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.

[Dachi]

Another ISP

I worked for an ISP that no longer exists where we used Sandvine "Traffic Management" products. Information about the product can be found here: http://sandvine.com/solutions/p2p_policy_mngmt.asp

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.

[mjm01010101]

Rather than reporting on what a reporter "claims"

Why not just reproduce the experiment? I myself use Torrents constantly for linux distributions and other legit reasons like game demos and videos, but I've never had trouble on Comcast networks...

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.

[perfectblue97]

possesion is 9/10th of the law

While this might seem downright nasty to file-sharer, I strongly suspect that it's 100% legal, and that it will remain so because the courts will be wary of telling them to stop because of the president that it sets.

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.

[CaptainMooseInc]

I switched ISPs...

I called Comcast last week and told them I was dropping their service unless they admitted to blocking BiTTorrent traffic. They kept insisting that "all ports are open". So I called up AT&T U-Verse while on the phone with Comcast (3-way call) and asked the U-Verse lady if AT&T had bandwith limitations or blocked any sort of P2P traffic. They said they do not have a bandwith cap at all nor do they block any P2P protocols. So I told the Comcast guy that I wanted my service shut off November 3rd and then I scheduled U-Verse to come out November 4th (earliest I can switch).

I hope I'm not the only one leaving Comcast to move to a better ISP.

[rccypher]

Not surprising

As a former Comcast employee this behavior does not surprise me in the slightest. While I worked for Comcast I was witness to ALOT of on the sly behavior which I did not approve of which was also one of my reasons for quitting.
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.

[captainblur]

Are you kidding me?

Seriously CNet? Problems with bittorrent and you're ready to throw net neutrality out the window? What you're suggesting here is FAR more obtrusive than blocking torrents, you're talking about interrupting everyone's internet access patterns.

Not cool.

[bhrater]

Scary Future

OK we pay more for a broadband connection so that we can transfer files, see video etc.
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!

[broncosfan]

Good for Comcast

Personally I do not have Comcast (I have Cox Cable) but I think it's not only Comcast's right to do this, but also prudent. P2P traffic in general can open up Comcast to a lot of legal entanglements because it is used largely for illegal file sharing (yes, I know, it's also used for legit file sharing, but we all know that no one would even care about bittorrent if not for the pirated software, music, and movies available for download). Also, don't forget that the people trying to use their Comcast service for normal browsing, viewing of online streaming video, and internet gaming are shafted bandwidth wise by the people in their neighborhood who are constantly downloading enormous files.

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.

[jrzshor]

tierd pricing

Being not be too bright about this bandwidth thing, How does
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?

[chaser7016]

Tiered pricing is the future :(

Stinks, but as an early adopter, I no longer subscribe to Cable TV or have phone service. I have my PC connected to my 42 LCD TV with a handheld wireless mouse and Firefox which allows you to motion the mouse down to enlarge text. With this set up who needs to cable TV, as you can watch whatever you want through the Internet and as well surf/enjoy the net from 10" or more away.

I use Skype for my home phone system.

I only pay $50 a month for my net access.

I know it won't last as more follow this trend, thus ISPs will be forced to change their business models. Everything will be delivered through the net!