloads fine jus no searches. I'm running XP if that helps. Can anyone please help. Thanks"

Hmmm, XP, and it works for a couple seconds and then stops. Yeah, rights, there's somebody at the RR NOC sitting there watching all traffic and manually flipping a light switch that controls your port 1214.

The second post linked to in the article is of about the same quality only by a jumpy conspiracy theorist. I couldn't stand to read the other 2.

And More Happy Ones, Too

[kmellis]

"If this becomes more widespread, they will have many angry (and former) customers."

And probably an even larger number of happier customers who suddenly notice that they have bandwidth again.

P2P is cool in theory; but in practice people are using it merely to move around huge pirated mp3s and mpegs and as a result a small number of users are consuming a grossly disproportionate amount of bandwidth. It's a tragedy of the commons. See previous /. stories on how this has already played out at college campuses across the US (and elsewhere).

I'm in Austin, and I've actually switched away from Road Runner to SBC ADSL. Why? Because, of course, the bandwidth I saw decreased dramatically over the years since I was an early adopter; and they were charging me too damn much money, anyway. I don't get a ton of bandwidth with my ADSL connection, but the service is more reliable, and it's less expensive. And so far, I've not seen any port blocking or scanning for servers -- something I've been hearing about from the cable side of the fence.

Honestly, I'm ambivalent about a lot of these issues as my idealistic and practical sides of my personality come into conflict. Ideally, I'd like the consumer's access to the internet to be pretty much like what it meant to be hooked up to the interent in the good old days before it became commoditized -- the internet was designed for hosts to be servers, not just clients or even peers. I should be able to run my own web server, my own smtp and pop/imap server, my own nntp server, my own streaming multimedia server, share my filesystem, run distributed applications, network games, P2P apps....whatever. To me, that's part of the whole point. On the other hand, as a practical matter, there still isn't enough bandwidth available for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to use their home internet connections this way. Yeah, there's a lot of dark fiber -- but none of it is the last mile connections. And some people are consuming far more networking resources than they are paying for. That's a legitimate problem, and it certainly can't be justified on the basis of a need to share files that are illegal in the first place.

There is a clause in the TOS

[waytoomuchcoffee]

There is a clause in the TOS restricting bandwidth, at least in the San Antonio RR TOS.

Subscriber acknowledges and agrees that Time Warner Cable shall have the right to monitor bandwidth utilization (i.e., volume of data transmitted) arising out of the Service provided hereunder at any time and on an on-going basis and to limit excessive use of bandwidth in order to effectuate these provisions and other terms hereof

Scary stuff. They, and only they, decide what "excessive use" really is.

Re:There is a clause in the TOS

[Erasmus Darwin]

"They, and only they, decide what "excessive use" really is."

Even so, I think they'd have a hard time justifying that a certain P2P application always qualifies as "excessive use" no matter what. For example, if I were to hop on to KaZaA just long enough to download a single 5 MB file (such as an mp3), my bandwidth usage is going to be significantly less than if I download a single 51 MB file via HTTP (such as the latest update for Day of Defeat). So they're limiting users even in cases of non-excessive bandwidth usage, which wouldn't be protected by that TOS clause.

Re:There is a clause in the TOS

[RickHunter]

No, I imagine it'd be more like "you're hosting MP3s for an indie music label that competes with us. Since we control all high-speed access in your region, we control your ability to do this. We have therefor capped your account to 2400 baud. Please enjoy your AOL-TW "Unlimited" service package."

It doesn't have to be blocked - just QoSed down.

[Mordant]

Modern routers and layer-3 switches have Quality-of-Service, or QoS, features, which allow specified types of traffic to be policed at any desired rate.

So, if one can identify the ports/protocols used by the lusers in question, one can then use QoS features to rate-limit the appropriate ports so as to make file-swapping useless, -without- blocking the ports.

So what?

[nizo]

How long before these types of services start streaming over port 80? Are they going to examine the actual packets to make sure they are valid web traffic, or do you think they would actually block all port 80 traffic?? Feel free to pick any port used by some other service instead of port 80 (or better yet, just stream valid html back and forth over port 80, with a web file sharing service gateway out on the net)

Re:So what?

