BitTorrent Inc. + Comcast = Love, Peace, Harmony…Not!
When Robb Topolski made the initial discovery that Comcast was interfering with BitTorrent traffic, he couldn’t have imagined that it would lead to an FCC hearing or, more importantly, to apparent reconciliation this week between Comcast and the rest of the world. Thing is, Robb doesn’t believe a word of it.
Ever since the news broke that Comcast had been using ‘hacker-like’ techniques to hamper BitTorrent traffic, Comcast’s name has been dragged through the mud, with claim after claim of dirty tricks, lies, half-truths and strategic omission. It seems that nothing could go right for the company. Until this week, that is.
Apparently, everything in the Comcast garden is rosy these days, with previous arch-rival BitTorrent now working things out together over afternoon tea. However, not everyone is celebrating.
In 2007, Robb Topolski discovered and documented the Comcast interference, informed TorrentFreak and we published an article which ignited the whole debate. It’s safe to say, he’s been following this one closely.
Here are his thoughts on the Comcast / BitTorrent reconciliation:
—–
I’m probably a key figure as to why we’re all talking about Network Neutrality again. I was having a problem uploading on Gnutella in early 2007. I tracked it down to Comcast using Sandvine-injected RST packets. Blog stories led to press stories which led to independent confirmation. And here we are today. Peace and harmony? Probably not.
Today Comcast and BitTorrent seems to have solved world hunger — and I’d love nothing more than to be optimistic about it. But I cannot be. As they say on Slashdot — show video, or it didn’t happen. This deal is treachery, relies on how much we can trust the word of Comcast, and leaves the public interests out in the cold.
I think it’s strange that anyone believes a word that Comcast says. This is the Comcast that:
1. Told the FCC in 2005 that they would not degrade traffic in order to convince the FCC that network neutrality regulations were not needed.
2. Started degrading P2P traffic the very next year, and failed to tell anyone what they were doing.
3. Used a system that utilized forgery, and successfully placed blame on the other peer instead of Comcast.
4. Denied it when caught.
5. Then changed their story when the denials were not believed, but still never came out and said what they were doing.
6. Then they justified their actions by throwing their other Cable-Internet brothers and sisters under the bus with their “they do it too!” defense
7. Then stealthily changed the AUP days before an FCC filing where they referred to the new provisions.
8. When the changed AUP started getting press attention, they stated that a prominent story on Comcast.net alerted millions of visitors of the change and accused Marvin Ammori of crying wolf. (Google cache proved that nothing alerted users to the changed AUP until the day after the press started asking questions.)
9. Then they packed the Harvard FCC hearing.
This company has not demonstrated that you can trust its promises, nor can you believe its assertions. Comcast just used BitTorrent Inc. as a tool to try and defang the FCC.
BitTorrent Inc. is a content provider. Vuze, who actually DID make a complaint and petition to the FCC, is a competitor. Neither BitTorrent, Vuze, nor Comcast represents the interests of 12 million Comcast users nor the The Internet Society nor the public. And this middle-of-the-night deal was made without their input.
Nothing has changed. The RST interference continues. It was a wrongful act. BitTorrent Inc. has no right making a deal with Comcast allowing it to continue to commit wrongful acts until it finally decides it is ready to stop. The correct relief is to stop the interference immediately and to FULLY DISCLOSE what it did and to accept responsibility for those actions. (Even today, Comcast’s Policy VP refused to answer questions about the interference.)
Their word is worthless. Until the interference stops, I have no reason to believe it will. Until either meaningful competition returns to broadband, or until sufficient government regulation enforces Network Neutrality, we have no reason to think that this agreement will last through the night.
Robb Topolski
—–
TorrentFreak confronted Ashwin Navin of BitTorrent Inc. with Robb’s comments, and he told us: “We decided to collaborate with Comcast because they agreed to stop using RSTs, increase upload capacity, and evaluate network hardware that accelerates media delivery and file transfers. We’re at the beginning of the formal collaboration, but Robb’s work was instrumental to identify the offending practice. We need him and the community to keep an eye on ISPs across the world.”
“Our work with Comcast will benefit all P2P development because Comcast has agreed to manage traffic at Layer 3 (the network layer) rather than Layers 4-7 (the protocol/application layers). This is a core component of the neutrality debate,” he added.
As always, time will tell…
Previously: Norwegian ISPs Refuse MPAA’s Request to Disconnect Pirates
Next: Ridiculously Useless Bittorrent Software
59 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All
He’s got a good point - Comcast isn’t to be trusted. If they want to be trusted, they need to earn it first, after all the corporate lies.
everybody that uses comcast just needs to boycott the company and move onto other more free isp’s. what better way to take out the bad guy then to completely remove his resources. they need our traffic to make money. take the traffic away and it’s like taking a lollipop from a kid.
@anon:
You may say that, but in my area its comcast or poor service/stability DSL.
In the states ISP “choice” consists of 2 carriers if you’re lucky. The real issue is the monopoly that exists. At this rate using my cell phone as my modem and sole ISP may be the way to go. The speeds are catching up and the price is about the same. That’ll throw a wrench in the works. Let’s see what happens with the “white space” deal.
comcast needs to get laid :)
My home has Comcast as an ISP. I’m at school now but I’m going home today. I’ll see if this is legit or just shit.
10-to-1 odds that Comcast pulls a fast one and goes back to some form of traffic shaping while still finding a way to maintain their “promise”.
My block pumpin and I’m tryin to keep that hoe pumpin
If niggaz snitchin them I let them niggaz hold sumthin
If a nigga owe sumthin need a doctors note from ‘em
Or his throat from ‘em
figures.
is there any way to check if my isp is fluxing up any?=)
[quote comment="322247"]In the states ISP “choice” consists of 2 carriers if you’re lucky. The real issue is the monopoly that exists. At this rate using my cell phone as my modem and sole ISP may be the way to go. The speeds are catching up and the price is about the same. That’ll throw a wrench in the works. Let’s see what happens with the “white space” deal.[/quote]
same with me,better if u invest in those cellular modem,but consider carefully the reception u get in your area,cos it really depends on feng-shui. leave it in the right place,u’ll get low ping/hi-speed,wrong place,u’ll get less than 52k/bps.
[quote comment="322238"]@anon:
You may say that, but in my area its comcast or poor service/stability DSL.[/quote]
If dissatisfied Comcast users migrate to smaller ISPs that offer poorer, less stable service, the increased user load may very well force them to upgrade their infrastructure and subsequently quit sucking. Or at the very least, suck less.
A single user certainly wouldn’t tip the scales, and it would more than likely require a concerted effort. But, it’s far from being utterly hopeless.
[quote comment="322371"][quote comment="322238"]@anon:
You may say that, but in my area its comcast or poor service/stability DSL.[/quote]
If dissatisfied Comcast users migrate to smaller ISPs that offer poorer, less stable service, the increased user load may very well force them to upgrade their infrastructure and subsequently quit sucking. Or at the very least, suck less.
A single user certainly wouldn’t tip the scales, and it would more than likely require a concerted effort. But, it’s far from being utterly hopeless.[/quote]
but whats to stop them from throttling traffic if they cant make the upgrades
i could say “i told you so” but i think is obvious.
I dont care if they team up with batman, stop interfering and do what your name implies, INTERNET SERVER PROVIDER, not INTERNET SERVER MODERATOR.
[quote comment="322411"]I dont care if they team up with batman, stop interfering and do what your name implies, INTERNET SERVER PROVIDER, not INTERNET SERVER MODERATOR.[/quote]
Well said. i hope you’re listening COMCRAP!!!!
[quote]“If dissatisfied Comcast users migrate to smaller ISPs that offer poorer, less stable service, the increased user load may very well force them to upgrade their infrastructure and subsequently quit sucking. Or at the very least, suck less.”[/quote]
[quote]“but whats to stop them from throttling traffic if they cant make the upgrades?”[/quote]
If they start throttling, they will lose all of the customers they gained, plus more.
Just, like, comcast.
Ron Paul is in the race to the end;
GO RON PAUL !!!
Lmao, its serVICE not serVER ;)
I’ve repeated this dozens of times. One more can’t hurt.
As a former employee, at the corporate headquarters in Philadelphia, PA, I can absolutely assure anyone who is interested, Comcast is 100% evil.
Mark my words - within the next year (and if you’d like to bookmark this comment and come back in a year to tell me I was wrong, feel free, cause it IS going to happen) - Comcast will implement a system that monitors your bandwidth usage, and when you hit a certain amount (like say oh 60GB per month) you’ll be put into a walled garden (ie. can’t surf the internet you can only view one page). That one page will display this:
You’ve run out of bandwidth. If you’d like to buy more, you can make a one time payment of (probably $10) for an additional 20GB to use this month. Otherwise, please sign up for our bandwidth pig plan, which gives you 80GB of bandwidth per month - which is an additional (probably) $7.99 per month.
The system to do this is already in place. It’s up and running now. All they have to do is flip a switch. At the meeting to discuss this “plan” the (at the time, VP) started off by saying “If I read about any of this on DSLReports, everyone in this room will be subpoenaed”. That was the only time I had ever attended a meeting where they were so concerned that the project would be “leaked” before they could figure out some bullshit spin.
Here’s how Comcast works, in a nutshell. They have a billion lawyers. Those lawyers will research the shit out of every law, and then Comcast will do absolutely everything and anything up to breaking that law, without actually breaking it.
The only thing that Comcast is scared about is the media. That is the one and ONLY way that they ever implement any kind of change. If you get your problem into the New York Times, it’ll get fixed the next day. I can absolutely guarantee that the last few months must have been hysterical in the PR, Marketing and Customer Support departments of corporate. The frantic meetings where they try to figure out a way to snake out of the bittorrent debacle would have been amazing to sit in on, for the sheer sake of comedy. I’ve sat in on/participated in dozens of similar meetings (google “Comcast bitch dog”) and the excuses they come up with are hysterical. Lawyers and PR never cease to amaze me with the bullshit spins they can come up with.
ps. anyone at corp hq who thinks they’ve figured out who I am, I wrote this comment from an Internet cafe using TOR (google it) so don’t bother asking torrentfreak for my ip. Fuckers.
@ #19
jesus
christ
…
@#19
Thanks not surprising at all. They already cancel your account if you go over 90 gigs a month, even though their services are labeled as “unlimited bandwidth”. Its not hard to imagine them changing it to 60 and forcing you to pay more.
I pay my isp good money and i trust it to connect me to the internet and let me download [and upload, yes dear ...] stuff without any limitation.
So far they never betrayed my trust (that´s 6 years of filesharing…).
Any is that which fucks its customers over like comcast did is simply not trustworthy. If a PERSON would lie to you, betray you, stab you in the back like comcast, what would you do, eh?
Tiered service for cable is nothing new — it’s been a part of the DOCSIS capability all along, so I fail to see why Comcast was fearful of reading about it on DSLReports.
Your cable modem is under the control of the provider due to DOCSIS and it has always been this way as part of the industry plan. The only reason it hasn’t already been implemented is the fact that they knew customers would balk. Now bittorrent has given them the excuse they needed to “turn it on.”
Time-Warner is doing it in Texas and this will soon be widespread and a standard across the country.
Anyone who didn’t know about this just hasn’t done their homework and researched how cable modem systems via DOCSIS actually work at the customer level.
Comcast will be saying, “All ur modem R belong to us” and there isn’t anything you can do about it except pay for a higher tier of service (more bandwidth).
haha thank god i dont have comcrap!!
See section C.6.6 “ServiceClassName” in this DOCSIS 3.0 spec document regarding tiered service capabilities:
http://www.cablelabs.com/specifications/CM-SP-OSSIv3.0-I06-080215.pdf
While this is DOCSIS 3.0, the implementation has been there in all previous versions.
Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All
Add your response