As Expected, BitTorrent Providers Planning To Route Around Comcast Barrier

from the cat-and-mouse dept

Mon, Feb 18th 2008 4:18am — Mike Masnick

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?

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, encryption
Companies: comcast

27 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jman594, 18 Feb 2008 @ 4:47am

what happend to anti-trust?
I can't get faster download speeds than with my cable connection. DSL won't even hold a candle to it, yet it's almost like you're held prisoner with the cable comapnies and they know it.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2008 @ 5:38am
  
  Re: what happend to anti-trust?
  My torrent download speed didn't increase by doubling my bandwidth.
  
  Big Misconception. Download speed is equal to bandwidth.
  
  Download speed most often is limited by server upload speed, not transmission speed, or download speed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Haywood, 18 Feb 2008 @ 6:01am
    
    +1
    Some come in @ 325kbs, some @ 2kbs. I'm on DSL, so 325 is about the max I'll ever see, and that not very often. But yeah, you can't get it faster than the other guys are sending it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PopeRatzo, 18 Feb 2008 @ 6:06am
    
    Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
    Download speed most often is limited by server upload speed, not transmission speed, or download speed.
    
    Do you know how BitTorrents work?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrLeech, 18 Feb 2008 @ 6:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
      Do you know what seeds are?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mr. Fix it, 18 Feb 2008 @ 6:17am
    
    Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
    true but in the above case he says his bandwidth = 15 but he only get 8 downloads i doubt the overhead is 7mb
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - matt, 18 Feb 2008 @ 6:36am
    
    Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
    Bigger misconception: Bittorrent uses servers (because it doesn't).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - y8, 18 Feb 2008 @ 8:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
      Well, matt, it seems that SOMEONE has to be uploading the content. Just because there is not a single central cerver doesn't mean that there is no server.
      
      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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dionysus444, 18 Feb 2008 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
        Okay, first, Torrents DO rely on servers, but not to store the files. Torrent servers just store and send lists of currently connected seeders and leechers so the client can establish individual connections to the seeders and leechers.
        
        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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Liquid, 18 Feb 2008 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
        First of all your talking about a Tracker Server. THIS IS NOT A TORRENT SERVER... This is probably what you where thinking of, and yes this does keep lists of seeders and leechers...
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_tracker
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(prot ocol)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jman594, 19 Feb 2008 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
        You can't be serious man. I have the ability to connect to up to 9999 hosts to leach from. However, I am limited to the seeders and leachers availible (yes, you download from others who are also downloading the same file). My avg download speed is around 400k/s.
        
        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)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - August West, 22 Feb 2008 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
        Actually it does make your machine a server, if you want to argue sematics. A client is any device requesting a service and the server is any machine providing that service. You'll notive that the VNC server service, not the VNC viewer, need to be running on your machine in order for someone to VNC in to it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - sean, 18 Feb 2008 @ 10:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: what happend to anti-trust?
      With Bittorrent effectively all users computers are servers.
      
      Big misconception: Bittorrent dosent uses servers
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerry in Detroit, 18 Feb 2008 @ 6:11am

Comcast Throttling Software Provided by Comcast
Comcast provides complimentary McAfee anti virus software. One jumps through a few hoops but then downloads an installer programs which logs into McAfee Central and downloads the rest of the software.

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Haywood, 18 Feb 2008 @ 6:24am
  
  McAfee sucks anyhow
  Get Avast or AGV (for free to all) & get a more responsive smaller footprint, less intrusive, better all around program.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carme, 18 Feb 2008 @ 6:45am

If the ISP were smarter encryption wouldn't matter
Bittorrent is a clever idea for spreading large files across the net but it's simply a poor match for current cable broadband technology. Encrypting the protocol doesn't solve the problem, it only makes it harder. Instead of playing hide-and-seek with encryption, which is really quite childish, the Bittorrent developers should be working on tuning the protocol so it is less harmful to current cable broadband networks. The cable companies need to do their part and improve their technology, probably by implementing DOCSIS 3.

