Comcast really does block BitTorrent traffic after all
For a few months Comcast has been the subject of scattered reports that say it throttles BitTorrent traffic.
TorrentFreak said in August that Comcast was surreptitiously interfering with file transfers by posing as one party and then, essentially, hanging up the phone. But when we contacted Comcast at the time, it flatly denied doing it.
Thanks to tests reported Friday by the Associated Press, however, it's clear that Comcast is actively interfering with peer-to-peer networks even if relatively small files are being transferred.
The tests involved transferring a copy of the King James Bible through the BitTorrent network on Time Warner Cable, Cablevison, AT&T and two Comcast connections (in Philadelphia, Boston and San Francisco). Only the Comcast-connected computers were affected.
This is significant. The Gutenberg version of the King James Bible is only 4.24MB, which is relatively tiny and indicates that Comcast was singling out even small files.
Now, even though there's been some musing that Comcast can't do this, I'd be surprised if a court would say that it was somehow unlawful. Comcast's Terms of Service says: "You further agree to comply with all Comcast network, bandwidth, and data storage and usage limitations. You shall ensure that your bandwidth consumption using the Service does not exceed the limitations that are now in effect or may be established in the future. If your use of the Service results in the consumption of bandwidth in excess of the applicable limitations, that is a violation of this Policy...if the Service is used in a way that Comcast or its suppliers, in their sole discretion, believe violate this AUP, Comcast or its suppliers may take any responsive actions they deem appropriate.
Which is pretty broad.
The danger for Comcast is twofold. First, its hyperactive filtering may zap perfectly legitimate file transfers, which seems to have happened in one case involving a customer using Lotus Notes.
Second, it encourages countermeasures such as obfuscating BitTorrent traffic or encrypting it. That means that future efforts by Comcast to manage its traffic may be far more difficult. (If Comcast had merely slowed down BitTorrent transfers instead of cutting them off completely, users wouldn't be escalating this arms race as quickly.)
Probably the best result would be tiered pricing. BitTorrent users who are heavy users of bandwidth would pay more, while average home users would pay less. It's not perfect, and lots of Internet users may not like a tiered pricing model, but it's probably better than escalating a technological arms race, or not being able to use BitTorrent at all.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
There are other solutions on the market, and I am not sure what Comcast is using, but the functionality is likely similar.
The equipment is likely not deployed in all of their markets.
The platform can be used to shape P2P traffic and also do things like mitigate worms. You create traffic policies based on "cost classes" that are determined by blocks of IP's, we had separate cost classes for commercial customer IP space.
Comcast is the largest broadband consumer ISP in the country, don't you think the protocol with the most internet traffic might be impacted? All those hundreds of thousands of people? Yet one reporting agency has an issue, and all of a sudden it's Comcast is blocking the transfer.
Amazing. And reported without any investigation by cnet.
Read the article again. The investigation was conducted by the Associated Press. Links to their article are in the story itself, but here it is again, to make it even easier for you:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_hi_te/comcast_data_discrimination_tests_2
Note specifically that the author finds that not all Comcast subscribers appear to be affected.
This has been my experience.
It happened with Ubuntu, anime, America's Army, and, of course, pr0n.
I thought it wasn't really a problem, but I guess it is.
Would it be nice to do a more in-depth test? Certainly. But but it's not possible for me to arrange immediately, so linking to the AP report is a good second-best choice.
Also you didn't read the article if you think it's just "one reporting agency." Reports like this are widespread.
Two things lacking at CNET.
As it is, there is not enough data to give a concise picture of if/why the throttling is occurring.
If it was the "protocol with the most internet traffic", why would only seeding be affected?
It's Comcast's network, bandwidth and network gear (essentially its private property), so they are entitled to do with it as they please under current telecoms regulations.
Telling Comcast to stop would be like telling a racetrack owner that they couldn't stop kids on motorbikes race up and down it on Friday night.
If this is truly something Comcast is doing (and is not just a coincidence that appeared during testing), perhaps those being called are just not knowledgeable in the types of activities their technicians participate in to protect bandwidth. If something as innocent as this is not the case, then Comcast is being very deceptive and needs to be held accountable to its paying customers.
.
I hope I'm not the only one leaving Comcast to move to a better ISP.
They can say that they are not "blocking ports" because they aren't. From what I remember reading, they are sending RST packets to the other clients in the swarm. So, essentially, they are posing as you and sending a RST packet to reset the connection once every so many milliseconds.
