Do Parents Really Need An Online Test To Know If Their Kids Are Obese?

Cox Jamming Traffic Just Like Comcast

from the always-good-to-be-second... dept

Fri, Nov 16th 2007 3:46pm — Mike Masnick

You didn't think Comcast was the only company jamming certain types of traffic, did you? With all the heat on Comcast, it's no surprise that others are being discovered as well. For example, people are now noticing that cable provider Cox is using a very similar method to jam bittorrent uploads. It's too bad to hear this from a cable company that prided itself on actually being consumer friendly. Perhaps that means that Cox will actually admit to what it's doing, unlike Comcast. Of course, it also probably helps Cox that it wasn't the first one called out on this. Just like Sony took all the heat for the rootkit, even though the same rootkit was also found on CDs from other labels, it's likely that Comcast will take most of the heat for its bittorrent jamming.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bittorrent, jamming
Companies: comcast, cox

61 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2007 @ 3:53pm

Not for me... not yet anyways
I have Cox internet, my torrents are not being jammed. Yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Dec 2009 @ 6:00pm
  
  Re: Not for me... not yet anyways
  Are you using Utorrent? I have Cox cable and although I have no problem with download speeds Cox has suspended my internet twice for "illegal downloads of copyrighted tv programs" Have you had any such trouble? Is there any way you can tell which programs are being monitored by the internet providers?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wez, 16 Nov 2007 @ 4:08pm

Me neither
My uploads are never bloacked, my ratio is always pretty fair as well, I've never had a problem with uploading or downloading with bittorent (utorrent).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry, 16 Nov 2007 @ 4:57pm

News to me.
I haven't been on a torrent for a few weeks, but it was working then.

As a side note, my Dad has Charter, and last month, he couldn't run an (authorized) update to a dongle. Turns out the software site was in Sweden and Charter had those overseas IP's blocked (somehow). He had to do it at a friends house on a different provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2007 @ 4:58pm

They don't seem to be jamming my uploads, but I do seem to be getting suspicious resets on my connection after I've been active for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anthony, 17 Nov 2007 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re:
  yep, same here. When i used to use shareaza and win xp home no sp, my modem would restart[comcast] or sometimes, my computer would mestiriously shut down.
  And now the same for torrent. If i download a 4 gb torrent, the next day, I get ping responses, but no http, ftp, or telnet traffic
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JR, 16 Nov 2007 @ 5:18pm

Jamming?
Why are we calling this jamming? Jamming sounds like blocking or otherwise stopping. That's not what's going on here. They are using traffic shaping, which slows down traffic based on protocol, but doesn't stop it from happening completely. It's just as annoying as blocking it, but perhaps jamming isn't the best word for what they're doing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dorpass, 17 Nov 2007 @ 11:21am
  
  Re: Jamming?
  Jamming might "sound" like blocking to you, but technically it is not. Jamming means interfering, which is precisely what COX is doing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anthony, 17 Nov 2007 @ 1:58pm
  
  Re: Jamming?
  The correct word would be either 'QoS' [quality of service] or Throtteling.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2007 @ 4:07am
  
  Re: Jamming?
  Why are we calling this jamming? Jamming sounds like blocking or otherwise stopping. That's not what's going on here.
  Temporary blocking is still blocking.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Loraan, 19 Nov 2007 @ 11:00pm
  
  Re: Jamming?
  No they're not. Comcast, at least, is spoofing a TCP RST packet to both ends of the conversation. Each end receives a TCP RST packet that looks as though it came from the other end, even though neither end actually sent such a packet. The TCP RST packet kills the connection that is uploading the file.
  
  That is not traffic shaping. It's not slowing things down based on protocol. It's out and out killing the connection. And what's worse is that they won't own up to doing it, even though it's been documented.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WarOtter (profile), 16 Nov 2007 @ 5:34pm

Wait...
So wait... this means our tubes are getting Cox blocked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 16 Nov 2007 @ 5:42pm

Cox blocked

heheh, good one.

Well.. TIme Warner sent a notice to someone I know about 'putting up unauthorized content via torrent'.

And a new one I heard - the place I work is supposedly going to scan systems with SMS for 'unauthorized music' and report offenders. Of course, I wonder how they can tell if it's legal or not - it is likely just a scare tactic. None of the music I ripped from my CD's have any DRM at all.

