Comcast, Cox Slow BitTorrent Traffic All Day 342
narramissic writes "A study by the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems found that Comcast and Cox Communications are slowing BitTorrent traffic at all times of day, not just peak hours. Comcast was found to be interrupting at least 30% of BitTorrent upload attempts around the clock. At noon, Comcast was interfering with more than 80% of BitTorrent traffic, but it was also slowing more than 60% of BitTorrent traffic at other times, including midnight, 3 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Time in the U.S., the time zone where Comcast is based. Cox was interfering with 100% of the BitTorrent traffic at 1 a.m., 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. Eastern Time. Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice downplayed the results saying, 'P-to-p traffic doesn't necessarily follow normal traffic flows.'"
W T F (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
You still suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
But that does not address you blocking any of the traffic.
'P-to-p traffic doesn't necessarily... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope it sure doesn't when you implement layer 4 filtering and then configure it to block/messwith/"delay" p2p apps. Who knew?
Will they change? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the real question is whether there will be enough pressure for Comcast to remove this unnecessary throttling. Given their track record with many of their other questionable services, I doubt that they will.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Subverting Alternate Legal Distribtuion Schemes? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I did just grab the new Nine Inch Nails album, and as a former musician myself, I still dabble in remixing on occasion. Thus, when I went to go grab the freely available multitracks for remixing, I was somewhat surprised that they were only available via Torrent. That's smart on the part of Trent Reznor and his tech team (why bog down only his own servers with information that he's freely sharing with everyone?), it's bad for other artists and remixers if their access to this media is going to be limited because of the "taint" associated with BitTorrent.
I'm not sure there's a solution here. Any distributed network will inevitably be used for some amount of "gray market" trafficking, but it would be nice if we preferred and promoted technologies for their Common Good usage rather than limiting them by their potential negative effects. And by "we" I mean the corporations who gouge us for $100 each month just to shuttle electrons around.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
In this day and age when most of the middle class doesn't give a fuck enough to vote with their dollars or otherwise, we techies do what we have to. If that means enabling everybody to steal from the big corporations that have been ripping everybody off for years, then so be it. I encourage everyone that I know to do the same.
Re:DSL is no better (Score:3, Insightful)
WOW (Score:5, Insightful)
Limiting bittorrent because it can be used for illegal downloads is like scrambling epsn because people make illegal bets on football games.
Re:DSL is no better (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:1, Insightful)
Mind if I grab into your pocket to steal your wallet?
What you remind me of are those people that go into the fields of farmers and dig up vegetables or fruits. My father in law is a potato farmer and he has about 500 acres of potatoes. YET time and time again people go to his fields and steal potatoes.
They think it is ok to rip off from larger farmers. After all he won't notice, or he is ripping off the consumers or he is big enough to deal with it. The reality is otherwise...
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
That is correct, however BitTorrent is a much faster way to download it, when it is a new release of something popular such as Ubuntu, HTTP downloads are around 30KB/Second while torrents are around 200Kb/Second, therefore, there is little justification to not use BitTorrent when downloading large files, and when you figure that BitTorrent doesn't stress the servers of the project, it is a better choice in the long run too.
There is illegal software via HTTP and FTP too, in fact one might say that there is just as much via HTTP as via P2P. As for clogging the networks, the ISPs should have gotten more bandwidth before they offered higher speed Internet or at least have it in their advertising that they throttle P2P and certainly contracts. It would be like if I set up a huge pile of sand in my backyard, and I had people pay $40 per month to get as much sand as they wanted and it said so in the contract and through advertising. Of course some people only needed a bit of sand and took some home in buckets, others would take bigger ones. However, fearing that my sand would run out I poked holes in all of the larger buckets making them carry much less. People would have a right to be mad at me for promising unlimited sand and then limiting it. Same thing with the ISPs
I don't know where you live, but here in the US there are about 3 main ISPs and most if not all have torrent throttling. Some of the more rural areas only have one way of getting high-speed internet and if you don't like that ISP it is either that or dial-up. And as for creating your own company, the grants the government/cities gave out to help get internet to the world, chances are won't be given again making it impossible to
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
As to your other arguments to the legality and saturation of networks, your viewpoint is quite backwards. The fact of the matter is, its a precedent being set, that they can sell you "always on high speed access to the internet", but then dictate what you can and cannot do with it. A phone company that listened in on your phone calls, and then disconnected you because your conversation with your girlfriend wasn't deemed as important as a business call being handled by your neighbor is an apt description of whats going on here. We pay for access to something, we don't expect them to determine what is important to us and why we are going to use it.
