PA ISP to Restrict P2P Uploads 332
Maleko writes "PenTeleData, once an innovator in broadband internet service, (was one of, if not the first cable internet providers in the USA) has decided that their customers need to disable P2P uploads or face possible filtering to stop uploads. DSLReports has the story." While an interesting solution on the part of the ISP, it will definitely increase the number of "leechers" on file-sharing systems.
not surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not surprising (Score:2)
Berman (Score:3, Interesting)
Marshall Berman [csus.edu] said, in "All that is Solid Melts into Air", that you can't stop progress, and anyone that attempts to stop progress will be torn asunder by it. I'm paraphrasing with that statement, but you get the point. I find it ironic that the very elements the Bourgeois Elite employ seem to dethrone them, time and time again.
Supply and Demand will solve this problem.
Re:Berman (Score:5, Insightful)
<rant>Way too many people think P2P access is an inalienable right. How many people here couldn't get even lousy HTTP connections because too many people were downloading full length porn movies and programs? As a sysadmin its a major headache to try and deal out bandwidth fairly. If people could use P2P on my network and not decrease my bandwidth to about 10K, then I'd allow it. P2P sucks up all available bandwidth. Until TCP/IP comes up with a more fair bandwidth sharing protocol, I'm with cutting P2P down. It's simply not fair to other people on the network. How can you justify 1000 CS people not being able to compile stuff on our unix server because too many people in the dorms are downloading music?
At my university, P2P accounted for all major slow downs this year, even when taking into account a three day blackout.
I don't care what you do with "your" bandwidth, as long as it doesn't effect mine. All you P2P advocates people are selfish and greedy. How much more responsive would the net be without P2P? Is porn and wharez and music that much of a nessesity?
IPs are starting to increasingly limit all upload material since they can't effictively block P2P traffic. It's simply not fair that I can't run a small personal website simply because a lot of horny P2P need more material
God think about other people for once. </rant>
Re:Berman (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you are the sysadmin, see what you can do with the configuration on your routers. Since nearly all routers on the Internet today use the Droptail queueing discipline, these issues are epidemic. Try reconfiguring your routers to use Fair Queueing or, better yet, Rate Inverse Scheduling. If your router doesn't support these, ask your vendor why not. Since TCP is a client-side protocol, you can never trust the users to use it properly (as Droptail assumes).
Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
And hopefully this will lead to the end of systems like Kazaa. While I have no problem with peer-to-peer file trading systems, Kazaa is run by a bunch of crooks (like most of these companies) that are hell-bent on filling your PC up with spyware and crapware. I personally hope they die a fiery death. The network is nice, the company is not.
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Informative)
Why not try kazaa lite [hostdepartment.com]? All the fun none of the spyware...
Re:Excellent (Score:2)
I hope my ISP doesn't do this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I hope my ISP doesn't do this... (Score:3, Informative)
Jeez, get a life man. More importanltly, what I'd like to know, is why are ISPs hell bent on pleading poverty in respect to bandwidth and network usage in a period when bandwidth is arguably cheap. All over the place I hear about telcos going broke becuase they overbuilt massive networks in readiness for the broadband revolution and now they are supposedly willing to pay you to take it off their hands.
Are ISPs so bereft of ideas that this is the only way of relieving customers of their money? Can't they add some value somewhere?
private enterprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:private enterprise (Score:5, Insightful)
So, enough with the percent
PS: don't get me wrong, I'm not a "good" broadband consumer either...
Re:private enterprise (Score:2)
This seems to be more of a ploy for legal reasons, than bandwidth. By disabling uploads, they won't have to deal with requests to shut down accounts of those offering files.
Re:private enterprise (Score:2)
As an ISP, I have to admit that doing this to avoid legal reasons is a good idea, although it's a band aid, lazy, and irresponsable. Sometimes you gotta do these things when you're understaffed and cant pay a legal department to do it the Right Way.
Re:private enterprise (Score:2)
As the new ISP conglomerates alienate the very customers that helped make their new products viable - the early adopters - they drive these customers to find new providers that support more interesting uses of the technology, rather than simply catering to the lowest common denominator in order to maximize profits.
I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.
Re:private enterprise (Score:2)
Well, the problem is that there are more than two options. One other scenario is that the ISP does not lose customers, their network stays the same, and it becomes the p2p community that loses though the tragedy of the commons. Already (on a t1, to counter your "ADSL" reply elsewhere) I can't get at 99% of the things that I'm searching for because there are always 60 people in the queue and seemingly most of the source nodes do not leave their machines on 24/7. So there are tons of leeches who don't even share anything, which now that I think about it is a fourth alternative in this scenario: the users give the record and movie industries what they want by assuming the role of pure consumers who don't share. Oh sure, there are 6 or 7 people pulling from me at any time of the day, but look at my backlog of ~100 songs that have been sitting their for a week. I cut people off who aren't sharing anything.
Re:private enterprise (Score:3, Informative)
Re:private enterprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:private enterprise (Score:2, Informative)
That's because you use ADSL, what is commonly used for residential DSL.
The way it works is that your DSL modem can both upload and download, but not at the same time (it's not full duplex). On top of that, the required ACKs use badwidth in the opposite direction of traffic. If your upstream bandwidth is maed out by P2P or FTP leeches, you have no bandwidth left for ACKs.
terrible dillema (Score:2)
So, what will happen ? Well, there are other merchants. Looks like these guys just shot themselves in the foot.
The Chimera of Broadband... (Score:5, Insightful)
Chamillion is a better word. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does PenTeleData prohibit ProLog Express Internet customers from uploading through file-sharing applications? -Serving files from a residential account - whether FTP or file-sharing -- is a violation of the Acceptable Use Policy.
