Slashdot Mirror


French ISP Throttles Direct Download Website

siliconbits contributes this snippet: "In what might be the first of many, French Internet Service Provider Orange has been caught throttling traffic to one of the world's biggest direct download websites, Megaupload. The site, which also operates Megavideo, states that Orange, which is owned by France Telecom, is preventing its users from accessing its downloading and video streaming service freely and says that it can prove it."

147 comments

  1. I Suppose Caught is the Keyword by ConaxConax · · Score: 5, Informative

    Others have probably been doing it already.

    1. Re:I Suppose Caught is the Keyword by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

      It's possible - sure. You can throttle it from a server admin end, an hosting provider end, an upstream provider end, a Tier 1 end...a damn shame. Almost makes me want to see the Internet partially regulated, so stuff like this doesn't happen.

      Of course, that opens a million questions. Who regulates it? The G8? One country, one vote? Companies? A "non partisian" governing body a la IETF or the IEEE? What if you or I or Mohammad or Jorge or Masahari doesn't like the way it is regulated in their country? Look at all the news stories that China and North Korea generate about their methods of throttling aka information dispersal.

      OTOH, what about companies that have invested zillions into their piping infrastructure, only to have smaller competitors take advantage of it...

      I have no idea what the answer is - man things were easier back in the day of BBSs and Lynx.

      (disclaimer, I'm not arguing with the parent poster - it just made me think a little bit about the whole thing, and the many different angles involved)

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    2. Re:I Suppose Caught is the Keyword by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      sed -i "s/have probably been/are/"

  2. Be careful francies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    You don't want an invading army of filesharers to roll in and take over your country.

    1. Re:Be careful francies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the french aren't wimps, they just have a better understanding of what war means than the average american.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

  3. Legality by biryokumaru · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is that even illegal? I think that's the whole reason for the Net Neutrality debate here in the states, and I don't actually know if it's illegal here yet... although I may be ignorant of some more basic law there that covers this kind of thing. But have our more politically enlightened friends in France made it illegal yet?

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    1. Re:Legality by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's France. Petit Napoleon probably already passed a law that butchers the internet freedom without anyone noticing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Legality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had noticed it... and intented to warn the rest of the population, but music and movies lobbies are stronger than citizen lobbies :(

    3. Re:Legality by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is that even illegal?

      It is illegal. There are laws that protect users and allow them to access the sites they want.
      If Orange is not happy with a given site, they have to follow a legal procedure to close the site, not prevent the users from accessing it.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    4. Re:Legality by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      According to the US-FCC's new neutrality rules, ISPs are allowed to throttle websites as part of their "network management". The ISPs are required to be non-discriminatory when they throttle, but good luck enforcing that part of the regulation.

      As for France, I've no clue if throttling is allowed, but given their three-strike laws they don't seem a very internet-friendly country. I bet the ISP won't be punished.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:Legality by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Then raise a toast to the media lobbies. With Molotov cocktails.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    6. Re:Legality by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's only illegal if you get caught.

    7. Re:Legality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal. Should have built it into the system. Why can't we ditch this crappy notion of regulating it when all you need is a system that is built for a trustless world.

    8. Re:Legality by lennier1 · · Score: 2

      Not that far off, considering how often there's a riot in modern France.

    9. Re:Legality by johnjaydk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thank god, that leaders like him are in short supply. A man who requests SMALL bodyguards.

      --
      TCAP-Abort
    10. Re:Legality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a breach of contract with Orange's users.

    11. Re:Legality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to the US-FCC's new neutrality rules, ISPs are allowed to throttle websites as part of their "network management". The ISPs are required to be non-discriminatory when they throttle, but good luck enforcing that part of the regulation.

      That means they cannot throttle apple.com more than they do microsoft.com, and vice-versa.

      FFS, how difficult is this to understand???

      As for France, I've no clue if throttling is allowed....

      So why are you opening your yapper in the first place?? STFU if you have nothing informative to say.

    12. Re:Legality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Napoleon wasn't actually particularly short. See Wikipedia's list of common misconceptions.

    13. Re:Legality by unity100 · · Score: 1

      That means they cannot throttle apple.com more than they do microsoft.com, and vice-versa. FFS, how difficult is this to understand???

      yes, now explain us, how will the criteria for 'nondiscrimination' and 'network management' will be defined. huh ? they are not defined ? so, they are solely left to the whim of the private party ?

    14. Re:Legality by johnjaydk · · Score: 1

      That is why they call the current version petit napoleon and the current version DID insist on small bodyguards so that he didn't look small in comparison.

