Comcast interfering with BitTorrent traffic

[Fash]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21376597/

NEW YORK - Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.

If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.

The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.

Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers.

Number two provider
Comcast, the nation's largest cable TV operator and No. 2 Internet provider, would not specifically address the practice, but spokesman Charlie Douglas confirmed that it uses sophisticated methods to keep Net connections running smoothly.

"Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent," he said.

Douglas would not specify what the company means by "access" _ Comcast subscribers can download BitTorrent files without hindrance. Only uploads of complete files are blocked or delayed by the company, as indicated by AP tests.

But with "peer-to-peer" technology, users exchange files with each other, and one person's upload is another's download. That means Comcast's blocking of certain uploads has repercussions in the global network of file sharers.

Comcast's technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one BitTorrent user attempts to share a complete file with another user.

Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer — it comes from Comcast. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."

Matthew Elvey, a Comcast subscriber in the San Francisco area who has noticed BitTorrent uploads being stifled, acknowledged that the company has the right to manage its network, but disapproves of the method, saying it appears to be deceptive.

"There's the wrong way of going about that and the right way," said Elvey, who is a computer consultant.

All types of content
Comcast's interference affects all types of content, meaning that, for instance, an independent movie producer who wanted to distribute his work using BitTorrent and his Comcast connection could find that difficult or impossible — as would someone pirating music.

Internet service providers have long complained about the vast amounts of traffic generated by a small number of subscribers who are avid users of file-sharing programs. Peer-to-peer applications account for between 50 percent and 90 percent of overall Internet traffic, according to a survey this year by ipoque GmbH, a German vendor of traffic-management equipment.

"We have a responsibility to manage our network to ensure all our customers have the best broadband experience possible," Douglas said. "This means we use the latest technologies to manage our network to provide a quality experience for all Comcast subscribers."

The practice of managing the flow of Internet data is known as "traffic shaping," and is already widespread among Internet service providers. It usually involves slowing down some forms of traffic, like file-sharing, while giving others priority. Other ISPs have attempted to block some file-sharing application by so-called "port filtering," but that method is easily circumvented and now largely ineffective.

Comcast's approach to traffic shaping is different because of the drastic effect it has on one type of traffic — in some cases blocking it rather than slowing it down — and the method used, which is difficult to circumvent and involves the company falsifying network traffic.

Shape the traffic all you want to manage bandwidth, but do not falsify traffic in order to stop it completely... Hopefully this might bring net neutrality to the forefront and perhaps get actual legislation behind it.

[Aabidano]

Shape the traffic all you want to manage bandwidth, but do not falsify traffic in order to stop it completely... Hopefully this might bring net neutrality to the forefront and perhaps get actual legislation behind it.

On an open internal network like Comcast runs that's the cheapest and easiest way to do it on a consistent basis. Actual traffic shaping across their network isn't something they can afford to do. There's never been any such thing as "net neutrality" anyway, except at the level of inter-carrier agreements. It's a great term but largely meaningless. I pay more, I get higher bandwidth and\or my traffic gets priority. It's always been that way, nothing new there.

Or put in this context, we pay the same, your traffic gets stifled to ensure I can still be served an acceptable level without Comcast having to upgrade their infrastructure.

[noel]

Personally, I think injecting any kind of frames into a traffic stream that I'm originating/receiving is borderline criminal. Sure, right now they're just using it for Bittorrent, but what happens when they start doing it for other things at their discretion. I will never, ever, Ever, EVER have Internet service though Comcast.

[Funkmasterr]

This is ridiculous, I haven't noticed this happening yet and I've downloaded torrents as recent as yesterday - but I can assure you that as soon as I do I will be finding another way to get my internet service. For 55 dollars a month I shouldn't have any restrictions to what I can do with the bandwidth they provide me with.

[Niffoni]

Don't a lot of legitimate businesses and services use bittorrent-based download systems?

[Hesten]

Don't a lot of legitimate businesses and services use bittorrent-based download systems?

Yes, bittorrent do have lots of legal uses too.
Dont WoW patcher use bittorrent style patcher?

[Funkmasterr]

Don't a lot of legitimate businesses and services use bittorrent-based download systems?

Yes, bittorrent do have lots of legal uses too.
Dont WoW patcher use bittorrent style patcher?

Yeah, WoW's patcher is bittorrent. However it's so bad (or at least was last time I was playing) that most people found an alternative way to download it anyhow.

[Ashur]

I download the newest Ubuntu release w/ Bittorrent. Got it down in like 15-20 minutes while the regular servers were overtaxed from the new release.

[Winnow]

I download the newest Ubuntu release w/ Bittorrent. Got it down in like 15-20 minutes while the regular servers were overtaxed from the new release.

I got 7.10 Ubuntu in about 5 minutes off the newsgroups including the 5 seconds it took to search for it! (all versions were there, including alternate install, and also Kubuntu versions, etc.)

[Aslanna]

Just to clarify for those Comcast users who may be confused:

Comcast subscribers can download BitTorrent files without hindrance. Only uploads of complete files are blocked or delayed by the company, as indicated by AP tests.

