Slashdot Log In
Verizon, Comcast Say They Are P2P Friendly
Posted by
timothy
on Thu May 22, 2008 10:51 AM
from the also-that-if-she-buys-kippers-it-will-not-rain dept.
from the also-that-if-she-buys-kippers-it-will-not-rain dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Verizon and Comcast announced they will not 'block or throttle Internet traffic delivered via peer-to-peer networks' — essentially proclaiming that they are now P2P friendly. The decision came as a result of a test conducted with Verizon and Pando Networks, testing the benefits of a P2P/ISP partnership. During the test, the amount of P2P content delivered to Verizon subscribers from inside its network grew from 2 percent to 50 percent. This shows ISPs need to work with P2P companies to improve content delivery and manage traffic. Verizon also announced it will be looking at ways to use P2P technology to deploy new features on FiOS TV." Just the same, read on for one approach to mitigating likely tightening restrictions on P2P network use.
Another anonymous reader writes "RIAA/MPAA have recently been targeting torrent aggregators like PirateBay, because the aggregators are the vulnerable components of the BitTorrent protocol. A new open-source project to thwart such attacks was announced on p2p-hackers and released yesterday:
Cubit, a new open-source p2p overlay, enables the Azureus BitTorrent client to look up torrents via approximate keyword search... Cubit completely decentralizes the lookup process through an efficient, light-weight peer-to-peer overlay that can perform approximate matches. It performs searches without relying on any centralized components, and therefore is immune to legal and technical attacks targeting torrent aggregators."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Four Indicted in Pirate Bay Case 709 comments
paulraps writes "Suddenly the founders of the Pirate Bay are not so hearty. The four men behind the popular file-sharing site were indicted in Sweden on Thursday on charges of being accessories to breaking copyright law. And this is more than just a shot across the bows. The prosecutor reckons that they can be hooked for 'promoting other people's copyright breaches' but there will be no walking the plank: instead, they face fines of up to $200,000 and the confiscation of all their hardware. 'The Swedish prosecutor listed dozens of works that had been downloaded through The Pirate Bay site, including The Beatles' Let It Be, Robbie Williams' Intensive Care and the movie Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire. Plaintiffs in the case include Warner, MGM, Columbia Pictures, 20th Century Fox Films, Sony BMG, Universal and EMI.'"
Submission: Verizon & Comcast Say They Are P2P Friendly by Anonymous Coward
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.
Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Right... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is everybody giving Verizon grief? Comcast I understand, but Verizon? To my knowledge Verizon has never throttled or limited any of their DSL or FiOS offerings. I've seeded torrents 24/7 for months on end and never heard a peep out of them. I run a server (sshd and vpn) for my own personal use -- they've never complained about that either. According to Cacti, in the last year I've uploaded 1.3 terabytes and downloaded 741 gigabytes. Not one word out of Verizon this entire time.
Recall when Verizon fought the efforts to subpoena the identity of one of their customers who was accused of using p2p to pirate music. Recall Verizon's statements saying that they didn't believe in content/copyright filtering and didn't want to "police" the internet.
I don't approve of all of their business practices (there's a special place in hell reserved for Verizon Wireless) but the Verizon Online guys are on our side -- at least for the moment. I don't think they deserve to be lumped into the same category as Comcast.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I hadn't realized that my bandwidth totals were that high until I looked at them right now. Verizon is offering a great service as it stands. I hope they keep it that way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
But you are talking about recent stuff.
Why...
1) It's over priced.
2) It's stupidly easy to download.
3) Most were unable to purchase them anyway (so they know morally that the artists lost nothing from them).
4) Many were going to skip the commercials (effectively "stealing" the TV shows) anyway.
5) In many cases, the legit version is harder to use/less user friendly than the pirated copy.
6) Entertainment executives and big artists are stupidly overpaid ($1 billion for Rowling!?!?) so people have no sense of injury or sympathy for them.
7) It's so corporate/cold that people feel no connection or empathy with the creators (and humans have always taken advantage of/ killed people not in their "monkey tribe".
8) It's hard to get it legally (you go to best buy.. you look at the racks, it's out of stock) while it's there on five torrent sites on line. You want to see it in the theatres or on TV but it won't be shown in your area until next year (Battlestar Galactica-- I torrented all of it before it came on SF in the USA).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Right... (Score:4, Interesting)
Except I never would have been able to transfer that much because they have (had?) this nasty habit of conducting man-in-the-middle attacks to reset seeding connections.
