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.
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
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.
It's about the principle of the thing. I want IP transit; nothing more.
No, what you bought was low-priced commodity Internet access. If you want IP transit, nothing more, then you need to buy a T1 or other business class service. ISPs have every right to limit these low priced services in any way they see fit to stop leeches from causing service problems for other users. If you buy a business class line with a SLA then you can go and bitch.
> 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.
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?