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liquid, 18 Feb 2008 @ 7:06am
  
  Re: If the ISP were smarter encryption wouldn't ma
  It's not about hurting the network speeds at all... Its the fact that people are using to break copy right laws, and the RIAA/MPAA are pressuring these companies to police the internet when they shouldn't be... It's not their jobs to make sure little Timmy isn't downloading the T.I. CD or little Cindy isn't downloading the new hanna montana 3d movie... That would be like telling book publishers that they should put a device in books that cause the book to burst into flames if someone decides to let a friend borrow it, or even give it to a friend to keep... Since they friend did buy the book and paid their portion of the writers royalties, and the publishers fees...
  
  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...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liquid, 18 Feb 2008 @ 6:52am

BitTorrent
When you download a torrent your downloading multiple parts of a file from multiple people at one time. Like all others are saying you do not connect to a server for the downloads. How torrents work is that you go to a site download a torrent file witch is a text file that has some code or text in it that tells the torrent program to go over here and download it. There could many many many here's to download from. That is why you have two kinds of people which are seeders, and leechers. Seeders are the one's that have the full program/music/video file(s), and leechers are the ones that are downloading the files. When you download a torrent you pull bits and peices from all these seeders & leechers. As your downloading the torrent your torrent program i.e. Bitcommet, uTorrent, Azures, etc... takes those bits and puts them in their sequential order to make the whole file...

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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
diablo, 18 Feb 2008 @ 7:08am

cable company bad
current cable company technology and hardware is crap that is why in north america we have the slowest internet in the civilized world.dsl not much better but phone companies have made some effort to stay with technology.cable companies opted to spend on exspenive third party software instead of investing in their ancient lines of copper wire.my belief is the cable companies don't want to invest in thier own system because they feel as i do that it will be a wireless world.for torrent users check out increasing simutaneus connections in xp.huge differene reg hack required
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim, 18 Feb 2008 @ 8:48am

BT is legitimate
"...though, considering how much legitimate traffic is encrypted..."

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mwright, 18 Feb 2008 @ 9:57am
  
  Re: BT is legitimate
  while the PIPE may be dumb the routers and switches that the traffic passes through are not. Are we to believe that ALL traffic should be treated equal. .. is downloading the latest janet jackson song equal too a 911 call using VoIP.
  
  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...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Meat, 19 Feb 2008 @ 11:32am
    
    Re: Re: BT is legitimate
    Let's be realistic here. They are aren't throttling it to let a few 911 calls through. They are throttling it to let them save money because they have oversold their bandwidth. People have found a way to use all of the bandwidth that they pay for and the ISPs cannot provide what they have committed to in the contracts that people have signed. They have found a way to weasel out of their obligation to provide the customers what they are paying for because they don't want to spend the money to upgrade their systems.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Monarch, 19 Feb 2008 @ 12:17pm
    
    Re: Re: BT is legitimate
    Idiot mwright. If a 911 call was a concern to any person, they wouldn't have VoIP! They would have a regulated telephone, not voice IM over phones. And YES! That Janet Jackson download IS as important as the 911 call over VoIP. Why? Because the bandwidth SHOULD be dumb and unregulated! You want Regulated 911 calls, get an Analog Phone!!! Next thing you know, the government is going to be thinking like you, you moron, and the next thing I know, my internet bill is going to be loaded with regulation fees like my analog phone is! F'ing Moron mwright
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Krum, 18 Feb 2008 @ 11:12am

Torrent Freak is shut down...
I clicked the link to Torrent Freak in the article and saw that the site has been shut down by the FBI and the ICE. This is upsetting. My wife and I download huge files from NASA's site ,visibleearth.nasa.gov using Bit Torrent so the government is condoning an ISP to slow my downloads from a government site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2008 @ 2:16pm

"Of course, rather than spending so much fighting all of this, they could focus on building out their systems to better handle the traffic"

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mdmadph (profile), 19 Feb 2008 @ 8:34am
  
  Re:
  Unfortunately, what you're suggesting involves a little known business theory called "Common Sense" -- it's never used by corporations or the government, unfortunately, and is doomed to fail.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pro, 19 Feb 2008 @ 10:10am

Comcast
The symptom that I get when I use torrents is that my cable modem "cuts out" and I completely lose my connection. I can only reset it if I power cycle the cable modem.

How quickly this happens seems to depend on upload speed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]