Slashdot Mirror
OptimumOnline Bans uploads to P2P networks
An anonymous reader writes "In disturbing news this week Cablevision's high speed broadband unit OptimumOnline has sent letters to subscribers warning that uploading to P2P networks will no longer be tolerated. Obviously bowing to record and movie industry pressure the letter includes a link to a page that gives directions on how to disable file trading on 18 P2P services from KaZaa to Xolox. If you don't comply, they will cut the cord. I remember not to long ago where OptimumOnline ran TV ads touting the ability to grab music from the Net. The story on this can also be read here."
Optonline give you 1mbit upload, but if you use too much (they won't tell us how much too much is) you get dropped down to 128kbit upload. They also sell a business plan which only has 256kbit upload, and no static ip. Basically they say you can't use what they give you with the residential plan but if you want, you can pay more for a lower speed plan that you can use. Is that whack or what?
Good information can also be found here , here and here.
Basically, their excuse is security related, which is crap since more security problems occur with Internet Explorer, IIS and Windows itself than with P2P software...
As mentioned at DSL Reports, the upload is being capped at 128kb/s, NOT banned... Here's a quote from one of the links above (by HaveOOLnow)
No, it affects all uploads. If you upload at a certain rate for more than a certain amount of time, you automatically get capped [at 128kps]. But all you have to do is call them to get uncapped. The system is just designed to make people aware of the fact that they might have P2P apps running in the background.
The cap seems to be about 6 hours in length. Quite horrendous, but we all saw this coming, right? To be honest, I'd rather this and have unlimited download/uploads, than both... *shrug* Or, maybe if it only happens when the server is being heavily used (evenings and such).
We recieve a list of copyright materials that were sucessfully downloaded from the individual. As the law currently stands, we have to uphold the request of the copyright holder, and if we don't do this then we can have legal action brought against us. If you don't like the law, I would suggest contacting your senator.
Im sorry but this article is completely inaccurate. Im an OOL customer and I actively participate in the OOL discussions on broadbandreports. The discretionary cap was put into place because users were clogging upstream channels with p2p uploads. It got so bad that DHCP requests on some nodes (mine in particular) could not be recieved within even a 17 second ack window. It does NOT have to do with pressure from the RIAA.
Here's why: The cap is not a new portblock (they already block 80 to discourage webhosting), but simply a different cable modem config file with a lower upstream maximum. The ordinary config for OOL is 10 megabits down and 1 megabit up. the altered config file is 10 megabits down and only 150 kilobits up.
Obviously this is a solution that was implemented to control bandwidth, not specific applications. If OOL were to start battling p2p apps, it would come in the form of a portblock or traffic shaper - NOT an upload throttle.
To the author of the story, please do your homework. You can start in the OOL forums on BBR:
http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/cable,opt
Clearly not all shared content is illegal (although there is little doubt that most of it is). Small artists have been able to use it legally for self-promotion, a perfectly legal use that the RIAA is also glad to put a stop to, as it might slightly impeed their ability to steal from artists.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
No, this has nothing to do with whose attorneys are better. It has to do with the fact that when you signed up for service, you signed a legally binding contract saying that you won't run a server. Even the best attorney in the world couldn't defend against this. You agreed to use their service under their conditions. You break the conditions. The contract is null and void. They don't have to provide you service. Don't like it? Find an ISP that allows server usage.
Then I remembered that I'm getting mad bandwith/$ (link: fastest ISP's). I've measured 6 Mbps to an OOL server and 3.8 Mbps to the other coast. For $30/month. DSL would be 700 kpbs (about 1/10th) for $50/month.
Also, it's their business and they've had a "no servers" policy since before I subscribed. I wouldn't want anyone telling me how to define my business. If we don't like it we can vote with our wallets. But this compromise is easy for me.
That said, I am an occasional P2P user, and I think sharing is appropriate to the model. I'll be looking into how much usage it takes to draw any attention and if the penalties are temporary caps (vs. being booted). But at this rate and price, I don't want to get booted!
If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.
You say the default config for OOL is 10 megabits down and an ENTIRE MEGABIT upstream?
Sounds like the idiots that run the place have no fucking clue how the cable system works. Upstream bandwidth is severely limited because it runs on lower frequencies (5-42 MHz) with fewer channels to work with. Assigning every user an entire megabit of upstream data when each node is only capable of handling about 10 megabits is a recipe for disaster -- put a few heavy P2P users on the line and you'll be saturated in no time.
Cox Communications and Time Warner both cap upstream bandwidth at anywhere between 128-384k, and nothing more. They have successfully managed their bandwidth from the start and hence don't have to backpedal in a panic, pissing off thousands (millions?) of subscribers.
This is OOL's fault -- not P2P, not the end users.
Furthur is a P2P distrobution system that allows for easy trading of live shows... It has developed(evolved) from FTP sites, and snail mail trades. Etree.org has the names of people you can send blank media to have them record and send back for your listening pleasure.
I can think of two notable exceptions to the mantra that they only use being made of p2p is for pirating. Furthurnet is a p2p network which grew out of the tape trading community which takes copyright and the artists wishes very seriously.
The other example Transmission Films is distributing high quality movies protected by DRM via Overnet.
The Internet Archive has terabytes of share friendly information, they are evalutating several p2p platforms for helping to keep their bandwidth bills down. I've downloaded Redhat ISO's from edonkey, when they first come out the primary distro point and mirrors are swamped for at least a week.
First off, I didn't sign a goddamn thing when I signed up. I gave them cash, and they smiled and said thank you.
Second, I have a copy of the original TOS I got when I signed up, and it doesn't say anything about not running servers. I checked it again to make sure when they spammed me this time (5 emails about not running Kazaa - thanks).
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
just to debunk this guy. I recently signed up for Optimum Online. One of their new deals is no contract to sign. Which means this agreement is not a contract, hence NOT legally binding.
They aren't stopping you from using P2P apps, they're just slowing down the uploads (to 125Kb, which is still much faster than a modem) for those who upload more than a certain limit. Most people really don't know that, by default, they're running all the time in the background, and how quickly that can add up to GBs of data on a very fast connection, like OOL has. It's also a temporary cap, and I'd much rather have that, than to permanently cap the uploads for everyone.
Many of you obviously have no idea what it's like to run an ISP or administer a network. P2P uploads absolutely kill bandwidth. Responsible use, like jumping on do download something specific and upload in the process isn't a bad thing, but many dolts run uploads 24/7. It doesn't matter what the download speed is when you can't get your responses out because the up-pipe is logjammed. A local ISP with 6 T1s has had their up-pipe maxed for literally months, when they blocked P2P uploads, the outgoing traffic went from an average of 98% to 25% and the download rates once again became normal.
If you really want to know what P2P is all about, sit and talk with a technician from your local ISP. It has very little to do with RIAA, and everything to do with customer satisfaction.