dslreports logo
 story category
Vuze Wants FCC To Act On ISP P2P Throttling
ISPs are 'resisting inevitable change...'

On the heels of the scuff up surrounding Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent traffic, we yesterday confirmed that Cox uses a very similar system (forged TCP packets) to also throttle upstream peer to peer traffic. P2P video operator Vuze (the Azureus BitTorrent video platform formerly known as Zudeo) yesterday filed a complaint with the FCC asking the agency to stop providers from blocking or slowing p2p traffic.

Click for full size

According to a statement (pdf) by Vuze, their service, which has 12 million viewers, has the right to be accessed by broadband customers without "arbitrary interference" from ISPs. Given that a growing number of legitimate p2p video delivery services compete with TV content from outfits like Comcast and Cox, it's a legitimate worry.

"The rapid convergence of the entertainment and Internet industries has enabled the delivery of high-quality video, and these throttling tactics represent growing pains as ISPs resist inevitable change," says Gilles BianRosa, CEO of Vuze. "We hope our Petition will trigger a public discussion, but we also need the FCC to act. The industry needs transparency into what ISPs are doing and an environment that fosters innovation in online entertainment."

Yes, transparency has been a problem. Comcast has been less than forthcoming about their traffic shaping practices and refuses to bluntly admit they even employ monthly caps. Cox clearly states their caps, but makes no mention of the fact they impede upstream p2p traffic.

So will the FCC do anything? Probably not. Sure, FCC boss Kevin Martin is not a big cable fan, and a slap on the nose of cable providers would please his primary constituents, AT&T and Verizon. But the FCC majority has made it clear that anything outside of a total traffic blockade will be considered "reasonable network management." Don't expect any substantive action from the FCC on this front until there's a shakeup of commissioners.
view:
topics flat nest 

h4x0r3d
Premium Member
join:2003-04-13
Oxford, MS

1 edit

h4x0r3d

Premium Member

.

hmm
gaforces (banned)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

1 recommendation

gaforces (banned)

Member

Resistance is futile

By the time all these net neutrality issues get worked out in the courts and the FCC, thier efforts of blocking will have been wasted, as it will be circumvented by the internet community.

They waited too long to attack p2p properly, it is now an established protocol used by legal content providers that are in direct competition with the cable networks.

You will be assimilated ...

W8ASA
Biet Noi Tieng Viet Khong?
join:2000-07-31
Dayton, OH

1 recommendation

W8ASA

Member

Thorttling? Heh Heh

Sorry, couldn't resist... ISPs have no business forging TCP packets. They're not law enforcement, and forging the packets is just plain wrong. Internet neutrality? What's that?

Cabal
Premium Member
join:2007-01-21

2 recommendations

Cabal

Premium Member

Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh

Network neutrality doesn't mean network and bandwidth management isn't allowed.

cvrefugee
Premium Member
join:2003-09-15
Riverside, CA

cvrefugee

Premium Member

Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh

said by Cabal:

Network neutrality doesn't mean network and bandwidth management isn't allowed.
Then the ISPs should be upfront about their practices so consumers have a choice.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram to Cabal

Premium Member

to Cabal
said by Cabal:

Network neutrality doesn't mean network and bandwidth management isn't allowed.
Most ISPs in this boat, also have data useage caps in place. It seems to me, they should wait for those caps to be broken before they start blocking users from any particular program, or protocol, or activities.

It seems to me, they want to say they have good caps, and then in the hidden shadows, they block what they think is a small and quiet minority, who wouldn't dare shine the light of day in their own direction.

Looks like they were wrong.

W8ASA
Biet Noi Tieng Viet Khong?
join:2000-07-31
Dayton, OH
·Time Warner Cable

1 recommendation

W8ASA to Cabal

Member

to Cabal
I think that if a customer purchase a certain bandwidth/speed, then he should be allowed to use that speed. Of course, speeds will vary as more users are online on a particular node (like cable in the evenings), but an ISP should NEVER throttle a user on purpose. If I ever became aware that my connection was being throttled (no, I never abuse it, by the way), I would immediately fire my ISP. I've paid for the speed: Now, let me use it.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram

Premium Member

Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh

said by W8ASA:

I think that if a customer purchase a certain bandwidth/speed, then he should be allowed to use that speed. Of course, speeds will vary as more users are online on a particular node (like cable in the evenings), but an ISP should NEVER throttle a user on purpose. If I ever became aware that my connection was being throttled (no, I never abuse it, by the way), I would immediately fire my ISP. I've paid for the speed: Now, let me use it.
Sadly, firing your isp isn't always a good option. Taking your money and running just saves you, but leaves everyone back there to suffer.