"Internet" service without servers is not an internet. Good luck to them blocking ftp. AOL uses port 21 for it's instant messenger program. Unless AOL changes that, or they can distinguish traffic, their block will do little good.
I already hate my cable company as they have violated my Acceptable Service Policy. The day they block FTP is the day they lose my static IP charges. The day I have a choice in providers is the day they lose me.
Re:The Chimera of Broadband... (Score:2)
The solution ultimately is for an ISP to permit P2P within their network (maybe even promote it?), possibly cache some external data or common searches, and block downloads from outside their network.
Is there any proxy server applications to cache P2P data at the perimeter of an ISP?
Re:The Chimera of Broadband... (Score:2)
P2P has been with us since the very earliest days of the internet. P2P is NOT inherently inefficient. However a lot of implementations of P2P are inherently inefficient.
Trust me, you do not want the ISP fiddling with your traffic in some nefarious way in their network.
ISP's != Charity (Score:2)
I bet most of these broadband isps have business plans that depend on most of the users using the service very sparingly, but when non-techies start leaving P2P programs on, their bandwidth costs go through the roof. Broadband costs MONEY, the #1 goal of an ISP is to make a PROFIT, not share pr0n with the rest of the world.
Re:The Chimera of Broadband... (Score:2)
I don't know just who they think they're kidding, but I haven't had an ISP in the past 6 years who limited me in terms of duration. Neither does their real competition (DSL). Picking some $4.95/month 10 hours local ISP as the standard to compare against is NOT logical - but this is how they weasal out of their 'unlimited access' lie.
They've way oversold their product and they continue to lie about the service - unfortunately it's not like there's much else in the way of competition
Re:The Chimera of Broadband... (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, I just love how they redifine english words for the purpose of advertising. Somehow they find a way to limit even the unlimited. Must be, er, innovation.
Free* Internet Access!!!!!
* - Free refers to the customer's ability to use the service without a straightjacket and legirons. The cost to the customer is $9.95/minute.
As technology gets cheaper, we get hosed more.. (Score:2)
Do they really need to even filter the uploads? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perfect? No. Effective? Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what lengths people will go to share files illegaly, and when the ??AA will realise that there are reasons for this desperation other than that people like to break the law. Good music and competitive pricing will be the only way to kill piracy.
Re:Perfect? No. Effective? Maybe (Score:2)
The people that "pirate"* professionally aren't fucking around with P2P. They're buying a CD and mass-producing it, which isn't hindered in the least by any of the mechanisms the industry claims to be putting into place to prevent "piracy."
Honest and ethical business practices are what will get me to start buying music again. I don't spend money on CDs anymore because I believe that what the music industry companies are trying to get away with is deplorable.
* I know piracy is easier to say than "obtaining through illegitimate means," but using that term is really only contributing to the music industry's fraud. People downloading music on the Internet aren't plundering ships on the high seas, they're trying to listen to music by the most convenient means. There are lots of things that I can do with music available through P2P that I can't do otherwise. There are many songs/artists that I've found through P2P, by searching for lyrics and downloading songs until I find the one I was looking for. This would have lead to my buying many more CDs than I otherwise would have, if I wasn't so opposed to spending my money on depriving the world of a just copyright system.
Inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)
I just hope that my ISP doesn't implement similar "defensive" measures - you never know, it might effect my SETI contributions somehow, or even the legitimate file swapping I do with people all over the planet.
Are they going to block ALL outgoing (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless they jst cut off all traffic except for known protocols such as ICQ, etc.
Sux though, if you pay service, you should do with it as you please.
If they want to simply *reasonably* throttle rates ( monthly caps on amount of packets are unreasaonable until the issue of spam is dealt with ), then thats acceptable, but not to control the content. Thats borderline censorship.
Re:Are they going to block ALL outgoing (Score:2, Informative)
If the ISP is going to start eliminating specific services for the same fees, it opens up a big Pandora's Box on their liability for people doing illegal things over their network. For example, should they be allowing known SPAM, traffic that has a high probability of being malicious (ie: fragged IP or Christmas tree packets) if they are going to start blocking P2P upload. Like the previous author says, firewall rules applied at the first IP device (like Nortel's Shasta BSN [nortelnetworks.com] )to apply filtering policy to least privilege traffic is bad news for the Internet.
Or maybe not since it will all be in XML over HTTP over SSL soon anyway... :P
B
Widespread adoption could kill (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether this sort of thing is justified comes down to one argument: whether having many copyrighted works being traded overrides the legitimate uses of P2P or it does not. Regardless of technology every argument on the topic boils down this. I tend to fall to the side that just because laws CAN be violated with a tool does not disqualify the tool from public consumption. Each individual is responsible for the content they make available and they download. This is little different than, "We know you can't make a rational decision about breaking the law or not, so we are going to take any opportunity away from you. Sorry about the fact that we also remove legal uses of the tool." We need to return to the age of personal responsibility.
Re:Widespread adoption could kill (Score:2)
I'm thinking that it'd be pretty easy to start building a world wide VPN node by node. That'd make it pretty much impossible for your ISP to monitor exactly what you're doing. They'd still be able to tell how many megabytes you used each month, but they wouldn't know what you were doing with that traffic.
No it won't... (Score:2)
So you're saying that this will kill file sharing? I don't think so.
Its whack-a-mole. "They" bring the system down and you will have a new way to distribute files in probably under a week after that.
Bammo. Your files are back.
Also, with a microphone, I can circumvent any copy restrictions. SO THERE. Hilarious.
Company slogan (Score:5, Funny)
Do we need regulation? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no problem with the enforcing of copyrights, but that is not (and should never be) the ISP's job. We all know that this has absolutely nothing to do with the ISP's "respect" for copyrights, rather, this is simply about saving money by limiting bandwidth usage.