For fairness I should probably point out that I likely had similar traffic numbers when I was with Roadrunner and they never complained about it either. I ditched them not because of limits that they had or may have -- I ditched them because I got tired of dealing with pauses and slowdowns when trying to stream live video.
I live in a major college town -- Roadrunner rocks during the school breaks -- once the kids come back you start to notice a real degradation of service during peak hours and even (occasionally) during off-peak ones. It varies depending on which neighborhood you live in but in some of them it's damn near unusable for anything other than basic surfing/gaming during peak hours.
It got better for browsing/gaming once they started traffic shaping/prioritization -- but they don't seem to discriminate between an http transfer for live streaming video and a non-interactive HTTP/FTP download or NNTP transfer. All bulk transfers suffer -- which makes live streaming video a PITA during periods of congestion.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
None of those stories that you told suggest that they are deliberately throttling those connections. Verizon provisions your line at the fastest speed that their tools/wire database indicate that your loop will support (unless you pay for a slower tier). If there are problems with the local loop or (more likely) the inside wiring at your house, then the modem won't be able to sync up at this speed and will fall back to slower ones and generally not work very well at all.
That has nothing to do with thrott
Even 100% is not good enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
You see, 50% is not good enough from the ISPs viewpoint: That still requires just as many bits crossing the ISP's boundry as if the content provider used UNCACHED HTTP.
In practice, many (most?) ISPs use transparent HTTP caches, so having 50% of the data stay internal is still no good, as on popular files (eg, a big youtube video), 99% of the traffic stays internal for HTTP.
Even PERFECT P2P requires at least one outbound copy for each inbound copy, so a PERFECT P2P system will require 2x the traffic crossing the border when compared with HTTP thats cached.
Re:Even 100% is not good enough... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell you could do the same thing for other non-P2P services that ISPs typically don't like customers using. Turn every account into a hosting agreement with various limitations.
Re:Even 100% is not good enough... (Score:4, Informative)
Confirmed today: Comcast, Verizon (DSL + FiOS), Time Warner, and Speakeasy.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Something tells me that the "boundary" isn't a major issue for a Tier 1 provider like Verizon or AT&T.
Oh goodie! (Score:5, Insightful)
How much extra will you be charging us for that?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tested this morning with http://broadband.mpi-sws.mpg.de/transparency/bttest.php [mpi-sws.mpg.de]
Still multiple resets. Yes, torrents do complete, but much more slowly than on my neighbors ASDL which has half the speed rating of my comcast connection.
So they lie.
I'll believe it when... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'll believe it when... (Score:5, Informative)
I rarely get good torrent speeds unless I'm dealing with a highly transacted image. Like a new release of ubuntu.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now ignoring the fact that yes, the state of broadband in the U.S. sucks and 6 mbps being "good" is unfortunate, SpeedBoost is actually a nifty thing.
I had Comcast (Chicago area) and actually didn'
Re: (Score:2)
Cubit (Score:3)
And looking at the current batch of lawsuits, I'd say now is the time to start supporting Cubit in all the major clients (I'm thinking particularly of KTorrent...) So please work on it if you have the skills, and bug people who do if you don't (that would be me).
Throttling - Caps (Score:5, Insightful)
So, we'll move from throttling to arbitrary caps. Maybe after XXGB your speeds are cut to 1/10th. Or maybe (like my cable company), they can just say "Well, we don't want you as a customer any more".
Explicit caps? We can complain or not subscribe if they're low- I'm for that if somebody is downloading 300GB+ per month, using my node. But the idea of "Well, you downloaded 'too much'" is just as bad as lying about throttling.
Lies! (Score:2)
Lying bastards.
The article meshes with my experience (Score:5, Informative)
It has been my experience that in some ways DSL is superior to cable. I remember when cable first came out everyone who got it thought it was great. Then their neighbor got it, and their other neighbor got it, and suddenly it became obvious that the entire neighborhood was on one shared pipe and a single bandwidth hog could ruin it for everyone. It doesn't seem like much has changed in the last decade. With DSL you can count on getting the bandwidth that you pay for but the peak available bandwidth isn't as high as cable. On cable you might get some really high peak speeds, but the cable networks haven't been designed to sustain high transfer rates for long periods of time.
