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!

Israeli ISPs Caught Interfering With P2P Traffic

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the red-hands-in-the-cookie-jar dept.

The Internet 139

Fuzzzy writes "For a long time, people have suspected that Israeli ISPs are blocking or delaying P2P traffic. However, no hard evidence was provided, and the ISPs denied any interference. Today Ynetnews published a report on comprehensive research that for the first time proves those suspicions. Using Glasnost and Switzerland, an Internet attorney / blogger found evidence of deep packet inspection and deliberate delays. From the article: 'Since 2007 Ynet has received complaints according to which Israeli ISPs block P2P traffic. Those were brought to the media and were dismissed by the ISPs. Our findings were that there is direct and deliberate interference in P2P traffic by at least two out of the three major ISPs and that this interference exists by both P2P caching and P2P blocking.'"

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

frist jew (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427968)

inb4dajewz

Kike it! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30427972)

Yo VIP, just Kike it!

The Real Question (1, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30427988)

Does the Israeli Gov't care?

Re:The Real Question (0, Flamebait)

socceroos (1374367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428042)

It could very well be the Israeli government with their finger in this pie. Most likely is. Undoubtedly, it is because of pressure from the US.

Re:The Real Question (3, Insightful)

barrkel (806779) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428302)

I think you have that power relationship backward - it's the Israelis that pressure the US, not the other way around.

The Israeli lobby in the US has strong leverage over US votes, but the US has relatively little over Israel. US administrations can never afford to be seen to be censuring Israel.

Re:The Real Question (0, Offtopic)

lannocc (568669) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428402)

I think you have that power relationship backward - it's the Israelis that pressure the US, not the other way around.

Doesn't really matter, I'm sure there's some quid for quo.

Re:The Real Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30430062)

The phrase is "quid pro quo", if you're going to translate part of it to English, then do the whole thing otherwise it looks silly.

Re:The Real Question (1)

lannocc (568669) | more than 4 years ago | (#30430594)

Yes I know the phrase. I was indecisive on whether I was going to say "tit for tat" or "quid pro quo", so I sort of combined them. Yes, it's silly.

Re:The Real Question (1, Insightful)

nautilu (973306) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428428)

It's not the time or the place to bring your misinformed political views. And if you still decide to do so, just bring your brains to think a moment before. Now let me do it instead. What POSSIBLY the Israeli Gov't could gain out off pressuring the US in this matter?! (With most of the industries suffering from P2P are originated in US, and Israel's population of less than NYC's ?)

Re:The Real Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428636)

because that's ALL p2p is about.... movies and music....

furthermore, just when is it appropriate to bring misinformed political views, oh great one?

Re:The Real Question (0, Offtopic)

barrkel (806779) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428646)

I believe I'm pretty well informed re my political views. My comment addressed the de facto power relationship, in light of the democratic and ethnographic nature of the US and its administration's public choice theoretic situation, not the P2P question at hand, however.

Re:The Real Question (2, Insightful)

A1rmanCha1rman (885378) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428788)

It takes two to tango, my friend.

Every power relationship is bi-directional, especially where there is one-way FUNDING involved.

"He who pays the piper dances to the tune" would adequately describe the situation.

Re:The Real Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428374)

SO you're saying they do this to keep receiving the Three Billion Dollar gift every year?

Re:The Real Question (1)

dushkin (965522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428462)

Probably not, but ok.

Re:The Real Question (2, Insightful)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429822)

It could very well be the Israeli government with their finger in this pie.

Maybe, but then again the ISP's could just be doing this to maintain a reasonable level of service to people who do not use P2P.

The fact is that when you rent a ADSL service from any internet company as an individual you are not buying dedicated routing and guaranteed bandwidth. The figures they quote for bandwidth are maximums, not minimums. With this in mind they can do whatever they pretty much like.

If you do not want to be subject to this you can subscribe to an ADSL service that offers minimum guaranteed bandwidth. These do exist it's just that they are horrifically expensive because very few people need them.

Re:The Real Question (1)

Fuzzzy (967665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428680)

The Ministry of Communication regards such malpractices with an unfavorite eye:

Communications Ministry spokesman Dr. Yechiel Shabi said in response, "The research materials relayed to us paint a picture which arouses the need for thorough examination. After we become familiar with the study's findings, we shall consider the need for interference, supervision or regulation of the matter."

