×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Elude Your ISP's BitTorrent Blockade

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the impossible-task dept.

The Internet 308

StonyandCher writes "More and more ISPs are blocking or throttling traffic to the peer-to-peer file-sharing service, even if you are downloading copyright free content. Have you been targeted? How can you get around the restrictions? This PC World report shows you a number of tips and tools can help you determine whether you're facing a BitTorrent blockade and, if so, help you get around it."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

308 comments

Glasnost (5, Funny)

Tobenisstinky (853306) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412664)

Slashdotted already...

Australia is lucky (5, Interesting)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412666)

.. kind of lucky, anyway.

We have a website [whirlpool.net.au] which provides pretty detailed information on what the ISP's are up to. Because there are so many members, I think the ISP's are sitting up and paying attention to a degree, because it's really not that expensive to change providers now.

So here it's just a matter of choose your carrier and tell the other telco's to piss off.

Re:Australia is lucky (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412696)

There is nothing lucky about competition in the Australian broadband market. We forced the monopolist to open their network and we enforced the laws to keep the competition healthy. The fact that the USA is incapable of doing this is proof that they have lost control of their political system and they're the first to admit it.

Re:Australia is lucky (3, Informative)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412712)

We forced the monopolist to open their network and we enforced the laws to keep the competition healthy.
That's true, and activism still works in Australia - except in Tasmania, of course (the place where you see bumper stickers reading "Tasmania, Smell the Corruption").

Re:Australia is lucky (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23412926)

speaking of losing control of your political system, how much is the fine for owning a freaking laser pointer in Australia again?

pot, meet kettle.

Re:Australia is lucky (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23413032)

Not as much as for owning an unlicensed firearm. Which may or may not make sense, depending on how much of a fucking tool you are.

Re:Australia is lucky (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23413212)

speaking of losing control of your political system, how much is the fine for owning a freaking laser pointer in Australia again?


They said they were in control, not smart.

Re:Australia is lucky (1, Offtopic)

dwater (72834) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413392)

Please could you elaborate? I don't get your point (seriously).

Re:Australia is lucky (2, Informative)

Matt_R (23461) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413554)

Re:Australia is lucky (1, Offtopic)

dwater (72834) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413646)

Sorry, I can't see that site at the moment. However, I'd guess there's some issue with laser pointers being considered dangerous in Australia and are thus illegal in some way?

That much I get. How this is related to this discussion is what I'm questioning...

Re:Australia is lucky (0, Offtopic)

Fleet Admiral (1020072) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413580)

This has something to do about an article posted a while back. Laser pointers were banned because they could be directed at planes/helicopters and distract the pilots. I think that was the gist anyway...

Re:Australia is lucky (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413658)

ok...so that sounds reasonable.

However, what has that to do with this discussion?

Re:Australia is lucky (4, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413694)

It's the American form of arguing.

Re:Australia is lucky (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413718)

eh? you mean taking the argument off on a tangent? ...or failing to fully explain something? ...or both?

(or, in my case, assuming above normal intelligence ;) - I'm not American, of course )

Re:Australia is lucky (1)

duckInferno (1275100) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413680)

Significantly less than the cost of fixing the damage caused by a wayward 747 crashing into a populated area, I'd wager.

Re:Australia is lucky (1, Insightful)

trawg (308495) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413696)

speaking of losing control of your political system, how much is the fine for owning a freaking laser pointer in Australia again?
I shall have to assume you're an American, because trying to score points off such a triviality as that while your own political system is rogering you every which way would be exactly the sort of thing I'd expect from one. We might not have laser pointers (note: that whole debacle was in one state, and it was only for laser pointers up to a certain level of dangerousness, and noone here even gives a shit about it anyway because we don't see the need to own laser pointers), but I'm glad we're not in the same spiraling descent into hell you guys are currently in.

If you're not American, then take the bits you want out of the above and consider me trolled.

