Monday 28th of May 2012 19:49:44 EST
   Comcast blocks some Internet traffic

Username:

Password:

Login Register
[ Forum » TV-News » Thread ]

[#63202] Written by: remisser [20/10/07, 08:53]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
This is old news (just about anyone who has Comcast have known about this issue
for months now) and isn't TV news (yeah, you'll say "But it pertains to the bit
torrent community.) -- Ugh.

Anyone who reads this and didn't know about this, just learn how to set up a VPN
with relakks or secureix... or learn about SSH. I prefer the former.
[#63205] Written by: Dmfaust [20/10/07, 09:16]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
Not TV news, but I can understand why he posted it given the focus of this site
is BT distribution not news.

h ttp://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/COMCAST_DATA_DISCRIMINATION_TESTS

That the more interesting article however, covering the tests the AP ran. Just
further proof Comcast is evil.
[#63213] Written by: mat1983 [20/10/07, 10:31]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
The simple part of all this is that if a company advertises unlimited usage and
they were then to block and/or slow your traffic (either incoming our outgoing)
then you should be taking them to court for false advertising, and winning with
ease. Even if they have put in some usage limit into the contract will be about
volume of data not speed. What you pay for is the x mb/s line
[#63234] Written by: weaselbuddha [20/10/07, 13:14]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
Great Article. Comcast has really come to be a surreal version of Woody Allen's
joke:

Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, "Boy,
the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know;
and such small portions."

Well, Comcast blocks I.net traffic, and the customer service is bad.

For those able I recommend FIOS, more bandwidth, renewed respect for privacy,
traffic shaping, but speeds up to 30Mps


Using traffic encryption can also help, Utorrent client supports traffic
encryption and variable port assignments.
[#63237] Written by: 12916studios [20/10/07, 14:00]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
This is disturbing, and currently is scaring the crap out of me because when I
return home, I am returning to Comcast. I had BETTER be able to download
torrents, otherwise, I will flip out like you wouldn't believe.
[#63247] Written by: Loudsavlon [20/10/07, 15:02]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
Quote by mat1983
The simple part of all this is that if a company advertises
unlimited usage and
they were then to block and/or slow your traffic (either incoming our outgoing)
then you should be taking them to court for false advertising, and winning with
ease. Even if they have put in some usage limit into the contract will be about
volume of data not speed. What you pay for is the x mb/s line


It's acceptable in the UK. As for court action, it doesn't work like that. They
have a 'rolling' contract that says they can manage their bandwidth how they
see fit if you are using it in contradiction to their terms.

Now, I'm not saying I like it - I don't. I think this sort of thing is not only
hampering file sharing (legit or otherwise, ie. 4OD now uses file sharing) but
the growth of technology that uses the internet as a whole (what's next, we
won't be able to send certain emails through our provider unless they have paid
a "gateway" fee?)

We need a nice set up like Hong Kong has. Blistering speeds which everything
comes down: tv, phone, net access. Instead we get comms companies who moan
about the cost of putting in fibre optics and silly ISPs who spend millions on
developing new throttling techniques - for which some people can get around by
hacking their modems.

[#63256] Written by: mdntdncr [20/10/07, 16:09]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
vpn, relaxx, fios, . . what are these options?
currently, I have no options other than comcast. All ISP's run through
comcast. I could use some suggestions
[#63266] Written by: Jakk Frost [20/10/07, 17:39]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
Well, WoW users beware then, because WoW uses bittorrent to provide it's
updates. Comcast may not have realized they could possibly be taking on a
giant like Blizzard.
[#63272] Written by: videoOpiate [20/10/07, 18:44]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
old news. I have comcast because its the only high speed internet available to
me (excluding shitty DSL) but since i heard of this I havent seen the slightest
difference in BT performance and I dont use any kind of encryption or proxy, so
I dont get it, is it only select areas or what?
[#63287] Written by: Dmfaust [20/10/07, 20:25]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
There seemed to be indication that was it select areas, yes. The guy who
originally reported it stated he was under the impression that his area was a
test market.

