Beta
×

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!

Comcast, Cox Slow BitTorrent Traffic All Day

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the enhancing-consumerness dept.

The Internet 342

narramissic writes "A study by the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems found that Comcast and Cox Communications are slowing BitTorrent traffic at all times of day, not just peak hours. Comcast was found to be interrupting at least 30% of BitTorrent upload attempts around the clock. At noon, Comcast was interfering with more than 80% of BitTorrent traffic, but it was also slowing more than 60% of BitTorrent traffic at other times, including midnight, 3 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Time in the U.S., the time zone where Comcast is based. Cox was interfering with 100% of the BitTorrent traffic at 1 a.m., 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. Eastern Time. Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice downplayed the results saying, 'P-to-p traffic doesn't necessarily follow normal traffic flows.'"

cancel ×

342 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

W T F (5, Insightful)

n3v (412497) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425020)

I'm paying for bandwidth, I should be able to use 100% of what I paid for. If their infrastructure can't handle it - maybe they should go back to selling tv.

Re:W T F (1)

omnipresentbob (858376) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425868)

You actually paid for "up to xxx Kbps"

Good (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425024)

It's about time someone stood up to you no-good file sharing thieves. All you assholes do is steal other peoples hard work. Just because the internet existed when you were born does not mean that free music and movies are a birthright.

And fuck your nitpicking - copying is stealing. Period.

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

n3v (412497) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425102)

Not all file sharing is thievery. What Comcast is doing IS highway robbery.

Re:Good-NOT EXACTLY (4, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#23426018)

What Comcast is doing IS highway robbery.

Actually it's information superhighway robbery.

Re:Good (5, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425120)

copying is stealing. Period.


So now I am not allowed to use my rights to download GPL'd software or public domain software now? Implying that P2P is all illegal copying is incorrect and makes you look misinformed. P2P can contain free-to-copy files along with not-free-to-copy files as can HTTP/FTP/Etc. So can CDs, Hard disks, Floppy Disks, Cassette Tapes, Flash drives, the list goes on and on. Just because some people use knives to kill people shouldn't mean that we have to now use forks to cut our meat.

Re:Good (-1, Redundant)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425244)

I am going to play devils advocate here...

For the most part GPL software is available without BitTorrent.

Yes there there are some pieces of software that are available on BitTorrent. That typically are installs for Linux from Suse, or so on.

So yes you are right, but that's the theory. Let's look at the facts. There is more illegal software than legal software. And I am sure it is clogging the networks of Comcast and other network providers.

>Just because some people use knives to kill people shouldn't mean that we have to now use forks to cut our meat

That only applies if you have bought the network. But since you haven't and are using the network as a service then they can give you any kind of knifes they please. Don't like, switch!

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425408)

Don't like, switch!
All well and good, if monopoly weren't the case for so many users.

Re:Good (4, Informative)

YellowMatterCustard (1277360) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425866)

Including me. In my area, it's Comcast or nothing, literally. As soon as anybody has any other type of hi-speed Internet, I'd love to switch to them. Comcast has the right to be as lousy as they want, cause they're a effing MONOPOLY, which is WRONG. Argh!

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425430)

For the most part GPL software is available without BitTorrent.


That is correct, however BitTorrent is a much faster way to download it, when it is a new release of something popular such as Ubuntu, HTTP downloads are around 30KB/Second while torrents are around 200Kb/Second, therefore, there is little justification to not use BitTorrent when downloading large files, and when you figure that BitTorrent doesn't stress the servers of the project, it is a better choice in the long run too.

So yes you are right, but that's the theory. Let's look at the facts. There is more illegal software than legal software. And I am sure it is clogging the networks of Comcast and other network providers.


There is illegal software via HTTP and FTP too, in fact one might say that there is just as much via HTTP as via P2P. As for clogging the networks, the ISPs should have gotten more bandwidth before they offered higher speed Internet or at least have it in their advertising that they throttle P2P and certainly contracts. It would be like if I set up a huge pile of sand in my backyard, and I had people pay $40 per month to get as much sand as they wanted and it said so in the contract and through advertising. Of course some people only needed a bit of sand and took some home in buckets, others would take bigger ones. However, fearing that my sand would run out I poked holes in all of the larger buckets making them carry much less. People would have a right to be mad at me for promising unlimited sand and then limiting it. Same thing with the ISPs

Don't like, switch!


I don't know where you live, but here in the US there are about 3 main ISPs and most if not all have torrent throttling. Some of the more rural areas only have one way of getting high-speed internet and if you don't like that ISP it is either that or dial-up. And as for creating your own company, the grants the government/cities gave out to help get internet to the world, chances are won't be given again making it impossible to

Re:Good (0)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425966)

>There is illegal software via HTTP and FTP too, in fact one might say that there is just as much via HTTP as via P2P.

