Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Confirmed as Discriminating Against FileSharing Traffic
An anonymous reader writes "Comcast has been singled out as discriminating against filesharing traffic in quantitative tests conducted by the Associated Press. MSNBC's coverage of the discovery is quite even-handed. The site notes that while illegal content trading is a common use of the technology, Bittorrent is emerging as an effective medium for transferring 'weighty' legal content as well. 'Comcast's technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one BitTorrent user attempts to share a complete file with another user. Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer -- it comes from Comcast.'" This is confirmation of anecdotal evidence presented by Comcast users back in August.
...noticing problems downloading the patches on Comcast?
Just wondering since WoW uses Bittorrent to distribute its patches (one example of a very legitimate use).
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
Comcast isn't a "common carrier". Also, their cable, their rules, don't like it, ditch Comcast. Now, IANAL, but maybe your argument would apply to DSL, being over the phone lines and all.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
This is a very common misconception.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
In my experience, bittorrent transfers are much faster on my Comcast connection when I choose to encrypt them. That suggests to me that Comcast is indeed throttling normal bittorrent traffic.
I've posted this before, but it's pertinent and bears repeating, it's not just P2P traffic that Comcast is filtering. A sysadmin I know has been blogging on Comcast filtering corporate e-mail traffic as well.
http://kkanarski.blogspot.com/2007/09/comcast-filtering-lotus-notes-update.html
From wikipedia: "Internet Service Providers generally wish to avoid being classified as a "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so. Before 1996, such classification could be helpful in defending a monopolistic position, but the main focus of policy has been on competition, so "common carrier" status has little value for ISPs, while carrying obligations they would rather avoid. The key FCC Order on this point is: IN RE FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE, 13 FCC Rcd. 11501 (1998), which holds that ISP service (both "retail" and backbone) is an "information service" (not subject to common carrier obligations) rather than a "telecommunications service" (which might be classified as "common carriage")."
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Set your bittorrent client to only use encrypted traffic. It fixes comcast's little red wagon fast.
Almost all up to date bittorrent clients support this.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Comcast has decided that p2p degrades their system, for them it's more of a technical issue than a political one (though I'm sure the **AA Gestapo have been in touch with them).
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Actually two of them:
1. What hardware/software would carriers have to use to do this?
2. Can it be defeated?
Fwiw, Rogers cable in Canada is rumored to be doing the same thing (and perhaps more). Michael Geist talks about this on his blog: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1859/
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Actually, this will hurt net neutrality because everyone is getting QoS confused with Net Neutrality!
QoS is legal, and it should exist. Prioritizing classes of traffic is OK, provided the classes are generic classes of traffic (e.g., email, web, ftp, p2p, voip, etc).
Net Neutrality is compatible with QoS. What Net Neutrality proponents want isn't avoidance of QoS, but to prevent deals where if you use Windows Live Search, it comes up instantly, while if you use Google, you'll find yourself waiting a good minute for the frontpage to load up. I.e., both use the same class of traffic (web), but service is differentiated based on who can pay.
So Comcast causing Bittorrent problems is OK for Net Neutrality. But if Comcast suddenly lets Blizzard's WoW updates unimpeded while causing problems for say, Linux ISO torrents, then that conflicts with Net Neutrality.
Basically, like traffic should be treated alike. But unlike traffic may be treated differently. So if Comcast charged an extra $10 for enhanced VoIP QoS, that's OK, as long as it's for all VoIP, not just say, Vonage only, or Skype.
Net Neutrality opponents like to bleat the Anti-QoS line because it's the easiest way to spread FUD, when they really mean "Google, pay us, or we'll make your page take ages to load, while making Windows Live Search load instantly".
Good example. Another is the Ubuntu release that came out yesterday -- all the mirrors were crushed, while this was Bittorrent's time to shine.
Technology tips and tricks.
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13739_1-9769645-46.html
This article does seem to put forth an interesting idea. I wonder if a case could be reasonably put together for Comcast impersonating its users in violation of the law.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
If you run bittorrent, your PC acts as both a client and a server. Running a server on your residential comcast account is a violation of the terms of service. Cutting that connection is neither discrimination nor abandonment of network neutrality; its simple contract enforcement.
This is not new. The prohibition against running servers on residential accounts has been around since the dialup days. What is new is that they're targetting the application instead of cancelling or forcibly upgrading the account.
If you don't like it, pay the extra bucks and upgrade to the hobbyist / small business account. If you pay for an account which permits you to run a server and they still interfere, then you have a real complaint.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
you can't encrypt the TCP handshake. The Comcast attack (by sending false TCP resets/RSTs) still works against encrypted traffic. Encrypted traffic is carried as the data payload with in-the-clear TCP headers. As long as Comcast can discern (or even cares to discern) which traffic is undesirable from the TCP headers themselves (e.g., TCP port number, weighted aggregate traffic, many-to-one traffic connections, etc.) Comcast can still send your box a TCP RST and torch the session.