The MoC declared their commitment for the principle of Network Neutrality after a previous case of VoIP blocking by one of the cellular operator in Israel. However, beyond declarations actions are yet to be seen.

Re:The Real Question (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 4 years ago | (#30430768)

I find your gullibility quotient to be a little high.

The Ministry of Communication regards such malpractices with an unfavorite eye:

The Ministry of Communication speaks out of both sides of its yamaka.

Dr. Yechiel Shabi said in response, "The research materials relayed to us paint a picture which arouses the need for thorough examination.

I was told our p2p throttling mechanisms were untracable!

After we become familiar with the study's findings, we shall consider the need for interference, supervision,...

The Signals Intelligence geeks are not going to get any sleep for the next couple of weeks. Then someone is getting transferred to the Israeli Embassy in Siberia.

Free and open comms (0, Flamebait)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428006)

Not what the darkside wants.

Re:Free and open comms (3, Interesting)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428100)

Not what the darkside wants.

That's for sure. I just literally got off of the phone with Comcast complaining that my service is getting "intermittently" interrupted. Now, lets be clear, I am running torrents. But lets also be clear that without P2P, hardly anyone would want their crappy high speeds as slightly lower speeds are intolerable for web surfing and Youtube. Me seeding the Knoppix DVD for 2 days leaving my PC on all night isn't kosher when Knoppix is legal. (electricity costs $$$)

They tried to blame my router, but I occasionally get spotty service when it is just my modem. I refuse to go without the router for more than a few days since I obviously bought it for a needed reason. I just couldn't get over the fact that Google (images) wouldn't pull up thumbnails, yet when I go to Speedtest.net, whoa the turtle turned into the hare. So I called them since I know what is going on. They deny there is issue on their end, and want to send a tech to my home and when they don't find a problem charge me $30. I go back inside after my 35 minute call and go to pull up Google.. slow again. I go to Speedtest.net, and now everything works. So I call them back up and they are going to send a tech to my home Friday and even credit me back if they find issue on my end.

  Is it just me, or is it a conspiracy, brother man? I just refuse to believe all the trouble I have had is a coincidence. But please, I would love evidence that I am wrong. I want a decent service provider that doesn't let you go since you use what you paid for. That is why I called them back.

I want to find another provider if they don't make it right, and we know there is little chance of that. But what is my option? AT&T, the "Your world delivered, to the NSA." company as the only alternative in my area.

So for a recap, I have issues usually after running torrents even at times without the router, and going to Speedttest.net is like a super pill that clears it up. For the moment, and I use that loosely.

  What would you do?

Re:Free and open comms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428228)

$30 no fault call out charge is cheap. In the UK, BT charge £165 (=$260.) The fuckers.

i would set up a script to run speedtest.net tests hourly :)

Re:Free and open comms (2, Informative)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428534)

If it is happening even without the router, it is a bit suspicious that visiting speedtest fixes it. However, your router may be causing problems on its own, many cheaper routers can fill their NAT tables while torrenting.

If you've got a router that can adjust the length of time an entry is in the table, shorten it down to a few minutes.

Re:Free and open comms (2, Informative)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428644)

I found a similar thing and it seemed to be related to the number of http connections. If you have one (i.e speedtest) it is fast. If you have about 10, it slows right down (beyond what you would expect) and stays down. Torrents create many http connections at high numbered ports (check with netstat) so it should be easy to see where limit is with your particluar ISP.

Re:Free and open comms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30429090)

Rural Australian Optus (and subcarier) 3G connections quite often throttle users to 1 http connection.. try over this and nothing works.. sucks when downloading updates and trying to surf..

Re:Free and open comms (1)

Maddog Batty (112434) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429404)

Try switching off the firewall in your modem. I had problems with sites with a lot of images and it turned out to be the modem firewall that caused the issue.

Re:Free and open comms (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30430118)

It's Comcast, I'm sure of it. I have the exact same problem while torrenting. If I open everything up (i.e. set utorrent to auto upload and uncapped download), on good torrents I can hit my bandwidth maximums for about 15-20 minutes and then my connection dies. The first couple times it does this, it'll come back online within a few minutes, but if the torrents go back up to full bandwidth usage... boom within a couple minutes I'm back offline again. After 1 or 2 times like this, the connection just stays "off" until I reset the modem (not the router, the modem. It's not a router issue).

