Slashdot Log In
FCC Complaint Filed Over Comcast P2P Blocking
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Nov 01, 2007 03:32 PM
from the hard-to-keep-up-with-the-annoyance-factor dept.
from the hard-to-keep-up-with-the-annoyance-factor dept.
Enter Sandvine writes "A handful of consumer groups have filed a complaint with the FCC over Comcast's "delaying" some BitTorrent traffic. The complaint seeks fines of $195,000 for each Comcast subscriber affected by the traffic blocking as well as a permanent injunction barring the ISP from blocking P2P traffic. '"Comcast's defense is bogus," said Free Press policy director Ben Scott. "The FCC needs to take immediate action to put an end to this harmful practice. Comcast's blatant and deceptive BitTorrent blocking is exactly the type of problem advocates warned would occur without Net Neutrality laws.""
Related Stories
[+]
Comcast Admits Delaying, Not Blocking, P2P Traffic 287 comments
haibijon writes "The executive declined to talk in detail about the technology, citing spammers or other miscreants who might exploit that knowledge. But he insisted the company was not stopping file transfers from happening, only postponing them in certain cases. He compared it to making a phone call and getting a busy signal, then trying again and getting through."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Comcast May Face Lawsuits Over BitTorrent Filtering 378 comments
An anonymous reader writes "It's been widely reported that Comcast is engaged in a sneaky form of Internet filtering. The company is terminating its customers' BitTorrent sessions by sending misleading data onto the network. The end result is that instead of targeting key heavy users, Comcast is instead engaged in an all out war against P2P protocols. In an interview with CNET, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Fred von Lohmann states that Comcast is 'throwing a spanner in the works of the Internet, hoping that this will somehow reduce bandwidth usage overall.' Other lawyers seem to have smelled blood, and are circling in the water. Lohmann reveals that '[The EFF has] already been contacted by attorneys who are considering legal action against Comcast.' Could Comcast be facing a class-action?"
[+]
Congressman Tells Comcast, Hands Off BitTorrent 304 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Just a few months back, the Net Neutrality debate was all but dead. Luckily for fans of a free Internet, the telcos are their own worst enemies. Recent stories involving Verizon Wireless blocking pro-choice groups, AT&T censoring Pearl Jam's anti-war comments from a streaming concert, and most recently, Comcast finally admitting to using anti-BitTorrent filters. The Net Neutrality debate would appear to be alive and kicking, with Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) being the first politician to make a public statement sharply criticizing Comcast's actions."
[+]
Google Caught in Comcast Traffic Filtering? 385 comments
marcan writes "Comcast users are reporting 'connection reset' errors while loading Google. The problem seems to have been coming and going over the past few days, and often disappears only to return a few minutes later. Apparently the problem only affects some of Google's IPs and services. Analysis of the PCAP packet dumps reveals several injected fake RSTs, which are very similar to the ones seen coming from the Great Firewall of China [PDF]. Did Google somehow get caught up in one of Comcast's blacklists, or are the heuristics flagging Google as a file-sharer due to the heavy traffic?"
Submission: FCC complaint filed over Comcast P2P blocking by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Your Rights Online: Comcast Sued Over P2P Blocking 268 comments
CRISTAROL writes "Comcast has been sued by a California resident for blocking BitTorrent and other traffic. 'John Hart describes himself as a Comcast customer who has seen performance hits when using "Blocked Applications" targeted by Comcast's traffic management application, Sandvine. In his complaint, Hart says that Comcast severely limits "the speed of certain internet applications such as peer-to-peer file sharing and lotus notes [sic]." Comcast accomplishes this by "transmitting unauthorized hidden messages" to the PCs of those using the applications.' The lawsuit comes on the heels of an FCC complaint over the same issue."
