Announcement

Collapse

Fandango at Home Forum Guidelines

Fandango at Home Forum Guidelines

The Fandango at Home Forums are designed to help viewers get the most out of their Fandango at Home experience. Here, Fandango at Home customers may post information, questions, ideas, etc. on the subject of Fandango at Home and Fandango at Home -related issues (home theater, entertainment, etc). Although the primary purpose of these forums is to help Fandango at Home customers with questions and/or problems with their Fandango at Home service, there are also off-topic areas available within the Fandango at Home Forums for users to chat with like-minded people, subject to the limitations below.

Please post all comments in English. When posting a comment in the Fandango at Home Forums, please conduct yourself in a respectful and civil manner. While we respect that you may feel strongly about an issue, please leave room for discussion.

Fandango at Home Forum Guidelines

The Fandango at Home Forums are designed to help viewers get the most out of their Fandango at Home experience. Here, Fandango at Home customers may post information, questions, ideas, etc. on the subject of Fandango at Home and Fandango at Home -related issues (home theater, entertainment, etc). Although the primary purpose of these forums is to help Fandango at Home customers with questions and/or problems with their Fandango at Home service, there are also off-topic areas available within the Fandango at Home Forums for users to chat with like-minded people, subject to the limitations below.

Please post all comments in English. When posting a comment in the Fandango at Home Forums, please conduct yourself in a respectful and civil manner. While we respect that you may feel strongly about an issue, please leave room for discussion.

Fandango at Home reserves the right to refrain from posting and/or to remove user comments, including comments that contain any of the following:

1. Obscenities, defamatory language, discriminatory language, or other language not suitable for a public forum
2. Email addresses, phone numbers, links to websites, physical addresses or other forms of contact information
3. "Spam" content, references to other products, advertisements, or other offers
4. Spiteful or inflammatory comments about other users or their comments
5. Comments that may potentially violate the DMCA or any other applicable laws
6. Comments that discuss ways to manipulate Fandango at Home products/services, including, but not limited to, reverse engineering, video extraction, and file conversion.

Additionally, please keep in mind that although Fandango at Home retains the right to monitor, edit, and/or remove posts within Fandango at Home Forums, it does not necessarily review every comment. Accordingly, specific questions about Fandango at Home products and services should be directed to Fandango at Home customer service representatives.

Terms of Use - User Comments, Feedback, Reviews, Submissions

For all reviews, comments, feedback, postcards, suggestions, ideas, and other submissions disclosed, submitted or offered to Fandango at Home, on or through this Site, by e-mail or telephone, or otherwise disclosed, submitted or offered in connection you use of this Site (collectively, the "Comments") you grant Fandango at Home a royalty-free, irrevocable, transferable right and license to use the Comments however Fandango at Home desires, including, without limitation, to copy, modify, delete in its entirety, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from and/or sell and /or distribute such Comments and/or incorporate such Comments into any form, medium or technology throughout the world.
Fandango at Home will be entitled to use, reproduce, disclose, modify, adapt, create derivative works from, publish, display and distribute any Comments you submit for any purpose whatsoever, without restriction and without compensating you in any way. Fandango at Home is and shall be under no obligation (1) to maintain any Comments in confidence; (2) to pay to users any compensation for any Comments; or (3) to respond to any user Comments. You agree that any Comments submitted by you to the Site will not violate the terms in this Terms of Use or any right of any third party, including without limitation, copyright, trademark, privacy or other personal or proprietary right(s), and will not cause injury to any person or entity. You further agree that no Comments submitted by you to this Site will be or contain libelous or otherwise unlawful, threatening, abusive or obscene material, or contain software viruses, political campaigning, commercial solicitation, chain letters, mass mailings or any form of "spam."

You grant Fandango at Home the right to use the name that you submit in connection with any Comments. You agree not to use a false email address, impersonate any person or entity, otherwise mislead as to the origin of any Comments you submit. You are, and shall remain, solely responsible for the content of any Comments you make and you agree to indemnify Fandango at Home for all claims resulting from any Comments you submit. Fandango at Home takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any Comments submitted by you or any third-party reserves the right to refrain from posting and/or to remove user comments, including comments that contain any of the following:

1. Obscenities, defamatory language, discriminatory language, or other language not suitable for a public forum
2. Email addresses, phone numbers, links to websites, physical addresses or other forms of contact information
3. "Spam" content, references to other products, advertisements, or other offers
4. Spiteful or inflammatory comments about other users or their comments
5. Comments that may potentially violate the DMCA or any other applicable laws
6. Comments that discuss ways to manipulate Fandango at Home products/services, including, but not limited to, reverse engineering, video extraction, and file conversion.

Additionally, please keep in mind that although Fandango at Home retains the right to monitor, edit, and/or remove posts within Fandango at Home Forums, it does not necessarily review every comment. Accordingly, specific questions about Fandango at Home products and services should be directed to Fandango at Home customer service representatives.

Terms of Use - User Comments, Feedback, Reviews, Submissions

For all reviews, comments, feedback, postcards, suggestions, ideas, and other submissions disclosed, submitted or offered to Fandango at Home, on or through this Site, by e-mail or telephone, or otherwise disclosed, submitted or offered in connection you use of this Site (collectively, the "Comments") you grant Fandango at Home a royalty-free, irrevocable, transferable right and license to use the Comments however Fandango at Home desires, including, without limitation, to copy, modify, delete in its entirety, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from and/or sell and /or distribute such Comments and/or incorporate such Comments into any form, medium or technology throughout the world.
Fandango at Home will be entitled to use, reproduce, disclose, modify, adapt, create derivative works from, publish, display and distribute any Comments you submit for any purpose whatsoever, without restriction and without compensating you in any way. Fandango at Home is and shall be under no obligation (1) to maintain any Comments in confidence; (2) to pay to users any compensation for any Comments; or (3) to respond to any user Comments. You agree that any Comments submitted by you to the Site will not violate the terms in this Terms of Use or any right of any third party, including without limitation, copyright, trademark, privacy or other personal or proprietary right(s), and will not cause injury to any person or entity. You further agree that no Comments submitted by you to this Site will be or contain libelous or otherwise unlawful, threatening, abusive or obscene material, or contain software viruses, political campaigning, commercial solicitation, chain letters, mass mailings or any form of "spam."

You grant Fandango at Home the right to use the name that you submit in connection with any Comments. You agree not to use a false email address, impersonate any person or entity, otherwise mislead as to the origin of any Comments you submit. You are, and shall remain, solely responsible for the content of any Comments you make and you agree to indemnify Fandango at Home for all claims resulting from any Comments you submit. Fandango at Home takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any Comments submitted by you or any third-party.
See more
See less

Article: ISPs potentially Interfering with File Sharing protocols - Including Vudu

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Article: ISPs potentially Interfering with File Sharing protocols - Including Vudu

    Interesting Article About ISPs Potentially Interfering with file sharing protocols - including Vudu