A lot of people in this world act like this. Save themselves, everyone else be damned. It might even be human nature.

Sometimes I think we need to stand and fight for the better good of everyone. I think this is one of those issues.

W8ASA
Biet Noi Tieng Viet Khong?
join:2000-07-31
Dayton, OH
·Time Warner Cable

W8ASA

Member

Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh

You make an excellent point, and I agree with you. Running only solves the short-term problem. Standing together as a group of millions of users worldwide might get more attention - if indeed this affects that many.

I don't know how widespread this actually is, and I suppose there is no way to find out.

ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT

ieolus

Member

Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh

Watch out, you might be accused by the right-wing wackos on this site of socialism, or worse, communism.

LeftOfSanity
People Suck.
join:2005-11-06
Dover, DE

LeftOfSanity

Member

Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh

said by ieolus:

Watch out, you might be accused by the right-wing wackos on this site of socialism, or worse, communism.
Nazi.

pfak
Premium Member
join:2002-12-29
Vancouver, BC

pfak to W8ASA

Premium Member

to W8ASA
What if there are no alternatives after you've "fired" your ISP?

What if the only game in town is *insert ISP name here*?

DaSneaky1D
what's up
MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou

DaSneaky1D to Cabal

MVM

to Cabal
If they can forge a RST packet, then they can set BT traffic to a low priority, yet still let it pass "per protocol"

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh

said by DaSneaky1D:

If they can forge a RST packet, then they can set BT traffic to a low priority, yet still let it pass "per protocol"
That would only be true if the inspection probes were in-line, which they most likely are not. The typical deployment scenario would be to mirror key infrastructure ports to the Sandvine probe and allow it to inject packets out of band. Since the probe is not part of the data path it can't throttle the traffic in the method you are suggesting.

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

1 recommendation

Thaler to Cabal

Premium Member

to Cabal
said by Cabal:

Network neutrality doesn't mean network and bandwidth management isn't allowed.
I wasn't aware faking data packets and purposefully disconnecting your customers fell under the realm of management.

LeftOfSanity
People Suck.
join:2005-11-06
Dover, DE

LeftOfSanity

Member

Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh

said by Thaler:
said by Cabal:

Network neutrality doesn't mean network and bandwidth management isn't allowed.
I wasn't aware faking data packets and purposefully disconnecting your customers fell under the realm of management.
Well, what would you consider management?

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler

Premium Member

Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh

said by LeftOfSanity:

Well, what would you consider management?
Probably anything else that doesn't degrade your customer's connection. Farking with their data doesn't exactly scream "Quality of Service" to me.

LeftOfSanity
People Suck.
join:2005-11-06
Dover, DE

LeftOfSanity

Member

Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh

said by Thaler:

said by LeftOfSanity:

Well, what would you consider management?
Probably anything else that doesn't degrade your customer's connection. Farking with their data doesn't exactly scream "Quality of Service" to me.
Define QoS then?

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler

Premium Member

Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh

said by LeftOfSanity:

Define QoS then?
Quality of Service. Network matinence rather implies a matinance (or improvement) of service quality. How disconnections/interference/forging somehow maintains and/or increases the quality of the service is beyond me.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh

Management, not maintenance

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo to Thaler

MVM

to Thaler
said by Thaler:

[Probably anything else that doesn't degrade your customer's connection. Farking with their data doesn't exactly scream "Quality of Service" to me.
QoS is about differential queuing of traffic. When prioritizing access to a finite resource something has to lose.

LeftOfSanity
People Suck.
join:2005-11-06
Dover, DE

LeftOfSanity

Member

Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh

said by SpaethCo:
said by Thaler:

[Probably anything else that doesn't degrade your customer's connection. Farking with their data doesn't exactly scream "Quality of Service" to me.
QoS is about differential queuing of traffic. When prioritizing access to a finite resource something has to lose.
My point exactly.