Downloading doesn't appear to be the issue.

[Forthe]

I download the newest Ubuntu release w/ Bittorrent. Got it down in like 15-20 minutes while the regular servers were overtaxed from the new release.

I got 7.10 Ubuntu in about 5 minutes off the newsgroups including the 5 seconds it took to search for it! (all versions were there, including alternate install, and also Kubuntu versions, etc.)

Your friendly neighborhood RIAA is going after newsgroups now

[Winnow]

Your friendly neighborhood RIAA is going after newsgroups now

Have any links? Binary newsgroups have been a fantasy land for years.

If a crackdown does come, you'll see more disguised files and encrypted files posted.

The linux distros don't cost money so they're perfect for this. The usenet would also be great for patches, demos, etc, etc but the majority still don't understand how easy it is to use these days.

[Aslanna]

No link handy but RIAA recently filed a lawsuit against usenet.com. I'm sure a quick search will bring something up about it.

[noel]

Saw this the other day...

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/16/1918204

Several readers pointed us to Torrentfreak's coverage of the RIAA's latest move: the major record labels have launched a copyright infringement lawsuit against Usenet.com. The complaint, filed in the federal District Court in New York, accuses Usenet.com of providing access to millions of copyright-infringing files and slams it for touting its service as a "haven for those seeking pirated content." Usenet.com has been refusing the labels' requests to block access to alleged "copyright infringing groups."

Follow-up:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/17/2019252

"Ars Technica has some interesting analysis of the RIAA's lawsuit against Usenet.com. There's reason to believe that Usenet.com — and most other Usenet providers — could qualify for protection under the DMCA's Safe Harbor provision. 'The DMCA's Safe Harbor provision provides protection for ISPs from copyright infringement lawsuits as long as they take down offending material once they are served with a notice of infringement. "Whether the Safe Harbor applies is the central legal question that is going to be raised," EFF senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann told Ars. An RIAA spokesperson tells Ars that the group has issued "many" takedown notices to Usenet.com, but von Lohmann says that the volume of takedown notices isn't what counts. "The DMCA's Safe Harbor makes it very clear," von Lohmann said. "The number of notices doesn't matter as long as you take the infringing content down."'"

[Aslanna]

It wouldn't surprise me if they went after the whole alt.binaries hierarchy. Not sure that's possible but if they can 'prove' many are being used for nefarious purposes they might be able to go after porviders that carry those groups. It's just sad that it got to that point. And that really because a lot of place like giganews have gotten so big. There's no doubt that binaries are the big selling point there.

[Winnow]

Hmmm, I need to research more on the whole structure of the usenet. with so many separate services hosting usenet servers, it will be hard to shut them all down. I'm also wondering about offshore usenet servers. If they don't have them now, they could crank up a similar service and charge (just like giganews charges) for access.

Straight from Wiki:

One notable difference from a BBS is that there is no central server, nor central system owner. Usenet is distributed among a large, constantly changing conglomeration of servers which store and forward messages to one another. These servers are loosely connected in a variable mesh. Individual users usually read from and post messages to a local server operated by their ISP, university, employer, or some other local organization. The servers then exchange the messages between one another on an equal basis.

It would seem hard to shut this down as it mirrors everything else on the net in providing multiple routes to access data.

I can see Cox Cable and other ISP providers shutting down their newsgroups but find it a little harder to imagine all the private usenet services doing the same all over the world.

More from Wiki:

Technical details

Usenet is a set of protocols for generating, storing and retrieving news "articles" (which resemble Internet mail messages) and for exchanging them among a readership which is potentially widely distributed. These protocols most commonly use a flooding algorithm which propagates copies throughout a network of participating servers. Whenever a message reaches a server, that server forwards the message to all its network neighbors that haven't yet seen the article. Only one copy of a message is stored per server, and each server makes it available on demand to the (typically local) readers able to access that server. Usenet was thus one of the first peer-to-peer applications, although in this case the "peers" are themselves servers that the users then access, rather than the users themselves being peers on the network.

RFC 850 was the first formal specification of the messages exchanged by Usenet servers. It was superseded by RFC 1036.

One difference between Usenet and newer peer-to-peer applications is that one can request the automated removal of a posting from the whole network by creating a cancel message, although due to a lack of authentication and resultant abuse, this capability is frequently disabled. Copyright holders may still request the manual deletion of infringing material using the provisions of World Intellectual Property Organization treaty implementations, such as the U.S. Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

On the Internet, Usenet is typically on TCP Port 119.

You'd run into "freedom of speech" issues if the government would try to take down the entire usenet.

Copyright holders would have to spam every usenet service provider with removal requests to have their material deleted. Not likely.

More from Wiki re: Alt groups:

The alt.* hierarchy is not subject to the procedures controlling groups in the Big Eight, and it is as a result less organized. However, groups in the alt.* hierarchy tend to be more specialized or specific—for example, there might be a newsgroup under the Big Eight which contains discussions about children's books, but a group in the alt hierarchy may be dedicated to one specific author of children's books. Binaries are posted in alt.binaries.*, making it the largest of all the hierarchies.

