Comcast blocking certian traffic

WillyP · Post by **WillyP** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:14 pm

Data Discrimination? To me this is fraud, as they are not forthcoming about what they are doing.

AP tests

Why do companies repeatedly try to pull crap like this, and then try to deny it? It all comes out in the end! They could have said, 'we are testing methods to manage bandwidth and this is one we are considering'. Instead they use deliberately vague and misleading statements or flat out denial.

Obviously, there are better ways to manage bandwidth. For example they could do what most hosting companies do, get a reasonable amount of bandwidth for a certain price, charge by the meg or gig for more. Maybe they could discount off-peak traffic, people would develop technology to take advantage of that.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:18 pm

Let your money do the talking, if you can find a better service, go with it.

The telco companies wouldn't be as successful as they are today if it werent for the people who are filling their pockets, the consumers.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:36 pm

the odd thing about net neutrality: you can't let a single protocol dominate others, so a proper implementation of Net neutrality would require throttling on stuff like bit-torrent.

WillyP · Post by **WillyP** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:46 pm

The only alternative I have here is dialup.

I am not advocating net neutrality, to me it should be, a bit is a bit, whether it a torrent or a big file, or a bunch of small files. If you are paying for, say 600GB/month, what difference to Comcast should it make what the content is, as long as it's legal?

And really, what gets me is the underhand way they are going about it.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:46 pm

This is why BitTorrent invented protocol encryption, everything but the data packets are encrypted.

WillyP · Post by **WillyP** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:52 pm

So you are saying comcast would have no way of knowing it was a part of a torrent?

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:58 pm

in theory.

but, telco's have more than one customer, and well, they only have so much bandwidth for their customers.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:24 pm

Yes in theory. This just means there is yet another cat and mouse game that people using Peer to Peer will have to play.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:36 pm

AT&T is doing the same thing.

Raise your hand if you didn't see that one coming.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:03 pm

WillyP wrote:If you are paying for, say 600GB/month, what difference to Comcast should it make what the content is, as long as it's legal?

They shouldn't even care if it's legal.
Personal privacy konichiwa desu desu desu

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:47 am

The traffic is going through their network. You may not like it, but they absolutely have the right to take action against abuses of their system, as long as they do it legally.

Note: If even 10% of what gets transferred via torrents is legal, I'd be really surprised. I don't use torrents, so as long as Comcast doesn't block the usual Descent3 ports, I'm fine with it.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:58 am

you do know, ISP's have always absolved themselves of personal responsibility for whatever content shows up.

This behaviour is now saying 'yea now we have to tell every one of our users what's ok and what's not' and now thousands of customers have to go 'hey is it ok if i do this?', like they're asking mommy for permission.

it's stupid.

heh I like the 'if it doesn't happen to me it's ok' argument. it's funny.

I got a question for ya. if someone's gettin punched in the face, is that ok as long as it doesn't affect you?

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:43 pm

The way I see it, this is not a case of \"innocent little user getting punched by cable company\", this is a case of \"cable company trying to keep abusive usage out of its system\".

Frankly, I'm a Comcast user because their internet service is the best available here. I appreciate the fact that they limit bandwidth abuse. I just can't empathize with the \"poor little Torrent users who can't illegally download/distribute files any more\".

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:52 pm

ya well when it becomes a case of ban a whole range because of one person then it's a problem.

Look at what AT&T's done. they've blocked someone's web page being displayed because it 'may offend a few people'. Hey wake up already, just because it may offend someone doesn't mean big corp should play babysitter and make that person 'play nice'. seriously, have people completely lost their brains?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:49 pm

Think about it this way Foil. I could get together with a couple friends and claim to Comcast that you are posting abusive stuff or otherwise doing something you shouldn't be and get Comcast to either use this system to block all your access to the DBB and Descent 3 MP games, or get your internet service terminated completely. And there is absolutely nothing you could do about it.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:07 pm

Ferno wrote:ya well when it becomes a case of ban a whole range because of one person then it's a problem.

Look at what AT&T's done. they've blocked someone's web page being displayed because it 'may offend a few people'. Hey wake up already, just because it may offend someone doesn't mean big corp should play babysitter and make that person 'play nice'. seriously, have people completely lost their brains?

