Slashdot Mirror


Beating Comcast's Sandvine On Linux With Iptables

HiroDeckard writes "Multiple sites reported a while ago that Comcast was using Sandvine to do TCP packet resets to throttle BitTorrent connections of their users. This practice may be a thing of the past as it's been found a simple rule in the Linux firewall, iptables, can simply just block their reset packets, returning your BitTorrent back to normal speeds and allowing you to once again connect to all your seeds and peer. If blocking the TCP packet resets becomes a common practice, on and off of Linux, it'll be interesting to see the next move in the cat-and-mouse game between customers and service providers, and who controls that bandwidth."

288 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. It's a trace buster buster buster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It'll bust their trace buster buster.

    1. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by Bohabo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Legal questions aside, is there some technical merit to using Sandvine instead of just blocking the packets? Is it less expensive to the ISP or something? I don't understand why they're doing it.

    2. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Straight-up blocking it is probably more clearly illegal than throttling.

    3. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by SolidAltar · · Score: 1

      Idea for a product:

      Make a small network device - maybe only 2 megs of RAM and a 100mz processor and load linux+iptables to do this for non-technical users.

      Something like the DSD-150 Internet Security Adapter. http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=1&pid=486 It's just a few inches square.

      Then Sandvine would be...useless.

    4. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Last time this came up for discussion, some people suggested that RST-injection was computationally easier than packet blocking, because it works on the connection level rather than the packet level.

      It still seems to me like you'd have to do quite a bit of DPI to determine which connections are being used for Bittorrent, but maybe you can identify a connection, send a forged RST packet, and then ignore the packets in that connection for a while (saving you load on the DPI box) for a while, maybe just until it closes.

      I'm not entirely clear how these Sandvine boxes work, but it seems like it would be easier to identify "okay, this connection is being used for x," "this connection is being used for Y," and then not have to pay more attention to them, than it would be to examine every single packet. That's where you get your cost reduction, I suspect.

      Sandvine has a few patents out there that probably describe in greater detail how their QoS tool works (and which I haven't read yet); apparently the QoS RST-forging are part of their "Stateful Policy Management" product.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    5. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by tomtomtom777 · · Score: 1

      Legal questions aside, is there some technical merit to using Sandvine instead of just blocking the packets? Is it less expensive to the ISP or something? I don't understand why they're doing it.

      Blocking the packets would simply cause the client to retry. Replying with a reset packet normally causes the client to give up, thus saving more bandwidth

      As a next step in the cat & mouse game, they'l probably start blocking packets in addition to the reset reply

    6. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by hatchet · · Score: 1

      If router just drops a packet, client will try to resend it. If client receives RST package, whole connection will close and it won't try to resend. Bittorrent will then (after some time) try to re-open the connection though.

    7. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "It still seems to me like you'd have to do quite a bit of DPI to determine which connections are being used for Bittorrent,"

      I think you don't even need to inspect the contents of the packets to detect torrent or other p2p.

      All I think you need is:

      If you see an IP with active connections to more than X different destinations with the connections lasting for more than > 15 seconds.

      Throttle/kill some connections.

      Make X larger for corporate users (put corps on a different network or IP range to make it easier).

      --
    8. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by Mix+Master+Nixon · · Score: 1

      You fucking win, sir. Now I'm off to return KING KONG LIVES.

      --
      Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
      --Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
    9. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Also, it's likely easier to have a device that monitors traffic only and analyzes it, sometimes injecting crap into the network in response with some not-too-stringent latency requirements, than to have a device that has to be inline and make drop/no-drop decisions with minimum latency.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    10. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Simple, don't do the DPI. Sandvine's appliance doesn't, it just does a basic traffic analysis. Not even the "more than N destinations" criteria mentioned in another response to your post - This is why there was a lot of collateral damage, such as some people being unable to send Lotus Notes mail with attachments larger than a certain size - Attempts to send such a message would trigger the Sandvine RST response 100% of the time, and unlike BT, Notes would have to restart from the beginning of the message.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    11. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1
    12. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by kilocomp · · Score: 2, Informative

      The reason for RST-Injection vs. packet blocking is simple.

      For packet blocking, the appliance has to know instantly whether to block a packet or allow it.

      For RST-Injection, the appliance can monitor a flow and spend some computing time deciding whether or not to inject a reset.

      The time an appliance has to decide whether to throttle changes from microseconds to milliseconds or possibly even seconds.

    13. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by Morty · · Score: 1

      Forging packets is better than blocking, when it works, because it can be done out-of-band. If you block the flow, you have to put the logic into an in-band device -- a router or switch that's passing the traffic. If you do it out-of-band, you can have some external device make the determination based on a tap or netflow export, and forge packets, without needing to add load or functionality to your in-band devices. [Adding a netflow export may be an additional load, but the netflow exports can then be used by multiple apps, so you can only pay the cost once for many apps.]

    14. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by RaceCarDriver · · Score: 1

      Straight-up blocking it is probably more clearly illegal than throttling.

      I doubt that. Cable ISPs already block most common inbound ports, such as 80 and 25.

    15. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by LrdDimwit · · Score: 1

      More clearly illegal than traffic forging? Traffic forging to create bogus traffic in the name not only of the subscriber, but the other party (with whom Comcast has no contractual relationship, and thus, no waiver)? If anything I would say straight-up blocking is clearly less illegal, not more.

    16. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by mi · · Score: 1

      Which law do you suppose either method violates? Contractual obligations, perhaps? But contracts have anti-P2P provisions already in them — it is the file-sharing customers, who are doing "illegal" things, if anybody...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    17. Re:It's a trace buster buster buster by Blufar · · Score: 1

      I used the method in the article on my buffalo router with the Tomato firmware. I used the non red-hat version under Administration>Scripts>Init. I rebooted the router and I could upload at max w/o bittorrent crapping out on me. There were some other side effects from using that too. Before, if I would leave utorrent at max, even with QoS enabled on my router and bittorrent set to lowest priority, it would seem like the cable modem connection was flooded with connections until I had to reset the router to clear up the problem. This never happens now. Just recently Comcast seems to be doing throttling based on port usage alone. Ex.: bittorrent connections were being dropped within seconds of connecting. changed my port, and the problem went away.

  2. When comments become articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wasn't this solution posted in the first few comments when this was first reported as happening.

    1. Re:When comments become articles by Misanthrope · · Score: 5, Informative

      I posted the kludge last time this got mentioned, I'm rather amused that this actually got posted again
      http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=591167&cid=23888479

  3. Tag: !news by Mr2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This trick has been around for a while, hasn't it?

    The problem is, you can only filter out the RST packets on your end of the connection. But Sandvine also sends RSTs to the other end of the connection. That means it isn't enough for you to be running this iptables rule - all the peers you connect to have to be running it too.

    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    1. Re:Tag: !news by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not just that, but it filters out RST packets that may in fact have been sent by the peer. So this trick can leave you with sockets hanging open in a bad state.

    2. Re:Tag: !news by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      'Sandvine also sends RSTs to the other end of the connection. That means it isn't enough for you to be running this iptables rule - all the peers you connect to have to be running it too.'

        Isn't that your ISP committing fraud? Altering a private communication with the intent of disrupting it, or the very least it's the 'ISP' impersonating you and also the other party.

    3. Re:Tag: !news by JDizzy · · Score: 1

      interesting.

      So then, it seems that p2p firewall rules may come to be. I mean synchronized rules between nodes.

      --
      It isn't a lie if you belive it.
    4. Re:Tag: !news by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it shouldn't be hard to only drop RST packets forget by comcast. It's not hard to identify a fingerprint of the packet, either by the TTL, sequence, or something, on the RST packets that's uniq to comcast forged packets.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    5. Re:Tag: !news by cryptoluddite · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is, you can only filter out the RST packets on your end of the connection.

      That's only a temporary problem. The real problem -- for the ISPs -- is that the same software is running on each end of a p2p, so all of their efforts are guaranteed to fail eventually.

      For instance, p2p programs can start using UDP spread spectrum... pass packets on random ports. The receiver then basically implements a quick and dirty tcp-like connection over this (ie much worse for an ISP than actual TCP). Add encryption and random length so it's harder to filter out. Or there can be a shared random number seed for the shared ports. Just for example...

      There's probably some computer science or information theory law stating this, but they can't ultimately reduce the targeted traffic by more than the loss from encoding it as 'normal' traffic. For instance, if they limit torrents to 100k/s and the loss is 33% from 'base64' encoding the data as some kind of an html-ish doc then if normal web pages get more than 133k/s then torrents would be faster encoding them as 'normal' traffic.

      ... then they have to try to figure out what are real web pages/servers and what are really some other protocol pretending.

    6. Re:Tag: !news by thermian · · Score: 1

      well then what we will most likely see is support for blocking these packets becoming a standard feature of bittorrent clients

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    7. Re:Tag: !news by bytesex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In short, it's an arms race; both parties are equally equipped and both parties care none for the collateral. And the first rule of arms races is that whoever started it, lost.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    8. Re:Tag: !news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is not entirely true; both parties are not equally equipped. The ISP has to do a whole lot of filtering with a minimum of resources, because resources (CPU, memory) are expensive, while the users they are up against have a lot of idle CPU time and free memory to use.

      (posting as AC because I already moderated)

    9. Re:Tag: !news by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      I believe this has been the basis of 1-2 lawsuit attempts against Comcast.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    10. Re:Tag: !news by SwordsmanLuke · · Score: 1

      Blaspheme!!!11!!1

      ..Okay, uh, Zeus sucks?

      --
      Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
    11. Re:Tag: !news by stickyc · · Score: 1
      For instance, p2p programs can start using UDP spread spectrum... pass packets on random ports. The receiver then basically implements a quick and dirty tcp-like connection over this (ie much worse for an ISP than actual TCP). Add encryption and random length so it's harder to filter out. Or there can be a shared random number seed for the shared ports. Just for example...

      Hopefully, when BT clients implement this, it'll be a checkbox in Options labeled "Comcastic".

  4. Already slashdotted... by AllIGotWasThisNick · · Score: 1

    Not even a first post.

    1. Re:Already slashdotted... by MadTinfoilHatter · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's a link to Google's cache of the article.

  5. Sandvine? by cbrocious · · Score: 4, Funny

    I heard it through the sandvine.

    --
    Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
    1. Re:Sandvine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      I'll bet you're wondering how I knew,
      Why my packets never made it through,
      With some other peer I was sharin' files,
      Between the two of us Comcast was runnin' wild,
      Reset me by surprise (reset by surprise), I'm afraid,
      From the R-I-Double-A,
      Don'tcha know,

      I heard it through the sandvine.



      Not much bandwidth's gonna be mine.
      Oh, I heard it through the sandvine...
      Oh, I'm just about to lose my mind,
      Honey, honey, yeah...

      I know a geek ain't supposed to cry,
      But these fears I can't hold inside,
      Losin' the 'net and it's neutrality,
      Yeah, it means that much to me,
      You coulda told me (you coulda told) yourself,
      That you're forgin' packets for someone else,

      Instead I heard it through the sandvine...
      Not much bandwidth's gonna be mine.
      Oh, I heard it through the sandvine...
      Oh, I'm just about to lose my mind,
      Honey, honey, yeah...

      People say "Believe half of what you see,
      Son, and none of what you hear",
      But my router's mighty confused,
      So if it's true, please tell me dear,
      Do you want (do you want) to make me go,
      Back to the ISP (and USENET feed) I used before,

      Or should I drop packets from your sandvine...
      Plenty bandwidth's gonna be mine.
      Oh, I don't listen to your sandvine...
      MPAA's 'bout to lose its mind,
      Honey, honey, yeah...

      - Original work, composed under the influence of Slashdot and beer. Lyrics in public domain. Someone with vocal talent, feel free to improve, record, and youtube it as a parody under the fair use exemptions.

    2. Re:Sandvine? by KGIII · · Score: 4, Funny

      My wife has me drinking boxed wine. *shivers but drinks it anyhow* Now, someone mod this one up, a billion times, as +6 Funny +10 Funny While Drinking.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:Sandvine? by thermian · · Score: 1

      Your insanely witty and funny sig has made me think you are very smart.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    4. Re:Sandvine? by drew · · Score: 1

      Boxed wine doesn't have to be bad. It just has a bad reputation because for a long time, only really cheap wines were sold in boxes. The advantage of boxed wine is that it will stay good for a lot longer after it's opened, and the packaging is more economical. My wife and I started drinking Black Box a while ago. It's about the same quality as what we drank before, it's slightly cheaper, and it lasts a lot longer because we don't feel the need to finish off the bottle. We still keep a couple of bottles around for when we think that we will finish of the whole thing in one night, but if we just want a glass with dinner, we tend to stick to the box. (Well, before she was pregnant, anyway. There's not a whole lot of wine drinking going on at our house anymore.)

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  6. Good, but shouldn't be necessary by corsec67 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While it is good that it is easy to ignore reset packets that were created by the ISP, the question still remains:

    Why should we have to block forged packets made by the ISP? If the MAFIAA suits are banking on IP == identity, and the ISP is forging packets with an IP that doesn't belong to any computer they own, isn't that a fairly serious form of forgery?

    And, wow that site went down fast.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    1. Re:Good, but shouldn't be necessary by Macman408 · · Score: 3, Funny

      And, wow that site went down fast.

      Nah, your ISP just sent a RST to both ends as soon as the connection was established.

