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!

ISP's War On BitTorrent Hits World of Warcraft

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the collateral-damage dept.

Canada 252

jfruhlinger writes "Canadian Internet users have the prospect of a metered Internet looming over their head, and now World of Warcraft players who use Rogers Communications as their ISP are encountering serious throttling. The culprit seems to be Rogers' determination to go after BitTorrent. WoW uses BitTorrent as a utility to update game files — something most users probably aren't even aware of."

cancel ×

252 comments

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

too bad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648072)

oh what a great loss. no more WOW (aka internet crack) idiots

these are sad days indeed

Re:too bad (1, Interesting)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648270)

Or, alternatively, we keep the sheep addicted to the virtual world, the ISP somehow decides to recognize gaming as a legitimate use of the network, they refuse to throttle the bandwidth for something that isn't illegal, and we get to keep our p2p channels open as a result.

More likely, I think, a middle ground would be for Blizzard to somehow use a nonstandard port for their torrent activity, and then the ISPs throttle p2p traffic on ports that aren't that one. Yes, the rest of us probably get around that by manually configuring to use the new port, but it's just an idea. My ideas are never bug-free, so somebody feel free either to tell me that I'm completely wrong or to figure out what to change to make it work. Maybe if Blizzard uses a different port and somehow signs the packets...I don't know...I'm really just BS'ing all over my keyboard here....

Re:too bad (4, Insightful)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648310)

You'll regret that you didn't stand up for your WOW addict friends when the internet police get finished with them and decide to come after your goat porn next.

Re:too bad (2)

arthur.gunn (1687888) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648474)

You do know your audience.

Re:too bad (2)

geekprime (969454) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648618)

So you'd rather they spent their time on /. ?

Are you entirely deranged?

Re:too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648856)

point taken.

Re:too bad (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648664)

In case you don't see the point, they are punishing the tool for its (mis)use. P2P and bittorrent do, as this shows, have very legal and very useful purposes. Yes, it's used to distribute files illegally, but it can also be used legally.

Should we outlaw something or allow companies to arbitrary label tools illegal just because some people abuse them?

Re:too bad (2)

Cali Thalen (627449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648872)

I've seen illegal copies of music on web pages, and look at all the stuff on Youtube that shouldn't be there. I've seen people selling many questionable things out of their cars. Planes are frequently used to smuggle illegal drugs. Hell, you can find stores selling stuff that they're not supposed to be selling in the 'right' parts of the world. Shut all those down too by removing the tools?

If we can just get *most* of the things on bittorrent to be legal, maybe...naw, the music industry has to have a scapegoat.

Re:too bad (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649210)

... bbbuut it's THE INTERNET! It's different! (... somehow?)

Re:too bad (2)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648898)

That implies that the ISP cares about whether the bits are legal or not. I don't think they do. What they care about is having to actually give people the bandwidth they paid for.

Make $HIGH_BW_PROTOCOL so slow that people just don't bother, save money on not upgrading routers and not paying for bandwidth. Funnel extra profit to CEO. win.

What do you expect? (1, Troll)

taktoa (1995544) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648086)

It's Canada.

Re:What do you expect? (2)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648100)

It'll bleed over into the US soon enough.

The MafiAA usually try out their latest "fuck the consumer" crap in Canadia before they bring it down here. The Canadians aren't used to fighting back.

Re:What do you expect? (2, Funny)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648200)

Wouldn't it be better to try this in France?

*ducks*

DADVSI and HADOPI (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648342)

Wouldn't it be better [for the RIAA and MPAA] to try this [latest "fuck the consumer" crap] in France?

They already are. What do you think DADVSI and HADOPI are?

Re:What do you expect? (2)

e9th (652576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648532)

It might be better to try it in Washington, DC. Especially if they're lucky enough to get this judge, [torrentfreak.com] a former RIAA lobbyist and pirate-chaser.

Re:What do you expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35649120)

How's that DMCA working out for you folks down there in the USA? We're still free to transcode media up here, and we've been fighting off clones of your bullshit legislation for years.

Sources? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648140)

Bottom line, if you're a Rogers Communications customer and play WoW, you'd better find an alternative ISP for your patches, at least until this situation is resolved.