It isn't an issue with the number of open connections, because if I tweak the bandwidth usage to limit upload stream to 32kbps and download stream to 384kbps, but don't change the number of open connections allowed, I can torrent for a week straight with 0 issues. If I push that upload stream to 64kbps or that download stream above 400kbps, problem returns.

I'm convinced that comcast is monitoring the bandwidth I'm using and shutting me down whenever I actually -use- the bandwidth I pay for, for more than 10 or 15 minutes. Makes me laugh whenever I see one of their "comcast extreme 50" signs. The only people I can think of who would want that kind of bandwidth on a regular basis are the same people that comcast is trying their best to stifle.

Throttling (4, Interesting)

mattr (78516) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428016)

FWIW I heard from a wireless provider's salesperson that all of the major Internet Service Providers in Japan have a policy that after 300GB traffic per month connection speed will be throttled down.

I calculate this means that a 1Mbps video connection 24x7 would barely fit under this threshold.
1 mbit/sec *3600 = 3600 mbit/hr
3600 / 8 = 400 MBytes/hr
400 * 24 * 30 = 288000 MB/mo. = 288 GB/mo.

I wouldn't mind paying more if the companies would just stop adding all kinds of crazy rules.
The worst is the huge amount paid for access speeds which while respectable themselves, are being sold at many times the effective rate. ISPs should be required to sell unfettered access at the same rate they pay for it, plus a fixed rate (say 5-10%) to ensure market growth.

Re:Throttling (2, Informative)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428096)

ISPs should be required to sell unfettered access at the same rate they pay for it

That would be interesting, but quite impossible, because the price depend on the destination and what kind of transit/peering/paid peering the isp have. And you don't want to sell the service with 10 different prices/GB depending on which route your isp use to get data from A to B.

btw: 300GB/Month is a lot of transfer for a private user. I have a 5/1 mbit connection, and I don't think I have ever used even 1/10 of that for a single month. Maybe I just don't watch enough video online.

Re:Throttling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428162)

I have a 40mbit/10mbit connection in Japan. So actually using 300GB is not crazy.

Re:Throttling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428864)

You need to get off dial-up, man...

Re:Throttling (1)

besalope (1186101) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428212)

Really? A year or so ago it was public knowledge that the only limits on Japanese internet service was their 30GB per day upload cap.

Re:Throttling (2, Interesting)

ZirconCode (1477363) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428896)

I can disprove the 30GB upload cap;

When Ubuntu 8.04 was released I was one of the first to download it and I helped seed. The speeds never dropped and I uploaded around 120GB.

Japan = Fiber Optics = No Limits = Jealous Readers

Re:Throttling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30429356)

Right on brother. All Gig here!

Re:Throttling (1)

VoltageX (845249) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428224)

150gb and lower limit here in Australia for 10mbit+ connections.
I pay $70AUD/month for this...

Re:Throttling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428316)

Who are you with? O.o

Re:Throttling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428826)

I second this, I pay $70 AUD a month for 1.5mbit and 40GB cap.

Re:Throttling (2, Informative)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428526)

It is way past time for the public to get outraged and act up in regard to the entire utilities industry. Whether it is power, phone or cable it is high time to vastly reduce both the charges from the providers as well as taxes placed upon the end users.

Well there's not really a choice (3, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429318)

You can't have everything. Internet connections are cheap because they are shared. People don't have dedicated bandwidth, they share it with everyone else. Works out, because normally you don't use all your bandwidth all the time. As such you can oversubscribe the links. You see this in offices all the time. I have a gig to my desk, however the switch in your area only has a gig back to the floor switches. Those only have a gig to the building switch, that only has a gig to the core switches and so on. However, all in all I still get blazing fast speeds on the network because people aren't all using it at the same time. Thus we can afford to roll out gig. We couldn't if we had to do dedicated bandwidth. We'd need two 10gig connections just from our switch to the floor switches, the building would probably need OC-768, maybe more than one. I shudder to think what the core switches would have to have.

Ok well same deal but larger on the Internet. So unless everyone wants to have rather slow, pricey, connections the only option is some limits to make sure people share.