If it boils down to a supply and demand issue, why doesn't it sort itself out the same way all other markets do? Do you see gas stations dictating where you can and cannot drive? No, they raise their prices and pass the cost of business to the customer. Its simple economics.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Allow me to correct you.
Besides, there are other uses for bittorrent besides Linux distros. What about Free / Creative Commons media, like music (or even free-as-in-beer professional music, like Radiohead's latest album) or videos (anime music videos, Star wreck, independent movies, video tutorials)?
Comcast's reasoning (p2p is for i113641 w4r3z!!!111ONE) is simply a lame excuse. Their infrastructure sucks and they're only using the pirate excuse to cover their arses.
Re:Good (Score:1, Insightful)
Taken from you? So someone held a gun to your head and forced you to buy that Britney Spears CD?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, the Parent Poster is a thief! To access *any* website (including /.) you need to download a copy of the files on the slashdot servers. Opps, score one for holistic generalizations!
Then again, the AC poster was obviously just trolling. No one is stupid enough to actually mean that.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
When you take back something that was unfairly taken from you (i.e. high prices due to monopolies), that isn't ripping someone off. It's called justice.
1) People use P2P to get free movies, music, and pirated software. None of this stuff was "taken from you." You have the option to buy it at many locations nationwide for reasonable prices. There's no monopoly on movies, music or software at the moment.
2) Yes, you are ripping people off. We all agree the MPAA and RIAA exaggerate the damages, but it's also not a victimless crime, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Illegal? Maybe, but don't forget a lot of laws were made only to benefit the rich and powerful.
Then get off your lazy ass and change the law. The Civil Rights Movement didn't succeed because Martin Luthor King, Jr sat on his ass all day, then occasionally stole a candy bar from the corner store under the guise of "justice."
If you think the law is wrong, change the law.
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
No. No it isn't.
Circumstance matters. Copyright laws are about who has the Right to produce copies, and in case you haven't read or bothered to look up any of the US laws the copyright holder does not have exclusive rights in all cases.
Furthermore, blocking P2P isn't just used for copyrighted material. It is also used for distributing legal software and files and those users are also getting punished.
Though the reality of it has nothing to do with punishment. It has more to do with the fact that the companies feel they can get away with it for this segment of their user base. They would prefer to throttle down everyone unless an exorbitant fee is paid, but still be able to advertise their fast rates.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Looking the other way... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Adobe made it impossible for him to get an illegal copy of Photoshop, guess what? He'd learn something else. And when he arrives at his first job and they ask him which version of the Creative Suite he needs, he very well might say "That's alright - I know Gimp and Inkscape, and I already have them. Just get me a bigger monitor instead."
It's a nightmare scenario, and one of those things I wish they (Microsoft/Adobe/Autodesk/Apple) would be more honest about. I hope they do lock down Windows with DRM so it is nearly hackproof and rejects the installation of pirated software, because Linux would gain a few million users overnight. In the end, the best thing the OSS movement has going for it is the greed of the big guys, so here's to hoping they only get more delirious with it.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Who said they were overusing? One Linux distro via P2P per month is throttled the same as 24/7/365 pirated movie downloading.
It appears they are throttling on the means, not the content or quantity.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, rentals, I do consider to be reasonable prices -- but I'd much rather not have to actually go to the store. Netflix is a good idea, but their "watch now" service is heavily DRM'd.
So tell me where else I can go, when I want to watch a movie right now, without going to a video store -- or maybe it's not even at the video store yet -- oh, and I want to watch it on Linux.
The business model is just screaming for someone to implement it.
And there are certainly monopolies within software. Microsoft, anyone?
I will go out of my way to pay for indie music, when I find a band I like. But with the things the MPAA and the RIAA does in response to piracy... Seriously, proposing a "piracy tax" on ISPs? If they already assume their customers are their enemies, then I really don't care.
Re:W T F (Score:5, Insightful)
We all understand that the figures quoted for these "unlimited" plans are maximums, and just because you're paying for up to 1 Mbps upstream doesn't mean there'll always be 1 Mbps upstream for you to use. But you should still be able to use whatever is available.
