As Expected, BitTorrent Providers Planning To Route Around Comcast Barrier
from the cat-and-mouse dept
It's no secret that every time ISPs look to filter or degrade the performance of a certain kind of traffic, it only increases attempts to encrypt the traffic, which actually makes things worse for the ISPs. So now that Comcast is standing by its BitTorrent traffic shaping efforts, a group of different BitTorrent developers are working together to build in encryption that gets around the Comcast traffic shaping system. That encryption will, of course, add somewhat to the overhead that Comcast needs to deal with, and will become more expensive if they have to keep looking for new systems to degrade traffic. Perhaps they'll just follow the lead of some other ISPs in simply degrading all encrypted traffic -- though, considering how much legitimate traffic is encrypted, that's going to cause some problems. Of course, rather than spending so much fighting all of this, they could focus on building out their systems to better handle the traffic. But why would they do that?
RSS


Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
what happend to anti-trust?
I just upgraded to the 15Mbs in my area (which produces consistant 8Mbs downloads) and I couldn't be happier. But customer service really sucks. Mediacom has got to be somewhere in the middle in regards to customer service.
I don't know if my torrents are being throttled or not. When I asked Mediacom, of course, they told me that they would never do that. So I guess that I don't know what to believe. My torrent download speed didn't increase by doubling my bandwidth.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: what happend to anti-trust?
Big Misconception. Download speed is equal to bandwidth.
Download speed most often is limited by server upload speed, not transmission speed, or download speed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
+1
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
Do you know how BitTorrents work?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Comcast Throttling Software Provided by Comcast
Recently, I attempted to install the software only to have Comcast interrupt the subsequent 50+ megabyte download. I finally had to resort to reinitializing the IP by powering down the computer & modem then downloading the software.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
McAfee sucks anyhow
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
If the ISP were smarter encryption wouldn't matter
Encryption won't even help much. P2P traffic has some characteristics which are independent of the data, like establishing many connections in a short time. The ISP can limit the rate or number of incoming or outgoing connections to throttle P2P activity. This is actually a lot more fair as it affects an entire network usage pattern and doesn't discriminate against any specific application.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
BitTorrent
I hope that kinda explains how this works... and if I am wrong on some stuff I'm pretty sure that someone will make a comment on it... Yeah there are no download servers involved in downloading the torrent...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: If the ISP were smarter encryption wouldn't ma
Personally in the end people will find away to get around the BS of it all... It will most likely come back to physically sharing media with each other instead of over the net...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
cable company bad
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
BT is legitimate
BT is legitimate traffic. Implications that it isn't makes Comcast look justified in their efforts. The dumb pipe isn't there to judge whether or not my traffic is "legitimate" - they are there to be a dumb pipe.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
Each 'host' is a server, so while one server isn't being monopolized (i/o, drive access, bandwidth), the fact is that now you have to deal with 5 or 10 or more individual servers, some of which may be some guy on dial up.
So maybe you could be a little less condescending.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: BT is legitimate
Bandwdth today is not unlimited as too size and it never will be, becuase there will always be limits on what a certain piece of fiber or copper will handle.
What we need to do is have a priority which many businesses use... if a VoIP call or citrix is being used other traffic is limited, if they are not then it is wide open..
We must make sure that 30 downloads of music does not block 1 911 call...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
However, y8, by using the term SERVER, one refers to a dedicated machine for a specific set of tasks. If someone VNCs my computer, my machine doesn't become a server. Host, sure, but definately not a server. Also, servers can (normally) be directly referenced to by a client, where as torrent clients are much closer related to sending emails.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_tracker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(prot ocol)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
Big misconception: Bittorrent dosent uses servers
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Torrent Freak is shut down...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
You make it sound so easy and painless....Why don't *you*?
Oh, right, it would cost money and be like actual *work*.
Right now they are using the part-time users to subsidize the high-end users and it's no longer working. What they need to do is go to a bandwidth-based usage plan system that stops the subsidy-style "all for one and one for all" BS and starts having people actually pay for what they are using.
Example:
10, 20, 30, 60, 120GB plans. Speeds going up accordingly.
Do *not* allow "overage charges", but *do* allow users to initiate a new billing cycle if they hit their limit.(For instance, a customer billed on the 16th and running out on the 7th can start a new billing cycle, changing the billing date form the 16th to the 7th, thus starting the period over)
Allow roll-over.
Allow users to change their plans at the start/end of any billing cycle (or when they choose to initiate a new cycle).
No throttling.
The high-bandwidth users will end up funding the next build-out of infrastructure.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
Now, explain this to me, when my download speed gets above 550k/s, why do I mysteriously lose my internet connection for roughly 3 seconds? And I mean the modem crashes, not any part of my network. I know this because my network goes down and all computers say they've lost the connection. I have connected directly to the modem and the connection still goes down. Who or what do you think is to blame?
Also, though the client/server reference is accurate, the context you used in the first reply to try and make ME look stupid actually made you look as though you may need to study bitTorrent a little more. (trying not to be condecending)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Comcast
How quickly this happens seems to depend on upload speed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: BT is legitimate
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: BT is legitimate
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment