Slashdot Mirror
PA ISP to Restrict P2P Uploads
Maleko writes "PenTeleData, once an innovator in broadband internet service, (was one of, if not the first cable internet providers in the USA) has decided that their customers need to disable P2P uploads or face possible filtering to stop uploads. DSLReports has the story." While an interesting solution on the part of the ISP, it will definitely increase the number of "leechers" on file-sharing systems.
So? I will jsut use another app that isn't suing the same port
I fought the corporate America, and the corporate America bought the law.
While an interesting solution on the part of the ISP, it will definitely increase the number of "leechers" on file-sharing systems.
And hopefully this will lead to the end of systems like Kazaa. While I have no problem with peer-to-peer file trading systems, Kazaa is run by a bunch of crooks (like most of these companies) that are hell-bent on filling your PC up with spyware and crapware. I personally hope they die a fiery death. The network is nice, the company is not.
Within limits of course, they can do whatever they want. This will either hurt them by losing too many customers, or make their network better for all involved. I can't see it making a huge difference anyway. Worst case, they lose a small percentage of people who will be upset by their decision, IMHO. I don't see it making a huge impact on bandwidth either, since people will still be leeching away. Most *my* bandwidth goes to downloading, not uploading.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Not leachers, NOOO!
I mean, really! Leachers? What next? They won't pay for the Software/Movies/Music they're downloading?
What? What do you mean piracy is the driving force behind P2P?!
I thought it was that information wants to be free!
What? IRC and Usenet already do that PLUS everything P2P delivers?
Who woulda thunkit?
Desperation is a stinky cologne
I don't understand the business planning that went into the broadband market. The adopters of broadband got broadband not just for faster net access, but for more. These companies catered to that, with commercials showing video conferencing, highlighting music sharing and telling the public that the sky's the limit. Now that they have a customer base, they are telling us that they lied, that we are only supposed to be looking at web pages. They attempted to control the stream by adopting adsl and asymmetric cable, proxy servers on their own network, and it just isn't good enough! Is access to internet backbones that expensive or are we getting hosed as consumers here?
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
A majority of the people receiving this will probably just disable their uploads because they don't know any better. I'm sure there will be ways around it, but for the majority of the users I'm sure this letter, and a simple filter will probably get rid of a reasonable amount of traffic. It would be funny if this was just ended up being a strongly worded warning and they didn't even implement any filters, but most users turned off their file sharing :)
While I am perfectly confident that this will prompt the innovative (read desperate) users to develop a workaround, some time now things like this will make the work required to work around them too much for most. This will kill all P2P apps, even the ones that don't violate copyrights. The irony is that the people who pirate professionaly will probably benifit from this.
I wonder what lengths people will go to share files illegaly, and when the ??AA will realise that there are reasons for this desperation other than that people like to break the law. Good music and competitive pricing will be the only way to kill piracy.
Funny, they've decided to block their users from contributory copyright violation, while still letting them download all the MP3s they want.
But one legal defense ISPs use against charges of copyright infringment themselves (and a bevy of other crimes) is "We just move the data from one side to another- we never know what's inside it". That's why USENET still has its binaries groups moving at full tilt- ISPs don't want to get into a position of accepting/rejecting individual blobs of content.
For one thing, the workload would be enormous. For another, they'd begin serving in an editoral role, and have some responsiblity for the content they do let through. And some attorneys general will be happy to attack them with "you didn't reject it, so you must've accepted it, so you're a party to the crime!". (I can particularly imagine someone in a music-industry consitutency doing this)
Of course, per-file (checksum/watermark?), per-newsgroup, or per-filename blocking is a far cry from the simplistic protocol level denial this ISP is doing. They're still a common carrier for a while (denying data not by its contents, but by its format and packaging).
Although this change won't immediately hurt the availability of files on P2P filesharing (P2Pfs) much, it could be the start of a trend where all ISPs might block outgoing sharing. Leading to a chase where the P2Pfs software takes refuge inside one unblocked port and unfiltered protocol after another...
