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.
It is horrible. My experience is that all of your internet traffic grinds to a halt while running a BitTorrent client for more than a couple hours. It takes forever to even load a web page. I usually have to kill my BitTorrent client and wait about five minutes for things to return to normal.
Not all file sharing is thievery. What Comcast is doing IS highway robbery.
So now I am not allowed to use my rights to download GPL'd software or public domain software now? Implying that P2P is all illegal copying is incorrect and makes you look misinformed. P2P can contain free-to-copy files along with not-free-to-copy files as can HTTP/FTP/Etc. So can CDs, Hard disks, Floppy Disks, Cassette Tapes, Flash drives, the list goes on and on. Just because some people use knives to kill people shouldn't mean that we have to now use forks to cut our meat.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
Now I shouldn't be defending them because I have Cox, but I'd just like to say I get anywhere from 30-300kBps when downloading torrents which is not terrible but ultimately lags far behind what I could get back in the urban area where my parents live that uses Bright House.
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.
better title: `cox blocks around the clocks`
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.