    2. Re:Good, but shouldn't be necessary by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the MAFIAA suits are banking on IP == identity, and the ISP is forging packets with an IP that doesn't belong to any computer they own, isn't that a fairly serious form of forgery?



      Yet another reason why anyone who knows anything about computers and networks have been saying the **AA's methods of identification are a complete joke and don't amount to anything that could be considered evidence.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    3. Re:Good, but shouldn't be necessary by Repossessed · · Score: 2, Informative

      The law in my state (Utah) includes the following:

      (4) A person who intentionally or knowingly and without authorization, interferes with or interrupts computer services to another authorized to receive the services is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

      (Misdemeanors for the same offense stack until they become felonies in Utah, not sure what it works out to for class As though)

      (3) Any person is guilty of a second degree felony who:
                (a) knowingly and unlawfully possesses an instrument capable of intercepting electronic serial number and mobile identification number combinations under circumstances evidencing an intent to clone;

      (definition of electronic serial number is sketchy here, cloning is the electronic kind, interestingly, this also makes my router quite illegal (though as a misdemeanor, as I do not have intent to use), since it supports mac address cloning)

      (1) A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, in the course of business, he:
            (c) sells, offers, or exposes for sale adulterated or mislabeled commodities.
      (2) (a) "Adulterated" means varying from the standard of composition or quality prescribed, or pursuant to any statute providing criminal penalties for a variance, or set by established commercial usage.
            (b) "Mislabeled" means varying from the standard of truth or disclosure in labeling prescribed by or pursuant to any statute providing criminal penalties for a variance, or set by established commercial usage.

      IANAL, or a paralegal, the state code may not reflect case law, and the judge may not care what the law is at all, your state will likely have something completely different. I also point out that I long since lost track of the number of felonies and misdemeanors I've racked up in my state's legal code. (which is annoying, since I need to add owning my router to it)

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
  7. It doesn't matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It doesn't matter what it is, it'll be worse, more draconian, and will still be subverted quickly.
    ISPs (and many other certain groups) need to realize that they have already lost, and will lose, ad infinitum. The fight will only cause hemorrhaging of even more customers.

  8. Port 25 by bwave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now if we could just find away to get around them blocking port 25! Pretty inconvienent for those who need to send work email from home.

    1. Re:Port 25 by PIBM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Easy.

      Get a real ISP.

    2. Re:Port 25 by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Now if we could just find away to get around them blocking port 25!

      Try using port 587 or better still, 465 (with SSL/TLS)

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Port 25 by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shouldn't you be using port 587 for that?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:Port 25 by awdau · · Score: 2, Informative

      All _decent_ mail servers allow for the submission of email on TCP port 587. So you could send your work emails that way.
      Or VPN into work and send emails that way.
      Or even use your ISP's mail server to send the emails (though you might be hit an obstacle like SPF).

    5. Re:Port 25 by bwave · · Score: 1

      My only two choices are Comcast and Verizon Wireless. (not dsl) Both are $60 a month, but Comcast is 8mbps/2mbps vs. 144kbps max.

    6. Re:Port 25 by bwave · · Score: 1

      Ok, but SMTP is a standard. Why purposedly block part of the Internet? What's next, block port 587? How about we block traffic from 00:00 to 08:00 everyday? Sure, I can use webmail or remote login another machine to send mail, but why should I have to?

    7. Re:Port 25 by SolidAltar · · Score: 1

      >Ok, but SMTP is a standard. Why purposedly block part of the Internet?

      Correct me if I'm wrong but dont viruses that infect consumer PCs use them as spam relays? Blocking port 25 on consumer IP ranges helps solve this problem, right?

      Blocking port 25 is an entirely responsible measure by an ISP and I fully support it. AS LONG as there is a way to OPT-OUT of the blocking. If not they are just dicking around with my connection.

    8. Re:Port 25 by socsoc · · Score: 1

      I agree. Block it on consumer ranges and let people ask for access (and give it to them). I'd think that most people who want access also know the possible repercussions. It's the spammy virus from grandma clicking on spyware that they are wanting to block and kudos to them for doing so.

      This is why most corporate networks block port 25, except from the mail server. Seems to be along similar lines...

    9. Re:Port 25 by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Port 587 is used (or should be used) for authenticated SMTP only. No correctly-configured mailserver should accept un-authenticated connections on 587. That's what makes it different from Port 25.

      Since no server should accept email from just anyone on port 587, there's no reason to block outgoing connections from it. It's not used for MTA-MTA relay, just MUA to MTA. You can try to spew all the spam you want from it, but you shouldn't really get anywhere.

      The problem is that for email to function in its current form, MTAs have to accept incoming mail from other MTAs (for their users, not as open relays, obviously) somehow. Although it would be better to just fix email somehow, that's not happening. It's easier to just decide that certain network regions shouldn't be running MTAs and block any attempt they make at connecting and sending mail directly to the recipient's MTA.

      Although I agree that this is a crappy solution, it's a moderately effective one and it's necessary given the crummy email system we have to work with. It would be great if we could just scrap email and start over with something fresh, but that's not happening. We're stuck with it and blocking port 25 on residential networks, forcing people instead onto 587, is a moderate stopgap.

      Anyone wanting to run their own MTA from within a residential subnet ought to know how to configure a smarthost and connect to a real (running outside of a residential network) MTA on 587 anyway. If someone doesn't, they probably shouldn't be running an MTA.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    10. Re:Port 25 by EdIII · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not sure what you mean by sending work email from home.

      If you mean your ability to establish a connection with a corporate mail server not located on your ISP's network, then port 25 is unnecessary. You should use port 465 with SSL instead. Problem solved since no ISP ever blocks port 465 in any direction. At least not that I am aware of.

      If you mean your ability to run a mail server at your house, then your shit out of luck period. There are a large number of mail servers now that use policy block lists. Every ISP publishes their policy block lists which includes your IP address range. The moment your mail server tries to establish a connection to another mail server using this block list your packets could be dropped right at the router, or your connection terminated by the mail server itself.

      Now as upsetting as that might be, it really is for the greater good. The vast majority of all the SPAM being sent every day comes from compromised windows machines on dynamic IP address ranges. Using the policy block list is very effective at immediately stopping those communications from ever reaching the mail server.

      If you are absolutely determined to run your own mail server from home I would suggest getting a static IP address. Not only will port 25 not be blocked, but you will have a MUCH BETTER chance of your packets not being dropped by routers servicing the mail servers you will be sending email to.

      Another option, depending on the amount of money you want to spend, is to retain the services of an email services provider. There are more than a few out there. You can use your own domain and they will host it for you. They can also provide a fair amount of security and usually are more reliable in getting the email to the destination.

      Additionally, you could always get a virtual server someplace and run your own mail server software on it. They have linux and microsoft systems available pretty cheaply. Then you would be operating on IP address ranges used by big ISPs and data centers.

    11. Re:Port 25 by houghi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Problem solved since no ISP ever blocks port 465 in any direction. At least not that I am aware of.

      In Belgium at least 1 provider (Telenet) blocks everything below port 1024 for standard customers.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:Port 25 by tepples · · Score: 1

      Get a real ISP.

      Other than the phone company, resellers of the phone company, and the cable company, which ISP do you recommend for home customers?

    13. Re:Port 25 by domatic · · Score: 1

      Thanks to all the "home users" trying to send my workplaces email unblocking 25 wouldn't help you anyway. As far as I'm concerned, if it comes from residential IP space then it is spam unless an exception has been made otherwise.

    14. Re:Port 25 by PIBM · · Score: 1

      Here, on DSL only, I have 7 resellers, 5 of them offering no contracts, no limits and no blocked port, 3 of them with no activation fees, at 6MB / 800k for amounts from 25$ (can) to 40$. It just depend if you want the extra anti-virus tool, a wireless modem+router package or things like this.

      On cable we have 2 resellers, only 1 without port limits, but both with month download limit, so they aren't interesting.

      Since I'm in a small place compared to the USA, that my previous small village (less than 4k poeple living there) had similar offers, it's hard to beleive you could not find such thing in the US, it's more a matter of searching the right places.

      Yes, I initially took the big ISP, and got burned with the limitations they had put on their seemingly unlimited offering. I used that to get out of the contract, and then I investigated much more deeply before chosing my next company, and it was worth it. I also don't have any of the deep packet inspection trouble that my friends have with torrents, even without using any encryption =)

    15. Re:Port 25 by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      I'm fine with it as far as, if and when you request it, they unblock it for your PPPoE login.

      That would pretty much do away with the spam zombie problem.

    16. Re:Port 25 by manly_15 · · Score: 1

      Actually, port 465 is not the correct port to use. If you maintain a mail server, you should switch it to the official SMTP submission port, 587.

      http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2476.txt (see section 3.1)

    17. Re:Port 25 by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I would not go so far as to say it is not correct. 465 is typically the default secure port for SMTP. 465 is also more supported by various email clients out there IMO.

      Although, you can try and set a client to use 587 instead that is not as well supported by most mail servers/clients.

      If you do maintain a mail server than I would agree that you should require your users to use a port other than 25 and should provide support for both 465 and 587.

      Maybe you would prefer 587 over 465 for use as MSA/MUA, but I don't think that makes 465 wrong. They are both secure forms of SMTP submission and since they are primarily used for clients to submit outbound email through their mail server, there is a less of a chance of being blocked by their ISP.

  9. This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now he needs to add a rule to iptables to save the webserver from the Slashdot effect.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  10. Usenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well if you are doing something illegal (like downloading music from bands under the RIAA), not that I condone it, but Usenet would be the best choice.

    First of all your provider probably doesn't throttle downloads. Second of all your IP doesn't get sent out to everyone and their mother, the only people that know it are your ISP and Usenet provider.

    tl;dr: Usenet binary groups FTW

    1. Re:Usenet by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 5, Funny

      The first rule of Usenet is, you do not talk about usenet.
      The second rule of Usenet it, YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT USENET.

      Fscking n00bs.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:Usenet by enoz · · Score: 1

      But wouldn't it be much easier for law enforcement to get your ISP or your Usenet provider to cough up your usage logs than if you were using BitTorrent (with DHT and Encryption)?

    3. Re:Usenet by Drgnkght · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but they need to know they should ask for it.

    4. Re:Usenet by base3 · · Score: 1

      This assumes they won't be able to just get wholesale access to all the Usenet providers' logs. You know, for the children, but while they're there, they can't just ignore all that copyright infringement, no? Of course, the first dragnet prosecution of a Usenet provider's customers would be the end of that provider's customer base, so they won't give it all up without a fight--but the thin end of the wedge is already in.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    5. Re:Usenet by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      Well if you are doing something illegal (like downloading music from bands under the RIAA), not that I condone it, but Usenet would be the best choice.

      First of all your provider probably doesn't throttle downloads. Second of all your IP doesn't get sent out to everyone and their mother, the only people that know it are your ISP and Usenet provider.

      tl;dr: Usenet binary groups FTW

      Forget downloading RIAA music, I don't even condone listening to RIAA music. Its their IP and I really wish they would do us a favor and keep it ALL to themselves.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  11. IPFW version or macosx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Is there a version of this what works for IPFW or other way to do it on mac osx

  12. I wonder if they will simply start disconnecting. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if they will just say that blocking their RST Packets is a violation of TOS and disconnect you.

  13. Article \.'ed by poormanjoe · · Score: 1, Informative

    Related link here.

    --
    I want to be retired when I grow up.
  14. Which rule? by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    I'd like to know which rule does the magic. Can some one please paste one here....thanks.

    1. Re:Which rule? by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Rule #6.

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    2. Re:Which rule? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you are tired of Sandvine (the application used by Comcast to throttle Bit Torrent with fake TCP packet resets) screwing with your BitTorrent and a user of GNU/Linux, then this is for you. I will tell you how to take your bandwidth back.

      If you are using a Red Hat Linux derivative, such as Fedora Core or CentOS, then you will want to edit /etc/sysconfig/iptables. First, make a backup of this file. Next, open this file in your favorite text editor. Replace the current contents with this, substituting 6883 with your BitTorrent port number:

      *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
      -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT
      #Comcast BitTorrent seeding block workaround
      -A INPUT -p tcp -dport 6883 -tcp-flags RST RST -j DROP
      -A INPUT -m state -state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
      #BitTorrent
      -A INPUT -m state -state NEW -m tcp -p tcp -dport 6883 -j ACCEPT
      -A INPUT -m state -state NEW -m udp -p udp -dport 6883 -j ACCEPT
      -A INPUT -j REJECT -reject-with icmp-host-prohibited
      COMMIT

      Reload your iptables firewall with service iptables restart. You should now see a great improvement in your seeding.

      If you are using Ubuntu or another non-Red Hat Linux derivative, then place the following in a file and execute that file as root.

      #!/bin/sh
      #Replace 6883 with you BT port
      BT_PORT=6883

      #Flush the filters
      iptables -F

      #Apply new filters
      iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT
      #Comcast BitTorrent seeding block workaround
      iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -dport $BT_PORT -tcp-flags RST RST -j DROP
      iptables -A INPUT -m state -state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
      #BitTorrent
      iptables -A INPUT -m state -state NEW -m tcp -p tcp -dport $BT_PORT -j ACCEPT
      iptables -A INPUT -m state -state NEW -m udp -p udp -dport $BT_PORT -j ACCEPT
      iptables -A INPUT -j REJECT -reject-with icmp-host-prohibited

      Your firewall is now configured and you should have great upload speed now. You will have to run this script every boot, by the way. One easy way is to call the script at the end of /etc/rc.local.

    3. Re:Which rule? by spoop · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've had this command in my WRT54GL running DD-WRT for a while: iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 39984 --tcp-flags RST RST -j DROP just replace 39984 with whatever post you use for bittorrent

      --
      I blame geof's speakers.
    4. Re:Which rule? by madsenj37 · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
    5. Re:Which rule? by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      This information is incorrect for Ubuntu users. The errors are many and varied in this script. For instance, he states

      BT_PORT=6883. BT_PORT=6883 will generate a script error.

      He states: iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -dport $BT_PORT -tcp-flags RST RST -j DROP

      The -dport is wrong. It should be --dport.

      The -tcp-flags is wrong. It should be --tcp-flags

      For instances he states: iptables -A INPUT -m state -state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT

      The ESTABLISHED,RELATED are unrecognized by iptables.

      Obviously he was in a rush to get this written down and he didn't recheck his work. Maybe it works for older versions of iptables. It's hard to say why he wrote such a madly erroneous script.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  15. First it was email and spam, then it was content.. by kandresen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no more good reasons and not any easier for the ISP's to block or rate limit our web-use than it is to centrally control spam. People are different, and have different needs plain and square.

    Who should have priority, and how to determine it? I can guarantee that if it is a packet flag, then spammers, virus writers, and even bit torrent users will find a way to use it. And regardless, consider the following:

    - Which priority should online Live football have from site X? Should it have over the one from site Y, and Z, and the 1000+ others with different commentators and different languages?
    - What if you rather wanted live games? Or Live online music concerts? What should have higher priority?
    - What about your live online video rentals - stream from Netflix over one from Blockbuster or should maybe your own ISP be allowed to rate limit all the competition to sell their own?
    - What about my VoIP from Skype over Vonage, Gizmo, Provider X,Y,Z?
    - What about Online games from Xbox 360 above Playstation 3?

    Who are to set the priorities? How on earth should the ISP know what my priorities are? How on earth should the football channel know they should not send with highest priority flags?

    And there is also a much easier way that leaves the internet neutral:
    As with e-mail spam filtering - let the settings be neutral from the ISP side, then let us set up our own profile or custom rules for the downstream traffic.

  16. encryption by socsoc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a Comcast customer, I've never had my torrents completely stop, they just go around 300k... I did notice a speed increase when I chose to encrypt the traffic (uTorrent has it under Speed Guide).

    Comcast is evil and I want them to DIAF, but my torrents, which are legal, haven't been that impacted.

    When I want fast, I use the Comcast sponsored newsgroups through Giganews.

    1. Re:encryption by Uther_Dark · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Comcrap is all that's available in my area, we won't see them (or other ISP's) using this practice cut it back till there is more competition...and in my area, we won't get any for a long time. Makes me yearn for the days of the BBS...

    2. Re:Encryption by profplump · · Score: 1

      My guess is they match the tracker exchanges to flag your IP, as most trackers are not encrypted even if the transfer traffic itself is. Then they send resets for any connection to/from your IP that they can't identify at "allowed" for the next 15 minutes or so. If I'm right it's not quite as bad as just resetting streams willy-nilly, but it's pretty close, particular if you run non-standard network applications.

    3. Re:encryption by imunfair · · Score: 1

      I can verify that at a certain point torrents stopped working completely for me on Comcast, but then I checked the box to encrypt connections and they started working again. (I first noticed it trying to bittorrent a linux distro)

      Also, another weird and possibly related phenomenon - BT clients used to freeze up my computer. It was random and didn't matter if I had the rates throttled (though it seemed worse if I didn't throttle). Any client would do it. Since turning on encrypted connections BT has not frozen my computer a single time. Maybe they've been inhibiting the transfers in other ways for a long time and no one realized it. (or it could just be a freak technical coincidence - who knows)

      If anyone can think of reasons why that would happen, I'd be quite interested. I thought maybe it was a router issue but it doesn't seem like that should cause the entire computer to hang even with hung/dropped connections.

    4. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because encryption CAN'T encrypt the packet headers, or every box on the net would have to decrypt it to find out who it's for. Only the data itself is encrypted.

      This is also how classic traffic analysis works, as in WW II radio traffic -- the to and from addresses are not encrypted, otherwise every listening radio would have to decrypt every single message to see which ones are fo it, and that is way too much work in those pre-computer days.

  17. Exactly. by plasmacutter · · Score: 5, Informative

    I noticed my WoW connection suddenly became unstable at the beginning of the month.

    I implemented similar firewall rules on my mac and the instability was cut in half.

    Guess the other half is being forged to the blizzard servers.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I implemented similar firewall rules on my mac and the instability was cut in half.

      Maybe you should ignore RST only on specific port ranges...

      Just a thought.

    2. Re:Exactly. by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      I did. I did some digging, found which ports the WoW client uses, and set ignore rules on only those ports.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    3. Re:Exactly. by d0nster · · Score: 1

      Doesn't WoW use Bittorrent for distributing updates?

  18. Re:I wonder if they will simply start disconnectin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, they could have just kicked you for using bittorrent in the first place, if they wanted to.

    But they want your money.

    They were hoping they could slow down bittorrent enough to not cause anyone to leave, but still get an under the table payoff from the *AA groups. I'm sure they'll keep tweaking and keep watching their subscription numbers.

  19. Re:First it was email and spam, then it was conten by kandresen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    By the way - While onto it - if they are to ratelimit live sports events and do on, they MUST prioritize the version for hearing impaired which have a square with a commentator speaking in sign language in the corner ABOVE the one for the rest. This simply because it is illegal to discriminate against hearing impaired and everyone is able to see the screen even though a part of it might not be of such interest to most of us. Of course - if the hearing impaired could set these option themselves, then we don't need to degrade the performance for those not hearing impaired neither.

  20. Re:Piracy is wrong - plain and simple by Jesus_666 · · Score: 4, Funny

    And not just IP! When I'm done stealing IP I'll steal BGP and ICMP!

    The internet will be mine, mine! Mwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  21. The ISP is a hacker! by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1

    In any kind of digital dialogue between computers over the Internet, a third party may send packets that are either malformed or are valid but are not part of the conversation. This is done to cause a number of effects that are not desired by the communicating parties. A common example is an attempt to break in to a system. Another example is the classic man-in-the-middle attack. Yet another example is the denial of service attack, which can take many forms.

    Perhaps by shifting our thinking a bit, we'll find that these reset packets sent by ISPs to throttle certain types of connections represent the latter form of third party communication, designed to achieve denial of service! The ISP, then, is a "hacker" (for the mass media and Joe Luser definition of "hacker").

    --
    McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
  22. Re:Non-issue by destruk · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I downloaded Fedora Linux in about 3 hours - 4 cdr's, with bit torrent. And that old Diablo game demo was on bit torrent too - free/shareware variety. It seems they didn't mess with the bandwidth for those at all.

  23. My experience by jimmyhat3939 · · Score: 1
    Back a few years ago I did a lot of BT downloading. More recently, my only experience was in downloading a copy of Fedora 9. Surprisingly, Comcast was even hitting me with this RST garbage on that download. Pretty tiresome. If they're going to filter BT at least they could provide us some way to identify our transfers as "legitimate."

    Not to mention the fact that, seeing as I do very little BT, why did they target me so quickly?

    --
    Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
    1. Re:My experience by the_womble · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that they are slowing down BT because they want to stop you breaching someone else's (not their) copyrights. They are slowing it down because BT can use a a lot of bandwidth, which costs them money.

    2. Re:My experience by SaDan · · Score: 1

      I used to work for a wireless ISP, and BT doesn't even come close to the amount of bandwidth I saw for HTTP. Think YouTube and streaming porn.

      Anyways, some of our wireless equipment didn't like the number of connections that BT ended up using from time to time. This is probably common to at least some equipment at most ISPs.

      I'm on Comcast now, and I haven't seen too many issues with BT downloads or uploads. I only allow 20 or less connections, and throttle my client's upload and download bandwidth settings. No fancy tricks outside of the client rate limiting.

    3. Re:My experience by SaDan · · Score: 1

      Oh, also... Speaking from experience at the same ISP (and this may not apply to all ISPs), but it didn't matter how much bandwidth we used, we got charged the same every month for our connection (several DS3s).

      Now, if we managed to saturate that connection, we'd see performance drops on our network, and you'd have people calling in complaining about latency on WoW or speeds in general.

      I think the argument that BT costs more money doesn't hold up in most cases. When you are getting DS3 or better connections, you get charged the same amount for the line whether you have a router connected and pushing traffic or not. At least, that's how it works around here (midwest USA).

  24. Usenet is over by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

    Maybe you missed the recent news that several large ISPs are shutting down Usenet service. You can always pay for Usenet, but why pay for warez?

    1. Re:Usenet is over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      but why pay for warez?

      Because they're better/more usable than the real thing?

  25. This is why you select a specific port.... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 5, Informative

    As my subject says. This is why you only put the filter on the specific port you are using for P2P traffic. For instance, my rule is as follows:

    iptables -I FORWARD 3 -p tcp --dport 36745 --tcp-flags RST RST -j DROP;

    The above does what it says, drop TCP RST packets on port 36745. That is all you need to do to keep it from affecting your other network applications which may be getting legit reset packets.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:This is why you select a specific port.... by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your comment seems to imply that no bittorrent peer will ever need to RST the connection, which is not generally true.

    2. Re:This is why you select a specific port.... by darkonc · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Well, if you're getting bitten by ComCast (or other e.g. Canadian) ISPs that are resetting connections, then it's probably better to leave connections open that shouldn't be than to close connections that should stay open.

      It's a response to a violation of the TCP protocol to begin with, so it's not surprising that it has some negative side effects.

      Probably the best thing to do would be to build a filter that registers the presence of the RST packet and waits to see if you get more data from the site that supposedly sent it.
      * If the site that the RST packet supposedly came from continues to act like it's got an open session, then you can ignore the RST as a forgery.
      * If you have no more non-closure packets after the RST, then you can apply an aggressive timeout and then deliver the RST after 2-3 seconds of silence.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    3. Re:This is why you select a specific port.... by baeksu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No good medicine comes without side effects.

      It is my understanding that these false resets cause much more serious disruption than leaving connections open, so you are still coming out ahead.

      --
      Gnome: A never ending quest to make unix friendly to people who don't want unix and excruciating for those that do.
    4. Re:This is why you select a specific port.... by emc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Although, I've never had this issue and am not a Comcast customer...

      I'd assume that the RST coming from Comcast would probably have a different TTL than a legitimate RST.. As a matter of fact, all the RST coming from Comcast would probably have the same TTL.

      Anyone looked into this?

    5. Re:This is why you select a specific port.... by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      This is a great point. Mod Parent "Interesting" please. This has me curious.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    6. Re:This is why you select a specific port.... by Heidistein · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wonder, what happens if you just always drop the first TCP-RST packet? Just wait for a second rst packet and act on that? You should send a RST-ACK after a RST, if you dont the peer on the other side will think something went wrong and will send another RST packet. I guess the comcast box isn't that smart (yet)... Is this possible with the iptables rules already, or must there be written a new module alike 'mod_conntrack_bad_isp' ;-)

    7. Re:This is why you select a specific port.... by dfn_deux · · Score: 2, Interesting
      An interesting question to be sure, but then again once you've settled on TTL as a mode of detection then what is to stop comcast from obfuscating that information with a cooked tcp stack? They control all the packets which come to you, by introducing a jitter to some "innocuous packet encapsulation data" they could both come out on top in the cat/mouse game and if challenged by a court might be cutting close enough to the line between what part of the transmission is required to be carried by a common carrier and what portion is guaranteed the burdens of protection inherint in the common carrier system. I.E. Is jittering frame info more akin to phone company using lossy compression schemes on voice transmissions in order to facilitate proper utilization OR is it more akin to them altering the message of the conversation, something which would clearly be illegal.

      Just some idle thoughts...

      --
      -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
    8. Re:This is why you select a specific port.... by sega01 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That it is a great idea. Combined with only dropping RST packets for your torrent port you could have it match a specific TTL as well. Try this: iptables -I FORWARD 3 -p tcp --dport 36745 --tcp-flags RST RST -ttl-eq $EVILISPTTL -j DROP

    9. Re:This is why you select a specific port.... by kilocomp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This was an initial way researchers detected forged resets. And it still works for some appliances (think snort), but most appliances ISPs use forge TTL now.

      The appliance is seeing everything including TTL, so it is rather trivial for these devices to forge it on top of everything else it forges.

      One idea being played around with is looking at the arrival time of the reset. A much harder analysis, but a much harder thing for the appliance to control.

    10. Re:This is why you select a specific port.... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      ... OR is it more akin to them altering the message of the conversation, something which would clearly be illegal.

      An idle thought I've had about this fuss is that the ISPs are ostensibly selling "internet access". But they don't ever seem to explain just what that means. If this phrase means anything at all, it should mean that they implement the published IP protocol, either IPv4 or IPv6. Injecting bogus packets into an IP packet stream would seem to be an outright violation of the appropriate RFCs that define the Internet Protocol(s).

      So we might ask: What would the courts say about a company advertising "Internet service", but intentionally violating the official standards for the Internet Protocol that is behind the word "Internet"?

      There's lots of precedent for companies being required to deliver what they sold. Thus, if I order beef, and they deliver pork or chicken or fish meat, they have clearly not delivered on the sales contract, and if this impacted the customer somehow (perhaps due to allergies or religious dietary restrictions), the courts would presumably decide for the customer with little discussion. If I order model X from an auto dealer, and they deliver a cheaper model Y, I have legitimate grounds for complain and restitution.

      So is the Internet somehow exempt from such expectations? Can an ISP legally implement some protocol that's similar to but not the same as IP, and claim that they're delivering what the customer paid for?

      It might be fun to see what the courts actually say about such cases.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    11. Re:This is why you select a specific port.... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      The Comcast box will never receive the RST-ACK since Comcast is forging the origin of the packet. If you respond with the RST-ACK, you will be sending it to the peer that Comcast is trying to get you to close the connection from in the first place.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    12. Re:This is why you select a specific port.... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      they could both come out on top in the cat/mouse game and if challenged by a court might be cutting close enough to the line between what part of the transmission is required to be carried by a common carrier and what portion is guaranteed the burdens of protection inherint in the common carrier system.

      ISPs aren't considered common carriers anyway, so this is moot.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    13. Re:This is why you select a specific port.... by stickyc · · Score: 1
      That it is a great idea. Combined with only dropping RST packets for your torrent port you could have it match a specific TTL as well. Try this: iptables -I FORWARD 3 -p tcp --dport 36745 --tcp-flags RST RST -ttl-eq $EVILISPTTL -j DROP

      For the neophyte firewall admins among us, how does one go about determining EVILISPTTL? And better yet, is there a way to specify a range for ttl-eq when the ISP starts injecting variable TTL RST packets?

  26. Mirror by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 3, Informative

    I believe this is it

    http://www.networkmirror.com/rdDEvxh7svNGl9W1/tuxtraining.com/2008/06/21/beating-sandvine-on-linux-with-iptables/index.html

  27. You know what I hate? by deek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's when I see a comment on Slashdot, that seems to have no relation to the comment above it. Then I discover that the real parent post has been hidden by Slashdot's new comment system, and the child post linked to the grandparent.

    It's damn annoying! Slashdot, please, at least link the child to the "hidden comments" link. That way, I won't get head spins when someone appears to viscously lash out at an interesting post.

    1. Re:You know what I hate? by I+Want+to+be+Anonymo · · Score: 1

      I thought it was just me that hated the new system.

      I've not seen anyone comment on it.

      --
      Anonymous Cowards get no respect.
    2. Re:You know what I hate? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I've not seen anyone comment favorably on it.

    3. Re:You know what I hate? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I think that even on the old system, as far as I'm aware, that child posts of hidden posts always showed up in the wrong place. I'm actually still browsing on the old web 1.0 mode, and it still happens. I don't think it has anything to do with the new system at all.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:You know what I hate? by ak3ldama · · Score: 1

      I do believe that CmdrTaco loves it whole heartedly. Frankly it doesn't fit into my viewing habits, and seems to me to be a waste of time. If I want to point and click I'll play a game. If I want to read something I will use the old discussion system.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    5. Re:You know what I hate? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Well, I was going to say, "Go to your preferences and turn off the 'Reparent highly rated comments' option" but I can't fucking find it for some reason, probably because the new preferences are screwed up.

      =P

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    6. Re:You know what I hate? by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      Then I discover that the real parent post has been hidden by Slashdot's new comment system, and the child post linked to the grandparent.

      Will someone think of the parents?!?!?

    7. Re:You know what I hate? by Angostura · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid I tried the new system a couple of times and I was baffled by it, so I never have that problem.

    8. Re:You know what I hate? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I just use Nuke Anything Enhanced to "Remove this object" on the parent of an uninteresting subthread, and boom it and all its responses are gone.

      Does D2 solve the problem of postings and threads disappearing between pages due to a greatest parent having too many descendants (i.e. such that pages 1 and 2 or more 3 are identical)?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  28. sigh ... I'm my own spelling nazi by deek · · Score: 4, Funny

    viciously, not viscously. I'll have to learn to read my previews more closely.

    1. Re:sigh ... I'm my own spelling nazi by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lashing out with maple syrup and molasses could be interesting.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    2. Re:sigh ... I'm my own spelling nazi by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      I kind of liked the idea of "viscously lashing out at an interesting post", myself. I visualized rippling phosphorescent jellyfish clinging to bridge pilings... damn, what is IN this coffee?

  29. The Slashdott Effect strikes again . . . by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

    If only they could have found a way to block packets from Slashdotters on their webserver . . .

    1. Re:The Slashdott Effect strikes again . . . by sirmonkey · · Score: 1

      and its still down.... hehe :-) alltho i do feel bad at the sametime. mabye slashdot should have a basic cache ability? kinda like a mutiant power?

      --
      bored? try this http://jadmadi.net/blog/2005/01/27/linux-wine-how-to-running-windows-viruses-with-wine/
    2. Re:The Slashdott Effect strikes again . . . by lilomar · · Score: 1

      It seems that they are... ;^)

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
  30. Re:First it was email and spam, then it was conten by ross.w · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't subtitles be easier? like they do on DVD/s

    --
    If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
  31. What about Windows AVG suite? by LM741N · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It appears I have control over ICMP packets with my AVG firewall. What exactly should I be doing, ie which packets need to be blocked as they have numbers and no description? Thanks

    1. Re:What about Windows AVG suite? by LM741N · · Score: 1

      I already have a triple boot computer- Vista, OpenBSD, Ubuntu.

    2. Re:What about Windows AVG suite? by isorox · · Score: 1

      Downloading GNU/Linux.

      He tried, but his torrent kept being RSTed!

  32. Comcast has moved on; now they're delaying packets by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They recently bumped up service to a full megabit upload speed, mostly because of Verizon FiOS service (which still isn't available anywhere in MA except the rich white suburbs- Boston's completely "dark", yet surrounded by towns and cities which have it.) However, if you use it past the old limit (384kbit), after a few minutes, latency skyrockets.

    It takes anywhere from a minute to several minutes to kick in, but when it does, ping times to google jumped from 20-30ms to over 300ms. Sometimes I found ping times would be *seconds* long, and ssh became almost completely unresponsive. Curiously, none of the packets would actually be dropped- they'd just very, very badly delayed.

    Seems very clearly designed to a)look the same as Verizon "on paper", 2)Satisfy people who want to email photos of the kids to grandma and grandpa (I will admit, it's insanely nice to be able to upload at four times the speed, when it works).

  33. They are doing it because they are crooks...... by ciscoguy01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Technical merit? I think not.
    They can't block the packets, they sold their users "unlimited" internet. If certain packets are just blocked that's not really unlimited, is it?
    They sure didn't tell anyone they were secretly installing Sandvine boxes that nobody had heard of specifically to screw up certain kinds of traffic. They did it in secret. It was subterfuge. A dirty trick. Mischief.
    Now that they are found out their story is they are just "managing bandwidth".
    But what they are really doing is trying to stop 2% of their customers from using 98% of the bandwidth, bandwidth they have to pay for. Remember, though they are selling "unlimited" internet access at some level *all* bandwidth is measured. Theirs is certainly measured by their upstream provider. There is really no "unlimited" bandwidth.

    --
    .
    1. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But what they are really doing is trying to stop 2% of their customers from using 98% of the bandwidth, bandwidth they have to pay for. Remember, though they are selling "unlimited" internet access at some level *all* bandwidth is measured. Theirs is certainly measured by their upstream provider. There is really no "unlimited" bandwidth.

      Their own damn fault for selling something they don't have!

    2. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      There's always Bell Canada's approach; use DPI equipment to throttle P2P to 30KB/s.

    3. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      They can't block the packets, they sold their users "unlimited" internet. If certain packets are just blocked that's not really unlimited, is it?

      At my ISP, "Unlimited" was sold as "Use as much as you want" but if questioned, it *really* meant "go to any website". You have "Unlimited Access" to the web, we don't block websites.

      Only came up occasionally with EQ gamers on Dialup, pissed that we disconnected connections every 6 hours. Too many jackasses with secondary lines leaving their connections up for 30-40 days in a row.

    4. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by RonnyJ · · Score: 1

      The problem is, an Internet Service Provider needs to compete against other ISPs. A new ISP would not go very far if it was totally open about the limitations of a contended service at the point of sale.

      The average customer would just go for the ISP that labels itself as 'unlimited', and ignore a 'limited' ISP at the same price.

    5. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Peeteriz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, that's why there are laws that prohibit lying in advertising; and the 'limited' ISP should be able to get punitive damages if other ISPs falsely advertise 'unlimited' access.

      But I am not holding my breath while waiting for this to really happen this way :)

    6. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Their own damn fault for selling something they don't have!

      They always have. ISP's, especially those on the last mile, have historically sold 10 to 20 times the actual bandwidth to their customers. Except a while back the last mile was not a hot zone. There weren't so many things you can use huge amounts of bandwidth on.

      Today there are lots. Desktop apps move to the web, there's streaming, online gaming, all kinds of legal, semi-legal and illegal things to download, malware and the list goes on and on.

      The ISP's are caught in the middle of all this. They've entered this time period with pricing policies that belong in gentler times, and their infrastructure is also outdated and getting more so every day.

      On top of everything, everybody seems to think it's their job to carry the Internet on its back and figure it out somehow. The end customer likes to have huge amounts of bandwidth for pennies. The websites and online apps have bulk deals for bandwidth with providers that have efficient distribution infrastructures all over the world. And the last mile ISP is left to fight a dog eat dog fight with other similar local ISP or with a bigger area ISP, both of which will drive it out of business eventually.

      Not to mention the crazy politics involved, where they are required to act as copyright cops and other idiocies.

      So they're desperate. They're trying anything to "fix things". There are a couple of sane solutions but not without problems. The obvious move would be to rethink their pricing and start selling capped amounts of bandwidth. Filtering will always be passed somehow but a hard cap upstream is a hard cap. And nobody will be able to protest they're not getting what they're paying for.

      But this isn't easy either, because of the fierce competition. You do hard caps, you piss of customers. If they have a choice, they'll run to that new ISP that popped up in the neighborhood a week ago. Sure, that ISP will experience the same problems a while from now, but in the meantime you're short some income.

      Another solution is a world-wide effort to update infrastructure (better throughput, either hardware or software). But who's gonna pay for that? The last mile ISP's can't and won't and granted, it's not fair they should pay all of it. But the other interested parties like the status quo and won't pay either, but will bitch just as readily about filtering and caps and whatnot. In the end, the ISP's will probably turn to insightful investors like Google's dark fiber and become their prisoners and people won't like that either, but will conveniently forget they're the ones that pushed the ISP's into that corner.

      It's not just the ISP's fault, it's everybody's. The Internet has become an ecosystem, you gotta work together on all parts of it to see proper overall change.

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    7. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by xalorous · · Score: 1

      Read the fine print, lately? Pretty sure they only guarantee best effort for speed and that they will not limit the amount you download. I predict "budget ISP"s in the future which do limit transfer rate, transfer totals and ports.

      --
      TANSTAAFL GIGO Acronyms to live by!
    8. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen an "unlimited" Comcast commercial in quite a while, they probably stop before the unnoticed change to the "we can change at any time" TOS and turning on the sandvine equipment.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    9. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and it's not legal to make advertising promises that don't match your fine print. But as another poster says here, they have stopped such advertising, so it's a moot point.

    10. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by grimwell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But what they are really doing is trying to stop 2% of their customers from using 98% of the bandwidth, bandwidth they have to pay for. Remember, though they are selling "unlimited" internet access at some level *all* bandwidth is measured. Theirs is certainly measured by their upstream provider. There is really no "unlimited" bandwidth.

      Pisshaw. Large regional and national ISPs don't have "upstream" providers. They have a presence in a NAP(s) and peering agreements with other networks. The only costs they have is for the infrastructure; physical cables, equipment, power and people. They don't pay for bandwidth on a "meter". Their bandwidth is limited by equipment; available technology and costs.

      They are "managing bandwidth" to control last mile congestion. It is cheaper to mangle traffic than to upgrade the last mile. Plain and simple.

      --
      If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
    11. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by eharvill · · Score: 1

      Technical merit? I think not. They sure didn't tell anyone they were secretly installing Sandvine boxes that nobody had heard of specifically to screw up certain kinds of traffic. They did it in secret. It was subterfuge. A dirty trick. Mischief. Now that they are found out their story is they are just "managing bandwidth".

      Not that I agree with their practices, but since when is a company responsible for letting anyone outside of their organization when they are installing/upgrading/purchasing/etc new hardware? I suppose you'll want notification every time they roll out a new Cisco 3750 or some clown puts a Netgear switch in their cubicle?

      --
      At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
    12. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by CyberDog3K · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I might be less critical of them if they actually spent some of their abusively high rates on upgrading said failing infrastructure instead of god knows what.

    13. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by growse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On top of everything, everybody seems to think it's their job to carry the Internet on its back and figure it out somehow.

      This seems to me to be *exactly* what an ISP's job is. If they don't like doing this, they should get on out of the business.

      --
      There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
    14. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by tinkerghost · · Score: 4, Informative

      Another solution is a world-wide effort to update infrastructure (better throughput, either hardware or software). But who's gonna pay for that? The last mile ISP's can't and won't and granted, it's not fair they should pay all of it.

      Um, in the US, we're already paying for it. We have since the late 90's when congress passed huge tax breaks on to telcos to develop our 40Mbps connections - you have one of those don't you? The telco's promised us one years ago, I'm sure mine is just around the corner.