[+]
Entertainment: Comcast Targets Unlicensed Anime Torrenters 352 comments
SailorSpork writes "According to a thread on the forums of AnimeSuki, a popular anime bittorent index site, Comcast has begun sending DCMA letters to customers downloading unlicensed fan-subtitled anime shows via bittorrent. By 'unlicensed', they mean that no english language company has the rights to it. The letters are claiming that the copyright holder or an authorized agent are making the infringement claims, though usually these requests are also sent to the site itself rather that individual downloaders. My question is have they really been in contact with Japanese anime companies, or is this another scare tactic by Comcast to try and reduce the bandwidth use of their heavier customers now that their previous tactics have come under legal fire?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The music and movie industry is saved! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The music and movie industry is saved! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think the way the Internet is tiered is that the end that makes the request pays. So that pesky upstream traffic is saving Comcast money. It's the downstream traffic that they're paying through the nose for. What should Comcast do, then? Prioritize traffic so that you get better data rates downloading from other hosts within the Comcast network and pushing content out.
Unfortunately, DSL and cable modem service is set up exactly the opposite way. Under the assumption that people will do mo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They could have manipulated things in a way that would be a win
Lanham act & Bittorrent.com (Score:2)
I think that Bittorrent.com & Blizzard could persue a lanham act complaint against Comcast for this one. Comcast is deliberately interfering with Bittorrents legitimate business - distributing rental movies over bittorrent, and WOW updates. The point being that lanham reparations can be percentages of the offending companies gross profits ... doesn't take a big percentage of Comcast to make a big payoff for Bittorrent or Blizzard.
If Comcast were doing what they say they are doing, then they would actua
Re:The music and movie industry is saved! (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, wait, I got it. They are so dumb, they failed at being deceptive and ended up being blatant! What kind of a world do we live in when a multi-million dollar evil corporation can't even be counted on to lie properly?!?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If this works, we don't need net neutrality laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If this works, we don't need net neutrality law (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If this works, we don't need net neutrality law (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If this works, we don't need net neutrality law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you'd still need a law because FCC policy can change at the FCC's (not the public's) whim.
My Moneys On No Fine (Score:2, Insightful)
Wish It Were Going Down in NY Courts (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, with that said, there is one option that could be taken now that Net Neutrality has been brought into this.
I see from the PDF that the people filing this complaint are from Washington, DC. It probably should have been filed in New York with the demands specifying only NY victims for the time being. Why might you ask NY? Well, it's the only state to have established net neutrality as a telecommunications standard (See 16 NYCRR Part 605) [wikipedia.org]. And this case is exactly the definition of what those standards are put in place to protect!
So while it may have had to be filed with the FCC, the real place where you could pretty much guaranty a (maybe even court case) win against Comcast is in the state of New York. I know they provide service there [usdirect.com] and I think it would be more prudent to first prove your point there, then file a complaint to the FCC from New York after the local government has awarded the victims there.
In my opinion, a guaranteed sure win in a small battle is bigger than a huge uncertainty in the overall war.
bittorrents shaky legal ground (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems the more prudent approach would be to use the blocking of Google traffic, as Google is loved by the media and has been helpful to the courts on a few occasions, to file the complaint, and then rely upon the Google decision to defend torrent traffic. Much like the "tame" playboy defends the more hardcore free "speech"
Go defenders of Neutrality!
Screw Comcast and get Gmail notifier to work again!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is like saying public highways are on shaky legal ground because people smuggle drugs across them.
Re:bittorrents shaky legal ground (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you either have that wrong or you need to clarify.
Bittorrent is not on shaky legal ground, it is a valid peer to peer file transfer protocol which is used for legal purposes. I've transfered many gigs of bits in downloading and sharing Fedora and Ubuntu linux distros, I've also used it to download commercial game demos such as Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. By your logic the entire internet is on shaky legal ground because all sorts of illegal activities traverse the backbone, does that mean we should shut down the entire internet?
And I'd hardly call Larry Flynt a "tame" playboy. (happy birthday Larry) And I'd also go further and say that the work Larry has done to protect his own free speech for works that many find distasteful has protected the free speech of others who have something much less morally questionable to communicate than the magazines Larry publishes. I believe that was the basis of Larry's arguements, if his free speech is restricted then where does it stop, do we restrict people from pointing out fraud and questionable deeds of governments and corporations. His objective was not to ensure there was free speech for something hardcore even though it would be protected as well, his objective was to protect free speech, period.