If they wanna take me to court, let 'em - of course, it will be an issue of them paying court costs when I bring in original CD's for the stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kilgore Trout, 19 Nov 2007 @ 6:09am
  
  Re:
  By "unauthorized" they probably mean "not authorized for work computers." You see, your employer still owns the machine you use, and can tell you "keep your Rush and Pearl Jam MP3's off it."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2007 @ 6:06pm

They block me
I can't download using any of the major trackers such as demonoid (couple months before they were shut down) mininova and all the other ones. I can however d/l from one site which I won't post in hopes they will let me continue to download free porn! lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jess, 16 Nov 2007 @ 10:18pm

Limit your uploads and downloads. The reason that people get their connection throttled is because they are using more than their allotted bandwidth. That's a fast way to get noticed by your ISP and irritates the hell out of your neighbors that know what's going on. Like me....That's all I have to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Todd, 17 Nov 2007 @ 2:54am

Ports blocked
I have DSL and my ISP gave me a modem with a built in router, this sucks because I can't get into the settings (password blocked) to open ports from even playing games or doing any thing like that. This seems unfair to me becasue it is not like I want to host a file server but would like to host some teamspeak or maybe host a game every once in a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2007 @ 6:54am
  
  Re: Ports blocked
  Todd,
  Google the model of your modem/router, along with "password". Most of these routers have a default password. I've changed settings on my friend's Verizon Westell Wireless modem/router with no problem.
  
  I like that the ISPs are adding router functionality, because a lot of folks don't know to buy a router, and they're really an important part of securing your broadband system. Of course, they usually ship from the ISP with the security settings wide open, so you have to go in and lock them down.
  
  If the DSL ISPs are really blocking access to the router settings, that's a significant change.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Todd, 17 Nov 2007 @ 10:40am
    
    Re: Re: Ports blocked
    I have already tried the default password which is "1234" for my modem/router and it does not take it, so my ISP has probably changed it from the default. In my situation I did not need the router, I already had a Linksys wireless router. Have always used a router with broadband.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anthony, 17 Nov 2007 @ 2:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ports blocked
      THC Hydra. Thats all i have to say. Hope it helps ;)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jess, 17 Nov 2007 @ 11:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ports blocked
      Which router is it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dualboot, 18 Nov 2007 @ 8:26am
  
  Re: Ports blocked
  Todd,
  
  I had a similar situation with a modem/router/ip phone port and resolved it pretty quickly. I wanted my 128 bit WEP encryption, as well as my "G with speedbooster" so I used a Cat5 cable from the company supplied router to my own router and configured that one. I removed the antennas from the original one so no one can piggyback an my signal.My range and speed improved, and now I have wireless plus 4 hardwired ports. Our Xbox 360s work just fine, both via Cat5 and wireless, although hubby and I don't host on wireless due to lag.
  
  Anyway, that's with Comcast Cable, but I've also done it for relatives with SBC (DSL) and Brighthouse cable. I agree with Anonymous Coward that they provide the router because many people can't set one up on their own, but they could do a better job of making the settings accessible.
  
  Anyway, I hope this helps you get set up with your own encryption settings.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- george, 18 Nov 2007 @ 11:42pm
  
  Re: Ports blocked
  Call them they have to tell you how to get into the settings. I had same deal with verizon where I made them get me into the router setting to set it up as a bridge becasue i had my own router thats better
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Javarod, 17 Nov 2007 @ 8:34am

Well, they're not tampering with my uploads. I wonder ifn its a matter of where you are though, as when I first moved out here to PHX, I checked DSL Reports about Cox, and it seemed that location made a big difference when it came to services and features. Basically out here because much of the area is new construction, they're building out with bandwith to spare, and don't seem to care very much ifn you use a lot of it. On the other hand, if its an area where they bought into, they may be struggling to find enough bandwith for the average users until they can rebuild the network, so they're looking to do everything they can to stretch that bandwith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Picture, 17 Nov 2007 @ 8:36am

Why the complaining?
From the TOS and AUP statements from Cox and Comcast (You agreed to these as a part of subscribing to their services):

____

Cox:

You may not operate, or allow others to operate, servers of any type or any other device, equipment, and/or software providing server-like functionality in connection with the Service...

Cox reserves the right to manage its network for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of subscribers including, without limitation, the following: rate limiting, rejection or removal of "spam" or otherwise unsolicited bulk email, anti-virus mechanisms, traffic prioritization, and protocol filtering. You expressly accept that such action on the part of Cox may affect the performance of the Service.

Comcast:

Prohibited Uses and Activities:

Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment to: run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers; ...

if the Service is used in a way that Comcast or its suppliers, in their sole discretion, believe violate this AUP, Comcast or its suppliers may take any responsive actions they deem appropriate. These actions include, but are not limited to, temporary or permanent removal of content, cancellation of newsgroup posts, filtering of Internet transmissions, and the immediate suspension or termination of all or any portion of the Service. Neither Comcast nor its affiliates, suppliers, or agents will have any liability for any these responsive actions. These actions are not Comcast's exclusive remedies and Comcast may take any other legal or technical action it deems appropriate.

