I have Comcast, and I don't see a problem with them doing this. No network is designed to sustain a saturated condition for any extended period of time and people who are constantly saturating their upstream seeding a torrent will do that. I've never had an issue with them slowing down or blocking my BT downloads either.

"Seriously, I see no problem with actions as long as they stated it in the original TOS. If you don't like it? Then get another ISP who TOS doesn't state anywhere in it that they can limited your internet usage for bandwidth reasons."

In my area a few years ago: ATT, Adelphia, TCI

In my area now: ATT buys TCI, then merges with Comcast. Comcast buys Adelphia. Remaing: COMCAST.

I think monopolies are equally problematic. Even IF I could find another provider without similar clauses in their agreements, I still have no options. I can't take my dollar elsewhere unless I want dialup back or go with satellite, which is the only other option besides legislation in a capitalist country. And this capitalistic society is far from free market perfect. Even if I had many options, I still couldn't trust any of them not to be underhanded. They might just all do this, some might just do it for financial reasons, some might not. Check out some of the lastest stunts by this admin, including trying to give communications companies immunity, so you wouldn't even have the recourse of lawsuit when the restrictions go beyond just keeping traffic down. They're only slowing it down now, but what's next, since they can do pretty much whatever they want.

We need legislation regarding the monopolies on internet, tv, radio and news, as well as internet neutrality. You don't lock the library doors to everyone because of a few vandals and thieves. You catch the vandals and thieves. Some will ALWAYS slip through the cracks, that's life. Don't punish the good because you can't catch the bad.

As someone who doesn't use P2P, I just want to thank Comcast for making my online experience better. Thanks! Heh.

People, this is just like airlines that oversell.

In the end, the advertising and the technical departments diverged at some point in order to remain super-competitive in the market.

Comcast, like almost every web-hosting company on the planet, oversells bandwidth "maximums" counting on a certain average utilization. They only cover for the averages.

The problem with broadband providers is that they either didn't realize or didn't care that P2P was taking off and that the availability of video and software downloads would begin to dramatically increase bandwidth use, which made that business model flawed.

In order to compensate, they are marginalizing high bandwidth users, in an attempt to bring their averages down to levels that keep profits as high as possible.

Comcast will be held responsible in time as other technologies and competitors arise across the U.S. They will either have to drop their prices to offer a crippled service or they will be pushed out of business by someone that lets people access the internet unfiltered.

This would be like having a program on your computer and you set it to "minimum performance":

Maximum concurrent TCP connections: x
Avg. Random delay between P2P connection attempt and connect: x seconds
What Percent To Increase Random Delay By If P2P Abused: x percent
Seconds Maximum Bandwidth Is Delivered Before Throttle: x seconds
Percentage reduction of Throttle: x seconds
Amount of Time High Single Port Traffic Is Used Before Throttle: x seconds
Throttle For Abusing Ports: x percent
Common P2P Ports Static Throttle: x percent
Block Ports: port list

etc. etc.

Why would you want to access the Internet with that on top of it?

I would have no problem if all they did was QoS and limited throttling to maintain necessary headroom for unexpected loads and such. That's well within their rights and should always be so. This is how honest, capable network engineers do it.

But basically breaking or blocking an entire protocol (even if it is only for seeding) is another thing entirely.

I see many people framing this as "oh well, it's only affecting the pirates". Even if that were true (it's not), do you really think that's where this will end? This sets a precedent and an example not only for the largest broadband provider, but for everyone who has to compete with them!

Where this will end up is that every affordable ISP in the country will basically share a whitelist of acceptable protocols and domains. And if something you want to use or, even more importantly, want to develop isn't on that list, you'll have nowhere you can go.

And the sad thing is that most people won't even notice as the Internet in this country is slowly turned into the same sort of closed, oligarchical system that radio and TV were. They're frogs in the boiling pot; happy as long as their email and their YouTube work.

And yet others will support anything as long as it fits their free-market, anything-for-a-buck ideology, no matter how contrary to the interests of society and indeed a healthy market it may be. They've been conned by the strictly-short-term investment priesthood into internalizing the values of exploitation, and that's what drives their every thought in this regard. When it comes to issues like this, they're often intellectually useless; endlessly repeating laissez-faire rhetoric as if it were some sort of religious mantra.

Personally, I'd like to see network neutrality legislation done right. Many of the proposals we have now are either too restrictive - they disallow many necessary QoS techniques - and yet others are far more permissive - basically giving the telcos everything they want with no obligations to fairness or to maintaining a competitive market. We need to have something that allows providers to design and administer their own networks, but keeps them from blocking competitors' content outright.

I wish there were some other way, but that really is the only method to ensure that the Internet remains open to as many voices and as many competitors as possible, as it is now (for the most part). The entire point of the Internet is freedom, and sometimes democratic institutions have to act to protect it. There is ample reason to be suspicious of public policy, but to contend that it can do no good whatsoever is the position of the ideologue, not the rational.

Ah, here we go: http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp

You shall ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or degrade any other user's use of the Service, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an overly large burden on the network. In addition, you shall ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, disrupt, degrade, or impede Comcast's ability to deliver and provide the Service and monitor the Service, backbone, network nodes, and/or other network services.

Note: Comcast reserves the right to immediately terminate the Service and the Subscriber Agreement if you engage in any of the prohibited activities listed in this AUP or if you use the Comcast Equipment or Service in a way which is contrary to any Comcast policies or any of Comcast's suppliers' policies. You must strictly adhere to any policy set forth by another service provider accessed through the Service.

And here: http://www.comcast.net/terms/subscriber.jsp

4. CHANGES TO SERVICES
Subject to applicable law, we have the right to change our Services, Comcast Equipment and rates or charges, at any time with or without notice. We also may rearrange, delete, add to or otherwise change programming or features or offerings contained in the Services, including but not limited to, content, functionality, hours of availability, customer equipment requirements, speed and upstream and downstream rate limitations. If we do give you notice, it may be provided on your monthly bill, as a bill insert, in a newspaper or other communication permitted under applicable law. If you find a change in the Service(s) unacceptable, you have the right to cancel your Service(s). However, if you continue to receive Service(s) after the change, this will constitute your acceptance of the change. Please take the time to read any notices of changes to the Service(s). We are not liable for failure to deliver any programming, services, features or offerings except as provided in Section 11e.

And here, under abuse: http://www.comcast.net/terms/abuse.jsp

Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other limitations Use of the Comcast network infrastructure in a manner that (i) exceeds the then current bandwidth, data storage or other limitations on the Comcast High-Speed Internet service or (ii) puts an excessive burden on the limitations of the network. Examples include: Using the Comcast network to run a Web-hosting server or any other commercial enterprise.

IANAL, but that shoud about cover it. The restrictions on P2P is clearly permitted under the Acceptable Use Policy, Subscriber Agreement Policy, and Abuse Policy. I still see nothing immoral about what Comcast is doing.

Seriously, I see no problem with actions as long as they stated it in the original TOS. If you don't like it? Then get another ISP who TOS doesn't state anywhere in it that they can limited your internet usage for bandwidth reasons.

It seems that the users that are complaining the most are people who are big-time pirates. I know about legal torrents, but most of those are limited to open-source content. It is damm shame that purely legit crowd gets screwed over, but they only represent a tiny minority of bit-torrent users.

Arrr, matey.

There be rough seas ahead.

I can understand why Comcast is doing this.

I believe that they are #1 mainstream broadband provider in USA. I am darn sure that their entire network couldn't handle a 100% load from its whole userbase. They are supposedly already have problems with having enough IP addresses to go around on some of their subnets. The obvious solution is to ask for more IP addresses. It is not quite that simple though. Oh, the joys and pains of IPv4 and dealing with international internet consortium.

I also think that are probably tired of RIAA/MPAA sending them crapload of letters. Comcast is also a media company as well, so they may have some stakes with their content.

Their business users may be complaining that they aren't getting enough bandwidth, because the demand from mainstream users who are hogging the lines.

Speaking of which, if you really want a better service, static IP address, and dedicated bandwidth. Get a business-level ISP account. It sure is not as cheap, but at least you can hell at your ISP and their support staff should be working their butts off to the solve the problem.

Time for a lawsuit?
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2007/oct/oct23a_07.html

VERIZON WIRELESS AGREES TO SETTLE DECEPTIVE MARKETING INVESTIGATION

“UNLIMITED” INTERNET PLANS WERE ACTUALLY LIMITED

COMPANY AGREES TO CHANGE PRACTICES AND REIMBURSE CUSTOMERS

So glad I dropped them a month ago.
Idiots.

