Sep 23 2008

Comcast Reveals How it Throttled BitTorrent

  • Written by soulxtc
  • 5 Comments


Complies with recent FCC ruling demanding that it detail it’s network management practices, while also admitting that it was infective 80% of the time.

Comcast has finally submitted a formal response to the FCC’s recent ruling that the ISP violated the agency’s principles for electively targeting and throttling the connection speeds of a single application – BitTorrent – as part of its overall efforts in managing network traffic.

“Accordingly, we institute a plan that will bring Comcast’s unreasonable conduct to an end,” reads the ruling. “In particular, we require Comcast within 30 days to disclose the details of their unreasonable network management practices, submit a compliance plan describing how it intends to stop these unreasonable management practices by the end of the year, and disclose to both the Commission and the public the details of the network management practices that it intends to deploy following termination of its current practices.”

In the first part of Comcast’s disclosure it reveals that it began testing out Sandvine Policy Traffic Switch 8210 (“Sandvine PTS 8210”) as early as May 2005 after determining that the “…use of several P2P protocols was regularly generating disproportionate burdens on the network, primarily on the upstream portion.” At the start of 2006 it then began deploying the Sandvine equipment on a commercial basis, achieving wide-scale deployment in 2007.

Now, in selecting which P2P protocol uploads to manage, Comcast analyzed network data to identify the particular protocols that were generating disproportionate amounts of unidirectional traffic (uploading or seeding only). Based on that analysis, five P2P protocols were identified to be managed: Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack, and Gnutella. Four of those protocols have been subject to Comcast’s management practices since Comcast first implemented these practices. Ares was added in November 2007 after traffic analysis showed that it, too, was generating disproportionate demands on network resources.

WHAT COMCAST EXAMINED…

The following table lays out by protocol the simultaneous unidirectional upload session thresholds for each protocol as well as the typical ratio of bidirectional to unidirectional traffic observed on our HSI network for those P2P protocols that use both, and other factors that contribute to the overall bandwidth consumption by protocol.

When the number of unidirectional upload sessions for any of the managed P2P protocols reaches the pre-determined session threshold as shown above, the Sandvine PTS issues instructions called “reset packets” that delay unidirectional uploads for that particular P2P protocol in the geographic area managed by that Sandvine PTS. Once the number of simultaneous unidirectional uploads falls below the pre-determined session limit threshold for a particular protocol, new uploads using that protocol are then allowed to proceed.

Oddly enough, Comcast also readily admits that its congestion management efforts – Sandvine PTS – had no effect, even for the most heavily used P2P protocols, on more than 90 percent of the P2P upstream traffic. It adds that in cases when a P2P upload was delayed by a reset packet, that that same PC successfully reinitiated a P2P upload within one minute in 80% of the cases. I presume that’s why it’s decided to scrap P2P throttling efforts in favor of more tangible restrictions like the 250GB p/mo data cap it plans to begin enforcing October 1st.

jared@zeropaid.com

Related Posts

  1. FCC Gives Comcast 30 Days to Comply with Penalties for Throttling BitTorrent
  2. Comcast Quits Throttling BitTorrent, Targets Heavy Users Instead
  3. Comcast to FCC: ‘Yes, We Throttle BitTorrent Traffic, but So What?’
  4. Comcast Sued for BitTorrent Throttling, Mulls Data Caps
  5. FCC Head: ‘Comcast Should be Punished for BitTorrent Throttling’
Zeropaid on Facebook

Comments

  1. manakazero

    The picture is great!

  2. open_universe

    People already deal with high traffic by waiting. Why should Comcast have to do anything? If they claim that traffic is very high they should be taking steps to expand their infrastructure. It’s just like traffic on the roads. People will either deal with it or schedule their trips. Comcast could simply tell its subscribers Look there’s a lot of traffic on the Web and that’s why you have a slow connection. Problem solves itself. People who just check e-mail or a few websites won’t notice the difference. People torrenting will take whatever download speed they can. Why should Comcast bother doing anything? By putting a limit or ceiling on monthly usage they effectively create a shortage. They are effectively reducing supply while demand is high. If they really want to modulate traffic charge by the “bit”. It’s fair since you pay for what you use like a toll road. Problem solved.

  3. mountain_rage

    Open_universe I hope you realize that model will increase the cost of the internet for most if not all File sharers voip users web video users and gamers. To be honest the issue is not in charging one group more or limiting usage. The problem can be solved by improving retrofitting or upgrading their networks. Id be hard pressed to believe that the technology has not kept up with the usage.

  4. open_universe

    I’m all for those monkeys adding to and improving their infrastructure. But the fact remains that the application of the principles of economics – which deals with the allocation of scarce resources – dictates that people be charged for their use of a resource. People who use the Internet for downloading movies etc. do in fact use more of the Internet than those who use the Internet for just checking e-mail and viewing websites. To demand that any ISP give unlimited access to everyone all the time is unrealistic and delusional; it means that you are denying ISPs the opportunity to make a profit. Driving an ISP into bankruptcy will reduce the infrastructure of the Internet not increase it. Comcast may be full of hot air when it claims that it has to “do something” to manage the available bandwidth nevertheless the principles of economics still hold. This isn’t a “right to P2P” issue it’s an economics issue plain and simple. If you think you can provide unlimited Internet access to people I for one eagerly await the creation of your personal ISP company.

  5. mountain_rage

    Here I’ll let these guys an a special exert explain the situation for you
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VrCCpaEoxI

    @1:28
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3609OtM138c

Trackbacks url:

Leave a Comment...

  • Advertisement

    Giganews Newsgroups

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars Loading ... Loading ...

  • mpsharp.com Blog » Watching NFL games online: [...] show you a number of streams to choose from for each game.  All the streams require some sort of StreamTorrent pl...
  • ejonesss: no it is not going to completely stop piracy because while it will stop those whose reason for piracy is quality it is n...
  • file sharing anonymously - P2Pfreak.com: [...] and Trusty Files) just google any one of them and you will get some great info. also here IP filtering with uTorr...
  • soulxtc: Wasn't aware people were guaranteed jobs...
  • mountain_rage: BTW Youtube is supposed to go 1080P soon :D....
  • Gibbbo: Unfortunately the European stores still don't have anything close to the selection available in the USA store. I'm buyin...
  • STUDY: Artists Earn More in a P2P World: [...] personal favorite is the “The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study F...
  • D.AN: So a stupid plan has been become a doubly-retarded plan....
  • sdsd