Say, isn't that what China has been doing for years?

WillyP · Post by **WillyP** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:25 am

Foil wrote:The way I see it, this is not a case of "innocent little user getting punched by cable company", this is a case of "cable company trying to keep abusive usage out of its system".

Frankly, I'm a Comcast user because their internet service is the best available here. I appreciate the fact that they limit bandwidth abuse. I just can't empathize with the "poor little Torrent users who can't illegally download/distribute files any more".

I don't disagree with Comcast managing bandwidth... it's just the way they are going about it. If they came right out and said 'Torrents are bad and we are blocking them' then at least people could discuss the reasoning behind that decision and feel that Comcast was behaving in a reasonable manner. now I have to wonder what is next. I'm sure gaming uses a lot of bandwidth, perhaps they will spoof the server and send a disconnect packet in the middle of a game! hey, I got disconnected least night, come to think of it... how do I know it wasn't Comcast meddling? It took somebody with very specific technical knowledge to discover Comcast's meddling with torrents. Come to think of it, I've had torrents fail... not that I use them often, but I had no idea why I could not get them to work.

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:17 pm

How To Bypass Comcast’s BitTorrent Throttling
http://torrentfreak.com/how-to-bypass-c ... ng-071021/

Should this bit get put in the Tech area?

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:30 pm

Banning torrents is not reasonable, though. They are pretty much the most efficient means to distribute large files, bar none. Now, while these large files could be illegal, they could ALSO be:
- Open source software
- Game demos
- Large patches
and a number of other things. People can and do use torrents to distribute these, INCLUDING publishers - because it saves them money!

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:35 pm

ccb056 is right about this, don't like it? Find an ISP that doesn't oversell bandwidth.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:03 am

Foil wrote:The traffic is going through their network. You may not like it, but they absolutely have the right to take action against abuses of their system, as long as they do it legally.

Note: If even 10% of what gets transferred via torrents is legal, I'd be really surprised. I don't use torrents, so as long as Comcast doesn't block the usual Descent3 ports, I'm fine with it.

Sending and receiving questionable content via their system is not an abuse of their system. It's an abuse of the LAWS but it does not effect their system at all.

The roads work for cars carrying drugs just as well as they do for cars carrying boxes of oatmeal. Is drug transportation the federal/state transport authority's problem? Hell no. Drug mules pay their road taxes just the same as everyone else. Drug mules do not wear out the road any faster than normal cars. This is what the roads were designed for, USE.

Thsi company is cutting their own throat, or at least they would be if they didn't have somewhat of a monopoly (which i hear they kinda do).

Capitalism is crushed

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:41 pm

fliptw wrote:ccb056 is right about this, don't like it? Find an ISP that doesn't oversell bandwidth.

what happens when Comcast is the only ISP available?

do you just go 'hey I know what, I'm just gonna not have internet...'?

Blue · Post by **Blue** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:40 pm

I don't see why this is surprising at all. Net nuetrality was abolished a few months back, right? Now we're left to their mercy....

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:07 am

all under the guise of 'security'.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:56 pm

Comcast has every right to tell you what you can and can't transmit over their pipes. If you don't like that, find someone else's pipes to transmit over. Comcast is never the ONLY ISP available; there's always dialup, satellite, a dedicated line, or if all else fails, moving to a different city.

Comcast is not obligated to provide you with the ability to download huge torrents. They are only obligated to provide you with what their contract says they're obligated to provide, as long as you follow your half of the contract. If they find that you and your huge torrents are disrupting service for other customers and they decide to cut you off, sucks to be you.

This isn't capitalism gone awry. This is capitalism as it should be. Got a problem with it? Let your money do the talking; ditch Comcast entirely. If enough consumers have a problem with it, Comcast will lose money and some other ISP will spring up to take in the profits.