Re:Australia is lucky (5, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413004)

They didn't lose control. They gave it up willingly, for the sake of convenience. If they actually cared, they wouldn't keep on voting for the one who can flash the most cash. They would seek out and vote for candidates who aren't so allied with big business. But... it's more convenient to just vote for the guy that mass media presents to them. Then bitch about it till the next cycle, repeat. If they would admit it, they would be on the first step towards a cure. As it is, the 45 year decline will continue for at least four more. There is no end in sight. Australia doesn't really look [slashdot.org] any [slashdot.org] better [slashdot.org]

Re:Australia is lucky (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413026)

But... it's more convenient to just vote for the guy that mass media presents to them. Then bitch about it till the next cycle, repeat.
And shoot the one who doesn't do the bidding of the money masters.

Re:Australia is lucky (3, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413606)

Not really.

You have to start with the party and take control at a much earlier stage.

In america by the time the voting for a candidate in either major party takes place, you've already lost to the corporations.

Re:Australia is lucky (3, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413360)

You act like we ever had control in the first place. The Democrat Party has a history as far back as the 1840s (at least) of dragooning Irish immigrants and mobsters into their party, offering them city jobs if they'd vote right and beat up anyone who didn't. Once they had the Irish hooked, they moved on to Blacks and now Hispanics... Northern Dems, anyway. Southern Dems are the party of slavery and the KKK, lest we forget.

The Republican Party has always been the party of big money, cigar-munching industrialists who hire the mobsters that the Democrats didn't get to beat up Democrat-backing union-members and break strikes. It was always free market, industrialist and all that jazz. Lincoln was the first Neo-Con, too -- suspending habaeus corpus in Maryland and locking the state legislature up, invading the Confederacy, etc.

It wasn't until the 1960s when the Southern Democrats switched to the Republican (Carpetbagger) Party, for some reason which still makes absolutely no sense that the illusion formed that anyone was actually a Republican.

American politics has always been about whose gang is bigger -- just like Roman politics. Don't like it? Tough. I highly doubt that it's that much different in the rest of the world. You Europeans just have smaller parties and more of them -- but probably no more parties than your country has football teams, because your political lynch gangs are just called "football hooligans."

Rome's new mayor is of the National Alliance Party, which either is or is allied with MSI and Alessandra Mussolini, Playboy Bunny and Fascist MEP. Boys Roma, one of the local hooligan squads, backs that party.

Glasgow has battle lines drawn between Rangers (UDA) and Celts (IRA) and has in the past been a spill-over for that whole mess.

Of course, Latin American political mobs just kill each other outright with bombs and machine guns and deal drugs.
----

My point is, perhaps the only thing we've lost in America is the illusion that "we" ever had a say. But frankly, no one else is any better off either, really.

Except the Swiss.

Re:Australia is lucky (2, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413552)

The Republican Party has always been the party of big money, cigar-munching industrialists who hire the mobsters that the Democrats didn't get to beat up Democrat-backing union-members and break strikes. It was always free market, industrialist and all that jazz. Lincoln was the first Neo-Con, too -- suspending habaeus corpus in Maryland and locking the state legislature up, invading the Confederacy, etc.
Actually, Lincoln had the constitutional right to revoke the writ of habeas corpus under the US constitution.

W doing so OTOH is completely and in all other ways illegal. There was no rebellion, and as bad as 9/11 was there was no effort by al Quaeda or anybody else to occupy our country.
 

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
This passage comes out of Article I of the US constitution. I don't think anybody other than the biggest partisan can argue that the confederacy wasn't engaged in an act of rebellion. And it is more than a little bit tenuous to suggest that there wasn't a legitimate claim at the time that it was in the interest of public safety to ensure that possible and known southern sympathizers could be kept from returning to the south.

Re:Australia is lucky (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413592)

I don't think anybody other than the biggest partisan can argue that the confederacy wasn't engaged in an act of rebellion.

They weren't rebelling ... they were seceding!

Fine point for arguing, I know.

Re:Australia is lucky (0, Offtopic)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413724)

Before the Civil War, the it was "these United States are," now its "the United States is" -- that's not cool. not cool at all.

