Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Your Rights Online

Elude Your ISP's BitTorrent Blockade 308

Posted by samzenpus
from the impossible-task dept.
StonyandCher writes "More and more ISPs are blocking or throttling traffic to the peer-to-peer file-sharing service, even if you are downloading copyright free content. Have you been targeted? How can you get around the restrictions? This PC World report shows you a number of tips and tools can help you determine whether you're facing a BitTorrent blockade and, if so, help you get around it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Elude Your ISP's BitTorrent Blockade

Comments Filter:
  • Glasnost (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tobenisstinky (853306) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @08:16PM (#23412664)
    Slashdotted already...
  • Australia is lucky (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mrbluze (1034940) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @08:16PM (#23412666) Journal

    .. kind of lucky, anyway.

    We have a website [whirlpool.net.au] which provides pretty detailed information on what the ISP's are up to. Because there are so many members, I think the ISP's are sitting up and paying attention to a degree, because it's really not that expensive to change providers now.

    So here it's just a matter of choose your carrier and tell the other telco's to piss off.

    • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @08:21PM (#23412696) Homepage Journal
      There is nothing lucky about competition in the Australian broadband market. We forced the monopolist to open their network and we enforced the laws to keep the competition healthy. The fact that the USA is incapable of doing this is proof that they have lost control of their political system and they're the first to admit it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mrbluze (1034940)

        We forced the monopolist to open their network and we enforced the laws to keep the competition healthy.
        That's true, and activism still works in Australia - except in Tasmania, of course (the place where you see bumper stickers reading "Tasmania, Smell the Corruption").
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @08:49PM (#23412926)
        speaking of losing control of your political system, how much is the fine for owning a freaking laser pointer in Australia again?

        pot, meet kettle.
        • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

          by dwater (72834)
          Please could you elaborate? I don't get your point (seriously).
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by trawg (308495)

          speaking of losing control of your political system, how much is the fine for owning a freaking laser pointer in Australia again?

          I shall have to assume you're an American, because trying to score points off such a triviality as that while your own political system is rogering you every which way would be exactly the sort of thing I'd expect from one. We might not have laser pointers (note: that whole debacle was in one state, and it was only for laser pointers up to a certain level of dangerousness, and noone here even gives a shit about it anyway because we don't see the need to own laser pointers), but I'm glad we're not in the s

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by SpaceLifeForm (228190)
            When laser pointers are outlawed, only outlaws will have laser pointers.

            GO BO + KO.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Gideon Fubar (833343)
          We have jerks here, just like everywhere else. Some of them take to pointing lasers at incoming planes and hovering helicopters. I don't endorse banning the lasers, but then i'm not the kind of guy who thinks it's fun to try to hit the cockpit of a landing 747.

          Note, that (iirc) it's only class 3 and 4 lasers that are banned, not all laser pointers.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by syousef (465911)
            Note, that (iirc) it's only class 3 and 4 lasers that are banned, not all laser pointers.

            Unfortunately green class IIIs are exactly what you need to point out astronomical objects...
        • by kylehase (982334) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @11:23PM (#23414022)
          up to 14 years in jail [slashdot.org]. 20 years if it's mounted on a shark. Probably more if it's on a great white.
      • by iminplaya (723125) <iminplaya.gmail@com> on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @09:01PM (#23413004) Journal
        They didn't lose control. They gave it up willingly, for the sake of convenience. If they actually cared, they wouldn't keep on voting for the one who can flash the most cash. They would seek out and vote for candidates who aren't so allied with big business. But... it's more convenient to just vote for the guy that mass media presents to them. Then bitch about it till the next cycle, repeat. If they would admit it, they would be on the first step towards a cure. As it is, the 45 year decline will continue for at least four more. There is no end in sight. Australia doesn't really look [slashdot.org] any [slashdot.org] better [slashdot.org]
        • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @10:13PM (#23413606)
          Not really.

          You have to start with the party and take control at a much earlier stage.