[B. Vhalros]

Actually, many cable ISP's (AT&T for instance, atleast around here) already do block port 80, on the incoming any way. Any packet sent to my port 80 will be eaten by their routers before it ever reaches me. Is this annoying? Yes, now I have to run my webservers on port 81.

Does not make sense to me...

[psych031337]

...and I'm not sure why /. published this? The links are more are less free of any real substance. Timothy, some personal beef with RR?

What does not make sense to me is:

-if they want a port blocked, it would be blocked (no short functionality, no slowdown of transfers but a termination of transfers)
- lots of people say kazaa and other p2p actually works for them, but browser http traffic on port 80 sucks big time
- blocking the port would send people to just use another one - continous scanning with a script is possible, but in that case it makes no sense to piss the customer off, they could just regulate that port down some kbytes
- from what the users say this more or less sounds like heavy load balancing problems, lack of bandwidth or routing problems. and some things the users describe sounds like an OS screaming to be reinstalled ("...rebooting seemed to solve the problems...")

sent from .de's fastest EuroDOCSIS cable modem network - 2MBit up/2Mbit down

That's why government regulation is needed.

[fmaxwell]

When there is a monopoly, whether government sanctioned or driven by market forces, there has to be regulation or the consumer will be screwed.

In my county, Cox Communications has a monopoly because no other provider can envision a way to run a parallel service and get enough people to switch that it would be profitable. Most of the phones go through multiplexing equipment that makes DSL impossible.

The result? Horrendous problems with outages, packet loss, and latency. Service appointments for outages are typically five days or more after the report. The price recently jumped between 17% and 25% (25% for those of us who do not also subscribe to cable TV). Servers, which were permitted at the time I signed up, are now banned and port 80 has been blocked to prevent people from running web servers. I hear from reliable sources that more port blocking is on the way.

This is why "normal" utilities (phone, water, electricity, etc.) are regulated. The government realizes that the infrastructure costs make it virtually impossible for competitors to join the market and that without competition, the consumer will be the loser.

Re:That's why government regulation is needed.

[Arker]

When there is a monopoly, whether government sanctioned or driven by market forces, there has to be regulation or the consumer will be screwed.

Monopolies rarely appear and never persist without government intervention. Looking for regulation to solve a monopoly problem is very much like expecting the fox to keep your chickens safe.

Cable companies are wonderful examples. Monopolies created and sustained by (typically municipal) governments. Why do you think Cox (or whoever they bought out in your area, more likely) was allowed to lay all that cable across both public and private land, but no one else can lay a competing network the same way?

Re:That's why government regulation is needed.

[fmaxwell]

Monopolies rarely appear and never persist without government intervention.

Monopolies exist whenever the startup costs are high enough to prevent profitable competition. Cable modem/TV is a prime example. Monopolies also exist when there are insufficient customers to support multiple businesses. For example, there is only one store in my area that sells high-end equipment for amateur astronomers. There is only one store that sells and custom-fits foam products (such as is used in custom equipment cases). The government did not create those monopolies nor did they intervene to sustain them.

Looking for regulation to solve a monopoly problem is very much like expecting the fox to keep your chickens safe.

Thank you Timothy McVeigh. Federal, state, and local governments do a reputable job of keeping monopolies in check when they put their minds to it. That's why your utility bills are not astronomical.

Monopolies created and sustained by (typically municipal) governments. Why do you think Cox (or whoever they bought out in your area, more likely) was allowed to lay all that cable across both public and private land, but no one else can lay a competing network the same way?

Fairfax County never gave Cox (or its predecessor Media Genearal) an exclusive contract. They have encouraged other cable companies to enter the market and run competing networks. The only competitor that seriously considered entering the market was RCN but they eventually backed out because they believed that the cost to run the network, when weighed against the likely number of subscribers, would have meant that profitability would have been unlikely. Fairfax County is still looking for a company willing to compete in the cable TV/modem arena. If you know any, send them our way.

Re:That's why government regulation is needed.

[fmaxwell]

Sanford or Yale, Business or Law... or both?