____

So, all whiners, what exactly is your gripe? Any of you with any shred of honesty has to admit that in function, your P2P torrent client is also a server, and that falls under these prohibitions. Doesn't matter if you're DL'ing Shrek3, Debbie Does Dallas, or the latest Debian distro -- the program is still a server, and Cox and Comcast have already told all of their subscribers what they may do (read the part about "filtering of Internet transmissions...may take any other legal or technical action..." and "including, without limitation, the following: rate limiting...traffic prioritization, and protocol filtering").

Don't like it? Unfortunately you agreed to it when you signed up for service. How can this be fraud, when they told you up front they might take this type of action? Unhappy now? Vote with your feet and your wallet, otherwise realize that they own the ball field, the bases, the bat, balls and gloves -- you want to play the game, you have to play by their rules.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm just a messenger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Man Chu, 17 Nov 2007 @ 10:45am
  
  Re: Why the complaining?
  You couldn't be more correct.
  
  My 20 year old son thought he would download movies using a Torrent client. Our phone service (Vonage) would deteriorate on occasion,and I thought it was my router. After checking around, I see his PC was serving as many as 30 Torrent downloads! No wonder my Comcast bandwidth was being eaten up.
  
  There are no more Torrents being served at this address, and our phone service is excellent once again.
  
  I informed my son that if he was willing to pay for a business class T1 line, he could download anything he wanted. But he figured out all on his own a subscription to Netflix would be cheaper.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2007 @ 11:19am
    
    Re: Re: Why the complaining?
    Ever tried balancing it out, have him download only at night when you are not calling anywhere? Or is compromise not popular nowadays?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jerry, 18 Nov 2007 @ 9:55am
  
  Re: Why the complaining?
  The isp could just let it rip, and turn over all of the customers using ptp protocols, to the FBI. Have you ever heard of COLEA?? It gives the FBI access to ISP customer logs. Every website, download, upload, etc. Let's face it,
  99.9% of all ptp is for illegal purposes. I find it kinda ludicrous that you want to sue because they are interfering with your stealing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2007 @ 4:12am
    
    Re: Re: Why the complaining?
    I find it kinda ludicrous that you want to sue because they are interfering with your stealing.
    
    What stealing?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2007 @ 10:53am
  
  Re: Why the complaining?
  hmmm so you mean that when I take a windows based pc out of the box and slap it on the network that its out-of-the-box "server functions" like file sharing, internet connection sharing, DNS, DHCP, p2psvc, FAX, telephony, or any other service that is "listining" and acts a a server when another system attempts to connect to it is a violation of TOS.... broad TOS's like that are bullshit, its just another way that large corporations use legal formalities to do whatever the hell they want. Like Verizon reserves the right to snoop through my computer just because I use them as an ISP? That's a load of crap, private data is meant to be just that, and Verizon's TOS is a clear breach of privacy law. You monopolize an areas broadband internet services, and force users to waive their rights to private data, wait until they actually attempt to use their TOS to snoop through someones computer and it goes to court, it will never stand up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2007 @ 4:18am
    
    Re: Re: Why the complaining?
    hmmm so you mean that when I take a windows based pc out of the box and slap it on the network that its out-of-the-box "server functions" like file sharing, internet connection sharing, DNS, DHCP, p2psvc, FAX, telephony, or any other service that is "listining" and acts a a server when another system attempts to connect to it is a violation of TOS
    Of course! Of course ANYTHING could be a violation of the TOS/AUP because it's totally up to their own "sole discretion".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - HD Fury, 19 Nov 2007 @ 7:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why the complaining?
      Not to mention that there is a huge difference between your "out of the box" windows pc handing an IP address to another pc in your LAN and providing one to someone on the outside. "services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network)" You are more than welcome to have these services running within your LAN. Now when you start offering these services to people on the internet you are in violation of the TOS. Did people forget how to read? Or do you guys just like to complain and work yourselves up on pointless crap?
      