      --
      TCAP-Abort
    15. Re:Legality by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Yes, indeed. The Europeans were too busy criticizing the Hungarians for their new overly restrictive media control laws, and failed to notice that France is passing laws that are far worse... (Hadopi, Lopsi, ...). But you can't criticize a founding member, can you?

    16. Re:Legality by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, the original version was wrongly assumed to be short because the men of his Imperial Guard, with whom he 'hung out,' were very tall, creating the illusion that Napoleon was short, so it's quite understandable that the current garden dwarf wants to avoid similar misunderstanding. It's bad enough already with all the 10 year olds spitting on this head...

    17. Re:Legality by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So THAT's it. And here I was wondering why he doesn't wash his greasy mat.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Legality by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I can. Unfortunately, our governments are a bit less eager to, mostly 'cause they're busy finding out how to copy it.

      Hope he put it under severe copyright protection.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Orange by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 0

    Sounds like Orange is French for Comcast.

    Please Verizon get Fios in my area soon.

    1. Re:Orange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just that Orange is a company from the UK if memory serves, they just bought into France

    2. Re:Orange by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Orange was a mobile phone company in the UK. Then they were bought by France Telecom. Then they used the Orange brand as an ASDL reseller in the UK. I think they're now using the Orange brand in France too (at least, TFA implies it), but possibly only for ADSL and not for mobile phones.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Orange by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Orange is the French for orange.

    4. Re:Orange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orange is also the brand France Telecom uses for mobile phones in France.

    5. Re:Orange by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Anyone begging for verizon hasnt dealt with their customer service.

      I often wonder if they genuinely loathe their non-mobile users.

    6. Re:Orange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orange is actually now among the 10 biggest telecom operators worldwide, with nearly 200 million customers and mobile phone networks in Armenia, Austria, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, not to mention two dozen countries in Africa and the Middle East. Oh, and yes, they do ADSL too... It's come a long way from the old Hutchinson Telecom.

    7. Re:Orange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For both. They use the Orange brand for all their services in various EU countries.

    8. Re:Orange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in France, France Telecom uses Orange as a global brand.

      "Orange" brand has now replaced "Itineris" for mobiles, "Wanadoo" for home Internet services and "Oleane" for professional Internet services.

  5. Yeah but by JamesP · · Score: 1

    all these download sites throttle the connection themselves (unless you are a premium user)

    Not to mention really hard to work captchas, and waiting 30 second or more to download.

    So I guess if it's really being throttled no one notices it

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    1. Re:Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at the very least, megaupload does not have "hard to work" captchas.

      i wonder why they have captchas, its not like they can prevent anything.

      (i use freerapid download manager, and it can solve megauploads captchas without problem)

    2. Re:Yeah but by Shikaku · · Score: 4, Informative
    3. Re:Yeah but by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      For the same reason they have the 30 seconds wait: To annoy user into signing up for premium.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's a difference between the site throttle and the ISP throttle. I'm not premium and i can download at more than 400kBps. Orange subscribers says they have less than 50kBps

    5. Re:Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's cute, but...

      *cough*

    6. Re:Yeah but by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I'll pass on the "skipscreen"..... for the same reason I don't use ad-blocking. Although I do use NoScript (to block viruses/spies).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cough harder or shut up.

    8. Re:Yeah but by Carnivorous+Vulgaris · · Score: 1

      What happened to P2P?
      The job bittorrent was made for, seems to have been replaced by a bunch of rubbishy web-based services.

      Robust, distributed protocols -> Web based junk -> Web based junk: Sign in using facebook ID -> iPhone app -> ???

    9. Re:Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy to answer, here in France, P2P sharing is more or less monitered and you can be fined if your are taken illegaly downloading.
      HTML traffic isn't.

    10. Re:Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you're an idiot?

    11. Re:Yeah but by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      What happened to P2P? The job bittorrent was made for, seems to have been replaced by a bunch of rubbishy web-based services.

      Because P2P only works in a subset of the use-cases that megaupload satisfies. Perhaps I need to get a larger file to a client and don't want to set up an FTP site, etc. Megaupload already provides the exact service that I need.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    12. Re:Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robust, distributed protocols -> Web based junk -> Web based junk: Sign in using facebook ID -> iPhone app -> ??? -> Profit!

      There, fixed it for you.

    13. Re:Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. We're idiots who understand that things cost money to produce. Gay arrogant retarded assholes with entitlement complexes need to figure that out.

      Funny CAPTCHA: bowels

    14. Re:Yeah but by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Ads do not waste your time, and help pay for the site you are visiting, so not using adblocking makes perfect sense. I don't use it either (but noscript/flashblock is great for avoiding 'talkie' ads, which disrupt my workflow).