In Japan, it doesn't at all surprise me that they'd have limits like this because the trend seems to be to sell connections with allegedly massive speeds with low prices. All the time on Slashdot we see stories about how in Japan you can have 100 or 1000mbit Internet for cheap. Ya well ok, here's news for you: You can't really have that. Yes the physical signaling rate might be that high, but you aren't getting that kind of speed all the time everywhere. They couldn't afford the links required for that. For that matter you generally don't even get your peak speeds except to others on the same ISP. I've seen people from Japan talk about how fast tehy get a file, but when you do the math it works out to 10-20mb/sec, same kind of thing you get on US cable connections.

Where I live at least, you have a choice to a large degree because you can buy business class connections. My cable company (Cox) sells both residential and business connections. They follow the same bandwidth tiers, though in a given tier business connections usually have a little more upload speed. However, business connections are a whole lot more expensive. Well why is that? They can't make you buy a business connection.

Well the reason is business connections don't have restrictions, residential ones do. You can't run servers on residential connections, you can on business connections. If you do too much traffic on a residential connection they'll call you and/or throttle you. On a business connection you can do as much as you like and you'll hear not a thing. The tradeoff is that max speeds you'd get for like $40-50 on a residential connection, you'll pay $120 for on a business connection.

So if you really want to pay more, look in to it because you probably can. However, don't then cry that it is in fact a good bit more. Also, you probalby don't really want ISPs selling you access for the prices they pay. High grade lines are very pricey. That is why they get that, and then oversubscribe it. They can resell it for lower cost since they have more customers. On OC-3 circuit (155mbps) to a Tier 1 provider is generally in the realm of $10,000 and up per month. Means if they were to sell you a 15mbps cable connection at "their rates" you'd be paying like a grand a month. Better perhaps that you then share with a few people and get a more reasonable price.

Re:Well there's not really a choice (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429646)

Means if they were to sell you a 15mbps cable connection at "their rates" you'd be paying like a grand a month.

It really depends on who your provider is - Cogent has been offering a lot of folks $1.50/Mbps on a 1 gig commit lately. Sure, it's Cogent, but still, having a dedicated 1 gigabit pipe for $1500/month isn't anything to sneeze at if the quality of the routing/latency isn't that critical.

Re:Well there's not really a choice (1)

Wavebreak (1256876) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429800)

I would argue from evidence that it is in fact possible to actually deliver the speed, given that my connection has been averaging ~17mbit combined throughput over the last year, with peaks up to the 100mbit limit regularly (which it never fails to deliver either). This a residential connection for a flat 43e a month. Now, granted, you're correct in that it would be very difficult indeed to achieve that if every single customer used as much, but the point is that they don't, which is why you *can* really have that - the isp in question just needs to not oversell *too* much.

Re:Throttling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30429802)

Perfect Solution!

The ISP is question can go out to hollywood and say: We throttle our 1Mbps line after 300GB/mo.
We also throttle our 100Mbps line after 30'000GB/mo (30TB).

ISP happy, hollywood happy, customer couldn't care.
 

Re:Throttling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30429980)

I'm currently living in Japan, and have Jcom's 150mbit cable internet service. As far as I know there aren't any usage caps, and I've pushed 200GB in a day (let alone a month) without any sorts of repercussions. I can't tell from your post if the wireless provider's salesperson was speaking to wireless broadband in Japan or wired (like I am referring to).

As a side note, I also have Docomo's 7.1 mbit wireless broadband service. When I signed up I was assured it was unlimited use, although I'm not naive enough to think that that really means unlimited, and I'd even be surprised if the cap was as high as 300GB/month.

NetEnforcer.... (0, Troll)

Mithrilhall (673222) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428040)

Coincidence that the http://www.allot.com/ [allot.com] NetEnforcer is from Israel?

Re:NetEnforcer.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30429294)

yes

Gutless (5, Insightful)

dark grep (766587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428064)

How gutless of the ISP to not admit it. EVERY ISP outside of perhaps the USA and Europe does it. Bandwidth is just too expensive not to. Many ISP's in Australia denied it for years, until they were 'outed' by one honest ISP who told everyone up front what they were doing.

Re:Gutless (1)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428106)

Bless those that have guts and integrity. I wish that ISP was here in America, I would buy from them on principle.

