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."

7 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. DMCA Violations by papasui · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At my present job, we recieve DMCA violation tickets sent to us, which include the ip address of the customer that was sharing files. We then track down the customer based on the ARP logs and issue them a letter notifying them that they are in violation of our Acceptable Use Policy which prohibits the usage of servers on a residential service, as well as our clauses that allow us to terminate a customers service. If we recieve 3 DCMA tickets from a particular customer we permanetly terminate their service. On a side note, due to the asynchrous nature of most cable modem service, as well as the fact that a node is essentially a LAN, I can certainly understand the concern about people constantly uploading files. Saturating the forward path can cause problems with download traffic as TCP requires ACK packets to be sent stating that a packet has reached it's destination, if the ACK packet is not recieved the packet needs to be re-transmited. So the next time you think your not causing any problems for anyone when you spent the last 2 weeks on Kazaa allowing people to leech files think again.

    1. Re:DMCA Violations by radish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And of course you do all this because someone TOLD you that there were copyrighted files being shared yes? I don't see the step where you verify the truthfulness (or otherwise) of the complaint you recieve?

      Jerk.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  2. Re:well, it is illegal by saskboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    stuff they're uploading is probably copyrighted

    You just shot your logic in the foot with the "probably".

    The law does not work on Probably, and Maybe. It either is unlawful or it isn't. Sharing copyrighted files is illegal in many places, but networks that *can* share copyrighted problems are not.
    Guns are bad in many cases and should be restricted, but they are not illegal. They can be used for good or bad. Perhaps P2P needs some restrictions, but not outright prohibition.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  3. This article is completely innacurate . . . by jgaynor · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  4. those using "illegal" should understand the law by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Informative
    As a "common carrier", the ISP is not responsiable for uploads by the user any more than the telephone company is responsiable if you make a threatening or harassing call. However, if they start censoring, then they assume responsability for anything later done that they didn't catch, a point I doubt the RIAA thugs pointed out in their threats.

    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.
  5. Re:Once Again by NineNine · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. As an Optonline customer... by ellem · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ..let me tell you the service level has dropped off so much it is ridiculous.

    First they have been running "brown-outs" in Brookhaven township (Suffolk County, NY.)

    Second the Helpless Desk has been telling people to turn of and especially DISCONNECT their routers when they call for outages. They do not explain themselves they simply tell people to disconnect the equipment. Then when the problem is not resolved they tell the customer to leave the Router out of the mix and wait a while. "Do not hook the router back up.," they implore.

    Third, and this is just heinous, the cable technicians have been "chopping the lines" of customers they suspect have either extra cable runs, or (God forbid) who have Satellite Dishes. I live in Farmingville and not only has this happened to 6 (SIX) of my neighbors but one of those fukkers was in my yard when they were supposed to be working across the street. My wife confronted the guy and he told her that satellites were unreliable and "anyting" can happen to them and that she should consider going back to cable. I came out and exlained that if he didn;t get off my property I'd bury him in it. I took his plate number and Van number and Cablevision has denied he was even in the neighborhood. We are pressing charges along with our neighbor's who's Sat Dish lines he cut. I doubt we have a rogue installer.

    As soon as DSL is on this block we're switching.

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.