A race like that could (in 10 years or so) chase P2P programs entirely onto other allowed procotols, maybe even something like email messages. As the disguising of the P2Pfs packets becomes ever-more sophisticated, the only way to detect them will be to read more and more closely into every user's transmission. At some point, you become a real censor.
What you bought was Internet access, not "filtered access with only some ports available".
It's about the principle of the thing. I want IP transit; nothing more.
> it will definitely increase the number of
> "leechers" on file-sharing systems.
Does anybody else find it ironic that a community that is based on file-sharing would use the term "leechers" as a disparaging term?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It's common practice these days to use a carefully-chosen word in order to inherit a negative -- or positive -- meaning "by association".
"Leech". Yuck! That can't be good.
"Sharing". Gee, that sounds so... nice, doesn't it? It must be ok.
DSL? The most common form seems to be ADSL (A for asynchronous) which has the exact same design - it moves more data down than up. Here in Germany the vast majority (I don't have any factual data, but I'd guess more than 95%) are 768/128 kbit ADSL links.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Why does PenTeleData prohibit ProLog Express Internet customers from uploading through file-sharing applications? -Serving files from a residential account - whether FTP or file-sharing -- is a violation of the Acceptable Use Policy.
"Internet" service without servers is not an internet. Good luck to them blocking ftp. AOL uses port 21 for it's instant messenger program. Unless AOL changes that, or they can distinguish traffic, their block will do little good.
I already hate my cable company as they have violated my Acceptable Service Policy. The day they block FTP is the day they lose my static IP charges. The day I have a choice in providers is the day they lose me.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This may be obvious, but it's still pissing me off. Cable and DSL companies have just been taking and taking without letting up anything. They raise the prices, they kill our static IPs, they lower our uploads, they kill our web space, but they never give anything back! Never, "Oh, let's raise the cap," or, "oh, let's give them back their static IPs." Eventually broadband will just become so empty that it will be useless. Geeks will begin to see the use of shared T1 lines, and the rest will soon follow.
Why are you replying to your own comment and acting like you are talking to a different person?
This Big Brother crap is over the top. The ISPs are protecting themselves from legal ramifications. They probably don't really care about the users that much .. the benefits brought about by PenTeleData covering their own butts just filter down to the users which is arguably good. No Big Brother entity is pushing anything here like propaganda. The two ideas don't correlate well at all, except that a few angry users are making over-the-top comments because they'll say anything to garner arguments for getting their precious P2P back.
A world without free flow of P2P access! We've had our cake and ate it too. Expect the world to change. Maybe something better will come about.
Giving bandwidth and taking it away -- that's another meaningless argument. Just as you have to pay for your bandwidth usage, so does your ISP. Do you think they get it for free to give to you? Most purchase bandwidth from other companies.
Maybe the price of gas shouldn't increase either. Maybe the gas station should pay more over time, but never pass those costs onto the drivers. It doesn't take a business mind to see the problem here.
I certainly am willing to pay more to use P2P while it's still here. However there is increasingly more focus on the law surrounding illegal P2P content. How much longer will be *want* to use P2P, even if we can? How many of us are already in future legal battles that we don't know about yet?
The idea about encrypting the content is cool. It's already being done over at the FreeNet Project, but it's so slow! However leave it up to somebody to sooner or later write a P2P app on top of the FreeNet network.
What if ISPs close all unusual ports to prevent against P2P? Well then somebody can write encoders/decoders that work over normal ports like ICQ, HTTP, etc. and format that file parts in that protocol. Wouldn't that be cool.
However what starts to freak me out is no matter how many times P2P succeeds at getting around the barriers, those barriers exist for many reasons -- many are legal reasons -- and soon that may come down on P2P users like a tonne of bricks. And I certainly don't want to be there when it happens. Nobody does. It's seeming like more of a gamble each day.
Well, the merry file sharers are sharing, in a voluntary association amongst themselves -- I'll show you mine if you show me yours, or even if you don't -- as opposed to the victimized copyright holders. So maybe you want the term "cooperative leeches" or "distributed leeches"? Or, the proven old term "pirates."
Point well taken. Thievery by any other name would smell the same. But no one wants to be called a hypocrite, least of all by themselves.
