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.'"

Comments

Re:Good

[SerpentMage]

That is not called justice. Its called taking the law into your own hands. And that is ILLEGAL...

Justice is not about getting your way. Justice is about protecting your rights whomever you may be.

And then there were laws created for the poor...

For example unions...

What you are doing is seeing only your side of the story.

Re:Good

[Swift Kick]

Your argument fails on a number of fronts, mostly because you come across as a petulant child who seems to think he/she's entitled to everything whenever he/she wishes.
Let's go in steps:

"... So tell me where else I can go, when I want to watch a movie right now, without going to a video store -- or maybe it's not even at the video store yet -- oh, and I want to watch it on Linux."

Contrary to what you may think, you do not have *the right* to watch a movie whenever you feel like it. You might have the *opportunity* to watch it when the movie studio decides to release it in theathers, DVD, or whatever method they choose, but it's at their leisure, not yours.
You wanting to watch it really bad and NOW! means absolutely nothing. Get that through your thick skull.

"The majority of movies come from a shockingly small number of studios. The majority of music comes from a shockingly small number of labels."

There are quite a few independent movie studious out there releasing hundreds of movies every year. The same is true with regards to music.
Now, maybe the movies *you* like are coming from a very limited number of studios, and the music *you* like is only coming from a small group of labels, but that doesn't mean that they should accomodate your pedantic wants. Maybe you just need to broaden your tastes a bit.

"Seriously, proposing a "piracy tax" on ISPs? If they already assume their customers are their enemies, then I really don't care."

It could be worse. In Canada, you're paying a 'piracy tax' on blank media like CD/DVD-Rs because they automatically assume you're going to use it for illicit purposes. Get over it.

"At the same time, Rosa Parks didn't wait for the law to change. Neither am I."

Comparing your plight for bootlegged movies and music to the struggles of civil rights icons just shows how much of a complete idiot you are.
Next time you feel the urge to type this type of comment, just don't. Open up a browser, go to Wikipedia or some other online reference, and educate yourself before inserting your foot so firmly into your mouth that your toes stick out of your asshole.

Re:Good

[Swift Kick]

"Your reading comprehension is pathetic, as long as we're trading ad-hominims."

*Sigh* What's with you people and calling everything an ad-hominem, when it plainly isn't? Do you actually think it makes you sound smarter than what you really are?
I *did* read your comment, and here are the staments that led me to the conclusion that you somehow feel entitled to obtain movies or music when and how you see fit (notice the bolded parts):

I don't consider $20 for a DRM'd (and thus defective) movie, or $30 for an even more heavily DRM'd (but hi-def and shiny!) movie, to be a reasonable price.
Now, rentals, I do consider to be reasonable prices -- but I'd much rather not have to actually go to the store. Netflix is a good idea, but their "watch now" service is heavily DRM'd."
I used to feel bad about it, yes. Then they started suing 12-year-old children, grandmothers, and dead people for $100/song. Now I really don't care.

I interpret those statements as "I don't think I should pay that much for something that has DRM, and I if I want to watch the movie/listen to the album now, I'll just go ahead and pirate it. I don't care if I'm screwing the bands or whatever, I pay my dues to the indy bands and I hate the RIAA because they're douchebags".
Isn't that essentially what you're saying? Tell if it isn't, because from here it certainly looks like that's it.

"Major studios and labels are finding that their business model is failing in the marketplace. They can't compete with "free" without drastically revamping their business model. Get over it."

Of course they cannot compete with "free". All it takes is one self-righteous idiot to come along, rip the album, upload it to a p2p service, and there goes any chance at potential revenue from album sales.
Funny how it's their problem that people are pirating music, and you don't seem to see anything wrong with what is, in essence, theft.
You'd be deceiving yourself if you believed that every person that downloads any album from a torrent will go out and buy it; some will, most won't. Heck, even Radiohead is not going to do the pay-what-you-think-is-fair bit anymore because as successful as their last album was, it wasn't *that* profitable for them. That's a *fact*.

"Well, you didn't read my post, I couldn't expect you to read the GP's."

I read your post, I read the GP, and most of the thread. That still doesn't invalidate my point that comparing the civil rights struggle of someone like Rosa Parks to whiny interweb nerds who want to freely spread copyrighted music and movies without repercussions or as some sort of 'protest' against RIAA's tactics a completely shameful action.

"Oh, by the way, notice how I was modded insightful, and you were modded troll?"

Yes, because we all know how awesome the /. moderation system works, specially when someone comments against the 'fashionable' opinion. In a way, it's more of a affirmation that I'm onto something, while you're spouting off the popular opinions of the 'whiny interweb nerds' I alluded to previously.

"This time, read my signature. Then read my comment. Then take a deep breath, take a walk, get some fresh air, and calm the fuck down.

I read your signature, that's why I took the time to reply to it. I think it's important to address rampant idiocy before it spirals out of control, but alas, it's too late.

"And then come back with something better than calling me a "petulant child" -- that's called an ad hominem, and using it is a flaw in your argument, not mine."

There you go again with the reference to ad hominem, this time with a link and all. Please. Stop.
To quote Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."