      90% of torrent traffic is illegal. Are you going to sue Wal-Mart because their alarm system is throttling your shoplifting? You agreed to the TOS and if you just now read it and don't like it then take your business elseware. They are providing a service and may do so at their discretion.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2007 @ 3:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the complaining?
        Not to mention that there is a huge difference between your "out of the box" windows pc handing an IP address to another pc in your LAN and providing one to someone on the outside.
        Right out of the box it has full file sharing enabled on whatever Internet address the modem assigns to it. In other words, it's "offering these services to people on the internet" by default. So by default "you are in violation of the TOS". What's so hard to understand about that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 17 Nov 2007 @ 9:10am

what this article is really refering to
This article specificly refers to eDonkey traffic, which is being managed by many ISPs and corporations because the Storm botnet proliferates itself using the eDonkey protocol. This is done to protect internet security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CB, 17 Nov 2007 @ 1:09pm

Are the cable companies still in business? I thought they had closed down... what with all their amazing customer service and old coaxial lines...

The answer is FIOS...
at least for now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CB, 17 Nov 2007 @ 1:09pm

Are the cable companies still in business? I thought they had closed down... what with all their amazing customer service and old coaxial lines...

The answer is FIOS...
at least for now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jeff walker, 17 Nov 2007 @ 4:34pm

not yet in las vegas
still working good
and ipv6 support is on
get paid for service rates that are over stated speed rates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eh, 17 Nov 2007 @ 6:47pm

My University..
Meh, my university serves broadband (symmetric, my upload speeds equal my download speeds) faster than that of 99% of the united states. The only thing that limits our internet here really is the server being download from or uploaded to, as I have seen consistent speeds of 5 Megabytes per second and above (in benchmarks, the average speed is indicated to be over 20 Megabytes/s) - that being said, we pay by an allocated bandwidth amount, and I've got the 15.5 gigabytes/week plan.

No traffic shaping (we electrical engineering kids would blow a fuse) and we can act as servers all we want. Albeit price for my plan is approximately $40, still I struggle to find ways to use up all 15 gigs (i constantly leave peer-to-peer software up and still only end up using about 10 gigs)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2007 @ 6:54pm

Hmm, maybe I should switch to Cox. Then when the class action law suit starts I can use the settlement to pay for my cable bill...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron Martin-Colby (profile), 17 Nov 2007 @ 10:27pm

I think we already knew.
I think most BitTorrenters already knew about this. Most people I know that are using Bit Torrent, myself included, use a program that allows encryption. Fixes the problem right quick.

For more scuttlebutt, Verizon also jams BitTorrent traffic. As far as I know, they were doing it over a year ago. My friend had Verizon DSL, and his downloads would crawl at 2 KB/sec. Replaced the ordinary client with Azureus, and MAGICALLY, he started seeing 50-100 KB/sec.

I assume their new FiOS is the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jb, 18 Nov 2007 @ 7:41am

Time Warner...
Seems to limit my downloads after I have been on a while (>1 hr), I'm sure ALL ISP's are in some way or another shaping their traffic, who is going to stop all of them? The FCC seems to be waffling big time on this and I don't see any progress toward net neutrality anytime soon, I guess we will have to stay one step ahead with whatever new protocol dijuor is available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2007 @ 7:56am

Cox does not block or throttle content....this "news" is BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2007 @ 4:21am
  
  Re:
  Cox does not block or throttle content....this "news" is BS.
  
  Your denial is BS.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2007 @ 10:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nope, just fact,. Cox does NOT block or "jam" content or illegal P2P. Sorry, just the way it is...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike (profile), 19 Nov 2007 @ 11:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Nope, just fact,. Cox does NOT block or "jam" content or illegal P2P. Sorry, just the way it is...
      
      Well, the company just admitted that they do, so...
      
      http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Cox-Confirms-P2P-Throttling-89571
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2007 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Perhaps you should read that again...because that is not what it states.
        
        "To ensure the best possible online experience for our customers, Cox actively manages network traffic through a variety of methods including traffic prioritization and protocol filtering. Cox does not prohibit the use of file-sharing services for uploads or downloads, or discriminate against any specific services in any way. To help our customers make the most out of their Internet experience, we take proactive measures to ensure that bandwidth intensive applications do not negatively impact their service. These network management practices are outlined in our subscriber agreement and Acceptable Use Policy."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2007 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Perhaps you should read that again...because that is not what it states.
        
        "To ensure the best possible online experience for our customers, Cox actively manages network traffic through a variety of methods including traffic prioritization and protocol filtering.
        Just what do you think "protocol filtering" is anyway? Something to clean your protocols?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerky Boi, 18 Nov 2007 @ 3:39pm

Newsgroups with SSL
Take a spin at USENET. Find a good provider and use SSL. Torrent's are lame, and always have been. (Not that I agree with what Cox is doing)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2007 @ 12:29am

If your router is restarting, that is likely not intentional, and simply a result of having an old or detiorated router. Any router I've used has eventually gotten to the point where it can't manage multiple connections at the same time. You can see this for yourself, by going to an image-heavy web forum and opening up, say, 20 threads with, say, 40 posts on each page at once. Your router will most likely restart itself.