TheBarbarian
BRB, pillaging...
join:2006-01-09
Kenosha, WI

TheBarbarian to SpaethCo

Member

to SpaethCo
True, but I would hope losing in the QoS sense would be equivalent to being put on hold for the next available operator, not being hung up on.

Guess how the cable companies are handling it?

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Thorttling? Heh Heh

said by TheBarbarian:

True, but I would hope losing in the QoS sense would be equivalent to being put on hold for the next available operator, not being hung up on.
The important factor here is that the application they are sending resets to deals with the disconnect gracefully. Peer to peer file sharing programs have sessions constantly opening and closing as they transit various chunks of the content. Just like lost/discarded TCP packets are retransmitted, closed sessions will eventually attempt to reestablish if they are still seeking content.

- They're not shutting down your download connection sessions (except if the upload comes from one of their subscribers with the limited upload pipe)

- Upstream sessions are left alone while you're downloading so you can maintain a reasonable ratio

- After you go into pure seeding then a portion of your sessions are pruned to minimize the impact on the network as you sit in "infinite upload" mode.

If this were a single TCP session like an HTTP transfer or FTP transfer then all of these "getting hung up on" analogies would be more suited. For P2P file sharing apps the disconnect is non-fatal and doesn't result in transfers that have taken place before the disconnect being scrapped / unusable.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to Cabal

Member

to Cabal
I think you are walking a very fine line on that statement.

What if they did this "management" to stop or slow data because it competes with them? Say they have a search portal they want you to use so if you try to go else where they "manage" your traffic so your experience is not what it should be. What about a voice service?

They can interfere with any packet they so choose and call it "management". Sure we can call it management as dropping every 3rd packet at the headend will create a lot less traffic wouldn't it? Point being is that the word management can be just as abused as the word "unlimited". And flat out forging packets to accomplish "management" is wrong regardless of the reason for it.

If they want to "manage" their network then it is an ALL packet management scheme or none. And to do that withoout saying one packet is more important than another. If they can't handle the bandwidth during peak times and that is why they need to manage it, then EVERYONE should be throttled to X kbps (or X %) during peak times. If they want to "manage" the amount of bytes you can download a month per caps then EVERYONE should have that limit until a fair and reasonable throttling occurs on your account. But even then no outright blocking.
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
united state

2 edits

b10010011 to Cabal

Member

to Cabal
said by Cabal:

Network neutrality doesn't mean network and bandwidth management isn't allowed.
I am ok with network and bandwidth management, if a user is consuming excessive bandwidth, then cut that user off.

Blocking a protocol is just plain stupid, because there are plenty of legitimate uses for any protocol just as there are plenty if illegitimate uses for more "standard protocols" like HTTP and FTP.

So what is next?

Are they going to block FTP? (I can download plenty of pirate programs and movies from FTP sites)

Only allow you to access certain web sites via HTTP? (I know a few websites that have direct HTTP downloads of full apps and movies)

This is the direction we are heading.

Is this what you want?

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to W8ASA

Premium Member

to W8ASA
said by W8ASA:

Sorry, couldn't resist... ISPs have no business forging TCP packets. They're not law enforcement, and forging the packets is just plain wrong. Internet neutrality? What's that?
If they cripple the apps using the most bandwidth then the providers don't have to maintain their networks and more profit goes to them pockets!
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to W8ASA

Premium Member

to W8ASA
i think the world is still under the illusion that P2P is only for piracy.

it should be noted that the largest use of legal P2P in the world atm is probally the WoW Patcher which is really just BT in a fancy dress.
Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX

Enlightener

Member

Free Ride

I'm just waiting for FiberIdiot to reply how much he hates Vuze getting a free ride on ISP's backs.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

2 recommendations

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Free Ride

said by Enlightener:

I'm just waiting for FiberIdiot to reply how much he hates Vuze getting a free ride on ISP's backs.
I'll substitute for him. Vuze is just trying to provide their product while limiting the costs of providing traditional servers and the associated bandwidth costs. And they use P2P because that way they can transfer those costs to the ISPs. Their request to the FCC is just their way of getting the government to enforce their extortionate demands.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

1 recommendation

gatorkram

Premium Member

Re: Free Ride

Both them, and their end users, are paying someone for the bandwidth they are using. Both should be able to use it how they wish.