The Constitution was a contract entered into by the several states, who were themselves soverign entities. When one party to a contract no longer honors the agreement, the other party is no longer bound to.

Northern states, and the Federal Government, were not doing their due diligence or keeping up their end of the bargain, and were actively engaged in policies to undermine the South economically (protectionist trade schemes which would have destroyed the South).

The Southern States, being soveriegn entities and agreived parties, therefore, removed themselves from the deal. This is not rebellion.

This Whiskey Rebellion was rebellion. The Revolutionary War was rebellion. The civil war was not rebellion.

I grew up most of my life in Virginia, but was born in New York and had family on both sides. I'm not interested in fighting the war over again, especially not on /. but the point is -- Lincoln was a little bitch. There, I said it.

Switch ISP (5, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413486)

My ISP started messing around with this, I called them to ask about it and they flat-out denied it.

When I looked on the message boards and everybody else was in the same boat, I called again. This time they said they were throttling, but only at peak hours (not true - but that was the official line).

Next day I called their competitor. As soon as the line was installed (2 days) I called and told them I was switching, and to who.

Re:Australia is lucky (1)

wharlie (972709) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413570)

That must be the only lucky thing about Aussie broadband.
Compared to other developed countries it is slow as hell and overpriced.
The customer service is bad as well but that's not just Australia.

Frist post? (-1, Offtopic)

willow (19698) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412668)

ever?

Re:Frist post? (-1, Offtopic)

willow (19698) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412686)

I humbly apologize for my infantile l337 h4X0r behavior in a rash "Frist post" posting that contributes absolutely nothing to the topic.

We are all dumber having read it...

Why would you idiots give this guy karma back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23412818)

Good grief.

Re:Frist post? (1, Troll)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412824)

Forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" button?

Re:Frist post? (1)

niktemadur (793971) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413298)

Holy cow, have we just witnessed a guy p0wning hisself? Like the soccer player who unwittingly kicks the ball the wrong way and ends up scoring a goal for the opposing team? How about the guy who KO'd himself in the boxing ring? Or the fielder who tries to catch the deep long fly ball, and it ends up bouncing off his glove for a home run?

Re:Frist post? (1)

willow (19698) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413594)

I think it's more like admitting you made a mistake. In public. And not being afraid to own up to it. And taking the consequences. I think we need more of that.

Oops... getting too serious...

The basic problem here is ... (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412706)

that the cable companies don't consider (or don't want to have to consider) the consumer of their broadband offerings as their customer. They'd much rather have us be parasites on their network, parasites who happen to be targets of profitable marketing campaigns. The ad injection nonsense that a number of ISPs have launched is indicative of this attitude: we're just eyeballs attached to brains that view commercials.

Re:The basic problem here is ... (3, Insightful)

grommit (97148) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412904)

You must understand that the advertisers don't care if we're just eyeballs attached to brains. They're mainly concerned with whether or not we have a credit card to purchase whatever they're selling.

Re:The basic problem here is ... (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413150)

Isn't that what all monopolies want us to do? All MS wants us to do is keep paying for needless Windows licences while they don't improve it much, pay for Office because MS can't be bothered to include a decent word processor, pay for Windows OneCare because they can't fix their swiss-cheese OS, pay for DRM-ed music because they belive that all anyone does with DRM-free music is share it (and of course we all know that transfering media from your computer to a CD-ROM/MP3 player/another computer is morally wrong!11!11!) All the oil companies want us to do is pay for the $4/gallon of gas while beliving all the "oil is scarce" nonsense. All the government wants us to do is keep being patriotic so they can go on witch hunts for "terrorists" on American citizens. To keep us in paranoia about how obviously they need to wiretap more American phones because they might be a terrorist. To keep help "keep crime down" by restricting our second amendment right to bear arms. All the record companies want us to do is keep buying a copy of a song for every device we own. To believe in all this "piracy" nonsense and how if you transfer your legally bought CD to a computer/MP3 player/another CD/Home server is now illegal. To believe that fair use is illegal. To make us believe that all "pirates" bring down the economy/cause global warming/are responsible for drownings/deface Internet sites or other outrageous things.

