Posted on 10/19/2007 8:15:40 AM PDT by PittsburghAfterDark
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I don't have any of the above. It was a pure digital transaction. No cash, no merchandise.
Now what really surprised me was this; Blizzard has written their own file sharing application for users downloading their games. The DL speed was very slow compared to a "dedicated" stream that I'm used to from Apple, Microsoft, Adobe or Macromedia when buying or DL'ing software. However it no doubt shared them a ton of bandwidth seeding computers with various pieces of the software and then having those computers finish off each other's downloads.
Now, how would that be "seen" by such a filter/program?
I'm file sharing, I'm uploading some, downloading more, I'm seen from a traffic standpoint to be using something like Bit Torrent. Yet what I'm doing is 100% legal, paid for and Blizzard's official method of digitally distributing their software.
I don't like this aspect of technology. I'm starting to believe in open net policy more than ever. This kind of stuff scares me just because more companies are moving to file sharing type distribution and I know it.
It sounds like COMCAST is trying to squeeze more profit out of existing infrastructure, in a a growing demand market.
Eventually, that’s going to bite them in the ....
The really annoying thing here is that many legitimate companies use .torrent files and the P2P technology to transfer legitimate large files. Take, for example, VMWare who allows downloads of many free Virtual Machines which can be run in VMWare’s virtualization products. They exclusively use .torrent files, requiring a Torrent client, which would now be filtered or otherwise screwed with by ComCast. I use uTorrent which has a few methods of getting around any ISP filters/etc. But I’m sure that ISPs like ComCast are looking at ways to screw with that. uTorrent lets you randomize the port you’re using (which can defeat some of the simplest ISP screwing) but, better yet, allows you to encrypt the incoming/outgoing data so that the ISP can’t tell what you’re doing because it can’t inspect the internal packets between the nodes. However, a smart ISP can put together some rulesets to detect and screw with that too. It’s not to hard to inspect the IP traffic and put together what’s going on.
This is not NEWS... Communistcast has been doing this for years. Read www.broadbandreports.com
File sharing of all kinds is getting huge and will be as big a revolution as the invention of television. If STUPID ISP’s (like Comcast) want to avoid government mandates and interference (Net Neutrality), then they’d better adopt a very open plan for their subscribers.
The geeks aren’t going to take it. You have been warned.
That’s the thing. File sharing is becoming legitimate even though it had mostly nefarious roots.
I think this is going to happen more and more with VPN’s and off site/work from home positions. If everyone is working with a DSL/Cable/Fios connection why do you need one really super expensive fat pipe at one end that everyone uses?
Most people in situations like that are going to have idle bandwidth 95% of the work day with the exception of sending emails, reports, projects etc. Yet they’re going to have really decent internet pipelines. So why not incorporate more P2P?
It used to be I laughed at P2P technology advocates right after the original Napster was burried. There was only one thing you used Gnutella or Limewire for at the turn of the century, stealing. All of their “pipe dream” claims are now coming to fruition nearly 8 years after the technology started.
The pipleline technology companies are fighting a problem that exists but also has increasingly legitimate uses.
Never have so many people missed the point entirely.
1. I’m no friend of Comcast, and I can give you the phone number of my local Comcast sales people who will verify that I’m a pain in thier @#$%!!
2. Comcast has “X” amount of data capacity. Like most service providers, they provide more speed on the download side than the upload side — DSL does it almost all the time (”ADSL”). So, it would not surprise me that uploads take longer than downloads.
3. Comcast knows that the vast majority of upload traffic is “junk” or outright illegal — music sharing, zombie’d computers, spammers, porno webcam operators, etc. In fact, any network admin with any training can monitor traffic an tell you exactly how much is being used, and by whom, and for what purpose.
4. A slower upload for Comcast still beats the “full speed” upload for most DSL, and even for most T1 lines.
5. This article is nothing but a shill for the “net neutrality act” legislation. On one side, you have people wanting to pass laws to make us free at the expense of the freedom of the ISP. I suppose that in some places there is only one high-speed ISP, but for the most part, if you can get one you can get many. If I don’t like my ISP, I can simply change — isn’t that the conservative thing to do?
You can't assume that music sharing is illegal. There is test between layers 3, 4 and 5 (the layers that ISPs handle) that can tell you whether music sharing (ie. downloading or uploading .mp3 or other sound files) is legal or illegal.
While I oppose such things, webcam porn is not illegal. And, again, without actually viewing the data at layer 7 - probably by a human being in the case of porn - there's no way the ISP can know if the webcam traffic is legitimate or not.
As for monitoring traffic and telling exactly how much is being used, I think that would be wonderful. The ISPs guarantee or at least advertise high data transfer rates but they rarely deliver them. The monitoring of data rates would actually serve to hurt the ISPs because it would expose their false advertising and that customers are not getting what they're paying for.