Actually... (Score:2)
One reason that companies that use huge amounts of electricity over short spans of time (like electric arc furnaces or something) generally have to have made special arrangements with the power company...and sometimes they're simply restricted from using said electricity.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
Big Brother (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Big Brother (Score:2)
Not a common carrier anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
But one legal defense ISPs use against charges of copyright infringment themselves (and a bevy of other crimes) is "We just move the data from one side to another- we never know what's inside it". That's why USENET still has its binaries groups moving at full tilt- ISPs don't want to get into a position of accepting/rejecting individual blobs of content.
For one thing, the workload would be enormous. For another, they'd begin serving in an editoral role, and have some responsiblity for the content they do let through. And some attorneys general will be happy to attack them with "you didn't reject it, so you must've accepted it, so you're a party to the crime!". (I can particularly imagine someone in a music-industry consitutency doing this)
Of course, per-file (checksum/watermark?), per-newsgroup, or per-filename blocking is a far cry from the simplistic protocol level denial this ISP is doing. They're still a common carrier for a while (denying data not by its contents, but by its format and packaging).
Although this change won't immediately hurt the availability of files on P2P filesharing (P2Pfs) much, it could be the start of a trend where all ISPs might block outgoing sharing. Leading to a chase where the P2Pfs software takes refuge inside one unblocked port and unfiltered protocol after another...
A race like that could (in 10 years or so) chase P2P programs entirely onto other allowed procotols, maybe even something like email messages. As the disguising of the P2Pfs packets becomes ever-more sophisticated, the only way to detect them will be to read more and more closely into every user's transmission. At some point, you become a real censor.
spread spectrum (Score:5, Interesting)
Devon
Re:spread spectrum (Score:2)
Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
> "leechers" on file-sharing systems.
Does anybody else find it ironic that a community that is based on file-sharing would use the term "leechers" as a disparaging term?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It's common practice these days to use a carefully-chosen word in order to inherit a negative -- or positive -- meaning "by association".
"Leech". Yuck! That can't be good.
"Sharing". Gee, that sounds so... nice, doesn't it? It must be ok.
"Sharing" (Score:3, Insightful)
Point well taken. Thievery by any other name would smell the same. But no one wants to be called a hypocrite, least of all by themselves.
I realize this may provide an unintentional springboard for speeches by the piracy rationalizers. To being it back sharply on-topic, if the broadband providers do need to contain costs I'd rather they try to single old the illegal uses first. (If they're doing this just to maximize profit, then we have a market failure.)
Back when VCR's were introduced to the public it was argued they would be used to violate copyright, but because the courts found VCR's had legitimate uses as well (your nephew bar mitzvah, etc.) they were not per se illegitimate.
Re:Ironic (Score:2)
Re:Ironic (Score:2, Interesting)
Though some days, when nothing I request will even start downloading, I feel like a 'reverse-leech'.
Already effectively done... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, even with the throttling set to 24kbps, it still looked like there was over 32kbps going upstream. I don't like being a leech, and I'd love to share some bandwidth to a reasonable degree, but with such tight limits on our upstream bandwidth, there's not much I can do. Also, my old strategy (when I wanted to play Counter-Strike or latency was being problematic, I'd just block port 1214 at our router) doesn't work any more because new versions of Kazaa do crazy port-hopping stuff to prevent being blocked. No choice but to disable it entirely.
I guess my point is that there is blame to go around here. Companies like Kazaa need to provide better throttling in P2P products (there is no way to throttle to less than 24kbps... that's fucking retarded) and need to ship with throttling enabled to avoid flooding networks. And ISPs should realize that blocking is retarded - it will just piss customers off. Bandwidth throttling is okay, but give us reasonable limits. My service shouldn't slow to a crawl just because I am using 24kbps of upstream (ATT Broadband), and my service shouldn't get disabled for 60 seconds because I open a lot of connections (Verizon DSL - doing a server refresh in Counter-Strike makes the connection throttle and then shut down after polling a couple thousand servers, and it won't come back to life for 60 seconds).
Crippling the software I choose to run is unacceptable, and if you do it, I will be forced to shop elsewhere.. err... you have a monopoly. I guess I'll just have to take it in the rumpelstiltskin. Never mind.
Re:Already effectively done... (Score:2)
As soon as your node becomes "live", you may be getting hundreds of query requests (searches...etc); This is made worse if you have a NAT/PAT router. This is because your node is advertising that it exists {remmember, it is seeing the OUTSIDE Public address as the sourse of the connection]; other nodes try to connect to it... but cant reach it so the connection has to time out first... {at up to 2 mins for a tcp port to time out].... this can mean thousands of connections opening to your public IP. If the isp throttles based on incoming connections, then your modem may disconnect...
Re:Already effectively done... (Score:2)
Try WinMx [winmx.com], it has good throttling/limiting options.
My service shouldn't slow to a crawl just because I am using 24kbps of upstream
You could be saturating your upstream, which will always trash your downstream. When downloading a file over TCP, every packet must be confirmed as "ACK'ed", meaning you received the packet correctly. If your upstream is working overtime, these ACK packets get queued, and the download slows as the server lowers the TCP window, which is the number of packets to send before waiting for acknowledgement. This is how the internet handles flow-control.
If you are finding problems, I'd recommend getting a rooter/firewall that can do throttling with traffic shaping. Once you have a system that prioritises ACKs, games and http over the p2p traffic and limits the upstream to 90-95% if your maximum, you should never really notice that p2p is running. In theory.
Give-Take (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Give-Take (Score:2)
Then why are you still paying for this service? You are not powerless to solve the problem. Cable/DSL is not an essential life function.
Re:Give-Take (Score:2, Interesting)
What are you talking about, "not an essential life function"? It is, too! Do you use broadband? Well, even if you don't, I know many people that would be lost without it.
Re:Give-Take (Score:2)
Attention (Score:2, Funny)
-45, Trite (Score:2)
Sorry.