That's right. BUT what about the percentages? People seem to forget that....

>It would be like if I set up a huge pile of sand in my backyard, and I had people pay $40 per month to get as much sand as they wanted and it said so in the contract and through advertising.

Read your contract. Does it not say that they have the right to terminate you if you overuse the network?

>I don't know where you live, but here in the US there are about 3 main ISPs and most if not all have torrent throttling.

Yes depending on the service you purchase you get throttling. Here is a suggestion GET a more expensive connection. That is exactly what I did. I have a SOHO connection and I pay more. BUT I also get an IP address and non-throttled connection.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425460)

Don't like, switch!
Typical moronic response. Apparently you live in a city or town where there is a flood of competition for internet service, cause where I live and basically everybody else in the UK, United States, Canada, etc... THERE IS NO FUCKING COMPETITION! We're screwed by having only a choice of either dial-up, cable, or if you're lucky... ADSL...

Both cable and ADSL service providers are against the customer. Dial-up is basically a joke and a half... So, switch to who again?

Re:Good (4, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425466)

"There is more illegal software than legal software."
I would like to see a citation..and perhaps a clarification by what 'software' means in that sentence. I am unaware of any illegal software, except software that circumnavigates protections.

More and more service are using bit torrent, Blizzard spring to mind.

I ahve worked for companies that use bit torrents to send information out to there home workers.

Switching isn't the correct answer because of the limited choices, and you know it.

Re:Good (-1, Troll)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 6 years ago | (#23426004)

>Switching isn't the correct answer because of the limited choices, and you know it.

No it is an alternative...

If you only have Comcast then you can get satellite.

See already an alternative...

Ah an alternative that restricts how much you can shove down the pipe is not an alternative? Well that's your problem.

As I wrote in another post. Buy a more expensive connection and don't worry about it. These issues are a matter of money.

Re:Good (3, Informative)

Steve Max (1235710) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425478)

And I am sure it is clogging the networks of Comcast and other network providers.
Actually, p2p corresponds to a much lower fraction of an ISP's total usage than you'd think; at least that is what the only full data straight from one of them [plus.net] says.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425524)

Oh please for the love of all that is holy, everyone stop using the "dont like it, switch" argument! Its common knowledge that the majority of US broadband users are only serviced by ONE company. Its simply not an option, and its getting old.

As to your other arguments to the legality and saturation of networks, your viewpoint is quite backwards. The fact of the matter is, its a precedent being set, that they can sell you "always on high speed access to the internet", but then dictate what you can and cannot do with it. A phone company that listened in on your phone calls, and then disconnected you because your conversation with your girlfriend wasn't deemed as important as a business call being handled by your neighbor is an apt description of whats going on here. We pay for access to something, we don't expect them to determine what is important to us and why we are going to use it.

If it boils down to a supply and demand issue, why doesn't it sort itself out the same way all other markets do? Do you see gas stations dictating where you can and cannot drive? No, they raise their prices and pass the cost of business to the customer. Its simple economics.

Re:Good (-1, Redundant)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 6 years ago | (#23426050)

>Oh please for the love of all that is holy, everyone stop using the "dont like it, switch" argument! Its common knowledge that the majority of US broadband users are only serviced by ONE company. Its simply not an option, and its getting old.

Oh please get with the show yourself. There is two way satellite. See an alternative...

>always on high speed access to the internet

Let's explain this one. Is your connection always on? Yes. Do you have high speed access to the Internet? Yes. Do you always have high speed access to a specific protocol on the Internet NO.

But then again it was not written in the words was it now?

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425546)

For the most part GPL software is available without BitTorrent.


Allow me to correct you.

Thanks to Comcast, GPL software cannot be available with BitTorrent.


Besides, there are other uses for bittorrent besides Linux distros. What about Free / Creative Commons media, like music (or even free-as-in-beer professional music, like Radiohead's latest album) or videos (anime music videos, Star wreck, independent movies, video tutorials)?

Comcast's reasoning (p2p is for i113641 w4r3z!!!111ONE) is simply a lame excuse. Their infrastructure sucks and they're only using the pirate excuse to cover their arses.

Re:Good (1)

ady1 (873490) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425604)

>That only applies if you have bought the network. But since you haven't and are using the network as a service then they can give you any kind of knifes they please. Don't like, switch!

But haven't you like, paid for it with your taxes Mr. Devil's advocate?

Re:Good (0, Redundant)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 6 years ago | (#23426096)

No from what I remember what happened is that tax rebates were given. No monies were actually given out.

Were the telcos completely honest? No not really, but that is a second issue.

If you say you have the right to rip off the telcos because they ripped you off, well that is taking the law into your own hands. That's illegal...

Don't like what the telcos are doing? Change it, do something? Stop complaining!

Re:Good (1)

blank89 (727548) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425974)

There's a problem with your "switch" idea. Many people are stuck with a contract that said nothing about BitTorrent at all. Even worse is when an isp has a monopoly on an area. My appartment has a contract with an isp, and I cannot switch. There are lots of other people in the same boat because this is a common practice in real estate. The management company (or maybe just the executive who made the decision) gets a kickback, while you get dicked around with every time you want to download a linux iso.

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

Nar Matteru (1099389) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425990)

Don't like, switch!
Most smallish cities and towns have a contract system in place where one cable company has the contract for the whole city. There is no "switch" option. Fact of the matter is, even there was one, I shouldn't have to. I'm paying to use their lines. What I do with them is none of their business. I'm fairly certain the police don't stop or slow access to major roads just because a criminal -might- drive past with a body in the trunk.

Re:Good (1)

Kaetemi (928767) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425448)

Just because some people use knives to kill people shouldn't mean that we have to now use forks to cut our meat.
I'm pretty sure you can kill people with forks too.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425670)

Torrents don't steal ... people do.

Re:Good (1, Flamebait)

gzerphey (1006177) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425136)

And frankly "F you" for assuming that all P2P traffic is illegal file sharing. There are many legitimate uses for P2P that is unfortunately getting trapped by Comcast's technique. The shotgun approach isn't always the best way.

I guess when all you have is a hammer....

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

AppleOSuX (1080499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425150)

So just because there's a law against it, it's wrong?

In this day and age when most of the middle class doesn't give a fuck enough to vote with their dollars or otherwise, we techies do what we have to. If that means enabling everybody to steal from the big corporations that have been ripping everybody off for years, then so be it. I encourage everyone that I know to do the same.

Re:Good (1, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425298)

Oh give me a break. You are saying it is ok to rip people or companies off?

Mind if I grab into your pocket to steal your wallet?

What you remind me of are those people that go into the fields of farmers and dig up vegetables or fruits. My father in law is a potato farmer and he has about 500 acres of potatoes. YET time and time again people go to his fields and steal potatoes.

They think it is ok to rip off from larger farmers. After all he won't notice, or he is ripping off the consumers or he is big enough to deal with it. The reality is otherwise...

Re:Good (2, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425594)

Oh give me a break. You are saying it is ok to rip people or companies off?


When you take back something that was unfairly taken from you (i.e. high prices due to monopolies), that isn't ripping someone off. It's called justice. Illegal? Maybe, but don't forget a lot of laws were made only to benefit the rich and powerful.

Re:Good (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425664)

When you take back something that was unfairly taken from you...


Taken from you? So someone held a gun to your head and forced you to buy that Britney Spears CD?

Re:Good (1, Troll)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425898)

That is not called justice. Its called taking the law into your own hands. And that is ILLEGAL...

Justice is not about getting your way. Justice is about protecting your rights whomever you may be.

And then there were laws created for the poor...

For example unions...

What you are doing is seeing only your side of the story.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425950)

First of all:

When you take back something that was unfairly taken from you (i.e. high prices due to monopolies), that isn't ripping someone off. It's called justice.

1) People use P2P to get free movies, music, and pirated software. None of this stuff was "taken from you." You have the option to buy it at many locations nationwide for reasonable prices. There's no monopoly on movies, music or software at the moment.

2) Yes, you are ripping people off. We all agree the MPAA and RIAA exaggerate the damages, but it's also not a victimless crime, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Illegal? Maybe, but don't forget a lot of laws were made only to benefit the rich and powerful.

Then get off your lazy ass and change the law. The Civil Rights Movement didn't succeed because Martin Luthor King, Jr sat on his ass all day, then occasionally stole a candy bar from the corner store under the guise of "justice."

If you think the law is wrong, change the law.

Re:Good (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425994)

You are full of shit.

Is it okay to put murderers in jail? How about putting you in jail? According to your system of morality as revealed by your comment, the answer has to be the same, because they're both people!

So who is it going through all that work of going into the fields to steal a few potatoes, exactly? Have you met them? Do they say what they think to you? Is it people who can afford plenty of food for themselves, but would just prefer to steal potatoes because they taste better that way? Where do your father's potatoes

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425194)

1 - legally IP infringement is not stealing, so don't say its nitpicking.
2 - come closer and call us names, see if you don't get a good old fashioned ass kicking.
3 - what has the internet got to do with it? People were copying music long before digital was even thought of.

Wow, perfect example of a Troll (2, Funny)

Tmack (593755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425262)

This post should be saved as the definition of "Trolling". It blatantly hits all the points /.'ers would most vehemently defend. Just look at all the biters, a true sign of a successful trolling. Good job. I commend you. :)

tm

Re:Wow, perfect example of a Troll (3, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425366)

The sad part (or is it the elegant part?) is the troll is so completely transparent, and yet so many bite on it without thinking about whether or not it could be a troll.

It somehow manages to push so many buttons that people who should know better reply to it before engaging their brains.

Now that I think about it, your post may also be a troll, and maybe it's so elegant that I've failed to recognize it as such prior to replying to it. Perhaps now I'm feeding a troll that was itself replying to a previous troll. Whoa. I think I need to go lay down, my mind has just been totally blown.

Re:Good (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425638)

Just because the internet existed when you were born does not mean that free music and movies are a birthright.

While I don't argue that bittorrent is being used for distributed pirated works, there are legal uses for it. For the most part bittorrent is used for large files because it is more efficient. Because of this, Linux distributions are distributed via bittorrent. If you don't believe me, get a copy of Redhat Fedora. [fedoraproject.org] World of Warcraft players get their updates from Blizzard using Blizzard's customized version of bittorrent. Some musicians like Trent Reznor have released digital masters via bittorrent of their own work. At the moment, none of these ISPs will recognize these legal uses.

Recently, I've noticed the filtering. It wasn't network latency. I could surf for hours and download gigabytes of files directly from a site. If I started bittorrent, my ISP connection would drop in 10 minutes. I would have to restart my router. Every time my I had to update WoW, I had to kiss my internet connection goodbye while it loaded.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425818)

And fuck your nitpicking - copying is stealing. Period.

Wow, the Parent Poster is a thief! To access *any* website (including /.) you need to download a copy of the files on the slashdot servers. Opps, score one for holistic generalizations!

Then again, the AC poster was obviously just trolling. No one is stupid enough to actually mean that.

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 6 years ago | (#23426094)

copying is stealing. Period.

No. No it isn't.

Circumstance matters. Copyright laws are about who has the Right to produce copies, and in case you haven't read or bothered to look up any of the US laws the copyright holder does not have exclusive rights in all cases.

Furthermore, blocking P2P isn't just used for copyrighted material. It is also used for distributing legal software and files and those users are also getting punished.

Though the reality of it has nothing to do with punishment. It has more to do with the fact that the companies feel they can get away with it for this segment of their user base. They would prefer to throttle down everyone unless an exorbitant fee is paid, but still be able to advertise their fast rates.

Well, yeah (4, Insightful)

entmike (469980) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425036)

Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice downplayed the results saying, 'P-to-p traffic doesn't necessarily follow normal traffic flows.'"
It would if they'd let it.

Re:Well, yeah (1)

heyyouguysgimmeanacc (1290176) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425138)

eh whats new comcast is always raping its captives ummm I mean customers.

I have Cox High Speed (5, Interesting)

Ninlar (949142) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425038)

It is horrible. My experience is that all of your internet traffic grinds to a halt while running a BitTorrent client for more than a couple hours. It takes forever to even load a web page. I usually have to kill my BitTorrent client and wait about five minutes for things to return to normal.

Re:I have Cox High Speed (2, Informative)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425144)

I hate everything about Cox. Their customer service is horrible and not at all knowledgeable. I had to explain to the Cox agent how much I was paying for cable while she was looking at my account. I've had mistakes made in my service, slow speeds, long wait times, and billing mistakes. Comcast was much, much better to work with, and if that doesn't give you a good idea about how bad Cox was, nothing really will.

On the internet end it's really slow, too. On their highest tier of home internet service, I get 40 kps on bittorrent and no more than 100 for regular downloads from the internet.

Re:I have Cox High Speed (2, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425770)

"I hate everything about Cox. Their customer service is horrible and not at all knowledgeable. I had to explain to the Cox agent how much I was paying for cable while she was looking at my account. I've had mistakes made in my service, slow speeds, long wait times, and billing mistakes. Comcast was much, much better to work with, and if that doesn't give you a good idea about how bad Cox was, nothing really will."

Interesting, I've had the complete opposite track record with Cox. I have an business internet connection with them...'cause I didn't want any caps, or blocked ports so I could run my own email servers, etc. I even have a low level SLA with them, and on the 2 times I've ever had things go down....I called, left a message, and within like 5-10 minutes I had a tech guy calling me...and it was fixed quickly.

I've not done BT recently...so, I can't speak to if they're throttling that traffic on my connection, but, I kinda doubt they would.

I guess today, you get what you pay for...if you want unfettered access, get an unfettered business connection. You get no limits, no ports blocked, good reliable speeds, static IP(s).....and it isn't that much really. They have various levels of speed, mine is only $70/mo....and no complaints, I download/upload as I please, and run a number of servers at home....