Fixed that for ya. I've heard that TekSavvy is a great alternative.

Re:Sources? (4, Informative)

ZDRuX (1010435) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649046)

I dropped my Rogers subscription just last week and moved to TekSavvy. Speeds are good (the same as Rogers), I'm basically paying 50% less, and I'm getting a consistent 15Mbits down. For anybody out there with Rogers.. please do all of Canada a favor and switch, even though Rogers is the one leasing the lines.

F..... Rogers/Bell (0)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648144)

I am a happy TekSavy's customer. And because i like how it sounds, F............. you Rogers/Bell

Re:F..... Rogers/Bell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648238)

Enjoying Bell's upstream throttling of TekSavvy? It's a choice between two evils, the other ISPs up here are just making a deal with the devil on your behalf.

Having said that, I agree... FUCK YOU Rogers/Bell.

Re:F..... Rogers/Bell (3, Informative)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648738)

I just switched to TekSavvy Cable, which is being rolled out in a few metro areas. No throttling, no spurious RST packets. For the first time in years, I can download torrents reliably and play on Xbox Live without timeouts... This is like old-school broadband, before the telcos started filtering everything to shit.

Re:F..... Rogers/Bell (1)

snkiz (1786676) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649096)

MLPPP baby Full speed day and night. Now if only we could get bell to honour the speed matching rulings we'd be set.

This is my suprise face. (5, Interesting)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648148)

I'm sure a lot of us saw this coming. Back when I was living in some apartments, the only broadband was a cable company (Ygnition) that does apartment complexes, etc. Little choice for broadband providers. So I went with them. Their TOS forbid bit torrent by name. Thankfully, it was either an empty threat or they knew enough about what was going on to ignore WoW update traffic.

Boycott rogers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648150)

They aren't the only ISP, and it will show the other ISPs the consequences if they decide to cap or meter usage.

Re:Boycott rogers.. (1)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648280)

That they'll lose 1% of their customers, while charging the rest a hell of a lot more?

Re:Boycott rogers.. (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648370)

Boycott them anyway. At least you won't be one of the ones they charge "a hell of a lot more" to.

Re:Boycott rogers.. (1)

faclonX (759436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648426)

Where I live, its one of 2 (and then the resellers). Its either Bell for DSL, or Rogers for cable. All of the third party providers have to use Robbers or Bell as their transport provider to the plug in the wall in your house/apartment/domicile....

Now, TekSavvy is awesome, I have them for my DSL link and static IP I use for my servers. I get notification before scheduled downtime, I have never had an issue with them, and they're fair and affordable. I also have a Rogers cable line because 2.5-3Mbit DSL is just not fast enough when you want to do anything more than browse light pages. Rogers constantly fucks up everything. I had to fight with them to get things set up the first day. Bell Canada is no better, they 'auto-renew' contracts without prior consent, and then attempt to charge you outlandish termination fees. Fuck the big cable/telcos, fuck Cogrobellushaw.

Re:Boycott rogers.. (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648472)

OR the lack of negative consequences....

There are positive consequences like a less-congested network; not as much bandwidth/new hardware might need to be purchased.

The reduction / delay of new costs may exceed the small dip in revenues from a few lost WoW players (in the vast minority among ISP users).

More likely the complaints go to Blizzard, and blizzard eventually laments the consequences of having chosen BitTorrent for update distribution (as they should, as they should).

Re:Boycott rogers.. (1)

tycoex (1832784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648560)

I'd laugh if Blizzard ended up suing them over this.

In the words of Yamamoto... (2)

Ocyris (1742966) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648234)

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Did some digging (4, Informative)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648258)

I don't play WOW myself but I hate selective service blocking...found this digging around for a couple of minutes:

Thank you for your letters of February 23rd and 25th, 2011 regarding the impact of Rogers Internet traffic management practices (ITMP) on the interactive game called World of Warcraft.

Our tests have determined that there is a problem with our traffic management equipment that can interfere with World of Warcraft. We have been in contact with the game manufacturer and we have been working with our equipment supplier to overcome this problem.

We recently introduced a software modification to solve the problems our customers are experiencing with World of Warcraft. However, there have been recent changes to the game, which has created new problems. A second software modification to address these new issues will not be ready until June.