          In america by the time the voting for a candidate in either major party takes place, you've already lost to the corporations.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rossz (67331)
          Some of us care. Unfortunately, we seem to be a small minority. The typical American is happy to sit at home being spoon fed his/her weekly episode of "American Idol" and trade email chain letters that are the online equivalent of the National Equirer (think big foot, Elvis sightings, and UFOs).
      • I don't know about that - there sure good competition for my broadband dollar here in NJ.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bsDaemon (87307)
        You act like we ever had control in the first place. The Democrat Party has a history as far back as the 1840s (at least) of dragooning Irish immigrants and mobsters into their party, offering them city jobs if they'd vote right and beat up anyone who didn't. Once they had the Irish hooked, they moved on to Blacks and now Hispanics... Northern Dems, anyway. Southern Dems are the party of slavery and the KKK, lest we forget.

        The Republican Party has always been the party of big money, cigar-munching indust
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by hedwards (940851)

          The Republican Party has always been the party of big money, cigar-munching industrialists who hire the mobsters that the Democrats didn't get to beat up Democrat-backing union-members and break strikes. It was always free market, industrialist and all that jazz. Lincoln was the first Neo-Con, too -- suspending habaeus corpus in Maryland and locking the state legislature up, invading the Confederacy, etc.

          Actually, Lincoln had the constitutional right to revoke the writ of habeas corpus under the US constitution.

          W doing so OTOH is completely and in all other ways illegal. There was no rebellion, and as bad as 9/11 was there was no effort by al Quaeda or anybody else to occupy our country.

          The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

          This passage comes out of Article I of the US constitution. I don't think anybody other than the biggest partisan can argue that the confederacy wasn't engaged in an act of rebellion. And it is more than a little b

          • I don't think anybody other than the biggest partisan can argue that the confederacy wasn't engaged in an act of rebellion.

            They weren't rebelling ... they were seceding!

            Fine point for arguing, I know.
      • by tentimestwenty (693290) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @11:05PM (#23413912)
        If you want broadband you've got basically 2 companies to choose from depending on where you live. Both suck. It won't be long before they really put the screws to people. Prices are going up and so are restrictions.
      • Canada too (Score:5, Insightful)

        by phorm (591458) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @11:14PM (#23413970) Journal
        For example, look at the recent shenannigans with Bell and those subletting their monopolized line-system. The regulating bodies basically just said that Bell is doing nothing wrong by throttling or otherwise screwing with the traffic of the 3rd-party ISP's customers, because there's no proof it will cause lost business.

        Hello! The ISP's cannot provide the indicated level of services due to the interference of a third party. Screw loss of business, that's a pretty major way of screwing the customers, who now have absolutely zero choice for ISP's who aren't handing it to them up the tailpipe (Rogers, the non-DSL ISP, also throttles). So is it fair that customers aren't "leaving" because they're getting equally screwed elsewhere?

        When I last spent time in Aus, I was amazed by how closely they kept tabs on their politicians and policies. North America in general could learn a lot from them in that regard.
    • Switch ISP (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Joce640k (829181) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @09:57PM (#23413486) Homepage
      My ISP started messing around with this, I called them to ask about it and they flat-out denied it.

      When I looked on the message boards and everybody else was in the same boat, I called again. This time they said they were throttling, but only at peak hours (not true - but that was the official line).

      Next day I called their competitor. As soon as the line was installed (2 days) I called and told them I was switching, and to who.

  • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @08:23PM (#23412706)
    that the cable companies don't consider (or don't want to have to consider) the consumer of their broadband offerings as their customer. They'd much rather have us be parasites on their network, parasites who happen to be targets of profitable marketing campaigns. The ad injection nonsense that a number of ISPs have launched is indicative of this attitude: we're just eyeballs attached to brains that view commercials.
    • by grommit (97148) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @08:45PM (#23412904)
      You must understand that the advertisers don't care if we're just eyeballs attached to brains. They're mainly concerned with whether or not we have a credit card to purchase whatever they're selling.
    • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @09:19PM (#23413150)
      Isn't that what all monopolies want us to do? All MS wants us to do is keep paying for needless Windows licences while they don't improve it much, pay for Office because MS can't be bothered to include a decent word processor, pay for Windows OneCare because they can't fix their swiss-cheese OS, pay for DRM-ed music because they belive that all anyone does with DRM-free music is share it (and of course we all know that transfering media from your computer to a CD-ROM/MP3 player/another computer is morally wrong!11!11!) All the oil companies want us to do is pay for the $4/gallon of gas while beliving all the "oil is scarce" nonsense. All the government wants us to do is keep being patriotic so they can go on witch hunts for "terrorists" on American citizens. To keep us in paranoia about how obviously they need to wiretap more American phones because they might be a terrorist. To keep help "keep crime down" by restricting our second amendment right to bear arms. All the record companies want us to do is keep buying a copy of a song for every device we own. To believe in all this "piracy" nonsense and how if you transfer your legally bought CD to a computer/MP3 player/another CD/Home server is now illegal. To believe that fair use is illegal. To make us believe that all "pirates" bring down the economy/cause global warming/are responsible for drownings/deface Internet sites or other outrageous things.

      The fact is, monopolies are much like oppressive governments, they try to make the public not think. But to just exist and "consume" whatever crap they throw at us.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Tawnos (1030370)
        And all slashdotters like you seem to want is validation of your own rants against society. If you're so unhappy with all the stuff you see online, get outside and talk a walk. You'll feel better.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Kjella (173770)

        All the oil companies want us to do is pay for the $4/gallon of gas while beliving all the "oil is scarce" nonsense.

        Producing oil, as in actually creating oil is a slow process over millions of years and we're pumping it out of the ground like there's no tomorrow. I have a little problem saying "scarce" about something we pump out 35,000,000 barrels/day of, but do you really think this is something we can just ramp up production of as we please? The cheap kind is running out, and you can hope we have some expensive oil but...

    • by jamstar7 (694492) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @11:12PM (#23413954)
      That's mostly because we're not their customers, we're their product. Their advertisers are their customers.
  • Protest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pig Hogger (10379) <pig.hogger@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @08:23PM (#23412708) Journal
    Protest by paying the bill in pennies or any other kind of creative check-writing various tax departments have been the victim of...
    • Re:Protest (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @09:06PM (#23413042)
      It's been a long time since you could do that. There have been court cases establishing the right of a company to refuse small change.

      However, what you can do is to pay each charge on the bill with a separate cheque, on separate days. One day pay the basic cable, the next day the box rental, the next day, the remote control rental, then the FCC charges, et cetera. And if they ever screw it up and re-charge you for something you've already have paid (which guaranteed won't take long, since their system isn't set up to handle itemized payments), put the money from then on into an escrow account and only send them slips showing the money has been deposited, pending them fixing their error. If they close you down, sue them -- there's no way you're going to lose if you can document that you made all the payments until they started sending erroneous bills, and continued to place money in escrow until they could present a correct bill.

      Or, just abandon the service, since "service" doesn't include service.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by griffeymac (625596)
        Great, and then I burn through books of checks at four times the usual rate. Exactly how does paying the cable company in installments inflict harm on them? They get the check for part of the bill, and they reduce that amount from the total amount owed. They get another check, and reduce the amount from the total amount owed. As long as all the checks get there before the due date, they don't care how many checks they get--they have a whole department of people that do nothing but process the checks rece
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by uniquegeek (981813)
          Not sure about cheques, but credit/debit payments cost the company for each use, plus the manpower and associated costs to process it. There's the reason why stores tag on $0.50 for interac purchase, especially if they're under $10.00.
          • Re:Protest (Score:4, Informative)

            by witherstaff (713820) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @11:05PM (#23413914) Homepage

            In the US it's against the merchant policies to tack on extra fees for credit/debit. Visa/MasterCard/Discover/Am Ex/etc all are equal to cash.

            But you can give a cash discount. It's wacky and lame and almost no one does that.

  • by JohnnyComeLately (725958) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @08:38PM (#23412822) Homepage Journal
    My PC can run for months/weeks/hours of being on and have no problems with the connection. The moment I run LimeWire, the problems begin. 9 times out of 10 I end up having to reboot my cable modem to get back on-line....despite the fact my cable modem shows normal activity.
    • by FooAtWFU (699187) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @09:27PM (#23413236) Homepage

      For what it's worth, the network load induced by BitTorrent can be sufficient to cause (low-quality) cable modems, broadband routers, and similar devices to become flaky, while they are capable of handling the relatively quiescent and straightforward data streams associated with "normal" use.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Billly Gates (198444)
        I use AT&T dsl and my router was fine with bittorrents until a few months ago.

        As a test I downloaded just one torrent with only a few k per second. My wifes latency in wow jumpes well into the the thousands. I tried about 10 torrents all pumping hundreds of k a second and it makes no difference.

        The second I turn off bit torrent my connection mysteriously becomes better.

        As a result my wife wont let me use bit torrents anymore and it pisses me off. It seems the whole connection is throttled with just a si
    • That may be the hardware and not the ISP. Some modems puke when they get too many connection attempts - Limewire and Bitorrent can cause this behavior. You might want to try a different cable modem.
    • by syousef (465911)
      Some things to try:

      - Find out what your upstream bandwidth is and limit your uploads to half of that. Better yet start off with 4kb upstream and increase it if you don't have problems after half an hour. You may find you're saturating your upstream connection which makes it hard for requests and control data to go upstream.

      - Try a different bittorrent client. For instance you might find uTorrent works well, but Azureus brings your net connection to its knees.
  • Anti-trust? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @08:42PM (#23412866)

    It will be interesting to see if a major ISP steps forward with an offer to provide completely unthrottled service, perhaps at a premium price.

    Would an across-the-board failure to offer such an obvious consumer winner provide grounds for charges of collusion or racketeering?

    • by patio11 (857072) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @10:25PM (#23413702)
      Every major ISP sells completely unthrottled, you bought-it-enjoy-it bandwidth to businesses. Get yourself a T1 line, never worry about being throttled again! Prices are quite reasonable starting at about $600 to $1200 per month.

      Its an obvious consumer winner!
    • by Phroggy (441)
      You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there is significant competition in the marketplace. If there were, then what you describe would almost certainly happen, but many people have few options. As far as I'm aware, only dialup and usually (but not always) DSL let you choose among multiple ISPs; for any other residential connection technology, you're locked in to a single ISP unless you switch to different technology (e.g. FIOS, cable modem, satellite, microwave) which requires new hardware and
  • by dave562 (969951) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @08:56PM (#23412976) Journal
    I've had pretty good luck with Verizon DSL. For a moment I was considering switching to cable but with all of the horror stories I've seen around here regarding bitTorrent clients I've stayed away from cable. The only time I ever had a problem is when I was seeding some popular, copyrighted music that I pulled down off of a site that I found via a Google Search. It was kind of creepy. As long as I was seeding the file, my transfer rate went down to near zero. Once I stopped, it went back up to my full speed. I tried it out a few times over a couple of days just to make sure that I wasn't imagining things and sure enough, every time I seeded that one file my connection slowed to a crawl.
    • by totally bogus dude (1040246) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @11:44PM (#23414130)

      You should be able to set the maximum rate your bittorrent client will upload at. If you set it to 80-90% of your maximum upload speed you should be able to surf and download without problems while it uploads. Experiment and see the performance you get.

      You can also do more general traffic shaping, which will maintain a queue at your router and insert 'interactive' traffic before bulk uploads. A bit more complicated to set up but more robust. If you're the only one using your connection though and BT is the only thing you have uploading, using the client's throttle setting is good enough.

      The reason it slows down your connection is that as you're downloading anything (e.g. a web page) you need to send acknowledgement packets to the sender before it'll send the next packets containing the content. Since you're uploading at full pelt, those acknowledgement packets have to wait behind the larger file upload packets before they get sent. Traffic shaping / prioritization lets them skip to the head of the queue.

