Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

AP Finds Comcast Blocks File Sharing

By Tim Conneally, BetaNews

October 19, 2007, 2:29 PM

An Associated Press reporter ran a test of two computers connected to the Internet with Comcast cable modems in Philadelphia and San Francisco, in order to see if reports of the cable provider blocking file sharing programs were true.

Using a copy of the King James Bible -- not under copyright and free to share -- and file swapping program BitTorrent, the reporter found the transfer repeatedly blocked.

The test was conducted with three other internet connections, and none showed any interference with the file-sharing act, unless the sending party turned out to be using Comcast equipment. Further tests with the Comcast-connected computers and different but equally common files were also blocked.

Analysis of the transfers revealed that the failures were due to "reset" packets which each carried the return address of the other computer, but were not actually sent by either.

There is equipment designed to decrease bandwidth consumption that would cause this to happen, but Comcast has not confirmed if it is using any such hardware. Of course, Comcast has every right to decide how it manages content being sent across its network, but some users have complained that legitimate transfers are being negatively affected in the process.

Add a Comment (62 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By ejive

edited Dec 19, 2007 - 4:31 AM

Yep, Comcast appears to have blocked all ports that run any home server activity. I don't participate in file sharing, but my home server had all of the following ports blocked: http, imap, pop, ftp, ssh, cvs, etc.
When I called to complain, they gave one incompetent service rep after the other, then finally told me that home server activity was not part of my service contract.
If AT&T wasn't 10 times worse, I'd switch back to DSL.
They're all bozos!

Score: 0

By seier

posted Oct 24, 2007 - 1:56 AM

I use uTorrent with Comcast every day without issue. Thankfully, I'm not yet afflicted by that problem.

Score: 0

By Somnambulator

posted Oct 22, 2007 - 10:23 PM

not sure if this was posted already but DSLreports.com forums members uncovered this traffic shaping at least 2 months ago.

Score: 0

By Program86

posted Oct 22, 2007 - 10:09 AM

Problem: Comcast sucks.

Solution: Dont use Comcast.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 22, 2007 - 11:00 AM

Some folks (thankfully not one of them) don't really have a choice unfortunately.

Solution seems to be to force encryption(easiest and free), or get a virtually hosted domain (as low as $6 a month for a decent one) and seed off of that.

Azureus and uTorrent allow forced encryption that I know of. I am sure some are available for other platforms as well. I think Transmission (MacOSX) supports it, but not sure.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Oct 22, 2007 - 10:57 AM

The problem is most people have no other choice. Or if they do have a choice, it is literally, _a_ choice to Verizon or AT&T. Are they any better?

Basically you are screwed no matter what.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 22, 2007 - 11:02 AM

Pretty much agreed, but as far as verizon and ATT are concerned, if it's FIOS or DSL it's not really an issue.

Comcast, charter, and others are cable providers doing this mainly because the "last mile" is shared and they've over-sold the available bandwidth. DSL is dedicated, so the need for things like this is simply not there unless the company is simply trying to piss off customers (there's no benefit to the company).

Score: 0

By eblade

edited Oct 22, 2007 - 4:33 AM

No problems with BT here on Comcast, and I have a 20MBps down/2MBps up link. It is -fantastic-. Still doesn't compare to the internet links in other countries, but.. oh well.

Oh, the 20MBps down is only on small files, once any connection transmits more than about 4MB, it throttles it back to the 12MB that we're actually set for in our plan. It's their "Turbo" mode, or some crap. It's super nice for web surfing, and downloading smallish files.

Score: 0

By prndll

posted Oct 22, 2007 - 8:22 AM

If you want to compare to other countries, A friend of mine that I've known online for years is always complaining about his government in Australia not allowing internet growth over there. He can't even get a 4th of what your getting.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Oct 21, 2007 - 4:30 PM

I've read most of the comments on this article. The majority of the reaction is a bit surprising. The questions seem to be "Why is Comcast doing this?", "How can they be doing this?", "What are my options for alternative providers?" and so on.

I will point out some obvious facts for you all. The reason Comcast is doing this is pretty straight forward: money. File sharing accounts for a huge chunk of their bandwidth. Eventually their networks become saturated and it's easier to find ways to reduce bandwidth, rather than upgrade equipment. They can do this, because, like most big corporations, they have the fine print in their TOS that allows them. This makes it perfectly legal for them to "manage" their traffic as they see fit.

"In the US, the obvious solution is enactment of Net Neutrality legislation requiring ISPs to treat all traffic equally without discrimination as to source or nature of the communication. However, the Net Neutrality legislation is presently stalled in the US Congress."

Surprised that such a legislation is stalled? It is in the best interest of the "fat cats" that this sort of legislation does not pass. It would pretty much make it illegal for Comcast to do their little traffic shaping/blocking trick.

Score: 0

By prndll

posted Oct 21, 2007 - 11:12 AM

No one seems to even want to consider the software that Comcast installs on computers for activating modems. Not all computers get this but many do. It's interesting that Comcast is noted for "traffic shaping" but not TimeWarner. TimeWarner does not (atleast to my knowledge) do things this way. With TimeWarner, modems can be activated without a computer at all (in the home).

Score: 0

By thomas.tmc

posted Oct 21, 2007 - 6:41 PM

Timewarner, or actually RoadRunner, doesn't block P2P, however there is a port 119 cap in effect to limit usenet downloads to 3Mbps. It is possible to bypass though.

A Timewarner tech remotely activates the modem on installation, either during the initial installation via a phone call by the intstallation tech or via a customer service call by yourself. No software installation is required.

They also don't impose a download quota.

RoadRunner is a good ISP with a good network. They keep upgrading the bandwidth. When I got it in 2000 the cap was 3Mbps, now it's 7Mbps, and I consistently get 6.5-6.8Mbps. It's also extremely uncommon to experience downtime.

Score: 0

By GordieT

posted Oct 22, 2007 - 6:43 AM

Roadrunner actually doesn't block P2P but they do throttle bandwidth. Customers that call in about it get directed here. http://help.rr.com/HMSFa...erf.aspx?topic=Policies

Score: 0

By swattz101

posted Oct 21, 2007 - 2:37 PM

Hmm, I didn't need to load any software when I used comcast in Pennsylvania. I bought one of those self-instal kits from radioshack, I called comcast, gave the technicion the MAC address of the modem, and was able to get up and running. Granted, the install kit came with the software you mention, but was not required. The only thing I had to install was the modem drivers, as I used USB because I didn't have a router yet.

Score: 0

By prndll

edited Oct 21, 2007 - 3:25 PM

As I said, the software isn't installed in all cases. Modems can be and often are provisioned remotely. Without someone (at some point) provisioning the modem, you can't surf. There are articles posted to the net about this software not being compatible with Linux or MAC computers.

How many MAC or Linux machines have bittorent problems?

btw:
What does not having a router have to do with connecting through usb?

Score: 0

By swattz101

edited Oct 21, 2007 - 6:05 PM

Didn't mean to confuse, I was trying to clarify that I did have to install USB drivers for the modem, so technically I had to install software to connect, it just wasn't comcast's software. Now that I have a router, I connect through CAT5 and don't drivers.

Also, I agree that comcast's software is crap, and I wouldn't install it if they paid me, but I can understand newbies using it, as it allows comcast to help troubleshoot.

btw: owning the modem is great instead of renting. I have since moved and was able to provision the modem on Cox, also with no problems or software.

Score: 0

By prndll

edited Oct 21, 2007 - 6:30 PM

Interesting that in both of your responses that you make it sound as if you need a router in order to use cat5 instead of usb. I don't want to be misunderstood here. I mean nothing against you. I'm just trying to understand.

I am glad to see that you stuck with cable based internet...I think it's the better way to go.

There are more than enough good trouble shooting tools available to cable companies without installing any software on anyones computers. I see nothing that indicates that this software is used for troubleshooting. Infact, I see no real reason for this software period except for the cable co. to get into your computer.

Score: 0

By swattz101

edited Oct 21, 2007 - 7:38 PM

I don't remember exactly what the software was when I had comcast, that was about 6+ years ago, when I finally convinced my then wife to go to cable Internet instead of dial-up. The premise of the software was that it would help with connection.

A not so quick search of the Comcast site brings up the "Desktop Doctor" software, which is seems also may come with Dell and some other computers. The premise is that it is a "one-click fix" (probably trademarked by someone) of fixing your Internet connection if it goes down. http://www.comcastsupport.com/forms/net/home.asp

At the same time, I agree it is just another way for them to get into your computer, which is why I didn't install it.