We have determined that the problem occurs only when our customers are simultaneously using peer-to-peer file sharing applications and running the game. Therefore we recommend turning off the peer-to-peer setting in the World of Warcraft game and ensuring that no peer-to-peer applications are running on any connected computer. Rogers will engage our customers to ensure they are aware of these recommendations, while continuing to work on a longer term solution.

We sincerely regret the inconvenience that some of our customers have experienced in playing World of Warcraft and will continue to work with the game supplier and our technology supplier to solve the remaining problems as soon as possible. source [battle.net]

(I have doubts about that portion above in bold.)

Re:Did some digging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648312)

i am a rogers customer. when i have utorrent running, wow disconnects... this did not always happen... and torrents used to be faster?

Re:Did some digging (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648440)

Isn't Blizzard downloader a sharing application for WoW?

Re:Did some digging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648468)

Well, yes, that's true, except that the peer-to-peer file sharing application IS the game.

Re:Did some digging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648494)

Therefore we recommend turning off the peer-to-peer setting in the World of Warcraft game

That means they don't give a shit whether the torrent software is WoW or uTorrent, they're throttling that shit anyway.

Re:Did some digging (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648502)

Given that the Blizzard World of Warcraft updater is a separate bittorrent client/application that runs in the background while playing the game, there is truth to their statement.

Re:Did some digging (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648548)

The Blizzard patcher service, which is Bittorrent based, can be set to run in the background while you're in game: you play, and a portion of your bandwidth gets pinched off to update other players who haven't got the latest patch. It spells that out immediately after the portion you've bolded, actually: don't let the patcher run while you're in game, if you don't want it (or Rogers, by extension) fucking around with your throughput.

Hell, this can be a problem even without caps: if you saturate your upstream with a torrent seed or twenty, or don't think to throttle that big queue of Linux ISOs you're uploading to an FTP, your ping times will go through the roof and Warcraft performance will go straight into the Dalaran sewer.

Re:Did some digging (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648938)

Hell, this can be a problem even without caps: if you saturate your upstream with a torrent seed or twenty, or don't think to throttle that big queue of Linux ISOs you're uploading to an FTP, your ping times will go through the roof and Warcraft performance will go straight into the Dalaran sewer.

I don't think the Blizzard patcher allows you to change such settings. I used to play WoW and I swear my ISP was throttling my bandwidth when it came to bittorrent. I almost never used it but to get Linux distros and and WoW patches; I'd see the first five minutes had good bandwidth then it would suddenly drop to lower than dialup speeds. It made getting patches on patch day a pain in the butt especially if a raid was planned. Half the raid would be offline waiting for the patch to download.

Re:Did some digging (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649238)

There's an all-or-nothing switch - you can't throttle it or set limits, and of course you can't use your own torrent client to download it.

And the non-p2p download (via HTTP I believe) is slow as fuck, comparatively.

Re:Did some digging (3, Informative)

eternaleye (1998244) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649064)

Interestingly, that's not supposed to happen. The original design of the internet (specifically, the congestion control mechanism) doesn't account for the massive buffers routers carry nowadays, and relies on packet overflows resulting in packets being dropped immediately, rather than after some enormous buffer fills up. Those buffers completely screw over latency during large transfers, a symptom of which is the ping lag you mention - because the buffer slows the response to overflow, the congestion control on the big transfer thinks there's no congestion, and speeds up. When the buffer fills, it doesn't drain properly because as soon as it starts to drain the large transfer fills it up again. Meanwhile, the ping has to wait while the entirety of the buffer is flushed ahead of it; that can be on the order of 30 seconds, an eternity on the network. This is the main place that the idea that BitTorrent oversaturates the network comes from - these buffers are the real cause, not BitTorrent. Even FTP with large enough files will cause the same problem; there just weren't enough people doing large transfers for it to be visible before BitTorrent. Look up 'bufferbloat' and visit http://gettys.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com] for more info.

Re:Did some digging (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648628)

Hasn't Rogers throttled torrent traffic during peak time for a while now? You max out at 30kb/s.