    15. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I would argue that there's still only a couple things that you can use a lot of bandwidth for. Mostly anything involving downloading video. You'd have to download 5000 songs a month to reach 20 GB (at 4 mb/song). Playing games doesn't take up that much bandwidth. We used to play doom on 56 K modems. I know games a little more complex now, but I can't see the games needing to transfer that much more information. At least not on the scale that our internet connections have increased. Video is just about the only thing that would require a lot of bandwidth. That, or downloading lots of software.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    16. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Ikonoclasm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another solution is a world-wide effort to update infrastructure (better throughput, either hardware or software). But who's gonna pay for that? The last mile ISP's can't and won't and granted, it's not fair they should pay all of it.

      So the US government didn't give them billions of dollars in subsidies and grants to do exactly that? They got greedy. They didn't do what they were tasked to do. It most certainly IS fair for them to have to pay for all of it because it was their willful inaction that plays such a large part of the problem.

    17. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      You're not going to be able to drop Comcast to get Cox.
      You're also not going to be able to drop Comcast and get DSL and still have the same speed.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    18. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      So the fact they have to 'compete' negates fraud in your book?

      Advertising and selling what you don't have is fraud.

      Making excuses for it is ludicrous.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    19. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by tmalone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Damn, I can't get this critical update for Vista this month because I'm out of bandwidth. Or, I guess I don't get to play this game I just bought because I don't have the bandwidth left to download the first 12 patches to it that came out in between the time I left the store and when I got home. I would be less concerned about capping bandwidth if everybody didn't expect you to have an unlimited connection. Maybe that expectation would change in time (maybe flash would go away!).

    20. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by RonnyJ · · Score: 1

      Practically all ISPs will have terms in their small print detailing the actions they can take. You may not like it, and their advertising may be misleading, but in most cases it won't be fraud.

      The point is, any ISP declaring these terms on their front page will not get business. On the other hand, any ISP truly prepared to put in the infrastructure to support heavy users will have to charge considerably more to cover those costs.

    21. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      Interesting it is not a free market when someone with a lot of political lobbying is having problems. They should loose their shirts if they have a bad business plan. They should get sued for consumer fraud if they sell a product (bandwidth) they don't have.

    22. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      The end customer likes to have huge amounts of bandwidth for pennies.

      Um no they dont.. If we cleaned up the net and got rid of all the bloated ad's and the poorly designed sites that eat bandwidth because web 2.0 is trendy then the net would be faster than hell on even a ol' slow 1mbps connection.

      But sites want lots of flash, blinkies, stupid JS and other AJAX crap that sucks up bandwidth for no good use. It's to the point that 1/2 my bandwidth used is for useless crap that I dont want. I want the information I seek and I'll tolerate a small text ad that takes very little bandwidth.

      hell I cut my bandwidth use by almost 1/2 by simply installing a house wide privoxy proxy server to cut out the crud. If I could get privoxy to strip web2.0 crap I'd cut it again by another 1/3rd

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    23. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by PieceofLavalamp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've used "fierce competition" to describe the ISP market place. So i must assume you are being sarcastic. You really shouldn't bury sarcasm like that in between rather insightful points, you'll confuse people who aren't familiar with the issue... New ISPs haha funny.

    24. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Sancho · · Score: 1

      AppleTV, iTunes, streaming TV from the websites of the networks, hulu.com, Netflix video on demand, Amazon Unbox.... There's a lot of downloadable content out there now. The bandwidth caps that cable Internet providers are using are pretty much preemptive measures to keep the advertising revenue in their world. It's a blatant conflict of Interest, but them's the breaks.

    25. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      well then shouldn't we be getting some money back? since, we the people, paid for those tax breaks but haven't received anything for it? seems like to me since they haven't delivered we should be refunded since they didn't complete the job.

    26. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      how are they keeping the advertising revenue by bandwidth caps?

    27. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Cable Internet providers tend to also provide cable TV. They'd rather you watch TV on their systems than to have you download the shows you want to watch from other locations. While piracy is part of the concern, Apple selling TV shows as soon as they air is more of one, because everyone basically assumes that piracy will one day be squashed.

      So if a lot of people download TV instead of watching it from the cable TV provider, ad revenues in general suffer. Worse, people might start canceling their cable TV and just sticking with cable Internet. By introducing bandwidth caps, the cable Internet providers are ensuring that they'll get your money one way or another (either by your TV subscription or by bandwidth overages.)

    28. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      yeah but how will people all of a sudden watch ads on tv shows online if they dont watch them on TV? when you watch tv, when commercials come on you either switch channels, put it on mute or go to the bathroom. when watching online you either browse another site, put the sound on mute or go to the bathroom or get something to eat. so really what difference does it make? or maybe just like its taken them forever to figure out that people are starting to watch things on the web, they still have yet to figure out that people dont watch or click on ads anymore nor do they watch commercials.

    29. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by grogling · · Score: 1

      Another solution is a world-wide effort to update infrastructure (better throughput, either hardware or software). But who's gonna pay for that? The last mile ISP's can't and won't and granted, it's not fair they should pay all of it.

      Um, in the US, we're already paying for it. We have since the late 90's when congress passed huge tax breaks on to telcos to develop our 40Mbps connections - you have one of those don't you? The telco's promised us one years ago, I'm sure mine is just around the corner.

      Oh, we're getting 40Mbps... it's just that 38Mbps of it is clogged with spam, pop-up seizure inducing ads, internet urban legends and MySpace's bandwidth hogging interface (again, all those ads). -g-

    30. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

      Confused.. How would loosening their shirts help anything other than a too tight fit across the shoulders or at the waist?

    31. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by AnomaliesAndrew · · Score: 1

      Ever see the commercials where Comcast is advertising "1000 HD channels, soon"?

      Yeah, read the "fine print" on that one and evidently they consider an OnDemand movie offering to be a channel.

      This is so deceitful because how many HD channels do you know of that only play 1 show nonstopped for months at a time? That's not a channel in laymans terms if you ask me... that's a DVD.

      I can watch tons of free on-demand HD content (from other sites) online over the cable modem, and they're not counting that in their channel lineup (yet).

      Bottom line, Comcast is evil... but so is pretty much everybody else in this game. As usual, we're left to pick between a giant douche and a turd-sandwich.

      --
      Move all sig!
    32. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      ...since when is a company responsible for letting anyone outside of their organization when they are installing/upgrading/purchasing/etc new hardware?

      Since they made a contract that commits them to providing goods or services, and their chosen install/upgrade/purchase causes them to knowingly, purposefully be in violation of contract. If I "upgrade" my fleet of trucks to electric vehicles, and that means I can no longer service my customers more than 200 miles away, those customers have a legitimate beef and they don't have to pay for the goods and service they will not receive. And if I do this secretly without notification, I am not immune to lawsuits for breach of contract or to punitive damages claims.

      I suppose you'll want notification every time they roll out a new Cisco 3750 or some clown puts a Netgear switch in their cubicle?

      If it means they can't deliver what they contracted to provide, then damn straight skippy. They only get to do secret stuff if it doesn't conflict with their contractual obligations!

      Perhaps the "Impartial Rule of Law" is obsolete, though.

    33. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Like I said, video is just about the only thing that most people do that uses a lot of bandwidth. I think everything you mentioned there is a video download service, in one way or another.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    34. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      i dont use myspace, block popups and am spam-free and i dont get anywhere near 40Mbps. more like around 5.

    35. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Linux ISO's are pretty big, as are general software patches. I had to do a fresh install of WoW the other day, and despite having the original game on CD, I still had to download the expansion and patches for it (I did online upgrade of my account rather than a boxed copy). I ended up downloading several GB's of data right there. I've also had to download various database snapshots from the server at work to use at home when I was working on something on a weekend, and that can consume several gigabytes in one swoop there.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    36. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      On top of everything, everybody seems to think it's their job to carry the Internet on its back and figure it out somehow.

      Yes. That's exactly correct. They don't like it, they shouldn't have gotten to Internet Service Provider business in the first place.

      And the last mile ISP is left to fight a dog eat dog fight with other similar local ISP or with a bigger area ISP, both of which will drive it out of business eventually.

      That's the risk of being a private enterprise: sometimes you actually have to compete with other private enterprises, rather than make money hand over fist doing nothing useful. No pain, no gain; no guts, no glory.

      Look, these businesses aren't going to share their profit with the public, now are they ? They will keep it all to themselves. So they can bloody well keep the whining too.

      Not to mention the crazy politics involved, where they are required to act as copyright cops and other idiocies.

      This is true, and should be rectified, preferably by bitch-slapping the copyright holders back to their place.

      But this isn't easy either, because of the fierce competition. You do hard caps, you piss of customers. If they have a choice, they'll run to that new ISP that popped up in the neighborhood a week ago. Sure, that ISP will experience the same problems a while from now, but in the meantime you're short some income.

      Yes, competition has the tendency to lower prices. You speak like that was a bad thing.

      Another solution is a world-wide effort to update infrastructure (better throughput, either hardware or software). But who's gonna pay for that? The last mile ISP's can't and won't and granted, it's not fair they should pay all of it.

      Why not ? It's them who will benefit from it. Unless, of course, we the society pool our resources and build a publicly funded and accessible wireless network anyone can use for free; but I bet these very same ISP's would then also cry that it's not fair.

      It's not just the ISP's fault, it's everybody's. The Internet has become an ecosystem, you gotta work together on all parts of it to see proper overall change.

      Tell you what: the ISP's in question give me some of their shares, and I share their profits and problems alike. Until then, they're on their own.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    37. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 3, Informative

      For some places, notably the US, I can see why you'd think I was being sarcastic. But the European ISP market is much more dynamic. I was being serious when I called competition over there fierce.

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    38. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by XHIIHIIHX · · Score: 1

      Let us not forget that these are the same ISP's now that forced out all the smaller ISP's, often by highly unscrupulous means. Now that they have all the customers, they're upset that the customers want the same service that they used to be able to get from small ISP's. Mindspring never had a problem with me using my dsl line at max bandwidth 24x7. Of course, maybe that's why they went broke, but that doesn't change the fact that they made their bed so now they're going to have to sleep (or die) in it. Bastards.

    39. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      OMG cry me a fucking river for the poor fucking ISPs!

      I don't typically like using profanity, but somebody has to say it. Yes, maybe the dial-up ISPs of yesteryear had hard times, and MAYBE just MAYBE some of the random DSL ISPs do nowadays.

      But let's be realistic. I have two choices for a high-bandwidth ISP in my area - the cable company and the telephone company. They both have regional monopolies. They are granted regional monopolies (in theory) so that they can deliver optimal service to everyone in the region.

      I have no sympathy for those rat bastards who squeeze you for every penny and come up with these half-cocked limited-time bundle deals they spam me with every month. Build more pipes and STFU.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    40. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what we have now. Lease a dedicated line. They won't screw with your traffic, or your transfer rate. But they'll charge you 10-20x what DSL costs.

    41. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by b00fhead · · Score: 1

      It's not just the ISP's fault, it's everybody's.

      No, it is the ISP's fault. I don't advertise $50 solid gold toilet bowls, because I can't supply $50 solid gold toilet bowls. If the ISP can't supply unlimited bandwidth, then the ISP shouldn't advertise unlimited bandwidth.

    42. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by statemachine · · Score: 1

      Since they were tax breaks, the only true way to get your money "back" is to start taxing those companies to recover the money that wasn't received.

      But even if this is lost on the general public, and you still demand money "back," then consider your "stimulus checks" in 2001 and this year to more than satisfy that craving.

    43. Re:They are doing it because they are crooks...... by PieceofLavalamp · · Score: 1

      ah i should have known. Europeans are always so much more flexible then their American counterparts. Its really very sexy...
      Seriously. The stagnation and rot in so many places in the US is just depressing.

  34. IPFW rule by Spaham · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe that this rule should work for macos X ipfw :
    sudo ipfw add 100 drop tcp from any to any 6881 tcpflags rst

    change 100 for the rule number that fits in your list
    change 6881 for your bittorrent port number

    feel free to correct me !

    1. Re:IPFW rule by darkonc · · Score: 2, Informative
      That should probably be

      sudo ipfw add 100 drop tcp from any to ${eth0} 6881 tcpflags rst

      (I can't remember the exact syntax, right now)... The point is that you want to allow yourself to send RSTs outbound, but ignore them inbound on your internet-facing port.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    2. Re:IPFW rule by Spaham · · Score: 2, Informative

      or just add "in" then ?
      something like that :

      sudo ipfw add 100 drop tcp from any to any 6881 in tcpflags rst

    3. Re:IPFW rule by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      Just bear in mind that this'll prevent proper handling of hosts that use tcp_wrappers and the inetd superserver to handle services and access control. That combination works by accepting the connection, getting the peer address (must be connected for this), checking the access rules and immediately issuing an RST before any data's been transferred if access is denied. This rule prevents that RST from getting through, leaving you handing trying to connect to a port that's not going to allow you to connect.

  35. Re:First it was email and spam, then it was conten by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    Wouldn't subtitles be easier? like they do on DVD

    If they could get someone who could transcribe them in real time. Possible, I guess, stenographers need to be able to do something like that.

  36. Re:Piracy is wrong - plain and simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Flamebait/troll...

    But just to make sure you understand: File sharing is NOT theft! - There is no loss involved as the subject is copied, not transferred.

    I myself download some movies as a way of sampling them before either deleting them or buying the DVD/Blu-ray. I don't keep the downloaded copy around - it's always deleted, either right away (because the movie is crap) or when I buy the DVD. So my copies doesn't cost anybody anything; no loss and thus no theft.