If you're using your own router, replace it. If you're using an ISP-provided router, ask them to send a new one. Bell Canada sent me a replacement wireless router/modem and it works swell for me, both for P2P and forum browsing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if you don't like it..., 19 Nov 2007 @ 7:36am

start your own isp
if you don't like the terms, start your own ISP. otherwise, shut up and stop causeing my ISP to spend their time and money throttling your illegal downloading. Gimme a break! as for other legit traffic using torrent, get your company to get a vpn client, and tunnel your legit traffic into your company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2007 @ 10:51pm
  
  Re: start your own isp
  if you don't like the terms, start your own ISP
  And just how would you connect your "ISP" to the internet? The only broadband connectivity available in most areas is through either the cable company or the phone company. Both of these enjoy govt protected monopolies in most places that prevent you from installing your own lines alongside theirs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2007 @ 6:43am
    
    Re: Re: start your own isp
    Both of these enjoy govt protected monopolies in most places that prevent you from installing your own lines alongside theirs.
    
    If you don't like that, start your own country.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2008 @ 12:10am
  
  Re: start your own isp
  It's FCC law that the internet is free for all, There for Illegal for ISP to block any intrnet traffic. It's bush and his group that has turn a blind eye to the fact that the FCC is not doing there job, Both Obama and Hilery have said they would End this BS and make the FCC inforce its laws of net neutrality. You want to end this Vote Democrat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 19 Nov 2007 @ 8:51am

You are all ridiculous
ISPs do not care if what you're downloading is illegal or legal content. An ISP may temporarily suspend your service for illegal downloading...but not because they care about what you're downloading/sharing. It's because they were notified by the RIAA/MPAA/etc. The suspension protects you and them, by suspending your service, they are able to notify you and protect you from further action, such as being forced to turn over your name by subpeona. It's about managing network security and bandwidth. No content is ever blocked...you're always free to access whatever you want. So the traffic gets throttled some during periods of high utilization, you are still accessing the content. You can always get a dedicated circuit installed to your home and manage the connection yourself, but I hardly think anyone wants to bear that cost. The price of internet access provided by ISPs for the Quality of Service provided is a great deal. As noted by an earlier poster, some network management takes place to help prevent the proliferation of botnets such as Storm. I applaud any provider that takes these actions, if this wasn't prevented, the bandwidth/spam/security breaches posed by these botnets would put more strain on the network than torrents themselves. So don't say that an ISP blocks your access you are free to download whatever you want, yes your connection may be managed, but the content is always available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cox Customer, 19 Nov 2007 @ 3:03pm

Depends on Local Whims
I once had a problem with Cox where I couldn't connect to certain IP addresses in Europe. It looked like they were being blocked but Cox assured me in writing (I still have the e-mails) that they weren't. I finally got an insider at Cox to look into it for me and he reported that indeed the local network administrator at Cox in my area had placed a block on addresses assigned to French ISP's (for political reasons).

Cox appears to let it's local network administrators set their own policies to a large extent. Whether or not things are getting jammed in your area may depend on the personal whims on your local Cox network administrator. In any case, I know from personal experience that you can't take Cox's word about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GT, 10 Jan 2008 @ 4:05pm

MP3sparks blocked by Cox?
Cox denies they block web sites, but mp3sparks.com has been unavailable for a couple of weeks now but works fine from work. Another Cox customer I know also can't access the site either. Anyone else seeing this happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anony, 16 Jan 2008 @ 7:52am

I also can't reach mp3sparks.com from home, but have no problem from work. It's been like this for a few weeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CE, 5 Apr 2008 @ 6:56pm

COX Blocked
I just got my first suspension and was informed of COX's 3 X rule. I had to remove the offending content and delete it from my bittorrent archive. My service was then restored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tank, 6 May 2008 @ 5:50pm

Have Cox, just got service suspended for downloading GTA San Andreas through Utorrent. Careful guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
art, 31 May 2008 @ 11:48pm

Have cox, got a second warning for NCIS, after the first for John Adams (I just don't want to spend for Tivo or DVR). Has anyone really been ejected from COX after the third strike (like they threaten?) - wouldn't it disrupt their business? Especially they are only sending the request only at the behest of producers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul, 19 May 2009 @ 1:15am

BS
This is fucking gay! My internet keeps cutting out because of this modem, I think it is because I have a few torrents downloading! Fucking bullshit I hate this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]