DVD Talk
Comcast is blocking some Internet traffic [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Comcast is blocking some Internet traffic


mrpayroll
10-19-07, 11:03 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_hi_te/comcast_data_discrimination

By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer
2 hours, 38 minutes ago


NEW YORK - Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.

If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.

The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.

Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers.

Comcast, the nation's largest cable TV operator and No. 2 Internet provider, would not specifically address the practice, but spokesman Charlie Douglas confirmed that it uses sophisticated methods to keep Net connections running smoothly.

"Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent," he said.

Douglas would not specify what the company means by "access" — Comcast subscribers can download BitTorrent files without hindrance. Only uploads of complete files are blocked or delayed by the company, as indicated by AP tests.

But with "peer-to-peer" technology, users exchange files with each other, and one person's upload is another's download. That means Comcast's blocking of certain uploads has repercussions in the global network of file sharers.

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. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."

Matthew Elvey, a Comcast subscriber in the San Francisco area who has noticed BitTorrent uploads being stifled, acknowledged that the company has the right to manage its network, but disapproves of the method, saying it appears to be deceptive.

"There's the wrong way of going about that and the right way," said Elvey, who is a computer consultant.

Comcast's interference affects all types of content, meaning that, for instance, an independent movie producer who wanted to distribute his work using BitTorrent and his Comcast connection could find that difficult or impossible — as would someone pirating music.

Internet service providers have long complained about the vast amounts of traffic generated by a small number of subscribers who are avid users of file-sharing programs. Peer-to-peer applications account for between 50 percent and 90 percent of overall Internet traffic, according to a survey this year by ipoque GmbH, a German vendor of traffic-management equipment.

"We have a responsibility to manage our network to ensure all our customers have the best broadband experience possible," Douglas said. "This means we use the latest technologies to manage our network to provide a quality experience for all Comcast subscribers."

The practice of managing the flow of Internet data is known as "traffic shaping," and is already widespread among Internet service providers. It usually involves slowing down some forms of traffic, like file-sharing, while giving others priority. Other ISPs have attempted to block some file-sharing application by so-called "port filtering," but that method is easily circumvented and now largely ineffective.

Comcast's approach to traffic shaping is different because of the drastic effect it has on one type of traffic — in some cases blocking it rather than slowing it down — and the method used, which is difficult to circumvent and involves the company falsifying network traffic.

The "Net Neutrality" debate erupted in 2005, when AT&T Inc. suggested it would like to charge some Web companies more for preferential treatment of their traffic. Consumer advocates and Web heavyweights like Google Inc. and Amazon Inc. cried foul, saying it's a bedrock principle of the Internet that all traffic be treated equally.

To get its acquisition of BellSouth Corp. approved by the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T agreed in late 2006 not to implement such plans or prioritize traffic based on its origin for two and a half years. However, it did not make any commitments not to prioritize traffic based on its type, which is what Comcast is doing.

The FCC's stance on traffic shaping is not clear. A 2005 policy statement says that "consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice," but that principle is "subject to reasonable network management." Spokeswoman Mary Diamond would not elaborate.

Free Press, a Washington-based public interest group that advocates Net Neutrality, opposes the kind of filtering applied by Comcast.

"We don't believe that any Internet provider should be able to discriminate, block or impair their consumers ability to send or receive legal content over the Internet," said Free Press spokeswoman Jen Howard.

Paul "Tony" Watson, a network security engineer at Google Inc. who has previously studied ways hackers could disrupt Internet traffic in manner similar to the method Comcast is using, said the cable company was probably acting within its legal rights.

"It's their network and they can do what they want," said Watson. "My concern is the precedent. In the past, when people got an ISP connection, they were getting a connection to the Internet. The only determination was price and bandwidth. Now they're going to have to make much more complicated decisions such as price, bandwidth, and what services I can get over the Internet."

Several companies have sprung up that rely on peer-to-peer technology, including BitTorrent Inc., founded by the creator of the BitTorrent software (which exists in several versions freely distributed by different groups and companies).

Ashwin Navin, the company's president and co-founder, confirmed that it has noticed interference from Comcast, in addition to some Canadian Internet service providers.

"They're using sophisticated technology to degrade service, which probably costs them a lot of money. It would be better to see them use that money to improve service," Navin said, noting that BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer applications are a major reason consumers sign up for broadband.

BitTorrent Inc. announced Oct. 9 that it was teaming up with online video companies to use its technology to distribute legal content.

Other companies that rely on peer-to-peer technology, and could be affected if Comcast decides to expand the range of applications it filters, include Internet TV service Joost, eBay Inc.'s Skype video-conferencing program and movie download appliance Vudu. There is no sign that Comcast is hampering those services.

Comcast subscriber Robb Topolski, a former software quality engineer at Intel Corp., started noticing the interference when trying to upload with file-sharing programs Gnutella and eDonkey early this year.

In August, Topolski began to see reports on Internet forum DSLreports.com from other Comcast users with the same problem. He now believes that his home town of Hillsboro, Ore., was a test market for the technology that was later widely applied in other Comcast service areas.