Re:The article meshes with my experience (Score:5, Insightful)
The WAN technology doesn't make that go away. There could be any number of reasons why you haven't suffered any depredation such as population density, the profile of your neighbors, etc. It could just be that neighborhood hasn't reached saturation yet.
I used to have DSL and I found my connection would degrade noticeably in the late afternoon and evening simply because we had a lot of people in the area connected with lots of kids.
The last mile is just one point of depredation. The in-home connection experience is going to get bad. I would hate to live in a city and use wireless simply because of contention on the airwaves. Hell, when I first got FiOS, I had to convince the tech that the reason for the poor performance was because the Actiontec router they provided and a neighbors were on the same channel, 6, causing contention. I moved mine to channel 11, a non-interfering channel, and wah-lah, performance problem solved.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The article meshes with my experience (Score:5, Informative)
It seems like every time we have this discussion that someone repeats this half-truth and gets a +5 out of it. Yes, DSL connections are aggregated somewhere. But that's not the whole story.
There's nothing technical stopping a telco from having a 1:1 contention ratio if they deem it in their best interests. Contrast that to cable -- the only way to attain a 1:1 ratio on cable is to segment the network into insanely small slices or devote more channels on the coax plant to HSI services. DOCSIS 2.0 only offers ~42Mbits of downstream -- assuming 5Mbit connections (the standard for Roadrunner around here and actually quite low compared to other areas) it only takes nine people to completely saturate the downstream pipe.
Even without a 1:1 contention ratio it's going to take a lot more than nine customers to peg the backhaul connection from your local DSLAM.
As with anything, YMMV. I've never seen a slowdown in six years of working with Verizon and Frontier (a smaller telco based out of Rochester). I have seen them occur on Roadrunner -- in some neighborhoods around here it's downright painful when the college kids are in town.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If it were only so simple. At some point, all your DSL connections are aggregated somewhere and that aggregation point becomes the bottleneck.
True in principle, but anecdotal reports (like the GP) consistently indicate that users do better with a point-to-point link to a switch at the CO than with a single LAN segment shared by the whole neighborhood.
Remember, cable modem service was piggy-backed on the existing cable TV network. I've read accounts on Slashdot of cable companies provisioning just one (or maybe two) SDTV (AKA 6 MHz) channels per LAN segment for cable modem.
Users used to be limited by 56Kb/s modems, and that constrained the conten
Re:The article meshes with my experience (Score:5, Informative)
It's voilà [wiktionary.org], damnit!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If it were only so simple. At some point, all your DSL connections are aggregated somewhere and that aggregation point becomes the bottleneck.
Yes, all ISPs have that very same bottleneck and it's typically extremely large. The coaxial cable running through many residential neighborhoods quickly reaches saturation similar to that of an old 10Base2 Thinnet network where if a small handful of computers are using lots of bandwidth at once the collision rate goes up and the available bandwidth to all homes in that segment (typically hundreds, if not thousands) find saturated links and slowed browsing.
However the "bottleneck" at the ISP level - the
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, they even lowered my rate, mid-contract when they changed there rates overall. Most places have a disclaimer saying new prices aren't for current customers.
So I don't understand where the hate for Verizon comes from.
Re: (Score:2)
Technical support is alright. They had some provisioning problems with their 3mb lines for a while. The initial provision was for 1.
Re: (Score:2)
They had some provisioning problems with their 3mb lines for a while
My experiences with Verizon (for all their services, ISDN, DSL, POTS, centrex, etc, etc) is that the actual ordering/provisioning process is a PITA. You place your order with one department who hands it off to another department who may hand it off to yet another department before it's all said and done. The left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing and some of the customer service people clearly hate their jobs and can't be bothered to even hide their annoyance with you when you run into prob
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck the 'friendly' submitter (Score:5, Insightful)
When people buy a product or service they expect it to work reasonably. It's like saying that a car that doesn't anymore explode into flames is now 'friendly'... The word he so boldly uses don't even appear on the FA. Save your spam for eggs and bacon.
