Sandvine

[lgerard]

This sandvine thing is killing me

Once I finish downloading a torrent, my upload drops to zero and stays there

Is this the beginning of the end of file sharing?


#$%$@&*^%$%% concast


http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18323368-Comcast-is-using-Sandvine-to-manage-P2P-Connections

[Tubular]

You need to use a client with encryption, like Bittornado 3.18 or Azureus. I would steer clear of the new version of uTorrent (1.7) though. Certain trackers have banned it because it reports all your BT activity to the RIAA and MPAA automatically. Make sure encryption is enabled if you use Azureus. Encryption fights certain ISPs (incl. Comcast) attempts to limit bittorrent activity. They use bit-shaping (I think that is what it is called) to prevent you from uploading after completing. I used to have the same problem with not being able to upload after completing, but now that I use encryption, I have no problem.

[lgerard]

really?


I heard that encryption doesn't solve the problem

I clearly have to study this a little further

I still use the same bittornado 2.0 I started with years ago...not big on upgrading untill I have to

[Tubular]

No, it works, I had Concast as well. :thumbsup bittornado 3.18 is the bomb, it is the first bittornado with encryption. I can think of one way to find out for sure though. ;)

[Tubular]

This issue comes up A LOT, btw. Tons of people post here about how they can't upload after completion, then after they get a client with encryption, they have no problem. IMO all clients that don't play nice with the tracker, act like big brother by spying on you, don't have encryption, or are just plain unreliable should be banned from TTD. I'm talking to you uTorrent 1.7, bittornado 3.17 and below, BitComet (uberleechers' client of choice), BitLord, Mainline 4.22 and up. I mean, I wonder how many users just give up on BT because their client sucks, and they can't finish downloads properly (Mainline 4.22 and up) or can't upload after completion (non-encryption w/Concast)? They might figure, "oh well, I've tried my best, I've forwarded my ports, BT just doesn't seem to work for me, I quit." But there is nothing I can do about it, except try to help when people post here. :wave: Maybe instead of having a list of RECOMMENDED clients in the FAQs, there should be a list of ALLOWED clients.

[U2Lynne]

This issue comes up A LOT, btw. Tons of people post here about how they can't upload after completion, then after they get a client with encryption, they have no problem. IMO all clients that don't play nice with the tracker, act like big brother by spying on you, don't have encryption, or are just plain unreliable should be banned from TTD. I'm talking to you uTorrent 1.7, bittornado 3.17 and below, BitComet (uberleechers' client of choice), BitLord, Mainline 4.22 and up. I mean, I wonder how many users just give up on BT because their client sucks, and they can't finish downloads properly (Mainline 4.22 and up) or can't upload after completion (non-encryption w/Concast)? They might figure, "oh well, I've tried my best, I've forwarded my ports, BT just doesn't seem to work for me, I quit." But there is nothing I can do about it, except try to help when people post here. :wave: Maybe instead of having a list of RECOMMENDED clients in the FAQs, there should be a list of ALLOWED clients.
I have thought about disallowing some clients here, but have decided that the majority of our users are using good reliable clients and so I haven't felt like going to the effort to change the code to ban the others.

[lgerard]

Well you were right that encryption helped as v3.18 has allowed uploading to continue past the point that the download is complete.

However, the upload speeds that I am getting are not very good, and it seems that I am not connecting to very many downloaders.

Furthermore, I can see the connections constantly dropping off and being reestablished almost minute by minute.

%^##@$##%^ concast

Thanks for your help :wave:

PS what is with the constant flickering of the text? Is this just me?
It's driving me crazy

[Tubular]

I read something similar about the Sandvine program Concast is using and it said that not even encryption will help. :hmm: But it seems to work. Also use a port between 50,000 and 60,000 on your router and BT client. Concast throttles the default ports and I guess has less control over higher port numbers. Are you firewalled? That could be one source of not being able to upload properly all the time.

There is always Verizon FIOS, which will let you upload at 1 or 2 Mbps. Or a high speed DSL line. But maybe all ISPs will adopt Sandvine. I don't think Concast is worried about the content that you are downloading, but the bandwidth. Concast's pipes aren't as fat as Verizon's, that is why they are so concerned with bandwidth usage. They should offer tiered pricing with bandwidth restrictions (DL and UL caps), not punish bittorrent users because they use more bandwidth than someone who just checks email and surfs. There is a lot of legal bittorrent traffic.

[direwolf-pgh]

Comcast has some big stones to disrupt your Internet service/experience in such a way.
If I were a Comcast user - I would drop them immediately / find alternative.
A protest vote with your dollars is the only solution.
(although, there are instructions on how to work around the issue on the page)

link to story:

http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/

[direwolf-pgh]

another good read to confirm a growing issue with Comcast / torrent client use.
It mentions that torrent client programmers will address the issue - but then it becomes a cat/mouse game (which gets old quickly).
Vote with your dollars - there are many ISP's that would love to gain a clientele base from Comcast.

http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-wrongfully-denies-interfering-with-bittorrent/

[starman714]

yeah...they seem to be traffic shaping around/in spite of the encryption....I'm dumping them...they have a very powerful competitor here in Pgh....and that competitor is upping fios lines all over my neighborhood this month...peace, Comcast ! :wave:

[Honeyko]

I don't see posting dates here, so I don't know how long ago Tubular wrote this, but....You need to use a client with encryption, like Bittornado 3.18 or Azureus.All known encryption schemes (as of Sept 1 07) are cracked by currently implementations of Comcast sandvine. This includes Azureus R4, Bittornado and uTorrent. If you're uploading, you *will* be disconnected if you're a Comcast subscriber. I would steer clear of the new version of uTorrent (1.7) though. Certain trackers have banned it...Certain private trackers who livid in underground bunkers where the coffee tables have the magazines your dentist through out twenty years ago.
...because it reports all your BT activity to the RIAA and MPAA automatically.Bullshit.

[Tubular]

Using Bittornado's encryption worked for a long time for me, but I got rid of Concast about a month ago. The post dates are at the top of each post. ;) On 8-26-2007 Igerard reports that it does help somewhat, but I guess Sept. 1st is the clampdown? :rolleyes: Encryption has been cracked for months. And they aren't doing this to all Comcast users. Just users in areas where their bandwidth is maxxed out I would guess.

At the very least uTorrent 1.7 messes with your stats, lots of people have reported that it has. Another guy wrote that he couldn't initially seed properly with a torrent file created with uTorrent 1.7 (the upload would start and stop). Why is uTorrent closed source? Are there any other closed source BT clients? It may be "bullshit" that uTorrent spies on you, but it is suspicious that the developer signed a deal with an anti-p2p company, then sold out to BitTorrent Inc.

A related thread:
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=44158

[Honeyko]

And they aren't doing this to all Comcast users. Just users in areas where their bandwidth is maxxed out I would guess.Comcast is a conglomerate, not a "big central server"; it's being steadily implemented throughout all of their affiliates. The US upper-Midwest got sandbagged five days ago, which was months after the east coast; my seeding productivity dropped about 90%. If you're Comcast, you'll eventually be sandbagged.At the very least uTorrent 1.7 messes with your stats, lots of people have reported that it has. Another guy wrote that he couldn't initially seed properly with a torrent file created with uTorrent 1.7 (the upload would start and stop). Why is uTorrent closed source?So it can't be hacked like Azureus gets hacked. These questions get answered every day in the uTorrent forums (http://forum.utorrent.com/index.php).Are there any other closed source BT clients?BitComet? Google awaits....It may be "bullshit" that uTorrent spies on you....What's bullshit is that many will claim that but nobody will submit wireshark data proving it.

[Tubular]

What does uTorrent/BitTorrent Inc. think about Sandvine? Are they in favor of Sandvine because they only want to use BT as a way of distributing large files and ensure uncorrupted downloads? Do they not care about people not being able to seed once they complete because they are seeding for profit with a fat pipe? I won't be holding my breath for a client implemented solution to Sandvine from uTorrent/BitTorrent Inc. :thumbsup ;)

BitComet!! Now there is a good honest client!! :lmao: :lol :clap:
http://torrentfreak.com/bittornado-bans-all-bitcomet-users/
Bittornado banned BitComet from connecting to it because it cheats during super seed! It is the uberleechers' client of choice! www.dimeadozen.org has banned the BitComet family (Comet/Lord/Spirit)

[DocHolliday]

I dropped Comcast last month for Fios. I've had Comcast for 20 yrs for cable service and in the last 5 years or so their customer service has gone to Crap. I was pretty happy with the internet speeds in general, but when I started to use bittorent last april I noticed that I could not seed after completion. This really killed my ratio here and at Dime. If you have a choice do not hesitate to get Fios. The TV service and phone with internet is costing me about 40 less a month and no packet shaping on bittorrent. Not to say they won't do it in the future, but so far I am Extemely Happy with the 20/5 internet service. Dump Comcast if you can.