      But skip screen simply avoids the annoyances put in place by the download sites to get you to subscribe to their service. But if you have no intention of ever subscribing, not using skipscreen simply wastes your time. It's not like you are discovering some new product or service, or helping fund the site by waiting 45 seconds.

    15. Re:Yeah but by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 1

      Ads do not waste your time...

      Yes, they do, actually; ads are often one of the slowest things to load, and unless they're set up right (which they're often not), the browser will wait to finish loading them before properly rendering the rest of the page.

    16. Re:Yeah but by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      If two anonymous cowards (0) are
      talking in a woods (or slashdot),
      does anybody hear them? ;-)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. I'd lose my mind without skipscreen handling those waits for me.

    18. Re:Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ads are annoying and disruptive, at least to me. Also I'll choose what to load and not load on MY browser.

      RequestPolicy is a fantastic adblocker, with the added bonus of making sure google analytics never sees me. It still amazes me sometimes when I load up a site, click on the RequestPolicy flag, and see literally 20 ad/tracking/spam/malware sites wanting to load.

    19. Re:Yeah but by leromarinvit · · Score: 1

      You send your clients links that open obnoxious porn and gambling popups, even circumventing some popup blockers (Firefox without adblock at least)?

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    20. Re:Yeah but by McTickles · · Score: 1

      Just use a VPN; even without a VPN the chances of HADOPI ever catching you are quite low.
      and even if they catch you it is unlikely to lead to more than idle threats. Much like in the UK.

    21. Re:Yeah but by McTickles · · Score: 1

      Then why not just use torrents? for Pete's sake whats wrong with people going back to HTTP and being annoyed with poor bandwidth/having to wait, when it is all already on torrents, for free, at maximum speed!

    22. Re:Yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lavasoft adware found something in this exe, IDK if it's a false ppositive, but proceed with caution

    23. Re:Yeah but by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      I just use the xpi. Since I'm running from Linux and all. I didn't even know there was an installer.

    24. Re:Yeah but by hldn · · Score: 1

      But skip screen simply avoids the annoyances put in place by the download sites to get you to subscribe to their service. But if you have no intention of ever subscribing, not using skipscreen simply wastes your time. It's not like you are discovering some new product or service, or helping fund the site by waiting 45 seconds.

      i often waste MORE than the wait time on these download sites. 30-60 second timer pops up, i get bored waiting, switch to a different tab, forget about my download, eventually come back to it, OH HEY YOUR DOWNLOAD TIMED OUT, TRY AGAIN. FFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    25. Re:Yeah but by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Because the french government is watching what you download on P2P.

    26. Re:Yeah but by McTickles · · Score: 1

      I live in the aforementioned country. I don't stop using torrents because of that... In fact I don't give a toss, the chances of them catching me (especially considering i don't download the latest crap from hollywood) are extremely slim. Even if caught they actually do not have any valid arguments if they take it to court as their system is basically hit and miss... misses most of the time.

    27. Re:Yeah but by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>the browser will wait to finish loading the ads before properly rendering the rest of the page.

      Switch to a real browser like Opera, which renders the webpage in real-time, even if not all image/ads are loaded.
      .

      Anon. Coward writes:
      >>>I'll choose what to load and not load on MY browser.

      If I were a webmaster, and detected my ads did not load, I would block that IP address forever. The last thing I need is visitors who drive-up my monthly bill but never contribute back to me (i.e. view the ads). That's akin to having a person tap your phoneline and making long distance calls on MY bill.

      Yeah I know. It makes me an ass to want to keep my bills as low as possible.
      So sue me.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    28. Re:Yeah but by tqk · · Score: 1

      If two anonymous cowards (0) are talking in a woods (or slashdot),

      An AC's voice is all they need. All else is noise, for all of us. All output, no signal.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    29. Re:Yeah but by icebraining · · Score: 1

      If I were a webmaster, and detected my ads did not load, I would block that IP address forever.

      Then if one guy accesses your website using an ad-blocker behind a NAT, all the people behind the same NAT get blocked.

  6. ISP's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Proudly refusing to give you the bandwidth you paid for since 1998.

  7. Megaupload vs Rapidshare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's going to be extra interesting if Rapidshare is not throttled

    It's going to be hilarious if Rapidshare paid money to Orange ("voluntarily" or not)

    It's going to be a toin coss when the EU Commissioners for Competition and "Digital Agenda" are going to get involved.

  8. Bell Canada does it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bell Canada does (did?) the same thing. I was downloading something from hotfile late at night and the download was locked at 30KB/s. I just happened to be watching it when 2am rolled by and it instantly shot up to 200KB/s. Bell does the same thing with bittorrent - it locks them at 30KB/s from 5pm to 2am.