The fact is, monopolies are much like oppressive governments, they try to make the public not think. But to just exist and "consume" whatever crap they throw at us.

Re:The basic problem here is ... (2, Insightful)

Tawnos (1030370) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413524)

And all slashdotters like you seem to want is validation of your own rants against society. If you're so unhappy with all the stuff you see online, get outside and talk a walk. You'll feel better.

Protest (4, Insightful)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412708)

Protest by paying the bill in pennies or any other kind of creative check-writing various tax departments have been the victim of...

Re:Protest (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23412938)

I did something similar to my credit card company last month. 8 weeks, 4 phone calls trying to get a replacement card after I lost my wallet.

I "accidentally" sent it to the wrong address, then I "accidentally" sent it signed "Santa Clause". They didn't think it was funny...

Re:Protest (3, Funny)

dwater (72834) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413518)

eh? you sent your wallet to the wrong address, and then signed it 'santa clause'?

Did you miss out some crucial bit of information in your post?

Re:Protest (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23413042)

It's been a long time since you could do that. There have been court cases establishing the right of a company to refuse small change.

However, what you can do is to pay each charge on the bill with a separate cheque, on separate days. One day pay the basic cable, the next day the box rental, the next day, the remote control rental, then the FCC charges, et cetera. And if they ever screw it up and re-charge you for something you've already have paid (which guaranteed won't take long, since their system isn't set up to handle itemized payments), put the money from then on into an escrow account and only send them slips showing the money has been deposited, pending them fixing their error. If they close you down, sue them -- there's no way you're going to lose if you can document that you made all the payments until they started sending erroneous bills, and continued to place money in escrow until they could present a correct bill.

Or, just abandon the service, since "service" doesn't include service.

Re:Protest (3, Interesting)

griffeymac (625596) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413458)

Great, and then I burn through books of checks at four times the usual rate. Exactly how does paying the cable company in installments inflict harm on them? They get the check for part of the bill, and they reduce that amount from the total amount owed. They get another check, and reduce the amount from the total amount owed. As long as all the checks get there before the due date, they don't care how many checks they get--they have a whole department of people that do nothing but process the checks received in the mail every day.

Re:Protest (2, Informative)

uniquegeek (981813) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413674)

Not sure about cheques, but credit/debit payments cost the company for each use, plus the manpower and associated costs to process it. There's the reason why stores tag on $0.50 for interac purchase, especially if they're under $10.00.

Re:Protest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23413710)

Exactly how does paying the cable company in installments inflict harm on them? They get the check for part of the bill, and they reduce that amount from the total amount owed. They get another check, and reduce the amount from the total amount owed.

Ah, but that is the error. They can't choose what the payment should go towards if you have already specified it. Using the money you specified for paying the FCC charges to cover their service charge, for example, would be embezzling money from the FCC.

not me (0)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412738)

but i only fire up a bit torrent client about once a year, i recently started bittorrent when slackware-12.1 was released, about 9:30PM i started it and before i went to bed at 11:00PM it was finished so i set it seed all night and killed the client in the morning, now if i started running a bittorrent client all the time i would imagine my ISP would throttle my connection back severely and i could understand why...

Re:not me (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23412768)

now if i started running a bittorrent client all the time i would imagine my ISP would throttle my connection back severely and i could understand why...
From all the complaints that your IP is only seeding slackware and no pr0n, no doubt.

Re:not me (0, Offtopic)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412898)

RE:"From all the complaints that your IP is only seeding slackware and no pr0n, no doubt."

and i am a boring old man that keeps the Weather channel on my television 24/7 :)

Re:not me (4, Interesting)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412838)

now if i started running a bittorrent client all the time i would imagine my ISP would throttle my connection back severely and i could understand why...

So if your car manufacturer kept track of how many miles you'd driven, then limited either the speed or distance you can travel, would THAT be OK?

