AP Tests Comcast's File-Sharing Filter

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The Associated Press put Comcast’s file sharing filter to the test and came to the conclusion that if you are trying to download the bible using BitTorrent, you’re out of luck.

In two out of three tries, the transfer was blocked. In the third, the transfer started only after a 10-minute delay. When we tried to upload files that were in demand by a wider number of BitTorrent users, those connections were also blocked.
Click to expand...
 
Yep, an easy test to see (and completely legit large files) are linux distros. Some run up and over 4gb.
 
WhiteZero said:
*enables encryption, breaks the filter*
rofl
Click to expand...

That doesn't work, as some fellow bitorrent users in different areas commented to me. However, if your tracker supports https announce URL's, you are good to go. But then if you use more than 300GB per month of bandwidth, you get sent a letter. I know a guy who had to go to his local Comcast central office to have his internet re-enabled. :p
 
New Headline: RIAA sues AP for downloading the Bible! , there argument in court "If they have a file-sharing program there's only one use for it, downloading music therefor the AP must be guilty of copyright infringement", lol
 
I'm OK with this as long as the ISPs are upfront about it, and they do not have a monopoly in an area where this is used. It is there network after all..
If they are the only game in town, and/or they do not let their users know, (in a clearly defined way), what their terms of service is, then it really becomes a problem. Though I am unsure as to what could be done about it.
 
GORANKAR said:
I'm OK with this as long as the ISPs are upfront about it, and they do not have a monopoly in an area where this is used. It is there network after all..
If they are the only game in town, and/or they do not let their users know, (in a clearly defined way), what their terms of service is, then it really becomes a problem. Though I am unsure as to what could be done about it.
Click to expand...

They can no longer claim unlimited internet if there doing this, sense bittorrent is part of the internet and if there blocking it there blocking part of the internet.
Hey, Aint China doing the same thing, filtering what there users can and can't do?
 
Another legit use of BT - WoW updates. Although if you are on Comcrap and hit the 300GB limit doing so, you're insane. I still can't fathom why Blizz insists on using BT for patches, seeing as they're getting well over $100 million/month in revenue, but hey it's not like there are patches mirrors all over...But still - just because it's BT doesn't mean it's an illegal usage.
 
Gah, meant to say "not like there's not patch mirrors all over..."

Laptop keyboards FTL.
 
If a "net neutrality" bill gets passed then comcast's filtering could become illegal, right?
 
I read a good analogy. The forged packet tech that sandvine is using is the equivalent to the operator breaking into a phone conversation, then telling each party (in the other parties' voice) "gotta go, kbuhbye".
I'm not a big advocate of legislation to solve all problems, but here is a case where WE NEED A LAW that makes this type of eavesdropping/forging illegal.
 
This could also be defeated by having a SSL shell built into bittorrent.
*waits for utorrent to come out with a multicore optimized version with one core handling encrypt/decrypt, the other core handling everthing else*

Or you could install your own packet shaping router that is coded to ignore/block reset packets. Put another on the other end, and viola.

I think the only reason this is limitied to within comcasts net boundary is they're afraid of litigation if these forged packets cross their network boundary. When other ISP's start using this, I'm sure they'll make a backroom "no sue deal" with each other, then everyone will be traffic shaped.
 
Comcrap is the one of the two ISPs in my area and the other one which is verizon dsl is slow as heck for 40$ when comcrap is 3x faster for 45$. I hope that some day soon verizon will get FiOS here. Frankly Comcrap is invading my privacy and I certainly don't agree with that.
 
Well, since they appear to be "Gung HO" to kill downloads of the Bible, we can only assume that Comcast is owned or run by the Prince Of Darkness himself.

I lived with ComCrap until about 18 months ago, and other than the outrageous price, I had no issues with their service.

I am lucky. I have a choice of 3 (4 if you count sat) broadband providers in my area. If AT&T starts fucking with my connection, I still can connect with WOW if I get desperate.

Don
 
Another funny bit: this only breks connections to users outside the Comcast network. If your peers are on the Comcast system then it won't kick in. As I understand it this is not to hassle you on behalf of The Man, but to reduce Comcasts costs to other carriers for taking your bits across their network.

Instead they should offer an uber P2P tier of service without the sandvine goo attached. Much like Veriozon offers "Business FiOS" without the port blockage.

Not seeing this abomination on FiOS, BTW. At least not yet.
 
w1retap said:
That doesn't work, as some fellow bitorrent users in different areas commented to me. However, if your tracker supports https announce URL's, you are good to go. But then if you use more than 300GB per month of bandwidth, you get sent a letter. I know a guy who had to go to his local Comcast central office to have his internet re-enabled. :p
Click to expand...


Wow, that's something I was wondering about here myself recently since I've been reading about comcast and BT usage in the news. Is that right about the 300GB month limit w1re?

I'm very curious as I'll admit I use BT mainly to get episodes of shows I've missed during the workweek as I have crazy work schedule, and I'm pretty sure I get nowhere near that 300GB doing that. But, It's good to know something like that since you can't just up and ask comcast about it lol.
 
I don't know if the 300GB/month limit is in effect in all areas, but I've heard it from a few different people, so I wouldn't be surprised if it is a company policy soon. Its funny how you can pay $60/month for top of the line internet, then you can only use it to nowhere near its potential or else they shut it off.
 
Internet in the US of A is total bs, when can i move to japan or europe and pay $70 a month for 70mbyte/second internet..... and i can download as much shit as i want
 
shit, some people I talk to in Sweden have 100/100 for $30 USD per month. :(
 
Hmm shit, I didn't realize this was rolling out and affecting Comcast users...I can't believe I might have to start paying for a shell and start tunnelling traffic from my home!

