What is Digg?79 Comments
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If the broadband providers had some ***** COMPETITION, this ***** wouldn't be happening. Capitalism would work if the government would stop munching on big telecom's jock.
- LNahid2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Ontario users... Boycott Rogers! Move to Bell Sympatico DSL."
Agreed. I switched 8 months ago when Rogers introduced caps. With Bell, I can download 300GB in one month and the most they will do is call to ask if I've been hacked or something. I'm downloading a 70GB series pack of the x-files right now :). - cyclo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ontario users... Boycott Rogers! Move to Bell Sympatico DSL.
As noted in a link in the article, Rogers of Canada appears to be one of those ISPs which appears to be throttling BitTorrent. - mp2togo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You seem to forget that those same ISPs are cutting down the upstream in favour of more downstream -
and that's a way of making money at the expense of other ISPs by attracting one way traffic ! - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3>> We are at their mercy
That's exactly what they want everyone to think, but nothing could be further from the truth. I have no problem switching ISPs, even back to dialup if need be. The only thing that the market really needs is for consumers to grow a spine. - JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2>> The only thing that the market really needs is for consumers to grow a spine.
Yup. I get my Music from a shady russian website in protest of DRM. - dynamx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2down with roger$
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I propose legislation that would require ISPs to let users know exactly what services will be limited, and offer the exact same connection without said restrictions for the same price.
Right now I'm getting 0KB/s down and 0KB/s Up on the Latest TWiT mp3 torrent. and it ain't my firewalls. - jugaaru, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Rogers is Evil
- MrHolla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2digiital, the problem is that many private trackers have banned that version of BitComet and, as you know, BitComet's encryption feature is only compatible with other BitComet clients who have that featured enabled.
Since uTorrent's version is compatible with Azureus's version, more people would benefit from using either one of these clients since they would be able to connect to more peers who take advantage of the identical encryption protocol. - rijet0711, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you're on Rogers, just use uTorrent on port 1755.. works for me.
- kamizu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2*Puts on protective gear in case of some flag-waving freak who has no sense of reasoning and thinks any criticism is anti-american terrorist behaviour*
Is it me or is the US getting ***** by the minute? Everything seems to be shut down, restricted or monitored. At what point can you call it the land of the free without pondering that phrase for a second? It seems like they want to control every aspect of everyone's digital life. You can walk outside and live freely, but the moment you're online, you step into little North Korea. At least that's what it looks like it's going to be.
Here in Holland, ISPs actually appeal to people by advertising that with their high speeds, you can download more music. There's an actual advert on TV saying 'with our service, you can chat with your friends, watch bigger movies and download more music'. Like wtf? - bek99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Bittorrent is a bandwidth hog, but for ISPs to limit your said bandwidth is just wrong. When I pay for unlimited 3mbit/256kbit monthly, thats exactly want I want."
You need to read the fine print.. usually "up to" are words that are before your bandwidth limits. You always have the option to pay for a business class connection or your own t1/t3/etc if you want guaranteed SLAs. Its internet bandwidth, it isn't a right. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bittorrent is a bandwidth hog, but for ISPs to limit your said bandwidth is just wrong. When I pay for unlimited 3mbit/256kbit monthly, thats exactly want I want.
- MattZed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Bah, stupid rogers.. they suck so hard. I know, i use them.
Thankfully, they are the only ISP in my area.[/sarcasm] - detrate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Can anyone say _NETWORK_SATURATION_?
- pjh3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1robhu
Just limit traffic per peer. That way the only ones getting their HTTP / IM / IRC saturated would be the BT users. Maybe that's what you meant by Draconian, but it seems fair to me. It should be irrelivant what the source of traffic is, just how much total bandwidth the user gets. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Time Warner hasn't been throttling any p2p yet. Unfortunately their regular service is so bad that it hardly makes a difference. I am surprised when a day goes by that service is not interrupted or slowed to a crawl. FiOS is sounding very good (see what happens when you light a fire under the ass of one of these evil monopolists?), but for now we are stuck with the broadband nazis who have us trapped, and they know it. They have no incentive to improve, so consumers get f*****.
At a time when other countries are pushing consumer broadband into the 100Mbit range, our own domestic providers are heading in the opposite direction and trying to convince us that even 8Mbit is a luxury!
Maybe if we didn't have a bunch of corporate thieves in office right now, ***many who own stock in broadband companies***, some legislation might be passed to open up the networks to more competition. I guess there's just no solution at this point, they've got us trapped.
Americans, enjoy your "global superiority," but your internet is still a ghetto worse than that of China. With this kind of corruption, America isn't going to be at the top for long. At the very least, it will be sidelined on the internet. - JulianMorrison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I’m not sure that RC4 is good enough.
Quoting wikipedia: “RC4 falls short of the standards set by cryptographers for a secure cipher in several ways, and thus is not recommended for use in new applications.” - spikes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bittorrent should of been using SSL for the tracker stuff for ages now. Only way to block it would be to take out HTTPS.
- detrate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1-- "Can anyone say _NETWORK_SATURATION_?"
- "Can anyone say Network Upgrades?"
Yeah, alright, my school is going to upgrade the network they just finished upgrading because they can't figure out a way to stop all the bittorrent traffic, NOT. How about they'll have all of us register our MAC addresses and limit or transfer per day. - Zorn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Dumbass ISPs. One of the reasons I signed up for broadband is because of bittorrent! Last time I checked, ISPs were capitalists out to make profit... A smart ISP would be bittorrent friendly. What's with the control culture in the US at the moment? Oh—you mean that the free market is an illusion, and it's all really about corporations controlling consumers... Maybe those Marxists had a point!
- Calculon64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Jesus ***** christ!!! 300GB in one month??!?!?!
- Kirtan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sheesh... a lot of Canadians in this thread.. I'm on Rogers and I use uTorrent. If I randomize the port for incoming connections I have no problems.
- Protoss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1uTorrent just added this feature in its latest beta build. I don't have to worry, as my connection is split between at least 300 households in my vicinity and I still get good speeds.
- robhu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is really bad news.
As a network admin I allow Bittorrent on my network but shape it into a lower priority class so that normal HTTP / IM / IRC traffic can go through normally. This has almost no effect whatsoever on the throughput for P2P apps but allows everyone else to use interactive services at a reasonable speed.
Without the ability to block it easily the conneciton will become really swamped like it was before and I'll be forced to use some really draconian method to entirely ban it. - mp2togo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're still regarding encryption as a means, not as an end to ensure freedom of expression.
Encryption, like that on I2P, will result in ensuring that whatever you're using your bandwidth for,
will be a well kept secret. That way no ISP will be able to put a lid on a certain type of data traffic -
'free data speech', if you will. - swaxhog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I used BitComet for a while when Rogers squeezed torrents but I've been using uTorrent now with good success and I really like that client better.
- ToadPedestal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, many of the traffic shapers out there shape based on flow size. That means that if you are using small bursty bittorrent connections, you will not get throttled, but long ones will.
I'm pretty sure that bittorrent prefers to transfer multiple pieces on the same TCP connection, but I don't know. If that's the case, then it would increase speeds to simply turn it down to only a few pieces per connection.
Now, they may be doing one or both. Adding encryption helps the protocol-based shapers, but not the flow-based shapers. I am under the impression that flow-based shapers are more common.
However, I'm all for encryption. The problem is that they don't appear to be doing it through official channels. Perhaps they will report back to Bram on whether it worked or not. - erfdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love using torrents to download mp3's and get back some of the hundreds of dollars I have spent on music over the years that is stuck on vinyl or lost on decayed tapes. And I still purchase music and movies at the same rate I always did. I don't feel guilty!
I also work for a medium sized ISP and deeply understand bandwidth issues. We currently don't shape torrent traffic, but I could see it coming. It's not that all ISP's want to play God or are cheap. Much of it comes down to rapid growth of the Internet and the neophytes who are now getting on the Net. You wouldn't believe the number of calls we take from customers complaining about performance and when we check the traffic from their IP, we find loads of torrent traffic from a popular seed that the consumer is totally unaware their teenager is running. We continue to enlarge the pipes at the core, and fight the high percentage of Zombie traffic pecking at the "edge". In general we try to run a fairly open network, but in these days of growth it is very tough.
I appreciate the comments by thyratron above, the Net really is evolving. With VOIP and other "so called" mission critical traffic, a level of QOS needs to be maintained. I recently sat in on a lecture on "anomaly detection" with regards to traffic shaping saying that it can even be used to help provide QOS to the customer seeding a popular torrent, by ensuring they still maintain bandwidth for other protocols, without effecting their torrent traffic terribly. Once the heavy traffic subsides, it can re-shape accordingly. This is still new stuff and very expensive.
Don't take this post wrong. I still am for as much freedom as possible on the Internet, as are many of my co-workers. Most of us use torrents to get that old album we haven't heard forever, or to download ISO's of our favorite distro. We will be a voice, in helping keep things open in our little corner of the world. But the Internet explosion has created some interesting challenges for ISP's and their staff. Our biggest problem still seems to be the Internet newbies that still are coming in hordes. ;0) - kday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Fark rogers and comcast (or whatever you folks use)....come to Japan and get a 100MB up/down FTTH connection =). Can't imagine living with ISP's like you folks describe. The horror....the horror."
Weak... move to Hong Kong and get a gigabit.
No, I do not live in Hong Kong :( - DigitAl56K, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually I'll be surprised if this works for longer than a month. Encryption won't stop ISPs detecting the BitTorrent traffic. Why not? Because they are perfectly situated to decrypt it using MITM attacks for public key exchange. The only thing that might stop them are wiretapping laws and *possibly* the DMCA.
- mp2togo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wiretapping laws, the DMCA and ... no, I won't repeat that.
Stop brooding, use the technology at hand, and let them try any MITM attack they want.
Or start whining/comparing dicks again. - JulianMorrison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0More on RC4:
"The best attack based on this bias is due to Fluhrer and McGrew, which will distinguish the keystream from a random stream given a gigabyte of output."
How many uses of BT transmit more than 1GB? This protocol is FUBAR. - digiital, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mrholla:
The problem that was related to BitComet and had some trackers ban it has been fixed for many weeks now.
Sure Bitcomet was only going to work with other BC clients, but atleast it's allowed me to download with more then 30k/sec for months now. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it will also support the encryption that Az or utorrent support.
Here is a screen capture of my speeds:
http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=1/3005572060.jpg&s=x2 - andyd2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0RCN (I'm in NYC) starting doing this about a month ago. Not too happy about it and what sucks is that I have no other choice in ISPs (live in a high rise in NY). Hopefully, FIOS will be an option for me when it becomes available in my area).
- mp2togo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, if all of you agree that encrypted traffic, then why not do it in style ?
Try using I2P, and noone will know whether it's BT, Gnutella or simple WWW traffic
you're generating/routing through - we/it'll simply all be in it together :-) - LNahid2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Jesus ***** christ!!! 300GB in one month??!?!?!"
I've never actually done that but I know of people who have without any problems. Last month, I downloaded approximately 100GB according to my bandwidth meter. - Calculon64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Rogers caps us off at 40gb a month..
- blanoboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Fark rogers and comcast (or whatever you folks use)....come to Japan and get a 100MB up/down FTTH connection =). Can't imagine living with ISP's like you folks describe. The horror....the horror.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Jesus ***** christ!!! 300GB in one month??!?!?!"
iv done more than that and i use private trakers so i have to upload too
one mounth i downlaoded/ uploaded 400 gb, at 6 megabit/s down adn 1 megabit/s up - aztekm30, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It sucks for roger users in Canada, i know i used to live in a rogers area. Now i moved to a cogeco area and they don't seem to throttle my BT. The ***** this is either you use rogers or Bell. There both crap.
- azzurricraze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Now I'm getting dl speeds above 5kb/s
- thedailynar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm on rogers in t.o. right now. Speeds are totally throttled no matter what you try. In the last two days i've tried bitcommet, utorrent (new beta), and azureus - no love. Tried different ports - no love. Rogers is breaking it's service contracts with all of us for it's stupid home phone serivce. There is a good forum for Roger's users at http://www.dslreports.com/forum/rogers
- Scottamus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0utorrent and azurues both suck for me. Utorrent gives me bad download speeds (I tried this encryption thing and it doesn't help). Az makes zonealarm peg 100% cpu after several hours and then I have to restart it. What kind of crap is that?
Off topic but, I use bitlord. It works much better. plus I can ban peers which ut won't let me do. - DigitAl56K, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you pay for xMbps upstream or downstream each month, and this is one of the core advertised benefits of your subscription, and you don't exceed any advertised periodical absolute bandwidth restriction, start a class action suit against your ISP.
- thyratron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have doubts about encryption doing much good. If the ISP looks at the amount of traffic, the number of connections, and the ports it is on, why would they even need to read the data?
Many ISPs have throttled speeds on selected services for a while, it's just evolving. For instance many ISPs are limiting speeds on data coming in from news servers. It's usually at a level far below what the connection saturates at. If one isn't going to list more group contents, two download threads can go at once in most cases. That doubles the data rate coming in, but it is still usually way below the max for the connection.
Perhaps having the torrent software automatically change the ports it is using for the inbound connections would help?
I get the feeling that most reading this thread don't realize that the speed limits they're seeing don't apply equally to all traffic for a given subscriber. Prioritization of different types of traffic is another performance issue, but that comes into play more when the connection is saturated at some point. - marsbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I work for Rogers and this is unofficial so don't go phoning up customer support saying you read this on digg.com. The only reason that torrents are throttled is because highspeed internet via cable is shared. One person using a torrent essentially hijacks that segment and causes bad service to everyone else on the segment. Here's the unofficial bit. Once the throughput limits come into effect in March (60Gigs/month) the blocking will stop or will be less restrictive. Rogers isn't doing this to save money or because the RIAA/MPAA is on our back to stop torrents or anything else. Its just because less than 1% of our users are causing a poor quality of services for a large number of our customers. Again, this is not official. I'm just some engineering monkey and dont make official policy.
- DigitAl56K, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"How many uses of BT transmit more than 1GB? This protocol is FUBAR."
You have that backwards - it's saying that the streams can only be distinguised after a gigabyte of output, and presumably this would be over a single connection. MITM is still the most viable/easy attack here. - meehawl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0RCN does worse than throttle. It now actively packet spoofs, injected Client EOFs or disconnects into the stream between peers. Thus, connections quickly drop off and seeding (or uploading) any file after 100% is reached is damn near impossible.
Rather than implement encryption on a per-application basis, simply attach a BitTorrent client to an encrypted channel and route it through a packet anonymising service using an SSH tunnel. Or just VPN the entire connection. There really is no need to build in encryption into the client, which from a layer point of view is a bad idea anyway. Two such services that offer application or connection anonymity are:
http://www.findnot.com/setupsupp.html
http://www.your-freedom.net/6/
If more ISPs go lame like RCN then services like these will only grow in popularity and become more prevalent. We might even see entire voluntary darknets growing in popularity:
http://tor.eff.org/
http://www.i2p.net/faq
There's already a quite substantial plugin for Azureas that already implements an encrypted darknet:
http://azureus.sourceforge.net/doc/AnonBT/i2p/I2P_howto.htm -
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 