It's not in their best interest for Comcast to interfere with BitTorrent activity, nor is it within their rights.
As a Comcast BitTorrent user, Comcast is impersonating me by sending RST (reset packets) as me.
They are deceiving the computers I am connected to by forging the source of the RST packets, saying they come from me.
I have suffered damages where I can't share files via BitTorrent, though I've paid for the privilege of exchanging data on the internet. Shouldn't I be entitled to relief and punitive damages? Indeed, shouldn't all Comcast BitTorrent users?
Isn't disruption of computer use and/or services and/or networks criminal in the US? My communication with non-Comcast networks is being disrupted!
Computers on the internet aren't just clients, they must also be servers. Today's internet could not exist without this model; Blizzard could't distribute WoW patches, Joost couldn't work, video games couldn't work.
I imagine Comcast would say that the ToS would prohibit server activities, but as the reader sees, if server activities were prohibited, Comcast would eliminate most of the reasons for internet use and they'd lose their internet service revenue stream.
Since they usually operate under exclusive franchises dished out by local governments, it's not as simple as "ditching" them. It's not possible for anybody else to install a cable to create any kind of competition. If you're lucky, you might have DSL, but a duopoly is rarely much better than a monopoly.
Comcast is probably breaking the law. And what they are doing is shitty.
But they are well within their rights to throttle Bittorrent traffic. And they NEED to.
I used to run an ISP, and I've worked at many, and let me tell you, Bittorrent traffic is EVIL. It HAS to be throttled. It's an extremely inefficient, "talky" protocol. It opens thousands of connections to every BT client (yes, you can limit the number of connections your BT client *accepts*, but those connections still have to be *routed* to you before you can can deny them). It just kills routers. It's MOSTLY used for downloading illegal movies/software/music, which means that as an ISP you have to deal with the "takedown notices" that the MPAA and RIAA like to send.
Basically, as an ISP, Bittorrent is a nightmare. All for what? So teenagers that live at home andt aren't even paying for the bandwidth they use can download Spider-Man 3?
Don't get me wrong, I use BT occasionally, but it seems to me that everyone seems to think they have a "right" to run BT 24/7, downloading everything they can. Maybe they do. But those same people need to take a little responsibility and realize that bandwidth is a SCARCE resource, and that their ISP doesn't have unlimited amounts of it, and that OTHER customers matter, too.
Nope. This has been discussed ad nauseum already, but Comcast (and Sandvine, which they are in all likelihood using) isn't looking at the actual data, it's looking at the overall pattern of traffic. It is still going to send RST packets, regardless of whether or not your connections are encrypted.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
You would only have to block the RST packets on connections which are to specific ports. This can also be the case with bittorrent if setup appropriately.
At least with the stateful firewalls I use, the timeout for dropping a specific connection can be given an appropriate value to prevent this from happening.
You could just disable it temporarily on that one port.
http://redhatcat.blogspot.com/2007/09/beating-sandvine-with-linux-iptables.html
That was linked from the first result (a Digg article) for "iptables DROP RST".
Peace sells, but who's buying?
... if Comcast is essentially attempting to disable Bitorrent, are they by any chance either violating or subverting one or more RFCs? Substitute the proper term for 'violating', that was the strongest word I could come up with quickly.
I recall that in the Early Days of the Internet, not abiding by the RFCs would get you in hot water. Especially screwing up with SMTP would do it, but even bad behaviour due to your incompetence would get your T-1 unclocked, and it would take a few calls to the powers that be to assure them that you found someone who knew what they were doing and that problem wouldn't occur again. At least not for a while.
My point is, perhaps it's time for the other Internet providers to consider requiring Comcast to not mess with traffic in this way, or sanction Comcast.
Sanctions could be as graduated as throttling at the NAPs, degrading Comcast traffic, even disconnects.
Some providers have a stake in this. If the legal Bitorrent users (WoW for instance) get a crossed hair over this, why would they not ask their providers to pressure Comcast into stopping this?
Ultimately, this may be Comcast clinging to their ToS and 'server' restrictions, and that would mean Comcast users won't be sharing out Bitorrent files. Bummer.
Another wrinkle, I wonder if Comcast sends forged RSTs to Comcast users sharing with *other* Comcast users. Intranetwork traffic shouldn't 'cost' so much for Comcast.