Re:Gutless (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428336)

Actually, I never had any issues with Internode (www.internode.on.net) throttling my P2P. Initially, I used to be with TPG (and to be honest, when they were first around, they didn't throttle it either and were half decent) but around 2-3 years ago, they changed their policy and throttled the buggery out of anything P2P. I can tell you that trying to download a warcraft patch (well, the major ones anyhow) for 2 days just isn't good enough. At the moment, Optus Cable seems quite good too, though I only get Warcraft patches from it.

Re:Gutless (1)

strack (1051390) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428442)

im currently on internode. and of all the broadband ISPs ive ever had (and ive had a few), it is by and far the best. the p2p speeds are fast, latency is low, and their freezone has abc's iview, and nasatv!

Re:Gutless (1)

strack (1051390) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428472)

oops. i meant iinet instead of internode. silly me.

Re:Gutless (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428940)

I've heard good things about Internode too. I've been with iiNet ever since they were first of the block with dsl2+, and I strongly suspect them of throttling P2P. Fortunately I don't use it enough to care much, and I'm moving in 6 months, so it's not worth the trouble of dumping them.

Re:Gutless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428990)

I'm with Optus cable, I don't download much except the occasional porno but I've never had any unexplained speed problems. What pisses me off is they meter iView, even Telstra don't do that!!!

Re:Gutless (2, Insightful)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428594)

Not all Aussie ISPs are doing it. Mostly its the smaller ISPs that are doing it, the big boys like Internode and iiNet and TPG dont.

Re:Gutless (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428880)

Not all Aussie ISPs are doing it. Mostly its the smaller ISPs that are doing it, the big boys like Internode and iiNet and TPG dont.

So Optus and Telstra aren't big to you?

Granted I'd never buy broadband from them but they are not small, Optus is off the phone provider list too until it pulls it's arse into line with Android.

Re:Gutless (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428932)

I said "mostly"
I didnt even think to check the policies of Optus or Telstra, mostly because I (like you) have completly blacklisted all products from Optus and everything from Telstra except the minimum home phone I need to get my ADSL

Re:Gutless (1)

severn2j (209810) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429610)

Im pretty sure ISP's in Europe do it as well, although not restricted to P2P. I have a 20Mbit "unlimited" connection with Virgin Media, and if I download a large amount of data in one go, say 5GB+, the bandwidth drops to 5Mbit after 4GB's or so, then goes back upto 20MBits after a few hours of not downloading.. Coincidence? I dont think so.

Re:Gutless (1)

thue (121682) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429874)

Is bandwidth really that expensive? I am administrating a connection for 300 college student, which is run without any limitations whatsoever. The connection is 100Mbit/100Mbit, which is seldom fully used.

The bandwidth costs are $4/person. Maybe $8/person if you include establishment costs for laying the fiber.

So when you hear about ISPs adding limitations, I think it is often a question of them trying to squeeze the last dime out.

Its the lies and cover up that bugs me (5, Insightful)

Camael (1048726) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428114)

Most of these isps try to justify their actions with the excuse that they need to restrict pvp users so that other users consuming less bandwidth can enjoy decent surfing/transfer rates. While arguably laudable, what really irks me is that these plans were largely sold to users (including pvp users) as non-capped unlimited bandwidth plans. If they wish to restrict or apply caps, they should be up-front about it. And by up-front, I don't mean burying it in the contract's fine print. These throttling and scanning attempts would likely lead to civil suits for breach of contract, fraud and/or deceptive advertising in any other industry. It's surely not a coincidence that the Israeli and Japanese ISPs referred to are actively trying to hide their actions. The difficulty is that it is difficult for individual users to challenge the actions of these ISPs who more often than not have deep pockets or a near monopoly over internet connectivity in their sphere of the world. Corporate bullying at its best.

Re:Its the lies and cover up that bugs me (1)

g4b (956118) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428576)

<quote>Most of these isps try to justify their actions with the excuse that they need to restrict pvp users so that other users consuming less bandwidth can enjoy decent surfing/transfer rates.</quote>

I really don't care much about those nasty PvP users, I am still for banning them from the net, looting me sad little pvm user last month...

Re:Its the lies and cover up that bugs me (2, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428600)

restrict pvp users

No wonder the Battlegrounds have been so laggy lately...

Re:Its the lies and cover up that bugs me (4, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429492)

While arguably laudable, what really irks me is that these plans were largely sold to users (including pvp users) as non-capped unlimited bandwidth plans.

