Writes George Ou:

As many of you reading this blog probably already know, Comcast has been disconnecting a certain percentage of TCP streams emanating from BitTorrent and other P2P (peer-to-peer) seeders. This effectively delays and degrades the ability of Comcast customers to seed files using P2P applications. For normal healthy Torrents that are distributed across multiple users and multiple ISPs, losing a few seeders intermittently isn't too noticeable. But for rare Torrents or Torrents that have to originate from a Comcast broadband customer, this can pose some challenges. The rare Torrent becomes even less reliable than they already are while popular Torrents originating from Comcast's broadband network take much longer to become healthy.

While Comcast has stated they will try to move off of their Sandvine system that uses TCP resets by the end of this year, there's no guarantee that they will complete on schedule and there's no relief in the mean time for customers who are having a tough time seeding their files for distribution. Even without the challenges posed by TCP resets, seeding a torrent file is still problematic and burdensome. Not only does the seeder have to turn his/her computer in to a server, they must also allocate significant portions of their upstream bandwidth - as well as their neighbor's bandwidth which they share - to seeding while providing relatively minimal capacity to the Torrent.

http://tinyurl.com/5t8oht

This question was put to an anonymous poster on Broadband Reports, and I thought his answer was excellent!

How Would You Manage Overwhelming Peer-to-Peer Traffic if You Owned Comcast?

The anonymous poster responded:

I would communicate exactly what I am doing with my customers. If there is a usage cap I would state it. If I block specific types of traffic I would state it. I would allow users to use the advertised bandwidth for any purpose they see fit within the confines of the TOS. I would then apply boost or other speed enhancements to selected traffic. I would advertise this as speed boost "Enhanced web browsing speed. Get 6/1.5mb with up to 20/2mb Enhanced web speed" or If it just does not work from an economical perspective. I would change the TOS to specifically exclude the use of P2P software. I would then block it (I would not do this using RST packets as I believe this to be illegal) I would only allow specific ports. I would also offer an enhanced tier or make the top tier P2P friendly. The lower tier would probably be a marketing nightmare. But they are trying to offer a limited service while selling an unlimited service. So they should come clean. Comcasts service really is not an internet service when they start blocking certain protocols in any way including forged packets. The internet is based on (RFCs) like the TCP/IP protocol and numerous routing standards. When you start forging packets you are no longer RFC compliant. It then becomes web access and any other services they endorse. But calling it internet service is no longer accurate. The internet is based on TCP/IP and the routing standards defined in RFC documents like RFC1058, etc.... This includes multiple types of communications based on packets like TCP, UDP, ICPM, etc... Adhering to the specifications based on RFCs has been since inception in the 1970s how one gets on the internet and becomes a part of it. The definition of the internet has been based for decades on RFC compliance and must continue to be based on compliance. I will not say that comcast can not do what they want with their network. They can do what they want. However they have to do it while complying legally with all of the laws and regulations. Right now they are not. Hence all of the investigations. The FTC should have quite an interest in their misleading advertising. The FCC should be interested in their intentional blocking of communications. The FBI should be interested in their interstate impersonation and forgery of electronic communication. I believe there are fairly strong laws against impersonating a party across electronic communications. This makes it illegal to call someone and claim to be from their bank etc. But I believe it is applicable in this case.

A California man filed suit in state court Tuesday against internet service provider Comcast, arguing that the company's secret use of technology to limit peer-to-peer applications such as BitTorrent violates federal computer fraud laws, their user contracts and anti-fraudulent advertising statutes.

read more | digg story