My theory is simple - Imagine if ISPs started throttling or denying traffic from Akamai, because of the volume... What a mess. And while Bitorrent is used for all sorts of purposes, so is SMTP. So if they think the illegal use of Bitorrent is sufficient excuse for them to deny it, why don't they throttle/deny SMTP, since simple spam is bad enough, but the emails of worms/trojans/scams also are objectionable. even arguably illegal. And certainly harmful, to users and the Internet. Maybe even Comcast.
Of course, that's not the point. Comcast is trying to avoid costs due to the volume of Bitorrent traffic that leaves them paying for NAP ports, lines to other ISPs, and routers/switches to manage all this.
In other words, they are trying to control costs by controlling usage.
One of the reasons I got out of the business pre-2000. Couldn't make a profit with my business model. Network costs were too high.
Well, another option is to surcharge high-volume users. Or charge more to afford to provide the service ostensibly advertised.
It's not often I can be happy to have Cox Cable. My Qwest DSL before just sucked, but the traffic got through.
Good luck. My bet is the best avenue is a class-action over either false advertising or Magnuson-Moss.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
See if Earthlink offers cable Internet through your cable system. They do where I am. Earthlink has it's own gateways, etc. They have better policies. They allow low-bandwidth servers on a residential connection. And no, I don't work for them.
Also, besides common cry of "Linux ISOs!" (which, you have to admit, is a pretty lame argument for most people out there), BitTorrent is used for legally distributing such things as:
- "America's Army" (the U.S. Army's free video game). I've uploaded over 80 GB of that alone in the past few weeks.
- Aronofsky's director's commentary for the movie "The Fountain," which was not included on the DVD release
- The Pirate Bay's "Steal This Film - Part 1", which talks about the raid on their servers
I.e., there a plenty of legitimate uses for BitTorrent, and there will only be more as content gets bigger and people realize the value of not having to pay for all the bandwidth their downloaders are using.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Before I get started, please don't take it as siding with Comcast, not even in a "playing the devil's advocate" kind of way. I'm just going to explain how it works. The morality of it, or of acting against it, well, you can decide for yourself. I'm not going to tell you what to think.
1. The pricing model for ISP's was based on the idea that the provider of that content paid for the bandwidth. That's why you can get a flat rate, in a nutshell. If someone put a 1 MB file on their site and you downloaded it, the site would pay for that MB. Each and every single MB you downloaded, would be an MB that someone else paid for.
Then the ISPs and backbone would split the loot according to who pushed what over whose lines.
And that worked remarkably well, while the Internet meant mostly HTTP. (Well, except emails, but those too used to be smaller and fewer.)
Enter P2P, and now there's a lot of data being transferred between the users, with noone paying for it. If I download a WoW patch from Tom, Dick and Harry -- the WoW patch downloader being a modified BitTorrent client -- we're all on flat rate, so noone pays. Every 1 MB I download is 1 MB that Blizzard didn't pay for. Worse yet, it's actually a bit more data transferred than 1 MB coming over HTTP.
"Legal" BitTorrent transfers tend to fall in that category. Someone thought he's smart if he, basically, cheats the ISPs of the bandwidth price. Instead of putting the file on a site and paying for the bandwidth, now he leaves it to a bunch of users that the ISP can't figure out how to bill for it.
Simply put, that price model is breaking down. And all the king's horses and all the king's men... err, I mean the ISPs, can't figure out how to put it back together again.
2. To make things work, paying for the receiving end too was based on oversell and... well, a self-throttling sharing scheme.
Let's say you're a really small ISP and have a 1 Gbit/s connection to the backbone and 1000 users. You sold each a 6 mbit/s connection. Now as long as most of them aren't downloading full time, they might even actually get 6 MBit/s. But in the worst case scenario, if each has one download going at the same time, they end up splitting your backbone connection evenly and getting 1 Mbit each. They'll grumble, but live with it.
What BitTorrent does, though, is best described as "not playing nice" in that sense. It will keep opening more and more and more connections until it fully saturates those 6 Mbit/s, everyone else be damned.
In the same scenario, just 150 users with BitTorrent are enough to gobble up almost 900 MBit/s out of your total 1000 MBit/s, and squeeze everyone else in the remaining 100. That's 15% of the users, using 90% of the bandwidth. And if you get 20% of them on BitTorrent, God help you, because those alone are already trying to use more bandwidth than you have total, and if bandwidth was air everyone else would be blue in the face like a Smurf.
Now again, I'm not saying that Comcast and the gang are doing the right thing there. I'm just saying what their problem is. You can take it as an example of a problem their own massive oversell created, if it makes you feel any better.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
That story's from 2000. I can connect to a PPTP VPN just fine from my Comcast connection.
Not sure why you were modded Informative, but you make a weak point. Cable providers (internet or otherwise) are very much regional here in the US, even inside the same company. I can drive 30 minutes in one direction and the TV channels are the same, but 30 minutes in the opposite direction and all the channels are different. And that is just Bright House Tampa and Bright House Central Florida, not yet different providers.
But what happens is a small company starts up, gets gobbled by a larger company (Time Warner owns Comcast, IIRC), and then dominates the area because that's more cost effective than rebranding. Especially in larger coverage areas.
Another issue you fail to realize is that for every spam host, there are probably 10 people legitimately using smtp. Believe it or not, ISPs simply cannot do all of our spam filtering for us because those spam hosts also send legitimate e-mails. Besides, with software like SpamAssassin, there really is no need for the ISP to do our work. I, for one, would be very upset if I no longer received e-mail from Sourceforge because of an ISP-side filter that I couldn't control.
The ISPs around here aren't stupid. They know that there isn't much they can do about BitTorrent traffic because of the ability for legitimate use. In fact, there is legal precedence to protect BitTorrent as the same issue was addressed with the blank VHS tape. There was a legitimate use, so blank media is legal. BitTorrent really isn't THAT much different, in that case.
As for encryption, there's nothing anyone can do about it. It is 100% perfectly legal to encrypt anything I want and send it over the internet. The content itself may not be legal, but the act itself most certainly is. I have yet to see anything about a government raid on anything OpenSSL related.
Your ad here.
Of course, the proper course of action is to alter their contracts (after the current ones expire) to charge more money for more use, perhaps in various rates. Yes, that will drive people to other companies who don't do this...who will also lose money.
:D
Let the market figure it out.
Your kidding right? The market doesn't have a chance when it's only ONE company (thus a monopoly) available in your area. Sure there is DSL here and there competing against Comcast. The issue is without an infrastructure in place, you can't select another vendor. It's their way or the high way.
SB 66 in utah for instance is a good example of closing a free market. For several years we've been hearing of all the great things the company was going to do for us. They sorta kept their promise. And now they are terminating people for using the service paid for.
With a free market, Comcast would't have the number of customers they do here. I haven't met anyone who says they love Comcast compared to other services. They only have the one and no other's available. Like having only one Pizza shop. They are the best right? Nobody compares to Joe Blow's Pizza Shop? Right
I'm taking next thursday off to sit in the audience of the subcommittee. I'm very curious what decisions they are planning on making and hope for an opportunity to speak during the citizens comment period. Hopefully SB 66 stays dead and Utopia will be allowed to expand. 17 Cities are investigating whether they should join it. If SB 66 is revived, it will kill the free market in their area.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Enter P2P, and now there's a lot of data being transferred between the users, with noone paying for it. ... we're all on flat rate, so noone pays. Every 1 MB I download is 1 MB that Blizzard didn't pay for.
But somebody somewhere is uploading that data that's being downloaded. It's not magically coming from nowhere. If the trick is that the cost of bandwidth is supposed to be shouldered by the uploaders, then it's shouldered by the uploaders, and it doesn't matter if it's being downloaded by p2pers or anything.
Which you vaguely get at later in your reply, but this sort of comment is nonsense: "Legal" BitTorrent transfers tend to fall in that category. Someone thought he's smart if he, basically, cheats the ISPs of the bandwidth price. Instead of putting the file on a site and paying for the bandwidth, now he leaves it to a bunch of users that the ISP can't figure out how to bill for it. Nobody posting legal files thinks anything like they're "cheating"! Even if your theory is true, nobody out there knows it, so how could they think they're cheating? They think they're 'spreading the load' somehow. They're using 'available bandwidth' that's not being used for anything.
Then you say:
2. To make things work, paying for the receiving end too was based on oversell and... well, a self-throttling sharing scheme.
Ok then. If all download bandwidth requires corresponding upload bandwidth, and p2p uses "average users'" upload bandwidth, and upload bandwidth for "average users" was oversold... then that means your argument ends up being "broadband vendors oversold bandwidth"! (Just that it's upload bandwidth, not download bandwidth like everyone thinks.)
But this all hinges on a rather bizarre claim about how bandwidth is sold (by upload bandwidth only) that does things like ignore people in the middle... it may be true but your presentation is so sloppy that it doesn't seem trustworthy at all.
You can take it as an example of a problem their own massive oversell created, if it makes you feel any better.
Yeah, gee, I think I'll do that, since that's what your argument boils down to.
The problem is that encrypting BitTorrent won't stop Comcast from being able tor recognize BitTorrent traffic. If I were wanting to move files these days I would stick with Freenet. The 0.5 network is running better than ever now that all of the instability from development and newbie floods have moved to 0.7. There's lots of files in freenet and plenty of users willing to insert more on request. Transfer rates have improved also... I've personally seen ~900MiB / day where it used to be a tenth of that. and the security is hard to beat.