WillyP · Post by **WillyP** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:17 pm

So, Lothar, we are not even allowed to talk about it? And, how would I know that Comcast is blocking certain traffic types? It took someon with an insiders knowledge of the technology to discover this... Comcast did not ever say, 'you cannot use torrents because the files are too big', they never even confirmed they were doing this. They FAKED a failure of the torrent, they lied about it. Then they lied again when they denied it. If I don't like it I should go back to dial-up, you are right about that, but I'd rather live without torrents than go back to dial up. But how in all that do you get the idea that I don't have an obligation to the community to rant about it? If I don't complain then who the hell will? If Comcast is doing this then who's next? And what new restrictions will they impose once torrents are a but a fragment of history? Perhaps videos, or gaming? Not likely, too mainstream. They'd have too many customers complaining.
Should I tell you to find another topic if you don't like my whining? I respect your opinion and your right to post here, but I am not going to go back to dial-up.
But other than the points mentioned above, I agree with you completly, as I don't use torrents anyway.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:24 pm

i forget where Monopoly is \"capitalism as it should be\" Lothar

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:39 pm

I dunno Lothar. Last I checked coporations weren't responsible for what passes through their pipes.

and now you're saying it's okay for Comcast to play babysitter? huh...

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:35 pm

WillyP wrote:So, Lothar, we are not even allowed to talk about it?

how in all that do you get the idea that I don't have an obligation to the community to rant about it?

Do you see me busting out the "delete" option, or warning people they better STFU or I'll ban them? How in all of what I said do you get the idea that I'm not allowing you to talk/rant about it?

Ranting about it fits exactly into what I said -- the more people rant about it, the more likely that some other company will pick up on it and say "we can move into that area and pick up a big market share because Comcast has just alienated a bunch of customers." (Roid, please take note of how this is the opposite of monopoly.)

Comcast did not ever say, 'you cannot use torrents because the files are too big'...

See, now that's lame. If they're going to jack with your traffic, they should be up front about it.

Ferno wrote:Last I checked coporations weren't responsible for what passes through their pipes.

When did I say anything about responsibility or playing babysitter?

All I said is that they have every right to control traffic over their own pipes, in whatever way they choose (as long as they stay within the rules of their contract.) It might not be a wise business decision, but they can do it. They have every right to decide what they do and don't block.

Many ISPs block "junk mail". Some ISPs block porn. Some ISPs block neo-nazi sites. Comcast blocks torrents. None of those are particularly more or less "okay", legally speaking. They may be smart or stupid from a business standpoint, though. Which brings us back to good ol' capitalism. I suspect Comcast's blocking torrents is a cost-cutting measure -- they can get a lot more users on the same pipe if they block or somehow slow down torrents, which means more $ for them. If you have a problem with your ISP blocking torrents, call and complain, cancel your service, or otherwise do things that are going to cost them money. Turn what they view as a positive business decision into a negative one. Turn their profit into a loss, and they'll relent.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:20 pm

Comcast had a monopoly position before this happened. And this is the result for the consumer - they can't choose anyone else, there is no-one else. Comcast now dictates the rules for the market.
This is - as usual - Mercantilism/Protectionism playing the \"oh come on, this is happy happy Capitalism. yaaay!\" card.

Well we say NO. Monopoly is NOT Capitalism as it should be Lothar. Alienated customers HAVE NO OTHER OPTION.

Comcast is always lobbying to strengthen it's position.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Comca ... by%20group
some url headlines:
-- Cable lobby group: Gutting the FCC would be better for everyone
-- Fair Use Day » Cable Lobbying Group Crushes Consumer Choice, again
-- Comcast Media Merger Lobby Team | Center for Digital Democracy
-- Comcast paid lobbyist firm $100000 over last six months | Reclaim ...
-- The People v. Television: How Comcast is using cable to strangle democracy

i don't know how you can defend the NeoCon big business ideal. What's in it for you? Is this because your wife is on the military industrial complex payroll?

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:35 pm

The best way to break monopolies is deny them patronage. If you adopt an attitude that you cannot do without what a monopoly offers, then you have given a vote for Mercantilism/Protectionism.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:56 pm

roid wrote:Comcast had a monopoly position before this happened

I have a problem with the fact that certain types of competitors can't come in and say "Comcast is mistreating you? Get our cable service instead" because of government regulation. Government-mandated monopoly is not a capitalist ideal. You're right that monopoly is not "capitalism as it should be" -- but that's not the issue at hand.

Despite Comcast's monopoly on local *cable* service in certain areas, they don't have a monopoly on all things internet. Dialup, DSL, dedicated lines, and wireless are all alternatives (as is "no service", as fliptw stated.) So, if Comcast does something you don't like, get you and as many friends as possible to stop giving them your money, and go to one of the alternatives. If it's more profitable for them to cut off torrents, they'll keep doing it; if it's less profitable, they'll stop. Their ability to make that decision *is* capitalism as it should be.

I'd be all for the government reversing their bad policies regarding cable regulation, but that's not the issue at hand... you as the consumer don't need to wait for the government to reverse that bad decision to force Comcast to reverse theirs. Money talks. Comcast's monopoly on cable service makes the decision harder than it would be in an ideal open marketplace, but it doesn't eliminate your ability to take your money away from them and give it to someone else.

P.S. I like you better when you don't take cheap shots or toss around personal attacks.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:19 pm

fliptw wrote:The best way to break monopolies is deny them patronage. If you adopt an attitude that you cannot do without what a monopoly offers, then you have given a vote for Mercantilism/Protectionism.

you're kidding, right?

Try and deny MS patronage....

Try and deny Telus patronage...

Try and deny Wal-Mart patronage.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:51 pm

Ferno wrote:
fliptw wrote:The best way to break monopolies is deny them patronage. If you adopt an attitude that you cannot do without what a monopoly offers, then you have given a vote for Mercantilism/Protectionism.
you're kidding, right?

Try and deny MS patronage....

Try and deny Telus patronage...

Try and deny Wal-Mart patronage.

Exactly. That is why they call it a MONOpoly, there are no other alternatives, trying to deny them patronage is akin to trying to get around while never using the forward gears in your car, only using reverse. Sure it's theoretically possible, but I don't see anyone jumping up to try it.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:32 pm

heh just did a second read to catch anything i might have missed.

When did I say anything about responsibility or playing babysitter?

Comcast has every right to tell you what you can and can't transmit over their pipes.

Telling someone what they can and can't do something is called 'playing babysitter'

Many ISPs block \"junk mail\". Some ISPs block porn. Some ISPs block neo-nazi sites.

Here's a scenario I'd like you to think about:

Comcast may have it's employees go about looking at the bulletin boards on the net, and this would be one of them they may look at. One employee looks at something he doesn't agree with, informs his supervisor and they start flagging it as 'an undesirable' site because of the controversial positions people take. Next you know, you can't access the DBB because Comcast has blocked it and there's absolutely nothing you can say or do about it.

Still willing to side with Comcast?

Is this because your wife is on the military industrial complex payroll?

Roidy, please don't go there. That's disrespectful.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:14 am

Ferno wrote:
When did I say anything about responsibility or playing babysitter?

Comcast has every right to tell you what you can and can't transmit over their pipes.
Telling someone what they can and can't do something is called 'playing babysitter'

If you're telling them what they can and can't do out of a sense of responsibility for their well-being, perhaps you're "playing babysitter". If Comcast decides "we think teh pr0n is sinful" so they start blocking it, that's playing babysitter (there are ISPs that do that.)

If you're telling someone what they can and can't do out of a desire to protect your own financial interests, that's entirely different. It's not "playing babysitter" to tell someone to get off of your property, or to tell someone that if they break your item they have to pay for it. That's just looking out for your own interests. If Comcast blocks torrents because they mess with their bottom line, they're just looking out for their financial interests. "Playing babysitter" is a mischaracterization.

Next you know, you can't access the DBB because Comcast has blocked it and there's absolutely nothing you can say or do about it.

It's a stupid business decision, but it's one Comcast has every right to make. If it happens, I'm going to respond by getting DSL, wireless, a dedicated line, dialup, or mooching from someone else who has one of those. But not until after I've called Comcast to whine and complain (hopefully wasting hundreds of dollars worth of their time in the process.) This shouldn't be hard to understand.

Try and deny MS patronage....

Try and deny Telus patronage...

Try and deny Wal-Mart patronage.