I'm sick of the "now you can download movies and music" commercials that say you can do these things, but don't mention limits other than POSSIBLY in fine print... at the bottom of the screen... in a 2-second flash... in the middle of a paragraph.

Either sell the service and back it, or don't bother. Sticking it to the customers 'cause you oversold your bandwidth is about as obnoxious as it gets without bein' illegal.

Re:not me (5, Insightful)

rabbit994 (686936) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413012)

It's not car manufacturers, it's more like taxing someone who spends more time on roads then someone else, which is something we do already with Fuel Taxes and Road taxes against Semis.

I agree with throttling, I just wish they would be upfront about it. If they have bandwidth limit, then state it. If they block certain protocols, say so.

Re:not me (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413310)

yup, i agree with the road tax analogy, and agree with the ISPs need to be up front and honest about it so customers know what they are getting, lots better than dishonest marketing hype to get customers to buy then later they feel as if they were lied to and taken for a ride by deceptive marketing...

Re:not me (2, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413644)

I'm sure the next wave of cable modems will have red numeral LEDs on them. The more you download/upload, the higher the number counts (in bytes). Sort of like an odometer. The first of each month it gets reset back to zero. But, if you go over your monthly limit four things will happen. Should there be any question, the customer will have a visual representation of their usage habits.

1. Your connection slows down.
2. Your connection is turned off.
3. You pay extra past that X amount of bytes.

or...

4. You throw the damn modem out the windows and tell the ISP to go f*ck themselves.

Re:not me (2, Insightful)

Ichijo (607641) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413452)

So if your car manufacturer kept track of how many miles you'd driven, then limited either the speed or distance you can travel, would THAT be OK?

They basically do that with their x-ty thousand miles warranties.

I feel very sorry... (0, Flamebait)

patio11 (857072) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412754)

... for all three users who needed an updated Linux distro RIGHT NOW, as opposed to a few hours later.

Re:I feel very sorry... (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412862)

So, what are you implying? That those who pay for a high-speed connection to the Internet shouldn't have rights to the high-speed part of it? So you are saying because I pay $XX per month to get unlimited access to the Internet at a speed of say ~1.5 MB/Second I have no right to demand use of that unlimited connection? I don't get what you are implying here, it seems like you are saying that what you pay for you have no right to use.

Re:I feel very sorry... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23412920)

He's implying that anyone clueless enough to think they can get "unlimited access to the internet" for a measly ~$40/month deserves to get burned. People that dumb are the ones responsible for the subprime mess.

Re:I feel very sorry... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412986)

But that is what the contract states (usually) or at least the advertising either directly says it or implies it. It would be equivalent as some company offering a price for an item and then that item never being available for purchase at the stated price. Someone should really sue these ISPs. The bad part though is, if you are like most people there are only 2-3 ISPs in your town to chose from, in worst cases there is only one ISP that offers high-speed Internet.

Re:I feel very sorry... (3, Funny)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413152)

Uh, it's more like you purchase said item at the stated price and they bill your card and give you something crappy with a picture stapled to it.

Re:I feel very sorry... (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413094)

He's implying that everybody else is "pirating" commercial software and entertainment. You know, trolling.

Re:I feel very sorry... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23412910)

Maybe you'll shutup when they come for your 3rd party VOIP.

Re:I feel very sorry... (1)

patio11 (857072) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413652)

I use first party, so I'm not too worried, but I wouldn't be too worried if it were third party either. BitTorrent is designed to saturate your connection, in both directions. VoIP is not. BitTorrent, for the typical problematic use case (Jolly Roger), is on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. (And it would need to be, to bust those Comcast limits discussed earlier.) VoIP, for an *intense* user, is on for perhaps an hour or two a day. A more typical user is on for a few minutes and uses less bandwidth than watching one of those Will It Blend videos. (Chuck Norris just roundhouse kicked your usage statistics to the face!)

The number of legal users who end up in the top X% of their ISPs' resource expenditure graphs is so small as to be insignificant.

