Sandvine

[DocHolliday]

I dropped Comcast last month for Fios. I've had Comcast for 20 yrs for cable service and in the last 5 years or so their customer service has gone to Crap. I was pretty happy with the internet speeds in general, but when I started to use bittorent last april I noticed that I could not seed after completion. This really killed my ratio here and at Dime. If you have a choice do not hesitate to get Fios. The TV service and phone with internet is costing me about 40 less a month and no packet shaping on bittorrent. Not to say they won't do it in the future, but so far I am Extemely Happy with the 20/5 internet service. Dump Comcast if you can.

Originally Posted by Tubular

What does uTorrent/BitTorrent Inc. think about Sandvine?

Why don't you ask them? (See link in above post.)

I don't feel like registering at another forum. You seem to visit frequently, don't you have any info?

All I'm sayin is, with Sandvine, you can kill free trade with bittorrent on home connections. If you have a corporate multi-Mbps upload connection where you are running a legit business and pay for your virtually unlimited bandwidth, people seeding after completion isn't really a problem because you charge for downloads. You really don't need some Concast user's 40 kbps upload on your torrent in order to stay in business. If you are running a business with BT and charging for downloads, your ISP probably won't "sandvine" you. But with free trade, it sucks up all the bandwidth Concast can provide over their copper (not fiber optic) pipes. They figure that they are saving bandwidth as well as fighting copyright infringement. What Concast isn't considering is that there is a lot of legal bittorrent traffic, like here at TTD, Dime, and etree. They also aren't considering that people pay for their bandwidth. If people were charged different rates for different upload and download caps per month, that would be the most fair solution IMO.

So sandvine is a good thing in the eyes of big business because it cuts down on less than legal downloads, while allowing them to sell their products via BT. If the BT protocol were banned altogether by ISPs, they couldn't hawk movies with it. And legally, I don't know if they could ban and outlaw file sharing software.

Considering all this, uTorrent/BitTorrent Inc. has no incentive to create a client that fights sandvine, because they are in it for the money, and not free trade.

You're a moron who blabbers without any evidence.

I'm oughta here.

(Back to beta-testing Azureus and uTorrent.)

Originally Posted by Honeyko

You're a moron

Sweet. But you still haven't answered the question: will uTorrent/BitTorrent Inc. engineer a client implemented solution to sandvine? Are there any rumors about this? I could see Azureus doing this, but not uTorrent/BitTorrent Inc.

Originally Posted by Honeyko

I'm oughta here.

I have a feeling you will be back to sites like The Traders' Den who only allow legal non-official releases when other trackers get shut down en masse.

[direwolf-pgh]

Originally Posted by Tubular

Sweet. But you still haven't answered the question: will uTorrent/BitTorrent Inc. engineer a client implemented solution to sandvine? Are there any rumors about this? I could see Azureus doing this, but not uTorrent/BitTorrent Inc.

even if either client did address the issue - sandvine would update to counter the change, otherwise their product becomes useless. Comcast is a big customer, so that isnt going to happen. their product blocks torrent clients, and playing cat/mouse is not a logical solution (imo).

If you want an ISP telling you how to use/enjoy your Internet experience - stay with Comcast.

The only real solution is to switch providers, which may not be easy/available for some people.

- that dude slammed ya Tube...guess he wants to see more IMO statements in your posts

I agree that the cat & mouse game is not a good solution. It would be much better to drop Concast. But they aren't blocking specific clients, just the actions of all clients:
http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-thro...ng-impossible/
"The throttling works like this: A few seconds after you connect to someone in the swarm the Sandvine application sends a peer reset message (RST flag) and the upload immediately stops."

Now couldn't a client disable the RST flag that Sandvine sends out before it has a chance to work? I really don't know jack about this, but might that work? Sandvine might find other ways to throttle you, but until then....I mean if they really wanted to cut down on traffic and stop less than legal downloads, they could simply block all clients except a client that reported your activity to a watchdog group (I think). With purchased BT downloads, the seller could always pay a bandwidth fee to Concast and add that to the price of the download. Regarding free trade, I don't think interest would be as high for 30 yr. old Dead shows or a German TV broadcast of SRV as they would for the new Britney album, so traffic drops. I think what Concast is selling is the idea that you can download music. They don't want to lose customers who want to get the Britney album for free because they're selling the possibility that you can get it free. But in reality they are taking steps to prevent it, without being too obvious about it.

[direwolf-pgh]

Originally Posted by Tubular

I agree that the cat & mouse game is not a good solution. It would be much better to drop Concast. But they aren't blocking specific clients, just the actions of all clients:
http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-thro...ng-impossible/ "The throttling works like this: A few seconds after you connect to someone in the swarm the Sandvine application sends a peer reset message (RST flag) and the upload immediately stops."

yeah yeah - this was covered on the first page of this thread.

Originally Posted by Tubular

Now couldn't a client disable the RST flag that Sandvine sends out before it has a chance to work? I really don't know jack about this, but might that work? Sandvine might find other ways to throttle you, but until then....I mean if they really wanted to cut down on traffic and stop less than legal downloads, they could simply block all clients except a client that reported your activity to a watchdog group (I think). With purchased BT downloads, the seller could always pay a bandwidth fee to Concast and add that to the price of the download. Regarding free trade, I don't think interest would be as high for 30 yr. old Dead shows or a German TV broadcast of SRV as they would for the new Britney album, so traffic drops. I think what Concast is selling is the idea that you can download music. They don't want to lose customers who want to get the Britney album for free because they're selling the possibility that you can get it free. But in reality they are taking steps to prevent it, without being too obvious about it.

huh ?
I dont think comcast made this move to get into the bittorrent business. Have you seen anything to make you think they wish to sell its customers a torrent ?

[rhinowing]

Originally Posted by Tubular

You need to use a client with encryption, like Bittornado 3.18 or Azureus. I would steer clear of the new version of uTorrent (1.7) though. Certain trackers have banned it because it reports all your BT activity to the RIAA and MPAA automatically.

are you fucking serious

relax rhino, I was prolly wrong, there is no wireshark data to prove that. I guess I got caught up in the rumor. But it is suspicious that uTorrent first signed a deal w/an anti-p2p company, then sold out to BitTorrent Inc., which now sells movies via BT.

[saltman]

Originally Posted by Tubular

Now couldn't a client disable the RST flag that Sandvine sends out before it has a chance to work?.

If legit RST traffic is sent it will also be dropped and you will end up with half open connections. Looks like the mouse is about to step up, though. Don't fret.

[rhinowing]

a thought

what if someone wrote a bt program that changed the headers on outgoing packets to indicate that they're HTTP?

the issue of course is that other people would need the client to decrypt. So I guess you might as well just write a new protocol...

[rhinowing]

i just cut my upload bandwith in half and my download doubled. funny how that works.

www.bittorrent.com sells all kinds of stuff. I'm saying that in order to offset the cost of bandwidth consumed by BT in a purchased download, the online store pays a nominal fee to Concast.

Then after you complete you can't upload anymore. Perfection: the seller hawks his wares, saves a little money with the amount that was uploaded by the buyer while he was downloading, and the ISP saves bandwidth by cutting yo ass off after completion. I mean, maybe the only reason the record and movie industry let file sharing on the net continue for so long was to let some genuis develop an awesome bulletproof protocol for file sharing. Then they buy out the invention, and use what was intended to be for free exchange for profit.

[U2Lynne]

Originally Posted by rhinowing

i just cut my upload bandwith in half and my download doubled. funny how that works.

Actually, not so funny. If your max upload is 50 and your max download is 200, that is without the other. So, if you are downloading AND uploading, you will never reach the max for either. If you were maxing out your upload, then your download will be severly reduced and vice versa.