    Thing was my isp at the time wasn't even Bell, it was Teksavvy. Teksavvy leases out part of the phone line architecture from Bell so they're users get hit by the throttling too.

    1. Re:Bell Canada does it by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      Bell throttles only P2P (torrent anything else I don;t know about) or anything mistaken for P2P. You can get around it using a VPN/Proxy. Whereas in this case Orange is throttling a website (HTTP) access.

  9. I'm fine with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    My son downloads so much stuff that I would hope more ISPs do this. Hopefully this will deter him from slowing things down at home for all the reset of us!

    1. Re:I'm fine with this by cyber-vandal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So it's not your job to supervise your child then.

    2. Re:I'm fine with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you could try parenting.

    3. Re:I'm fine with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I didn't say he was doing anything illegal - just slowing down our network. It's the modern equivalent of a teenager hogging the one landline that families use to have.

    4. Re:I'm fine with this by dfm3 · · Score: 2

      He said son, not child. He could be a 34-year old basement dweller for all we know.

    5. Re:I'm fine with this by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      Stop being inept.

      Set some rules, tell the kid to stop and then set some QoS rules on your network.

    6. Re:I'm fine with this by NetNed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if your kid picked his nose would you want national legislation to stop him from picking his nose too?

      Here's a thought. Tell him no maybe? I would hate for you to ruin the "friendship" you have with your son, but it's you SON not your friend.

    7. Re:I'm fine with this by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Reread parents post; his point remains.

    8. Re:I'm fine with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Darn right! Just like you, I want more police at cinemas and amusement parks so if my son cuts the line he learn his lesson, same with traffic.

      And someone needs to be there checking for the ice cream to, the little b**** sometimes eats it when I'm not home! Someone needs to stop him.

      I also pay for the water at the house, and my son takes 1 hour showers, can the aqueduct do something to prevent this? Same when he plugs stuff to the power outlet, I need the power company to do stuff about it, when he was a baby, he got shocked when putting the fingers inside the power outlet! I had to pay a lot in electricity that month, not counting the darn medical bill!

    9. Re:I'm fine with this by gordguide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see your point. If he's sharing the home connection, and it's a problem due to his use, then the father needs a backbone. I don't care how old the son is.

    10. Re:I'm fine with this by Idbar · · Score: 2

      Man, I'm with you! I'm also a responsible concerned parent!

    11. Re:I'm fine with this by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 2

      Please, don't impose your will on the rest of the users on your ISP just because you are not competent enough to set up your own QoS. It could be technical based (ie: Fancy router, linux router, software on his pc), or it could be as simple as unplugging his ethernet cable/blocking his mac whenever the internet slows down for you. Do that a few times and he'll start running his downloads when no one else is on.

    12. Re:I'm fine with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe you are right and I could prevent my son from clogging things up this way. Could you be more specific as to what needs to be done? What is QoS?

    13. Re:I'm fine with this by McTickles · · Score: 1

      LOL WHAT A RETARD!

    14. Re:I'm fine with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What are you doing here? This is slashdot.

      1) Slashdotters don't have kids
      2) If slashdotters had kids, the kids wouldn't be hogging the line, slashdotters would be ensuring via technical and other means that any line hogging was done by them :).

    15. Re:I'm fine with this by TheLink · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah the father needs a gigabit backbone.

      --
    16. Re:I'm fine with this by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      If he's sharing the home connection, and it's a problem due to his use, then the father needs a backbone. I don't care how old the son is.

      Perhaps the son pays for the Internet connection?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    17. Re:I'm fine with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, she just wants him to pick it slower so he doesn't tear up his nostrils so bad that they bleed.

    18. Re:I'm fine with this by Gripp · · Score: 0

      there are LOADS of softwares out there that YOU can use to restrict his internet usage; whilst allowing the rest of us to continue using the internet in the mannors which it should be.

      the problem with your "desire" for big brother to solve your parenting problems is that it would ultimately come at a HUGE expense to the rest of us. sure, an ISP could block certain sites, but then others would just pop up. further, a lot of these sites have LEGAL things which others ought to be able to download. Even if an ISP really did a good job staying on top of warez then it would just go back underground, as it was in the 90's (file transfers in IRC chats, etc)
      so the only way to restrict it from there is to only allow upload streams from "registered content providers" ... which, not only would still be circumvented in some way, but would utterly destroy the internet as we know it, as only those who have $$ to begin with would be able start/host web sites. And this would, of course, restrict the average-joe/youngster from getting into programming and the likes to begin with (since they wouldn't just be able to publish their content)

      so, yeah, lets destroy the internet and the ability for society at-large to become technologically inclined so that you dont have to google "net-nanny" ...