I believe in actions, not words and hope more people would follow suit.
riiight (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, this Team Fortress issues seems to have resolved itself in the last week and a half. I imagine this is due to a Team Fortress update, as I did not update the firmware in my router-- but this is an extreme coincidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I ahve Verizon and don't have any of those problem you mention. Did you contact support?
Re: (Score:2)
I had the problem too and stopped playing TF2 shortly there-after. I don't know if/when they actually fixed it since I just don't play it anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very well known issue w/ Verizon FIOS ActionTec routers. It was affecting at least 2 different versions of them. And if you want both TV and Internet over FIOS you pretty much need their gear.
Stupid question, but I've never had a chance to see a FiOS connection up close: Can you put the FiOS routers into a bridge mode and get the globally valid IP directly on your PC? The first thing I've always done with my DSL connections is put the router into bridge mode and run pppoe/pppd on my Linux box.
I'd much rather have the full power of iptables and the HTB packet scheduler [luxik.cdi.cz] at my disposal than use their router. I'd hate to think that I won't have this option when FiOS hits my area.
I call "Bullshit" on Comcast (Score:5, Informative)
Is BitTorrent traffic on a well-known BitTorrent port (6881) throttled?
* 2 out of 2 BitTorrent transfers were interrupted while uploading (seeding) using forged TCP RST packets. It seems like your ISP hinders you from uploading BitTorrent traffic to our test server.
* The BitTorrent download worked. Our tool was successful in downloading data using the BitTorrent protocol.
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits your BitTorrent downloads. In our tests a TCP download achieved minimal 713 Kbps while a BitTorrent download achieved maximal 720 Kbps.
Is BitTorrent traffic on a non-standard BitTorrent port (4711) throttled?
* 2 out of 2 BitTorrent transfers were interrupted while uploading (seeding) using forged TCP RST packets. It seems like your ISP hinders you from uploading BitTorrent traffic to our test server.
* The BitTorrent download worked. Our tool was successful in downloading data using the BitTorrent protocol.
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits your BitTorrent downloads. In our tests a TCP download achieved minimal 661 Kbps while a BitTorrent download achieved maximal 741 Kbps.
Is TCP traffic on a well-known BitTorrent port (6881) throttled?
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits all downloads at port 6881. In our test, a TCP download on a BitTorrent port achieved at least 713 Kbps while a TCP download on a non-BitTorrent port achieved at least 661 Kbps.
* There's no indication that your ISP rate limits all uploads at port 6881. In our test, a TCP upload on a BitTorrent port achieved at least 1353 Kbps while a TCP upload on a non-BitTorrent port achieved at least 1403 Kbps.
P2P friendly. Specific protocols not? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the article carefully, this is not about allowing unfettered P2P on their networks at all. They are deliberately obfuscating the issue. They leave the door open for blocking, filtering and "shaping" (ie. TCP resetting) any protocols they want. This is kind of like Verizon Wireless proudly announcing "We are radio phone call friendly" when the issue is whether to support GSM or CDMA.
Verizon's senior technologist talks about "working with P2P companies", which is radically different than allowing anyone to write a P2P networking app that does (fill in the blank.) Then goes on to say that work needs to be done on P2P DRM.
All in all, the tone of the article seems to confirm that the fight for network neutrality is far from over.
It doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
In the final analysis, protecting aggregators won't matter unless we get genuine 'net neutrality. The ISPs will switch to a 'whitelist' of content providers. In other words, if you want your content delivered, you will pay, become a 'partner', host ISP banner ads or whatever. All others will grovel with the lowest QoS. This sidesteps accusations of throttling 'undesirable' services. Everyone gets throttled and will have to pay to get out of jail.
I don't think the big ISPs have anything special against P2P services (that they don't have against anyone else). They just want to extract money out of them. With big players like Google, Yahoo, and MSN, that's easy to do. There's advertising revenue that can be quantified and the ISPs can skim off of. P2P just happens to be a big enough consumer of bandwidth that the ISPs would like them to pay to play as well.
Sure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bell Canada needs to fix their practices as wel (Score:3, Informative)
My ISP (Teksavvy) emailed me a couple hours ago saying apparently most of the Teksavvy staff is taking the day off to go to the rally so please only call in with tech support questions if it's really important.
That's pretty cool if you ask me.
- Andrew.