Re:I have Cox High Speed (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425146)

I have Cox and run bittorrent 24/7 and have never had bandwidth problems at all. Are you maxing out your upstream? If so, you could be choking your internet connection. I always set my bittorrent client to upload at about 10KB less than my maximum upstream. If I let it go to maximum, everything grinds to a halt.

Re:I have Cox High Speed (1)

Traxxas (20074) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425278)

I have cox and do the same by limiting my upstream. I have no problems here.

Re:I have Cox High Speed (2, Interesting)

puppyfox (833883) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425686)

Indeed. Also about the speed, I have had their middle tier service for a while, and in the end it depends on where I am. My first apartment was fine, then got horrible, I moved, and the new place is great: I get up to 400kbps+ on bittorrent and 1000kbps+ from a fast normal server (like MSDN Subscription downloads). My former roommate at the old apartment complained and complained, and eventually they added capacity to his area as well, which really made a difference. It's unsettling how variable it is, but it's really fast if you get lucky... Just beware of the bandwidth caps (posted on their site, just Google it).

Re:I have Cox High Speed (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425844)

Same here, use Cox, throttle upload, no problems. Also, use encryption.

DSL is no better (-1, Troll)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425174)

Nor is FIOS from what I have read from other users here on /,

Face it we are screwed thanks to Net Neutrality. What pisses me off is that the government just put up billions of dollars in infrastructure improvements a year or two ago. Did it go to upgrade their network?

Nope it went to the CEO's and their shareholders and more lobbying to take away our freedom.

I give up on bittorrent. Its going to be something that Americans will no longer do such as program or have drm-less hardware.

What is truly sad is that we just kick our feet back and do not care. Why can't I run my own software on my iphone?

We need to write to our legislatures and see if we can overturn net neutrality. Who owns the internet? The government, people, or a few monopolies?

Unfortunately the maga telecom's have already answered this for us and took it over. What is stopping them from filtering out content or having their own ICANN for DNS? They own the pipes at this point and can do whatever the hell they want. Sorry to rant.

Something needs to be done.

Re:DSL is no better (2, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425226)

what? we don't need to overturn net neutrality, we need to create net neutrality. what exists currently is NOT net neutrality.

Re:DSL is no better (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425296)

dude, replace "net neutrality" with "the lack of net neutrality", and your whole comment makes sense.

Re:DSL is no better (2, Informative)

Screaming Cactus (1230848) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425590)

Actually, a few monopolies do own most of the internet. After all, they're the ones who paid for the hi-speed backbones that everyone uses. Second to them is universities and the government.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that they offer X kbps d/l speed, but only give it to you when they feel like it, which is seldom if ever. I wonder though, what are good bittorrent speeds on a cable connection? How do you know if you're getting throttled?

And one other thing, slightly off topic, but why does firefox on linux download from the same http server 3x as fast as firefox on windows? (750KBps linux, 250KBps windows)

Re:DSL is no better (1)

Kuipo (948744) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425832)

Currently I'm on Comcast and my speeds are 200~300KB/sec upload (I usually cap it at 200 so I don't choke the connection) and 400~450KB/sec download when torrenting... But when I'm not torrenting and downloading a file from a fat pipe I can reach upwards of 1100KB/sec download. Even on really nice torrents with thousands of seeds and no peers, I never get that speed from my torrents.

Re:DSL is no better (1)

Screaming Cactus (1230848) | more than 6 years ago | (#23426022)

Wow, I'm not sure what plan I'm on, but BitTorrent rarely passes 200KB/s d/l. Usually (for a lot of peers) it runs about 75-150. As I said, in Linux I've hit almost 800 KB/s download (http) so it's got to be a fairly fast connection. They must have been throttling it for a while because it's been like that for the last 6 months.

Re:I have Cox High Speed (1)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425814)

Thats not cox, thats your crappy cable modem overheating cause it can't handle the number of connections youre putting on it.

You still suck. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425040)

Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice downplayed the results saying, 'P-to-p traffic doesn't necessarily follow normal traffic flows.'
Of course it doesn't. I can setup a download and let it run all night so I can have it in the morning.

But that does not address you blocking any of the traffic.

Re:You still suck. (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425544)

The Internet users who participated in the study may not be representative of Internet users overall, she added. The users who run the Glasnost tests may be "heavy users of p-to-p," Fitzmaurice said.
http://broadband.mpi-sws.mpg.de/transparency/bttest.php [mpi-sws.mpg.de]
The Glasnost webpage has been responsive, but the test has been throwing up a busy signal for me since yesterday.
Anyone else?

Macross Frontier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425046)

As long as I can get my episode of gattai-subbed macross frontier when I leave azureus on over night, I'll be fine.

'P-to-p traffic doesn't necessarily... (4, Insightful)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425054)

'P-to-p traffic doesn't necessarily follow normal traffic flows.'

Nope it sure doesn't when you implement layer 4 filtering and then configure it to block/messwith/"delay" p2p apps. Who knew?

Daily Comcast Rant (4, Funny)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425066)

Comcast issued a statement repeating its earlier position that it "does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications," including BitTorrent.
That's no different than amputating a man's legs and then demanding he thank you for not murdering him.

Re:Daily Comcast Rant (1)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425242)

No, they're not demanding that you thank them for anything, just keep the money flowing :)

Re:Daily Comcast Rant (1)

ady1 (873490) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425658)

Well you should thank them unless you want them to read you some of their poetry.

Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits
On a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes
And hooptiously drangle me
With crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon,
See if I don't!

Re:Daily Comcast Rant (1)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425958)

Transmission from Comcast/RIAA begins: Copyvio! Guards, seize this rogue! This is exactly the kind of thing the system was designed to prevent! You'll never get away with this, this fiendish rapid transmission of data! Soon, our dark forces will triumph ov***** CARRIER LOST *****

"Good evening, this is your local nightly news. Today, the headquarters of the major internet and cable provider, Comcast, as well as the offices of the RIAA, were crushed by a massive wall of ice. [xkcd.com] Local rescue workers, arriving at the scene, reported a strange sensation of joy at the sight. To date, no explanation has been offered for this bizarre event..."

Will they change? (2, Insightful)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425092)

Now the real question is whether there will be enough pressure for Comcast to remove this unnecessary throttling. Given their track record with many of their other questionable services, I doubt that they will.

They can't have it both ways (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425468)

Now the real question is whether there will be enough pressure for Comcast to remove this unnecessary throttling.

They either charge for a product or don't charge for a product. People who are having their internet connection throttled after having paid for it should be entitled to a refund. Otherwise, Comcast should advertise a P2P-free service at a discounted price.

Isn't there any kind of consumer protection in all of this?

Re:Will they change? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425538)

I assume it is necessary (for them) otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

I'll admit, I don't know much cable bandwidth, but wouldn't it be wise for them to start laying fiber and cable side by side and then do a seemless switch one day?

It seems cable vs fiber is a losing battle for cable.

Sounds about right (4, Interesting)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425108)

Cox is my ISP. Sometimes, after using BitTorrent, regardless of what is being transferred, my cable modem's connection to their system will be severed, and it will not return for a time which more or less seems to be directly proportional to the time spent using the torrent.

I remember that someone here on /. told me that they had the same phenomenon happen to them when using VoIP.

Re:Sounds about right (2, Interesting)

dunezone (899268) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425988)

This happens with Comcast in my area outside of Chicago. My connection runs fine without running any torrents. If I turn on my torrent all hell breaks lose, and I only run one torrent download/upload at a time. My connection will drop every 5-10 minutes, severing my internet access. It will return by itself in 2-3 minutes or if I restart the modem.

My torrent settings are standard, encryption with max 50 simultaneous connections a time on a single torrent. I actually used to be able to put 75 but recently Ive been dropping this below 50 to see if it improves stability which it hasn't.

I never had any problems up until about 6-12 months ago. I don't have any alternatives other then going with SBC DSL. I have a feeling they knock my connection out to try and stop my torrent, thinking if they cut the connection for a few minutes then restore it later, my torrent wont resume back to its normal state.

Subverting Alternate Legal Distribtuion Schemes? (4, Insightful)

StaticEngine (135635) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425112)

I don't really use BitTorrent much at all. Sure, I downloaded some HiDef video to test out content delivery over my home LAN from a server to my HDTV, but I don't scour the net for movies and music like I used to. I just don't have the time and interest.

However, I did just grab the new Nine Inch Nails album, and as a former musician myself, I still dabble in remixing on occasion. Thus, when I went to go grab the freely available multitracks for remixing, I was somewhat surprised that they were only available via Torrent. That's smart on the part of Trent Reznor and his tech team (why bog down only his own servers with information that he's freely sharing with everyone?), it's bad for other artists and remixers if their access to this media is going to be limited because of the "taint" associated with BitTorrent.

I'm not sure there's a solution here. Any distributed network will inevitably be used for some amount of "gray market" trafficking, but it would be nice if we preferred and promoted technologies for their Common Good usage rather than limiting them by their potential negative effects. And by "we" I mean the corporations who gouge us for $100 each month just to shuttle electrons around.