I dont quite trust their list...Cox says "No" (4, Interesting)

JohnnyComeLately (725958) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412822)

My PC can run for months/weeks/hours of being on and have no problems with the connection. The moment I run LimeWire, the problems begin. 9 times out of 10 I end up having to reboot my cable modem to get back on-line....despite the fact my cable modem shows normal activity.

Re:I dont quite trust their list...Cox says "No" (5, Informative)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413236)

For what it's worth, the network load induced by BitTorrent can be sufficient to cause (low-quality) cable modems, broadband routers, and similar devices to become flaky, while they are capable of handling the relatively quiescent and straightforward data streams associated with "normal" use.

Re:I dont quite trust their list...Cox says "No" (5, Informative)

BLKMGK (34057) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413264)

That may be the hardware and not the ISP. Some modems puke when they get too many connection attempts - Limewire and Bitorrent can cause this behavior. You might want to try a different cable modem.

Anti-trust? (3, Interesting)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412866)

It will be interesting to see if a major ISP steps forward with an offer to provide completely unthrottled service, perhaps at a premium price.

Would an across-the-board failure to offer such an obvious consumer winner provide grounds for charges of collusion or racketeering?

Re:Anti-trust? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412908)

Most ISPs won't do that. Why? Because they want to give you an illusion that they are really an Internet service provider to begin with. The moment they really admit in ads that they were giving you less Internet then the real Internet (by throttling P2P connections) will be the moment that people will become aware of this and may switch companies to one that doesn't openly admit to blocking P2P.

Re:Anti-trust? (2, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413040)

that of course assumes that there is another company that doesn't throttle that you can switch to. without healthy competition, it simply won't work in that manner.

Re:Anti-trust? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413182)

No, it only means that there are other companies that don't admit to throttling P2P. Most uninformed people would switch to one that doesn't openly admit it thinking that because they don't admit it they don't throttle. That seems to be the trend in the general public.

Re:Anti-trust? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413616)

Nonsense, they wouldn't want to do that, because all of a sudden they'd have to actually have all the bandwidth necessary to support the number of accounts they offer.

Much of this wouldn't be an issue if the FCC had the balls to demand that media companies actually observe a meaningful level of service and have enough bandwidth to reasonably cover their promises. That doesn't mean 100%, that would be terribly wasteful, but enough to ensure that when everybody's likely to be on that things are still quick.

If they're going to promise a certain amount of speed, they should be required to keep tabs on it and pay consumers back for hosing them.

They already do (5, Funny)

patio11 (857072) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413702)

Every major ISP sells completely unthrottled, you bought-it-enjoy-it bandwidth to businesses. Get yourself a T1 line, never worry about being throttled again! Prices are quite reasonable starting at about $600 to $1200 per month.

Its an obvious consumer winner!

Spam, spam, spam, spam... (-1, Offtopic)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412906)

Offtopic, but has anyone noticed how absolutely unreadable most news sites have gotten?

I just measured, and in a fixed-width page -- meaning yes, the assholes did this deliberately -- the actual content takes up 30%. The rest is ads, navigation, ads, promotion, ads, and ads.

Hey, PC World, want to know why you can't withstand the Slashdot effect? I don't know, maybe it's all those fucking ads!

Re:Spam, spam, spam, spam... (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413066)

Hey, PC World, want to know why you can't withstand the Slashdot effect? I don't know, maybe it's all those fucking ads!

Surely the /. crowd use ad blockers or lynx, and they get slashdotted on the pure HTML?

Verizon seems alright (4, Interesting)

dave562 (969951) | more than 5 years ago | (#23412976)

I've had pretty good luck with Verizon DSL. For a moment I was considering switching to cable but with all of the horror stories I've seen around here regarding bitTorrent clients I've stayed away from cable. The only time I ever had a problem is when I was seeding some popular, copyrighted music that I pulled down off of a site that I found via a Google Search. It was kind of creepy. As long as I was seeding the file, my transfer rate went down to near zero. Once I stopped, it went back up to my full speed. I tried it out a few times over a couple of days just to make sure that I wasn't imagining things and sure enough, every time I seeded that one file my connection slowed to a crawl.