    19. Re:I'm fine with this by Pieroxy · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, we're going extinct...

    20. Re:I'm fine with this by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Then it's his to do with as he pleases, and the ISP should again not be throttling.

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    21. Re:I'm fine with this by Roger+Lindsjo · · Score: 0

      And the solution to a teenager hogging the landline is not for the parents to take control but instead for the phone companies take action? Say, all calls over 5 minutes are automatically disconnected? I mean, what valid reason could you possibly have to want to talk to someone for more than 5 minutes?

    22. Re:I'm fine with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why mod points need to go up to eleven :(

    23. Re:I'm fine with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No it isn't his, he made a contract that allows him to use the ISP's hardware and when he abuses it he is causing higher costs for the ISP and so the ISP simply stops that damage that is happening. Whats the problem with that? If you don't like it then go find another ISP or don't use the internet, but if you want to then don't be an asshole about it.

    24. Re:I'm fine with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a self-righteous idiot. Get off the internet and start telling other people how they should be thinking in real life!

    25. Re:I'm fine with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He made a contract.

      He agreed to pay some amount of money per month.
      The IP agreed to carry as much traffic as he sent.

      Not his fault that the IP can't hold up their end of the bargain.

    26. Re:I'm fine with this by Gripp · · Score: 0

      seriously, how exactly is this flame bait?

    27. Re:I'm fine with this by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Read the links. The D link router there is most consumer friendly. What it does is prevent one person from slowing down everyone's internet, by allowing you to set priorties. If everyone has the same priority it is divided evenly, or you could chose to lower the priority of his devices so that whenever you are using the internet, his slows down but not the reverse.

  10. Just plain incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am working for France Telecom/Orange in a service directly involved with this problem, and I can assure you that this throttling is not true.
    Actually, we had the same problem with Youtube, and at the same time other ISP had the same issue though they resolved it faster than us ... Which lead to just apologizes: yes FT/Orange is not the cutting-edge ISP and Telco it used to be; but No we are not doing it on purpose.

    1. Re:Just plain incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Orange is worse than the other ISP and is still the most expensive?
      What else is new?

    2. Re:Just plain incompetence by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Has it ever been cutting-edge? Come on! The market in France is only pushed thanks to the innovations of "Free". If they weren't around, every French would still use a stupid Sagem modem, no TV over IP, no IP phone and such.
      What made everyone laugh head-off was the "Ma ligne TV" thing, were you had to choose between ADSL or TV over IP. What a joke.
      Exactly what was the cutting-edge thing you were talking about?

    3. Re:Just plain incompetence by lexidation · · Score: 1

      My connection must be coming through your territory, then :-) Youtube started getting throttled in this country (CZ) in mid-November. My ISP is a three-man show and they swear they know nothing about it. I believe them. Therefore it must be upstream somewhere. I used to get 400, now youtube maxes at around 50.

    4. Re:Just plain incompetence by McTickles · · Score: 1

      TV over IP isn't exactly my top priority though...

    5. Re:Just plain incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having seen some Orange routing tables, I can completely see how this might not be intentional, but a byproduct of their infrastructure.

    6. Re:Just plain incompetence by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I am working for France Telecom/Orange in a service directly involved with this problem, and I can assure you that this throttling is not true.
      Actually, we had the same problem with Youtube, and at the same time other ISP had the same issue though they resolved it faster than us ... Which lead to just apologizes: yes FT/Orange is not the cutting-edge ISP and Telco it used to be; but No we are not doing it on purpose.

      Sure you aren't.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    7. Re:Just plain incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minitel I guess ...

  11. What's the motivation? by timeOday · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Are people still paying for warez sites? It seems to me the music and video content producers are waving the white flag by offering their goods for reasonable prices.

    Music: I am not old, but when I was a kid, an audiocasette was $12-$14 at the store, and minimum wage was $3.35. You could work half a day (4 hours) to buy one album. Now I am getting mp3 albums from amazon for $5-$7 each, and minimum wage is $7.25 (1 hour). (My own viewpoint is probably skewed further because I actually was earning minimum wage then, and naturally make more now). And usually a few tracks of any album can be found for free on youtube.

    Video: Most movies can be streamed legally for $1-$3, and that's if they're not already available through netflix $8/mo unlimited streaming plan. Even paid piracy sites used to cost more than that. Is it even worth two hours of my time to watch if it's not worth $1 to me? I don't feel the slightest incentive to shell out for a Blu-Ray player and their $20 discs.

    Granted, piracy is probably to thank for putting price pressure on the content cartels. And net neutrality is just as important for 3rd party legal streaming as illegal downloading, since from the ISPs perspective they're exactly the same. But anyways, this story made me think how things have got quite a bit better in the last few years.

    1. Re:What's the motivation? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Photoshop still costs hundreds and Gipm is... not a replacement. PS is the only pirated software I have.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:What's the motivation? by PARENA · · Score: 1

      Now I am getting mp3 albums from amazon for $5-$7 each

      Yes, but not everyone is in the US or another amazon-mp3-enabled country. Spotify sells albums for about 9-10 euros. That's around 13 USD. I'm not saying it's a bad price, but just to compare.

      Video: Most movies can be streamed legally for $1-$3, and that's if they're not already available through netflix $8/mo unlimited streaming plan.

      Please show me where I can do that from here (Finland), I might even boot my never-used XP for that (Linux user talking). No netflix-like service available for me, either, which really sucks as I have a Wii which would be supported. :(

      --
      Here's the secret to immortality: ...oh dang, I forgot.
    3. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still get freedom with piracy.

    4. Re:What's the motivation? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Amazon makes B&M pricing for most things look like a joke, so the current price (which is often closer to $10) for an intangible product isn't amazing. I doubt you can find any movie you'd want streamed for $1 (netflix doesn't have porn!), but even if you could streaming sucks.

    5. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photoshop costs hundreds because that is what the market will bear.

      Question is - are you in that market?

      You say that 'Gipm' is not a replacement - I agree, The GIMP's got a long way (and a name change, imho) to go, but as people do use The GIMP, or Paint.NET, or, heck, Photoshop Elements, even for fairly complicated tasks, it and others are not exactly required to be a replacement to Photoshop except for those who actually need Photoshop's more advanced features.

      Therein, thus, lies the rub... you apparently feel that you need those advanced features. Usually that stems from needing to use them within a professional setting. But every professional I know using Photoshop has the cost of investment in Photoshop recovered in just a few jobs. Airbrush some lady's face for a magazine cover? Sure, that'll be $150. Need that 2011 model car dramatized for a magazine spread? $400. A few more jobs and they'll be well on their way to a 3-monitor setup, the largest Cintiq they can find, and an iPad to tote around to show their clients some rough sketches.

      So either..
      A. you're not a professional, in which case you really don't *need* Photoshop. You may prefer it, just as I prefer a Lamborghini, but my Ford will take me from A to B just fine.
      B. you'd like to be a professional, and want to learn Photoshop to roll into that world. Consider purchasing your own license as an investment - similar to how people invest into their general education. Heck, if you are a student, there's student discounts that drop the price of Photoshop right down.
      C. you are a professional, work with Photoshop at a company, and are unaware of the portable/home computer use clause of the license (2.4 in recent license texts).
      D. you are a professional and work with Photoshop commercially, and are just a cheapskate. 'nuff said.
      E. Other, specifically...

      You can fill in E if you think you fall well outside of options A-D.

    6. Re:What's the motivation? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Music: I am not old, but when I was a kid, an audiocasette was $12-$14 at the store, and minimum wage was $3.35.

      yes ur old

    7. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Are people still paying for warez sites? It seems to me the music and video content producers are waving the white flag by offering their goods for reasonable prices.

      What are you talking about? All I get is "this video is not available in your country" (Austria).

    8. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Gipm is not a replacement but Gimp is!

    9. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking moron.

    10. Re:What's the motivation? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I doubt you can find any movie you'd want streamed for $1 (netflix doesn't have porn!), but even if you could streaming sucks.

      True, new recent movies are often $3-$4, and $4 is too much IMHO.

      However, streaming does not suck. I think the standard quality on amazon or netflix is right on par with a DVD, and the HD stream is better than that. (Granted, neither is as good as digital broadcast TV, and Blu-Ray must take the cake, but I've never watched one). With downloads the quality is uneven; usually it's good, but sometimes you wait a long time for a download and it's really crappy.

    11. Re:What's the motivation? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Yes, but not everyone is in the US or another amazon-mp3-enabled country.

      A couple people pointed that out. I'm a little surprised, since it seems like cellphones and Internet access are a ripoff in the US compared to other places.

      Another difference is, I suspect the piracy police may be more potent here in the US since it's a big market and a lot of content is produced here.

    12. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GIMP is an excellent replacement and you just don't know how to use it. I am familiar with the major image editors from Pain Shop Pro to Photoshop and as a business owner using it for producing marketing material it works great. Everybody is always awed by my work and want to know what app I use. It's pure non-sense that you must have Photoshop. Just because it is $$$ doesn't make it better.

  12. Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the article makes it clear, Orange is not actively throttling traffic. It stems from a long peering dispute between Cogent and France Telecom (Orange's parent company). The issue is affecting Orange throughout Europe (not just France).

  13. Back To The Future by westlake · · Score: 1

    Proudly refusing to give you the bandwidth you paid for since 1998.

    What you paid for then - and what you pay for now - is 24/7 access and flat rate monthly billing at a mass market price. As oppossed to billing-by-the hour for dial-up sevices like Compuserve --- at a stiff $8 to $12 an hour, unadjusted for inflation.

    1. Re:Back To The Future by McTickles · · Score: 1

      I dont have a TV or a TV license because French TV sucks you insensitive clot!

      My connection never got killed or throttled, and I am on the extreme end of paranoia so I would have noticed.

      How about you stop clogging up the internet with your useless comments? besides, bandwidth, like money, is there to be used...

      I do agree however we should stop letting idiots on the internets... but that's for another discussion.

  14. Peering issue... by mariushm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For me it looks more like Orange not wishing to do peering with Cogent and Tata, both used by Megaupload. As bandwidth through the other links costs Orange money, they probably throttle bandwidth with megaupload or something like that.

  15. As said a thousand times ... by McTickles · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is a peering issue, France Telecom is trying to push OpenTransit on the market by making Level3, Cogent look bad.

    Orange users can, as I told them many times before, contact the OpenTransit NOC to complain.

  16. Common Carrier by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

    Yes. It's called common carrier status, and it's what gives ISP's the ability to not be responsible for what their users do. As soon as they start filtering traffic, they are no longer common carrier, and should be legally responsible for ANY wrongdoing of their users. They're busy trying to have their cake and eat it too though.

    1. Re:Common Carrier by Thundersnatch · · Score: 2

      ...except ISPs are not Common Carriers in the USA. Please stop talking out of your ass.

  17. Re:Capchas are harde by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

    I was just discussing this the other day with a friend. Captchas are usually hard to read for most people who are not used to them. Some of them are really messy (I remember Rapidshare's cats).

    And the alternative (some people have bad eyesights) is, many times, a long set of horrible sounds and spoken words that I usually fail to get right.

    "garble, garble, random noise, FOUR, garble, garble, SEE (or whas it SEA?), garble, garble, RED."

    Added to that, not everyone might understand those pronunciations.

    Finally, as Parent said, do they really prevent anything?

    --
    "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
  18. What's the problem? by OddJobBob · · Score: 1

    If you want to download a shit load of stuff then what is the problem with paying for it? I pay for a limited daytime usage (60GB/month) which is more than enough for the time being. My ISP has a list of sites that will be capped throughput wise of which Megaupload is one of them and I am fine with that. People really need to get real with the concept that bits and bytes actually do cost something.

    1. Re:What's the problem? by McTickles · · Score: 1

      They cost nothing, unless of course you count electrons... In which case you have major mental problems with greed...

    2. Re:What's the problem? by OddJobBob · · Score: 1

      So these electrons that make up these bits and bytes happen to transport themselves without the influence of external energy then? You seem privy to some sort of perpetual data machine then. This could be very usfeul so perhaps you could share it with the rest of us. I am content with paying less for a restricted service so how does that make me greedy?

    3. Re:What's the problem? by McTickles · · Score: 1

      Electrons ARE energy... Oh dear you fail hard at physics.

      Well if you want to split hair. You could say that each packet "uses" (lets remember here that one can only transform energy) a definite amount of electrons, the ISP, the backbone and so on
      each buy electrons from (and to, but that is another matter) the electricity company. Yourself probably buy some electricity to have electrons to send to your ISP. The ISP exchanges electrons with the other
      network peers as well, in the end it seems all pretty zero-sum to me as all the parties are presumed to take and give away electrons equally (which is not true but as I said if you are going
      to count individual electrons, you have major mental issues).

      If anything, at the end of the day, because you pay your electricity company for the electrons going to your ISP, your ISP should be pretty close to free, save the "admin fees" or whatever, because
      they have to make a profit of some kind. However they cannot charge you for the electrons because you merely swap them around with them.

    4. Re:What's the problem? by OddJobBob · · Score: 1

      You obviously fail at basic comprehension. I may fail at physics as you put it but I didn't fail my degree in Electronics. Power is going to be used somewhere and someone has to pay for it.

      Someone has to upgrade the infrastructure to cope with the increased bandwidth required - oh but maybe the sweat coming off the men and women digging the holes and climbing the poles to support this is neutral as well because the water came from the sea or whatever and that doesn't cost anything.