LeftOfSanity
People Suck.
join:2005-11-06
Dover, DE

LeftOfSanity

Member

Re: Free Ride

But if it were standard servers they would be paying much more for their bandwidth.
Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX

Enlightener to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
I would argue that P2P should be seen as a good thing for ISP's. If the protocol can account for transaction cost, members of a swarm within an ISP can trade packets locally without having to have backbone long haul traffic.

•••••••••••••••••••••

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

4 edits

1 recommendation

dadkins to FFH5

MVM

to FFH5
Click for full size
Paid videos even.
said by FFH5:
said by Enlightener:

I'm just waiting for FiberIdiot to reply how much he hates Vuze getting a free ride on ISP's backs.
I'll substitute for him. Vuze is just trying to provide their product while limiting the costs of providing traditional servers and the associated bandwidth costs. And they use P2P because that way they can transfer those costs to the ISPs. Their request to the FCC is just their way of getting the government to enforce their extortionate demands.
I'm paying for my connection, download *AND* upload - nothinhg HERE is getting a free ride!

MANY Open Source softwares also use this method of delivery.
Are they to suffer also?
»torrent.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/
»torrent.fedoraproject.org/

Yeah, BT is all piracy... huh?
*ALL* BT uploads are abuse.
WoW Patch anyone?

VUZE - Free Legal, and paid Legal, media delivered by way of distributed bandwidth - great idea!
I download xxxMB HD video from 20? 100? peers and each only has to upload a small portion(makes so they're all off their network(s) sooner) is bad?

I have that same Legal file available for others to get *PARTS* of is not going to kill the network!
It's not like I will be uploading the whole multi-hundred MB thing to hundreds or thousands(millions?) of peers...
1:1 is fair.
1:1 can be accomplished rather easily - without trashing my upload.
BUT, with Sandvine, many will have to suffer - even people NOT on Comcast(those peers on other ISPs wanting parts from me/us) because I cannot upload these Legal items.

This whole Sandvine BS is getting stupid!

EDIT: Another point that Sandvine is damaging(Yeah! Damaging!):
Many people/trackers will cut you off for not uploading.
Look! I like getting items fast.
No! I do NOT want to get cut off from fast LEGAL files!

Killing off the paid files via BT...
Just might persuade some to go a less legal route to get things, huh?

Thespis
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Premium Member
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX

Thespis to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
And they use P2P because that way they can transfer those costs to the ISPs users who pay for the bandwidth.
Fixed that for you.
ISP's don't want to just sell bandwidth, they want to oversell bandwidth. If everybody actually uses what they pay for, that business model crumbles...

jester121
Premium Member
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

1 recommendation

jester121

Premium Member

Re: Free Ride

So you'd cut off your nose to spite your face? The logical conclusion of not overselling is $100+/month broadband service.

I'll live without BT, thanks very much.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

1 recommendation

funchords to FFH5

MVM

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

...they use P2P because that way they can transfer those costs to the ISPs.
Ummm, no. It's the customer's bandwidth. The customer has paid for it (usually in advance). They are transferring the costs to the customer, and the customer is willing to do this in exchange for lower prices on the product.

This is why Skype is so inexpensive (often free)!

asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net

asdfdfdfdfdf

Anon

Re: Free Ride

Exactly. Costs are not being forced onto the isp, they are being willingly borne by the users of vuze, who are paying the isp for their transport.

Thankfully there are a number of people on this thread who understand this.

Perhaps HCT is willing to explicitly admit that it isn't copyright infringement, but rather a general contempt for the whole idea of peer to peer networking, that is motivating him?
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

2 recommendations

fiberguy2 to Enlightener

Premium Member

to Enlightener
said by Enlightener:

I'm just waiting for FiberIdiot to reply how much he hates Vuze getting a free ride on ISP's backs.
Why don't you eat the peanuts from me behind..
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA

qworster

Member

A novel way to fix the problem!

Rather then use Sandvine to steal bandwidth from paying customers, so you can give more of it it to those living in areas where FIOS exists, why not IMPROVE YOUR NETWORK?

It's a well known fact that the cable companies give their subscribers that live in areas where FIOS is available MUCH faster speeds.

With taxes and fees, I pay well over 50 bucks a month for my Internet. That's more then I pay for electric, gas, telephone, trash pick up and cable TV. That's the HIGHEST utility charge I pay!

