how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2007-08-29 13:36:50: A few months ago, users in our forums started noticing that Comcast (in addition to their invisible caps) was using Sandvine traffic-shaping hardware installed at the CMTSs to limit the effectiveness of BitTorrent seeding. ..
| |
 
richmund
@comcast.net
| Sandvine confirmed in Richmond Va Talked to a guy standing in line at a fast food place this morning in Richmond, VA. He confirmed Sandvine was installed "this summer", about the same time my torrent uploads stopped. He was told and all the local employees understand it was so "people dont hit the same sites too often"
Tiered internet anyone? | |
| WAINGRO
join:2007-08-03
Seattle, WA
| Packet Loss/Disconnects? Is this why I'm getting packet loss upto 30%, download speed fluctuations from as low 1500kbps and as high as 25,000kbps, high latency pings and the complete inability to stay connected to most games on the Xbox 360 due to excessive lagging out/server drops? Comcast keeps telling me everything checks out ok... modem, node, pings etc... while they take my money. I need an alternative because this isn't working at all for me. | |
| |
lordicon7293
@integraonline.net | Re: Packet Loss/Disconnects? My p2p, torrent, anything to do with seeding has stopped. Secure VPN still works, but for how long (need VPN for work) Noticed my upload is not as high as it was, however that could be something else. FIOS anyone? | |
|
Bellunder
@teksavvy.com
| Didn't Coca cola do something stupid like this? Yes i remember back when Coke nearly sewered their own company. As for comcast they are sewering their company. So much so comcast is the second most shorted stock on the NASDAQ. When you see two opposites as the number one and two most shorted stocks on the NASDAQ that being level 3 and comcast you have to ask yourself if level 3 is the most shorted because bandwidth prices are falling and will continue to fall shouldn't this benefit a buyer of bandwidth like comcast? Most certainly and it tells you the precarious position comcast has put itself in. They are now open to lawsuits ad infinitum. Soon it will be chapter 11 and good riddance they have it coming to them! | |
| |
Comcastgasbags
@adzilla.com
| Re: Didn't Coca cola do something stupid like this? said by Bellunder :
Soon it will be chapter 11 and good riddance they have it coming to them!
One can only pray.Their cannabilistic,non upgrade approach needs to go.If they and the political corruption they feed were gone the market would thrive. | |
|
VPN
@ji-net.com
| VPN Accounts Are The Answer! My VPN account prevent their throttles. There are more sites popping up all the time that offer them, here are a couple:
»www.strongvpn.com - unlimited transfer $15 a month
»www.VpnAccounts.com - unlimited transfer $28.99
$15 a month is a bummer, but there are other benefits | |
| | | |
Junioruser
@com.cy | Re: VPN Accounts Are The Answer! Cool thanks, but comparing yearly prices .... it is cheaper with www.vpnaccounts.com down to $120 per year compared to $155 with www.strongvpn.com
They are both VPN accounts in the end. | |
|
Not to ESPN
@comcast.net
| Short Time Comcast User I never thought I would say this but; I miss Time Warner and RoadRunner. Since Comcast took over Houston the reliability of the system in my area (west between I-10 and 290) has gone down. The rains caused the service to go down this summer quite a few times. Things do not look good. I wonder if anyone will put in fiber. | |
| 
Iforgot0
join:2001-01-17
Eastlake, OH
| Same Problem Road Runner/Time Warner.... I have the same problem with loss of connection, and don't use bit torrent. Road Runner and Time Warner are doing the same thing here, because I keep loosing my connection. My task is simple; I admin two BF2 gaming servers and it takes 6 soldiers (32kbps/stream) on the server to start the game. I would leave two guys on the server in the morning to try to get the server running and within a short period of time, the connection is lost. It's not the servers and I'm sure EA would like to hear about the packet shaping affecting their bank accounts. This will not last long, especially when the big boys like Microsoft feel the pinch; in addition to Cisco losing their market shares also.
I'm wondering if Blizard the creators of Warcraft have solved this very same problem, because they where on the front pages of DSL Reports discussing this same problem.
Some of you don't understand how this is affecting everyones use on the web. Here is an analogy: You have sent a family member a gift via UPS, however by the time it reached it's destination the gift had been opened, and inspected prior to reaching it's destination. Wouldn't you feel violated, what if it just never gets there? That is what is happening here, from packet loss to disconnects what will it take to get a proper network off the ground?
THX... | |
| chex383
join:2003-03-13
Montreal, QC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Comcast
| SSH Port-forwarding solution?? A while ago on here I read a FAQ someone wrote on how to setup a remote ssh-tunnel to a Unix host to get around the Sandvine shaping. For the life of me I cannot find it now, and forgot to save the link. Does anyone have it, per chance??
-- Stefan in Boston...
--
Sung to the old New England Telephone Ad Jingle: " We're the only one New Eng-Lund, Hell-Ri-zon Tele-phonnnnne! " | |
| | | Phil Karn2
join:2004-06-14
San Diego, CA
| Simple solution to Sandvine: IPSEC There is no need to get angry when you can easily get even. There is a very simple and effective way to defeat Sandvine: IPSEC (IP Security), also known as VPN (Virtual Private Networks). I helped develop it.
Sandvine apparently works by forging TCP "reset" packets causing the parties to abort the transfer. The "Great Firewall of China" uses the very same method, a point that ought to be publicized.
IPSEC was SPECIFICALLY designed to solve this exact problem. Every packet is individually encrypted and authenticated. Spoofed packets are discarded. Sandvine can't even see the TCP header, much less muck with it.
IPSEC is the basis of corporate VPNs. It is standard in Linux and optional in other operating systems. Bit Torrent clients, in fact every Internet application, should implement IPSEC and automatically use it whenever the other end also supports it. If the ISPs filter the standard IPSEC protocol numbers, use different numbers. IPSEC could even be disguised as secure web traffic which the ISPs would never dare block because of the likely outcry from e-tailers. We all know that buying stuff is the only "legitimate" use of the Internet...
SSH tunnels, and even the link encryption already in some Bit Torrent clients is insufficient. This kind of encryption operates above TCP, so Sandvine can still muck with it. You must use IPSEC/VPNs that authenticate every IP packet.
Once we put an end to this unilateral nonsense, then maybe the P2P users and vendors and the ISPs can sit down as equals and work out ways to improve P2P efficiency and make both the users and the ISPs happy. | |
| restring
join:2006-09-22
Manchester, NH
| Upstream bandwidth Through this discussion something seems not to have been mentioned - that is BitTorrent and P2P in general easily max-out the upstream bandwidth on a given segment.
When the upstream saturates, the whole segment will slow down; WWW starts becoming World Wide Wait!
I see Comcast sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place;
then too they shouldn't have oversubscribed their upstream bandwidth.
DOCSIS 1 systems have 9 Mbit/sec upstream bandwidth.
If there are more than about 20 uploaders using 300 kbit/sec the segment will degrade.
DOCSIS 2 systems have 27 Mbit/sec - however they're likely to have more users with 768 kbit/sec upstream so upstream congestion is still going to be an issue with a lot of uploaders.
It may be the only other options Comcast and other cable-TV
Internet providers have will be to start imposing upstream allotments or make upstream bandwidth dynamic; that is when the utilization of the upstream channel hits say 80% transmitters start getting throttled . | |
| | Jimdish255
join:2007-10-14
| Re: Upstream bandwidth said by restring  :It may be the only other options Comcast and other cable-TV Internet providers have will be to start imposing upstream allotments or make upstream bandwidth dynamic; that is when the utilization of the upstream channel hits say 80% transmitters start getting throttled . Except that is not what is happening now. As far as we know, Comcast has arbitrarily decided to punish a specific class of user or customer to blanket cut their costs (ie: responsibility) to provide some semblance of the service that they have advertised to get people to sign up.
Is there any evidence that this throttling is being imposed on abusers, or during "busy" periods? Not as far as I can tell. As soon as I open up a program that they don't like, my speeds for everything slow to a crawl. Doesn't matter when or for how long, or how much downloading has to be done. It's just a blacklist that they have imposed and it keeps me from using the service that was advertised and sold to me. As I said previously, want me to pay for my usage, that's OK. Just don't sell me something and then blacklist me for attempting to use it.
Maybe we're suckers, but that doesn't make it right.
| |
| Jimdish255
join:2007-10-14
| New Comcast Customer quote:
Imagine..the guy next door on this shared type of network doing that 24/7. YOU..would be the one on here in the forums complaining how slow YOUR connection was..because of them.
That..IMHO..is what Comcast is out to police. For the benefit of us all who want to reasonably use this network.
And, reasonably doesn't need to involve a set limit.
Dear "Rick",
Is that what Comcast is really trying to police? How do you know that they haven't been swayed by other business interests (including their own) to implement non-competitive practices to enhance the marketability of theirs or other services by chopping the legs off from under legitimate users. The government does it with private contractors, why shouldn't they?
Secondly; Is an occasional fast upload or download going to necessarily impact YOUR or MY service? I can't say and neither can you unless we have access to the capacity, usage and costs associated with this use. Please post when you have those stats.
Third; without a set limit what you are referring to is not reasonable limits, but arbitrary limits. We don't get a say, and you seem willing to trust any decision Comcast makes. Why, I'm not sure.
Fourth; Comcast has consistently advertised faster than DSL speeds. We realized within the first week that our DSL was more consistent and reliable. What we didn't realize was that the advertised claims were for "test" speeds, and if I actually attempted to USE some of that bandwidth for fast uploads or downloads with applications, programs or games they may not approve of, then those speeds suddenly become unavailable to me. Of course I am still paying for this great service, I just can't use it, nor can I pay as I go for specific use.
Tell me again how this benefits me? | |
| | | |
|