I not for net neutrality either. But if I'm paying for 1.5mbps download speed, I should get it no matter what it is that I'm downloading. If I want to stream video via Joost, YouTube, or some other site, that's my business how I'm using my allocated bandwidth. If I'm uploading or downloading .torrent or .iso files, it is my business and there's no way for the ISP to judge whether they're legitimate or not. If I max out my bandwidth, then I'm getting precisely what I've paid for and the ISP has no room to complain.
pinging
I would submit that this probably has little to do with the legitimacy of filesharing, or any copyright issues. More likely it is merely about bandwidth and the volume of data flowing between peer-to-peer hosts.
I believe Comcast’s contract says that a home account is not to be used for hosting. In fact, this is why they throttle down the upstream bandwidth in the first place. If they permitted unlimited hosting of files or websites or mail service they’d likely be swamped and their network would grind to a stop.
They sell Comcast business class service to those who want to do lots of upstream traffic. Though, I don’t think they’ll put it in at a residence either, and they probably still restrict P2P from there as well.
P2P is a bandwidth killer. I don’t blame them.
Problem with “switch providers” is that they pretty much have a monopoly. If you have Comcast and don’t like it you can’t switch to Mediacom or some other cable company. You have Comcast for cable or you don’t have cable. Period.
You can switch to DSL. But DSL pretty much doesn’t compare in bandwidth due to technical limitations.
I’m going to explain the basic technological methods that are used. First you need to understand that ALL internet traffic done with packets of data. Each packet of data contains 4 major chunks of data. 1) The data itself, 2) A source address, 3) A destination address, and 4) (And this is the big one) a PORT number.
Within the internet - PORT numbers are associated with service types. So if you are using HTTP - this would be port 80 as an example. BitTorrent and other such technologies have a common PORT number - so all the filtering technology needs to do is limit the number of packets of a particular PORT number that it chooses to pass.
That is how you can selectively affect one service and not another.
“You can’t assume that music sharing is illegal. There is test between layers 3, 4 and 5 (the layers that ISPs handle) that can tell you whether music sharing (ie. downloading or uploading .mp3 or other sound files) is legal or illegal.”
Yes, you can KNOW. I’ve got the tools myself that allow me to have every email, every web page, every music file that you send to be reassembled on my computer. If I’ve got those tools, I assume that Comcast does as well.
“I not for net neutrality either. But if I’m paying for 1.5mbps download speed, I should get it no matter what it is that I’m downloading.”
The AP article was very clear — the upload speed was the only one affected. And, if your Comcast contract is like the ones here, neither is NOT guaranteed by any means.
ping...
What sort of test could distinguish between:
A file named "Freebird.mp3" that that is in fact the actual track
A file named "Free-bird.mp3" that is an mp3 of white noise
A file named "freeburd.mp3" which is a song made available under an open source license by its creator....
short of downloading and listening to each one, that is....
“But DSL pretty much doesn’t compare in bandwidth due to technical limitations.”
1. DOCSIS has provisions for 8 mbit/sec, and has had since 2000.
2. Your connection speed has only a passing relevance to your download and upload speeds. You might in fact have a “X Meg” connection, but the true download speed varies by a number of factors, including the number of your neighbors who are hitting the service when you’re online. My computer connects to my switch at 1 Gig, but my server can only produce 100 Meg (1/10 of 1 Gig)... and my Internet connection only does 2 megs (.02 gigs)... see my point?
Correction. Should read:
There is NO test between layers 3, 4 and 5 (the layers that ISPs handle) that can tell you whether music sharing (ie. downloading or uploading .mp3 or other sound files) is legal or illegal.
“What sort of test could distinguish between:”
Proven technology is certainly out there to do that. Honest. Has been out there for a decade. The RIAA lawsuits make it more cost-effective to use those tools than to ignore the problem.
So, take away p2p and Usenet and I would have no reason not to drop back to dialup at less than $15 a month. (Spent a fair amount of time Freeping on a dialup account while on vacation, with a stripped down browser it works just fine.)
I'm sure that I am not the only one, and that's the dilemma that every broadband provide will have to deal with.
Why would you do that? If I have paid for a 1.5mbps pipe I should be able to completely utilize every bit of that pipe. Whether it is on port 80 or port 32459.
That is how you can selectively affect one service and not another.
And if an ISP gets annoying and decides to filter a specific port, then we just change the port we're using to pass our traffic. ISPs can't filter all 65535 TCP and all 65535 UDP ports or no traffic will pass at all.
However, it involves comparison and computing power. Can’t simply test every email, website and P2P, upload and download on the fly.
I’d like to know how that works. I imagine that by tweaking the compression options, using different encoders, transcoding, and modifying the id3 tags you could come up with several hundred digital signatures for the same piece of music.
OK. There are tools that can open non-encrypted traffic to examine it. There are methods to open even encrypted traffic if you own the switch (MITM stuff). However, if you've got hundreds of thousands of subcribers, how do you examine everything going through. How can you tell a legitimate non-DRM .mp3 mile that was purchased from iTunes (yes, they're selling some non-DRM polluted music now as are other services to meet growing demand) from one that the user ripped from a CD and is passing to a friend? How can you tell that the user isn't passing the ripped CD that he owns to another computer as a backup? How can you tell that the user didn't record that music himself (ie. musician) and is sharing it free of charge? Technically, you can inspect the traffic. But you can't practically discern the legitimacy and legality of the data.
So rather than spend the money to upgrade their bandwidth, they cut the services?
Excellent point.
Remember, DVD encryption was broken with seven lines of Perl.
I remember. And they tried to ban that Perl code, which then spawned its wild and widespread distribution across the Internet. Heck, I saw posters, T-shirts, and even neckties with that code on it. Which further proves your point.
“So rather than spend the money to upgrade their bandwidth, they cut the services?”
Uh, yeah, as does every ISP. Like any other business, they try to cut costs and maximize revenue.
IN fact, the last Comcast contract I saw said “best effort” or words to that effect. If you want guaranteed bandwidth, you need to get your own fiber uplink to a major backbone — call Level3, UUNet, etc etc.
“However, it involves comparison and computing power. Can’t simply test every email, website and P2P, upload and download on the fly.”
Do a google for “Carnivore”. It’s a Clinton-era thing... remember? Has the capacity to monitor emails looking for threats? It has been retired, no doubt replaced by something better.
What happens is that a user has a suspicious pattern of behavior, and then you investigate it. It’s a little like cops who target homes that use 10X the electricity they did last year looking for grow lights and pot plants.
Look — the Internet was created by the Dept of Defense. Do you think for a minute that anyone’s traffic is anonymous? It’s like going 90 on the Interstate with a pack of traffic — you might not see a cop, but the cops do show up from time to time, and some place along the line, you’re gonna be the one pulled over.
It's the provider's backbone, and you agreed to certain limitations when you signed up. It's pretty much that simple.
I don't recall any such limitations. And, even so, if they're advertising internet speeds falsely, then they should be prosecuted.
PING
So far, so good and from what I can tell, the DSL is just as fast as the cable modem. I guess only time will tell if it's down as often as Comcast was, which was often.
Cost effective???? Not according to the Industry itself... RIAA anti-P2P campaign a real money pit, according to testimony
During an occasionally testy cross examination, a Sony executive said what many observers have suspected for a long time. The RIAA's four-year-old lawsuit campaign is costing the music industry millions of dollars and is a big money-loser for the record labels.
shhh it's a secret
00001001 11111001 00010001 00000010 10011101 01110100 11100011 01011011 11011000 01000001 01010110 11000101 01100011 01010110 10001000 11000000 00001001 00111111
bttt
Base64 - CfkRAp1041vYQVbFY1aIwA
zero niner foxtrot niner one one zero two niner delta seven fower echo tree fife bravo delta eight fower one fife six charlie fife six tree fife six eight hotel charlie zero
13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640
Is Verizon’s FIOS fiber optic system a way to avoid the kind of bandwidth-throttling Comcast has implemented?
Identifying a physical location, user, port is MUCH easier that attempting to block specific copyrighted or content and let other things pass. DOD may know where certain users are, but there’s simply no way to monitor all transmission between us. And they wouldn’t want to, they’d never find anything in all the noise.
Good to hear your success. I have a coworker (very technical guy in R&D with me) who had poor performance over DSL in his home. He went from Mediacom to DSL then back again after the bandwidth issues. He only lives about 2 miles from me so I’m a bit concerned with how my connection would be with DSL.
So far Mediacom has been great other than a month or two here and there where they drop service for an hour or two randomly.
Downloading from newsgroups FLYS in. But I have noticed during the 5pm to 7pm time frame it will drop back to about 1/2 of normal speed. Still fast though.
They haven’t tee’d me off yet so I’m sticking with them for now.
> They sell Comcast business class service to those
> who want to do lots of upstream traffic. Though, I
> don’t think they’ll put it in at a residence either,
> and they probably still restrict P2P from there as well.
I’ve got Comcast business at home so I can host my web site and some ATC audio streams. They will let you do it from a residence, but it’s a lot more $$$ a month.
Ah, OK.
There are several honest solutions: build out the network to handle the load, charge more for high-volume use, etc. But of course Comcast wont do any of them. ISPs have been advertising high bandwidth for years, and now they're panicking because customers are -- OMG! -- actually using the advertised bandwidth, and their networks can't handle it.
2. Agree.
3. It's not their position to filter the content you upload. They already put a cap on the speed, should be end of story. You use up to that speed and nothing more. But apparently they want to cut the bandwidth of some transmissions to zero, far below the upload bandwidth you paid for.
4. My cable is pretty good, too.
5. It isn't a shill -- it's a warning. It shows the power of the few big ISPs and how they can damage the Internet.
Then they have no right to expect guaranteed amount of funds in payment each month. They'll have to be satisfied with "best effort", otherwise the contract is inequitable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.