Slashdot Mirror
Comcast, Cox Slow BitTorrent Traffic All Day
narramissic writes "A study by the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems found that Comcast and Cox Communications are slowing BitTorrent traffic at all times of day, not just peak hours. Comcast was found to be interrupting at least 30% of BitTorrent upload attempts around the clock. At noon, Comcast was interfering with more than 80% of BitTorrent traffic, but it was also slowing more than 60% of BitTorrent traffic at other times, including midnight, 3 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Time in the U.S., the time zone where Comcast is based. Cox was interfering with 100% of the BitTorrent traffic at 1 a.m., 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. Eastern Time. Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice downplayed the results saying, 'P-to-p traffic doesn't necessarily follow normal traffic flows.'"
I'm paying for bandwidth, I should be able to use 100% of what I paid for. If their infrastructure can't handle it - maybe they should go back to selling tv.
But that does not address you blocking any of the traffic.
'P-to-p traffic doesn't necessarily follow normal traffic flows.'
Nope it sure doesn't when you implement layer 4 filtering and then configure it to block/messwith/"delay" p2p apps. Who knew?
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
Not all file sharing is thievery. What Comcast is doing IS highway robbery.
I don't really use BitTorrent much at all. Sure, I downloaded some HiDef video to test out content delivery over my home LAN from a server to my HDTV, but I don't scour the net for movies and music like I used to. I just don't have the time and interest.
However, I did just grab the new Nine Inch Nails album, and as a former musician myself, I still dabble in remixing on occasion. Thus, when I went to go grab the freely available multitracks for remixing, I was somewhat surprised that they were only available via Torrent. That's smart on the part of Trent Reznor and his tech team (why bog down only his own servers with information that he's freely sharing with everyone?), it's bad for other artists and remixers if their access to this media is going to be limited because of the "taint" associated with BitTorrent.
I'm not sure there's a solution here. Any distributed network will inevitably be used for some amount of "gray market" trafficking, but it would be nice if we preferred and promoted technologies for their Common Good usage rather than limiting them by their potential negative effects. And by "we" I mean the corporations who gouge us for $100 each month just to shuttle electrons around.
So just because there's a law against it, it's wrong?
In this day and age when most of the middle class doesn't give a fuck enough to vote with their dollars or otherwise, we techies do what we have to. If that means enabling everybody to steal from the big corporations that have been ripping everybody off for years, then so be it. I encourage everyone that I know to do the same.
World of Warcraft used torrents to patch the game when last i was playing. My ISP US Cable throttled the traffic severely and I always had to download the patch using other methods. There are many legitimate uses for torrents.
Limiting bittorrent because it can be used for illegal downloads is like scrambling epsn because people make illegal bets on football games.
That is correct, however BitTorrent is a much faster way to download it, when it is a new release of something popular such as Ubuntu, HTTP downloads are around 30KB/Second while torrents are around 200Kb/Second, therefore, there is little justification to not use BitTorrent when downloading large files, and when you figure that BitTorrent doesn't stress the servers of the project, it is a better choice in the long run too.
So yes you are right, but that's the theory. Let's look at the facts. There is more illegal software than legal software. And I am sure it is clogging the networks of Comcast and other network providers.
There is illegal software via HTTP and FTP too, in fact one might say that there is just as much via HTTP as via P2P. As for clogging the networks, the ISPs should have gotten more bandwidth before they offered higher speed Internet or at least have it in their advertising that they throttle P2P and certainly contracts. It would be like if I set up a huge pile of sand in my backyard, and I had people pay $40 per month to get as much sand as they wanted and it said so in the contract and through advertising. Of course some people only needed a bit of sand and took some home in buckets, others would take bigger ones. However, fearing that my sand would run out I poked holes in all of the larger buckets making them carry much less. People would have a right to be mad at me for promising unlimited sand and then limiting it. Same thing with the ISPs
Don't like, switch!
I don't know where you live, but here in the US there are about 3 main ISPs and most if not all have torrent throttling. Some of the more rural areas only have one way of getting high-speed internet and if you don't like that ISP it is either that or dial-up. And as for creating your own company, the grants the government/cities gave out to help get internet to the world, chances are won't be given again making it impossible to
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Oh please for the love of all that is holy, everyone stop using the "dont like it, switch" argument! Its common knowledge that the majority of US broadband users are only serviced by ONE company. Its simply not an option, and its getting old.
