Comcast’s BitTorrent Throttling Gets A Muted Response
By Erik Schmidt on 8.21.07
AT&T has been getting lambasted for censoring a Pearl Jam concert, but the hue and cry over Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent traffic hasn’t gotten nearly as much play in the mainstream media. According to reports at TorrentFreak, which so far have not been disclaimed, Comcast is using software that interrupts BitTorrent traffic in a way that prevents some torrents from being effectively seeded.
BitTorrent has long been restricted by ISPs; the rationale is usually that BitTorrent users gobble up huge amounts of bandwidth. But Comcast is using technology from a company called Sandvine, which does more:
Sandvine breaks every (seed) connection with new peers after a few seconds if it’s not a Comcast user. This makes it virtually impossible to seed a file, especially in small swarms without any Comcast users. Some users report that they can still connect to a few peers, but most of the Comcast customers see a significant drop in their upload speed.
Fine, you might say. Aren’t BitTorrent users all scofflaws? Isn’t the world of BitTorrent inhabited by warez traders and movie thieves? Yes it is, but the BitTorrent protocol is simply a means of peer-to-peer file distribution. So it is also used for legitimate uses like distribution of Linux software. Despite these noninfringing uses, BitTorrent’s connection with copyright-violating activity has given it of a bad reputation.
Perhaps that’s why advocacy groups like SaveTheInternet aren’t jumping up and down about Comcast’s direct interference with BitTorrent traffic. The censoring of political speech is an obvious banner to rally the troops behind. But packet shaping, which is what Comcast is doing, is probably the more fundamental Net Neutrality issue.
Should Comcast be allowed to shape traffic in order to maintain network performance, or is that an unnecessary and overreaching form of control by an ISP?
8.21.07 • Internet Policy/Net Law
7 responses to Comcast’s BitTorrent Throttling Gets A Muted Response
8.22.07 • LookMaNoHands
Or… maybe that TorrentFreak article is incorrect?
There’s a huge thread on this over at Digg, where amidst all the outrage you see Comcast users who keep saying it’s not true, that their torrents are seeding fine.
Comcast also denies it, and I think that should be taken seriously.
I don’t have any relationship with Comcast, although I am on their side of the “net neutrality wars” — I work with Hands Off the Internet on the issue. I’ve seen a lot of bogus allegations thrown at ISPs over the past year, and from what I can tell this is just another example.
8.22.07 • Erik Schmidt
The reports are conflicting. However, there are many responses in both Slashdot and Digg coverage of the topic, which indicate that at least some BitTorrent traffic is likely being throttled.
I’d guess that Comcast’s denial is being taken by many with a grain of salt because many customers aren’t all that trusting of Internet Access Providers generally, or cable companies in particular. The recent AT&T webcast censorship issue and the ongoing AT&T government spying issues, not to mention the widely-circulated “Comcast technician asleep” YouTube video spring to mind.
I think this is the real question: If Comcast is in fact throttling some BitTorrent traffic, should they be allowed to do so?
8.22.07 • Erik
Here’s a direct link to Comcast’s denial.
8.22.07 • LookMaNoHands
My answer would be yes, if it was made clear to customers, Comcast should be able to offer different levels of dedicated access — as long as the pricing is clear and consumers know what they’re getting (or not).
That may be an unpopular position, but it gets to a lot of what this debate is about — will ISPs be allowed to provide QoS at a fee?
I would say yes — there are times where you would want to shape traffic, to guarantee high-speed video delivery, something the Internet isn’t optimized for now. Maybe there could be a pricing tier for people who wanted to use BitTorrent, which might have its own QoS protocol.
And of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say that more investment and more broadband will be an important part of keeping the Internet fast and cheap. QoS is good, but rationing isn’t.
8.22.07 • Erik Schmidt
Thanks for the follow-up.
Clear pricing and information to consumers makes sense. I wonder if that is something the telecoms can provide without prodding from the government. If I were a group like NetCompetition.org (which counts AT&T, Comcast, Quest, and Sprint among others as members, and is a member of the HandsOff.org group), I would be pushing for some sort of industry self-regulation regarding advertising. A consistent theme in the Slashdot and Digg discussions is that customers are very frustrated by their contracts with Comcast, which don’t explicitly state what will trigger action by Comcast.
By investment and more broadband, I assume you mean investment by telecommunications providers. Am I correct?
9.1.07 • PB
Won’t a VPN account prevent their throttles? There are more sites popping up al the time that offer them, here are a couple:
http://www.strongvpn.com
http://www.VpnAccounts.com
9.3.07 • Erik Schmidt
Perhaps a VPN account would prevent the throttling. But that’s not really the point. The average Internet access customer isn’t going to want to go through the hassle and expense of using a VPN account.
Beyond that, I wouldn’t want to do business with a company that doesn’t even provide basic contact information. Neither of the companies you linked to gives any information about who is behind the service or where they operate.
Perhaps there is a reason for this?