I'd be very much surprised if your contract for broadband service at the mass market price includes any quaranteed quality of service whatever.

The adds will promise an "always on" connection and speeds up to X - when and as available. Nothing more.

Pretty much the same deal the telephone company was offering in 1886.
   

Re:Its the lies and cover up that bugs me (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30430274)

The adds will promise an "always on" connection and speeds up to X - when and as available. Nothing more.

Yes, but there's two versions of that:
1) Most of the time, under normal circumstances, you typically get what's advertized
2) Under extremely ideal conditions on a quiet night you might get what's advertized

I do have a 20 Mbit residential connection, and I have the former. My ToS is as wooly as everybody else's, there's no guaranteed QoS but there are consumer protections in place to make sure you know what you get. If it'd been 20 Mbit burst and lower sustained, they'd have to say so. If there's a cap they have to inform about it. Normally, and I'm talking about 90%+ of the time, it'll go full speed when I want and I've never gotten a complaint no matter how much I download or upload and I think my biggest sustained download was around 500GB and upload 60GB.

I have no idea why people, and it seems Americans in general, accept Kafka-like contracts where there's hidden terms that'll get you terminated if you violate them. I'm not talking about one and one consumer trying to dispute their right to terminate, I'm talking about a consumer protection agency that'll slap them for dishonest contracts. They're more than heavily weighted in favor of the service provider already, the least you should demand are clear conditions for using it.

Re:Its the lies and cover up that bugs me (1)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30430542)

First off, it was unlimited when I first got signed up. Forget some translation of the word years later, unlimited meant just that, at my speeds I get all I can eat. Not that I had unlimited connection time. Which even still really means the same thing, I have unlimited connection time at the speeds signed up for... It was understood that if I interfered with others though, through hacking the main box down the street, etc. that I would get cut off and eventually ISPs had to throttle to some extent for those that hogged. That is appreciable, if not commendable.

  Secondly, mine is not always on, if I have to keep resetting my router and modem. That is the point, they are not even doing the little they do promise. They are now "officially" going waaaaaaay to far. The fecal matter is going to hit the fan soon because in the words of Twisted Sister, "We're not gonna take!"

  No! We're not gonna take it! We're not gonna take it, anymore.

Lobby groups (1)

GoochOwnsYou (1343661) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428124)

I thought that was our Govts job (Australia) to be the official buttkissers of the US Govt and lobby groups

Re:Lobby groups (1, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429280)

Haven't you heard about our obesity epidemic in the US? There's plenty of ass for everyone to kiss.

i have "evil" verizon fios (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428138)

And I must report it is fast as fuck and they never fuck with me. Maybe verizon is evil to the MPAA but not to the customer, don't believe the hype.

Re:i have "evil" verizon fios (2, Informative)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428308)

You just violated their terms of service [provideocoalition.com] for posting obscenities on a public forum.

Enjoy your dial-up.

Re:i have "evil" verizon fios (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428868)

yeah, verizon REALLY cares, so much so that they will cut off a paying customer...or not. Enjoy battling your cable company to download a linux iso, fag.

Re:i have "evil" verizon fios (1)

aflag (941367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429642)

Do those clauses even have any legal validity?

Re:i have "evil" verizon fios (3, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429922)

Do those clauses even have any legal validity?

They may or they may not. Does it really matter when 'upholding your Rights' in court costs tens of thousands of dollars and takes years to resolve?

Re:i have "evil" verizon fios (1)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30430582)

You bet your ass it does. I wonder if there is someone who can say IAAL and tell us if no one challenging EULAs after so long can make them defacto "legal"? (Since they are understood.) I am sure there are some principals in law like this, but would they apply? Lets setup a fund for a single person and put our feet down. I would donate half my cable bill and get cut down 90% in speed to help "invest". (which is what would happen, from $42.95 at 6 mb to 34.95 at 1 mb... Bastages! I was going to do it until I found someone another ISP, but I would never get anything with it cutting off like it is. I may do it anyhow.)

Call me skeptical (4, Informative)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428144)

I do question the level of this research. Just as one example of sloppines: They describe checktor as "a company that’s meant to assist copyright holders," yet in the link they provide, it is very clear that checktor (a non-profit that scans torrents for viruses) has nothing to do with assisting copyright holders. In fact the page is telling copyright holders to bug off.

Re:Call me skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428206)

Offtopic as hell but I love your sig.

Re:Call me skeptical (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30429904)

The article has some other problems. The authors are very indignant about caching, but this actually *helps* the users get a faster download. What's wrong with caching?

Very inconclusive other than on the caching point, and they have it backwards.

I Know Who's at the Bottom of This (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428220)

Surely there's some way to blame Yassar Arafat for this!

ISPs interfering with P2P traffic isn't news (1)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428264)

In New Zealand, Xtra offer an unlimited plan [telecom.co.nz] , however they do traffic management on it. Meaning if you use any P2P software your connection is slowed down to dialup speed (much the same if you go over your cap on a limited plan) for about 24 hours after the program (Transmission etc.) is stopped before it returns back to full speed.

Re:ISPs interfering with P2P traffic isn't news (1)

strack (1051390) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428456)

no matter what the contract says, they should be sued for advertising that they provide 'internet' access when they effectively censor parts of the internet. not that im a lawyer or anything.

Re:ISPs interfering with P2P traffic isn't news (2, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428614)

Yes they should be sued for actually advertising exactly what they are delivering.

Re:ISPs interfering with P2P traffic isn't news (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429694)

What, an 'unlimited' plan which has limits?

Re:ISPs interfering with P2P traffic isn't news (2, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429118)

In New Zealand, Xtra offer an unlimited plan, however they do traffic management on it. Meaning if you use any P2P software your connection is slowed down to dialup speed (much the same if you go over your cap on a limited plan) for about 24 hours after the program (Transmission etc.) is stopped before it returns back to full speed.

That's an interesting description of it. I couldn't ever get anyone to tell me anything about how it worked. Perhaps it was the bittorrent updates for WoW that triggered it, but without having done any P2P, I found Xtra unusable. Completely unusable. 14000 ms latency WoWing (well, generally only 8000 ms, but it got bad and had a large number of disconnects). VoIP that dropped because of timeouts and no one was ever able to hear me (or me them). Oh, and perfect, absolutely great pings. Never lost one, and never had a ping above 200 ms back to the US. And web browsing wasn't bad. well, unless you wanted to watch a flash video. Or download something. Or check email over a secure connection.

The service was pretty much completely unusable. So I switched to a metered one (they are all metered, other than that one). And no, even in the off times, it didn't work. I got up at 2 am, the time they say should be unmanaged, and it was still a useless connection.

Bunk. (0)

Kickasso (210195) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428334)

The "study" in question was performed in an extremely amateurish, non-scientific way.

http://2jk.org/english/?p=153 [2jk.org]

Read it for a good laugh or too, but don't give it any weight because it deserves none.

Re:Bunk. (1)

Kickasso (210195) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428440)

"or too" --> "or two". I need some sleep...

Re:Bunk. (1)

ghostdoc (1235612) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428548)

/agree

I read the paper with increasing incredulousness.

While we were unable to review the Switzerland logs, mostly due to our failure to coordinate between volunteers’ time to run the scripts, Switzerland assisted us in finding some interesting conclusions. We left a server to seed a .torrent file of a public domain video; our volunteers downloaded and uploaded the file again and again, looking for potential interference by the ISP or RST packets. We were unable to produce any substantial results or conclusions regarding traffic, mostly due to Switzerland’s interface.

So they didn't get anything from Switzerland...

The Glasnost tests appeared to be more rigorously done, but 8 samples is a very low population, and there appeared to be no control.

Plus the out-of-context:

However, after a massive number of attempts, we found out that another user is seeding our torrent, from the IP address 212.235.15.36 and not from the libTorrent Client we used (screenshot, screenshot ). We found a mention of such IP address in an Israeli Hardware forum describing it as one of Netvision’s caching servers (HWZone, 2009).

And no attempt to ascertain and eliminate alternative causes for the results.

Oh, and the spelling mistakes.

Like Kickasso said...this is worthless.

Old news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428378)

http://www.torrentleech.org/faq.php#77
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3498568,00.html (sorry I can't find the english version)

This is not new and has been known for a while...

Told you so! (4, Interesting)

dushkin (965522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428484)

For the last year or so I've been in Israel, so naturally my ISP is Israeli.

I've spent countless hours with them on the phone trying to get around this thing. I told them bittorrent was acting ridiculously slow, but they gave me the old excuse of "not our fault, it's p2p" which I was willing to accept for a while.