  37. Do you need to be connected to the cable modem? by Doug52392 · · Score: 1

    Just a question, do you need to have your Linux PC connected directly to Comcast's cable modem for this to work? It sounds to me like you do, but my PC is in my room, and we have a wireless router connecting everything.

    1. Re:Do you need to be connected to the cable modem? by Arimus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your linux iptables based firewall needs to sit between the Comcast modem and the rest of your PC's...

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    2. Re:Do you need to be connected to the cable modem? by Paul+Carver · · Score: 1

      Your linux iptables based firewall needs to sit between the Comcast modem and the rest of your PC's...

      The rest of your PC's what?

      The rest of your PC's hardware? The rest of your PC's software? What if you have several PCs, does it need to sit between the Comcast modem and all of your PCs' ...?

  38. A Fitness center analogy.. by AftanGustur · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Fitness centers operate similarly, they have numbers on how many times each member comes per week, and based on that (and other parameters) they price access to the center.

    Now, imagine you buy a year membership card.

    Then you start showing up each morning, and again in the evening.

    Then the fitness center comes to you and says: "You can come here, but we are going to lock all the doors when you show up, because you are using up to much resources and thus denying them to our other members.

    Do you think there would be any outrage ?

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    1. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Nathonix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yes, very much so. a year pass is a year pass, unless the contract stipulates how many times a week one can show up, it would be false advertising to sell a year pass with undisclosed limits.

      --
      Soap box, Ballot box, Jury box, Ammo box. Use in that order.
    2. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Say that you found out a way to earn or safe a lot of money by staying on the fitness machines 16 hours a day.

      Suddenly, the 28 fitness machines they expected to service 5,000 people are being used from opening until closing by the same 28 people.

      Do you think the fitness companies and their customers would say "ah well... they've got us because of our advertising unlimited service."

      No- the next time your contract came up, it would have a clause that allowed them to force people to share the machines or something to protect them.

      You are being unreasonable. The cable companies are trying a weaselly scummy way to get out of the situation instead of just doing what they should do up front.

      1) Determine the real usage of their desired customer (say 20gb a month).
      2) Advertise 24gb a month for one "low rate" with a "reasonable $1 per gb"

      And eventually they will. Even if you have you current company in an iron clad contract, if it is losing money the situation *will* fix it self.

      ---

      The current isp situation in america is a complete joke and anti-capitalistic. We basically have duopolies in 99% of cities between AT&T and a cable company. That needs to stop and be broken up. The internet wires, like the roads, should put be put by the government.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    3. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do you think there would be any outrage ?

      I don't agree with your analogy. Presumably, your maximum impact to other customers is 1 piece of equipment. In a sufficiently large facility there are hundreds of other pieces of equipment. Therefore, your impact to their over subscription model is minimal.

      In the ISP scenario, you could potentially impact a much higher percentage of customers by consuming large amounts of bandwidth and session connections. A few customers could drive large amounts of bulk traffic and session connections to the point of impacting other customers and the ISP over subscription model.

    4. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I don't know what that is. Can you put it in terms of cars?

    5. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This makes sense with telephone switching, but packet switching? It's more like 28 people using the machines, taking breaks occasionally, then getting back on when other people are done (using a FCFS scheduling algorithm). The worst the fitness company could complain about is that these 28 people are causing "undue stress" to the machines (which is ridiculous anyway).

    6. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by AngelofDeath-02 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, there's also a reduced number of a certain type of equipment, which you would be depriving others of. If enough people were to do this, they could sufficiently occupy said type of equipment to the point where others will either wait in line or do something else. If you want, you can expand that to multiple types of machines. The net result is the same. Limited resources being consumed excessively by a few serve to detriment everyone else unfairly when those limited resources become scarce.

      Realistically, an internet connection has a hard cap on how much you can upload in any given second. The total bandwidth going to your area is probably higher than that, so your impact isn't total, but if a few people do that then there isn't enough of that bandwidth left for everyone else. You get the same situation.

      Sorry, I just don't see how your disagreement is valid. As far as I can see, the analogy is accurate enough.

      --
      No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
    7. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Bengie · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have no problem with an data cap on broadband. Lets just do what Japan is doing; 25Mbits/sec for $25USD/month with a 30GB upload cap per *day* and no cap on download.

    8. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, a lot of fitness center have rules about using their equipment and memberships are subject to those rules. In general, most fitness centers clearly specify that if there is nobody waiting, then you can use their treadmill or other devices as much as you want. Otherwise, it's only for a limited time and then you MUST let someone else use it. The last one I went was 30 minutes for treadmills and about 10 minutes for weight equipment.

    9. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by tmalone · · Score: 1

      So, Comcast is a big burly guy who runs up to you and pushes you off a treadmill? "Get off the machine!" Actually, yeah, I think that fits.

    10. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      There would be a lot less animosity if the cable company's just ponied up to their mistake and worked on moving on. If they had just said something like:

      "Hey, everyone, about the Unlimited access. Things have changed a lot in the last few years, and quite simply, we can't afford to do unlimited anymore. Over the next year or so, we're going to be phasing it out. Right now, we're not going to take any new unlimited accounts. Anyone who is currently unlimited will enjoy it for a period of time. After that, we'll have a special monthly rate for our current unlimited customers. We hope you'll stay on as customers. As we move on, we want to figure out the best way to deliver the right service to all our varied customers, no matter what their usage needs are."

    11. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by AngryUndead · · Score: 1

      But the japanese actually have an infrastructure.

    12. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by gosand · · Score: 1

      Fitness centers operate similarly, they have numbers on how many times each member comes per week, and based on that (and other parameters) they price access to the center.


      Now, imagine you buy a year membership card.


      Then you start showing up each morning, and again in the evening.


      Then the fitness center comes to you and says: "You can come here, but we are going to lock all the doors when you show up, because you are using up to much resources and thus denying them to our other members.


      Do you think there would be any outrage ?

      Not from the Slashdot crowd.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    13. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I agree. Their problem is they managed to basically pull monopolies and the government is telling them they better serve the community or else. It's a wierd hybrid think kinda like the phone service used to be-- part business, part socialism, part government service.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    14. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      The internet wires, like the roads, should put be put by the government.

      Well, those wires are certainly put up with public funding, although it's typically done with government-sponsored budgetary subterfuges. For example, the telcos have been applying "surcharges" to all phone bills for more than a decade to pay for rebuilding their infrastructure; they made a deal with the US fedguv that allowed them to do this. Note that what we are talking about here is almost the opposite of old-school American capitalism - forcing the customer to pay to build the service you will then charge them to use is definitely plutocracy at its finest, but certainly not free market capitalism. After thoroughly gorging at this trough, the telcos are now being exempted from following through with their deal and they've been released from the various non-competition and rate-limitation regulations that they agreed to in order to be allowed to fleece us. The situation is really not much different from being taxed and then having the tax revenue handed over to the telcos, but it's a lot harder to follow the money trail.

    15. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Wicko · · Score: 1

      I'm moving to japan, who's with me!?

    16. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      We (the US) paid a lot of money to the telco's and such for one. It should be here somewhere...

    17. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Given the societal benefits and the amount of business that take place over the wires, they are too much like "roads" to not be run by the government.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    18. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      Suddenly, the 28 fitness machines they expected to service 5,000 people are being used from opening until closing by the same 28 people.

      No- the next time your contract came up, it would have a clause that allowed them to force people to share the machines or something to protect them.

      You are being unreasonable

      Uh...you're the one being unreasonable. The new contract you propose would be completely unacceptable. If they don't have enough fitness machines for all their clients to use, they have only 3 options:

      1. Get more fitness machines. Given limited space that might mean having to:
        1. Getting rid of other machines in favor of buying more of the heavily used ones.
        2. Build new rooms and expand the building if enough land is available at the location.
        3. Move to a new, bigger location

      2. If the first option is out of the question, they can limit their number of members by not accepting as many clients (this would be stupid)
      3. They can increase membership price. This will do two things:
        1. it will limit the number of members by using the wonderful laws of supply and demand. It's not always beneficial to sell more of something. You need to find your price point in the supply and demand curves in order to set your optimum price.
        2. If the price offsets how much money people are making or saving in your weird example, this will cause people to naturally stop hogging the machines for that purpose, because the membership isn't worth it.

      Any fitness center that actually attempted what you suggest would go bankrupt because they would have smarter competitors and clients would go elsewhere, where they don't have some asshole telling them to stop using the machines. In fact, the only reason the ISP's don't go bankrupt is because they lack competition and their clients can't switch. Monopolies give unfair advantages to companies and they use it to abuse their customers to increase their profits.

      Similarly to the fitness center solutions above, the ISP's have 3 options:

      1. They can build new infrastructure.
      2. If it's not profitable to do so, they can limit their number of customers (this would be stupid)
      3. They can charge more for the bandwidth, thus naturally decreasing their number of customers AND getting capital to accomplish #1, which they will have to at some point. They can also stop advertising 6Mbps connections and lower everyone to 1Mbps at the same price point (which is equivalent to charging more for the bandwidth)

      What they CAN'T do is advertise up to 6Mbps and throttle their customers because they might want to use it.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    19. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      No.

      Some customers are too expensive or troublesome to bother having.

      This is why buffets ("All you can eat") reserve the right not to serve some jerks who self-righteously claim they have a right to eat $48 bucks worth of food after paying $10.

      P2P was not foreseen. Things changed. The contracts will too. You are being willfully ignorant. Put yourself in their shoes for just 2 seconds and ask yourself would you keep yourself as a customer?

      This is like the rock star who wouldn't let himself stay at his own chain of hotels because he typically did a few thousand bucks worth of damage to the rooms.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    20. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      P2P was not foreseen. Things changed. The contracts will too. You are being willfully ignorant. Put yourself in their shoes for just 2 seconds and ask yourself would you keep yourself as a customer?

      First of all, I'm pretty sure that P2P wasn't a surprise to anyone. I don't really feel like doing the research, so I won't argue the point against you this time other than to express some doubt. Second, you're right, things changed. A while ago it was only a select few who used a lot of bandwidth through P2P. Now every single broadcast station offers episodes of their shows on their website, most software checks automatically for updates, operating system updates, game patches, and the such are hundreds of megs a week. Subscription music services, online movie rentals...in another 5 years, every customer will be trying to max their bandwidth 24/7.

      As for "some customers are too expensive or troublesome to bother having" perhaps you should read my post again. I'm not against the ISP's doing something about that. They're absolutely free to limit the bandwidth. If they don't have enough to serve everyone, they should limit the bandwidth. They can't discriminate based on what traffic you're using, they can't discriminate based on what sites you're visiting, and they can't advertise unlimited 6Mbps bandwidth if that's not what they're giving you.

      This is why buffets ("All you can eat") reserve the right not to serve some jerks who self-righteously claim they have a right to eat $48 bucks worth of food after paying $10.

      READ MY POST. Option number two: "they can limit their number of customers." Frankly, I think there are better solutions than saying, "I won't take your money", but I don't have any problem whatsoever with a company saying, "I don't want your money, I don't want to serve you." Hey, look at option #3 though, which isn't as stupid: CHARGE MORE FOR THE BANDWIDTH.

      Is it really so difficult for an ISP to have several different plans and not lie about what they consist of? "Here's a 1 Mbps 200 gigs a month plan for $29.99. Here's a 3 Mbps 500 gigs a month plan for $49.99. Here's a 1 Mbps unlimited for $79.99. Here's a 6Mbps unlimited for $199.99." I don't care if they charge more, I don't care if they cap you. I just want to get what I actually paid for.

      Put yourself in their shoes for just 2 seconds and ask yourself would you keep yourself as a customer?

      Yes. Because if they're smart about it, they can make some serious cash off the heavy users. Just sell them the heavy user plan. If a heavy user buys into a cheaper plan, then they're going to get cut off once they reach the cap. Or they can be in an unlimited plan that is much slower. Whatever.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    21. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Most heavy users will stop being heavy users if they have to pay.
      Most are only heavy users because it's free.

      Example.. p2p movie. 4gb-- $4. Oh wait... I can buy a physical DVD for $5.

      As for the rest- I admit that I didn't read your post well enough. I was rushed at work and responded to what I thought it said. I agree with a lot of it. Sorry!

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    22. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by davepike · · Score: 1

      So the RST packets would be like equipping the clerk with a paintball gun to "manage" the leechers?

      To be fair, that might make gym membership a bit more fun....

    23. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Epi-man · · Score: 1

      The worst the fitness company could complain about is that these 28 people are causing "undue stress" to the machines (which is ridiculous anyway).

      I happen to live in one of the fattest cities in America...no, people causing "undue stress" to fitness equipment (thinking treadmill) certainly isn't ridiculous!

    24. Re:A Fitness center analogy.. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I wish I could moderate in a thread I already posted in. That was insightful and funny.

  39. Re:First it was email and spam, then it was conten by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    If they could get someone who could transcribe them in real time. Possible, I guess, stenographers need to be able to do something like that.

    Turn on any live sporting event or news broadcast and enable closed captioning on your TV (or receiver, DVR, whatever) - they have been doing this for a LONG time.

  40. Time to stop trusting TCP by elronxenu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I expect we'll see development of protocols more robust than TCP to a MITM attack (this is ultimately a MITM denial of service).

    1. Re:Time to stop trusting TCP by Ikyuao · · Score: 1

      TCP is still edge cutting that works fine for most users. TCP is reliable protocol.