As to your other arguments to the legality and saturation of networks, your viewpoint is quite backwards. The fact of the matter is, its a precedent being set, that they can sell you "always on high speed access to the internet", but then dictate what you can and cannot do with it. A phone company that listened in on your phone calls, and then disconnected you because your conversation with your girlfriend wasn't deemed as important as a business call being handled by your neighbor is an apt description of whats going on here. We pay for access to something, we don't expect them to determine what is important to us and why we are going to use it.
If it boils down to a supply and demand issue, why doesn't it sort itself out the same way all other markets do? Do you see gas stations dictating where you can and cannot drive? No, they raise their prices and pass the cost of business to the customer. Its simple economics.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
Wow, the Parent Poster is a thief! To access *any* website (including /.) you need to download a copy of the files on the slashdot servers. Opps, score one for holistic generalizations!
Then again, the AC poster was obviously just trolling. No one is stupid enough to actually mean that.
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
The real reason that Apple, Adobe, and Microsoft don't spend a great deal of time going after pirated software is because they would quickly lose market share. Even if software is cheap, it's never going to be cheap enough for a college student eating Ramen and saving money for beer on the weekends. He's going to nab a copy of whatever he wants to putz around with, and mostly use it complete school work and personal creative projects.
If Adobe made it impossible for him to get an illegal copy of Photoshop, guess what? He'd learn something else. And when he arrives at his first job and they ask him which version of the Creative Suite he needs, he very well might say "That's alright - I know Gimp and Inkscape, and I already have them. Just get me a bigger monitor instead."
It's a nightmare scenario, and one of those things I wish they (Microsoft/Adobe/Autodesk/Apple) would be more honest about. I hope they do lock down Windows with DRM so it is nearly hackproof and rejects the installation of pirated software, because Linux would gain a few million users overnight. In the end, the best thing the OSS movement has going for it is the greed of the big guys, so here's to hoping they only get more delirious with it.
[...]
If your use profile doesn't conform to that estimate, for instance, if you're actually using a fairly constant bandwidth, then you need to upgrade your service to a plan that figures that in. Close, but not quite.
Consider what it actually means to have a "profile of an average user". The ISP knew from the start that some people would use their bandwidth in short bursts (e.g. web surfing). Others would use it in other ways, like watching YouTube or Netflix for hours at a time, or listening to internet radio. Some people would use it for P2P or gaming.
The "average user" profile comes from combining all those different user profiles together. Many people will use 1% of their available bandwidth, say, and a few will use 90%, and when you average them together according to how common you think those profiles will be, you decide that the average user will only use maybe 5% of the bandwidth they're paying for.
But everyone still fits into the picture. If you're the guy using 90% of your available bandwidth, that's fine, because the ISP already took you into account when they decided how much capacity to build. You're not obligated to hold back or switch to a different service: they knew there would be some number of people using a lot of bandwidth, who'd be balanced out by a much greater number of people using only a little.
Now, as time goes by, higher bandwidth applications like BitTorrent are getting more popular. That means the ISPs have to adapt, because their old estimates are no longer accurate. Instead of the "average user" using 5% of the bandwidth he's paying for, maybe now the average is 10%, so the ISP has to have twice as much capacity.
That's the risk of oversubscription: it only works as long as your estimate is accurate, and when actual use changes, you have to update your estimate and adjust your capacity. Again, they knew they were taking that risk when they chose to oversubscribe their lines.
Some ISPs want to have it both ways, though. They want to keep their oversubscription model, but they don't want to adjust their capacity to keep up with changing usage patterns, so instead they try to force their customers to comply with the old, outdated estimates. We shouldn't let them get away with it.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
But if demand is rising faster than they expected, and they have to raise their rates to maintain their network, then so be it! "Eating the loss" only goes so far before the company goes out of business and is replaced by a company that charges what their product is worth. You're asking for everyone else to subsidize YOUR usage ya filthy hippie. Huh? You must be thinking of someone else. I haven't asked for anyone to "eat the loss" or subsidize anything. Oh, and BTW, some of us knew what we were getting when we subscribed to our service like.. a decade ago. We knew we were paying for shared service, but we bought it anyway because it met our needs Yup. I think that describes all of us here.
I certainly know that I'm paying for shared service, and that the bandwidth they advertise might not always be available -- I don't call to complain about slow downloads or uploads, because I know they'll say "we don't guarantee anything" and they'll be right. But when that bandwidth is available, I expect to be able to use it.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.