Don't sell what you don't have to sell? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you tell me that my connection will go a certain speed, I should be able to use that speed all night and all day if I want to, because that's what I'm paying you for. Counting on the idea that I won't use those resources you provide me is not, in my opinion, a good business model.
Yet, internet providers of all types use it. Web hosts give you insane amounts of disk space... and then, surprisingly enough, their disks start getting overfilled when people start using more than just a tenth of what they pay for.
If these places want to limit the bandwidth, they ought to be saying that right off the bat. "For this monthly fee, you get X mb of downloads, and Y megabytes of uploads, at speeds up to Z kb/sec."
That way, people can start using what they have sensibly. "Okay, I know I only have this much upload, so I won't share files on these P2P networks." Or maybe they'll just share smaller files, or only share a few days a month, or whatever... it's their decision, now, what to do with the resources they've paid for.
I think depending on under-usage has always been dangerous, and it was only a matter of time before something came along that started encouraging everyday users to actually make use of their broadband connections.
Re:Don't sell what you don't have to sell? (Score:2)
Really, for 25 bux you cant expect a T1 for that price. I pay 102 bux for a 144K line, thats a little more than market price for that portion of a T1. I'm running the sys-admin package from covad that allows me to run servers, unfiltered, extra ips, unlimited transfer cap. Checking dslreports you could buy service that is market value. A 768/768 business dsl for servers for about 150-200 bux a month, a 1500/1500 for 450, or a 7000/1500 for 1500 a month.
Its strange, some ISPs will try sell you a 56K frame relay for 200 bux a month, while you can get full T1 for 600 with unlimited transfers from others. I once had a 10mbit line for 3500 a month with unlimited transfer charges. You can chop that up and resell it, and make a nice profit.
Really what we need is tiered pricing that each level has unlimited transfer charge. Then the people who want really high speed transfers will pay for it. Look at how many people upgraded to higher speeds on cable modems, lots of people want high speed and will pay for it.
The two main issues with P2P..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Taking the bandwidth issue, most ISPs have separate accounts available for people who wish to "serve" files. In the days of dial-up most people didn't have the bandwidth for serving files or the static IP required to get to them. This is no longer true. P2P made a static IP irrelevant; people found you through a central registry of users and broadband gave you enough bandwidth to move packets fast enough to make the file exchanges possible. Suddenly the ISPs, which normally have to pay for bandwidth both ways, were faced with much higher charges for *their* links to the 'net.
If you think that P2P doesn't greatly increase bandwidth usage you haven't seen the MRTG graphs I have. When we did the engineering for 3 providers we could watch the effect of one user making available a popular new movie (like "Harry Potter"). It was dramatic! Bandwidth would often jump to the caps and stay there for hours at a time, drop down and then jump back.
An ISP buys bandwidth at a set guarenteed rate with the proviso that short bursts of usage above that rate wouldn't be charged for unless it lasts for longer than a minimum (agreed upon) amount of time. P2P changed this so that suddenly ISPs were faced with uplink bills of twice their usual amount!
Look at it from their point of view. How would you like it if you offered a room for rent and discovered that the new occupant was doubling your power, water and garbage bills? My guess is that you'd toss them out on their ear or make them pay for the excess. ISPs are in that position regarding bandwidth.
The combination of the litigation exposure plus the bandwidth costs will make every ISP look closely at making the same changes that this one has. They won't have much choice unless something else changes the equation.
fair measures for the times (Score:3, Insightful)
This Big Brother crap is over the top. The ISPs are protecting themselves from legal ramifications. They probably don't really care about the users that much .. the benefits brought about by PenTeleData covering their own butts just filter down to the users which is arguably good. No Big Brother entity is pushing anything here like propaganda. The two ideas don't correlate well at all, except that a few angry users are making over-the-top comments because they'll say anything to garner arguments for getting their precious P2P back.
A world without free flow of P2P access! We've had our cake and ate it too. Expect the world to change. Maybe something better will come about.
Giving bandwidth and taking it away -- that's another meaningless argument. Just as you have to pay for your bandwidth usage, so does your ISP. Do you think they get it for free to give to you? Most purchase bandwidth from other companies.
Maybe the price of gas shouldn't increase either. Maybe the gas station should pay more over time, but never pass those costs onto the drivers. It doesn't take a business mind to see the problem here.
I certainly am willing to pay more to use P2P while it's still here. However there is increasingly more focus on the law surrounding illegal P2P content. How much longer will be *want* to use P2P, even if we can? How many of us are already in future legal battles [slashdot.org] that we don't know about yet?
The idea about encrypting the content is cool. It's already being done over at the FreeNet Project [freenetproject.org], but it's so slow! However leave it up to somebody to sooner or later write a P2P app on top of the FreeNet network.
What if ISPs close all unusual ports to prevent against P2P? Well then somebody can write encoders/decoders that work over normal ports like ICQ, HTTP, etc. and format that file parts in that protocol. Wouldn't that be cool.
However what starts to freak me out is no matter how many times P2P succeeds at getting around the barriers, those barriers exist for many reasons -- many are legal reasons -- and soon that may come down on P2P users like a tonne of bricks. And I certainly don't want to be there when it happens. Nobody does. It's seeming like more of a gamble each day.
this is like california energy crisis (Score:5, Interesting)
There needs to be an easier way to get fat pipes to people's homes and turn the internet "on" more, just like the interstate highway system finally made it feasible to drive cross country at a decent average speed and on decent roads, so do we need some better amount of bandwith AND people should not be restricted from hosting at home, that's just ridiculous. p2p and hosting restrictions is like the us post office or fed ex saying only packages in, no packages or letters out. That's nuts, so are these restrictions. But we won't KNOW until there's honesty in accounting back in US business, I go from a default position now they are all liars, cook the books, skim money and cry poverty. I am sorry to have that opinion, but recent revelations with big US corporate "ethics" and honesty leave a lot to be desired.