Topolski agrees that Comcast has a right to manage its network and slow down traffic that affects other subscribers, but disapproves of their method.

"By Comcast not acknowledging that they do this at all, there's no way to report any problems with it," Topolski said.


Associated Press Writers Ron Harris, Brian Bergstein, Deborah Yao and Kathy Matheson contributed to this story.


This is not a 'Tech' story, but something that could affect us all.

Chris

al_bundy
10-19-07, 11:07 AM
i bet there is a tidbit in the service contract that you can't run a server

stevevt
10-19-07, 11:15 AM
i bet there is a tidbit in the service contract that you can't run a server

The point in the article is not whether Comcast is violating the terms of the contract it has with its clients, but whether Comcast is violating the spirit of what it means to be an Internet Service provider. Totally separate issues.

al_bundy
10-19-07, 11:23 AM
what exactly is the spirit of being an ISP? when ISP's first started there was no p2p. people just started running it.

all ISP's have service levels where you can run a server

Numanoid
10-19-07, 11:26 AM
Why do we even have specific forums?

Jacoby Ellsbury
10-19-07, 11:44 AM
I went from unlimited newsgroup downloads with att broadband then when they were bought out by comcast 2 or so years ago, I was limited to 2 gigs per month. So they lost me for a customer for life because of this. $100 a month for the next 50 years +/-of my life on this earth will add up, considering it basically costs them nothing to have me as a customer. They are one of the worst companies in America

mrpayroll
10-19-07, 11:52 AM
Why do we even have specific forums?

-confused-

Chris

The Bus
10-19-07, 11:56 AM
This is a mix of Tech, Other, and Political discussion, in that order (IMHO).

Hey, as long as they don't mess with downloads, who cares? :lol:

Comcast subscribers can download BitTorrent files without hindrance. Only uploads of complete files are blocked or delayed by the company, as indicated by AP tests.

Looks like they have no idea how torrents work.

Jeeden
10-19-07, 12:16 PM
Why do we even have specific forums?


So folks have justification to complain about the wasted .30 seconds having to open a thread, see it's not something there interested, post to the thread, and then then exit the thread. -poke-

Drexl
10-19-07, 12:39 PM
Looks like they have no idea how torrents work.

Maybe they're referring to the little .torrent file that contains the info about trackers, not the actual torrent. :)

No, seriously, what I think they mean is they limit the upload while not limiting the download. For instance, if you were downloading a torrent, the traffic from non-Comcast subscribers would not be limited in any way. However, your upload traffic for that torrent would be limited which would affect other downloaders (from any ISP). And of course, the Comcast subscribers in the swarm would upload more slowly which would affect your download even though Comcast isn't directly limiting said download. Make sense?

The bit about "complete files" suggests they only do this when you're a seeder.

stevevt
10-19-07, 01:18 PM
what exactly is the spirit of being an ISP? when ISP's first started there was no p2p. people just started running it.

all ISP's have service levels where you can run a server


As a very large ISP, Comcast is tasked with getting traffic from one part of the Internet to another. This is a vital function that the Internet requires in order to work as designed.

If you reply "nuh-uh," I won't be responding.

al_bundy
10-19-07, 01:33 PM
the way the connection agreements work is that if you send data to another ISP, you pay them based on the amount of data. if you receive data the other ISP pays you.

unlimited uploading costs Comcast more money. if you want unlimited uploading there is probably a higher priced plan you can buy from them. no one is blocking traffic, they are just limiting bandwidth

Palaver
10-19-07, 01:44 PM
the way the connection agreements work is that if you send data to another ISP, you pay them based on the amount of data. if you receive data the other ISP pays you.

I never knew that. That's interesting. Is that why your upload pipe is always so much smaller than your download?

Thor Simpson
10-19-07, 01:46 PM
I never knew that. That's interesting. Is that why your upload pipe is always so much smaller than your download?
MOVING TO MATURE!

Tracer Bullet
10-19-07, 02:32 PM
the way the connection agreements work is that if you send data to another ISP, you pay them based on the amount of data. if you receive data the other ISP pays you.

unlimited uploading costs Comcast more money. if you want unlimited uploading there is probably a higher priced plan you can buy from them. no one is blocking traffic, they are just limiting bandwidth

You don't find it troubling at all that an ISP is selectively deciding which of their customers' traffic to block? What if Comcast decided to block VOIP services because it was competing with their VOIP service?

I think it's fine if ISPs want to have stated bandwidth limits, but no one type of traffic should be blocked to meet that goal.

al_bundy
10-19-07, 02:42 PM
it's always a small minority of the customers that use up the most bandwidth with p2p apps so no one cares. VOIP isn't that bad because the speeds aren't that high and it's not a 24 hour constant traffic deal like p2p

another thing with VOIP is you can have vonage and still have the same ISP so there is no money lost. if you are uploading p2p no matter if it's linux iso's or movies you are probably costing the ISP a lot of money. a lot more than voip

comcast isn't blocking anything, they are just limiting upload speeds.

twikoff
10-19-07, 02:55 PM
as long as they are public about it.. meh, whatever
if they lose customers, they are weeding out the customers they wouldnt have wanted anyways..
as a_b says, its the small minority that uses the most bandwidth.. an ISP would be happy to get rid of those people

Tracer Bullet
10-19-07, 02:55 PM
it's always a small minority of the customers that use up the most bandwidth with p2p apps so no one cares. VOIP isn't that bad because the speeds aren't that high and it's not a 24 hour constant traffic deal like p2p

I care because it sets a terrible precedent.

another thing with VOIP is you can have vonage and still have the same ISP so there is no money lost.