Oh and WoW's shitty torrent client does not play well with slower dsl lines. We used to have a 3mb/768k line and the client would max out my upload and then strangle the download speed to almost nothing. Large updates could take days. I found a program that runs on Windows 7 called Netlimiter where you can throttle bandwidth for individual applications. Now the updater gets limited to 10k up, fuck 'em.

Re:Did some digging (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649122)

Hasn't Rogers throttled torrent traffic during peak time for a while now? You max out at 30kb/s.

Holy crap dude... I knew you North Americans had it bad when it came to ISP interference, but that's just awful. As we speak my uTorrent is hitting about 2MByte/sec (which is exactly what my DSL line is rated for - 16MBit) on the latest Simpsons and Family Guy episodes...

Are file upload sites (Rapidshare, Netload and so on) an alternative? Plain HTTP downloads, so no throttling, theoretically?

Re:Did some digging (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649252)

Yea. They can't be bothered to let you type a fucking limit yourself, or yet you use a real client to download the thing.

I think that part is what pisses me off the most. I've posted the suggestion countless times in the bugs forum, been told countless times they would take it under consideration....

Re:Did some digging (3, Informative)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649034)

We have determined that the problem occurs only when our customers are simultaneously using peer-to-peer file sharing applications and running the game. Therefore we recommend turning off the peer-to-peer setting in the World of Warcraft game and ensuring that no peer-to-peer applications are running on any connected computer. Rogers will engage our customers to ensure they are aware of these recommendations, while continuing to work on a longer term solution.

Are they missing the point or just playing dumb?

For one, their "advice" isn't going to accomplish anything. That's like fixing a broken limb by amputating it.

Secondly, Rogers is the one that's breaking things, so it's their responsibility, not the responsibility of their users. Whether a workaround exists is irrelevant, because they shouldn't be breaking things in the first place.

DSL FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648274)

Having the ability to uncouple my ISP with the DSL provider, and having an AWESOME local ISP, I really like to laugh when stories like this crop up. DSL may be less bandwidth but with the right tweaks (AKA nag your DSL provider) you can get low latency connections similar to cable, with none of these silly problems.

Re:DSL FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648394)

yeah except you'd pay out the ass for the privilege of metered bandwidth with at&t, so no real win for most people. unfortunately things are going to have to get much worse before they get better.

Re:DSL FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648634)

Sorry, you only have this half right. It should be "things are just going to get worse". There is no better coming later on no matter how bad things get.

I use bit torrent for legitimate file sharing, like Linux distros, but as you read more about the idiots and their concerns about music and movie piracy and sharing kiddie porn you'll begin to realize that they don't even realize there are legitimate uses for the technology and even if they did they wouldn't care.

They have only "Save the children" or "Save the entertainment cartels" on their minds. Well, what little minds they have, anyway.

BitTorrent in WoW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648276)

The BitTorrent feature in WoW's updater used to download patches is completely optional. It is on by default, but can be turned off very easily. Blizzard didn't implement this functionality to save on bandwidth (unlike what many reports have been suggesting) but to allow users outside of North America to download the patches quicker. Also it helps a lot during times of heavy load (such as any major patch which is downloaded by 12 million people at once).

Re:BitTorrent in WoW (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649258)

Yea, and your 40 minute update (with p2p on and a non-retarded ISP) baloons to hours, if not over a day.

Sounds like a good trade to me! ...

Derp (1)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648322)

Who would have expected BitTorrent to be used for lawful data dissemination? What next, entire films being produced exclusively for the protocol!?

Re:Derp (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648964)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but you do know that most Linux distros also use bittorrent to distribute, right? Packages and individual packages do not use it but if you're trying to get the whole Debian image, there's no better way.

Re:Derp (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649190)

but you do know that most Linux distros also use bittorrent to distribute, right?

Roger that. But guess what? Rogers don't give a fuck about Linux, not for their customers at least.

Re:Derp (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649268)

Jidgo is pretty damn slick!

That can't be!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648352)

It's common knowledge that BitTorrent is only used for copyright infringement! Wait, that can only mean that WoW players are all pirates! And here I thought it was only the Threepwood [ign.com] Guild. But then, what do I know, I don't play.

Not news.. (1, Informative)

Smoke2Joints (915787) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648364)

..for most of the rest of the world, where data caps have been in play for some time, if not since the beginning of broadband. Having unmetered data is the exception, not the norm. Calling for boycotts is very funny indeed.