    url: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...M9q0AD8SCASPG0

    Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic

    By PETER SVENSSON ? 2 hours ago
    NEW YORK (AP) ? Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.
    The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.
    If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.
    The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.
    Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers.
    Comcast, the nation's largest cable TV operator and No. 2 Internet provider, would not specifically address the practice, but spokesman Charlie Douglas confirmed that it uses sophisticated methods to keep Net connections running smoothly.
    "Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent," he said.
    Douglas would not specify what the company means by "access" ? Comcast subscribers can download BitTorrent files without hindrance. Only uploads of complete files are blocked or delayed by the company, as indicated by AP tests.
    But with "peer-to-peer" technology, users exchange files with each other, and one person's upload is another's download. That means Comcast's blocking of certain uploads has repercussions in the global network of file sharers.
    Comcast's technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one BitTorrent user attempts to share a complete file with another user.
    Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer ? it comes from Comcast. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."
    Matthew Elvey, a Comcast subscriber in the San Francisco area who has noticed BitTorrent uploads being stifled, acknowledged that the company has the right to manage its network, but disapproves of the method, saying it appears to be deceptive.
    "There's the wrong way of going about that and the right way," said Elvey, who is a computer consultant.
    Comcast's interference affects all types of content, meaning that, for instance, an independent movie producer who wanted to distribute his work using BitTorrent and his Comcast connection could find that difficult or impossible ? as would someone pirating music.
    Internet service providers have long complained about the vast amounts of traffic generated by a small number of subscribers who are avid users of file-sharing programs. Peer-to-peer applications account for between 50 percent and 90 percent of overall Internet traffic, according to a survey this year by ipoque GmbH, a German vendor of traffic-management equipment.
    "We have a responsibility to manage our network to ensure all our customers have the best broadband experience possible," Douglas said. "This means we use the latest technologies to manage our network to provide a quality experience for all Comcast subscribers."
    The practice of managing the flow of Internet data is known as "traffic shaping," and is already widespread among Internet service providers. It usually involves slowing down some forms of traffic, like file-sharing, while giving others priority. Other ISPs have attempted to block some file-sharing application by so-called "port filtering," but that method is easily circumvented and now largely ineffective.
    Comcast's approach to traffic shaping is different because of the drastic effect it has on one type of traffic ? in some cases blocking it rather than slowing it down ? and the method used, which is difficult to circumvent and involves the company falsifying network traffic.
    The "Net Neutrality" debate erupted in 2005, when AT&T Inc. suggested it would like to charge some Web companies more for preferential treatment of their traffic. Consumer advocates and Web heavyweights like Google Inc. and Amazon Inc. cried foul, saying it's a bedrock principle of the Internet that all traffic be treated equally.
    To get its acquisition of BellSouth Corp. approved by the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T agreed in late 2006 not to implement such plans or prioritize traffic based on its origin for two and a half years. However, it did not make any commitments not to prioritize traffic based on its type, which is what Comcast is doing.
    The FCC's stance on traffic shaping is not clear. A 2005 policy statement says that "consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice," but that principle is "subject to reasonable network management." Spokeswoman Mary Diamond would not elaborate.
    Free Press, a Washington-based public interest group that advocates Net Neutrality, opposes the kind of filtering applied by Comcast.
    "We don't believe that any Internet provider should be able to discriminate, block or impair their consumers ability to send or receive legal content over the Internet," said Free Press spokeswoman Jen Howard.
    Paul "Tony" Watson, a network security engineer at Google Inc. who has previously studied ways hackers could disrupt Internet traffic in manner similar to the method Comcast is using, said the cable company was probably acting within its legal rights.
    "It's their network and they can do what they want," said Watson. "My concern is the precedent. In the past, when people got an ISP connection, they were getting a connection to the Internet. The only determination was price and bandwidth. Now they're going to have to make much more complicated decisions such as price, bandwidth, and what services I can get over the Internet."
    Several companies have sprung up that rely on peer-to-peer technology, including BitTorrent Inc., founded by the creator of the BitTorrent software (which exists in several versions freely distributed by different groups and companies).
    Ashwin Navin, the company's president and co-founder, confirmed that it has noticed interference from Comcast, in addition to some Canadian Internet service providers.
    "They're using sophisticated technology to degrade service, which probably costs them a lot of money. It would be better to see them use that money to improve service," Navin said, noting that BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer applications are a major reason consumers sign up for broadband.
    BitTorrent Inc. announced Oct. 9 that it was teaming up with online video companies to use its technology to distribute legal content.
    Other companies that rely on peer-to-peer technology, and could be affected if Comcast decides to expand the range of applications it filters, include Internet TV service Joost, eBay Inc.'s Skype video-conferencing program and movie download appliance Vudu. There is no sign that Comcast is hampering those services.
    Comcast subscriber Robb Topolski, a former software quality engineer at Intel Corp., started noticing the interference when trying to upload with file-sharing programs Gnutella and eDonkey early this year.
    In August, Topolski began to see reports on Internet forum DSLreports.com from other Comcast users with the same problem. He now believes that his home town of Hillsboro, Ore., was a test market for the technology that was later widely applied in other Comcast service areas.
    Topolski agrees that Comcast has a right to manage its network and slow down traffic that affects other subscribers, but disapproves of their method.
    "By Comcast not acknowledging that they do this at all, there's no way to report any problems with it," Topolski said.
    Associated Press Writers Ron Harris, Brian Bergstein, Deborah Yao and Kathy Matheson contributed to this story.

    #2
    Re: Article: ISPs potentially Interfering with File Sharing protocols - Including Vud

    Yeah, Comcast is sneaky in this respect. They also impose approximately a 90 Gig a month limit on transfers - if you pass that then you get a nasty letter. I know of one member of the beta team who received a nasty letter from them.

    It's one reason when I moved to them I paid extra to get business class service where they don't do this stuff...

    But it's so disingenuous. If you build and offer a high-speed network - people will want to use it. Period. If you don't want the use then don't offer the speeds or charge more for it. It's all about supply and demand. And also, tell users your regulation policy...IMHO, they are setting themselves up for a number of class action lawsuits...

