Comcast Confirmed as Discriminating Against FileSharing Traffic 532
An anonymous reader writes "Comcast has been singled out as discriminating against filesharing traffic in quantitative tests conducted by the Associated Press. MSNBC's coverage of the discovery is quite even-handed. The site notes that while illegal content trading is a common use of the technology, Bittorrent is emerging as an effective medium for transferring 'weighty' legal content as well. 'Comcast's technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one BitTorrent user attempts to share a complete file with another user. Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer -- it comes from Comcast.'" This is confirmation of anecdotal evidence presented by Comcast users back in August.
Common carrier (Score:1, Interesting)
Good (Score:3, Interesting)
Now maybe the "net neutrality isn't important because we can trust giant corporations not to screw their customers crowd" will shut up. Of course, the people getting paid to lobby or keep those bills out of Congress won't change their mind, but maybe regular people will. And that's a step in the right direction.
This story does make me wish I was not boycotting Comcast already though, so I could boycott it for this.
Registering legitimate files (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't the very act of policing content (Score:5, Interesting)
"Hello, RIAA. I have reason to believe Comcast is allowing illegal music trafficking to occur."
It's Comcastic!
Re:Encrypt Everything (Score:4, Interesting)
Are they allowed to do the same thing with Skype (or anything else they want) and tell the other side I want to disconnect? Where is the legal line?
Dubious legality of forging resets... (Score:3, Interesting)
If all traffic flowed through a Comcast-controlled proxy that was disclosed, there probably wouldn't be a problem, but Comcast is actually forging source addresses on both sides with the effect of concealing their actions and fooling the parties on each end into terminating their connections at (what they believe to be) each other's legitimate request.
I imagine this method of traffic limiting could be litigated sooner or later since it affects customers who are not party to the RST-inserting carrier's TOS.
-Isaac
Re:Any World of Warcraft users... (Score:4, Interesting)
</anecdote>
Illegal forgery and defense (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because it is their network DOES not give them the right to FORGE IP packets to look as if they come from elsewhere.
That would be like a courier service forging documents from 2 people wanting to communicate saying "Stop sending documents" if they didn't want them to talk. They'd never do something that stupid, and if they did, they couldn't get out of charges by saying they were only forging documents through their service.
Forgery is illegal. Someone who had a forged RST packet sent in their name should have forgery charges pressed and sue for impersonation.
A technical defense is to block RST packets. Probably not hard to do under Linux, and likely trivial.
Re:Encrypt Everything (Score:3, Interesting)
The simplest solution, and one that I think the web sites will eventually support (once they get over the cost for HW encryption support) is to use SSL / TLS. This is the easiest way that they can protect their advertising revenue from middleman parasites.
P2P environments are going to have to go to encryption as well. Note that Diffie-Helleman key agreement is not safe against an active man in the middle, so the crypto will have to be done with some care and great care will have to be taken to deal with a large number of malicious proxies of the various hostile middlemen.
Re:ha (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Comcast != Common Carrier (Score:2, Interesting)
Also the original forum post from DSLreports [dslreports.com] user funchords = Robb. Notice the stuff said. I helped him investigate and can verify that comcast has been and still does this, via Wireshark. They send RST packets to you and the people you're uploading to on a random 1-18 second timer if the user is not a comcast user themselves. (It used to be an automatic 8 second timer but now they added a small degree of "randomization"...they seem to be exploring it, there was a week where it would block 35% of incoming requests in this fashion instead of 100%, 50% the next week, etc.) Also I know how to monitor but not how to make my router ignore RST flags, so it's not like I had a way to get around it.
However, sandvine doesn't seem to work over encrypted connections so if you force encryption it appears that they can't insert a RST flag.
What would be nice (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I would love to see stats on what percentage of their users actually use bittorrent. Until someone can prove that more than 1% use it, they can use that argument and 85% of people will shout"Yeah, more bandwidth for me, screw those pirates", without realizing the legitimate torrent uses (such as linux distro rollouts, patches as mentioned before, media defender email leaks, etc).
At leas the media is finally catching on, but until we get people to realizing that it is a slippery slope that affects them, there will not be enough uproar to stop them.
So, if we could only get our hands on how many people use it... we might be able to make some noise. Until then, the average joe will say "So What?"
Ubuntu 7.10 and Comcast (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, let's say I got sick tired of Windows (because just yesterday my legitimate-but-illegally-cracked due-to-legalized-limit-of-3-reinstalls-max copy of Windows, downloaded an update without notifying me! Only when I was about to shut down it told me), and I want to try out Gutsy Gibbon.
How am I supposed to download it, if Comcast thinks I'm stealing (and who the heck do they think they are, judge dredd?) pirated music? Oh, right, I'll mask my communications and encrypt all traffic, which is seen as evil and pro-terrorist by the current administration. What's next, sending me to Guantanamo for encrypting my LEGITIMATE traffic and demanding some LEGITIMATE privacy?
Sometimes I read the RIAA's arguments and I think I can figure out what they're saying behind us: "Oh, yeah, 'downloading Linux' (nudge) yeah, right... (smirk) 'legitimate traffic' (nudge), heh heh."
The problem with this thinking is that: a) Linux userbase (and those curious to download) has increased tremendously since Ubuntu came out. It's not the 1% it was a few years ago. At last I'm starting to believe that Linux is arriving to the Desktop. b) they do NOT respect the minorities. Even if it's only 1% of the population, ISPs should ensure that they get the traffic they PAID FOR. c) Where do I file for authorization to use bittorrent? Do I need a Linux certificate to demonstrate I'm not a music pirate, now? d) And what about free independent music? e) If they're only going to allow HTTP usage, I'd appreciate if at least they were F***ING SINCERE about it, k?
<rant>
That said, I wonder how they put their noses in bittorrent communication and at the same time they DON'T SHUT THE DAMN SMTP PORT used by the millions of zombified computers sending me spam! At least we have proved that they can, now!
</rant>
Whew, that felt good.
Legal action? (Score:4, Interesting)
On one hand, they're deliberately pretending to be the person you're communicating with (fraud?). On the other they're deliberately degrading performance of a person's internet connection (vaguely DOS-ish), a person one who isn't necessarily their customer.
Thoughts?
I don't think this is all Comcast discriminates... (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW, This has gotten worse ever since Comcast started offering VoIP.
Another thing I forgot to write (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Comcast != Common Carrier (Score:2, Interesting)
Sending spoofed packets (Score:4, Interesting)
I just can't believe that somewhere along the lines there hasn't been a law made that makes spoofing illegal, they are claiming to be someone/something else to which you have agreed to communicate with.
Of course, if its not actually sending packets as if they came from the peer, then its a different story.
Re:Common carrier (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a Comcast customer not because I like Comcast, but because they bought out Time Warner in my city. I was a Time Warner customer not because I liked Time Warner (Though they certainly are better than Comcast), but because I DID ditch Qwest DSL for having the shittiest reliability and service I have ever encountered. I would tell you my Qwest story in detail, but it would take me all day and several pages. Suffice it to say that I will never, NEVER be a customer of Qwest again.
So that's it for me. Qwest or Comcast. Some f*cking choice. At least until the invisible magic bit-fairies decide to expand into my market.
Re:Fix to comcast. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:you know ... (Score:5, Interesting)
AT&T has tried to sneak in some fiber into the area (Project Lightspeed), but continues to run into problems with deals local governments sign with Comcast. Namely, a $300k fee that villages charge new service providers and the requirement that telecom companies provide some sort of local service (i.e., local government access channels). AT&T says they're a utility and shouldn't have to pay that fee.
If Motorola's WiMAX manages to do something, they may be an option in the mid-term future. I'm not holding my breath.
Re:I was just coming here to say that (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Any World of Warcraft users... (Score:3, Interesting)
AT&T U-verse is coming to Chicago soon (Score:3, Interesting)
U-verse's "Elite" Internet tier is 6M/1M. Slower downloads than Comcrap but faster uploads and only $40/mo, or $30/mo if you also subscribe to TV.
U-verse TV is problematic though, and they try to force you to sign up for it (you can drop it later, I did). Standard def TV looks great but HDTV is the most craptastic transcode I've ever seen, and you can only tune 1 HDTV channel at a time. Comcast looks dramatically better, let alone over-the-air.
It's a crying shame AT&T won't let me use the entire 27Mbps pipe for Internet. My RG is syncing with my node at 70Mbps+ but AT&T wants a "consistent" marketing message so they won't let me use it.
Anyhow, Bittorrent is working great here while people still on Comcast are complaining.
Rumor has it that the real reason AT&T isn't building FTTH is because local governments are demanding bribes such as the one you describe. I thought that they were just making up excuses but now I'm not so sure.
Been saying this for years about Cox Communication (Score:3, Interesting)
Dishonesty is not illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
Somebody used the word "fraud". That word is not a synonym for "lying". For there to be fraud, you have to be causing somebody a material loss. Do undelivered packets count as a "material loss"? IANAL, but I'm sceptical.
It might still be true that Comcast is breaking the law somehow. There might be some communications law or regulation that forbids providers from this kind of manipulation of their customers' traffic. But it's not as obvious as you're claiming.And it's certainly stupid. But only because there are easier ways to tell your customers that you can't carry their shipment. If, for example, FedEx caught you shipping plant seeds or pornography or human body parts (all on their forbidden list), they'd probably just return the shipment to you. But if they did deliver a nasty note to your recipient, what law would they be breaking?
Of course, if they refused to return your property, they'd be committing theft. But is an IP packet "property"? Well, if it is, they can always email you back all the IP packets it didn't deliver....
Re:Not that simple (Score:2, Interesting)
Different ISPs have handled the idea of users using thier bandwidth differently since ISP became a common term. It also varies per customer in some cases. Parts of our network here use traffic shaping, some do not. Do we advertise this? Of course not. We don't deny it either however if asked. What makes comcast in a bad light here, seems to be that they lied about having the technology in place. Not so much what it is doing. This is of course my opinion, if you choose to take the things I have said as fact and attack my inaccuracies too, so be it.