Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vuze Study Exposes P2P Throttling By Canadian ISP Cogeco

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-mind-us dept.

urbanriot writes "Despite a growing number of complaints on the popular North American consumer broadband site BroadbandReports, employees working for the Canadian cable internet provider Cogeco have publicly denied interfering with torrents on their network. However, a recent plugin put out by the Vuze team exposed Cogeco of being the second worst ISP globally, of those tested. So far, Cogeco has failed to respond to these findings, but recent coverage from the mainstream media and Michael Geist may prompt them to finally admit to their controversial practices." The report by the Vuze team has some interesting information about other ISPs from around the world as well. Prior to this, Bell Canada was taking most of the flak in Canada for traffic management.

25 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. this is why we need competition by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    no monopolys or duopoloys - real competition.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:this is why we need competition by WK2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Competition doesn't do much good when the ISPs are allowed to lie. Some good, yes, but in order for competition to do it's thing, users need to be well-informed before they purchase.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    2. Re:this is why we need competition by Jurily · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, it has. Hence the need for anti-trust laws.

    3. Re:this is why we need competition by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Without question. If fact, I would go so far as to say that there should be laws written about infrastructure ownership.

      We, the people, should own ALL things "infrastructure" and allow companies to use it for providing services. AT&T can't be allowed to own the wires and switches any longer. Comcast can't be allowed to own the cables any longer. And rather like patents and copyrights, these monopolies should be allowed for only a specified amount of time but should not exceed the time it takes to recoup the costs of building the infrastructure. After that, they lose their monopoly. (And to add incentive to these parties, they can extend their temporary monopolies any time they upgrade the infrastructure...say by putting fiber at EVERY door.)

      They have gotten away with cherry picking and raising prices without improving services for far too long. Their regional monopolies demonstrably harm the consumer. I find it amazing what they have been getting away with.

    4. Re:this is why we need competition by electrictroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>>"has'nt history already proven that competition naturally drift towards monopolization?"

      No. On the contrary history has shown that IF a company becomes a monopoly and starts "raping" its customers with outrageous prices, then another competitor will rise-up to provide cheaper alternatives:

      - Itunes replaced the CD cartel
      - Dish television broke the back of local cable tv monopolies by offering cheaper service
      - And now FiOS is providing another form of competition

      - The railroads had monopolized passenger travel in the 1880-90s... until someone invented a steam car, and then a gasoline car. Now the railroads don't have a monopoly.
      - Standard Oil has a monopoly on PA/Ohio oil fields... until somebody discovered oil in Texas and broke the back of Standard Oil.
      - And on
      - and on
      - and on.

      A monopoly can not long exist in a natural state - it will soon be faced with other competing companies. The only monopoly that exists long-term is the type of monopoly that is in collusion with government. (Such as the DeBeers Company that has been granted monopoly in Southh Africa by the government.) If the government would step-aside, then real competition would return.

      Which is why I've said many times, the government should allow 3-4 cables to run in parallel to each person's home, thus providing a real choice amongst Cable/Internet providers.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    5. Re:this is why we need competition by electrictroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Define infrastructure.

      I know you're thinking "cables", but could it also mean the healthcare system? How about food stores? Clothing stores? Or perhaps the land that everybody sits their house upon? Maybe the houses themselves could be considered "infrastructure" and should be owned collectively by the government?

      Ooops, I just used the word collectivism.
      So much for free will of the individual.

      "HISTORY has shown that Government is like fire: a troublesome servant & a DEADLY master. Never should it be allowed to trample upon the individual liberties we fought to secure." - George Washington. You can not have government control of the Infrastructure and individual freedom at the same time. When government is in control, it suppresses the individual to the will of the state, and imprisons or kills those who refuse to be trampled. Hence Washington's description of government as a "deadly" master.

      It is a wiser course to pursue a "pro-choice" position that seeks to provide multiple choices, and places the power of decision in the hands of the citizen. i.e. A policy that empowers the individual.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    6. Re:this is why we need competition by erroneus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Infrastructure are the vehicles by which services are traveled or transmitted. This would include the roads, railways, air space, the power lines, the pipes and sewers, phone lines, cell towers, radio frequencies or anything along those lines.

      "Healthcare" is not even remotely within that description. Land ownership is even further removed.

      The prevention of ownership of infrastructure *IS* a pro choice move. It allows multiple service providers to compete across the same media offering "pro-choice" to the consumer. Regional monopolies are still monopolies and cases of abuse are frequent. I'm not talking about socialized services. Only publicly owned infrastructure. The Public Utilities Commissions which were created to prevent the need for public ownership of infrastructure has failed in its mission where it has permitted cherry picking and inconsistent levels of service. There are places in Texas and all across the U.S. that still have no water and no power, forget about broadband internet access and cell phone coverage.

    7. Re:this is why we need competition by hvm2hvm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "You can not have government control of the Infrastructure and individual freedom at the same time. When government is in control, it suppresses the individual to the will of the state, and imprisons or kills those who refuse to be trampled."

      Well it's still better than what happens when the companies have control. The government is somewhat forced to make it better for the people but companies have no interest in caring for their customers as long as they get the money. And considering the owners of the company are still people they have immunity over the will of the customers (unless they do something illegal but they usually are careful with that). That immunity is granted by the government, which in theory is the expression of the people. Now that is not right at all.

      --
      ics
    8. Re:this is why we need competition by mmurphy000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know you're thinking "cables", but could it also mean the healthcare system?

      A neighborhood can only have so many buried cables before they start conflicting with each other, with water/sewer/gas lines, etc., particularly since each cable must reach each house. Talk to a civil engineer sometime about the royal PITA known as "Miss Utility" or "OneCall" or the equivalent.

      The same neighborhood can have many healthcare providers without similar conflicts. Healthcare is far less a natural monopoly than is sewer service, or roads, or cables.

      It is a wiser course to pursue a "pro-choice" position that seeks to provide multiple choices, and places the power of decision in the hands of the citizen. i.e. A policy that empowers the individual.

      In the abstract, you'll get no complaints from me. The question, though, is where the competition lies. Just because some portion of the service is community-owned (e.g., roads) doesn't preclude competition at other levels (e.g., package delivery services). Just because the city owns the water and sewer lines doesn't preclude competition among Roto-Rooter and similar home plumbing franchises. Similarly, just because a town decides to own the physical cabling would not preclude competition among firms wishing to use said cabling to provide communication services.

      --
      The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development
    9. Re:this is why we need competition by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Itunes replaced the CD cartel
      I don't know why people love iTunes so much. Personally I think it's just as bad, if not worse than the CD cartel ever was. At least when I bought a CD, I owned it, and could copy it for personal use however I pleased. With MS shutting down shop for music sales, and cutting access to DRM keys, you would think that people would realize just how bad of a situation DRM music puts us in. Sure iTunes has some stuff that's DRM free, but the vast majority of it still has DRM. Online music sales (like the CD before it) was supposed to make things a lot cheaper. On iTunes, it still costs $10 an album, and you don't even get a physical product. CDs were only moderately more expensive. At least where I live. I like eMusic, because even though I'm bound to paying my $15 every month, I know I'm only paying $0.30 cents per track. Which I think is a much more fair price when you don't receive an actual physical product. And you can also redownload your music in the case where it was lost. I would probably spend $15 anyway on music. Better I get 50 tracks than 15. I have to admit, I do miss some of the bigger name bands, and wish that their music was available through better means, but I just can't justify paying $1.00 for a track. It just seems like a complete ripoff.
      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    10. Re:this is why we need competition by Remusti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to say, your argument is excellent. I completely agree.

      Utility and internet companies should own their own infrastructure. The only acceptable options are either:

      a) One company delivering services to specific areas. This is a great way of securing personal liberty. Don't like the broadband provider for your area? Move house! Don't like the electricity provider in your new area? Move again! Wait, now you have a problem with your telephone provider? Move again, and this time do your research. Remember, market forces are the only thing these companies understand. When everybody leaves town, they're bound to upgrade the network.

      b) Multiple series of cables running along the street. After all, what could be better than power and phone lines running down the street? Five sets! Who needs a footpath anyway? And what good is a footpath if we can't rip it up every time a new player comes to town? Pedestrians are chumps, too bloody lazy to learn how to drive, that's their problem.

      Wait, no. Now that I type that, it starts to make a bit less sense.

      I mean, what will we be advocating next? Putting roading into private hands? I don't even want to imagine that scenario.

      I have to admit, I don't live in America, so I don't share your views on healthcare. I live in one of those really weird countries with universal healthcare. For some reason though, we still have medical insurance companies. How weird is that? Our central healthcare system is government owned and yet we have a choice in the provider of our medical care.

      Anyway, I'm rambling now and I've started to forget the point I had in mind when I started writing. Bleh. Too late at night for a decent post. But I will say this: Government control is not the only option when it comes to public ownership. Utility cooperatives are one example. You seem to find the idea of a collective or cooperative scary though, for some reason. Think of it this way though, your infrastructure can be owned by:

      1) A private company which is out for only one purpose, to make dollars. Any corners which can be cut will be cut, and no infrastructure upgrades will be rolled out until after they are needed.

      2) The government. There aren't many governments which aren't bureaucratic, but if they aren't they tend to be totalitarian. Governments are very good at knowing what's best for you, which is an added bonus.

      3) A cooperative owned by the people who are provided the service. Decisions on changes to the infrastructure are voted on by members. Can you imagine that? You telling the company what to do? How completely backwards that would be!

      Right, right. Time to make my main point and then shut up. Your post does nothing to support choice. Allowing private enterprises to have monopolies and own infrastructure severely damages the ability for new players to enter the market. Remember that the monopoly is the antithesis of the free market, a monopolistic power crushes all competition.

  2. Keep pushing. by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder what will businessmen of the future think when they read about how full encryption came to be, taking into account it's speed and complexity problems.

  3. Bad ISPs by daydr3am3r · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those who are bored to RTFA and dig through its links, there is a handy Bad ISPs list maintained by the Azureus team.
    That being said, there are many ISPs who also do p2p traffic caching, which is not inherently a bad thing. Certain block lists consider those wrongfully malicious as well.

    1. Re:Bad ISPs by Alpha+Whisky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is really needed is a good ISP list. The only way to sort this out is to hurt the bad ISPs in the wallet by moving to the good ISPs.

      --
      it's = it is

      its = belonging to it

  4. Re:Not the first time, not the last... by Faylone · · Score: 2, Informative

    Parent is troll, don't click

  5. Cogeco response by wrook · · Score: 4, Informative

    The CBC has a decent article where they contacted Cogeco. They claim not to use false resets. They also say that they haven't received the letter from Vuze yet.

    http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/04/22/tech-vuze.html

    I'm not sure if I believe them or not. When I lived in Ottawa last year I had friends using Cogeco. Some people had no problems at all with bittorrent while others couldn't use it. It's hard for me to tell if they are blocking some of their customers, or if my friends just couldn't figure out how to set it up.

  6. False advertising? by fastest+fascist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems to me that when an ISP states they do not throttle traffic and secretly do so anyway, they are giving their customers a false representation of the product they sell. Probably their EULA gives them the right to throttle traffic, but does it give them the right to lie about it?

    1. Re:False advertising? by DragonTHC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There has been a sense of security about the eula. I happen to believe that burying a clause in the eula that completely contradicts the open advertisement should be actionable. It's a violation of good faith trust that I had unduly placed in the company. I also happen to believe that placing 'future-proof' clauses in eulas and other such contracts and agreements is unconstitutional. basically those clauses that state, "we have the right to change anything in the contract without notice at any time" is stating, we can do what we want and you can't do anything about it. I believe that is essentially agreeing to waive your rights. We know from our founding documents that certain rights are inalienable. The right to have a fair and stable contract is one of them.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    2. Re:False advertising? by redelm · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's not quite so easy -- first, most contracts contain a clause that the contract is the complete contract and other materials are not binding. Also notice disclaimers in advertising "where available", which may not be in many places. Third, the service advertised and shown as unlimited _home_ use may not match yours: a bit of surfing and sis watching a cartoon is not the same as 24/7 DL.

      As for contract modification, these are not "one-time" contracts but continuing agreements. You can terminate at any time and so can they. Where there is an equipment lock-in, then substantial changes should give you the right to terminate without payback. I doubt a court would disagree.

  7. I believe traffic shaping is ok... by graymocker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... when it's transparent and disclosed. If ISPs believe that traffic shaping is a legitimate cost management solution that most customers wouldn't mind, then fine, make the legitimate case: use traffic shaping and disclose the existence of traffic shaping in your plans the same way maximum bandwidth is disclosed, and we'll let the market decide. Personally, I believe that enough customers wouldn't mind traffic shaping, bandwidth throttling and caps, etc. that in the future we might see different priced "tiers" of internet service, which is fine with me as that would make service pricing more representative of internet use. My ISP wants to bandwidth cap my internet service? Fine, if they disclose these caps at the time that I sign up. Then I'd be free to negotiate with another provider or sign up for a better plan. It's the fact that ISPs today advertise one thing and then deliver another that's truly offensive.

    The sneaky underhanded meddling with the service of customers that have existing contracts just undermines the ISPs' case and suggests to regulators and customers that they aren't interested in honestly selling a service.

  8. Was anyone as surprised as I was ... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... when they read the networks with the worst median reset rates from the appendix of the report?

    UIUC - University of Illinois - 90.69%
    WN-AZ-AS - Arizona Tri University Network - 89.33%

    I'm not saying there is anything nefarious going on there. These networks were only sampled for a short time by a small set of users. The results gathered might not be generally representative of those networks. But it does make you wonder. Are they are blocking / shaping traffic, or do they have a massively overwhelmed network? Other?

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  9. How to advertise.... by iamsamed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How do you adverstise such a thing when less than 10% of your customer base understand the concept behind it? Why would you advertise limited Internet access? I can see the ads

    "Tired of the internet pig next door downloading illegal movies next door and bringing YOUR service to a crawl?

    Working from home and your work just sits there because the guy next door is sharing all of his music with the rest of the world?

    The sex addict down the street is sucking up your internet - BUY FROM US!

    We don't feed the internet pigs!

    Sign up with us and get your work done!

    (in mice type) we throttle P2P, bitorrent, etc...."

    See, no probelm.

  10. A Press Release by AetherBurner · · Score: 2, Funny

    We at LBE are proud to introduce our new pricing policies. They are as follows: 6 Mbit/sec down - 512 kbit up -> $15/mo. 1.5 Mbit/sec down - 128 kbit up - no RST -> $45/mo. Remember, LBE (Lousy Broadband Experience) are here to satisfy all of your emergent broadband needs. Thank you for using our services.

  11. Incompetence v.s. Malevolence by pruneau · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Never forget one thing though: before ascribing something to malevolence, look into the incompetence direction first.

    And having a mix of the two makes it even easier to hide behind plausible deniability. Because placing the right person at the right place, i.e. the worst net admin on the most loaded network might be just what it takes.

    --
    [Pruneau /\o^O/\ warranty void if this .sig is removed]
  12. Flawed Study by Se7enLC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This study compares the number of RESETs to the total number of connections made. It makes NO ATTEMPT at determining if the resets are false and injected by the ISP.