Parent
Quality-of-Service configuration (Score:4, Informative)
However, this seems to be clearly stepping above that, and performing what is essentially source address spoofing, regardless of the whether or not there is congestion on the network. I don't know if you can really classify this as a QoS technique.
Goodbye Comcast (Score:2, Flamebait)
There are plenty of competitors to choose from that don't treat their customers like criminals.
So goodbye Comcast, and good luck!
Re: (Score:2)
I've been a Comcast customer for like 5 years and I don't think they even know an email address for me unless it's a Comcast address they made up for me in which case I'd have no idea how to receive it, so the joke's on them
Re:Goodbye Comcast - In my dreams. (Score:2)
Bring Them Down Hard (Score:2)
And lying about it is the worst part!
The complaint uses wrong diction, too close to QOS (Score:3, Insightful)
spoofing packets to intentionally interrupt a connection is very different of course, but the way they present it, using the term "degrading", is not specific enough.
"interrupting" is more accurate, and more egregious.
Comcast will likely use the long time case of QOS to weasel out of it, harming the credibility of an honestly legitimate gripe.
If they can't weasel out of it, this could put QOS in danger, resulting in terrible performance of voip, streaming video, vpn, online gaming, and other latency sensitive applications.
In their justifiable zealotry they did not put their complaint through the proper egghead QA channels, and not only may the entire net neutrality cause may suffer for it, but even a "win" may ultimately be a harm.
Does anybody think this will go anywhere? (Score:2, Insightful)
I expect this will go nowhere or just like everything else, comes back to bite the consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The upsetting thing for me isn't throttling certain traffic or even traffic shaping all of a customer's traffic during peak hours using a packet rate limiter. It's the method they're using. Sure, it'd be nice to have the whole pipe. However, I'd bet a lot of customers would like to be able to make a VoIP call and download something on BT at th
Not just Comcast? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was downloading the latest Ubuntu distribution a couple of days ago using TimeWarner cable. The download went very fast, but I notice I wasn't seeding very may users, and the few that were had 5Kb speeds.
After I finished downloading, I decided to let it run OVERNIGHT to reseed back to the world. When I checked in the morning, I had only updated 10MB and I noticed peers would pop-up in the window, show a few kb of transfer and then disappear again. I'm assuming that TimeWarner is sending dummy packets to the OTHER computers to stop my seeding.
However, MY download didn't seem affected AT ALL. Also, there were several clients that seems to stay connected but with very low transfer rates.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From what I've seen of Time Warner, a lot of decisions seem to be made at the local level (speed, whether they block port 25, how bitchy they are about you r
Should just use CoS instead (Score:2)
I would have no problem with Comcast using CoS instead and just classify Bittorrent traffic as low-priority bulk transfers. This way it would get whatever bandwidth is left over yet prioritize more important traffic like games and VOIP. (In fact, this is how I h
Everyone should ... (Score:2)
... install and enable IPsec, even if they are not a Comcast vict^h^h^h^hcustomer.
how is that different from all the others? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Bad_ISPs [azureuswiki.com]
It seems odd to pick on only one of them.
What about IPSec? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your down is probably one of two things: freaking out a fritzy modem, OR (more likely in my experience) it's choking your Linksys cable/dsl NAT router. I used to have huge problems with my Linksys WRT56G's after long downloads at high speeds (even, sadly, with the DD-WRT 3rd-party firmware). I went over to a D-link gaming router and I haven't had to touch it for months unless I change DHCP reservations or something of the sort.
Re:Remove their common carrier status (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Remove their common carrier status (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone says this on every single article relating to traffic shaping, QoS, or filtering. Somehow this one even got a +5 Insightful (at one point), despite being based on an invalid premise. ISPs are not common carriers. The line-level divisions of the telecommunications companies are common carriers. The divisions relating to actual Internet service, and other non-telco ISPs like Comcast, are "information carriers" (or some such label) and not subject to common-carrier regulations. The ISPs don't want to be common carriers; they're much better off as they are. You can't threaten them with withdrawing a regulatory status they never had and never wanted.
Parent
Common carrier status does NOT require legislation (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong.
Common carrier status does NOT require explicit legislation. It is a creature of common law. Explicit legislation may codify the details of the obligations and immunities of a PARTICULAR type of common carrier, rather than leaving it to judges and precedent. But it isn't necessary to create such a state.
An ISP may be or may not be a common carrier, depending on its behavior:
- If it accepts all comers on equal terms it's a common carrier. Making no choices it is
Why do some geeks have such a hard time with law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do we not ridicule politicians who make laws based on their completely boneheaded ideas about what technology means ("tubes", anyone?)? Do we not loathe judges who rule in favor of the "MAFIAA" due to their complete lack of even elementary comprehension of what is involved in, say, *watching* a DVD? Do we not scoff at the astonishin
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
finnaly, comcast will get fucked in the ass (Score:4, Insightful)
First off before I even get to the throttling, we are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and we lag so behind in other countries in bandwith speed, and comcast has literally done NOTHING in their long term plan to provide more bandwith speed. They are milking their shitty lines for every Americans last penny. Its corporate greed at its finest. Big brother setting his hand in there to make sure im not taking up to much bandwith that I PAY FOR and limiting my legal torrents download speed.
EAT A DICK
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are one of the high use people Comcast would love to drop. You use the resources of about 200 regular customers.
comcast has literally done NOTHING in their long term plan to provide more bandwith speed.
They want users who use no bandwidth when they are not directly between the chair and keyboard. They want users who pull a page ore email and stop to read it. They hate 24/7 saturated connections and will be glad to be rid of you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They made a mistake and offered the plan knowing in the day the typical usage of users. When high bandwidth P-P invaded the network and high bandwidth continued after the u
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually yes. Before the flame war starts, remember that bandwidth just like any resource is a commodity with an expense. This is the tragedy of the commons.
Supporting the mega bandwidth users prevents me from obtaining a $20/month plan. 2/3ds of my bill is to pay for the commons pool of bandwidth, not the surfing I do on Slashdot.
If everyone demanded and got and used saturated feeds 24/7, then the typical bill would need to be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simon
"Tragedy of the commons" ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
The poster is correct - bandwidth is not an unlimited commodity, since there is no such thing as an unlimited commodity. Comcast, etc, attempted to pretend that it was in their advertising campaign by promising the impossible -- unlimited bandwidth. In a sane world, they contractually obligated themselves to bankruptcy by their fraud, hoping that the price in bandwidth costs would always outpace bandwidth usage growth, instead of actually advertising what limitations they could afford.
And now we get all kinds of sophistry to defend them. Obviously, you have to have some form of bandwidth cap. You could do it by total bandwidth monthly or weekly, you could degrade bulk services at high demand (and state it openly in your terms) or you could drop high-bandwidth users (and state it openly in your terms).
But they're the ones who have f*cked up, and want to have their cake and eat it too. They're the ones who still have "Unlimited Bandwidth!!!" ads at the malls still today.
This is no tragedy of the commons. There's no abuse because contractual obligations are lacking and oversight is limited to traditional norms. This is a case of explicit contractual obligations that are clearly delineated, where "property rights" are quite obvious, where private entities aren't sharing but are trading. It's just that one of those entities is much larger than the rest of the partners, and that entity is simply trying to defraud their partners by promising what they can't deliver.
Libertarian language is just so Orwellian.
Parent
Re:Jeez. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like you are just doing a bunch of downloading, using your connection mainly for push-at-you content and VOIP. They will get around to trampling the VOIP that's not their own pretty soon, but it sounds like it's working ok for you right now. Your usage sounds kind of high, but before long Comcast will be approaching those television networks and other content providers with their hands out, looking for a little more money from them. Because basically you're what Comcast wants - a good consumer.
Yes, it seems Comcast is fine with the downloads using BT. Apparently you didn't check to see if you are helping with contributing bandwidth (you do know that Ubuntu is supported solely through contributions from the community, don't you?) when you were running those BT downloads. You probably just waited for the download to finish, then closed BT right away. If you had left it up for a while, you would have noticed that the peers trying to connect with you to share those files were sent barely a trickle of data, and then got bumped off. That's what Comcast is doing to BT now.
We are participating, sharing, and contributing. But Comcast is interfering with us. They don't want us to have a voice. They just want us to sit back and take what they're sending.
Parent