And unfortunately the whole crux of the matter is Comcast is the only game in
town in an ever growing large portion of places. That or AT+T owned DSL which
is frankly just a step behind Comcast in the scumbag department. (I've always
used Bellsouth DSL in the southeast Georgia and now South Carolina because I
refused to deal with Comcast, and since AT+T took over Bellsouth there has been
an extremely marked decrease in quality, even in simple things like finding out
network status which Bellsouth used to have displayed prominently on their
website as well as easy access to on phone lines, but AT+T hides almost
completely.)

I will never undestand why the justice department had such a hard-on about
Microsoft supposedly being a monopoly when they blatantly weren't, yet ignore
the obvious monopolistic goals of Comcast and AT+T(seriously, have you see any
sort of telecommunications ad on TV lately that didn't end in "... is now
AT+T"?).
[#63290] Written by: xodus2222 [20/10/07, 20:38]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
I wish I had known about all of this. Comcast cut me off on Thursday for a
year. I have to wait a week before my dsl gets installed. I hate comcast.
[#63302] Written by: weaselbuddha [20/10/07, 22:29]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
Quote by Dmfaust
There seemed to be indication that was it select areas, yes. The
guy who
originally reported it stated he was under the impression that his area was a
test market.

And unfortunately the whole crux of the matter is Comcast is the only game in
town in an ever growing large portion of places. That or AT+T owned DSL which
is frankly just a step behind Comcast in the scumbag department. (I've always
used Bellsouth DSL in the southeast Georgia and now South Carolina because I
refused to deal with Comcast, and since AT+T took over Bellsouth there has been
an extremely marked decrease in quality, even in simple things like finding out
network status which Bellsouth used to have displayed prominently on their
website as well as easy access to on phone lines, but AT+T hides almost
completely.)

I will never undestand why the justice department had such a hard-on about
Microsoft supposedly being a monopoly when they blatantly weren't, yet ignore
the obvious monopolistic goals of Comcast and AT+T(seriously, have you see any
sort of telecommunications ad on TV lately that didn't end in "... is now
AT+T"?).


Try some of the DSL resellers, like Speakeasy.net, they pay their people more
and have good SLAs with the providing vendors - no traffic shaping, but they
have limits on traffic usage ( fair use policy ). Stay away from AT&T,
Mindspring and Hughes(!!) they tend to be the worst in terms of service and caring
[#63343] Written by: ufipod [21/10/07, 06:14]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
So they offer you a certain bandwidth for a certain price per month, and then
bitch when you use it? Are they overselling all the time and just praying most
people only use their 5Mb limit for downloading 100kb of email and webpages a day?

I think I should be allowed to use what I pay for, or they can simply tell me I
have a limited download/upload per month and actually tell me what happens when
I go over that (unlike Cox, which I have now)
[#63371] Written by: vnq99191 [21/10/07, 11:07]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
I don\'t know about the US but in the UK service providers are protected against
the use to which their customers put the service because of their \"common
carrier\" status. That is: they carry traffic without knowing what it contains.
As soon as they start making decissions based on content then they themselves
(the service providers) become responsible for EVERYTHING carried. If this is
the same in the US, it wont be long before someone sues Comcast.
[#63412] Written by: Loudsavlon [21/10/07, 16:35]
Action: [ Reply ] [ Quote ]
Quote by vnq99191
I don\'t know about the US but in the UK service providers are
protected against
the use to which their customers put the service because of their \"common
carrier\" status. That is: they carry traffic without knowing what it contains.
As soon as they start making decissions based on content then they themselves
(the service providers) become responsible for EVERYTHING carried. If this is
the same in the US, it wont be long before someone sues Comcast.


It's like suing BT because someone called up a hitman and made arrangements
over the phone.

Hence - you have made a valid point. If they are actively aware of the torrents
that they are throttling, by not banning them then they are aiding the tranfer
of this material.

So, when the Big Guns go after people for sharing MP3s, maybe someone can sue
Comcast for knowingly aiding and abetting?

Oooo - won't that be a gem to watch unfold

ipv6 ready