  • by ucblockhead (63650) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @09:09PM (#23413068) Homepage Journal
    I don't have this problem because I am willing to pay more for service from an ISP like Speakeasy that does not do this. If you want these companies to change, you need to be willing to hurt their bottom line even if it costs you more.
  • ISP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by codepunk (167897) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @09:22PM (#23413190)
    A friend of mine runs a ISP, he has a very simple policy that works out
    rather well. He does not go out of his way to regulate what people do
    on the network until it causes a issue. Bit Torrent is a bandwidth hog
    and attempts to evade filtering rather well. If he encounters issues
    caused by a Bit Torrent user he just hands them their money back
    for the month and drops them as a customer. This keeps the rest of the
    network clean and the other customers happy. The profit margin on each
    connection is so very thin that it just does not pay to mess with this
    extremely small portion of the customer base.
    • Re:ISP (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mr2001 (90979) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @09:48PM (#23413418) Homepage Journal

      Bit Torrent is a bandwidth hog and attempts to evade filtering rather well.
      BitTorrent only "hogs" as much bandwidth as the human user causes it to. It's no different in that sense from any other application: other P2P systems, YouTube, email, whatever. If you want to spend all day uploading email attachments at full speed, you can do that, and you'll use just as much bandwidth as if you were seeding torrents at full speed.

      On the other hand, you can set a low rate limit in your torrent client, and/or set it to stop seeding once it reaches a certain share ratio, and you'll only use a moderate amount of bandwidth.

      There's absolutely no need to treat BitTorrent differently from any other application. You don't need to use "filtering"; just limit bandwidth. If a customer is using too much bandwidth, charge him for the overage or lower his cap. It doesn't matter whether he's running BitTorrent, LimeWire, or just sending a lot of emails: all that matters is his total usage.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Moridineas (213502)

        BitTorrent only "hogs" as much bandwidth as the human user causes it to. It's no different in that sense from any other application: other P2P systems, YouTube, email, whatever. If you want to spend all day uploading email attachments at full speed, you can do that, and you'll use just as much bandwidth as if you were seeding torrents at full speed.

        You know, you might be theoretically right here, but I honestly don't think you could (and certainly not in any remotely realistic workload) max out any DSL/Cable/+ connection doing email. BitTorrent does manage to EASILY complete max out your upload and download speeds. Don't forget that many bittorrent clients automatically (by default!) adjust their upload and download rates to maximize their rates, and maximize their bandwidth usage.

        On the other hand, you can set a low rate limit in your torrent client, and/or set it to stop seeding once it reaches a certain share ratio, and you'll only use a moderate amount of bandwidth.

        There's absolutely no need to treat BitTorrent differently from any other application. You don't need to use "filtering"; just limit bandwidth. If a customer is using too much bandwidth, charge him for the overage or lower his cap. It doesn't matter whether he's running BitTorrent, LimeWire, or just sending a lot of emails: all that matters is his total usage.

        The difference is that it's exceedingly rare--virtually impossible ev

        • Re:ISP (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Mr2001 (90979) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @10:37PM (#23413768) Homepage Journal

          You know, you might be theoretically right here, but I honestly don't think you could (and certainly not in any remotely realistic workload) max out any DSL/Cable/+ connection doing email.
          In a "realistic workload", probably not. But you could certainly put your email client in offline mode, queue up a few thousand emails with big attachments, and then send them all at once. Presto: you're now using up as much bandwidth as you possibly can, at least until the queue is emptied.

          The difference is that it's exceedingly rare--virtually impossible even!--for someone to use up as much bandwidth as they regularly do using BitTorrent/P2P. Thus, the ISPs target the most popular p2p algorithm, bittorrent.
          Yes, but that's a stupid way to deal with excessive bandwidth use. It's like looking at heavy traffic on the roads to and from the beach, and deciding to "solve" the traffic problem by closing the beach.

          It's stupid for a few reasons. One reason is that it puts the cart before the horse: the network is there to serve users, not the other way around. The public works department needs to adapt to the fact that drivers want to go to the beach, and ISPs need to adapt to the fact that their customers want to share files.

          Another reason is that it's just not a very effective solution. Filtering one specific application is more difficult and costly than imposing an overall bandwidth cap, and it sets off an arms race as new versions of the application evade the filters, and new versions of the filters detect the application again. And if the filter ever becomes 100% effective against one application, people will just switch to another one, starting the whole cycle over.

          If people are using too much bandwidth, then restrict their bandwidth usage or charge them for it. It's just that simple. The only reason ISPs are wasting their time with these filters is so they can keep advertising an impossibly high level of service, knowing that none of their customers will actually be able to use it.
          • In a "realistic workload", probably not. But you could certainly put your email client in offline mode, queue up a few thousand emails with big attachments, and then send them all at once. Presto: you're now using up as much bandwidth as you possibly can, at least until the queue is emptied.

            Actually I really doubt that IMAP/POP would manage to saturate any connection. You might be able to fill a slow upload speed, but my guess is server latencies would significantly limit what you can do. Not to mention in your scenario, your download amount is not going to be that substantial.

            In a "realistic workload", probably not. But you could certainly put your email client in offline mode, queue up a few thousand emails with big attachments, and then send them all at once. Presto: you're now using up as much bandwidth as you possibly can, at least until the queue is emptied.

            More like clearing the 18 wheeler trucks off the main road to relieve traffic congestion. This is something that happens in the real world.

            It's stupid for a few reasons. One reason is that it puts the cart before the horse: the network is there to serve users, not the other way around. The public works department needs to adapt to the fact that drivers want to go to the beach, and ISPs need to adapt to the fact that their customers want to share files.

            I don't disagree with you. Getting limited is annoying. Actually that happened

  • Article Summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by complete loony (663508) <Jeremy...Lakeman@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @09:27PM (#23413230)
    Detecting throttling;
    • Download something popular
    • Call your ISP
    • Read their terms of service
    • Glasnost [mpi-sws.mpg.de]
    • pcapdiff [eff.org]
    • Vuze plugin.
    Avoiding throttling;
    • Enable protocol encryption.
    • Change the port number to something other than 6881.
    • Tunnel through TOR or some other commercial VPN.
    To which I would add, if you know your ISP is injecting fake RST's filter them out with a firewall rule. A little more complex a task than the expected audience of TFA though.
  • Except for archive.org and a few other sites I've not seen much of it on the internet, and since just about everything is copyrighted by default I really doubt there is much copyright free content out there. There was a time when the US had much saner copyright laws, but that was before it went the way of Europe and signed on to the Berne Convention.
  • by awarrenfells (1289658) on Wednesday May 14, 2008 @09:41PM (#23413344) Homepage
    While it does defeat the purpose of file sharing to a degree, but I have found that ISP's can only really detect file sharing through your upload to download ratio. I work for an $ISP, and we red flag accounts with an upload equal to or greater than their download, which sucks for some customers who upload large amounts of information to other servers or sites. I don't agree with it, but I have to pay the bills :P
  • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday May 15, 2008 @12:25AM (#23414338) Homepage
    ...is that computer magazines run articles like this anyway. I doubt they'd post an article that's more or less "How-to warez more effectively!!!1", torrenting is something a lot of people do. The pirate bay is around top 100 on the alexia webranking, and if you start reading the next 100 maybe you'll realize just how big that is. It's higher than IGN, NBA, Digg, 2ch, SourceForge, CNET, mozilla, amazon.de (not com!) and so on. Other prominent sites like IsoHunt (124), torrentz.com (157) also rate very highly. That's way beyond a few hogs they want to get rid of, saying "WTF I can't use torrents" is almost up there with "WTF I can't watch YouTube" or "WTF I can't run MSN". They'll be killing themselves if they keep this up...

"No job too big; no fee too big!" -- Dr. Peter Venkman, "Ghost-busters"

Working...