  41. Re:Hmm ... by Uther_Dark · · Score: 3, Informative

    Encryption only obfuscates the files you are downloading/uploading, it doesn't hide what protocol you are using... (I think) In any case, it DID work for a while, but I guess Comcrap caught on to the protocol, and now my torrents (all legal BTW) are crapped out...

  42. Re:First it was email and spam, then it was conten by enoz · · Score: 1

    Closed captions do exactly that.

  43. First They Came by Carcass666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First they came for the game crackers,
    and I did not speak up because I did not play games

    Then they came for the pornographers,
    and I did not speak up because I did not view porn

    Then they came first for the spammers,
    and I did not speak up because I was not a spammer

    First they came for the music pirates
    and I did not speak up because I was not a pirate

    Then they came for me,
    and by that time there was no fair-use left.

    1. Re:First They Came by FlatWhatson · · Score: 1

      I don't get it! Was it gamers, spammers or pirates that they came for first ?!

      --
      BLAM!
    2. Re:First They Came by Samurai+Tony · · Score: 1

      ...and I did not speak up because I did not view porn

      I call BS...

      --
      ...oh, and yo momma's so fat, her Schwarzchild radius is visible to the naked eye.
    3. Re:First They Came by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

      Programmers sigh and roll our eyes when we see source like that.

      --
      They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
    4. Re:First They Came by Carcass666 · · Score: 1

      Some of us geezers prefer print ;)

  44. Was wondering when someone would try this by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 1
    ..and it sounds about as effective as I thought it would be.


    Couldn't bittorrent be rewritten to use UDP instead of TCP, and therefore bypass their whole throttling technique?

  45. why a specialized device? by LordMyren · · Score: 2, Interesting

    why a device for just this?

    when you buy a wireless router, just make sure its a router that will run a decent linux distribution. the linksys wrt54g started the ball rolling, and there is now a rather impressive list of routers supported by just one embedded linux distro; OpenWRT. dd-wrt has a similarly lengthy list. some allow you to attach hard drives via IDE or USB and do file serving as well. most run around 200mhz, have 4mb flash and 16/32mb ram, although better and worse configurations are available. these also have wireless built in, and usually two separate hardware vlans. you can pick up routers for under $50.

    802.11n hardware seems to have very poor linux support, and not many routers have gigabit unfortunately. i havent really followed closely as neither of these features is on my "must have" list. the one i've seen moving recently is the wrt350n, which is making pretty good headway and has both features but its still not ready for primetime and is a pretty old router.

    in general, i dont see why you'd get specific hardware for this when you could just have a small 5 watt linux router that handles your wan/lan/wifi/simple daemons.

    1. Re:why a specialized device? by sethstorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      in general, i dont see why you'd get specific hardware for this when you could just have a small 5 watt linux router that handles your wan/lan/wifi/simple daemons.

      Usually, that 5w router ends up falling a bit short when you run large amounts of data through it.

      That's what you get with equipment that has quality as an afterthought.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    2. Re:why a specialized device? by LordMyren · · Score: 1

      Well, thats actually Linux's/lack of hardware documentation's fault. Almost all of these units have DMA engines onboard, but Linux will not use that DMA engine. If you want a finger to point at poor throughput, look to the kernel that has to do all data copying on the CPU.

    3. Re:why a specialized device? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Don't get the WRT54G. Get the WRT54GL (which I have). The better hardware coupled with a better software layer (dd-wrt on mine) will run great. Mine has been up for over 3 months (I had to turn if off to move, do some configuration changes, etc.) without a hiccup, never stalls or slows down or anything. The little 5W router is perfectly happy with me copying multiple gigabytes over the wireless or slamming it with bittorrent. Get good hardware, and that little 5W router is all you need unless you're running a datacenter with 100MBPS up/down on the WAN side.

  46. Just run it over port 80 by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Like everyone else.

     

    --
    Deleted
  47. Re:Here;s an idea: Stop fucking stealing shit !! by LordMyren · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Here;s an idea: Stop fucking stealing shit !! If you don't steal you won't care if your stealing facilitation enablers get a fucking RST or not. "

    rst hurts anyone trying to keep long lived tcp connections, regardless of how much or what traffic they are sending.

  48. A loyal customer of Comcasticness! by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    .........Maybe that explains why I cannot view the 2nd link in the summary.

  49. Think about it by kriss · · Score: 1

    I think you're seeing the effect of something else than your ISP killing connections here - there really is no use case what so ever for an ISP to block WoW, and there really isn't any (normal) congestion alleviation algorithm that kills connections. Drop packets? Yes. But that's not the same thing as sending RSTs..

    WoW is a pretty light game on resources as well. 1000 simultaneous connections incur a negligible impact on any ISP large enough to have 1000 simultaneous WoW users (say a userbase of 100k total, ballpark numbers)

    1. Re:Think about it by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Actually, SOME places do block WoW. I say that because I know two guys in my guild who recently went to a religious college that has very, very strict net policies. They blocked out virtually ALL online games and had Net-Nanny style filtering of the web connection done at the SERVER level. Apparently despite being legal adults in their own rooms they're not allowed to download/view pornography there.

      Sounded a bit like whacko bootcamp to me, but that was the situation. They both played only when going home on the weekends (or more now that summer is in).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  50. Re:Here;s an idea: Stop fucking stealing shit !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    WTF?! Is downloading some Fedora installation CDs via BitTorrent stealing?

  51. Obfuscated TCP by Tzarius · · Score: 1

    http://code.google.com/p/obstcp/

    Obfuscated TCP is very promising, an application-transparent method of encrypting TCP traffic, with graceful failure. Not designed to prevent targeted man-in-the-middle attacks, but will make generalised packet inspection extraordinarily difficult.

  52. Have you heard of OFF System(owner free filesys?) by elucido · · Score: 1

    Bit torrent is old tech.

    The truth is, they (the telecoms and others) have started an arms race.

    P2P will become infinitely more sophisticated.

    http://offsystem.sourceforge.net/
    http://wiki.offdev.org/Main_Page

  53. Re:Piracy is wrong - plain and simple by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    It's theft! Stop doing it! Stop Justifying it!
    You are no better than a petty thief. Stop stealing other people's IP.

    Wow. I had no idea Hillary Rosen's parrot learned to type!

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  54. Re:First it was email and spam, then it was conten by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    Turn on any live sporting event or news broadcast and enable closed captioning on your TV (or receiver, DVR, whatever) - they have been doing this for a LONG time.

    Well, not on any stations where I live.

  55. Throttle home-to-home connections by tepples · · Score: 1

    For instance, p2p programs can start using UDP spread spectrum... pass packets on random ports.

    The ISP has a countermeasure to this: use DNSBLs to identify home-to-home (not home-to-business) packet streams and then screw with them.

    1. Re:Throttle home-to-home connections by Sique · · Score: 1

      This would actually also screw a lot of chats and online games, other things people actually buy internet connectivity for, and for which there is no pseudo-legal argument why this should be disencouraged as with P2P being piracy.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:Throttle home-to-home connections by tepples · · Score: 1

      This would actually also screw a lot of chats and online games

      Text chat generally uses a relay server such as an IRC or XMPP server, which can be placed on a static IP out of the home blocks. Voice chat compressed with something like Speex shouldn't use more than 20 kbps in each direction. I would imagine that throttling the total long-term throughput of home-to-home connections to a reasonable level would affect chat much less than large file transfers. Or by "online games" did you mean Blizzard's patch distribution method?

    3. Re:Throttle home-to-home connections by Sique · · Score: 1

      IRC with DCC Chat uses p2p-connections, e.g. those communications, once initiated, are not relayed anymore via the server. While I agree that IRC in general has very low bandwidth requirements (hey, I was using IRC on a 2400 baud connection myself ;) ), there might be other chat protocols which waste more precious bit/sec.
      A nice game of netmaze, xpilot or imaze uses much more bandwidth ;)

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  56. P2P and other bullshit. by cryptodan · · Score: 1

    Why should we customers be punished for your over zealous use of bandwidth while peering huge files 24/7 and seeding them out just as much. I for one applaud Comcast and any other ISP that does this to P2P Packets. If you want better quality connections then don't get residential, and pay for their business accounts. Otherwise shut the fuck up and stop using bandwidth that other people like to use for their gaming and streaming of Netflix Cartoons for their children. God I am sick and tired of you whiney babies complaining about Comcast or other ISP that does this. Either put forth more money to get better quality service or stop using P2P constantly. THink of other people for a fucking change instead of your fucking selfish self. Thanks for making my blood pressure rise. Fuckin idiots.

    1. Re:P2P and other bullshit. by Uther_Dark · · Score: 1

      That seems like a very communist way to look at things...maybe we should let the government decide how much food we should get so that we know there's enough to go around...

    2. Re:P2P and other bullshit. by cryptodan · · Score: 1

      Food and Internet are two totally different things. 1 is for entertainment and the other is a necessity. So your comparison fails on so many levels.

      My original argument still stands.

      There is a reason ISP's offer two different accounts that offer totally different levels of service. Residential is aimed more towards email checking, web surfing, casual gaming and what not. The business side of things offer better services targeted towards those users who use a lot of bandwidth and for hosting servers which is what is being done. You are using your computer to serve out content at a constant rate allwoing others to connect to you and download files. And to some ISP's that is a ToS violation for residential accounts.

      And I applaud ISP's who enforce their ToSes and AUPes.

    3. Re:P2P and other bullshit. by SaDan · · Score: 1

      Internet for me is as essential as food... I use my internet connection to earn income.

      That being said, I do pay for a business account through Comcast. I've never had problems with BT (downloading and seeding recent Linux distro releases), although I do rate limit my BT client so my connection remains responsive.

      ISPs do need to enforce their policies, and people need to start reading and understanding those policies. I used to work for a wireless internet company, and it always amused me what people would try to get away with.

    4. Re:P2P and other bullshit. by cryptodan · · Score: 1

      Thank you for agreeing with me.

    5. Re:P2P and other bullshit. by SaDan · · Score: 1

      Well, I agreed with a lot of what you said, but not the part about the internet being for entertainment. At least, it's not for everyone on a residential connection.

      Some business plans are horribly overpriced, so I don't blame people working from home over a residential connection.

    6. Re:P2P and other bullshit. by cryptodan · · Score: 1

      My ISP is Comcast, and I was sent a Cease and Desist letter from Comcast stating I was using to much bandwidth and to stop my P2P use or be downgraded in speed. I opted to stop my P2P use and to get things via traditional ways like HTTP, FTP, SFTP, and others. I will not use any P2P Application.

    7. Re:P2P and other bullshit. by lilomar · · Score: 1

      No, the communist way of doing it would be for everyone to manage their own ISP. Leaving both the government and the corporations out of it.

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    8. Re:P2P and other bullshit. by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      thats actualy an idea... wait, whats that laserdot on my head *BANG!* ..NO SERVICE.

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    9. Re:P2P and other bullshit. by Uther_Dark · · Score: 1

      Actually my argument was more to make the point of you can only give away so many freedoms before you have none left....so MY original argument still stands.

  57. Re:Piracy is wrong - plain and simple by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

    I pirate mainly music because it allows me to sample alot more music and subsequently go to alot more gigs and that way the bands that produce good music get more of my money (money saved not buying 2/3 albums is the same as a gig ticket and 2/3 of the stuff i download i would probably not buy anyway).

    Im also a linux user so to play most games i have to see if they are worth playing on wine, i prefer to do this before i spend £20/30, and as I have to crack the copy protection anyway even for games i legally own I have to torrent them.

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  58. Port 587 + keylogger by tepples · · Score: 1

    but dont viruses that infect consumer PCs use them as spam relays? Blocking port 25 on consumer IP ranges helps solve this problem, right?

    Until the worms start connecting on port 587, using a name and password taken with a keylogger.

  59. They will forbid Linux connectivity... by yt8znu35 · · Score: 1

    ...to no avail. But they will decide that users should only run Windows or Mac, and that Linux is the domain of hacker terrorists (for when they have to sell this to the ignoranti congress).

    1. Re:They will forbid Linux connectivity... by Ikyuao · · Score: 1

      BS. That is ridiculous! Linux is not terrorist hacker's tools you idiot! I find Linux is very useful for many things to use even better than stupid windows and with firewall, I can block any evil nasty packet bastards where they come from with iptables firewall tool that I want to use it is freedom, not terrorist things you idiot and dumbass moron!

  60. Expected response from ISPs by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Obviously, due to these techniques being available, the tool known as iptables must be made illegal. The ability to change how we're sending packets through our networks allows users to engage in piracy, terrorism, and cyber-warfare, and this cannot be allowed to continue in the name of national security."

    (Yes, I think that's a load of crap, but I suspect they can get 60 senators with that and a few campaign donations.)

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  61. Damn those customers by phorm · · Score: 4, Funny

    On top of everything, everybody seems to think it's their job to carry the Internet on its back and figure it out somehow. The end customer likes to have huge amounts of bandwidth for pennies.

    Damn, those lousy cellular customers are making a lot of calls on our unlimited rates plan. Let's just cut off their calls or make the service so distorted that they hang up themselves.

    Damn, those idiotic customers are all watching hi-dev TV on their cable. Maybe we should switch the output signal to low-def.

    Stupid drivers, since the population of the city has grown this roadway has been plugged. Let's give them a lesson by dropping speed limits and closing lanes.