I realize this may provide an unintentional springboard for speeches by the piracy rationalizers. To being it back sharply on-topic, if the broadband providers do need to contain costs I'd rather they try to single old the illegal uses first. (If they're doing this just to maximize profit, then we have a market failure.)
Back when VCR's were introduced to the public it was argued they would be used to violate copyright, but because the courts found VCR's had legitimate uses as well (your nephew bar mitzvah, etc.) they were not per se illegitimate.
Having goofed by declaring war on every kid who downloads a song, we're going to see more of the shift both in tactics and rhetoric to those who distribute. Perhaps they will be demonized as "dealers" or even "pushers" who entice wide-eyed young would-be ConsumerCitizens into filthy pirates.
So how does this work, since many, if not most, downloaders are also uploaders? Shut down uploading, be it via technology (blocking ports, DRM, copy prevention-enabled CDs), legal means (suing super-nodes and people who break technological means), and PR (portraying uploaders as the real villains). Now, you've still got uploading, but it's confined to a subset of people who are really committed to uploading. I base this on the assumption that a lot of people upload because all it takes is a checkbox -- it really doesn't cost me much time, effort, or worry. If you have to start fooling around with ports, worrying about a subpoena showing up, and losing your job for being branded a "pusher", maybe I just uncheck that little box that says "share files".
So now we've separated the hard core from the fringes. This hard core is small enough, evil enough, and important enough that it is worth the cost necessary to stop (shutting down accounts, legal action, hacking their hard drives, etc). And now without the hard core, the fringe will starve. The mistake of the attack on Napster was that there is now no central distributor to strike. It looks like a gradual movement toward coalescing the mass of distributors back to a short list of targets.
Will this strategy work? Some of this may have to do with how much people care about their ability to upload. If my uploading is shut off by my ISP, do I care? Do I raise a fuss, or do I say, oh, well, I can still download. Maybe the RIAA is saying quietly to the ISPs, look, just block the uploads, and nobody will complain about that. And now you don't have to worry about a lawsuit from us anymore. Everybody wins (wink wink).
First off, I work for Penteledata. However, I have no authority to speak for the company in this matter. As such, these opinions are mine.
There are a lot of views that can be taken on this matter. From an ISP view, ISP's need to protect themselves from the current "regime" of money hungry corporations. It seems that due to copyright laws, a company can and will do anything in their power to prevent anyone from breaking those copyrights. In a way, they're right. And, in a way, I think they're wrong. But of course, this isn't about them being right and wrong.
From the perspective of service, it is in an ISP's best interests to serve all of the customers equally. Due to the "always on" way that cable and dsl work, customers are prone to leaving their computers running 24 hours a day. Or, maybe they're leaving them on while they're at work so they can download everything they have queued... Either way, because P2P sharing is a 2 way system, while they're downloading, someone else can be downloading from them. The may not intend to become a download spot, but they may. This uses up bandwidth within the ISP's network, decreasing the available bandwidth to the rest of the customers in the network.
Yes, ISP's can limit bandwidth, but then customers complain about that. ISP's usually have an AUP (Acceptable Use Policy) and in the case of Penteledata, it strictly prohibits "residential" customers from running servers. While those servers may be "free" and the customer does not benefit financially from them, if ISP's allow this, then those customers that do benefit financially from running servers have a rock-solid argument against purchasing a commercial account.
There is also the security standpoint. As you know, security on one system can affect everyone else. Nimda, Code Red, and others caused widespread problems for more users that were not infected than those that were. Allowing residential customers to run servers opens up many security holes. While there are some very smart residential users out there, I'd have to say that the majority don't know what it takes to secure a system. Thus, they get infected, and attacks launch from their systems. It would be extremely hard, and, IMHO, unethical to try and screen users abilities before allowing them to run servers.
Some ISP's take the stance to prevent users from running servers, both to protect themselves, and to protect the users.
ISP's may lose customers over this, and they may gain customers because of it. There will be those customers that will find workarounds and continue the file sharing. I'd probably do the same thing myself. Although, I can honestly say that I don't use these P2P programs for many reasons. The point is that the ISP needs to protect itself and do what it can to protect it's customers.
