The Health Status of Net Neutrality – The Operators’ Impact on Internet Traffic is their new report which looks at how suppliers of fixed and mobile Internet services in Sweden, traditionally some of the fastest in the world, regulate the flow of traffic in their networks.

The plan was to discover if throttling activities exist among operators, and if so to assess how feasable it is to accurately measure it, and then decide whether it was worth continuing with and expanding upon the project.

Tests were conducted by .SE on the services of a dozen ISPs and measurements were taken for three different types of traffic – standard web browsing, file-sharing and video (such as YouTube).

“What is evident from the measurement results is that some mobile operators systematically downgrade user traffic such as the file-sharing protocol BitTorrent,” says Jörgen Eriksson.

Eriksson, who had responsibility for conducting the tests, says at least one ISP blocked all incoming connections to torrent clients.

The report notes that interfering with BitTorrent is a bad idea, since much open software distribution relies on it. Furthermore, messing with P2P protocols in general is problematic since other services such as Skype, Spotify and Voddler use them.

“If an operator attempts to limit these protocols and the operator’s customers know that their Internet connection does not give them full access to this type of service the operator will lose customers,” says the report.

In Sweden, service providers are free to restrict traffic providing they comply with certain conditions, but the report criticizes ISPs for their lack of transparency.

“The most interesting conclusion is that it is very difficult, if at all possible, to find information among operators about what they block or prioritize,” says Eriksson.

“We know that mobile market players see it as an advantage to NOT be compared with others. There is thus a risk that even if the technical information is presented, it will be useless for those who do not have a deep understanding of how the Internet is built.”

For now and until .SE’s next and more comprehensive report, the tested ISPs will retain their anonymity giving them time to reconsider their strategy, which given wider considerations might not be a bad idea.

Restricting end-users’ access to peer-to-peer based services could have a knock-on effect to the wider Internet. Peer-to-peer protocols help to distribute traffic online, an improvement upon older and more bandwidth intensive models.

“If peer-to-peer protocols are blocked so the trend will go toward developing protocols according to the traditional server-client model, or data will be hidden in other traffic where it is difficult to discern,” the report adds.

“It will probably not be as effective and lead to an increase in traffic – rather than the decrease as ISPs seek when they block peer-to-peer protocols,” the report concludes.

Full report here (Swedish, pdf)

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The suit comes after public interest groups, including Free Press, raised concerns over MetroPCS’ new 4G service plans that appear to allow subscribers unlimited access to certain applications like YouTube, but would block others including Netflix and Skype. MetroPCS has not yet responded to the groups’ allegations, indicating that it would do so by February 11.

Free Press Policy Counsel M. Chris Riley made the following statement:

“Instead of responding to the public outcry over its walled-garden practices by offering open Internet access services, MetroPCS has chosen to follow the lead of Verizon Wireless and sue the FCC to strike down the Commission’s weak, loophole-ridden rules. Like a thief caught red-handed, MetroPCS — rather than change its ways — is now trying to legalize stealing.

“What we’re seeing are the early signs of a full scale assault on the open Internet. MetroPCS hopes that by helping to vacate the rules in court, it will be able to continue with its anti-consumer, anti-competitive practices of blocking popular applications like Skype and Netflix unless its subscribers pay a steep ransom.”

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Verizon is arguing that the F.C.C. exceeded its authority, and violated the company’s constitutional rights. Verizon filed its suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the same court that in April ruled that the F.C.C. had overstepped itself when it sanctioned Comcast in 2008 for blocking users of its broadband Internet service from BitTorrent, a file-sharing application.

More at the New York Times.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Rogers Communications claims it has to throttle P2P users to prevent their network from becoming “the world’s buffet,” as they like to call it. Not only does this affect their network, their bandwidth bills have also increased due to the growing popularity of BitTorrent and other filesharing networks.