I fail to understand how 'delaying' bittoernt connections helps/solves anything? What is the point besides annoying customers? after 10 min its the same old load + angry ppl.

Isn't that a bit counterintuitive? Instead of just allowing the request to be completed they're forcing the system to flood the network with requests that won't be filled. Seems to me that can't be much better for the company.

At least, that's how I understand it working.

the mere fact that this is newsworthy in america while it's so common in other countries (especially in south africa) is pretty remarkable. i've only recently left the country and find unshaped internet to be pretty incredible, difficult to imagine how some people take it for granted!

then again, most parts of south africa don't even have electricity anymore half the time :|

Thanks goodness that we have Qwest here. Ever since they ditched Joe "Italian Job" Naccio to the custody of a federal prison and got the bankruptcy thing figured out, not only has their quality-of-service been decent, you can actually talk to real, knowledgeable people in customer service!

That's not "delaying" traffic, that's blocking traffic. Delaying would be using QoS to ensure that other protocols get higher priority, and the P2P traffic just has higher latency. The fact that a user CAN keep trying until it works doesn't negate the fact that they stopped the first dozen attempts from getting through. If they blocked a web page's traffic unless users tried several times, it would be considered blocking it, not delaying it - there's no reason P2P traffic should be considered otherwise.

The economics of it are clear, and make complete sense. They have to make sure some users aren't using maximum bandwidth all the time because they've oversold the network, which is the way all ISPs work. But the fact is that they're overselling without making it clear to users what their limitations are, while calling it "unlimited". End users shouldn't be required to understand how the network is managed. An end user's traffic should also be considered of equal priority no matter what protocol it is. If I want to spend my share of traffic on P2P during peak hours, while someone else is using their share for an HTTP file transfer, they shouldn't automatically be allowed full bandwidth while I'm limited just because it's a "high bandwidth usage protocol". That may be more of an indication that they're limiting "dislikeable" protocols rather than solely being concerned about network utilization.

Stupid Verizon. There's fiber right down the street from me, the houses at the end of the road can get FiOS, but I can't.

Maybe they should upgrade their network to keep up with demand. Wait, that would only be necessary for a non-duopoly system where there's competition.

As an independant ISP, I understand WHAT comcast is doing, and their reasons, but they are not complient with current regulations. Unless you are paying for Commited Bit Rate (CBR) service, your internet service is a shared best effort connection. The burstable platforms allow us to provide the 10meg connections, but the system would overload if everyone was always trying to use 10meg. Think about it, the internet isn't big enough (bandwidth) for the 200 million customers to be grabbing 1 meg each all the time, it's mathamatically impossible. On the economic side, Slingboxes, Bittorrent, youtube, and a host of other bandwidth intensive applicaitons are all rate limited by most providers. You have to, or else 50 people could bring down the network.

Verizon FiOS FTW, $69/mo for 20Mb/20M, and none of this stupidity. If they were going to do this, they should not have stated "It will eventually get through". All this translates to is the Bit Torrent sharers startup packets to keep trying to establish a connection, therefore hampering other packet traffic.

There is no excuse for throttling paid for service. If they cannot offer you your advertised bandwidth 100% of the time, then they're offering more then they can meet. That's illegal. It's immoral. It's LYING. When they say you have 10 down and 2 up, you should ALWAYS have that, and if they cannot meet demand they need to quit offering it until they can meet demand.

This seems a bit like having an overloaded web server and telling users to hit F5 repeatedly until the problem is solved. Duh.

Is this really legal? Imagine them throttling / hindering ftp.

Actually I'd say BT is more important to me than ftp as I often seed OS as a way of giving back to the community, rather than just pulling it from a ftp server. I'm finding myself using BT more and more actually for non OS software too e.g. AArmy new releases, COD4 demo, et al.

Excellent half ass'd solution which solves nothing. I have a better idea - why doesn't Comcast just install a trojan on all their users computers and when they start using too much bandwidth just reboots them? HA! problem solved. Worked for Sony, right?

Get rid of the commies.

Bellsouth/ATT doesn't seem to need to do this to "keep Net connections running smoothly."

Get more bandwidth.