I work each day designing networks, writing software, and troubleshooting problems. The software I write allows us as an ISP to better monitor the traffic patterns on the network. It forewarns us when we hit bandwidth limits and gives us a head start on alleviating those limits. It allows us to quickly see DOS and other attacks. All in the interest of keeping the customers running as smoothly and with as much bandwidth available as we can.
We take measures to contain any problems as quickly and as efficiently as possible. If this means turning off a customer while the customer deals with the problem on their side, then so be it. I think we've had a great deal of success with this.
I think a lot of people have blown this way out of proportion. ISP's will do what they need to protect both themselves and the customer. They will also do what they need to enforce the rules they've set forward. Upon signup, each customer has given their consent to obey the AUP... I doubt most customers read that document. But, just like EULA's, they are there...
Again, my views are not representative of the company in question. My views are my views. And just as a point, I'm no big fan of EULA's, AUP's, etc. But, without them, some users feel they need to take advantage of the services they're getting, not caring who they cause problems for.
PTD, like any other ISP has it's flaws. But overall, as a provider, I think they provide above average service. I use them at home, and I have no real complaints. I have the same service as any other residential customer and I'm expected to follow the AUP as well.
XenoPhage
Technological Musings
How is P2P progress? I assume that's the point that you are making.
<rant>Way too many people think P2P access is an inalienable right. How many people here couldn't get even lousy HTTP connections because too many people were downloading full length porn movies and programs? As a sysadmin its a major headache to try and deal out bandwidth fairly. If people could use P2P on my network and not decrease my bandwidth to about 10K, then I'd allow it. P2P sucks up all available bandwidth. Until TCP/IP comes up with a more fair bandwidth sharing protocol, I'm with cutting P2P down. It's simply not fair to other people on the network. How can you justify 1000 CS people not being able to compile stuff on our unix server because too many people in the dorms are downloading music?
At my university, P2P accounted for all major slow downs this year, even when taking into account a three day blackout.
I don't care what you do with "your" bandwidth, as long as it doesn't effect mine. All you P2P advocates people are selfish and greedy. How much more responsive would the net be without P2P? Is porn and wharez and music that much of a nessesity?
IPs are starting to increasingly limit all upload material since they can't effictively block P2P traffic. It's simply not fair that I can't run a small personal website simply because a lot of horny P2P need more material
God think about other people for once. </rant>
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Theres too much piracy and YOU know it. It also sucks up far to much bandwidth. The thin wires that make up the internet are not designed for so much traffic. FairADSL in the uk is al so restricting p2p. But there are a lot of legimate places to get stuff online so stop p2ping, its why DRM/crippled cds/padallium is happening!
If this post is at -1, it means that the mod supports piracy.
Yes your currently at -1, yes I happen to agree with you. As I have stated here P2P is unfair to other people that are using the network for more valid reasons. By valid reasons I mean work/homework is more important than downloading porn/music etc. I like P2P but untill we can come up with a way to divide bandwidth more fairly, the bandwidth hogs have to go. If you have your own dedicated bandwidth, then by all means, use P2P and leave it on all the time. For the rest of use that are using shared reasources (regular DSL, cable, university dorm networks etc.) P2P is unfair to all others on the network.
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Lets see, now even if each subscriber is downloading their porn, N'Sync mp3's etc the total bandwidth per subscriber is 60 kbps or about the speed of a 56k modem. However its more likely that say only 100/700 customers will be fully using their bandwidth at one point, so average total bandwidth ends up being about 430 kbps, a little less than the average DSL dl rate, but much higher than the usual 128 upload cap. So given the high prices for bandwidth on the ISP's end it seems that 1.5 Mbps up and down is not a possibilty at 50$ but that the ISP should have no problem selling 512 kbps up and down without restrictions on servers and the like for 50$. After all, they can afford to provide the 512 kbps of bandwidth per subscriber, so why restrict it? Going out on a limb, I'm sure that with higher speed connections on the ISP's end (OC3, OC12, etc.) comes even greater economies of scale allowing them to profitably offer 768 up and down without restrictions. So why doesn't this exist in the United States? 30% profit (8000 / (20000 bandwidth + 7000 overhead)) doesn't seem that bad!