Yet, companies like Comcast want to give me LESS, while at the same time constantly raising my rates.

If you weren't the only game in town for me, I'd drop you in a second!

••••••••••••••••••••

Scatcatpdx
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR

Scatcatpdx

Member

What next????

Get the FTC to prohibit buisness and airlines form cutting off passengers who are too drunk.
To me if one not can live by the TOS, tough luck.
I do fault Comcast on one thing, the need to stop pulling punches. I I was CEO of comcast I Put the Hammer Down on Peer to peer. I make crystal clear to use comcast HSI one need to abide by the TOS if the net is being degraded by your upload we going to put limits on upload. If you can't live by the TOS comcast will come a pull the cable. Comcast have the right to refuse service to anybody.

•••••••••••••••••
ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN

ossito16

Member

advertising issues

"So will the FCC do anything? Probably not...FCC majority has made it clear that anything outside of a total traffic blockade will be considered "reasonable network management." I agree that the FCC will do nothing. However, I believe that Comcast & Cox could be slammed by the FTC. They do no advertise that they will interfere with network traffic. A Comcast commercial has little mice running around at super speed, I don't see them being interfered with. Leave the lines alone.

anomynous
@rr.com

anomynous

Anon

so, ignore the aborts??

Was just sitting here wondering if I could get my linux based NAT/router to simply drop/ignore the aborts...

Or better yet, do 'something' in response to an abort to try to determine if it was 'spurious' or real...

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: so, ignore the aborts??

said by anomynous :

Was just sitting here wondering if I could get my linux based NAT/router to simply drop/ignore the aborts...
Every single person running the file sharing client would need to do so, since the resets are sent in both directions. You'd also break normal application functionality in the process of blocking RST marked packets via iptables.

Zork
@12.45.185.x

Zork

Anon

Vuze Wants FCC To Act On ISP P2P Throttling

I am the network administrator for a small wireless ISP and we
made the decision to block P2P after getting slapped with seize and desist letters from Microsoft and the MPAA in less
then a week. I have no problem with P2P, but I'm not going to fight Microsoft. Regardless of the decision P2P will stay blocked until ISP's are shielded from corporate lawyers.

•••••
TheMG
Premium Member
join:2007-09-04
Canada
MikroTik RB450G
Cisco DPC3008
Cisco SPA112

TheMG

Premium Member

Band-aid solution.

Throttling P2P traffic is only a band-aid solution to cover up a problem caused not by P2P but by the ISP itself.

The real solution would be for ISPs to improve their infrastructure to support higher network loads, stop over-subscribing bandwidth, stop giving more speed increases than they can really handle, and set soft caps with over-usage rates that are automatically added to the bill.

Unfortunately all they seem to care about is $$$$$$$$$$$$. Rather than being honest and providing a high quality service they try to push every penny they can out of what network they have.

That's what I like about TekSavvy (Canadian DSL provider). Their prices are fair, network is not over-subscribed, they are up-front about anything they do. Their prices and bandwidth caps (200GB for premium service) are well calculated so the customers and the ISP are in a win-win situtation. Sure, their profits are not exorbitantly high unlike the "big players", but they value customer satisfaction over anything else. If only all ISPs could be like that...

Ignite
Premium Member
join:2004-03-18
UK

Ignite

Premium Member

Bitcaps AND Throttling?

What kind of crappy ISP both tells you how much data you can use and decides on the manner in which you may use your data up to this cap?

Absolutely pathetic, I've no major issues with ISPs throttling, or with them applying bitcaps. I do however think it's cheap and pathetic both applying a bitcap then restricting how customers can reach it.

Ridiculous.
Yournotme
join:2006-08-14
Clovis, NM

Yournotme

Member

Re: Bitcaps AND Throttling?

If they are complaining about bandwidth so much why do they sell user unlimited packages? Sell a variety of speed packages with a unlimited upload and download. Why lie to the customer and tell them you get 10mb connection with unlimited data uploads/downloads then cut them off since they exceded an acceptable amount of use? Why do you think webhosting site have a unlimited amount of traffic? In which the customer who signed up for this plan understands its terms before they paid for it.

ReformCRTC
Support Your Independent ISP
join:2004-03-07
Canada

ReformCRTC

Member

dumb pipe

Why can't the ISPs just stick to being a dumb pipe?