Member Avatar for EddieC

Call it a kind of bigotry for the new millennium. The packets of peer-to-peer applications such as BitTorrent have become the target of throttling—even complete blockage—by Internet service providers on their networks. Do they have the right?

The revelation comes from study results published yesterday by Germany’s Max Plunk Institute of Software Systems computer research group, which identified 13 ISPs engaged in the practices, including Comcast, Cox and seven others in the U.S.

In response, Comcast said it monitors peek traffic times and slows peer-to-peer packets to give other services access. Data in the study contradicts that claim, showing that both Comcast and Cox throttle P2P packets “independent of time of day.”

Still, compared with the 1,224 ISPs in the survey, the number found to be limiting traffic was relatively small. And who’s to say they don’t have a right? Virtually all the coverage I’ve read portrays the ISPs as the bad guys, and perhaps the providers are biased. But should government play a role?

Packets from peer-to-peer applications reportedly account for between 50 percent and 90 percent of all traffic moving through measured hosts. And if all that traffic is slowing people’s phone calls or video streams, doesn’t the service provider have an obligation to adequately serve those consumers?

The Open Internet Coalition, Free Press and other advocacy groups are calling for the U.S. Congress to enact legislation to stop companies from deciding which traffic is allowed, how much and when. I think that’s a very bad idea. Suppose someone found a way to identify and block denial of service attacks or other hacking? Or a way to block traffic to and from sites maintained by known terrorists or pedophiles? Shouldn’t those be blocked?

I believe the issue should be left to free markets to decide. If one ISP blocks BitTorrent traffic, for example, and another does not, free people will migrate to the network that serves them best. Anytime government curtails liberty by imposing restrictions, the ultimate results is less freedom, not more.

  • 3 Contributors
  • 4 Replies
  • 314 Views
  • 1 Day Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by EddieC

Dani AI

Generated

Short summary and context: this thread raises the classic tradeoff between network management and an open Internet. correctly points to the Max Planck/Glasnost findings that put Comcast and Cox in the spotlight; is also right that ISPs must keep shared networks usable for all customers. Both points matter — technical facts, customer realities, and the legal/regulatory landscape all shape what ISPs may or may not do.

How ISPs can interfere (technical reality). Research and hearings from 2007–2008 showed some cable operators were terminating or interrupting BitTorrent flows by injecting forged TCP RESETs or otherwise interfering with P2P control traffic; the Glasnost measurements documented widespread blocking on a small number of ISPs rather than a general global practice. These methods differ from simple “slowing”: injecting RSTs will abort uploads, while shaping/rate-limiting reduces throughput without falsifying connections. (arstechnica.com)

What happened legally and why it matters. The FCC found Comcast’s practices problematic in 2008 and required disclosure and changes; Comcast appealed and the D.C. Circuit later vacated the enforcement order on jurisdictional grounds in 2010. That history shows the limits of ad-hoc enforcement and why transparency and clear rules (or strong market alternatives) matter for long-term answers. (eff.org)

Practical, immediately useful steps (for readers years later). 1) Test and document: run public tests (Glasnost/DiffProbe/NANO via the M-Lab ecosystem) at different times and save timestamps/screenshots. 2) Ask the ISP for an explanation and keep a paper trail. 3) If unresolved, file a complaint with the FCC consumer center and share your test logs. 4) As a last resort use an encrypted tunnel (VPN) to hide protocol signatures — this can work around protocol-based shaping but may violate terms of service or be imperfect; treat it as a mitigation, not a policy fix. (arstechnica.com)

Bottom line: the core questions here are technical (how is traffic being identified and handled?), market-based (can customers switch?), and legal/policy-based (who sets rules?). All three deserve attention before accepting either blanket ISP discretion or unfettered user freedom.

Recommended Answers

All 4 Replies

Member Avatar for nanop1i

Member Avatar for EddieC

what's the point of pointing to your blog here? I saw nothing that relates to this article and it's bad etiquette (and I'm pretty sure it's contrary to DaniWeb guidelines).

Member Avatar for jwenting

ISPs have a duty to ALL their customers, and that means preventing users of Pirate 2 Pirate software from bogging down their networks by throttling their bandwidth to the point where there's enough capacity for everyone.
Those kids are already stealing the stuff they're downloading, why should the ISPs let them steal bandwidth as well?

Member Avatar for EddieC

On the issue of throttling, I couldn't agree more. Network hosts belong to the ISPs, and are not the province of government. However, I'd venture to say that P2P is not always used for piracy.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.