As for using cat5 instead of usb, I guess you are right. I could use a cross-over cable between the modem and my computer. My self-install kit came with a regular cat5 and a usb cable. I tried the cat5, but it didn't work. Instead of going to buy a cross-over cable, I opted to use the usb. (I'm not sure I understood the use of a cross-over cable at the time). I'm still using the same modem, but have gone through multiple computers and a new router. (Wireless n with gigabit instead of 10\100 with wireless b) and my current nic card and router are auto-sensing, so it doesn't matter if I have cross-over or regular cat5, but I digress.

Hope this explains.

(This was a fun dialogue, but I'm off to my B-day dinner)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 22, 2007 - 10:57 AM

Happy Birthday!

Score: 0

By swattz101

posted Oct 22, 2007 - 10:40 PM

Thanks, another day / year older and deeper in debt. :-)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 23, 2007 - 9:48 AM

Damn. Good song. I'll have to hunt that one down again.

Score: 0

By DZNetworks

edited Oct 21, 2007 - 3:57 AM

Gee comcast blocking internet traffic? I would have NEVER guessed THAT one.

Another reason to drop Comcast for Fios... if it ever gets to my area that is.

Score: 0

By JMACHISE1

edited Oct 19, 2007 - 8:52 PM

this shows what kind of people they are.

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

posted Oct 20, 2007 - 8:06 AM

The number of options is dwindling fast.

I moved to an area that has no copper. The ONLY choices you have for wired connectivity are Comcast for Cable and Verizon FIOS.

There is DirectTV or Clearwire. But Clearwire doesn't work well in my area and the Association does not allow Sat TV yet.

You can Protocol Encyrption on some clients, I think, but that's about it in terms of protecting from Traffic Shaping.

According to the press I have been reading, they are still allowing full-speed downloads, and full sharing speed while the file itself is being downloaded. You just can't actively seed after download is done, I guess.

Don't DSL users avoid this by already having a limited Upload speed? Like 768k / 128k or 1.5m / 384k?

I wish that like DSL, each line was dedicated, but with all that HDTV stuff sharing the same bandwidth and areas sharing "pools" of bandwidth, Cable can kinda suck, I guess.

Score: 0

By BigMac2

edited Oct 20, 2007 - 2:07 PM

"There is DirectTV or Clearwire. But Clearwire doesn't work well in my area and the Association does not allow Sat TV yet."

There is a Federal law which makes it illegal to refuse to let you install a sat antenna. Just thought you should know. The link is below.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Oct 19, 2007 - 4:57 PM

Yea I actually encourage this to a point periodically to encourage developers to find ways around it. This way the software evolves over time and becomes all teh more secure to use.

Once the p2p network gets to a point that all connections are privacy protected, and allowed to filter WHOM may access you machine on any level. it will become all the more popular, and lists like the Peer guardian lists will be built into the system effectively locking out abusers that have zero interest in using the service, but only using it to find victims to extort. Namely the RIAA MPAA.

If this is true, I encourage everyone to nail this service to death learning both how its being done and how to get around the problem. Possibly with a new service.

BTW there are new Torrent systems that make full use of proxy system to protect your IP identity. This will revolutionize this market. Its not far away... Once more secure subnets like Hamachi go mainstream into the p2p network this will revolutionize the entire system. Give it a month or two to develop a little more and I'm sure you will see it here on Betanews and other such Internet news services.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Oct 19, 2007 - 4:10 PM

That's Com-Smash-Tic.

Grannie Mona Shaw...Comcast Killer!
http://whatcomestomind.c...-19/thats-com-smash-tic/

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Oct 19, 2007 - 3:49 PM

If only we could block the TV garbage streaming unfettered into our homes from these people.

Score: 0

By DZNetworks

posted Oct 21, 2007 - 3:58 AM

Yeah, its called the OFF button.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Oct 19, 2007 - 2:55 PM

I use torrents on Comcast all the time. Never had issues.

Don't you think there would be much more uproar about this, since torrents actually are used quite a bit for legit, legal reasons?

Score: 0

By plumlipstick

posted Oct 19, 2007 - 3:03 PM

I think Comcast is blocking packets from certain applications, not torrents in general. I use a different client and a nonstandard port. Things work well for me this way.

Score: 0

By KRome

posted Oct 19, 2007 - 2:45 PM

why would a business do something negative to their customers?

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Oct 20, 2007 - 3:59 PM

Careful around that bridge. You may wake the troll up....

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 20, 2007 - 11:26 AM

You mean their customers abiding their TOS?

Nothing.

Those abusing the TOS? Anything and everything they can while still retaining their patronage. :)

Score: 0

By plumlipstick

posted Oct 19, 2007 - 3:00 PM

I don't know, but Comcast is really good at alienating their customers. We'll be switching as soon as we get access to something else. Right now, it's either Comcast or dial-up. Comcast seems to see itself as a utility like electricity, forgetting that it's actually a business with customers who need to be understood and catered to. In a few years, they may find themselves as redundant and irrelevant as AOL.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Oct 20, 2007 - 3:47 AM

Comcast will never be as 'redundant or irrelevant' as AOL. You forget that AOL was never a monopoly. AOL had a hold on people because they were lazy or just not PC savvy enough to get an independent ISP and use netscape/ie. It was a one stop dialup shop. Later, when people began to embrace faster internet it shattered AOL's hold...and voila, enter the demise of AOL. There's noone out there that can do this to comcast. In many cities, comcast is THE only cable operator. Take it from someeone who's evaluated options. I'm with comcast...cable and internet and I have voip phone service. IF I was running basic cable and net, I'd be paying about 70 for my service and my voip is only 20 more. The alternative is...well, comcast cable only and dsl with another company, but ofcourse I'd have to get Verizon phone service which is 65 after all the nitty gritty and this wouldn't include long distance.

So really, unless other cable and cable internet companies spring up out of nowhere and become competitors to comcast, they are running the show - and they know that. In an absurd way, it really is like electricity unless you can do without cable tv completely....

Score: 0

By mishihu

posted Oct 19, 2007 - 2:43 PM

I cannot wait until there is a decent alternative to Comcast where I live. I will be dropping them without a second thought. They haven't ever done anything to endure customer loyalty from me.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Oct 19, 2007 - 3:13 PM

have fun waiting....

it sucks. either Comcast or Verizon where i live.

Score: 0

By mishihu

posted Oct 19, 2007 - 3:44 PM

I think I'd take Verizon's FIOS over Comcast. At least you have an option!

I suppose I could go DSL, but then I don't need phone service and I've heard stories that the "phone free" options are that great. But I've never really looked into so I don't know for sure...

Score: 0

By waldo143

posted Oct 19, 2007 - 7:09 PM

Be careful. I made that switch thinking the grass is greener. THough I do like the faster uplink speeds with FIOS I am finding they are blocking some ports from me for example port 80 for HTTP traffice and now I found I can't use T-Mobile's @HOME feature with it though it works fine with Comcast.

Score: 0

By mishihu

posted Oct 19, 2007 - 9:59 PM

Sorry, but I am confused - if they are blocking port 80, how were you able to post on this site?

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

posted Oct 19, 2007 - 10:58 PM

I think he means inbound, so he cannot run his own web server, on the standard port.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Oct 20, 2007 - 11:04 AM

wonder what M$ thinks of this? How will people use Home Server to get to their boxes remotely?

Not that anyone is buying that overpriced turd.

Score: 0

Nov 21 - 6:51 PM ET Coalition urges better laws for e-mail and cell phone privacy

Nov 21 - 6:42 PM ET How is Internet advertising faring in this bad economy?

Nov 21 - 6:15 PM ET From out of the Amazon Cloud, an AWS winner emerges

Nov 21 - 5:20 PM ET Mufin music finder enters public beta, adds widgets

Nov 21 - 5:01 PM ET Google launches its SearchWiki semantics plug-in

Nov 21 - 4:57 PM ET Asus previews a slimmer, less costly Eee PC

Nov 21 - 4:32 PM ET New Adobe Media Player ushers in AIR 1.5

Nov 21 - 2:11 PM ET AT&T to add Pantech's low-cost C630 phone to 3G lineup

Nov 21 - 1:11 PM ET iPhone gets firmware 2.2 update

Nov 21 - 11:51 AM ET The Dell surprise: Higher earnings on lower revenue