There's no way to discuss this rationally without VERIFIABLE numbers to use -bandwith/cost/middleman-whatever, all that we have to look at is vaporware accounting numbers. The ONLY verifiable number we have to look at is the end run highest retail price the individual pays, after that it gets into accounting voodoo.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
1) ISPs have voluntary terms of service.
2) Paying for/using a particular ISP is voluntary.
3) If not being able to upload files over P2P affects your life in any real way, I am very sorry. Maybe you should have thought a little harder before accepting #1 or #2.
Lets pay to do nothing! (Score:3, Interesting)
On the bright side, this irresponsibility may once again give rise to smaller ISPs. Especially with wireless technology advancing daily, it may be time to dethrone greedy cable ISPs. At least, I can only hope.
What this could mean (Score:5, Insightful)
Having goofed by declaring war on every kid who downloads a song, we're going to see more of the shift both in tactics and rhetoric to those who distribute. Perhaps they will be demonized as "dealers" or even "pushers" who entice wide-eyed young would-be ConsumerCitizens into filthy pirates.
So how does this work, since many, if not most, downloaders are also uploaders? Shut down uploading, be it via technology (blocking ports, DRM, copy prevention-enabled CDs), legal means (suing super-nodes and people who break technological means), and PR (portraying uploaders as the real villains). Now, you've still got uploading, but it's confined to a subset of people who are really committed to uploading. I base this on the assumption that a lot of people upload because all it takes is a checkbox -- it really doesn't cost me much time, effort, or worry. If you have to start fooling around with ports, worrying about a subpoena showing up, and losing your job for being branded a "pusher", maybe I just uncheck that little box that says "share files".
So now we've separated the hard core from the fringes. This hard core is small enough, evil enough, and important enough that it is worth the cost necessary to stop (shutting down accounts, legal action, hacking their hard drives, etc). And now without the hard core, the fringe will starve. The mistake of the attack on Napster was that there is now no central distributor to strike. It looks like a gradual movement toward coalescing the mass of distributors back to a short list of targets.
Will this strategy work? Some of this may have to do with how much people care about their ability to upload. If my uploading is shut off by my ISP, do I care? Do I raise a fuss, or do I say, oh, well, I can still download. Maybe the RIAA is saying quietly to the ISPs, look, just block the uploads, and nobody will complain about that. And now you don't have to worry about a lawsuit from us anymore. Everybody wins (wink wink).
Stop complainning and switch to freenet (Score:2, Informative)
PenTeleData's Harsh Terms (Score:2)
Commercial Postings: Commercial postings, those for monetary gain whether for profit or non-profit, via e-mail, newsgroup postings etc, except those in which it is specifically permitted, is prohibited by PTD.
Commercial Use: Web pages provided as part of the Internet Access Service are for residential use only. PTD prohibits commercial use of these Web Pages. The offending page must be altered or removed upon a warning being issued or access to it will be denied. This includes but is not limited to commercial advertising, commercial banners, etc. Commercial web pages are available at additional charges. Information can be found at info@ptd.net.
Obscene: The personal use of or commercial distribution of vulgar language, sexually suggestive language, obscene language, obscene images or vulgar images which are transmitted, posted, or displayed are prohibited to traverse any PTD system or any system accessible through PTD. Obscenities may result in the immediate and permanent termination of your customer privileges. These activities may border on criminal depending upon circumstances and could result in Federal, State or Local Law Enforcement involvement.
Customers are responsible and are solely legally accountable for all liability including but not limited to defamatory comments, copyright and trademark violations. Residential home pages are not to contain profanity and obscenities. The substitution of alternate characters in place of letters for profanity is not permissible. Residential Home Pages may not contain banner advertisements promoting commercial or monetary gain.
Unacceptable Content for Residential Home Pages
The following are prohibited:
1. Advertising products or services by non-profit entities (such as Charitable Organizations, Professional Societies, Service Groups) as well as for profit entities.
a. Display of Advertisements, including banner exchange services.
b. Conducting raffles, lotteries, or contests.
c. Pages that are patently offensive, as determined by PTD, including but not limited to bigotry, racism, hatred and profanity.
d. Pages that promote physical harm or injury to any group or individual.
e. Pages that contain nudity, pornography or obscenities of any kind.
2. Pages that promote illegal activities including but not limited to hacking, cracking, warez, denial of services, phreaking, etc.
3. Password only and restricted access pages.
4. Pages with hidden images or pages.
5. Pages with unauthorized third party copyrighted, trademarked, service marked, or trade secret materials.
6. Use of the page that would otherwise violate the PTD Acceptable Usage Policy or Service Agreement.
Personal Views (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of views that can be taken on this matter. From an ISP view, ISP's need to protect themselves from the current "regime" of money hungry corporations. It seems that due to copyright laws, a company can and will do anything in their power to prevent anyone from breaking those copyrights. In a way, they're right. And, in a way, I think they're wrong. But of course, this isn't about them being right and wrong.
From the perspective of service, it is in an ISP's best interests to serve all of the customers equally. Due to the "always on" way that cable and dsl work, customers are prone to leaving their computers running 24 hours a day. Or, maybe they're leaving them on while they're at work so they can download everything they have queued... Either way, because P2P sharing is a 2 way system, while they're downloading, someone else can be downloading from them. The may not intend to become a download spot, but they may. This uses up bandwidth within the ISP's network, decreasing the available bandwidth to the rest of the customers in the network.
Yes, ISP's can limit bandwidth, but then customers complain about that. ISP's usually have an AUP (Acceptable Use Policy) and in the case of Penteledata, it strictly prohibits "residential" customers from running servers. While those servers may be "free" and the customer does not benefit financially from them, if ISP's allow this, then those customers that do benefit financially from running servers have a rock-solid argument against purchasing a commercial account.
There is also the security standpoint. As you know, security on one system can affect everyone else. Nimda, Code Red, and others caused widespread problems for more users that were not infected than those that were. Allowing residential customers to run servers opens up many security holes. While there are some very smart residential users out there, I'd have to say that the majority don't know what it takes to secure a system. Thus, they get infected, and attacks launch from their systems. It would be extremely hard, and, IMHO, unethical to try and screen users abilities before allowing them to run servers.
Some ISP's take the stance to prevent users from running servers, both to protect themselves, and to protect the users.
ISP's may lose customers over this, and they may gain customers because of it. There will be those customers that will find workarounds and continue the file sharing. I'd probably do the same thing myself. Although, I can honestly say that I don't use these P2P programs for many reasons. The point is that the ISP needs to protect itself and do what it can to protect it's customers.
I work each day designing networks, writing software, and troubleshooting problems. The software I write allows us as an ISP to better monitor the traffic patterns on the network. It forewarns us when we hit bandwidth limits and gives us a head start on alleviating those limits. It allows us to quickly see DOS and other attacks. All in the interest of keeping the customers running as smoothly and with as much bandwidth available as we can.
We take measures to contain any problems as quickly and as efficiently as possible. If this means turning off a customer while the customer deals with the problem on their side, then so be it. I think we've had a great deal of success with this.
I think a lot of people have blown this way out of proportion. ISP's will do what they need to protect both themselves and the customer. They will also do what they need to enforce the rules they've set forward. Upon signup, each customer has given their consent to obey the AUP... I doubt most customers read that document. But, just like EULA's, they are there...
Again, my views are not representative of the company in question. My views are my views. And just as a point, I'm no big fan of EULA's, AUP's, etc. But, without them, some users feel they need to take advantage of the services they're getting, not caring who they cause problems for.
PTD, like any other ISP has it's flaws. But overall, as a provider, I think they provide above average service. I use them at home, and I have no real complaints. I have the same service as any other residential customer and I'm expected to follow the AUP as well.
it's not really p2p anymore, is it? (Score:3, Funny)
imagine, a p2p network where everyone can only download, not upload--there's something wrong with this picture
Bandwidth quanta (Score:4, Interesting)
But there are other factors as well. In the days when dialup was king, it was common to have a single T1 for an entire ISP, perhaps a few thousand users, I don't know the exact numbers. Anyway, if you do the math you soon realize that no ISP with half a brain provisions their bandwidth with the expectation that every possible user is transmitting at full blast constantly. I think a common rule of thumb is around 100:1 or so, i.e. the actual bandwidth available is 1/100th of what would be necessary to support every connection at full speed. This worked fine, since most people did not leave their dialup connected all the time and even if they did they were not transmitting constantly.
This changes with broadband. People do leave their broadband connection connected all the time, and with programs like Kazaa (which will remain running, minimized to the tray, even if the user clicks the "close" icon on the main window) it is not uncommon for sustained constant throughput to occur. The reason of course is that things that were unreasonable under dialup are now possible, like "sharing" full movies, warez images, etc. (I use quotes around sharing because it's still piracy, no matter how you spin it.)
So my point is this: the revenue:bandwidth ratio is about 5 to 15 times smaller, and people's fundamental usage patterns have changed drastically. This is why ISPs are in such a precarious position, and why they appear to be enacting such desperate policies... because they're hurting. Even if you account for the fact that bandwidth has gotten cheaper (although not by factors of 10!), it does not alter the equation.
Certainly, it's partly their fault. The aspects that are hurting them the most, the vastly higher BW and constant availability, are precisely those that they advertised the most. In that sense, it's their own fault. I see this as another facet of the late 90s tech bubble, in that management of these ISPs was more concerned with getting new technology out there and bragging about the number of customers then they were with sound financial decisions.
Anyway, I think the way we will make it work is with tiering. The current situation is ludicrous: you have dialup at one end and full speed cable/dsl at the other. I know some ISPs have limited forms of price tiering, but the key word is limited. What we need is a plan that costs about $30 and is intended for the majority of internet users -- burstable high speeds for surfing and gaming, but on average a very low duty cycle. Cap it at around 500kbps burst and implement some form of traffic shaping to enforce a low total throughput, like 1GB a month or something. This is the plan you parents and non-hardcore friends use, and the ISP makes a decent profit. Use this to subsidise the $50 plan that allows more flexibility. Unfortunately you will never be able to offer a service that allows a continuous full rate transfer for $50 a month -- if you want this, check out a fractional T1, and expect to pay much more. So don't expect it from any consumer grade ISP, even if you can currently do this without repremand. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry.
The economic reason for this (Score:5, Informative)
The real reason around this particular ISP is wanting to block or reduce uploads may actually be cost.
My ISP (DSL-Only) told me that their upstream providers charge them by the amount of data they upload. The more upstream bandwidth they are allocated, the more it costs them. Download bandwidth does not have as a significant impact on their cost. My ISP (and I think most others) compensate by weighting the upload cost more heavily then the download cost to their customers. My ISP charges the following for bandwidth: (These numbers don't include the phone company charge for the DSL circuit, just the ISP portion.) Note that at the two options where the prices are the same the different amount of bandwidth you get is not symmetrical (at $27 you get a delta of 1160K down and 256K up, and at $48 you get a delta of 760K down and 400K up.)
Perhaps the motive of the ISP in question is simple economics: If they discourage uploads then they reduce their upstream costs, and can make more money or pass the savings on.
As a side note, my ISP rocks. They don't block any ports; they don't have any usage restrictions (other then you have to be legal, and can't resell bandwidth with a residential account); I always get the full bandwidth I pay for; they offer static addresses and routable subnets; and they are a small, independent company. Imagine that.
'merkin acronyms (Score:3, Funny)
Obvious solution (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole situation has been caused simply because a network stream is a 1:1 thing. If you make it a 1:many connection then suddenly you have far more efficient use of bandwidth, because if you're an ISP and 100 users are downloading a file, you only have to receive it once on your incoming link, instead of 100 times.
Of course, you'd still have P2P file sharing, the reason that people use Kazaa is not because it's the best way of moving information around (it's not), it's because it's anonymous and you can't be taken down for it. Safety in numbers, safety in anonymity. If there were suddenly large pirate music servers transmitting albums on rotation via multicast 24/7 they would be much easier targets.
Multicast has lots of other legal uses of course, that's what I'd want them for. But I can see that it'd help solve this situation. So come on ISPs, where are the v6 routers?
Good ol' PTD, at it again... (Score:3, Interesting)
As a result, PenTeleData ended up coming up with some sort of rule that you couldn't download more than 128K bps over a 3 hour period. The per minute charge for overuse was unbelievable (it would have even made British Telecom blush).
I bitched to them about it. First of all, there was nothing in our original agreement about "overuse". Secondly, how would I know when this seemingly arbitrary limit had been reached? The thing was, there was no telling Microsoft to not send me the newest beta of W2K at over 128K bps. Finally, we reached a reasonable agreement whereby I would try to do any extreme downloading after hours, and if they needed the bandwidth they would simply throttle me back or cut me off.
About 2 months later, I went on a midnite downloading frenzy (on Napster) and suddenly {Snap!} I was cut off. Or so I thought. I soon discovered only Napster didn't work. Then I tried downloading off of various web sites. After a few minutes... {Snap!} Port 80 was dead. Later, and under VERY heavy use, I lost IRC, Newsgroups, and FTP. Basically, I had them manually shutting off ports all night. Yes, it was spiteful, but I was annoyed.
At any rate, at the end of the month, I received a bill from these folks and it was well over $800! After arguing with management over this bill (and threatening physical presence - always helpful when dealing with xenophobic phone people), they "remembered" our email conversation and let the bill slide. After I hung up the phone, I took the modem back and haven't dealt with them since.
People in this area can now get DSL (www.jazzd.com) and I can tell you from my experience that it's better and faster than even the cableco's newest modems. Also, they haven't made any stupid bandwidth limitations.
At any rate, I'm both amused and saddened that PTD is still trying to enforce the unenforceable. Either they need to get better bandwidth management tools, or a better management.
Re:On a somewhat related note, Roadrunner blocks (Score:3, Interesting)
WebDAV [webdav.org] is how to do file sharing over HTTP with or without SSL. Works with IE5/Windows 2000's Web Folders function.
Because... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about the principle of the thing. I want IP transit; nothing more.
Re:Because... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about the principle of the thing. I want IP transit; nothing more.
No, what you bought was low-priced commodity Internet access. If you want IP transit, nothing more, then you need to buy a T1 or other business class service. ISPs have every right to limit these low priced services in any way they see fit to stop leeches from causing service problems for other users. If you buy a business class line with a SLA then you can go and bitch.
Re:Because... (Score:5, Interesting)
Read through the IETF RFCs [ietf.org] for a few months, and you can extract the definition of Internet Access. It means that if a computer has Internet Access, it can open any 16 bit port and send TCP or UDP to any other host which also has Internet Access. (If some packets get delayed or randomly dropped, it still counts. But block them entirely, and they can't reach The Internet anymore)
Ask Metcalf, Cerf, or Berners-Lee and they'll tell you the same.
To advertise "Internet Access" and then only provide a subset of it is misleading, and if regulators were more tech-savvy they'd fine many ISPs for false advertising. If carriers think they can pick and choose what ports and protocols to allow, then they should rename the service to "HTTP Client / Email / IM access" and at least be forthright about it.
Re:Because... (Score:3, Insightful)
From a business perspective, blocking the three ports that make 95% of their customer base potentially vulnerable to attack is a better solution than pleasing the 2% of customers who, for whatever reason, want these three ports open (to, I would assume, run a non-standard service on. After all - you wouldn't actually run SMB on the live Internet, would you?)
From my personal point of view, I'd love to see these people schooled on just how vulnerable Microsoft products can be without protection and how they are not qualified to put a computer on the Internet 24x7 without the assistance of a qualified professional; but that doesn't do the broadband ISPs any good.
Re:P2P networks (Score:3, Interesting)
If you were going to do what you're suggesting, you'd want something that's SSL-tunneled and runs on 443. They can't possibly monitor that, particularly if the remote P2P client also responds to HTTPS requests (their probes) with a valid response code (like 503 or something).
Re:P2P networks (Score:2)
The whole concept is crazy. When I pay for a 512/256 connection, I expect to be able to use it all the time. Obviously, you have to allow for occassional network congestion, but if you can't utilise your full bandwidth most of the time, surely that must be considered false advertising?
Re:P2P networks (Score:2)
Re:P2P networks (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure exactly when it happened, but many of today's Internet users have somehow come upon the idea that they have a right to do whatever they want. Your rights end at the cable modem, past that it is the ISP's network, resources, and rules that govern the priveledge of connecting to the Internet. Just because you pay a piddling amount of money every month does not let you dictate terms of service. Despite common misperception, the customer is not always right.
Re:P2P networks (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes I am. That's what the adverts said. You obviously have to make allowances for occassional slowdowns, but if they advertise that level of service, I expect to get that level of service. How they handle and pay for it behind the scenes is their problem, not mine.
Ditto blocking ports, they shouldn't be advertising it as "Internet Access", because once you start breaking the RFCs, then it's no longer the Internet, just a subset of it.
We do have a right to do what we want, it's supposed to be a free market. If my ISP ever imposes any of these conditions on me, I'll switch to another. There are at least 20 different providers offering broadband in my area. My current ISP is a cable provider, if they lose me, they lose a customer that is paying for digital cable, their "gold" cable modem package, and two telephone lines. Should I ever have to switch, I'll damn sure tell them why. If consumers don't stand up for themselves, they get trampled on.
Re:P2P networks (Score:2)
start adding obDisclaimer: "Monthly traffic
limits apply. Rate is for residential uses
only. Federal copyright regulations apply.
Offer void in states that have voids." etc.
etc.
Re:P2P networks (Score:3, Informative)
Re:P2P networks (Score:2)
Re:P2P networks (Score:2, Informative)
P2P sharing letter from PTD Management (Score:5, Informative)
I am not going to get into any discussion about this, I am going to just state the purpose of that letter which has been take wrong by only about 1% of the customer base from what I have seen.
Here are the facts:
A. Nothing is being changed. It is only in the maybe phase and at this time have no plans to implement it. Hopefully just getting the word out will take out one factor in issues that affect all cable broadband providers, not just PTD.
B. People who have the uploading enabled on these programs are allowing people to use the bandwidth. B.1 and this can happen even if they are not personally using it.
C. We are just trying to get the word out that if people are not personally actively using the upload to turn it off, as it does affect the network. Why should we waste bandwidth on someone from say Florida when our customers could be using it. And all because someone either forgot to turn it off when they were done, or do not even know its on.
D. No one here at PTD is trying to tell anyone what to do with their connection. The government not PTD sets the laws as far as copyrights and other issues, if we get legal notice to terminate an account we will do it. This is not a decision we make we just follow the law.
E. Your speeds that your complaining about have been directly tied to these kinds of programs sucking down your bandwidth and its most likely being used by someone outside our network.
F. I am not concerned at this time about the server part even thought that is a legitimate issue. All we want is for people who are NOT PERSONALLY using the upload part to just turn it off. It will help everyone. We have watched the general flow of traffic and have confirmed that these programs are causing 50% of all speed issues.
G. No we are not out of bandwidth, this is only a way to cut down unused traffic by people who are not Prolog Customers.
H. We care about our customers and are only trying to maintain as much as possible the best most consistent service possible, and this letter was meant just to get the word out to people who may not even know what is happening and to ask people who do understand to work with us on this. Use the upload when you personally need it, but do not leave it on all the time so the bandwidth can just be left on like a water faucet, kind of like water conservation. Why waste it? We want it for our customers not theirs
I. If these programs are not setup right your computers could have major security holes in them and your personal files could be available to the world.
This is all I am going to say about this I hope this puts some peoples mind at ease. Our main goal is to get rid of wasted bandwidth so you OUR customers can use it.
I apologize if the intent of the letter was misunderstood in anyway.
Please if you have any legit questions not flames email me and I will gladly answer them. All flames will just be deleted by me with no response.
Think what you will, a lot of people are blowing this letter out of porportion.
Re:Management fluff (Score:4, Insightful)
This argument slays me. FTPing or P2P or whatever, to someone is FL is no different than being a Verizon customer and making a long distance call to an AT&T customer in another state. These companies wanted to jump on the bandwagon and offer this service, so they will just have to figure it out. I am sick of commercials that show space shuttles lifting off and music and video being downloaded, only to have these newbie ISPs get very upset when you actually do any of that! Providing internet is marching its way toward being no different than other utilities. Did POTs lines get overloaded way back when? Of course. And they have spent decades improving the phone system. And yet, in a catastrophe like a hurricane or 9/11, the phone lines can still get overloaded from too many people trying to check on loved ones.
E. Your speeds that your complaining about have been directly tied to these kinds of programs sucking down your bandwidth and its most likely being used by someone outside our network.
More BS. I know of no broadband ISP that had the foresight to offer tiered services from the get-go. And Napster was out long before cable and DSL finally made it to the general public. They didn't pay attention to the demand and the market and what it was all about, and they are complaining about it. They jumped onto something that was already in existence, and completely underestimated how they would handle the demand.
I. If these programs are not setup right your computers could have major security holes in them and your personal files could be available to the world.
Typical defensive stance - when you can't come up with a good answer, threaten them and change the subject. I am tired of hearing it from the RIAA or anyone else who wants to hit the below the belt like this and try to use the customers ignorant fear to coerce them into doing something. It's unethical and deceitful. Can running FTP cause a security breach? Yes. Can P2P programs of the world junk up your computer with adware and such. Oh yes. But it is not the ISPs place to dabble here. Anyone willing to run these things needs to be prepared to educate themselves.
Re:P2P networks (Score:2)
Re:P2P networks (Score:2)
Re:READ THIS AND WEEP (Score:2, Funny)
Re:READ THIS AND WEEP (Score:2)
Then add more wires. Or are you still finding 640K of RAM enough for you?
Re:READ THIS AND WEEP (Score:3, Insightful)
If this post is at -1, it means that the mod supports piracy.
Yes your currently at -1, yes I happen to agree with you. As I have stated here [slashdot.org] P2P is unfair to other people that are using the network for more valid reasons. By valid reasons I mean work/homework is more important than downloading porn/music etc. I like P2P but untill we can come up with a way to divide bandwidth more fairly, the bandwidth hogs have to go. If you have your own dedicated bandwidth, then by all means, use P2P and leave it on all the time. For the rest of use that are using shared reasources (regular DSL, cable, university dorm networks etc.) P2P is unfair to all others on the network.
Re:Does anyone smell a rat? (Score:2)
They just want to save bandwidth, bandwidth is expensive these days. But it wont help unless they are gonna filter every packet on every port out, since people will find a new way to send the p2p info over the network, you cant keep it in nor out.
Welcome back to reality
Quazion.