Since he was wrong about my cable system being a government-granted monopoly (via an exclusive contract), I can only assume that you don't have much respect for "Sanford[sic] or Yale" or "Business or Law" degrees.

The monopoly that my cable system has was neither granted by the government nor protected by it. In fact, the county government is actively seeking competitors willing to enter the market. But, since this is a naturally occurring monopoly (in that a competitor would be unlikely to win enough converts to make entering the market profitable), it is likely to remain one and the best that the government can do is regulate it to protect the consumers from abuses (much as they do with electricity, water, telephone service, etc.)

Want to see what a lack of regulation does? Take a look at cost of cable television after it was deregulated. In 1986, when the deregulation took effect, cable TV rates began to skyrocket at three times the rate of inflation. Cable TV remained local monopolies with no competitive pressure to restrain rates or improve customer service policies.

In response to the grotesque rate increases, tens of millions of cable TV subscribers contacted their Congressional representatives. In response, the House Telecommunications Subcommittee and Senate Commerce Committee crafted legislation (the "Cable Television Consumer Protection And Competition Act of 1992") to reign in cable rates which had increased 60% since deregulation only six years earlier!

So don't be too quick to agree with those who would bash regulation of monopolies. You'd be in a lot worse shape if there were not such regulation.

Re:That's why government regulation is needed.

[Arker]

Thanks to the lame so-called lameness filter my post was rejected. I don't have the time or inclination to try and figure out why it's breaking. You can read my reply, and reply if you wish, here.

More To Come

[N8F8]

Expect more stuff like this to happen. Here's why:

Collusion of ISPs - Remember the story last month where the leading companies in the Cable internet Biz got together? Think the only thing they talked about was capping bandwidths lower? Call it the OPEC of the internet. A handfull of companies control the fastest growing, and only viable, highspeed internet access. They can either backbight each other or agree to sell under terms where everyone gets a profitable piece of the pie

Market consolidation. look to see even more consolidation in the industry. Bandwidth providers combining with connection providers and maybe even content providers. The market is unhealthy with all the instability on Wallstreet many companies are ripe for takover or ready to deal.

My friends, the days of the "good deals" are over. Cable internet providers know they own the future of internet access and are making sure that future is profitible to the max. Look at it this way, what choice do you have?

Re:More To Come

[OneFix]

I hope you're right, because then the .gov will be forced to file an anti-trust suit against the cable companies.

You know, there's a reason why those laws exist, and yes, they have a history of "looking the other way", but the abundance of broadband is probably going to change the industry (not as much as HTML / HTTP), but when Joe Six Pack has broadband, it will probably prompt a major re-growth in the industry.

The funny thing is, not everyone has broadband right now...alot of /. users don't see this, because they hang around with other geeks that are more likely to have broadband.

When did you see a site that actually put the "power of broadband" to good use.

I don't know of many. Oh, we see a few things like higher bitrate streaming video or always-on apps, P2P, etc... But in general, the industry is still opperating at 56k...

And then again, I'm sure the DSL providers can't wait for this...most places that have Broadband Cable either have or are getting DSL. The biggest reason most ppl have gone with cable is the speed, but that can change. Free markets necessitate lower costs and higher quality over a period of time. It's just the way it works. So, if RR pisses off the 5% of their users that most likely bring about more than half of their business, then they will be forced to change policy or drop the service.

I have RR broadband, and I'm not worried in the slightest. If they become too "difficult", I'll jst switch to DSL/Wireless/etc...And I'll take all of my friends and family with me...

Same Old Broken Promises

[NetGyver]

Cable companies complain that power users use too much bandwidth and thus drowns out normal to light users. So they impose restrictions such as this to curtail it.

Cable companies also said that cable itself would be free of commericals, however it's all i see now-a-days on the tv. Even premium channels like HBO et al promised in their beginnings that it would be commerical free. But even they have commercials. I mean, that was one of the big incentives to pay that premium price.

It wouldn't matter if its a handful of power-users who use kazaa or any other p2p, or those power-users who utilize cable modems for streaming media, such as music and video, which is WHY BROADBAND WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SO GOOD AT.

Thing is people, they designed a system, and promised you all you can eat for a flat fee per month. Around here at least it wasn't $x.xx per MEG/kbps, it was just like the 19.95 dialup ISP deals that is common place today outside of AOL, MSN and Earthlink.

What would the cable companies do if Broadband (totally legit) media took off with consumers, and people started really USING the bandwidth that is given to them? They'd start restricting just like their doing with Kazaa and other p2p's now. Same thing different usage.

I don't understand why they can't just cap their customers to X kbps and make sure everybody can reach that max and be done with it. At least then you have your limit, and you can utilize all of the bandwidth that is given to you.

I have Adelphia cable, and I use it well. However i am capped at around 60kbp or so, but every so often i can reach up to 90kbps to 120kbps depending on the time of day, in my case it's after midnight to the wee hours of the morning.

I haven't been sent any letters or anything to indicate that i'm a "bandwidth hog" (thank god) but I think differnet cable companies have different setups and polices.

Cable broadband I don't think has reached the commodity status yet. But I really dislike the "pay per meg/kbps" model.

I'd pay for the "a limit and all i can eat within that limit" model though. Just like dialup and the 19.95 deal, just more bandwidth and more money. None of those weird ass restricitons. I think that's what i'm getting now, at least until i'm notified and told otherwise.

I don't think I make much sense, but maybe i can make some change.

Corporate BS

[kasparov]

... if you look at is from a business prospective.

It's responses like this they REALLY get to me. I'm assuming that you (like me) are a U.S. citizen. In this country, so many people think that if there is a legitimate business reason for taking an action, then it must be justified. I can't even begin to say how much this pisses me off. Yes, I understand that businesses are in business for one thing--to make money. But there are so many more lofty goals that people should pursue. Capitalism is not the be all end all of morality.

What ever happened to people who started a business because they wanted to provide a service to the community? They worked at a profession because it meant something to them. When did we all adopt this middle-management company man attitude that a company is entitled to profit at other people's expense?

Yes, Roadrunner has the right to do what they want with their service. But if they are selling "Internet Access," then they should be selling "Internet Access." They don't advertise "Web and FTP access." But obviously it doesn't really matter what they advertise, because it's more profitable if they fudge a little bit. Well, bull shit. I've had enough. I'm sick and tired of Corporate America(TM) and their never ending pursuit of profit. Their are some things that capitalism is ill-equipped to handle. With more and more corporate mergers in the works (which equals less and less choice for consumers), it looks like customer service may be one of those things.

Re:Corporate BS

[thales]

" What ever happened to people who started a business because they wanted to provide a service to the community?"

They are providing a service to their community. Cutting off the bandwidth hogs is going to result in faster service, at no extra cost, to the remainder of the people using the service.

P2P is a cool idea, but face it, the vast majority of it's users are just trying to snag copyrighted material without paying for it. They don't give a damn about the Artist, they don't give a damn about other users on the network, they don't give a damn about any negative effects like DRM that may result from their activities.

Nice rant about companies persuing profit. How about the profit the "pirates" are making. Songs that would have cost them thousands of dollars. If they can download $100.00 worth of songs a day or $3000.00 a month that gives them a profit of $2,950.00 after paying the ISP's bill. Tax free. Funny how I don't hear them being blasted for being greedy little shits who only care about making a profit.

Re:Corporate BS

[thales]

BOYCOTT RIAA labels and you send a message of moral outrage. Boycott means you have NOTHING to do with them. You don't Buy CDs. You don't download Tracks. You don't make tracks availble for download. You don't attent concerts. You don't listen to stations that play RIIA music.

PIRATE music and you send a message of "I'm a deadbeat who's too cheap to pay for entertainment" regardless of how many CDs you claim you buy.

BTW, didn't you listen when your Mama told you two wrongs don't make a right?

Re:Corporate BS

[thales]

An AC wrote:
" Im a starving student. I cant afford 15$ cd's. If I dont download music I dont get music. They arent loosing my business because I dont have the money to give them any business. Im in college all my extra money goes to buy beer and gas for my car."

Oh yer breaking my heart (NOT). "starving" and blowing $$$ on beer? Kid starving people look like those famine pics out of Africa you see on the news. They look like the Jews in the Nazi camps in those pics in your history books. If you are "starving" and buying Beer, then your priorities are fucked.

Oh I want it but can't afford it. ROFLMAO. Music is a damned luxary. You won't die of music starvation. Are you going to claim there are no radio stations in your town where you can get a fix of free music?

Oh I'm a "starving" freelance programer. I want a 1967 427 Cobra roadster but can't afford the $750,000 minium they cost so it's ok if I steal one.
Sound stupid? So does ANY I'm poor so it's ok for me to take it argument.

Next time you sign up for classes, see if they have an ethics class. you need it.

A better idea

[Proc6]

How about the cable companies offering speeds they can support users taking advantage of? The cable companies keep offering faster connections, then denying users the ability to use the speed. Just give everyone a solid 60 kps or whatever their pipe can stand and forget about it. That's what DSL providers do more or less.

ISPs should not make service dependant on content

[AlastairBurt]

I think there is a case for mentioning the basic principles at stake here, even if they have been discussed on Slashdot before. They are anyway so important that they should be repeated as often as possible. Communications providers should not be liable for content and should not be able to control it. Anything else is dangerous folly.

Horrible crimes are committed using the road and telephone system -- crimes almost as bad as file-swapping, such as murder and rape. But the people responsible for the roads and telephone system are not liable for these crimes. To some extent this a question of practicality -- the telephone operators cannot listen in to all conversations -- but more importantly it hard to see how vetting telephone conversations according to there content is compatible with a democratic society.

But somehow, for some greater good, such as the protecting the five major labels' total control of music distribution, this principle is being abandoned for ISPs. I think this is a slippery slope. In a land such as the US, with so many lawyers and politicians susceptible to lobbyists with big cheque books, is hard to believe that other bodies will not want to tell the ISP's what they can deliver to their customers. I am sure there are other forms of content that could conceivably hurt some company's profit margins.

Even if Americans feel they have to violate the principle of non-liability of communications providers for some overriding greater good then they must surely build in some accountability into the system. Internet communication is becoming so important that the terms of service should be regulated. In particular, they should written in such a way that that ISP service can only be denied when the ISP can prove beyond reasonable doubt that some heinous crime, such mailing a friend a MP3 file, has been committed. Just blocking a port because you think that someone might do something illegal on that port should not be permissible.

In general, however, the principle should be defended that communications providers are in no way liable for what is being communicated and they should not be allowed to tailor their service based on the content. If file-swappers hog bandwidth, use traffic shaping to limit their bandwidth (and put this in the terms of service). ISP's should not be snooping on what private parties communicate amongst themselves or otherwise be making guesses about the use of bandwidth -- at least in a democratic society, which the US makes some pretense of being.

Bandwidth

[RickHunter]

As other posters have pointed out, this is very probably a few users with technical problems blaming it on their ISP.

However, this entire issue is a red herring. Roadrunner, as with most cable ISPs, caps upstream and downstream bandwidth. I'm not going to be able to transfer enough over my cable connection, even if I saturate it, to make much of a difference for others nearby. Now, if everyone on my block did this, then we'd notice a problem. But at that point, demand for bandwidth has exceeded the available infrastructure, which obviously did not anticipate people actually using the bandwidth they were told they had.

As for cost, this is also a bad argument. Yes, you can buy a large pipe for some incredible sum-plus-usage-costs for "business use". You seriously think major ISPs pay the same incredible sum for bandwidth? Many have peering arrangements, and for those, more traffic is better - you get more other providers wanting to peer with you. Even if you don't, your bandwidth is so cheap that a sizable percentage of your customer base saturating their connections 24/7 probably wouldn't cost you more than $500 a month.

(To say nothing of the rediculousness of charging for bandwidth usage anyway. Bandwith isn't a non-renewable resource. Any bandwidth not used in a given time interval is wasted and unrecoverable.)

No, to see why this is happening, follow the money. Who gains by preventing citizens from having an easy avenue for sharing music and video? The media cartels. Who's hurt by preventing it? Their indie competition. Wow, what an astonishing coincidence!