Some interesting info, before choosing Comcast.

AP tests Comcast's file-sharing filter

By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer
Fri Oct 19, 1:13 PM ET Source

NEW YORK - To test claims by users that Comcast Corp. was blocking some forms of file-sharing traffic, The Associated Press went to the Bible. An AP reporter attempted to download, using file-sharing program BitTorrent, a copy of the King James Bible from two computers in the Philadelphia and San Francisco areas, both of which were connected to the Internet through Comcast cable modems.

We picked the Bible for the test because it's not protected by copyright and the file is a convenient size. In two out of three tries, the transfer was blocked. In the third, the transfer started only after a 10-minute delay. When we tried to upload files that were in demand by a wider number of BitTorrent users, those connections were also blocked.

Not all Comcast-connected computers appear to be affected, however. In a test with a third Comcast-connected computer in the Boston area, we were unable to test with the Bible, apparently due to an unrelated error. When we attempted to upload a more widely disseminated file, there was no evidence of blocking.

The Bible test was conducted with three other Internet connections. One was provided by Time Warner Inc.'s Time Warner Cable, and the other came from Cablevision Systems Corp. The third was the business-class connection to the AP's headquarters, provided by AT&T Inc. and Cogent Communications Group Inc.

No signs of interference with file-sharing were detected in those tests. Further analysis of the transfer attempt from the Comcast-connected computer in the San Francisco area revealed that the failure was due to "reset" packets that the two computers received, carrying the return address of the other computer. Those packets tell the receiving computer to stop communicating with the sender. However, the traffic analyzer software running on each computer showed that neither computer actually sent the packets. That means they originated somewhere in between, with faked return addresses.

In tests analyzing the traffic received by a computer on Time Warner Cable that was trying to download a file from a large "swarm" of BitTorrent users, more than half of the reset packets received carried the return addresses of Comcast subscribers, even though Comcast's 12.4 million residential customers make up only about 20 percent of U.S. broadband subscribers. It was the only U.S. Internet service provider whose subscribers consistently appeared to send reset packets (which are occasionally generated legitimately).

Comcast subscriber Robb Topolski, who discovered the blocking earlier this year and traced it to reset packets, pointed out that a Canadian company called Sandvine Inc. sells equipment that promises to save bandwidth for Internet service providers by managing and redirecting file-sharing traffic. BitTorrent Inc. President Ashwin Navin said that the interference method on Comcast's network is consistent with Sandvine's technology. Sandvine did not respond to a request for comment. Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas would not confirm that the company uses Sandvine equipment. "We rarely disclose our vendors or our processes for operating our network for competitive reasons and to protect against network abuse," he said.
_________________

I talked about this some time back. I switched to DSL at that time because of this.

dochira wrote:

I talked about this some time back. I switched to DSL at that time because of this.

Comcast, they must have lost business because of that....

I bet. They shot themselves in the foot, if you ask me. No one, except my parents and grand-ma, needs to upload stuff.
_________________

tabana wrote:

I bet. They shot themselves in the foot, if you ask me. No one, except my parents and grand-ma, needs to upload stuff.

seems like a dumb move especially when cable is supposed to offer higher bandwith as a feature of it's service.

Yeah. I mean, what's the point of having bandwidth, if you can't transfer stuff. You don't need cable, if you only read your email.

Are they an independent company or are they owned by a entertainment business (movie studio, music industry...)?
_________________

tabana wrote:

Yeah. I mean, what's the point of having bandwidth, if you can't transfer stuff. You don't need cable, if you only read your email. Are they an independent company or are they owned by a entertainment business (movie studio, music industry...)?

from the wiki

Comcast Corporation, (NASDAQ: CMCSA) is the largest[1] cable television (CATV) company and the second largest Internet service provider in the United States. In addition to offering cable television, internet access, and telephone services, Comcast develops some of its own television programming and web portal content.

Mmm... even if they produce their own show, they are probably low budget stuff. On the other hand, if people download TV shows they don't have access to instead of paying for the full cable access at $100 a month... they must not like that.
_________________

tabana wrote:

Mmm... even if they produce their own show, they are probably low budget stuff. On the other hand, if people download TV shows they don't have access to instead of paying for the full cable access at $100 a month... they must not like that.

well with DVRs out there and widespread internet access ppl are going to get their hands on things regardless of their filtering technologyl.

tabana wrote:

Yeah. I mean, what's the point of having bandwidth, if you can't transfer stuff. You don't need cable, if you only read your email.

They are only affecting BT traffic. Essentially they are sending reset packets to non-Comcast computers using BT. Thus if EVERYONE uses Comcast, then there would be no effect to your BT bandwidth.

So in short they don't mind the bandwidth, as long as it's on their network. Makes sense in a way, but still sucks.
_________________

They say that they aren't doing anything, but something is happening that is unusual. But it's not happening in all locations.

Weird. So if they're not doing anything and on their network it's okay, the problem could be another ISP or hardware problem with a main node...
_________________

tabana wrote:

Weird. So if they're not doing anything and on their network it's okay, the problem could be another ISP or hardware problem with a main node...

They say they aren't doing anything, but in reality they are.

Oh, I see. It's just not good for their image to say they're screwing up your connection.
_________________

tabana wrote:

Oh, I see. It's just not good for their image to say they're screwing up your connection.

This is not good, period. I'm not them, but I would have found another way to maintain decent bandwidth for all users.

From Ars Technica:

doch's viewpoint: If you can get this service, it's absolutely drool worthy.

Verizon discovers symmetry, offers 20/20 symmetrical FiOS service

By Nate Anderson | Published: October 23, 2007 - 01:55PM CT

For years, the broadband wars have been largely fought over download speeds, but Verizon has just thrown down the gauntlet and declared that it's going to fight over upstream speeds too, and in a big way. How does 20Mbps sound?

Some residents of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey who live inside the boundaries of Verizon's FiOS network will be the first to be able to take advantage of Verizon's new 20/20 FiOS service. As the name implies, 20/20 FiOS is a symmetrical 20Mbps connection (same speed in both directions), and it's one of the first symmetrical services to target the consumer market.

Available today, 20/20 will cost $64.99 per month and will include Verizon's Internet Security Suite and 1GB of online backup (up to 50GB can be purchased at "competitive rates").

Susan Retta, the company's VP of Broadband Solutions, was quick to compare the new plan to cable. "For more than a decade, the Internet has been defined by how quickly you can download content," Retta said. "Our 20/20 FiOS service changes everything by creating an entirely new category of US broadband where 'fast' means fast in both directions."

It's a category of broadband that cable companies have yet to embrace. Although Comcast, Charter, Cox, and other cable ISPs have bumped download speeds in areas where they are facing direct competition from Verizon, they haven't shown much love for upload speeds. Those typically remain stuck in the 256Kbps to 1.5Mbps range even as downloads soar above 10Mbps. If Verizon is able to effectively sell the advantages of symmetrical service to Joe Sixpack, cable companies may be forced to widen the upload pipe.

20Mbps upload speeds will enable a whole host of new services, many of them actually legal (symmetrical connections can also be a boon to P2P networks). Uploading high-def video to friends and family, for instance, suddenly becomes a possibility instead of a nightmare. Online backup systems like Mozy have been gaining in popularity, but it currently takes days to back up a media collection or large photo set. Verizon, of course, also touts the standard example that's always trotted out when speed claims are made: medical imaging.

FiOS now has more than half a million subscribers. How many of them actually need a 20Mbps upstream connection remains to be seen, but there's no doubt that the cool factor here is off the charts; we're confident that "Hey baby, want to head back to my place to see to me stream high-def video from my Mac?" will soon be the hot new pickup line at NYC nightclubs.

Original Article

why must i live in a SBC area...

i'd be happy with a 10/5

krim wrote:

why must i live in a SBC area... i'd be happy with a 10/5

Tell me about it. I have the Elite package just to get maximum downstream, but the upstream is slow. Damn you asynchronous DSL!!

dochira wrote:

Tell me about it. I have the Elite package just to get maximum downstream, but the upstream is slow. Damn you asynchronous DSL!!

Sou desu. it's 24/1 here