Home has always been where I didn't have to worry about ANY type of filtering.
 
I can attest that Comcast seems to have implemented this in the Sacramento, CA area a little over a month ago... Downloads seem to come in fine over bittorrent but seeding becomes problematic, I can actually watch new connections establish for about a second and then reset! This makes keeping a decent ratio almost impossible...

I am stuck using comcast unless I want to backtrack to 1.5Mb DSL (from my current 9Mb comcast). I guess I will be paying for a SSH host or some other type of 3rd party VPN service in the very near future.

I am not what you would call a torrent whore, I usually download TV shows in HD that I cannot get on my Comcast HD service and only seed them till a 2/1 ratio, to the tune of 2-5GB a week.. It would be nice if Comcast would actually admit to doing this & then only implement it on people who are "abusing" the network.

Joe...
 
The problem with using a SSH tunnel, is that you are forcing that server to handle 2x what you are downloading/sending, since they have to take it in, then send it out again.
 
TechBoy said:
Comcrap is the one of the two ISPs in my area and the other one which is verizon dsl is slow as heck for 40$ when comcrap is 3x faster for 45$. I hope that some day soon verizon will get FiOS here. Frankly Comcrap is invading my privacy and I certainly don't agree with that.
Click to expand...

then by all means tell your parents to cancel their comcast account. :rolleyes:
 
This is true...tbh, I was looking at getting a torrent box from a friend, as I could seed much faster off that, which really helps with keeping ratios up. (~30kb/s isn't too hot...for me, even with traffic shaping, i can't go above that without hurting my bandwidth and killing ACKs).

Tunneling has one advantage though, which is that you can pay for more bandwidth rather than disk space, which turned out better for me at my previous host, as bandwidth was cheaper / better bang for buck than asking for more drive space.
 
Diablo2K said:
They can no longer claim unlimited internet if there doing this, sense bittorrent is part of the internet and if there blocking it there blocking part of the internet.
Hey, Aint China doing the same thing, filtering what there users can and can't do?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately they already have marketing speak in place that covers that.. They claim "unlimited access" and not "unlimited bandwidth" or any form of "guaranteed download/upload speed". Phrases like, "up to 5mb down 1mbs up" That means you can access whatever you want on the net but they can limit how fast you do it.
They can also decide what works and what does not.. For the most part, as long as you can still surf the web, at whatever speed, they are not breaking any contracts when it come to residential, non commercial service ..
It sucks, I know..
 
so that VPN services I pay for every month for business may have other uses now?
 
Yup I think Sacramento, CA got this crap.. Its affecting everything my internet did fine few weeks ago..
I'm getting slow download speeds and upload and even mIRC! man this sucks big time.. and i think this is the only carrier we have here..
Even my normal browsing is jacked! I think their practice is not fair....
 
although my political views probably differ quite a bit, I would really like to see some bill/law making ISPs or other service providers explicitly stating what they will and will not provide/allow. Their "Cover our ass from every single angle possible" Terms of agreement, while beneficial to the company... somewhat crappy for customers. And I dont mean clearly stating they reserve the right to determine or charge/etc... I mean, clearly stating what is provided, how much is provided, what is not allowed. If ComQuack wants to throttle/block torrents, thats fine... but say where, when, at what rate. If comcast has a set limit of monthly bandwidth usage for customers, to where they start to say "hey this person is costing us money", thats fine too... but state what it is.

Its not that comcast is doing things like this, which bothers me... Its that if they start to do it, theres a possibility other ISPs will start doing things like this. It's a sign of things to come. Anyways... where the problem starts, in my view, is choice. For most of those in north america, there are few choices when it comes to a service provider. I have a choice between comcast "High speed internet" or dialup. No other cable providers here, no DSL providers covering my area, oh yes and there is always satellite... How could I forget satellite.

The other issue, Im starting to look toward torrenting to help with large files on my website. Ive been putting together Vmware "appliances" using fedora/gentoo and other distros, some of them upwards of 10GB when rar'ed. Its a hobby I suppose, definatly not a buisness that is raking in loaves of money to pay for bandwidth. I can either provide dialup speeds to people downloading, or hope that torrenting will supplement. Though, if comcast is making it so people cannot seed, it makes this method useless to me for any of those users... Especially if more ISPs start doing this. Bandwidth, decent bandwidth thats worth my time, will cost me upwards of $40-50 per megabit, per month. A little bit of torrenting will make a big difference in bandwidth usage on my server, and bandwidth avalible... assuming people can seed.

How many other open source projects rely on torrenting to provide acceptable bandwidth to people downloading? Gentoo uses torrents, Debian uses torrents, Centos uses torrents, Open Office uses torrents...

Though, I have one question... Why did comcast chose to prevent seeding, rather than chosing to throttle seeding? Were they hoping to stop torrenting completley, or just piss people off for excitement? It seems to me that if they had the free-time to impliment the junk known as powerboost, they could have had the time and money to shape/throttle torrent seeding on an as-needed basis depending on the network load.
 
You are right.. they accomplished frustrating me.. I cant even browse hard forum smoothly.. its like first its so slow and once confirmed that its just a website then speed comes in loading it.. sometimes i cant even get google to work.. this is not good...
man and im paying 50+ for "Unlimited internet".. just venting so my bad...
 
How about all the other ISPs get together and "filter" all Comcast traffic. That would shut them down fast.

Surely Comcast is breaking wiretapping laws, amongst others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top