      You may argue that they should use lower power servers. That's fair enough but they have to invest in those too and someone has to pay for that too - oh but the server manufactures give them away don't they. The shareholders don't want a return on their money and the employees certainly don't want paid.

      I am more than happy not to pay for services that I do not wish to have but do not want to subsidise those who want to take advantage of the perception that the internet is free of cost. I halved my internet bill by moving to a more restricted package and noticed no difference. I can still stream legitimate content. But hang on maybe my new ISP isn't charging me for power as it is free - I'll have to sue may old ISP for the free power they were charging me for all these years.

    5. Re:What's the problem? by McTickles · · Score: 1

      I happen to live in a country where the men and women digging the holes are actually paid with my tax money anyway to do just that ...

      And again I am going to argue that power going to A -> B and B - A as data is transfered. I send a packet, I get one back... Zero-sum.

      Also in the country I live in the ISP provides the modem/router, should I charge them for the power used by their contraption ?

      I don't know where you live however, perhaps you live in the UK where BT is despotic and their network infrastructure and pricing is beyond retarded. or perhaps you live in the US, where free-market for better or (usually) worse runs the show. but this sort of argument about bandwidth use is invalid in mainland europe where national communication networks (including Orange's) are heavily subsidized by government money (taxes)...

    6. Re:What's the problem? by McTickles · · Score: 1

      Sorry forgot also to ask...

      How do you define legitimate content in this context? It is not a very scientific definition. "Legitimate" or not the same bandwidth is used.

      "Legitimate" bytes aren't smaller than illegitimate bytes.

      I am starting to think that you sir are a "legitimate" troll...

      --
      www.twilightcampaign.net

    7. Re:What's the problem? by OddJobBob · · Score: 1

      I am sure that the prison population, assuming the tax money you refer to is them and not the utilities companies as that would be a subsidy, are glad that their efforts are rewarding people with a better internet connection.

      Do you watch streaming content? Do you think for every packet you receive you send one back and that it is the same size? Yin and yang is not applicable to digital communication.

      The modem you receive is subsidised by you with increased prices from the ISP.

      My ISP bill has decreased by over 5 fold over the last 10 years for a 400 fold increase in bandwidth. How much has yours decreased/increased over this time?

    8. Re:What's the problem? by OddJobBob · · Score: 1

      Legimate content to me is content that I have paid for or which is distributed free by the publisher. Why should I subsidise the distribution of software/movie theft?

    9. Re:What's the problem? by McTickles · · Score: 1

      Good news you dont need to subsidize software/content theft. It is free. Except of course if you are part of the direct download crowd. Then I agree they are pathetic worms. Sharing is sharing, no money comes into it.

    10. Re:What's the problem? by McTickles · · Score: 1

      My bill is steady at 30 euros for unlimited monthly and unlimited telephone within europe.

      I rarely watch streaming content as I actually use my connection as part of a P2P-topology type network, so on average i do end up with similar up/down traffic.

      --
      www.twilightcampaign.net

  19. Re: Interesting role reversal. by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

    I'm genuinely surprised, this is exactly opposite of what I'd expect to happen.

    I'd think that the AC would say he has pirated software and would tell him why he was wrong. Not the other way around.

    --
    "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
  20. Re: Interesting role reversal. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    For the record, I'm cheap.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  21. Working for a Tier-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I work for a "Tier-1" ISP. FT (Opentransit) AS5511 is a legacy telco that has engaged in highly protective market practices. In order to interconnect within Paris (for example) they will ask that you pay them to interconnect. They also are surprised when interconnects grow full as their customers continue to seek the content that is not available on their network. I suspect they think the way about their network the way Sarkozy thinks about Renault. It's french, therefor it's offensive for content to reach france without FT being paid for it. Either the internet is going to move to a more settlement based interconnection vs the existing SFI model, or people like FT will hold their business partners and customers hostage to their own (possibly outdated) cost models.

  22. Re: Interesting role reversal. by timeOday · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty cheap too, but run Linux, so there's no software to pirate :)

  23. A registered douchebag says what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If two anonymous cowards (0) are talking in a woods (or slashdot), does anybody hear them? ;-) by commodore64_love The Douchebag (1445365) on Saturday January 15, @12:06PM (#34890028)

    Oh that's what a douchebag says!

  24. Re: Interesting role reversal. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty cheap too, but run Linux, so there's no software to pirate :)

    I assume, then, that you don't use Wine?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  25. Re: Interesting role reversal. by timeOday · · Score: 1

    I dust off wine every few years just to see if it'll work any better for me this time and it always ends in disappointment. I am not a fan of it.

  26. You are right: Gipm is not that good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd try with Gimp: much better user experience. It even beats Photoshop.