Israeli ISPs Caught Traffic Shaping Without Admitting It

from the this-will-backfire-again-and-again dept

For many years, in the US, there were claims that Comcast was doing traffic shaping on its network, slowing down or even blocking certain types of traffic. Despite increasingly sophisticated evidence, Comcast always denied it, until the Associated Press finally presented proof. Comcast still tried to dance around on definitions, but finally came clean. In response it got a wrist slap from the FCC (which it's fighting in court), but it has become a lot more transparent in its traffic shaping/filtering practices. There just isn't any logical reason why any ISP should be less than forthcoming about these issues.

Slashdot points us to the news that a new study of Israeli ISPs shows that, despite denying it, many are traffic shaping P2P traffic, often using deep packet inspection. Apparently, Israel's Communications Ministry is already looking into this and determining if it requires any action on its part. It makes you wonder why ISPs think it makes sense not to explain what they're doing to customers.

Filed Under: isps, israel, traffic shaping, transparency


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2009 @ 7:35am

    Re: Re:

    "They made the choice not to be associated with file traders, thieves, etc. It would be a horrible idea to base your business around a system that, for the most part, is used by people trying to hide something."

    'They' I'm assuming you mean Comcast, and by blocking p2p traffic all the while advertising their networks are the fastest available is the definition of a thief. They're stealing from their customers by forcing them to pay a premium for a service that has hidden restrictions of use. Advertising an unrestricted service and then placing restrictions on it that the company will never divulge unless forced to by a federal lawsuit, but still charge the same premiums is theft - pure and simple. THAT is a horrible system to base a business around.

    "Hulu is a much better product as a direct access system, as is youtube. It would be very silly as a P2P system. Cheaper, but sort of stupid."

    Wonderful, we're not talking about direct access systems we're talking about peer networks, which you apparently know nothing about. The whole point of P2P systems is to allow peers to host content for other peers, thus eliminating the need for the content provider to incur the cost of having to provide the server space and bandwidth to host and distribute said content. If companies like YouTube and Hulu were able to host trackers and let their users distribute content via p2p their costs would be reduced incredibly.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.