Comcast May Face Lawsuits Over BitTorrent Filtering

An anonymous reader writes "It's been widely reported that Comcast is engaged in a sneaky form of Internet filtering. The company is terminating its customers' BitTorrent sessions by sending misleading data onto the network. The end result is that instead of targeting key heavy users, Comcast is instead engaged in an all out war against P2P protocols. In an interview with CNET, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Fred von Lohmann states that Comcast is 'throwing a spanner in the works of the Internet, hoping that this will somehow reduce bandwidth usage overall.' Other lawyers seem to have smelled blood, and are circling in the water. Lohmann reveals that '[The EFF has] already been contacted by attorneys who are considering legal action against Comcast.' Could Comcast be facing a class-action?"

Comments

Filtering vs. tampering

[Kevin DeGraaf]

This isn't mere filtering (which would be bad enough). This is intentional, specific, active tampering. These TCP RST packets are spoofed forgeries. That's much more evil.

Passively dropping packets in an attempt to shape traffic or implement some QoS policy is one thing. Actively "jamming" connections is quite another.

Re:Filtering vs. tampering

[Jimithing DMB]

Spoken like someone with only a limited concept of network equipment. Let's roughly break down filtering techniques into two broad categories:

1. Physically between the two endpoints
2. Able to see both endpoints but not stop them from communicating

Both techniques have their plusses and minuses. In the first case, the filter can literally filter the packets. That is, it simply drops them rather than forwarding them on. The downside is that if the filter machine goes down then the two endpoints cannot communicate. This is a useful technique when you really do want to filter packets. For instance, you generally don't want CIFS/SMB traffic ingress or egress from a private network to the internet. You do not want to allow even one packet to do this.

In the second case you're usually doing it not for security reasons but to filter traffic. The EFF mentions that the Great Firewall of China uses this technique. How sensationalist. So do a number of other web filters. I know of at least one dating back to like 1997 or so that uses this technique. The idea is that you can effectively block the traffic by forging a RST in both directions. So when your employee goes to playboy.com you can hit both sides with a RST and stop that from happening. This technique has the advantage that if the filter goes down, traffic can still pass because it doesn't pass through the filter.

Now, here's Comcast's issue. BitTorrent as a protocol is specifically designed to suck up all available bandwidth. The problem is that by necessity it does that to the exclusion of all other traffic which is more well behaved. Although we'd all love to live in a dreamworld where bandwidth is unlimited, reality is different. In reality, there are a lot of people who just want to check their e-mail and browse the web quickly. When their neighbors are running BitTorrent 24/7 they can no longer do this. Increasing the bandwidth does not help because BitTorrent will proceed to soak that up.

So, the only fix is to stop BitTorrent from sucking up all available bandwidth. That means you need some sort of a filter. Now, you can do it the first way by putting a filter in between the endpoints. The filter could presumably receive the packets then delay sending them for a bit. TCP window sizes are usually only so large so delaying the packets will delay them from reaching the other endpoint which will thus cause ACK messages to be delayed. The problem with this is that you have to have real QoS equipment to get all this done.

The other method is to realize that while most protocols would be disrupted due to forcibly closing the connection, BitTorrent will not be. The receiving peer will just go hunt for a different peer and the sending peer now has another slot open for a new receiving peer. Thus, closing BitTorrent connections doesn't prevent anyone from using BitTorrent, it just makes it slower.

That, of course, is reasoned and intelligent debate without stupid emphasis on various words to make the story more sensational. The EFF is ridiculous. Like the ACLU, it's a good idea in principle. In practice both of those organizations aren't protecting anyone's liberties because they aren't having an open discussion about what is and what is not an infringement on one's liberties. They pre-decide what they consider to be infringements then hire armies of lawyers to ram their decisions down everyone else's throat.

No one, of course, is going to discuss the idea that maybe your neighbor deserves to be able to check his e-mail without you clogging up the connection and that maybe the ISP has the obligation to ensure a good level of service for all of their users. Nope, none of that. Instead we've already decided that blocking any traffic for any reason is bad and is of course just like Chinese censorship and so Comcast must be the devil. Typical group think.

Re:It's Working!

[Aladrin]

I once had '#1 abuser' title at an ISP and I call tell you this: They don't care.

They -want- all the heavy users to leave and leave them with only light users that pay full price. It's their dream situation.

Re:ZOMG!! Squeal!!

[Protonk]

you're missing his point. He's making fun of most class action outcomes being toothless in the extreme. Class action victory against company A? 5-7 years down the line, you get a voucher for 30-40 dollars if you can provide proof of purchase in triplicate, a blood sample, and a unicorn hair.

Reverse this notion and look at it from the likely payout end. It is like having to honor a rebate you didn't have to tell customers they were eligible for 7 years down the road. think how many rebates are honored with prior notice three MONTHS down the road...

It's not just P2P -- Lotus Notes traffic also!

[whoever57]

There was a report showing that Comcast was also interfering with Lotus Notes traffic.

Re:Comcast

[DJCacophony]

Telephone lines have common carrier status, so they can't do that
Internet lines were denied the same designation, so they can, hence network-non-neutrality
The idea, however, is that if they do that, they will lose all their customers, and be sued for it, too.

Re:um

[fohat]

The issue is not affecting downloads, only seeding.

Re:ZOMG!! Squeal!!

[GryMor]

Anyone who plays WOW. Blizzard uses torrents for distribution of World of Warcraft patches. I'm sure they aren't the only ones, and this doesn't even mention the Linux ISOs that are transferred via torrents.

Re:Lawsuits will have unintended consequences.

[skintigh2]

Point #2 is already moot: the AP journalists who conducted the tests were downloading the Bible. I DARE Comcast, the RIAA and BSA to argue that reading the Bible should be illegal.

We're on the slow network, too.

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Just in case anyone hasn't noticed, the Communications Workers of America have conducted a worldwide survey of internet access speeds. What they found is that Japan is number one with 61 Mb/s. We're didn't even place. You can read about that, here.http://www.itwire.com/content/view/13184/1066/. I guess the MPAA and the RIAA don't have very much pull in Japan.

Re:more than 5 users

[sgarringer]

In all seriousness, I am pretty sure in their terms of service it states that they can adjust their network for the performance for everyone. Do you have any idea how open that is? Good luck pinning down any sort of lawsuit against that. Its all in their Terms of Service. Does no one read these things? I know I read each and every word of mine for my cable company (I must give them access to their cable box 24/7/365 if they ask) and my cellphone (They're not required to actually provide me with any services during a billing period and I still need to pay).

They've got all the bases covered... Trust me.

Well - they are denying it

[bizitch]

I fired off a nastygram to Comcast with a link to that MSNBC article and asked them flat out if it was true or not

I got the following response

"I understand you have some concerns over recent web gossip that has
suggested Comcast is blocking or hindering customer access to
BitTorrent. My name is Armin and I will be glad to assist you.

Mark, we do not block access to any P2P (Peer To Peer) applications,
including BitTorrent. We respect our customers' privacy and don't
monitor specific customer activities on the Internet, or track
individual online behavior, such as which websites are visited.
Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting
BitTorrent or any other site.

Additionally, Comcast does not "throttle" bandwidth (limit throughput on
the network). Comcast also is not traffic shaping or packet shaping.
We have a responsibility to manage our network to ensure that our
customers have the best broadband experience possible. That means we
use the latest technologies to manage our network to provide a quality
experience for all Comcast subscribers. This is standard practice for
network operators around the world. I do not have specific information
to provide to you regarding the details of how we manage our network, or
vendors that may be used.

I hope that I was able to effectively address your concerns. If you
have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact
us back."