In its network management policy Rogers details how it actively slows down consumer traffic. The company claims to target only downstream P2P traffic although we’ll later show that this is incorrect. For Hi Speed Internet customers, “the maximum upload speed for P2P file sharing traffic is 80 kbps at all times” but “there are no limits on download speed for any application or protocol,” the ISP writes.

This is just the theory though. In practice many Rogers customers have reported something entirely different. Although connection and speed issues often happen with various ISPs, an avalanche of complaints from Rogers’ customers over the past two months indicated that something had gone seriously wrong.

Starting at the end of September 2010, Rogers customers began noticing severe throttling of downstream P2P and non-P2P traffic. It was clear that something had changed, but none of the customers were made aware of these changes, and neither were many of the support employees.

The effects are nontheless severe and widespread, and at the DSLreports forums several threads were started by dissatisfied customers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). It is reported that download speeds for both P2P and regular traffic has dropped, and some customers have issues while browsing the web, gaming and streaming content from Netflix and other services.

“Many of Rogers’ Canadian customers have reported substantial degradations in downstream speeds; whereas before September they were downloading at several Mb/s they are now reduced to a few hundred KB/s or less,” Christopher Parsons, PhD Candidate at the University of Victoria and lead researcher for Deep Packet Inspection Canada told TorrentFreak.

“I’ve contacted various colleagues around Canada and they have provided confirmation of what is being written by Rogers customers in the DSLreports forums.” Parsons wrote an elaborate blog post on the issue, which seems to show that the problems trace back to the new network management system implemented by Rogers.

Today, almost three months later, the issues don’t seem to be fully resolved yet, as more complaints keep trickling in every day. Dozens of customers state in blog and forum posts that they’ve complained to Rogers bitterly, and some have even switched to another ISP as a result of the issues.

At Rogers, things are awkwardly silent while all this is unfolding. Thus far, the only public response from Rogers comes from a forum post by Keith McArthur, their senior director of social media and digital communications.

“As some of you are aware, Rogers recently made some upgrades to our network management systems that had the unintended effect of impacting non-p2p file sharing traffic under a specific combination of conditions,” McArthur writes.

“Our network engineering team is working on the best way to address this issue as quickly as possible. However, I’m not able to provide any updates at this time about when this will be fixed. Our network management policy remains unchanged. We are working hard to ensure that there are no gaps between our policy and the technology that enables that policy.”

This response dates back to the end of October, but even today many customers are still reporting that their download speeds are severely degraded. One may even conclude that the new system is meant to slow down downstream traffic as well, contrary to what’s stated in the Network Management policy.

This does indeed seem to be the case.

Rogers’ social media director kept his public appearance limited to one post, and eventually also stopped responding to individual customers who asked for help. In a response, a Rogers customer contacted the CRTC instead, and the result is interesting to say the least.

Initially Rogers’ legal counsel Ken Thompson tried to cover up the issue, by stating that they never received a single complaint about the issue, but he did confirm to the CRTC that downstream traffic is now also being throttled. So, aside from the collateral damage the new network management system caused, Rogers has secretly started to throttle P2P download traffic.

Not a big deal according to Rogers’ lawyer, a simple change in the policy will quickly resolve the issue.

“We have determined our best response to this situation will be to update our ITMP disclosure on our website to reflect this new information. We are in the process of making those changes to our website and will provide you with the modified ITMP [traffic management policy] disclosure as soon as it has received approval by Rogers’ management,” he wrote to the CRTC.

So there we have it, instead of honestly answering customers who’ve complained about being throttled for months, Rogers simply changes their policy.

Thus far no changes have been made, but this will probably happen in the coming days or weeks. Rogers customers who want to enjoy P2P at full speeds have no other option than to switch to a new ISP or sign up with a VPN service.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Although the proposal is far from perfect, we are even more surprised by the misplaced outrage towards Google. How can it be that thousands of reporters and activists claim that the Google / Verizon deal will kill Net Neutrality if there’s no such thing in the first place?

Next week marks the three year anniversary of the story that Comcast was preventing BitTorrent users from uploading content to others after they had finished downloading. Rightfully so, Comcast’s practices led to a thorough FCC investigation and the ISP was eventually punished for its interventions.

But Comcast was not the only one who play(ed)s foul.

Despite Net Neutrality being in the spotlight for nearly three years due to the Comcast debacle, nobody seemed to pay attention to the fact that wireless broadband providers such as Verizon and AT&T were completely banning BitTorrent traffic on their networks.

In the spring of 2007, months before Comcast’s BitTorrent blocking practices were revealed, we already reported that Verizon was not allowing any BitTorrent traffic on its wireless networks. In the years that followed the company slightly changed the wording of its Terms of Service, but up until today BitTorrent users are still not welcome.

Verizon isn’t the only wireless carrier with such a policy either. The Terms of Service at AT&T for example, includes the following section under the heading Prohibited and Permissible Uses.

While most common uses for Intranet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing.

That doesn’t sounds very neutral does it?

For years nobody gave a cent for Net Neutrality on wireless networks, but this all changed a few days ago when Google and Verizon presented their plans. The thousands of reports, calls for protests, petitions and random Google bashing that followed were mind-blowing to say the least.

Although we’re not backing the proposal, we can’t help but note that Google’s proposal is in essence very similar to the (widely praised) Net Neutrality regulations that were suggested a few month ago by the FCC. On several points it’s actually an improvement, as the EFF also noted.

Even the most troubling part of Google’s proposal – that wireless networks would be excluded for the time being – is not much different from what the FCC suggested. In fact, buried in their proposals the FCC also acknowledged that wireless networks needed special treatment.

“We seek comment on the application of the principles to different access platforms, including how, in what time frames or phases, and to what extent the principles should apply to non-wireline forms of Internet access,” the FCC wrote in their proposed rulemaking (pdf) a few months ago.

Despite this vagueness about how the rules would apply to wireless networks, the majority of the Net Neutrality proponents hailed the FCC proposal. Take this comment from Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press for example:

“After years of hard work, we are pleased that the FCC has begun this crucially important rulemaking on Network Neutrality. A well-crafted Net Neutrality rule can ensure that the open Internet continues to serve as a great force for economic innovation and democratic participation for all Americans.”

Then compare that the statement Free Press released a few hours ago, when it rallied support for a protest at Google’s offices.

“In the week since news of Google’s deal with Verizon broke, more than 300,000 people have signed letters calling on Google to abandon the proposal, which threatens to destroy Network Neutrality – the fundamental principle that keeps the Internet open and free from discrimination.”

Seriously, we don’t understand where all the hatred towards Google comes from. The proposal is not going to destroy Net Neutrality, simply because Net Neutrality doesn’t exist yet.

In our view, the proposal is a great step forward to Net Neutrality on wired networks, something that doesn’t yet exist. Of course it still leaves the door open for BitTorrent throttling, but so did the FCC proposal.

The reality is that the Internet would be better off with the rules put forward in the Google / Verizon proposal than with no rules at all. That said, wireless networks need to be neutral in the long run of course.

Whether running a lot of BitTorrent downloads on a Wireless network is wise thing at the moment is doubtful though. George Ou of the Digital Society told TorrentFreak that “a single BitTorrent user would ruin the experience on the entire cell tower. There are just too many random packets being flung into the air.”

I guess the take home message is that you can’t kill something that isn’t there. So, if all the people who are so outraged at Google’s proposal could also organize protests at the offices of Verizon and AT&T to demand the right to use BitTorrent on their wireless services, we’ll stop complaining.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

All around the world, hundreds of larger and smaller ISPs are actively interfering with BitTorrent traffic, allegedly to keep their networks in good shape. Thus far, only Comcast has been punished for doing so.

In 2008 the FCC looked into Comcast’s BitTorrent blocking and concluded that the company’s network management practices were unfair because they specifically targeted BitTorrent, not any other protocols.

The FCC ordered Comcast to stop blocking BitTorrent transfers, and last year the communications commission decided to take up the task of ensuring that the Internet remains neutral. At least, that was the initial plan, the reality is less hopeful.

Although it was Comcast’s anti-BitTorrent measures that sparked the current Net Neutrality debate, the FCC’s current proposals are not going to stop ISPs from slowing down or even blocking BitTorrent traffic. In fact, if these rules are implemented, BitTorrent users will be worse off than three years ago.

In the 107 page proposal detailing the Net Neutrality regulation, the FCC says that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally, but it allows ISPs to slow down or block traffic if it’s considered to be “reasonable network management”.

So the key issue is, what are reasonable network management practices and how may these affect BitTorrent traffic? Let’s take a look at what the FCC has to say about this.

Reasonable network management consists of reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to [...] (i) reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address quality-of-service concerns; [...] (iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or (iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content.

In short, this means that ISPs have plenty of options to target BitTorrent traffic and keep the Net Neutral at the same time. Let’s take a closer look.

As the EFF has also pointed out, the latter two conditions (iii and iv) would make it perfectly reasonable to block BitTorrent traffic for the purpose of preventing piracy. The terminology is rather vague, but we expect that when the MPAA or RIAA produce a report stating that 95% of all BitTorrent traffic involves copyright violations, blocking BitTorrent may become perfectly reasonable.

And that’s just one of the many loopholes. There are also plenty of options for ISPs to target BitTorrent traffic without going for the piracy/copyright angle. In fact, congestion issues and quality-of-service concerns are even more viable and can be implemented to target BitTorrent traffic specifically, but indirectly.

Under the proposed plans, ISPs could simply manage their networks by slowing down connections that use “too many” TCP connections, one of the key characteristics of BitTorrent traffic. There are plenty of arbitrary rules that may look reasonable and neutral, but will specifically (not exclusively) hinder BitTorrent transfers to ease the strain on the network.

In fact, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) which develops and promotes Internet standards is working on a proposal that might kill BitTorrent traffic if implemented. The proposed protocol will mark all packets which are expected to cause congestion as “negative packets,” which is likely to apply to and slow down most peer-to-peer traffic.

One way or another, the FCC’s Net Neutrality plan is no guarantee that BitTorrent will be able to download at full speeds. On the contrary, the plans might actually encourage ISPs to use Deep Packet Inspection technologies to check if the traffic of its subscribers is lawful, if it’s the last resort to slow down BitTorrent. We don’t want that to happen do we?

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The Bill of Internet Rights would cover topics such as Net Neutrality, online privacy and freedom of information. Where possible the bill will take existing legislation as the basis. What makes this different though, is the process he’s using to help develop the document – an “Internet swarm”. Comments, suggestions and questions are all welcomed via his website, to contribute to the development of the document.

“I don’t think the problem is that there are a lot of politicians who actively want to dismount our civil liberties,” Engstrom told TorrentFreak. “It’s just that they haven’t realized that the Internet is an important part of our society, where the fundamental rights have to apply. They think it’s some kind of toy they can take away from the children if they’ve been naughty. The task is to explain to them that this is not an acceptable way of handling the net.”

The idea for the bill came from the “Internet Core Group” inside the European Greens, where the proposal has strong support. Engstrom also says that during the negotiations for the Telecom Package there was a lot of talk about the need to safeguard net neutrality, so he feels hopeful about this proposal.

“When it comes to safeguarding the fundamental civil liberties, such as the right to privacy and information freedom – well, that’s a fight we just have to win,” Engstrom said. According to the current planning, the Bill of Rights will be ready for proposal in the spring of 2010.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

In early 2007, when network neutrality was still a non-issue for most people, BitTorrent inventor Bram Cohen told us that ISPs should find a way to cope with BitTorrent.

“ISPs have to invest in making their networks better and faster rather than stifling applications which consumers use and love,” he said, while encouraging users to switch to non throttling ISPs if possible, or complain to their ISP’s customer services.

A lot of things have changed in the years that followed. Comcast started to prevent its users from seeding content on BitTorrent, and many other ISPs took similar actions to throttle BitTorrent traffic. As a direct result, network neutrality was placed on the political agenda in many countries. It also inspired BitTorrent Inc. to look for solutions that would eliminate the need for throttling entirely, solving the problem at its root.

This is where uTP comes in. uTP is a new and improved implementation of the BitTorrent protocol which is designed to be network friendly. The current implementation often causes interference with other applications, which is the main reason why ISPs try to slow it down, or even stop it altogether. uTP aims to solve this problem.

With uTP, uTorrent (and the Mainline client) will become network aware by throttling itself if congestion in the network is detected. This will have a huge impact on ISP networks according to Simon Morris, BitTorrent’s VP of Product Management. “If uTP is successful it should result in a multi-billion dollar windfall in terms of savings for ISPs,” Morris told TorrentFreak

This means that the new uTorrent will eliminate the need for ISPs to throttle BitTorrent traffic in their networks. Of course, uTorrent users will also be affected by the new protocol. When needed, uTorrent will decrease the upload or download speed to avoid congestion.

According to Morris it’s mainly the upload speed that will be affected. “The throttling that matters most is actually not so much the download but rather the upload – as bandwidth is normally much lower UP than DOWN, the up-link will almost always get congested before the down-link does,” he explained.

“uTP measures the time a packet takes to get sent from peer A to peer B, so in theory uTP will detect congestion anywhere on that path, although in practice the congestion most often happens somewhere on the first-mile uplink connection.”

So does this mean that the new uTorrent will result in slower download times? Not necessarily. Since there is less congestion, uTorrent users will experience no slowdowns in web-browsing, and ideally less congestion and a more efficient use of the network may result in faster download speeds. uTP is currently being tested in uTorrent v2.0 beta and thus far none of the testers have reported any significant problems.

“There are already a couple of hundred thousand people using our v2.0 beta client, and things seem to be progressing very nicely. Our v2.0 client will initiate outgoing uTP connections by default whenever it can. Previous versions of our clients will accept incoming uTP connections – they just won’t initiate them,” Morris said.

“We’re excited that this creates a better experience for millions of consumers, and it also potentially has a massive impact on ISPs – greatly reducing (even eliminating) any justification to manage or shape BitTorrent traffic and allowing ISP networks to handle more BitTorrent traffic, without resulting congestion forcing capital network upgrades ahead of schedule or the ‘need’ to invest in DPI or other traffic shaping gear.”

It is hard to tell if uTP really is BitTorrent’s savior (some highly doubt it), but if it lives up to the expectations it will be beneficial to both users and ISPs. The specs for uTP will eventually be open so other clients will have the opportunity to implement it too. However, since uTorrent and the Mainline client together are used by two thirds of all BitTorrent users, the effects should be immediately noticeable to both those users and ISPs.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The Canadian Radio, Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is currently looking into the traffic management practices of Canadian ISPs, which came to a head as a result of a dispute between CAIP, and its wholesale provider, Bell. The core objectives of the investigation are to examine the Internet traffic management practices being used, and check that they are in accordance with the Telecommunications Act.

The CRTC is looking at the effects of filtering on both regular customers and wholesalers, and the results of the first round of questions are just in. Even though some of the responses are filed in confidence (summarized by Chris Parsons), there is enough information to conclude that all major ISPs slow down customers, with most specifically targeting peer-to-peer traffic.

In their response to the CRTC investigation, Bell, Cogeco, Rogers and Eastlink all admit to slow down P2P traffic, arguing that it negatively affects network performance. Shaw, one of the other big players, admitted that customers are slowed down, but most of its responses were filed in confidence and P2P was not specifically mentioned.

Bell was more open about its practices, and admits using deep packet inspection (DPI) to throttle its individual customers and wholesalers. On Bell Wireline, P2P traffic is slowed down between 4.30 PM and 2 AM. To cope with the increasing bandwidth demands of its customers, they further plan to disconnect heavy users and introduce metered plans where customers pay for the bandwidth they use.

Cogeco started to throttle P2P users back in 2001, when they were only using a tiny fraction of what they do now. However, it was seen as necessary because of the increasing load these users put on the network. Like other ISPs, Cogeco considered other options such as metered plans, but these would not solve the network ‘abuse’ by P2P users. Furthermore, the ongoing battle with P2P users who strive to evade their management solutions led the ISP to use deep packet inspection (DPI) as well.

Rogers claims it has to throttle P2P users to prevent their network from becoming “the world’s buffet,” as they like to call it. Not only does this affect their network, their bandwidth bills also increased due to the growing popularity of BitTorrent and other filesharing networks. Similar to Bell and Cogeco, Rogers is also known to use DPI. Upstream P2P traffic is slowed down across their entire network, regardless of congestion,

Shaw filed most of its answers in confidence, but provided a rather paradoxical statement which clearly shows that they slow down upstream traffic. “The traffic management technologies have reduced the rate of upstream consumption to a more manageable rate,” they write, claiming that this allows their customers to reach their full contract speeds. Similar to the other ISPs Shaw is predicting that bandwidth usage will grow, and that traffic shaping is essential to manage their network.

In summary, we can conclude that there is no such thing as net neutrality in Canada. All of the larger ISPs slow down their customers, with most of them specifically targeting P2P traffic through deep packet inspection. Because of this, P2P users can’t enjoy the speeds they were promised, and several legitimate businesses whose income depends on delivering content through BitTorrent or other filesharing networks are unable to compete with those who don’t. It’s now up to the CRTC to draw the right conclusions.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

There haven’t been many reports of British ISPs throttling BitTorrent traffic, but this doesn’t mean that they don’t. Pipex, one of the largest ISPs in the UK, is notorious for its anti-BitTorrent measures. They actively throttle BitTorrent traffic, especially during peak times, and also throttle all encrypted traffic. Other UK ISPs that throttle BitTorrent traffic are BT Broadband, Eclipse, Plusnet, Freedom2Surf and TalkTalk. Virgin Media has not (openly) targeted BitTorrent traffic, but they will now follow suit.

Virgin Media’s CEO Neil Berkett told The Register that the company will start limiting BitTorrent traffic for all its customers. To some this might not really come as a surprise, as earlier this year Berkett said “This net neutrality thing is a load of bollocks.” Virgin’s BitTorrent throttling plans seem to back up this earlier statement. Which throttling methods Virgin will use has not been announced, but Berkett said that they will be implemented mid 2009.

ISPs have been messing with BitTorrent traffic for years, even when the traffic generated was just a tiny fraction of what it is today. When the first ISPs began throttling BitTorrent traffic, Azureus (now Vuze), BitComet and uTorrent introduced a countermeasure, namely, protocol header encryption. This worked well initially, but soon after encryption was introduced, ISPs started to use hardware that could detect encrypted traffic.

The degree of traffic shaping varies a lot between different ISPs. Some only limit BitTorrent traffic during certain times of the day or throttle in specific regions, others take a more aggressive approach and prevent their customers from seeding or even downloading .torrent files. The most used argument to justify their actions, is that all the BitTorrent traffic on their network slows down other customers’ connections.

Whether this is indeed the case can be debated. Nevertheless, instead of investing in their own network to solve these potential congestion issues, ISPs prefer to slow down customers who just happen to use the ‘wrong’ protocol, claiming problems with capacity. Which is interesting, since Virgin started offering an unlimited 50Mbit/s package this week, up from their old limit of 20Mbit/s. Maybe BitTorrent throttling helps make room for this new service.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.