Conclusion, it must be those damn telco and cable companies preventing a competitive market. Deregulation to break up monopolies is a good thing, folks!
Since you are the sysadmin, see what you can do with the configuration on your routers. Since nearly all routers on the Internet today use the Droptail queueing discipline, these issues are epidemic. Try reconfiguring your routers to use Fair Queueing or, better yet, Rate Inverse Scheduling. If your router doesn't support these, ask your vendor why not. Since TCP is a client-side protocol, you can never trust the users to use it properly (as Droptail assumes).
Shockwave Flash movies are the greatest thing to happen to non-sequitur humor since Japan.
This whole situation has been caused simply because a network stream is a 1:1 thing. If you make it a 1:many connection then suddenly you have far more efficient use of bandwidth, because if you're an ISP and 100 users are downloading a file, you only have to receive it once on your incoming link, instead of 100 times.
Of course, you'd still have P2P file sharing, the reason that people use Kazaa is not because it's the best way of moving information around (it's not), it's because it's anonymous and you can't be taken down for it. Safety in numbers, safety in anonymity. If there were suddenly large pirate music servers transmitting albums on rotation via multicast 24/7 they would be much easier targets.
Multicast has lots of other legal uses of course, that's what I'd want them for. But I can see that it'd help solve this situation. So come on ISPs, where are the v6 routers?
C. Why should we waste bandwidth on someone from say Florida when our customers could be using it.
This argument slays me. FTPing or P2P or whatever, to someone is FL is no different than being a Verizon customer and making a long distance call to an AT&T customer in another state. These companies wanted to jump on the bandwagon and offer this service, so they will just have to figure it out. I am sick of commercials that show space shuttles lifting off and music and video being downloaded, only to have these newbie ISPs get very upset when you actually do any of that! Providing internet is marching its way toward being no different than other utilities. Did POTs lines get overloaded way back when? Of course. And they have spent decades improving the phone system. And yet, in a catastrophe like a hurricane or 9/11, the phone lines can still get overloaded from too many people trying to check on loved ones.
E. Your speeds that your complaining about have been directly tied to these kinds of programs sucking down your bandwidth and its most likely being used by someone outside our network.
More BS. I know of no broadband ISP that had the foresight to offer tiered services from the get-go. And Napster was out long before cable and DSL finally made it to the general public. They didn't pay attention to the demand and the market and what it was all about, and they are complaining about it. They jumped onto something that was already in existence, and completely underestimated how they would handle the demand.
I. If these programs are not setup right your computers could have major security holes in them and your personal files could be available to the world.
Typical defensive stance - when you can't come up with a good answer, threaten them and change the subject. I am tired of hearing it from the RIAA or anyone else who wants to hit the below the belt like this and try to use the customers ignorant fear to coerce them into doing something. It's unethical and deceitful. Can running FTP cause a security breach? Yes. Can P2P programs of the world junk up your computer with adware and such. Oh yes. But it is not the ISPs place to dabble here. Anyone willing to run these things needs to be prepared to educate themselves.
i hope you're not serious. This doesn't apply at all unless Illinos has cars that pilot the roads themselves creating traffic w/o the owners' knowlege. Due to computer illiterates in my area leaving programs such as kazaa and the likes running i have gone from uploads caps of nothing to 115 kb/s => to 60 kb/s and now around 50 kb/s. Why? Because some people use all the available upward bandwith all day. The worst thing is when the customers are approached they have no idea (other than their computer was running a little slow ever since they put that program on). a better analogy would be someone leaving the water running all day ("yeah but i pay for the water!") Yeah, but you aren' using the resources so you are just wasting them! Of course i this day and age in N/A it's all about me me me and my "Unlimited internet access" and i'll use all the bandwidth i want cos i payed for it. Video conferencing is now a joke with all the clutter and if i actually want a file from a friend i'm back to having it burned if i can't find a server (50kb/s is a joke, i've had shits faster than that)When you are used to 200-500kb/s slowing down just isn't really an option. If blocking these services speeds up my uploads so be it cos i can find other sources for music and videos.
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill