Print 48 comment(s) - last by Hacp.. on Oct 27 at 12:23 AM

ISP Giant Compares Its Filtering with a Busy Signal

Lawyers and privacy groups are reportedly “circling the waters” over Comcast, who stands accused of using an aggressive kind of traffic shaping that impersonates individual P2P users and compels their computers to automatically disconnect.

Comcast’s actions are perfectly permissible under the terms of use described in its contract with customers, which states that Comcast reserves the right to “refuse to upload, post, publish, transmit or store any information or materials, in whole or in part, that, in (its) sole discretion, is … undesirable or in violation of (the) agreement.”

However, many are concerned that Comcast’s actions with regards to BitTorrent traffic – that is, impersonating users’ computers – may not entirely be legal as many states have laws regarding impersonation. In the state of New York, for example, section 190.25 of the penal code describes the crime of “criminal impersonation in the second degree,” in which one may not “[pretend] to be a representative of some person or organization and does an act … with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another.”

While legal grounds may be shaky at this point, the EFF has reported that it has received numerous calls from various firms that are considering legal action.

Meanwhile, Comcast has adjusted its response. The original response, says Brad Stone of The New York Times, seems to have caught Comcast’s PR department off-guard. The new response reads, “Comcast does not block access to any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services like BitTorrent … we have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience and we use the latest technologies to manage our network so that they can continue to enjoy these applications.”

The reality, however, is more complicated says Stone. Speaking on anonymity, a Comcast internet executive told The New York Times that Comcast was indeed manipulating traffic, through data management technologies designed to conserve bandwidth. As part of that process, the company will attempt to delay P2P traffic to preserve other users’ quality of service. He described the process as being akin to the busy signal in a phone call: users are perfectly able to hang up and try again later.

“In cases where peer to peer file transfers are interrupted,” writes Stone, “the software automatically tries again, so the user may not even know Comcast is interfering.”

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By wwwebsurfer on 10/23/2007 3:46:47 PM , Rating: 5
Of all the things I bash lawyers over, I hope they take Comcast to the cleaners on this one. If I'm paying for 5 or 8Mb I understand that network load will reduce my numbers. However, that doesn't give Comcast the implied right to arbitrarily RESTRICT my bandwidth based on protocol. What I do with it is my business.

By Master Kenobi on 10/23/2007 3:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and No. The laws and agreements for this sort of thing are very grey. I do expect a legal showdown over this sort of ISP activity.

By mindless1 on 10/23/2007 6:55:57 PM , Rating: 4
If you're paying for an 8Mb account and they decide you don't get your 8Mb to do "X" with it, so they can "preserve" bandwidth for someone else's different purpose, that's not grey at all!

They set your cable modem to limit up/down speed, that is the only thing they should be entitled to control. If their network can't sustain a few people actually using the bandwidth they pay for, that's a whole second set of lawsuits.

By Master Kenobi on 10/23/2007 8:17:10 PM , Rating: 3
The laws governing how that bandwidth can be used and what constitutes "general acceptable use" are very grey. Technically they want to make these BitTorrent users to pay more for a Business Class line rather than a consumer line. Comcast does this all the time for high bandwidth users.

By h0kiez on 10/24/2007 8:40:10 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, but what Comcast is doing here is essentially selling something that they have no ability/intention to provide (at least not to a large portion of its customers for a sustained period). Comcast "offers" 8MB speeds, but if every one of their customers used all that speed all the time (or even half...or probably 10%), their network would be shut down. If they want to create more tiers of service and charge a lot more for you to be able to get 8MB down all the time, I'm fine with that. But right now, they're just lying to their customers about the service that they're buying.

By mindless1 on 10/24/2007 3:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
If they had the users upgrade to a business account it'd be even worse. Yet again they're finding with the higher modem cap that even more bandwidth is used, causing more /supposed/ interferance with others' bandwidth.

I'm not suggesting that something won't have to give somewhere, but it all starts with being honest with customers instead of secret plans that effect service after having been paid for that service.

By ajdavis on 10/23/2007 9:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
I agree this is a grey area. My main use for bittorrent is legal content, video podcasts and the like. If they are sending disconnects to my peers for that it seems like they are only hindering a legitimate use.

What difference should it make to comcast whether I'm sucking down bandwidth due to a legal download or otherwise? I'm still going to be using that bandwidth...

By TMV192 on 10/23/2007 3:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
I just with American broadband companies weren't as monopolistic as they are
if we had a lot of ISP options, we wouldn't need lawsuits; Comcast would have been suffering from a business standpoint

By gramboh on 10/23/2007 4:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
The problem (same thing in Canada) is land mass/population density. The capital investment is huge to deploy new technology/networks so there are only a few major players.

I think if you dig in the user agreement, you will find lots of vague stuff about service agreements and bandwidth, so you really aren't buying a dedicated 10mbit pipe at all.

By darkpaw on 10/23/2007 4:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
Cable never even advertises that you're buying any dedicated speed. Its always "up-to" based on traffic, etc. DSL gets a bit closer if not slower. If you wanted something remotely close to a garunteed speed you need a leased line.

By TomZ on 10/23/2007 4:50:48 PM , Rating: 5
I always thought the vague performance specifications ("up to...") were a load of B.S. It's like going to the store to buy a gallon of milk, and the milk having the volume marked as "up to 1 gallon."

It wouldn't bother me as much if when I had to pay the bill, I could send in an amount "up to $59.95"!

By Christopher1 on 10/23/2007 4:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that struck me as a little bit of legal stupidity as well! They should advertise up to X speed, but more usually between Y and Z speeds.

By darkpaw on 10/23/2007 5:00:27 PM , Rating: 3
Its stupid, but the way cable modems work in a cell based system its really all they can do. They can't promise everyone 6Mbps all the time if a particular cell only has a 54Mbps total and a few hundred users.

Look at the price comparison between a garunteed 1.54Mbps at several hundred dollars a month vs an up-to 6-12Mbps line for $50 a month.

Garunteed bandwidth is one of the biggest differences between commercial class and consumer class lines.

By TomZ on 10/23/2007 5:08:05 PM , Rating: 3
I understand, but going back to my milk analogy, that's like saying we don't know how many people are going to buy milk today. And since we have a fixed total amount, we'll have to give each customer some amount "up to 1 gallon."

Somehow we have a different expectation for ISPs than we do when we purchase other goods and services.

I especially find it interesting that DSL is sold the same way, even when there are dedicated circuits. The providers should be able to provide a guaranteed bandwidth there without incurring high costs.

By Aiserou on 10/23/2007 5:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
The milk analogy doesn't really work though. Milk and broadband have vastly different supply and demand scenarios. For milk, there is a reasonably stable demand for the product, that also happens to generally be lower than the supply. For cable, the demand can fluctuate wildly on an hourly basis, depending on everything from the weather, peak hours, or if a popular game was just released. The supply is in most cases much lower than the peak demand.

Then you add in the fact that the quality of the milk doesn't get worse just because you get far away from the store. With cable, if your trying to download something from the other side of the country, or even another country entirely, your probably not going to get the max speed on your line.

When you combine all those factors, it becomes nigh impossible to guarantee a certain speed to every customer all the time. Of course, if it's advertised as a guaranteed speed to the public, and that speed is not achieved, lawsuits will start flying. So yes, it is legal protection, but it's very much needed legal protection.

All that being said, the bit-torrent thing is pretty shady ;)

By mindless1 on 10/23/2007 7:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
True, you will not often get the max your line can deliver, but the crucial point is where the bottleneck is, that regardless of what the other end and intermediary network can sustain, that once it's onto your provider's network, they have implied towards the end of advertising a specific service, that they have facilities (bandwidth, etc) to allow it, not just once in a blue moon but rather for the continual use of the service.

Naturally due to the shared bandwidth nature of the service, some latitude is necessary, but not too much, as that would just allow them to go even further overpopulating segments. Nobody expects them to be perfect, but always due diligence in meeting their claims.

By euclidean on 10/23/2007 5:08:14 PM , Rating: 5
Very correct.

But, instead of spending the money to develop software that impersonates your computer and shuts off bit-torrent traffic, why not invest it into more bandwidth/upgrading your network!?....

just my thoughts.

By mindless1 on 10/23/2007 7:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
Based on their own technical decisions regarding customer performance they have already deviated from that ideology.

If you as a customer do a test and continually get some score far lower than your account is supposed to support, they will (if you aren't extremely passive about it) send someone to correct that situation (of course, after the obligatory level 1 instructions to face Mecca, dance around swinging a chicken, reboot everything and connect your PC straight to the modem.

By conceding the speed is too low and needs "fixed", they are accepting they have an obligation to get you the speed they advertised, not just "up to (n)" but darn near it.

By maverick85wd on 10/23/2007 5:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
not necessarily... I moved to the UK not too long ago and over here they have several ISP's and their "fair usage policy" (at least for Toucan, a Tiscali reseller) is far worse than what I experienced in NC or in MI. From what I have read on broadband web-sites, most here in the UK are just as bad or worse. And I'm paying roughly 30 pounds (about $60 US) per month, not including the phone line which I have to have because all they have over here is DSL... and here it's roughly $20 just for the line, without any calls made. At roughly 40 pounds a month I actually pay less than a lot of my friends that get internet through BT.

Either way, I think it is garbage... I was appalled to see it when I first got here and it makes me sad to see the internet in the states is headed in the same direction.

By Quiescent on 10/23/2007 8:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
That's one thing I'd like to take into account for if I ever move out. Find a place where there is an ISP that doesn't screw you over. Since that is mostly out of America, I guess I just have to find one that doesn't screw you over too much.

By Quiescent on 10/23/2007 8:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention that I use Skype which ALSO uses P2P. I would sue on the spot if I got disconnected for using Skype.

By ajdavis on 10/23/2007 10:03:39 PM , Rating: 3
Did you really say "if I ever move out"? I hope you don't mean from your parent's house because for most that's a when situation.

By Alexstarfire on 10/23/2007 5:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
I second that. Heaven forbid they do what they are supposed to do and improve their network as they get more customers. All these ISPs want to do now is keep the same bandwidth and just suck money from people. That's not right. I know not all ISPs are like that, but the big ones are. I want to be able to download as much as I want/can, for what I am paying. We may not have the most outrageous prices for internet service, but we certainly don't have the best either. I want what I paid for. What's the point in paying $60 a month for a 6MB connection if I can't even use it to get what I want, legal stuff.

P2P is gonna be around forever since it doesn't require the use of huge servers. May not give you the absolute fastest speeds, but it cuts out the huge costs associated with owning and operating a server. When some companies, or people, can't afford to own a server with TONS of bandwidth then this is the best option.

If they'd just improve the damn network with all the money we give them then not only would we end up with better service overall, but I'm sure that they would end up providing more customers with more bandwidth, faster speeds, in the long run. Of course that requires a lot of hard work, and we all know that "hard work pays off in the future, laziness pays off now" as my T-Shirt says.

By DigitalFreak on 10/23/2007 5:12:37 PM , Rating: 3
aka - Having their cake and eating it too.

By tdktank59 on 10/23/2007 5:40:06 PM , Rating: 2

Ive got comcast and ive had it for about 4+ years now...

The next best thing in our area is i belive dialup... so its a pain in the ass if we want highspeed since dsl isnt even offered in our area...

Im still waiting for Fios to come into my area...
But i wont get my hopes up... Ill probably not get that until i move for college and get it installed into my house where im going...

Anyways ive been noticing that the p2p downloads are going hell of a lot slower than they used to... On average before i used to get around 300+ kbs on each file now im lucky to get 20kbs...

I hope comcast is brought to court and looses big time...

I'm really torn on this.
By SiliconAddict on 10/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: I'm really torn on this.
By Rav3n on 10/23/2007 7:19:45 PM , Rating: 3
If they were up-front about all of their policies, including how they were intending to traffic-shape, then it would be perfectly within reason for them to give the generic "You have up to X bandwidth, and the following activities will be restricted."

The problem is that they have not been forthcoming with these policies, and it took consumer effort to discover this. This is not cool. They should be forced to be more revealing in their policies -- so the consumer has access to the information. Should they be sued because they chose to ignore this? Eh.

RE: I'm really torn on this.
By mindless1 on 10/23/2007 7:33:21 PM , Rating: 5
IMO, there is no "other hand".

They advertise the service, they cap the cable modem. If you see a speed limit on the expressway, stating 65MPH, would it be ok if you got a ticket for trying to always drive a steady 65MPH instead of going 65 for a few seconds, then 25, then 45?

What about Jane and John checking their email? If they notice even the slightest delay due to someone else using the bandwidth they paid for, point the finger at the cable company because they are the one who ran out of bandwidth, who oversold their network capability.

If you don't blame the ISP, what will stop them from further and further overselling their capacity? Nothing. They'll gladly keep taking in money and only upgrade the network when their perceive customer satisfaction is at issue. How do they know it's an issue? When you tell them instead of blaming someone else.

As for John and Jane, many ISPs have tiered service, if John and Jane don't use much bandwidth they can opt for the lowest tier of service.

I really don't see a case on both sides. This is a service for access and bandwidth, not a matter of subjective judgement as to what that bandwidth is used for.

Suppose I hated you favorite UTUBE videos but you love to watch them all the time. Is it ok if you get throttled back because I and a few others think your videos aren't a waste of time/junk/etc? Of course not, because you paid for the bandwidth to do with as you please. If Comcast wants to stipulate further limits to their users they can do so, but when they've been directly asked about such things they have shifted from (is it ignorance or a lie to say "No" when the truth is "yes") denial to vagueness to PR blurbs, never coming clean about specifics of what a maximum bandwidth per month is.

If they want to institute any kind of policy it has to be an official, disclosed term of the account that cannot be witheld from the customer paying for that account. There's no two sides to it, no grey area, no nothing except their practices bording on breech of contract. You (Nor they) can't just make vague references before a contractual agreement is made then expand those rights without limit after the agreement has been met, unless the other party agrees. Legal precedent is fairly consistent about this, generally abhors open-ended god clauses.

RE: I'm really torn on this.
By jtemplin on 10/23/2007 11:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
Very cogent arguement, and well put : )


RE: I'm really torn on this.
By Alexstarfire on 10/23/2007 7:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you got people that are only surfing and emailing then I doubt they have a 6MB connection or so anyways. Those are the people that benefit from having the 384mbps DSL lines. They are plenty fast enough to do surfing and emailing without tons of latency issues. They can also download files like 10x faster than dialup. It also costs about as much as dial up too.

The 6MB users and such are paying for this extra bandwidth. What's the point in having it if you can't even utilize it. My games don't need it, my surfing doesn't need it, my emailing doesn't need it. The only place I need it is for downloads. There are so many things that I can't download on the internet that it's not even funny. The only other places to get these things are P2P programs. You limit that and it can kill a lot of stuff.

I'll have to watch my download speed on bittorrent though. If they are consistently lower than what they normally are I'm gonna tell my dad to change our service. I'm not gonna be part of this throttled internet crap. Who are they to tell me what I can download and where I download it from when I AM PAYING THEM?

How everyone is missing the real story.
By jburger on 10/23/2007 9:28:26 PM , Rating: 5
Do a quick search on google going back time and look at how comcast's 'packet shaping' has been directly targeting vonage customers in exactly the same way. You can search for comcast and vonage and see it covers the last 2 years or so.

Why doesn't some sharp reporter get ahold of the REAL story on how Comcast, while promoting their own "Comcast Voice" VOIP service, has been directly sabotaging competitors VOIP to gain market share.

By teckytech9 on 10/24/2007 4:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
I am sure that every sharp IP tester on this planet is sitting there with an IP Packet Sniffer and mapping out the traffic shaping algorithms used by Comcast. What I have a big problem with is the "Masquerading" and "Impersonating" of users computers in any way shape or form. What gives Comcast the legal right to do this?

As for the new Digital Voice Service, this is a way for them to increase the monthly price of phone service at a rate greater than what the regulated entities would allow for and have them get way with. Yes, after the promo offer ends, the price increases substantially. Its too bad to see POTS with Circuit Switched Technology disappearing (metered/measured rate service) altogether.

IMO traffic shaping is implemented when network capacity approaches 80% or more, average peak busy hour. Who will order Comcast to increase their network capacity (i.e. light up some OC-192's,DWDM's) when they refuse, knowing it will cost them excess operating income at the cost of poor service?

Internet Neutrality
By Kougar on 10/23/2007 9:48:14 PM , Rating: 3
This seems to be a case in point for Internet Neutrality Act.

There are legitimate reasons for torrents, and I would be incensed if I was a Comcast customer as this would be a major problem for me.

For all the claims about torrents degrading other Comcast user's service, cable lines are capped at a maximum upload/download speed. If just some users make full use of their alloted bandwidth and it somehow degrades the others service then it would be Comcast's fault for not having a sufficient infrastructure in place to meet the demand of just some of their line-capped customers. In other words, false advertising on available line speeds for their various cable tier plans.

The Internet...
By CascadingDarkness on 10/24/2007 3:03:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a big truck.

It's a series of tubes.

By The0ne on 10/24/2007 4:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
Now this. Previously I had commented that Cox had restrictions on my account on how much I could download and upload. It was severely lower than their 12Mbit/5Mbit package (actually much higher). My point was, why am I paying for something that I not being allow to use for proper download/uploads? And here we find that Comcast if restricting users. When is this going to end for normal users like you and I?

Don't you think it's unfair and a scam to advertised and not get what you want? That's whether or not it's a "grey" area to talk about. Marketing is always grey, that's why there are there for.

By Hacp on 10/27/2007 12:23:38 AM , Rating: 2
Don't take away my porno comcast!

To the nameless clueless naive user
By avb on 10/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: To the nameless clueless naive user
By h0kiez on 10/24/2007 8:47:57 AM , Rating: 2
That was the dumbest, most poorly worded, and devoid of any fact or meaning reply I have ever seen.

I guess you have some IT knowledge (questionable), but you obvious can't speak English and haven't a clue about the law.

Oh...I'm also loving the "1/10000 of possible upgrade budget". Was that on their latest balance sheet? Or did you pull that out of your ass? Yeah...I thought so.

RE: To the nameless clueless naive user
By avb on 10/24/2007 11:45:05 AM , Rating: 2
I indeed know next to nothing about law. So it is very interesting to know what Comcast user complaint could possibly look like. Especially if he does not want to get into legal trouble from other parties. "I am not able to share *some very specific free data* with my friends as fast as I used too and yet I paying x$ for it" does not look very promising.

Stop Stealing
By Backdraft76 on 10/23/07, Rating: -1
RE: Stop Stealing
By mindless1 on 10/23/2007 7:17:47 PM , Rating: 5
They don't guarantee? They advertise this number. False advertising is ok with you? Ok, misleading bordering on false, but if they only make the upper limit claim and no other, that is certainly misleading.

Now get a grip on this:

We don't care about your judgements. Tough if you think your use is more moral, more legal, more important, or really what you mean is just "more subjectively important".

What if someone else comes along and says "who gives a crap about your web surfing, we have important business to conduct so let's throttle YOU instead"?

See how it works? It doesn't make a tiny difference what you think, you are paying for bandwidth, same as everyone else, and they as well as you are entitled to what you paid for.

If your ISP can't deliver what they advertised, quit trying to blame others for a lack of bandwidth to satisfy ALL the users who have paid for that bandwidth.

Does it mean I condone XYZ activity on the internet? Not comprehensively, no, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is whether you are getting the service that was offered and paid for, which is internet access, not "do what we want and then you get what we want you to get".

BTW, no it's NOT THEIR NETWORK, because you are PAYING THEM for this service. I'm sure they'd like to paint this grey, and let's see if they can pull it off because they already know and have shown through their press releases that if they take this hard stance, it is going against their implied service and they will lose customers.

If they lose customers what does it mean? It means you will have to pay more, and in case you didn't know yet, you may end up paying more and still get screwed because cable companies have a large interest in throttling all subscriber services to prioritize on-demand services.

Is this what you want? To give them an excuse to dump your legitimate internet traffic because someone else is paying to watch a rerun of the Simsons?

Think carefully about what you support, you paid for their advertised service and are entitled to have it no less but no more than someone else who uses it for something you don't agree with.

RE: Stop Stealing
By Backdraft76 on 10/24/2007 10:16:22 AM , Rating: 1
It is not false advertising. The company I work for has 1.5MB to 45MB MPLS circuits. We don't always get that rate - however the rates we do get are within the range of the rates listed on our contract. That doesn't mean that we don't occasionally get less than the lowest or occasionally burst above highest. And we pay a hell of a lot more than the $60 per month you pay for Comcast internet - so I doubt they even make any guarantees regarding the average rate you'll get.

And it is not a morality or subjective importance issue - it is a legal issue. And I happen to know that Comcast is not the only ISP looking into ways to limit P2P traffic on their network. Not all, but the majority of P2P networks are nothing more than file sharing networks for people to download music/movies/software they are too cheap to buy - nothing more than common criminals. And they have their computers uploading and downloading this illegal content all day long. You're going to find that a lot more than the occasional "busy signal" that is being used by Comcast is going to start being done to shut down P2P networks. Maybe Comcast is using this fight against P2P networks as an excuse to try and eliminate traffic instead of increasing the capacity of their network. So what, something has to be done and more ISP's are going to be taking harder stances regarding illegal activity.

RE: Stop Stealing
By AlphaVirus on 10/24/2007 1:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds like you are using what little knowledge you actually have to be a strong arguing point. Do a little more research and make a little more sense next time.

Comcast is not right for taking away bandwidth WE have paid them to supply us with.

Example 1.
Your toilet gets stopped up so you call the plumber. You pay him $50 for his services to get everything cleaned up and fixed. After he is done providing his service, he says "Well Sir you ate beans today so I had to work harder cleaning up, I will have to give you this portion of the waste back"

Example 2.
You have 2 old cars you would like to get rid of so you take them to a junkyard. The mechanic would like to buy them for $1000 each, you agree thast a good deal. He comes back and says "Ok I am keeping both cars but since 1 car looks like its been raced in I am giving it back to you"

Point is, you dont pay for a service just to get everything you already paid returned based on what the service provider thinks.

Not all file sharing is illegal, some people like to share movies and music they made with friends and family.

RE: Stop Stealing
By Backdraft76 on 10/24/2007 3:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
Quote from Tech News World:
The number of music files downloaded from P2P sites (5 billion) grew 47 percent year-over-year and still dwarfed that from authorized sites (500 million), which grew 56 percent, according to the NPD report.

The sheer size and ongoing growth of illegal downloads and file sharing doesn't bode well for authorized online music and CD sales

At least mindless1 makes intelligent arguments-your examples don't work - eating beans and racing cars (unless done on the street) is not illegal - whereas according to all the reports I've read - most of the downloading going on on P2P networks are illegal material. I never said all P2P traffic is illegal downloading-I said most . And if all this illegal downloading wasn't going on would Comcast find a different reason to throttle bandwidth-more than likely yes. Unfortunately, they currently don't have a way to tell the difference between legit and illegal P2P traffic and since most of that traffic is illegal - they are using that as their argument to affect all P2P traffic. Because I am against all the illegal downloading going on, I choose to side with them. However, mindless1 makes the valid point that more and more legit P2P networks are coming online so they don't have a lot of time to figure out other ways of taking illegal P2P networks down without affecting the legit ones.

And I happen to have a large amount of knowledge on this subject because I have been in Network Administration and WAN Administration for a lot of years and have had to do research into the legality of file sharing on P2P networks and what the responsibility of the IT department is in regards to that kind of traffic passing on our network as well as college students doing it from the dorm room and employees using company equipment to do file sharing from their home - so I promise you I've done my homework on the subject.

RE: Stop Stealing
By mindless1 on 10/24/2007 3:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
It is false advertising when they artificially limit or block traffic below the rate they advertised. They are deliberately causing reduced speed.

I downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 ISOs a few days ago using bittorrent. Does it make me a criminal? At least dozens of thousands of people have in just a few days. They don't count though, right? Maybe you can't find any useful way to make use of internet technology besides the web browser but the world is moving forward in new and interesting ways whether you understand it's not all criminal activity, or not. Collective storage and computational projects are popping up and also using P2P technology. Are we supposed to stay in the stone ages just because you don't see beyond what a few people are doign wrong?

These are still the early years of collaborative data networking technologies. It will progress and those ISPs that impede it will become less and less desirable.

RE: Stop Stealing
By Alexstarfire on 10/23/2007 7:24:10 PM , Rating: 3
Except that they aren't going after just illegal stuff, they are going after ALL P2P. That my friend is wrong. I shouldn't have to suffer with 50KB/s on patches and stuff that I get on P2P. I know it's not guaranteed 6MB, or whatever you pay for, but it shouldn't be sabotaged deliberately just because I'm using P2P. I think these guys just hate us uploading and nothing more. Even forbid I max out my 384kbps upload speed. That's uber fast.

It wouldn't be so bad if they were just going after illegal stuff, but the only way to do that it by snooping on a customers computer, or intercepting everything they get, and that's illegal.

I bet that if we did the exact same stuff over the internet that they'd get mad at us for using the bandwidth there as well. Hell, I'd like for most of this stuff to be on the net since it's usually a lot faster. I'd just have my bandwidth shoot up to using 2x more than I do now though.

RE: Stop Stealing
By The Boston Dangler on 10/23/2007 7:57:18 PM , Rating: 3

just one of many legit uses. your statements regarding piracy are pooned.

RE: Stop Stealing
By tspinning on 10/24/2007 12:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
I love bt.etree &

I love artists who support free trading of their live performances, they are the ones worth supporting, they know they are worth the 4+ hour drives to every venue they hit near your house on the same tour.

When was the last time a <insert flavor of the week TRL star> had a fan actually see multiple shows on a tour... or when was the last time these this artist were even able to change the song lineup between shows (that would require a new lip sync mix and routine)

go see live music!

"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA
Related Articles
Comcast Screws with File-Sharing Traffic
October 19, 2007, 8:07 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki