Illegal downloaders to be cut off by UK ISPs [News]

[Hunterkiller]

Azureus with RC5 encoding=win

[MORDETH LESTOK]

Comcast, another big US ISP, is messing with us too...

By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer
Tue Feb 12, 9:27 PM ET


NEW YORK - Comcast Corp. told the Federal Communications Commission in formal comments Tuesday that hampering some file-sharing by its subscribers was a justifiable way to keep Web traffic flowing for everyone.

ADVERTISEMENT

The comments are the fullest accounting yet of how Comcast manages its network.

Comcast's network management is the subject of formal complaints to the FCC from consumer groups and law professors.

The groups say Comcast has breached the principle, known as "'Net Neutrality," of treating all Internet traffic equally. They also say the company was hampering movie downloading services because they might compete with Comcast's cable TV business.

Comcast says it must curb some file-sharing traffic because some subscribers would otherwise hog the cables with their uploads and slow traffic in their neighborhood.

The company — the country's second-largest Internet service provider — also said it was justified in using "reset" packets to break off communications between two computers.

Comcast sometimes inserts these packets in the data stream to kill a file-sharing session. The move "fools" each computer into believing the other computer wants to end the connection.

The return addresses of Comcast's packets indicate they're from one of the file-sharing computers when they are in fact from Comcast.

An Associated Press story in October that brought attention to Comcast's practices likened its use of reset packets to an operator breaking into a telephone conversation and telling each participant in the voice of the other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."

In its comments Tuesday, Comcast called that analogy "inflammatory hyberbole" and cites ZDNet.com blogger George Ou, who wrote that the reset packet method is a common way to stifle traffic where alternatives don't exist.

It said the messages are like a busy signal for a fax machine.

In their complaint with the FCC, advocacy groups Free Press and Public Knowledge said Comcast was "forging" the return addresses of the reset packets.

File-sharing programs generally try to re-establish a connection after receiving a reset packet, and Comcast may let subsequent attempts through. More likely, though, the computer that is requesting a file goes elsewhere on the Internet to find it.

Before the AP story ran, Comcast would acknowledge only that it was managing traffic and gave no details, even to its subscribers.

On Jan. 25, it updated its online Acceptable Use Policy to specify that it reserved the right to break off file-sharing connections on congested cables.

The FCC's reaction to subscriber complaints will be an important test of how far the agency will let Web providers go to manage their traffic. Even Comcast's detractors generally agree proper traffic management can improve the Internet experience for everyone.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is supportive of network management, but has said providers like Comcast should be open about their practices.

[spoodie]

The first thing that should be done is put in place a system were you pay for the amount of data you transfer. It's not an attractive option for heavy users, myself included, but it's fair. People would then be less inclined to downloaded large amount of data just because they can, thus reducing the perceived piracy, reducing costs for everyone else and freeing up bandwidth.

These under-handed tactics of faking packets and the proposal for a tiered Internet goes against not only design of how the Internet works but also the ethos that has built up since it became popular.

That's my opinion anyway and I don't know all the facts. But I know what I like.

[FatherJack]

I don't imagine it's entirely a coincidence that the method you describe is how payment is calculated for internet via mobile phones. I suppose "fair" is one way to describe it, but I would phrase it as more "equally unjust".

The prices are astromonical given the cost to the phone companies to keep the service running, and is mostly so high because of the huge amounts they paid for 3G licenses.

When a company charges per MB downloaded, it's all too easy for them to increase profits massively by slightly increasing the base price, rather than accepting that they have massive oversubscription and investing in the infrastructure to cope with the demand.

File sharing is a bit of scapegoat for companies who have taken too much on, and isn't solely the cause of congestion, albeit the major one. More and more people will want to watch HD quality video over their broadband connections and currently the connections aren't up to it, even if file sharing was eliminated tomorrow.

If some cities took the example shown in some forward-thinking ones of providing "state" ethernet to homes in the same way our other utilities are provided, such that a 1G ethernet port was as ubiquitous as a telephone socket or gas main, it would be a move in the right direction.

People could file share with others in the same block, district or even city with relatively little impact on performance once the kit was in place, as most connections would be between "local" computers, with little impact on other users - like the way you can file-share between computers in your house using a switch for free, yet never saturate your internet uplink by doing so.

My point is that if your city provided most of the services and data you needed within its "intranet", the running costs could be more easily managed.

[spoodie]

Mobile internet connections are famously overpriced in this country but I think that's a different matter. Although as an example of how charges made based on data transfer is being abused by the providers it is worth noting.

To keep costs down there could be an enforced flexibility, ie. no long term contracts and making switching from one service provider to another easy. Then the market would horse the service providers to run a good service at a reasonable cost. In theory at least.

Your idea is certainly a good one but what of the cost of implementing it, who pays?

[bomberesque]

More and more people will want to watch HD quality video over their broadband connections and currently the connections aren't up to it, even if file sharing was eliminated tomorrow.

nail/head

the internets have made the transition from affordable dial-up or exhorbitant broadband to ubiquitous affordable broadband in a few short years. Without that, the internet music / social networking reveloution couldn't have happened (and if you ask the RIAA, they would have preferred it not to, but that's just coz they don't understand it and so are scared)

ISPs have a new challenge on their hands with movie watching. I have a mate who works with Rogers in Toronto (big fish in Canadian video and Mobile phoney market) and she says Rogers are suffering a 20% per year falloff in physical videorentals (although in part this is due to affordable DVDs leading to more people buying rather than renting). They are planning to go 100% digital delivery within the next few years. ISPs will have to work hard on their infrastructure to keep up with these trends.

Thus far they have been keeping up but there's a new surge ahead driven by movies, social networking and (one can hope) HD Pr0n. A pretty easy short term response, is to blame a "minority" and put prices up to suit. This will only work if it does not touch the majority. When they realise that the minority is in fact the majority they will get a rude awakening and I expect to see a further round of competitive pricing, although possibly in the medium term based around the "Bandwidth routed to a list of our approved suppliers (Apple TV, netflix etc) will not be counted" or somesuch.

The reason there are so many players in the market is that there is money being made.