Comcast thinks there's money lost because they offer their own VOIP. If they're allowed to get away with this, I wouldn't be surprised if Vonage, Skype, etc. traffic is mysteriously downgraded.

twikoff
10-19-07, 02:56 PM
You don't find it troubling at all that an ISP is selectively deciding which of their customers' traffic to block? What if Comcast decided to block VOIP services because it was competing with their VOIP service?

I think it's fine if ISPs want to have stated bandwidth limits, but no one type of traffic should be blocked to meet that goal.

if they had the ability to block all kiddie porn on the entire net from being seen by their customers.. would you sign off thats its a good idea?

twikoff
10-19-07, 02:58 PM
Comcast thinks there's money lost because they offer their own VOIP. If they're allowed to get away with this, I wouldn't be surprised if Vonage, Skype, etc. traffic is mysteriously downgraded.

thats begging for a lawsuit
lowering the priority of traffic to squeeze out people trading copyrighted material is much easier to justify, than doing it to push out your competition

they would be slammed if they tried to use these tactics to push out the competition.. but last i saw, they arent directly competing with the copyright pirates.

kvrdave
10-19-07, 03:01 PM
Why do we even have specific forums?

Mainly for me. I don't get out much.

VinVega
10-19-07, 03:05 PM
if they had the ability to block all kiddie porn on the entire net from being seen by their customers.. would you sign off thats its a good idea?
Why don't they start blocking popups?! :grunt:

Tracer Bullet
10-19-07, 03:10 PM
if they had the ability to block all kiddie porn on the entire net from being seen by their customers.. would you sign off thats its a good idea?

No. It is not an ISP's business to decide what information should be "allowed" to travel over their networks, period.

Tracer Bullet
10-19-07, 03:12 PM
thats begging for a lawsuit
lowering the priority of traffic to squeeze out people trading copyrighted material is much easier to justify, than doing it to push out your competition

they would be slammed if they tried to use these tactics to push out the competition.. but last i saw, they arent directly competing with the copyright pirates.

Why, though? What law would they be breaking by doing this (unless you're thinking antitrust law, and good luck with that)? I also can't see that they'd be violating their own terms of service.

twikoff
10-19-07, 03:15 PM
if they could legally do it, they would
yep, pretty sure they would be smacked with an antitrust lawsuit. they would have to unblock it while it was in court.. and 92 years later, there would be a ruling.

i doubt the pirates will rise up and sue

twikoff
10-19-07, 03:16 PM
Why don't they start blocking popups?! :grunt:some people like pop ups
why go out looking for porn.. when you can open 1 site, and get 50 other porn sites delivered directly to you, in seperate windows

BONUS!

Tracer Bullet
10-19-07, 03:21 PM
if they could legally do it, they would
yep, pretty sure they would be smacked with an antitrust lawsuit. they would have to unblock it while it was in court.. and 92 years later, there would be a ruling.

And they'd probably be laughed out of court because cable ISPs (the ones that offer VOIP) aren't phone companies and have no monopoly in that market.

al_bundy
10-19-07, 03:26 PM
I care because it sets a terrible precedent.



Comcast thinks there's money lost because they offer their own VOIP. If they're allowed to get away with this, I wouldn't be surprised if Vonage, Skype, etc. traffic is mysteriously downgraded.


vonage needs around 56k so a 2mpbs upload limit isn't that big a deal

Tracer Bullet
10-19-07, 03:27 PM
vonage needs around 56k so a 2mpbs upload limit isn't that big a deal

Do you not get that the amount of data isn't the point? Cable companies making money on their own VOIP is.

al_bundy
10-19-07, 03:29 PM
if they could legally do it, they would
yep, pretty sure they would be smacked with an antitrust lawsuit. they would have to unblock it while it was in court.. and 92 years later, there would be a ruling.

i doubt the pirates will rise up and sue


there is no anti-trust

vonage and the other leeches are free to build out networks just like comcast spent a lot of money doing over many years

VinVega
10-19-07, 03:31 PM
some people like pop ups
why go out looking for porn.. when you can open 1 site, and get 50 other porn sites delivered directly to you, in seperate windows

BONUS!
What is this "porn" you speak of? :sarcasm:

4KRG
10-19-07, 03:51 PM
It is crappy for comcast to 'shape' traffic

bitorrent clients now include encryption, turn it on, problem solved, comcast's shaping software is not going to break the encryption on your packet stream to see that you are sending bittorrent pakcets :D

The only issue here is that comcast has not been completely honest and up front about what they are doing.

It is perfectly fine for them to change the contract from unlimited to protocol specific limited upload speeds, if they are going to do that, then I want a lower price since I am now getting less product.