Re:Subverting Alternate Legal Distribtuion Schemes (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425212)

The same thing is happening with Linux. If you want to download the latest release of Ubuntu in a few days to a few weeks after it has been released using HTTP, you will find that the connection's max speed is around 30KB/Second, the torrent however hits around 200Kb/Second. If you want the release and don't want to mess with time-out errors, torrenting it is the only way you can really get it.

Same theory applies to the web (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425292)

it's bad for other artists and remixers if their access to this media is going to be limited because of the "taint" associated with BitTorrent.

But you can apply that same reasoning to any service offered across the internet. What if they'd just posted it on mirrored web servers? Is Comcast going to start limiting web traffic? Or FTP? I suppose I shouldn't give them any ideas.

From a technology standpoint it just seems like a retarded policy. The rise of BitTorrent traffic only means the content available on the internet has evolved from text to digital media. If they start screwing with torrents, people will switch to something else. They'll find a way to get through.

Guess that means Comcast would have sided with the buggy whip manufacturers and tried to limit automobile traffic.

Only slowing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425118)

Are they only slowing the protocol or are they still spoofing packets?

So.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425196)

Cox has been dicking their customers and... the others are getting comcastrated.

Cox? Weird. (1)

Chlorus (1146335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425216)

They say cox does it? I get 1 MB on average DLs with Bittorrent with them, and my service plan is only 7 Mb/s. I have a friend who reports the same experience (and he pirates gigs upon gigs of stuff) Either we got lucky or the researchers got unlucky. Now, Comcast, on the other hand, I can believe throttles.

Re:Cox? Weird. (1)

paxswill (934322) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425978)

Same here. Can't remember what plan I'm on now, but I routinely get >1MB/sec speeds down and can get >2MB/sec on off-peak hours (1am-5am). Up, I get ~1MB/sec. I haven't experienced any "outages" following any torrenting or heavy downloading. For a while at least, Cox was the only high speed provider in the area (there was Verizon DSL, but it sucked). Now there's Fios all over, but my friends still on Cox also get the same speeds. One friend got a notice of copyrighted material letter forwarded to him from the MPAA, but that's the biggest brush I've had with copyright enforcement. If it makes any difference (and I think it does) I'm in the DC area.

To be fair... (2, Interesting)

gzerphey (1006177) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425228)

To be fair what she is refering to about "normal traffic patterns" is the sustained nature of P2P. That said there are much better ways to go about traffic control then what they are doing. I love P2P and see an enormous amount of potential in the future. At some point the ISPs and P2P programs need to find a way to get along. What that is, I don't know, but we have to figure it out somehow.

Thoughts? (and please dont just cry about the evil ISPs. We honestly need to have a constructive conversation about this. (yes, i do realize this is slashdot))

Re:To be fair... (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425422)

At some point the ISPs and P2P programs need to find a way to get along.

Here's a thought. Since most p2p sites feature lots of ads and generate lots of hits, why don't the ISPs run P2P sites themselves and gain that revenue stream?

Re:To be fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425740)

Because that particular revenue stream has a few problems.

1) It's likely to get them sued.
2) The revenue wouldn't even come close to covering the bandwidth costs.
3) nor even begin to roll out better coverage and bandwidth to populated areas.

Re:To be fair... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425942)

Because the fraction of P2P traffic that is legitimate isn't very large.

Hmmm (1)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425232)

Cox tries to sell you the KY while Comcast tries to sell you the bread.

WOW (5, Insightful)

azzuth (1177007) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425248)

World of Warcraft used torrents to patch the game when last i was playing. My ISP US Cable throttled the traffic severely and I always had to download the patch using other methods. There are many legitimate uses for torrents.

Limiting bittorrent because it can be used for illegal downloads is like scrambling epsn because people make illegal bets on football games.

Re:WOW (1)

azzuth (1177007) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425368)

Or ESPN even... god i hate it when people don't RTFP (read their f* posts) ;)

Enough! (1)

exigentsky (771810) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425326)

Comcast charges me a lot for their service, yet when I try to get a return for my money by actually using what they claim to offer - I'm kicked out. This false advertising is appalling and I hope a class action lawsuit will follow. They disgusted me off with their "no criticize" clause and this is the last straw.

Lower your Comcast bill (1)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425328)

Call Comcast during a business day and select the choices to cancel service. A customer retention person will come on and ask why. Say you're switching to DSL at $25 a month. They'll lower your rate to 33. And in the meantime, it's 3:00pm PST and pretty much every peer that tries to leech from me is getting killed by lovely Comcast.

at&t (1)

CraniumDesigns (1113153) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425392)

thank god i have at&T dsl. hopefully they dont start this crap. also, i use newsgroups, not torrents.

quiet you! (2, Funny)

azzuth (1177007) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425426)

shhh.. don't mention news groups, no one needs to know about them. you're gonna mess it up for all of us. ;)

Re:quiet you! (1)

CraniumDesigns (1113153) | more than 6 years ago | (#23426070)

did i say newsgroups? i meant napster! yes.... napster... kazaa too!