I am glad you are dropping Comcast and I wish I could do the same.
Now onto the point.
Comcast advertises an internet service with a 4mb/s connection at their base price. While I love the standard US opinion of "advertise however as long as its in the fine print" I have never agreed with it. Now if Comcast is going to say 4mb/s they have the capabilities to limit each and every user to exactly that. 4mb/s seems to me to say that if I'm paying for 4mb/s of bandwidth then In a given month I can have 4mb/s 24 hours a day for every day of that month. That is the sell factor, this is what they advertise, this is not and has never in my experience been delivered.
Furthermore, if the Comcast company continues in this behavior I believe it will escalate into some kind of technical arms race between the users of Comcasts' services and the company itself, resulting in (I HOPE) a lawsuit which I find it highly unlikely the company will win.
(Final Remarks)
I do not like Comcast, I have not liked this company sense I contracted for them and realized exactly how bad their customer service is and just how bureaucratic their company is. However, I use their service, because they are the only ones who can provide the services I require in the area I live in. satellite has to much latency, DSL is to slow, and Comcast is the only cable provider available that I know of. This to me is inherently the problem, a company to big for its britches that has no real competition because they buy everyone else out. How bout we foster some real competition in this market place so companies are fighting each other for our business.
Not cool.
What needs to be established is what I/we are going to get as bandwidth for the money we spend. I expect a certain bandwidth upload/download, and I am charged for it. If I didn't care I would go back to dial-up!
Yes they own the network, but we are paying for service, and this service is bandwidth. Now what I do with my bandwidth is up to me!
I know that some other ISPs openly ban usage of P2P software on their networks and even state so in their TOS, due mainly to bandwidth usage but also because of some of the legal problems it may cause for the ISP if the MPAA or RIAA try to go after the provider, and personally I think the only people getting pissed are the people who aren't able to download Transformers and the like on BitTorrent rather than going to Best Buy and purchasing a legit copy. Boo Hoo to those crybabies, IMO.
This interfering with communications is troubling. Maybe that is why my VPN to work seems to have problems just suddenly dropping.
They need to be honest about it, because shady practices are just going to make people more suspect.
I was about to switch to their phone service as well, but now I am going to hold off. I have lost my trust in Comcast because of this last straw and I will be looking for another ISP.
liability. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act wholeheartedly
protects Comcast from any legal liability from copyright
infringement caused by its users. If this weren't the case, you
would have already seen Comcast sued for copyright liability.
Second, Comcast's internet service is expensive when compared
to high speed DSL. Comcast loves to advertise how much faster
it allows you to transfer data then when using DSL. This high
speed that you are paying more for is not needed for viewing
webpages. So Comcast users are paying Comcast for the ability
to download large bits of information. Otherwise, the speed it
advertises wouldn't be needed.
Third, it is the government's job to act as the police, not
Comcast's. It is treating its customers as criminals without any
judicial determination or you to defend yourself.
Fourth, if Comcast wants to act as the police, that is fine.
However, it should be open and honest about it doing so. It
doesn't because it knows people will dump their service. For
instance, I will now cancel my Comcast service.
The server software that this very website is (probably) hosted on is more than likely being tossed around as I type this.
Lastly, torrents actually reduce traffic on servers spreading the load over then entire web allowing much faster downloads for everyone.
Hope this makes sense.. I need sleep.
The Lotus Notes case is a good example. Another good example is the MMO World of Warcraft. The normal patching procedure utilizes a BitTorrent client. If you can't Torrent the patch, you have to go use a special link to download it from Blizzard, which is very, very slow and not always reliable. AND it takes the entirety of the bandwidth from Blizzard, which costs them more money -- and drives up Blizzard's prices!
Plus, if THAT kind of download breaks part of the way through, you might have lost everything (depending on your downloading software). Torrents have the advantage of being able to restart the download and lose little to nothing. This is VERY advantageous when you're talking about a 100 MB game patch!
So the people LEGALLY using the Torrent protocol are being UNDULY punished here by their ISP. Certainly, if I were a Comcast client, this would cause me to look for another ISP. I would be frustrated at the very least. (I wonder how many WoW players are out there right now looking for another ISP? I'm guessing quite a few.)
The BitTorrent model is a superb one for companies that want to offer good, efficient customer service via patches and other updates without overloading their own systems.
I also find it very dishonest that they lied about doing this for a while. If they're going to do something about dishonest and illegal downloading, THEY should at least be honest about doing it!
Many large legitimate businesses use BT to distribute their software. The largest example I can think of, would be Blizzard who uses BT to push patch updates of World of Warcraft. There are many others.
Research before you jump to conclusions. Don't believe the uninformed media hype.
increasing the price for someone to use more bandwidth change
the bandwith thing? Isn't bandwith a static size? If not, why is it not
open at full capacity?
Although, with comcast interfering w/ transfers, doesn't it leave their network somewhat easier to attach/hack? Ill laugh when a pissed of customer hacks in there, lol...
a three strike rule and will shut down your
Internet account if you send a lot of emails
even if there is no complain but they still
call it spam and will disable your account
and will pass you to their security. Why?
Because you cannot have many friends to
whom to send something that you all share.
For them a big number means spam. Why?
Well, because of the same reason Comcast
is blocking BitTorrent. These providers
are starting to make pain for power users.
Are they going to make more money this way?
I doubt it. Their business models are flawed
and that is why they are losing business
and when they see AOL going down, their
managers come up with crazy ideas like these.
All I can say is that there is now room to
provide alternate services using the same
Cable infrastructure and people in DC
should not be forced to use the ISP of
Cox because Cox owns the cables. They
may be good in laying down cable but they
do not understand Internet or would not
create such a pain for power users who
are paying their bill.
Did a "transfer hick up" (whatever that is)cause these RSTs to magically and repeatedly appear out of thin air?
Either you were being choked by Comcast to limit the number of words allowed in your article or you don't support network neutrality.
Comcast should not block what gets transmitted over the Internet in the same way that phone companies should not be able to block words that I say over the telephone, even if they take a long time to say. Changing the business model isn't a solution, because there isn't any problem to begin with, except for whiny big businesses that aren't getting a piece of the action in the age of youtube and bittorrent. Whiny businesses are not my problem, nor should they be your problem. And if it's really costing Comcast that much for users to be using Bittorrent, they should simply increase the price of internet a couple bucks, not block content or eliminate network neutrality.
*Etherspirit
However when I asked what was hacked they wouldn't tell me. Who made the complaint? They wouldn't say. How do you know this happened? They sent us their logs showing what you did.
I have a forum did the trouble come from there? We can't say.
It is my forum. I can do what I want with it. If someone complained toyou about it they have no right. was it "MyforuM?" We can't say.
So you can't tell me what did, who I did it too, how you know, who complained or anything? That's right?
Well, do you know when Knology will be in my area - wait let me guess? "You can't say."
Comcast leaves much to be desired.
It only takes one customer to use Bit-Torrent to slow the system to a crawl. In fairness to our customers any P2P use detected automatically reduces that users bandwidth to 45kbps.
All our customers have been told and agree not to use P2P. Every time it has been used was to illegally download music or videos.
It is not the ideal solution, but until users stop abusing the system it is the only rational approach.
know about your policies then you are fine. But Comcast is
selling us 6M and then not allowing us to use it for legitimate
reasons, and then maybe even lying about it.
Count me as one of those Linux guys torrenting Ubuntu and
whatnot. Not all of us are pirates, and when people start
generalizing we get angry.
Mark
I can't wait til they finaly have more
competition. we all should boycot them.
Yea, I imagine p2p can present a very heavy load on an ISPs network, but some of it is actually legitimate.
Though I was SERIOUSLY leary of it, about a month ago, I actually downloaded a BitTorrent client for my Macintosh, and used it to get the latest version of NeoOffice, an OpenOffice.org port to the Macintosh.
It was me using BitTorrent to >LEGITIMATELY< download freely available OpenSource software.
Had I done that on Comcast's network, I guess it may have been blocked. As a paying subscriber, I wouldn't have been very happy if my 100% legitimate use of p2p had been blocked.
I don't think this is deliberate censorship on the part of Comcast. More like just stamping the same label on all p2p traffic.
Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
The quick, simple solution is to switch to an ISP that supports net neutral practices.
- Lack of Competition
- by ogman October 20, 2007 6:49 AM PDT
- This is what happens when there is a lack of competition. Cable and telecom companies should not have virtual monopolies because when they do, they start acting like governments.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (108 Comments)