Re:Verizon seems alright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23413562)

G lets see tiny connection out overlwelmed by incoming connections sharing popular file. Wonder if that might affect my connection. Lets try that again just be to be scientific.

well duh!!! interesting?

Don't elude...get a different ISP (5, Insightful)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413068)

I don't have this problem because I am willing to pay more for service from an ISP like Speakeasy that does not do this. If you want these companies to change, you need to be willing to hurt their bottom line even if it costs you more.

Re:Don't elude...get a different ISP (3, Insightful)

bagboy (630125) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413538)

ISPs are glad to get rid of the unprofitable consumers... You'll be doing them a favor by switching as you'll tax the throttling equipment less and less and leave more bandwidth for others.

Here's an idea (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23413082)

Don't FUCKING STEAL in the first place.

Re:Here's an idea (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413174)

Good idea, but 5GB Ubuntu/Fedora/Slackcrap is free in the first place.

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23413464)

Ubuntu/Fedora/Slackcrap
Slackcrap? Never heard of that...

Did you mean Ubuttu/Fuckdora/Slackware?

Insulting a distro's name isn't nice. As the creatoro of multiple Linux distributions, one of the hardest things is choosing a decent name.

Re:Here's an idea (-1, Troll)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413448)

Don't FUCKING STEAL in the first place.
You'd be less crabby if you'd stop being a peadophile.

P.s. Before you hit reply, consider the ramifications of if you deny being one.

ISP (4, Insightful)

codepunk (167897) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413190)

A friend of mine runs a ISP, he has a very simple policy that works out
rather well. He does not go out of his way to regulate what people do
on the network until it causes a issue. Bit Torrent is a bandwidth hog
and attempts to evade filtering rather well. If he encounters issues
caused by a Bit Torrent user he just hands them their money back
for the month and drops them as a customer. This keeps the rest of the
network clean and the other customers happy. The profit margin on each
connection is so very thin that it just does not pay to mess with this
extremely small portion of the customer base.

Re:ISP (4, Insightful)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413418)

Bit Torrent is a bandwidth hog and attempts to evade filtering rather well.
BitTorrent only "hogs" as much bandwidth as the human user causes it to. It's no different in that sense from any other application: other P2P systems, YouTube, email, whatever. If you want to spend all day uploading email attachments at full speed, you can do that, and you'll use just as much bandwidth as if you were seeding torrents at full speed.

On the other hand, you can set a low rate limit in your torrent client, and/or set it to stop seeding once it reaches a certain share ratio, and you'll only use a moderate amount of bandwidth.

There's absolutely no need to treat BitTorrent differently from any other application. You don't need to use "filtering"; just limit bandwidth. If a customer is using too much bandwidth, charge him for the overage or lower his cap. It doesn't matter whether he's running BitTorrent, LimeWire, or just sending a lot of emails: all that matters is his total usage.

Re:ISP (2, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413662)

BitTorrent only "hogs" as much bandwidth as the human user causes it to. It's no different in that sense from any other application: other P2P systems, YouTube, email, whatever. If you want to spend all day uploading email attachments at full speed, you can do that, and you'll use just as much bandwidth as if you were seeding torrents at full speed.
You know, you might be theoretically right here, but I honestly don't think you could (and certainly not in any remotely realistic workload) max out any DSL/Cable/+ connection doing email. BitTorrent does manage to EASILY complete max out your upload and download speeds. Don't forget that many bittorrent clients automatically (by default!) adjust their upload and download rates to maximize their rates, and maximize their bandwidth usage.

On the other hand, you can set a low rate limit in your torrent client, and/or set it to stop seeding once it reaches a certain share ratio, and you'll only use a moderate amount of bandwidth.