    Comment


      #3
      Re: Article: ISPs potentially Interfering with File Sharing protocols - Including Vud

      I think a bigger problem with Vudu & comcast will eventually turn out to be the downloads, particularly if (when) vudu starts distributing HD content. HD movies will be very large. Watch several a week and comcast will probably send warnings to users that they're downloading way too much.
      Last edited by RonV; 10-19-2007, 10:26 AM. Reason: Removed large quote area...

      Comment


        #4
        Re: Article: ISPs potentially Interfering with File Sharing protocols - Including Vud

        Originally posted by bqmeister View Post
        I think a bigger problem with Vudu & comcast will eventually turn out to be the downloads, particularly if (when) vudu starts distributing HD content. HD movies will be very large. Watch several a week and comcast will probably send warnings to users that they're downloading way too much.
        Hmm...The HD files will be roughly 3 Gigs in size. Not all that large. At 4 movies a week you are still under 50 Gigs in a month which means you don't fall into the wrath of Comcast.

        And on the upload side, Vudu limits the speed to a small amount (~150k) so each user won't really be uploading that many Gigs of data per month...

        Comment


          #5
          Re: Article: ISPs potentially Interfering with File Sharing protocols - Including Vud

          Any idea how many GB of data get downloaded to a new box during its initial synchronization? I have added 3 boxes to my network in the last week or so and am adding my 4th (and final) box today. I noticed that, between the initial synchronization and the movie rentals (6, I think), it has downloaded about 25-30 GB since I added the first box. Now this is split over 3 broadband connections so it doesn't look like I'll hit the 90GB limit on any one connection but I was curious what the background download traffic will be per box once it gets past its initialization phase, and how long it takes for a box to get to that state. Is it days? Weeks?

          Comment


            #6
            Re: Article: ISPs potentially Interfering with File Sharing protocols - Including Vud

            Originally posted by redwein View Post
            Any idea how many GB of data get downloaded to a new box during its initial synchronization? I have added 3 boxes to my network in the last week or so and am adding my 4th (and final) box today. I noticed that, between the initial synchronization and the movie rentals (6, I think), it has downloaded about 25-30 GB since I added the first box. Now this is split over 3 broadband connections so it doesn't look like I'll hit the 90GB limit on any one connection but I was curious what the background download traffic will be per box once it gets past its initialization phase, and how long it takes for a box to get to that state. Is it days? Weeks?
            I think the initial download is probably a few gigs at most. Then you have your db updates, etc. Not sure how big those are but it also includes the previous and the header chunk of the movie files so it could be decent in size too...

            How many movies have you purchased/rented? Keep in mind they are about 1.5 Gigs each...

            And why stop at 4 boxes!

            Comment


              #7
              Re: Article: ISPs potentially Interfering with File Sharing protocols - Including Vud

              I think we have rented 6 or 7 so far. I've lost count. I may add a 5th box if I think the network can handle it. So far (including the one I'm expecting today) we have one in the family room, one in the master bedroom, one in the workout room, and one at my dad's house. My dad's house is next door and his house is using our network via a carefully placed wireless access point at our house and a wireless bridge at his house. So far, every box has been able to play movies instantly without even a hiccup. The 5th box would be in my office. I'll wait to see what happens with this 4th one.

              Of course I don't think any of this would be possible without the multi-WAN load balancing router so don't try this (4 or 5 boxes) at home unless you are going to do something similar.

              Comment


                #8
                Re: Article: ISPs potentially Interfering with File Sharing protocols - Including Vud

                Six or 7 films plus 4 database updates, yeah, you probably used 20 some gigs worth of data!

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: Article: ISPs potentially Interfering with File Sharing protocols - Including Vud

                  If Comcast or Time Warner, which I use, tries to charge me for the extra bandwith then I will switch to Verizon FIOS.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: Article: ISPs potentially Interfering with File Sharing protocols - Including Vud

                    Originally posted by mag12203 View Post
                    If Comcast or Time Warner, which I use, tries to charge me for the extra bandwith then I will switch to Verizon FIOS.
                    Heh! Yeah, some of us don't have FiOS in our areas...

                    I just did a 3 yr contract with Comcast for business service here. Business isn't supposed to have any limits or shaping on it. We'll see if they attempt to kick me off. If they do, then they are breaking the contract and I don't think I'm liable for the termination charges (which are VERY steep). Maybe by that time AT&T will have U-Verse fiber installed here (they are in process in the neighborhood now).

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X