    Darnit, people are actually using our long-distance plan to call relatives in the other side of the country more... let's just block their calls randomly with a busy signal.

    Too many nerds are visiting slashdot these days, it's getting bogged down. We're tired of upgrading servers, so let's just leave them with these Pentium III's and delete the account of anyone who posts too often.

    We don't put up with this shit in other marketplaces, why should we put up with it in regards to the internet? Part of a company's planning procedures should be to map out weak areas in infrastructure, predict where/when capacity increases need to be made, and make improvements where necessary.

    1. Re:Damn those customers by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 1

      We don't put up with this shit in other marketplaces, why should we put up with it in regards to the internet?

      For several reasons:
      1) It is a vital resource you can't live without.
      2) The user doesn't have an alternative ISP or he does but all of them play the game the same way.
      3) It's vital, but not recognized as such officially (so no Gov protection for the citizen to get his Internet fix, unlike basic necessities like water/electricity/circulation etc.)

      So, you can't live without it, meaning the ISP has lots more power over you than you have over them. It's not acknowledged as vital, so the Gov won't step in to force their hand. So you're at their mercy. What now?

      Lawsuits, class actions and so on, probably. We'll see how that goes.

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    2. Re:Damn those customers by dodobh · · Score: 1

      The bandwidth for a call is fixed. If you call someone but don't talk, that circuit is still running at full bandwidth.

      Packet switching saves on the costs of keeping the virtual circuit alive by multiplexing the stream between multiple users. By always using the bandwidth, even when the humans aren't around, you are removing the benefits of multiplexing, but expect to pay the same price. Something has to give, and it's not likely to be the packet switching. You can get dedicated, always on, unshared connectivity. It's called a T1.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    3. Re:Damn those customers by 427_ci_505 · · Score: 1

      1) It is a vital resource you can't live without



      And slashdot isn't??!

  62. Re:Help with linux-based routers by Otto · · Score: 1

    Yes, dd-wrt has iptables built into it. Stick this into your iptables rules on the config page:

    iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport YOUR_BITTORRENT_PORT_NUMBER_HERE --tcp-flags RST RST -j DROP

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  63. Will not work well by nuzak · · Score: 1

    Sandvine sends RST packets to both ends, so this recipe will will only be effective if both sides cooperate.

    Sandvine will now keep just enough state to forge FIN packets instead.

    --
    Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  64. Re:Here;s an idea: Stop fucking stealing shit !! by SwordsmanLuke · · Score: 1

    Exactly. My inlaws are on Comcast. Their youngest daughter is currently in Thailand, teaching english. Because of the high cost of international calls, they've been using Skype to communicate. At my house (non-comcast) we can use Skype without issue. At my inlaws, they're lucky to get a minute and a half at a time without losing the connection.

    --
    Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
  65. They sold unlimited bandwidth... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    ...and people want the unlimited bandwidth they're paying for. What's wrong with that? And why are you blaming P2P users for Comcast's lies?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:They sold unlimited bandwidth... by cryptodan · · Score: 1

      ...and people want the unlimited bandwidth they're paying for. What's wrong with that? And why are you blaming P2P users for Comcast's lies?

      There is using your internet connection then there is abusing it, and massive use of P2P is abusing your connection and as such you should get punished for it. Comcast has punished and people cry foul what a load of shit.

    2. Re:They sold unlimited bandwidth... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      So, say a cell phone service provider offers an unlimited call time plan (some already exist) and hordes of teenage girls get this plan and start talking on the phone in huge numbers every waking moment of their lives. The cell carrier then decides that the teenage girls are "abusing" their unlimited call time and starts throttling calls where teenage girl voices are detected on the line, causing all teenage girls to suffer. Now would it be the fault of the teenage girls who used the unlimited call time they were promised, or would it be the carrier's fault for lying? And do you have shares in Comcast?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:They sold unlimited bandwidth... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      There are thousands of precedents in contract law that establish very clearly that "unlimited" does not mean "without limit."

      Google is your friend. Learn something before you spew.

    4. Re:They sold unlimited bandwidth... by cryptodan · · Score: 1

      Water is in so called unlimited supply yet we still get charged for it. As for me having shares in Comcast no I don't have any shares in any company. Just because I defend a companies policies doesn't mean I work for them high up. Im just your average casual computer user who plays games, chats with friends, streams the occasional youtube, watches watch now movies on netflix, and other average internet use type of person. I download my ISO's of Linux via standard means and can get them in under 15 to 20 minutes. Yes I do have P2P applications installed, but that is only for those sites that only use torrents for file downloads and not of the illegal or illicit type.

    5. Re:They sold unlimited bandwidth... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      So you only have a problem with torrents being used for piracy? This should really be a discussion over copyright law then, not over ISPs selling what they don't have. I guess you're willing to give up transferring Linux ISOs, etc over bittorrent...that's a step backwards where serving and downloading large files is concerned.

      Also water is a commodity not a service, and there isn't an unlimited supply.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:They sold unlimited bandwidth... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I did a quick Google search and couldn't turn up any definitions of "limited" or "unlimited" in contract law (well I turned up a useless little snippet in regards to liability, but that's about it).

      Teach me, smarty man.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:They sold unlimited bandwidth... by cryptodan · · Score: 1

      I get my allocated bandwidth regardless of what I am doing, and that makes me happy. I can download things 24/7 at nearly 1.2Megabytes a second to upwards of 2.2Megabytes a second regardless of time. Water companies can install water filters on your lines based on usage as well. If you are using so much water that pressure in your neighborhood decreases then maybe you should reconsider how much water you do use, and think of the others in your neighborhood. So far nothing you have stated has made any sense. All I hear is a crying baby whining because he cant get the latest Ubuntu at a realtively fast speed or the latest episode of Battlestar Galactica. Im sorry your excessive use of bandwidth caused your ISP to throttle your speeds. Maybe you should think about actually going to the store and buying them on DVD or by using HTTP/FTP to download your ISO's.

    8. Re:They sold unlimited bandwidth... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      All I see is someone who can't understand the meaning of unlimited, and doesn't have a problem being ripped off. Can you compare bits to anything other than water? Did you learn about the Internet from Ted Stevens?

      ISPs promised unlimited data, recent information has confirmed that they should be able to deliver it at current connection speeds, but they are ripping off users who are downloading too much data for their liking, even though they offered unlimited data. What about that is so hard for you to understand?

      Maybe you should stop being Comcast's slave-bitch (or are you like that with all abusive corporations?).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:They sold unlimited bandwidth... by cryptodan · · Score: 1
      And I quote from Comcasts AUP which we all sign if we are Comcast Customers:

      How does Comcast enforce this Policy?

      Comcast does not routinely monitor the activity of individual Service accounts for violations of this Policy, except for determining aggregate bandwidth consumption in connection with the bandwidth consumption provisions of this Policy. However, in the company's efforts to promote good citizenship within the Internet community, it will respond appropriately if it becomes aware of inappropriate use of the Service. Comcast has no obligation to monitor the Service and/or the network. However, Comcast and its suppliers reserve the right at any time to monitor bandwidth, usage, transmissions, and content in order to, among other things, operate the Service; identify violations of this Policy; and/or protect the network, the Service and Comcast users.

      Comcast prefers to inform customers of inappropriate activities and give them a reasonable period of time in which to take corrective action. Comcast also prefers to have customers directly resolve any disputes or disagreements they may have with others, whether customers or not, without Comcast's intervention. However, if the Service is used in a way that Comcast or its suppliers, in their sole discretion, believe violates this Policy, Comcast or its suppliers may take any responsive actions they deem appropriate under the circumstances with or without notice. These actions include, but are not limited to, temporary or permanent removal of content, cancellation of newsgroup posts, filtering of Internet transmissions, and the immediate suspension or termination of all or any portion of the Service. Neither Comcast nor its affiliates, suppliers, or agents will have any liability for any of these responsive actions. These actions are not Comcast's exclusive remedies and Comcast may take any other legal or technical actions it deems appropriate with or without notice.

      The full text can be found here: http://www.comcast.net/terms/use/#violation You using to much bandwidth is a violation of the Terms of Service agreement. So they are well within their rights to throttle or completely disconnect you as they did with a few of my friends for downloading way to much via P2P a few years ago. So what about that do you not understand? If only you had read the AUP and the ToS for your ISP you and various other people would understand this and not bitch and moan when your precious P2P files aren't being delivered to you as fast as you want. I am only this way when people defy logical thinking and apply it. Cause: Using to Much Bandwidth Effect: Throttling of Bandwidth quite simple.

    10. Re:They sold unlimited bandwidth... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      After reading through comcast's terms and conditions, I can't find any measure of how much is too much. They just use vague terms like:

      Comcast reserves the right to suspend or terminate Service accounts where bandwidth consumption is not characteristic of a typical residential user of the Service as determined by the company in its sole discretion.

      And they mention that "network resources are not unlimited," but of course the plans advertise unlimited data at a certain speed, which is not truly unlimited in nature - that would be unlimited data at infinite speed. You don't need unlimited network resources to deliver unlimited data at a finite speed.

      So Comcast is doing some nasty false advertising right now, and has some vague and highly subjective material in it's ToS.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:They sold unlimited bandwidth... by cryptodan · · Score: 1

      There is unlimited bandwidth but not unlimited data transfer. The average joe users 20Megabit a second is more then enough to check email, youtube, browse the web, send and receive text messages, pay bills online, and what not. So to the average user 20Megabits a scond is unlimited as they will never need that much. But to the P2P user who constantly saturates their up and down streams with data transfers and slows down to a crawl you have reached your limit of 20Megabits a Second. So I think that is what they are saying.

    12. Re:They sold unlimited bandwidth... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I see it as the other way around. The limit is the bandwidth (which is fixed) and the data transfer is unlimited. So any unlimited plan is limited in a way - 1 month's worth of data at 20 megabits per second. Anyone who has ever downloaded a file of a significant size or tried to stream a video will see very clearly that their bandwidth isn't unlimited. Plus Comcast isn't in the clear IMO until they either define a transfer limit (at least in the ToS but ideally disclosed in the advertising), or stop the throttling.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re:They sold unlimited bandwidth... by cryptodan · · Score: 1

      Now that you have explained your side of the story and your perception of this, now i can see where you people are coming from. Thank you for opening my eyes a little bit more and broadening my vision.

  66. Re:I wonder if they will simply start disconnectin by paratiritis · · Score: 1

    On what grounds?

    First of all their packets are fake. They do not originate from the IP contained in their header. if anyone has grounds for complaint it is the user.

    Second the user gets whatever information is presented, but is under no obligation to route it or process it in any specific way. The ISP cannot expect the user to do anything with a packet in a predefined way.

    Of course these are just arguments this argument is not rational, not that they won't try it :-)

  67. How get this running in Windows? by paratiritis · · Score: 1

    Can we somehow use iptables scripts in windows? Failing that, could someone make a quick and dirty filter implementing this functionality for windows?

    1. Re:How get this running in Windows? by Ikyuao · · Score: 1

      Mmmm... Just begging for iptables firewall to implant into windows kernel but Microsoft says HELL NO! just get a clue. If you wanna iptables badly then move on go with Linux so just ditch your windows.

  68. Re:Comcast has moved on; now they're delaying pack by mattwarden · · Score: 1

    > isn't available anywhere in MA except the rich white suburbs- Boston's
    > completely "dark"

    Ok... no white people in Boston... we get it.

  69. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  70. Linux with iptables firewall by Ikyuao · · Score: 1

    I just set my input policy in DROP mode that should start dropping everything includes RST or evil nasty bastards where they come from. that is very simple :D

  71. Re:First it was email and spam, then it was conten by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    What country do you live in? In the US, the FCC requires all TVs and receivers (cable or satellite) to support closed captioning, and depending on content (but clearly for all new content, which includes news and sports) requires programmers (ie networks/stations) to provide closed captioning in their broadcasts.

    http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.html

    If you aren't in the US, I'd be really surprised your country's broadcasting/disability laws are so far behind the US (where these have existed for almost 15 years), as from what I have seen the FCC almost always picks the worst broadcast standards of those available (or makes up a new one when there aren't any existing ones that are bad enough). If you are in the US (and your TV is less than 15 years old), check again, I'm sure you can get CC. NBC/ABC/CBS have no reason to violate FCC rules.

  72. Re:Comcast has moved on; now they're delaying pack by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Well, I remember ten years ago or so when I had a 4 mbit/sec symmetric connection from @Home. It was awesome (okay all you people in Japan or Korea or wherever with 100 mbit connections can just shut up.) Then @Home folded, and AT&T took 'em over and overnight I had 1.5 mbit down and 25 kbit up. Millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror ... and were slowed to a crawl.

    AT&T magnanimously decreed that there wouldn't be any cost increases, of course that didn't last. The service royally sucked compared to what I had before. Then AT&T Broadband was sold to Comcast and the service went totally into the toilet.

    So, basically I've to wait almost a decade to get service that still doesn't match what I had from @Home and costs almost twice as much.

    That's progress for you.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  73. Re:First it was email and spam, then it was conten by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    What country do you live in?

    Hong Kong. No captioning required here.

  74. New contract terms.... by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

    They could alter the Ts & Cs to make it a violation of service to block those packets....and then cut you off if you do it.

    --
    Only boring people are ever bored.
  75. Good digging... by Blowit · · Score: 1

    Good info... Will be implementing this later tonight. I think others would like this info.

    --
    *Headline News* censorship shuts down the Internet! More at 6PM!