There's absolutely no need to treat BitTorrent differently from any other application. You don't need to use "filtering"; just limit bandwidth. If a customer is using too much bandwidth, charge him for the overage or lower his cap. It doesn't matter whether he's running BitTorrent, LimeWire, or just sending a lot of emails: all that matters is his total usage.
The difference is that it's exceedingly rare--virtually impossible even!--for someone to use up as much bandwidth as they regularly do using BitTorrent/P2P. Thus, the ISPs target the most popular p2p algorithm, bittorrent. Look it's not just techies and good network citizens who run bittorrent--idiots too do too!

You say companies should charge for bandwidth usage or lower their caps--isn't that what many companies are doing when they throttle bittorrent?

Article Summary (5, Informative)

complete loony (663508) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413230)

Detecting throttling;
  • Download something popular
  • Call your ISP
  • Read their terms of service
  • Glasnost [mpi-sws.mpg.de]
  • pcapdiff [eff.org]
  • Vuze plugin.
Avoiding throttling;
  • Enable protocol encryption.
  • Change the port number to something other than 6881.
  • Tunnel through TOR or some other commercial VPN.
To which I would add, if you know your ISP is injecting fake RST's filter them out with a firewall rule. A little more complex a task than the expected audience of TFA though.

Re:Article Summary (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413316)

If the ISP sends the RST to the other guy...doesn't the connection still get ripped to shreds?

Re:Article Summary (1)

complete loony (663508) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413420)

Yes. Unless of course you both setup a similar firewall rule. The ideal solution would involve using a different network protocol that was immune to man-in-the-middle packet forgeries. Perhaps using SCTP instead of TCP, or some kind of UDP tunneling built into the bittorrent client.

Re:Article Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23413384)

I'm pretty sure a firewall rule isn't enough to stop reset packets, since they're sent to the remote user as well, and if they aren't also blocking them, the termination will still occur.

Re:Article Summary (5, Informative)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413532)

Tunnel through TOR
Part of the reason why Tor is so slow is because people are tunneling downloads through it, which kind of ruins it for everyone else.

Re:Article Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23413620)

Do not tunnel through TOR. The bandwidth required kills the networks usability.

Re:Article Summary (4, Informative)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413676)

Tunneling through Tor is a really shitty thing to do; it's not made to facilitate your downloading, and you put undue stress on people who are running Tor nodes for you.

Copyright Free Content? (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413232)

Except for archive.org and a few other sites I've not seen much of it on the internet, and since just about everything is copyrighted by default I really doubt there is much copyright free content out there. There was a time when the US had much saner copyright laws, but that was before it went the way of Europe and signed on to the Berne Convention.

Re:Copyright Free Content? (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413546)

I think they meant things like Linux -- which is, of course, copy-written. The whole Free Software movement hinges on Copyright (Left?). So, presumably, they just meant crap like music and movies that someone is going to bitch about you copying as being copy-written.

It was a stupid remark on their part, I agree - but I think their intent was obvious.

Re:Copyright Free Content? (2, Insightful)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413642)


I think they meant things like Linux -- which is, of course, copy-written. The whole Free Software movement hinges on Copyright (Left?). So, presumably, they just meant crap like music and movies that someone is going to bitch about you copying as being copy-written.

It was a stupid remark on their part, I agree - but I think their intent was obvious.


Obvious or not it is still important to point out such errors because the RIAA/MPAA/BSA all want to create the illusion that it is illegal to share anything that is copyrighted.

 

Re:Copyright Free Content? (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413732)

Well, it more or less is - unless you have permission. The brilliant stroke with the GPL, BSDL, and others is that the permission is included with the "license" which explains the copyright scheme.

In lieu of uploading.... (5, Interesting)

awarrenfells (1289658) | more than 5 years ago | (#23413344)

While it does defeat the purpose of file sharing to a degree, but I have found that ISP's can only really detect file sharing through your upload to download ratio. I work for an $ISP, and we red flag accounts with an upload equal to or greater than their download, which sucks for some customers who upload large amounts of information to other servers or sites. I don't agree with it, but I have to pay the bills :P
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...