Low sample size for Cox (5, Informative)

vsage3 (718267) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425406)

Here [mpi-sws.mpg.de] is a link to the actual study (toward the bottom are the pertinent charts). Looking at the third pair of bar graphs, they readily admit

Note that the data for Cox is more noisy than Comcast, due to the smaller number of measured hosts.
In fact, the "100%" number for Cox comes from a whopping sample size of TWO.

Now I shouldn't be defending them because I have Cox, but I'd just like to say I get anywhere from 30-300kBps when downloading torrents which is not terrible but ultimately lags far behind what I could get back in the urban area where my parents live that uses Bright House.

Comcast, Cox Slow BitTorrent Traffic All Day (5, Funny)

alxkit (941262) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425454)

better title: `cox blocks around the clocks`

We need net neutrality now! (2, Informative)

joshtheitguy (1205998) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425502)

I always make sure that I use the transport encryption settings within Azureus. Enable RC4 encryption block non-encrypted both ways and enable the "cryptoport" tracker extension is on. Then I make sure I cap everything out at 80% of my total upload. Sure it lowers my total connections but anything to keep from getting throttled.

This is the only thing I have seen that will allow me to get speeds on torrent networks where they should be. If I didn't do this Cox cable red flag me for days and my internet drags for a couple of days until they decided to uncap me. I would have not been able to get Kubuntu 8.04 when it launched without using bit-torrent so don't give me the bit-torrent=pirate bullsh*t. All the Http and FTP distribution servers were overloaded that day.

Which is it? (1)

caladine (1290184) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425532)

Comcast says:

"We have acknowledged that we manage peer-to-peer traffic in a limited manner to minimize network congestion," Comcast's statement continued.
Meanwhile the FCC is saying:

"Based on testimony we've received thus far, this equipment was typically deployed over a wider geographic area or system, and is not even capable of knowing when an individual ... segment of the network is congested."
If you're going to lie, Comcast, it helps to not have glaring contradictions in your testimony.

tag this 'coxblocking' or 'coxblock' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425568)

it's true

Throttling depends on the lack of competition (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425606)

I have Cox internet in Rhode Island, and I have not experienced any throttling. The difference is that there is a strong presence of fios from Verzion, which is known to not mess with your connection. Cox, and all these ISP networks actually have tons of extra capacity. The proof came for me when fios first arrived. Cox flipped a magic switch, and increased their standard service to 5Mb down/2Mb up, to directly match the specs and pricing of a basic fios connection. While I won't complain about the huge increase in upstream speed, it really makes me wonder what the hell these ISPs are really up to.

Comcast Interrupting NetFlix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425720)

On a related topic has anyone seen comcast interrupting network "Watch Instantly" traffic?

My netflix server worked great until about two months ago,... then shows would start stopping mid-way.

Arggg..

Re:Comcast Interrupting NetFlix (2, Interesting)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425802)

i would advise you start complaining to netflix. if they get enough complaints, hopefully they'll sue comcast for disrupting their services or anti-trust violations (leveraging an existing monopoly) or something.

Restore Common Carrier? (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425764)

Is there a good reason that common carrier non-discrimination was removed from data networks?

Does that reason outweigh the benefits of a non-discriminatory communications network?

Should we not restore at least the non-discrimination provisions of common carrier for data networks?

Would non-discrimination not automatically, and with minimal government interference for good actors, result in net neutrality?

The only downside I can immediately come up with is that less regulation means less opportunity for graft. But I cannot see a desire to engage in graft as a valid economic priority.

Comcast Lies ... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425838)

Comcast lies yet again! News at 11.

Yawn.

I have no problem with it, IF. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425858)

They are rationing the bandwidth so its not monopolized by a few users.....

No one uses newsgroups? (1)

Hachima (718971) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425918)

Comcast offers 2 gigabytes per month of free newsgroup access. Newsgroups are going to be faster than any torrent you try. Comcast newsgroup service maxes out my connection any time I use it. The whole idea that slow ftp/http is the only method of downloading isn't true. You just need to be a little more knowledgeable about methods available for downloading binaries.

That explains a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23425926)

Thanks for nothing Cox.

Blocking P2P Pure and Simple (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#23425946)

Blocking P2P pure and simple is saying that your computer can connect to some computers (web sites) on the Internet to exchange data, but can't connect to other computers (private P2P users) to exchange data.

Net Neutrality is obviously already dead as long as this is true.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>