Many other hierarchies of newsgroups are distributed alongside these. Regional and language-specific hierarchies such as japan.*, malta.* and ne.* serve specific regions such as Japan, Malta and New England. Companies such as Microsoft administer their own hierarchies to discuss their products and offer community technical support. Some users prefer to use the term "Usenet" to refer only to the Big Eight hierarchies; others include alt as well. The more general term "netnews" incorporates the entire medium, including private organizational news systems.

You also have all the foreign hierarchies that binary posters would migrate to if the U.S. people are dumb enough to elect Hillary Clinton.

The usenet as a hole isn't in jeopardy. You might see a change in location of servers and hierarchies but you "can't stop the signal".

This concludes my example what your average High School research report looks like these days.

Sources: Wiki

[Zaelath]

Here's another reason to avoid Comcast: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/For_one_c ... _1016.html

[Sargeras]

On a related subject, MediaSentry slammed my system last night with about 44 pings over a course of 6 hours. Fortunately, I run PeerGuardian all the time and it caught all of them. I have no idea why they're trying to scan my system when I haven't ran a torrent in weeks, and it was the Blizzard PTR patch.

[Ashur]

Yeah, PG2 is blocking all sorts of shit from MediaSentry, SafeNet, Abovenet etc who apparently are offended I would share in the torrent of a new linux distribution...

[Fash]

hehe... apparently the EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation) has been contacted by lawyers interested in starting lawsuits against comcast.

http://www.cnet.com/8301-13739_1-980241 ... =nefd.blgs

...

As I mentioned in an article last month, Comcast's tactics may very well be violating the law. Many states make it illegal for an individual to impersonate another individual. New York, a state notorious for its aggressive pro-consumer office of the Attorney General, makes it a crime for someone to "(impersonate) another and (do) an act in such assumed character with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another." (See: NY Sec. 190.25: Criminal impersonation in the second degree). I do not believe that it would be too difficult to prove that Comcast obtains a benefit by impersonating others to eliminate or reduce BitTorrent traffic. Less torrent data flowing over its network will lead to an overall reduction in its bandwidth bill, and thus a huge cost savings.

With regard to Comcast's legal liability, von Lohmann said that he could not comment as he had not yet had a chance to review the New York anti criminal impersonation laws. He did, however, state that "(The EFF has) already been contacted by attorneys who are considering legal action against Comcast." In the meantime, the EFF will "continue to perform tests in hopes of better understanding how this works and how it might effect Comcast subscribers and other Internet users."

While the EFF is holding back for now, it seems clear that other lawyers are circling in the water. They can smell blood. Not only is Comcast actively impersonating its customers on the Internet, but it has continued to deny it for the past two months. Should the court's approve a class action lawsuit, Comcast could be looking at a world of pain--and rightly so.

[Fash]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - A San Francisco Bay area subscriber to Comcast Corp.'s high-speed Internet service has sued the company, alleging it engages in unfair business practices by interfering with subscribers' file sharing.

Subscriber Jon Hart based his claims on the results of an investigation by the Associated Press published last month that showed Philadelphia-based Comcast actively interferes with attempts some high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online.

Hart's lead lawyer, Mark N. Todzo of San Francisco, said his client suspected before reading the AP report that Comcast was interfering with his Internet traffic.

"What the AP report did was just confirm to him that it wasn't just him who was suffering from the problem," Todzo said. "There was this confluence of events where everyone seemed to reach the same conclusion, which was that Comcast was engaging in this activity."

Other users claimed they had seen interference with some file-sharing applications. Subsequent tests by the Electronic Frontier Foundation confirmed the AP's tests, which showed that Comcast is causing software on both ends of a file-sharing link to believe the connection has been dropped.

A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars formally asked the Federal Communications Commission early this month to make Comcast stop interfering with file sharing. Two of the groups also asked the FCC to fine Comcast $195,000 for every affected subscriber.

Comcast is the country's largest cable company and second-largest Internet service provider with 12.9 million Internet subscribers.

The company denies it blocks file sharing. But it acknowledged after the AP report was published that it delays some of the traffic between computers that share files.

Comcast said the delays are designed to improve the Internet experience for its subscribers as a whole. A relatively small number of file sharers is enough to slow down a network.

Hart's lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, alleges Comcast misleads customers by promising "mind-blowing" speeds and "unfettered access" to the Internet in advertisements while hindering the use of certain applications such as peer-to-peer file sharing. It seeks unspecified money damages.

Todzo is seeking class action status for the lawsuit.

Comcast and its subsidiaries "intentionally and severely impede the use of certain Internet applications by their customers, slowing such applications to a mere crawl or stopping them altogether," the lawsuit reads. "This class action seeks to end (Comcast's) practice and seeks recovery of fees paid by customers who paid for services they did not receive."

A Comcast spokesman reached late Wednesday said the company hadn't been served with the lawsuit yet and could not comment.

[Aabidano]

More on this one, good write up on the technology issues:
Hogging the Trough: The EFF Strikes Back