And if the network is so overloaded that people are routinely unable to hit 1 Mbps, the ISP should either add more capacity or adjust their marketing to be more in line with the amount of bandwidth that actually is available.
Times change, and people on average use more bandwidth now than they used to. In the future, they'll probably use even more. That means the oversubscription equation is changing, and it's going to keep changing. If an ISP wants to oversubscribe their capacity, that's fine, but they have to keep up with changes in usage patterns.
It will get worse. (Score:4, Insightful)
What you're actually paying for is a kind of time-share bandwidth thing. Based on a profile of an average user who wants spurts of high speed (to make web pages responsive) but doesn't actually need that data rate anywhere near 100% of the time.
This is generally a good deal all around, because by selling it this way, the ISPs ensure good utilization of the equipment, and you get fast web pages. And that connection is on 24/7.
If your use profile doesn't conform to that estimate, for instance, if you're actually using a fairly constant bandwidth, then you need to upgrade your service to a plan that figures that in. Prices for those plans are sure to come down soon, as the capacity is built in to satisfy the upcoming demand for internet-tv.
It is unfortunate that the ad campaigns didn't specify this explicitly at the outset (although they're getting better). But I think it was in the name of brevity rather than malice. And also some malice, but at least at some point someone probably figured that many people either weren't bright enough or didn't have enough time to fully absorb the details, so they oversimplified them. I don't think that assumption is wrong, btw.
Haven't you ever wondered why a T1 line, which ostensibly has lower data rate than your plan by a factor of between 3 and 5 in most of the country, costs so very much more? That's because they don't expect you to use that data rate anywhere near all the time.
Re:It will get worse. (Score:5, Insightful)
[...]
If your use profile doesn't conform to that estimate, for instance, if you're actually using a fairly constant bandwidth, then you need to upgrade your service to a plan that figures that in.
Consider what it actually means to have a "profile of an average user". The ISP knew from the start that some people would use their bandwidth in short bursts (e.g. web surfing). Others would use it in other ways, like watching YouTube or Netflix for hours at a time, or listening to internet radio. Some people would use it for P2P or gaming.
The "average user" profile comes from combining all those different user profiles together. Many people will use 1% of their available bandwidth, say, and a few will use 90%, and when you average them together according to how common you think those profiles will be, you decide that the average user will only use maybe 5% of the bandwidth they're paying for.
But everyone still fits into the picture. If you're the guy using 90% of your available bandwidth, that's fine, because the ISP already took you into account when they decided how much capacity to build. You're not obligated to hold back or switch to a different service: they knew there would be some number of people using a lot of bandwidth, who'd be balanced out by a much greater number of people using only a little.
Now, as time goes by, higher bandwidth applications like BitTorrent are getting more popular. That means the ISPs have to adapt, because their old estimates are no longer accurate. Instead of the "average user" using 5% of the bandwidth he's paying for, maybe now the average is 10%, so the ISP has to have twice as much capacity.
That's the risk of oversubscription: it only works as long as your estimate is accurate, and when actual use changes, you have to update your estimate and adjust your capacity. Again, they knew they were taking that risk when they chose to oversubscribe their lines.
Some ISPs want to have it both ways, though. They want to keep their oversubscription model, but they don't want to adjust their capacity to keep up with changing usage patterns, so instead they try to force their customers to comply with the old, outdated estimates. We shouldn't let them get away with it.
Re:W T F (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yea - it doesnt mean that (Score:3, Insightful)
how bold corporate shills can speak
What? She's not allowed to speak? Or she's not allowed to speak boldly? Or is it that she works for a corporation? Isn't this (at least where I am, and Comcast is) America? Ever hear of the first amendment? Be you a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Marxists, or Communist--you can't restrict the freedom of speech in America.
republican administration spoilage
Meh. I'm a conservative which means most liberals identify me as a "republican", but I'm pretty pissed about the way the party is heading. It used to be about doing honorable and decent things, limiting the control and taxation of the government, standing against our enemies, and keeping a great nation going strong. Now it's about power, gay sex with interns, having a 'secret' second family, compromising beliefs, and slowly eroding the constitution. Not saying Democrats are any better though--Bill slept with a fat chick
Re:It will get worse. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are only a few options here for the ISPs. One is to build out as you say and charge everyone. Another is to build out some more and charge most people the same, but make the limits more explicit. Nudging the higher bandwidth consumers into higher price brackets. This nicely solves the scarcity problem as prices rise, bandwidth increases and usage drops to market-clearing levels.
IOW, it's either increased pricing for some who actually use the bandwidth or increased pricing for everyone. "Eating the loss" only goes so far before the company goes out of business and is replaced by a company that charges what their product is worth. You're asking for everyone else to subsidize YOUR usage ya filthy hippie.
Oh, and BTW, some of us knew what we were getting when we subscribed to our service like.. a decade ago. We knew we were paying for shared service, but we bought it anyway because it met our needs: we wanted responsive web and occasional downloads (like..patches and linux isos)to be relatively fast. And they were. We didn't want a T1, but we wanted O(T1) speed for a lot of little sessions.
And if we wanted to run servers, we knew we could just call up and get business accounts with static IPs and do whatever we wanted. And since we're now paying the same price ($6 more for me, but factoring in inflation and the dollar slide...), but getting about 6x the speed (for me at least. Not quite Moore improvement, but still satisfactory), we're pretty satisfied with what we're getting for the price we're paying. Which doesn't mean that if we see a better deal we won't switch.
Re:It will get worse. (Score:5, Insightful)
But if demand is rising faster than they expected, and they have to raise their rates to maintain their network, then so be it!
I certainly know that I'm paying for shared service, and that the bandwidth they advertise might not always be available -- I don't call to complain about slow downloads or uploads, because I know they'll say "we don't guarantee anything" and they'll be right. But when that bandwidth is available, I expect to be able to use it.
one more thing (Score:4, Insightful)
That is, let's say the ISP has 100 Mbps available, and they're providing "unlimited" service capped at 5 Mbps to 400 customers, under their old estimate that an average customer would use 5% of their available bandwidth.
Now BitTorrent comes along, and soon the average customer is using 10% of their available bandwidth. Instead of doubling their network capacity to 200 Mbps, the ISP can halve the per-user cap to 2.5 Mbps, keeping overall usage the same without spending a dime or raising their rates.
(Well, it isn't quite that simple, since in reality everyone hasn't increased their usage equally, so the lowered cap wouldn't affect them all equally. But there is some number where the ISP could set the cap to keep usage under control without having to add capacity or raise prices.)
Of course, ISPs don't want to do this. They want to keep advertising big numbers. But the fact is, people use more bandwidth than they used to, and that demand isn't doing away, so something has to change: the ISPs need to either add capacity and/or raise their prices, or stop advertising service levels they can't provide at the current prices.
Re:It will get worse. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow! So many blind assumptions about the GP in just that line. But I'll bite anyway. The problem is not filthy hippies trying to get everyone else to subsidize their usage. The problem is as the GP pointed out, a business model that relies on oversubscription to advertise a service that they don't actually have the capacity to provide.
Until the early 70's, cars sold in the US had gross horsepower ratings. This was measured using a blueprinted engines, no mufflers, headers instead of a stock exhaust manifold, etc. Each of these things was good for a few horsepower that went into the theoretical rating that was never actually seen on the street. Blueprinting is time consuming and prohibitively expensive in mass production. Headers are loud, not very durable and unsuited to a production vehicle and mufflers are mandatory on the street. From the 1972-1973 model year, you see a 50hp drop in the power output of the typical Detroit muscle car. This has little to do with the (minimal) increase in emission standards and everything to do with the fact that HP had to be rated as installed in the vehicle. This means that since 1973, you were actually getting the HP the car was advertised with, while prior to that you got a theoretical maximum.
"Up to" is the ISP industry's gross HP. The problem is that it is sold as being faster than it really is. And yes, consumers are stupid. They see the XXXX and think that is what they are getting. They do not dwell on what the "up to" part means. This also means that when I go shopping for an ISP, I can't get an answer to the question of "how much sustained bandwidth am I actually paying for".
So I have a proposal; let's get Adam Smith involved and make it into a proper market driven industry. This requires buyers that can make informed decisions. If you don't have relevant information, you can't make an informed decision. Rather than getting into a raise rates or cut peak bandwidth, how about requiring ISPs to sell guaranteed bandwidth as they already do to business users? They could still advertise peak bandwidth as well, but they should say "this is how much you get when we are at full capacity".