Linux comes in many varieties. There are plenty of people who are on the "deny M$ patronage" bandwagon, though it shrunk quite a bit when XP turned out to be a pretty good OS.

I don't know the details of Telus, but it sounds like you should complain to your government for their non-capitalist stance.

I've shopped at Wal-Mart maybe three times in my life, in each case because I was shopping with someone else who had a specific reason to shop at Wal-Mart. If I lived in some crap town where the only store available was a Wal-Mart, that might be different -- but if I cared enough to stay away from Wal-Mart, I'd drive to the next town. And if enough people cared enough, some other store would open up in my town.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:29 am

roid wrote:Is this because your wife is on the military industrial complex payroll?

Lothar wrote:P.S. I like you better when you don't take cheap shots or toss around personal attacks.

Ferno wrote:Roidy, please don't go there. That's disrespectful.

yeah, such a Cheap shot. Lothar your wife works for Lockheed Martin iirc, 1 of the major players in the War Market. Major player in NeoCon affairs and lobby interests. They rub shoulders with Comcast, they both fund the same candidates.
Devout active Christian, wife works for Lockheed Martin, defends Comcast and other big business...

I'm pointing out your long-standing (yet rarely mentioned) NeoCon bias, and questioning whether - given how much of their cool-aid you've drunk - it's even POSSIBLE for you to entertain any OTHER viewpoint.

you don't like to be seen through like a stack of glass, but i don't care to censor myself from stating the obvious on your behalf. back off

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:33 am

Fundamentally, I believe in markets. I believe people and businesses should produce and exchange goods and services for whatever they can agree on with the other party. I believe the government should enforce contracts and some level of safety standards, and not much else -- so markets should be mostly, though not 100%, free.

It's not the government's place to tell Comcast they MUST provide torrent service (unless Comcast's user contract says they should.) A disagreement between what Comcast wants to provide and what its customers want provided should be settled by simple capitalism. If you like what they provide at the price they provide it at, buy it. If you don't like it, don't buy it, and buy something else. If you must, complain loudly while not buying their product. Convince them that they'd make more money if they changed their service.

Instead of acting like their choice to regulate the service they provide is somehow immoral and wrong and the government needs to step in and fix it, just recognize: it's about money, and the way to respond to it is with money. (By \"it\" I mean Comcast's anti-torrent stuff. Their government-supported pseudo-monopoly is a problem to be dealt with at a government level, but only of minor relevance when dealing with the question of torrents. It would be a bigger issue if there weren't alternatives in DSL, wireless, dialup, or dedicated lines.)

-----

This is basic capitalist-libertarian economic philosophy. It's completely unnecessary (not to mention conceptually wrong) to try to tie it to religion, the military, lobby interests, neocons, etc. Please respond to the points I actually make rather than the points you imagine me making; I'm not particularly interested in defending the silly beliefs of imaginary Lothar, and I find it insulting to be pushed aside in favor of him.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:48 am

roid, that was pretty low dude, even for you. Attack Lothar's posts if you must, but leave his wife out of this. Grasping at straws does not win a debate and you know it. Right now cheap shots like you made don't prove your point, and only make you look like a total douchebag.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:05 pm

If it doesn't get regulated you will end up w/ a fiber delivering 56k speed at a base price of $50+/month, traffic will be restricted to TCP:80. Every single \"extra\" will cost you. All ISPs will do it because they can, you won't have a choice. Just like cell phone in europe (see \"roaming in europe\", price to dial-in to a mobile phone).

If I rent ISP sevices, I'm expecting to pay my share in the maintainance of the ISPs equipment and make them a litte extra. I'm also expecting to use said equipment to its capabilities -- last time I checked unlimited (as they are selling it) means \"no limits\".

BTW, above a certain volume there is no such thing like a \"free\" market, they are always regulated. By the government or the companies. Who do you want in charge ? (And don't tell me \"we\" are in charge, you should know better.) I'd rather bite the bullet to have the gvmt. meddle w/ things than not being able to afford high-end communication.

Comcast blocking certian traffic

Comcast blocking certian traffic

Re:

Re:

Re:

How To Bypass Comcast’s BitTorrent Throttling

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: