jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to funchords
Re: Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P Connections
Sabotaging my traffic or otherwise actively interfering with the TCP/IP protocol should not be tolerated.
Perhaps we should dig some holes in Comcast's driveway. Same thing, right?
My traffic is my property. I pay Comcast to deliver it. Why would I pay Comcast to modify or break my traffic. |
|
EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
| said by jjoshua  :My traffic is my property. Hmmm.... I wonder if the federal government agrees with that ?  
--
Let us never forget 9/11 |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to FreakyOne
said by FreakyOne :As for the ISp paying someone else for me to have internet connectivity i am not made aware of this in any of my agreements that i have read. If this is the case i am certain that there would be some sort of legal jargen regarding this. No more than there is legal jargon regarding the cost born by Ford Motor Company for the S.A.E. rated bolts holding their engines together. The cost of third party transit should be transparent to you; built into the price you pay for your connection.
What i want to know is how much Comcast is actually saving while i am limited with my broadband usage when they are not giving me at any time i can testanywhere close to my 8MB connection.
Say i have a land line phone with BellSouth/AT&T, they tell me i have connection 24/7 365 but i can not use that line for more than so many hours of use per day otherwise it ties up the lines for everyone else.
Well, I know for a fact that none the ILECs can't provide you with full access to the PSTN network when half the country is trying to call in to Los Angeles after an earthquake, New Orleans after a hurricane, or Pennsylvania after airing a radio show purporting to be reporting an invasion from Mars. There are PSTN bottlenecks which result in loss of service to saturated regions.
If the ISP can not afford to offer 8MB connection to its customers at full bore 24/7 365 than they shouldnt do it. Because some of us out here in this world will use what we pay for. It is your choice whether or not you wish to do so. If i didnt want or need the 8MB connection i certainly wouldnt have upgraded.
This is the part where the customer expectations are changing, and the ISPs need to adjust. I suspect that some percentage of the people using the Internet still use it in a limited sense; but more are finding ways to use their bandwidth than the ISPs have counted on. I suspect that it is time to start charging for a base amount of data moved; say, $42.95 per month for up to 150GBytes, and charge extra, in a metered fashion, for data volume in excess of the base rate. Just as you pay per kilowatt hour for electricity, or per gallon for gasoline.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Anonymim
@comcast.net
| reply to funchords
Can I get a clarification here? Lots of tutorials out there simply say to enable encryption in order to get better upload speeds with ISP who throttle torrent activity. But I'm finding that enabling encryption has little to no effect. Peers connect, I get a very brief time of upload activity, and then the speed is throttled back to zero. Peers disconnect. Rinse and repeat.
Is this Sandvine fundamentally different from standard throttling, or just a different variety? |
|
FreakyOne
join:2007-07-07
Stuart, FL
| reply to NormanS
If this is the case then i want my money back because i believe it is false advertising in every aspect. I cant place an ad in the newspaper/T.V/Radio stating i can offer a plane ride to Spain for 50 dollars and not give it because the demand is so high. I think its rather deceptive if what you are saying is the case. And i am certain that it will not take much time until most of the Customers that demand the most out of their bandwidth get fed up with the BS. Same as the government so i suppose they would agree with Comcast or any other ISP that uses the same tactics. This is my opinion and i am sticking to it. |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to EG
What does the government have to do with this discussion?
When you send a document via FedEx, do they open the package, look at the document, decide if the contents are 'acceptable' and make modifications to it? Of course not.
Comcast, or any other ISP, should be no different. I create the packets and they deliver it - end of story. |
|
cablejoe
join:2002-01-15
Las Vegas, NV
| By using a P2P client, you are allowing remote users to download files from your computer; this essentially makes your computer a server, which is specifically prohibited by the TOS and AUP.
Personally, I'm not real crazy about the decision.
However, it seems to me that if Comcast chooses to implement technology that prevents users from violating the TOS and AUP, they are well within their rights to do so. |
|
SirchMeister
join:2003-03-03
Hopewell, VA
| Not quite. Bittorrent doesn't work that way. When you think of server you think of one entity serving up files. When you're defining bittorrent traffic and the way it works it cannot be deemed that anyone seeding is running a server. I suppose if you were the only seeder one could argue that point. It is a gray area.
Either way, the issue to most people I believe is not whether they are breaking any TOS/AUP. But whether it is right for Comcast to implement technologies that are basically unwrapping your packets. |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| reply to jjoshua
I think you would have a difficult time trying to make the case that Comcast is not within their rights to shape and prioritize traffic as they see fit on their network. They do it every day for VoIP and other latency-critical traffic.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| said by Cabal :I think you would have a difficult time trying to make the case that Comcast is not within their rights to shape and prioritize traffic as they see fit on their network. They do it every day for VoIP and other latency-critical traffic. Shaping and prioritization is one thing, interrupting and sabotaging the TCP/IP protocol is another thing. |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| reply to SirchMeister
said by SirchMeister :Not quite. Bittorrent doesn't work that way. When you think of server you think of one entity serving up files. When you're defining bittorrent traffic and the way it works it cannot be deemed that anyone seeding is running a server. I suppose if you were the only seeder one could argue that point. It is a gray area. Would seeding Bittorrent be similar to file sharing? |
|
EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ | reply to jjoshua
Ignorance can certainly be bliss....
--
Let us never forget 9/11 |
|
kadar
Premium,ExMod 2001-02
join:0000-00-00
| reply to jjoshua
said by jjoshua :What does the government have to do with this discussion? When you send a document via FedEx, do they open the package, look at the document, decide if the contents are 'acceptable' and make modifications to it? Of course not. Comcast, or any other ISP, should be no different. I create the packets and they deliver it - end of story. FedEx no. Uncle Sam Yes.
»sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f···rintable |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
1 edit | I'm failing to see the connection. Uncle Sam isn't going to open your package and change the contents. And it's still my property even if Uncle Sam does decide to take a look. |
|
slovokia
join:2005-01-31
Belmont, CA
| reply to funchords
I've done some more observations and reached the following conclusions. If you attempt seeding with bittorrent using encryption, Comcast will tear down the TCP connection after 30 seconds or so. I think the seeding limit is time based not bandwidth based. The heuristic appears to be if Comcast sees a TCP connection established that involves only sending data from a subscriber to another host, that connection is terminated after 30 seconds or so. I'd imagine this limit would affect any TCP flow which cannot be recognised as being "good". |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to FreakyOne
said by FreakyOne :If this is the case then i want my money back because i believe it is false advertising in every aspect. I cant place an ad in the newspaper/T.V/Radio stating i can offer a plane ride to Spain for 50 dollars and not give it because the demand is so high. I take you have never been bumped from a flight.
I think its rather deceptive if what you are saying is the case. And i am certain that it will not take much time until most of the Customers that demand the most out of their bandwidth get fed up with the BS.
I honestly don't have a count on Comcast's high volume data movers; a Comcast insider seems to think it is on the order of 0.10%. That isn't enough to break any company.
Same as the government so i suppose they would agree with Comcast or any other ISP that uses the same tactics. This is my opinion and i am sticking to it.
As I have said, ISPs base their business on the assumption that normal users aren't using their computers 24/7; even though they can access the Internet 24/7. Most people I know don't spend more than a couple of hours per day online; most don't download a lot of movies, music, porn videos, anime, etc.
It may actually be time for the ISPs to move to metered Internet. You get your 8Mbps/768kbps package, or 10Mbps/1Mbps, or whatever, for a flat $50 per month for up to 150GBytes of data. You pay $1 per GB over that base amount. That would actually make it possible to plan for bandwidth availability for the network engineers; give the network additional revenue to apply towards bandwidth capacity, as well.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to SirchMeister
said by SirchMeister :Not quite. Bittorrent doesn't work that way... Eh? The purpose of BitTorrent is distributed service. Every client is serving up pieces of the file being downloaded. Why do you think you need port forwarding to make BT work? Port forwarding through NAT allows unsolicited access to a computer; that is a typical signature of a server.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to jjoshua
said by jjoshua :When you send a document via FedEx, do they open the package, look at the document, decide if the contents are 'acceptable' and make modifications to it? Of course not. I wasn't aware that Sandvine modified the contents of the data being downloaded. Only that it used the contents in making a decision on packet priority.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
FreakyOne
join:2007-07-07
Stuart, FL
| reply to NormanS
Apparently you would not say a word if bumped from a flight? It is not my responsibility to make sure my ISP can give me the service i am paying for, it is their responsibility. My responsibility as far as they are concerned is to pay my bill a month in advance for service i have not received and assume it will be as described. I am not going to put money out month after month while they are scratching their heads about my connection issues. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | said by FreakyOne :Apparently you would not say a word if bumped from a flight? Depends upon the fine print on the ticket.
It is not my responsibility to make sure my ISP can give me the service i am paying for, it is their responsibility. My responsibility as far as they are concerned is to pay my bill a month in advance for service i have not received and assume it will be as described. I am not going to put money out month after month while they are scratching their heads about my connection issues.
What does the Comcast fine print say?
quote:
Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment to:
...
vii. restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or otherwise disrupt or cause a performance degradation, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to the Service or any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) host, server, backbone network, node or service, or otherwise cause a performance degradation to any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) facilities used to deliver the Service;
The whole shebang is here.
To the best of my knowledge, no ISP, not even mine, expects the customer to keep his computer sucking bandwidth 24/7. Hey, we all have to eat, sleep, shower, work, etc. sometime during the day. Lately I've been spending extra time reworking a brick sidewalk that had to be pulled up for removal of a hedge, and replacing of a fence.
If Comcast deems P2P to be a drag on their network, they have the obligation to their customers feeling the drag to manage the network in a manner which mitigates that drag.
Now, if Comcast needs to add capacity to support those 24/7 downloaders, maybe it is time to implement a "Pay-per-Byte" system. Say, $50 per month for 150GBytes, and pay an additional $1 per GByte over that. Metered service, as it were. Those who choose to download 600GB per month can pony up an extra $450 per month toward alleviating bandwidth bottlenecks.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