Then I noticed skype started messing with me, giving me ridiculous dial-up quality sound. Fun fact, my ISP is also a phone provider.

Makes you wonder.

Re:Told you so! (1)

Antiocheian (859870) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428554)

Try a vpn

Re:Told you so! (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429136)

Most of the throttling stuff now can find a VoIP call in a VPN. A very steady stream of small packets of about 8k-64kbps? I don't care if you put that in a VPN, that looks like a VoIP call to them. Wanna hide it with packet bundling? There goes your jitter.

Re:Told you so! (1)

gilboad (986599) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428790)

Try changing ISP.
I'm using 013 and I can't say that I notice any slowdown in skype or bit-torrent. ... Most likely they are screwing around with my P2P (amule is ridiculously slow), but that's about it.

- Gilboa

Re:Told you so! (1)

dushkin (965522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428802)

I'll shop around and see what they can offer me.

Re:Told you so! (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428980)

It's a bit nasty of them to fool with skype. It's not as if it creates a huge demand on bandwidth, even if it does use P2P to underpin its protocol.

I've had this problem from time to time with certain university connections, and have sometimes found that changing skype's default port setting to port 80 helps to get around some of the lag. YMMV.

Re:Told you so! (1)

dushkin (965522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429358)

Will try!

The main problem (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428508)

The Main problem is that because there are so many violations of human rights in Israel, when you violate just another one no body seems to mind..

Is there anything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428678)

Is there anything Israelis don't interfere with? Be it on government, business or personal level?

I bet (1)

lastgoodnickname (1438821) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428728)

I bet the Dutch are somehow involved.

Re:I bet (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#30428984)

There's two kinds of people I can't stand. Those who are intolerent to other peoples cultures ... and the Dutch.

Deep Packet Inspection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30428902)

Moreover, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) as executed by several of the Israeli ISPs, may be considered illegal wiretapping

Okay, so DPI can be considered illegal wiretapping because you see what is in the stream? (And therefore spy on people) On the other hand what if the traffic classification was done statistically? Statistical methods doesn't read what is in the packet. So in that case the ISP wouldn't have a clue what exactly is in the traffic stream. Would that still be illegal wiretapping?

I find this interesting because there has been a lot of research of statistical traffic analysis.

i cold have showed you data 6 months ago proving (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429138)

/.
no news here

Would not surprise me in the least (3, Informative)

PHPfanboy (841183) | more than 4 years ago | (#30429464)

Given that:
1) the ISP situation is completely wacko in this country you pay first for a physical line connection (from Phone Monopoly or from Cable Monopoly) and then extra for a completely separate ISP (who are the ones investigated here) where both need extra payment for faster connections
2) the physical line companies are upgrading their infrastructure to give 50 mbps level speed and movie/TV content service and/or also provide VOD services

I would be surprised if this is NOT happening.

Israeli telecoms/utilities companies are not renowned for good value for money and there are plenty of IP-traffic related companies looking for cheap pilot installations which they can leverage as references when they go to sell in global markets.

Aside from Israelis not liking to pay for anything unless they have to, there are few legal purchasing outlets for digital content and if you want music/movies your choice is pretty much:
1) buy a CD (remember them!)
2) download it from P2P
3) have a credit card and bank account in a foreign country that does have an iTunes Music Store (for example)

Fir5T (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30429560)

supplies to private According tothis Is EFNet, and you Marketing surveys GNAA (GAY NIGGER part of GNAA if - Netcraft has list of other join in. It can be task. Research counterpart, the official GAY exactly what you've GNAA on slashdot, official GNAA irc to predict *BSD's downward spiral. In MISTAKE OF ELECTING Addreeses will lube is wiped off Has brought upon

How is this news? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30429804)

Hell, the jew has been trying to screw people out of their livelihood (and even their lives) for centuries. It's one of the reasons the jew is despised the world over. Personally, I immediately ban any Israeli I see on my peer-to-peer.Enough is leeched off of me by the jew through my taxes.

Re:How is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30430766)

Indeed. But there is a solution. [avrtech.com]

Bell is throttling us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30430626)

Not really news... Here in Canada Bell is throttling us for quite a while now.

Just search for Bell and Bypass Throttling on google...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?