Re:Not news.. (5, Insightful)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648842)

No... no it's not.

Just because a large portion of the world has shitty internet, doesn't mean everyone should have shitty internet. It's only funny in the sad/pathetic/hopeless sort of way... just because they let it happen doesn't mean we do. If everyone else drank urine, and we drank water... we'd protest when people started pissing in our faces too...

I'm fine with universally limited bandwidth, ie: Xk/s down, Yk/s up... but throttling specific uses of it is retarded... from 00:00 to 18:00 I can download "normal" things (HTTP, etc) at 1.7MB/s (which also used to apply to torrents), torrents are limited to about 350k/s... between 18:00 and 00:00 it's limited to 120k/s... which isn't terrible, however whichever way my ISP chose to implement it, fucks up everything else at the same time (even if I haven't downloaded any torrents), it turns my cable connection into noisy WiFi... websites that take a few attempts to connect, occasional messenger disconnects, etc. It was "unlimited" for years, till about 2 weeks ago.

I wouldn't have much of a problem with that either, except they still charge the same price for basically half the connection. No real alternatives either except to rent a higher package from the same ISP (to get speeds that the current plan says it provides), or switch the ISP which also means switching the connection to WiFi, or Satellite... both of which are useless, regardless of whatever arbitrary speed in some other country may be.

Re:Not news.. (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648944)

See, the thing is, throttling only makes sense on unlimited connections. If you charge customers for bandwidth, the motivation for throttling goes away - you want them to use more bandwidth so you can bill them more. The rest of the world has perfectly fine internet - its the US/Canada that has shitty internet, because the payment models you demand fly in the face of reality, and your government-endorsed telco monopolists screw with your connection as a result.

I'd much rather my 500GB-capped, free-for-all connection than your "unlimited (some limits may apply)" connection.

Re:Not news.. (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649276)

I'd much rather pay for a rate percentile commit. It works fine at the DC, but for some reason the "classic" ISPs can't figure it out.

Re:Not news.. (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649312)

Just because a large portion of the world has shitty internet, doesn't mean everyone should have shitty internet. It's only funny in the sad/pathetic/hopeless sort of way... just because they let it happen doesn't mean we do. If everyone else drank urine, and we drank water... we'd protest when people started pissing in our faces too...

You see, seems to me that one may finish in needing to make a choice between "eating" unlimited amount of crappy bandwidth or "drinking the piss" of paying for how much you download without bandwidth compromises.
'Cause I can't see how "unlimited download with unlimited bandwidth" is economically sustainable - not in the near future.

For non-Canadians, let me explain that Rogers..... (3, Informative)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648390)

...are a bunch of dicks in everything they do. They've never thought of a fee that is too insulting for their customers. They wrote the book on poor service. They only exist because the government provides protection to a corporation that provides too many political contributions.

Re:For non-Canadians, let me explain that Rogers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648450)

Ahhh, you Canadians.

Let me introduce you to a little company out of Philly that we like to call - Comcast.

Re:For non-Canadians, let me explain that Rogers.. (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649058)

Compared to Rogers, Comcast is eligible for canonization.

Re:For non-Canadians, let me explain that Rogers.. (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649288)

Our office has a Comcast business line (while we wait for some jackass to hurry up and fix our broken fiber) - several times a day, our latency spikes up to - in some cases - 15 fucking seconds.

MTR graphs show this latency spike is always in the middle of Comcast's local network. ... I think once you get past the first few circles of Hell, it doesn't really matter how evil you are compared to your neighbors.

Re:For non-Canadians, let me explain that Rogers.. (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649244)

I have never had to deal with an American ISP, but I suspect that Canadian telecoms are worse than American ones. I recently read a financial article that said that American telecoms need to follow Canadian telecoms to achieve better profits. ie - charge more, provide less. Canadian telecoms are world leaders in monopoly power abuse.

Re:For non-Canadians, let me explain that Rogers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648874)

As someone who is not a Canadian, it is my understanding that your politicians are not permitted to accept contributions or donations from corporations as per the Federal Accountability Act.

Perhaps you should get your facts straight before you attempt to mix two different concerns in your single rant.

Re:For non-Canadians, let me explain that Rogers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35649260)

I'm on a horse!

Re:For non-Canadians, let me explain that Rogers.. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648930)

At least they wrote a book, it's kinda impossible to get anything written or otherwise binding out of my ISP...

Re:For non-Canadians, let me explain that Rogers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35649052)

Sounds a lot like how Turbine runs their games, i.e. D&D Online, Asheron's Call, and Lord of the Rings Online.

To make a long story short: the "support" system is there to fix problems people have with the game...by banning the people experiencing the problem.

Report a graphics glitch? BANNED.
Online GM harassing you over his personal religious beliefs? BANNED.
Ask why somebody was banned? BANNED.
Discuss their banning practices on a forum or blog? BANNED, and the place you posted is "asked" by their lawyers to remove the posting.
And they even have emplyees run low-level alts in the player population IN ORDER to find people expressing discontent with the game (i.e. secret police) ...and then BANNED.

And so on, and so on. In the meantime this lack of reachable feedback by others means that NEW players only see the GOOD reviews (most of which are astroturf), and get sucked into spending money on a game that they will eventually be banned from.

FUCK Turbine!

Re:For non-Canadians, let me explain that Rogers.. (1)

paltemalte (767772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649124)

If they wrote the book, then AT&T in the US is about to make the movie on poor customer service. Don't forget to join the facebook protest group against AT&Ts bandwidth capping. Don't let this happen in America. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_186439608067383 [facebook.com]

Re:For non-Canadians, let me explain that Rogers.. (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649254)

I beg to differ. Bell is very competitive in providing poor service.

Used to be on Rogers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648408)

Used to be on Rogers. YES, you get fast connection. But, they are on http://wiki.vuze.com/w/Bad_ISPs
Internet is not longger a luxury "In some countries such as Estonia,[3] France,[4] Finland,[5] Greece[6] and Spain,[7] Internet access has already been made a human right" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

Reading the article..... (0)

Mistlefoot (636417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648432)

Reading the article will show that:

If you use peer to peer applications (bittorrent) at the same time as playing WoW you will have latency problems.

To quote: 'the problem occurs when customers are “simultaneously using peer-to-peer file sharing applications” '

The problem does not happen when people are playing WoW with not torrents happening in the background. I wouldn't venture a guess that most gamers who are worried about latency would not be file sharing while wondering wondering why their pings times are so high.

Re:Reading the article..... (1)

Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648482)

And understanding the article, you would realize that the updater runs while the game is being played. The current World of Warcraft client updates during play as well as before, allowing the player to get in game faster. The updater IS a bittorrent client.

Re:Reading the article..... (0)

Mistlefoot (636417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649084)

I understand the article just fine. And I play WoW just fine too. Did you follow the links and read "We have determined that the problem occurs only when our customers are simultaneously using peer-to-peer file sharing applications and running the game". Or are you claiming that Rogers is telling the CRTC that WoW is a "file sharing application"?

And I've been following this quite vigilantly.

Rogers claim is that using the bittorrent updated simultaneously with other bittorrent clients causes issues.

http://aegir.openmedia.ca/sites/openmedia.ca/files/Complaint%20-%20Roger%27s%20Internet%20Traffic%20Management%20-%20K.%20Thompson.pdf
http://aegir.openmedia.ca/sites/openmedia.ca/files/Rogers%20letter%20to%20CRTC%20re%20ITMPs%20Mar22-11.pdf

Re:Reading the article..... (1)

cecille (583022) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648488)

I'm with Rogers and I've seen this a lot. For me, it's not about high latency, it's an auto-disconnect. If a torrent download starts while the game is on, you get disconnected, full stop. Very annoying, especially since we've asked about it before and they basically said that we were idiots who didn't know how to set router priorities.

Re:Reading the article..... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649304)

I'm with Rogers and I've seen this a lot. For me, it's not about high latency, it's an auto-disconnect. If a torrent download starts while the game is on, you get disconnected, full stop. Very annoying, especially since we've asked about it before and they basically said that we were idiots who didn't know how to set router priorities.

I'd be inclined to agree. You did connect your uplink to Rogers, for example.

Re:Reading the article..... (2)

Darkmaple (1517115) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648584)

Cable company FUD. All I have is anecdotal evidence (DSL Reports [dslreports.com] ] should have more information), but the throttling occurs whether or not you happen to be running ther P2P software.
What's more, this is affecting ervices like PSN and XBox Live, but because WoW is just so huge, it's the one attracting all the attention.

Re:Reading the article..... (2)

MortimerV (896247) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648714)

If people run torrents (the WoW updater) their connection is throttled. If they run WoW with a throttled connection, there is a problem. If they don't run WoW with a throttled connection, there is no problem.

Either way, the connection is throttled. It's just that if you don't play WoW during it you're less likely to notice.

Re:Reading the article..... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648982)

Unless Rogers is throttling bittorrent regardless and trying to blame the game playing when it isn't a factor.

Re:Reading the article..... (1)

MortimerV (896247) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649130)

That's what I meant. If you use bittorrent, you get throttled. You only notice it if you play WoW, so their solution is to tell people not to play WoW (or any game) so they won't notice. It's not a solution at all, they're just telling their customers to cover their eyes so they won't see the problem.

Re:Reading the article..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35649222)

That's NOT what Rodgers said.

Rogers stated that the problem occurs when bittorrent is active AND they are in game. And before people start complaining you can set it just fine to not start the download client while you are playing. Hell in the options it even mentions that this might give problems with your gaming experience. It will then start the client after you exit WoW, problem solved.

Re:Reading the article..... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649320)

So you mean they respond to torrent traffic by throttling everything? WTF!?

Is this some $40 Traffic "Shaper" they have patched into their network!? They can't throttle the specific connections or protocols that are objectionable?

OH CANADA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648476)

CANADLOL

WOW and other games affected (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648486)

If I'm not mistaken, the torrent aspect of WOW also extends to its normal gameplay connection since Cataclysm. In that they altered their network traffic protocols which resulted in high ping times for users of various ISPs. I think RIFT has the same issues with its traffic being delayed by ISP traffic management software because it sees it as P2P traffic.

I think this is an example of how the witchhunt against pirates and the reluctance to upgrade systems to meet consumer demand will hurt innovation and use of the internet overall.

My understanding is developers are making these protocol changes because they are more efficient - except they are being blocked by ISPs.

Sadly, we do need government regulation to keep the playing fields level, and to ensure that we see continued growth and development of various industries over the Internet. If every ISP employs the same measures, and smaller providers must follow the traffic restrictions of their own larger providers, there is no Choice and Free Market to influence the behaviour of these corporations. It is also clear that these corporations are working hand in hand with IP Holders such as the MPAA and the RIAA. So there is no decoupling of the various business considerations.

I'm not sure why Anti-Monopoly and Anti-Trust laws haven't kicked in yet to prevent what is obviously destructive to competition and a free market. Perhaps Rogers wants Blizzard to knock on its doors and offer money to allow WOW traffic to flow unimpeded?

We may all need to pay a separate VPN provider to play our MMORPGs and other games in the future. Then they'll probably spend MILLIONS developing software that can inspect VPN packets and determine if it's likely to be gaming, video, or torrents. Instead, of course, in spending those millions in upgrading infrastructure.

Make no mistake, none of these companies are strapped for cash. None of them would be pushed to the brink by the use of World of Warcraft, Torrents, or Netflix across their networks. They post >40% profits.

Re:WOW and other games affected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648984)

I'm not sure why Anti-Monopoly and Anti-Trust laws haven't kicked in yet ...

Tee hee.

The cooperation of our telecommunication companies are a key requirement tot he success of the domestic spying laws the Cons passed in a secret Caucus with the Libs back in 2004 (full disclosure is set for 2015, right around the same time our massive debt is supposed to magically disappear). As such the telcos are free to rape and pillage as they please, violate monopoly laws and use their current monopoly power to branch out to new media and mediums (ie: Shaw purchasing Global). Quid pro quo is the means of law and order in Canada.

Nonsense (3, Funny)

tycoex (1832784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648538)

Everyone knows that Torrents are only used for illegal file sharing.

Friend's Wireless Provider (2)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648540)

My friend's wireless provider does the same thing. When I say wireless, I don't mean cellular and I don't mean wifi, it's some local provider for some corner of our county delivering wireless internet on a licensed spectrum.

Anyways, his terms of service explicitly forbid Bit Torrent and after three days of their service he was disconnected. He called up their tech support line and their first question was, "Well do you play WoW?" After he answered yes, they re-enabled his service and apologized for the inconvenience.

Bit Torrent = Evil except when it keeps people paying their ISP bill...

Re:Friend's Wireless Provider (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648642)

That's probably a decent scenario to actually disable the bit torrent functionality.

Re:Friend's Wireless Provider (2)

Kargan (250092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648654)

When I say wireless, I don't mean cellular and I don't mean wifi, it's some local provider for some corner of our county delivering wireless internet on a licensed spectrum.

The actual term for this is "fixed wireless".

The More You Know

Re:Friend's Wireless Provider (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648978)

Bit Torrent = Evil except when it keeps people paying their ISP bill...

The majority of copyright infringers, err, "pirates", pay their ISP bill.

So, I propose a patch to your statement:

Bit Torrent = Evil except when dealing with corporations who haven't bought your nation's legislature.

Re:Friend's Wireless Provider (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35649048)

I really find this odd. Why do you single out BT as "evil"? It's a workaround for ISP laziness in the first place, as we can't use multicasting, and I don't think one should be penalized so indiscriminately for using the service (internet) one is paying for.

My Rogers experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648672)

I actually had to give up my Rogers service due to this same problem. That was a couple years ago, at the time I let them know that I wanted to be able to use the service I paid for or to cancel my account. After I kept turning down the discounts they used to try and keep me as a customer(discounts on a service that wasn't usable for what I wanted it for) they were more than happy to cancel my account.

They told me that I was in the minority and the average customer doesn't complain. The reason they get away with their terrible service(and customer service) is that a lot of times they're the only game in town.

DDoS Attack Imminent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648686)

Rogers:

As a Canadafag anon with access to a good number of your customers' computers infected with a botnet, I suggest you get rid of your restrictions on your internets, else you're about to be flooded with a good amount of your customers asking why Rogers is putting child porn on their computer.

Have fun,
r.

Re:DDoS Attack Imminent (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35649212)

Please keep your 4chan, anon, worthless shit on /b/. You and Anonymous are a waste of packets.

Encryption (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 3 years ago | (#35648782)

People still P2P too. The traffic is just encrypted instead. If the WOW client doesn't support it, blocking P2P are only going to hinder the nice innocent people. The whole telecommunication ecosystem in Canada is scary. It is painful to read in the newspaper that people argue that Parliament should not intervene with the CRTC. Which is a complete joke. Any government organization that does not have the fear of having responsibility to the people is just asking to be abused.

Re:Encryption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35649102)

These days any kind of connection that is unknown is classed as P2P traffic, this includes encrypted P2P.
Even the game protocol between client and server with EVE Online gets classed as P2P traffic, if they change the protocol slightly. Last time was because of a version number bump in their login messages, making the protocol unknown->P2P from the point of view of a deep-packet-inspecting traffic shaper.

If you want to make a game or anything else these days using a proprietary protocol better make sure you send the specifications to the traffic shaping companies and hope they want to make an update for their equipment. I suspect in the future they will charge any company that makes a new protocol a monthly fee.

It is like virus scanner, except you can't run anything until they know the signature of your protocol.

Same old, same old. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648950)

It's been a few years since I played WoW, but my (old) ISP used to block all p2p traffic as well.

This wasn't a problem for me, though, as the Blizzard Updater had a HTTP-only fallback. Has this feature been removed or something?

Oversight by companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35648998)

It really shits me when companies fail to realize that the BT protocol is not just about illegal download and that it does have real world and legitimate purposes.

Ban all cars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35649224)

Car accidents can cause deaths! People get drunk, then drive cars and kill people, or drive into buildings or posts and kill themselves. The solution: ban all cars. Its the cars fault. Its either that, or sue the car manufacturers for these problems! Cars are just like bittorent! And bittorrent is bad, just like cars! NOOO, its not what people do with them, some of it good, some of it bad, we are going for blanket stupidity here! BAN ALL CARS! (oh, and bittorrent too).

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>