[Honeyko]

What does uTorrent/BitTorrent Inc. think about Sandvine?Why don't you ask them? (See link in above post.)

[Tubular]

I don't feel like registering at another forum. You seem to visit frequently, don't you have any info?

All I'm sayin is, with Sandvine, you can kill free trade with bittorrent on home connections. If you have a corporate multi-Mbps upload connection where you are running a legit business and pay for your virtually unlimited bandwidth, people seeding after completion isn't really a problem because you charge for downloads. You really don't need some Concast user's 40 kbps upload on your torrent in order to stay in business. If you are running a business with BT and charging for downloads, your ISP probably won't "sandvine" you. But with free trade, it sucks up all the bandwidth Concast can provide over their copper (not fiber optic) pipes. They figure that they are saving bandwidth as well as fighting copyright infringement. What Concast isn't considering is that there is a lot of legal bittorrent traffic, like here at TTD, Dime, and etree. They also aren't considering that people pay for their bandwidth. If people were charged different rates for different upload and download caps per month, that would be the most fair solution IMO.

So sandvine is a good thing in the eyes of big business because it cuts down on less than legal downloads, while allowing them to sell their products via BT. If the BT protocol were banned altogether by ISPs, they couldn't hawk movies with it. And legally, I don't know if they could ban and outlaw file sharing software.

Considering all this, uTorrent/BitTorrent Inc. has no incentive to create a client that fights sandvine, because they are in it for the money, and not free trade. ;)

[Honeyko]

You're a moron who blabbers without any evidence.

I'm oughta here.

(Back to beta-testing Azureus and uTorrent.)

[Tubular]

You're a moron

Sweet. But you still haven't answered the question: will uTorrent/BitTorrent Inc. engineer a client implemented solution to sandvine? Are there any rumors about this? I could see Azureus doing this, but not uTorrent/BitTorrent Inc. :cool:

I'm oughta here.
I have a feeling you will be back to sites like The Traders' Den who only allow legal non-official releases when other trackers get shut down en masse. :wave: :lol

[direwolf-pgh]

Sweet. But you still haven't answered the question: will uTorrent/BitTorrent Inc. engineer a client implemented solution to sandvine? Are there any rumors about this? I could see Azureus doing this, but not uTorrent/BitTorrent Inc. :cool:even if either client did address the issue - sandvine would update to counter the change, otherwise their product becomes useless. Comcast is a big customer, so that isnt going to happen. their product blocks torrent clients, and playing cat/mouse is not a logical solution (imo).

If you want an ISP telling you how to use/enjoy your Internet experience - stay with Comcast.

The only real solution is to switch providers, which may not be easy/available for some people.

- that dude slammed ya Tube...guess he wants to see more IMO statements in your posts :lol

[Tubular]

I agree that the cat & mouse game is not a good solution. It would be much better to drop Concast. But they aren't blocking specific clients, just the actions of all clients:
http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/
"The throttling works like this: A few seconds after you connect to someone in the swarm the Sandvine application sends a peer reset message (RST flag) and the upload immediately stops."

Now couldn't a client disable the RST flag that Sandvine sends out before it has a chance to work? I really don't know jack about this, but might that work? Sandvine might find other ways to throttle you, but until then....I mean if they really wanted to cut down on traffic and stop less than legal downloads, they could simply block all clients except a client that reported your activity to a watchdog group (I think). With purchased BT downloads, the seller could always pay a bandwidth fee to Concast and add that to the price of the download. Regarding free trade, I don't think interest would be as high for 30 yr. old Dead shows or a German TV broadcast of SRV as they would for the new Britney album, so traffic drops. I think what Concast is selling is the idea that you can download music. They don't want to lose customers who want to get the Britney album for free because they're selling the possibility that you can get it free. But in reality they are taking steps to prevent it, without being too obvious about it.

[direwolf-pgh]

I agree that the cat & mouse game is not a good solution. It would be much better to drop Concast. But they aren't blocking specific clients, just the actions of all clients:
http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/ "The throttling works like this: A few seconds after you connect to someone in the swarm the Sandvine application sends a peer reset message (RST flag) and the upload immediately stops." yeah yeah - this was covered on the first page of this thread.


Now couldn't a client disable the RST flag that Sandvine sends out before it has a chance to work? I really don't know jack about this, but might that work? Sandvine might find other ways to throttle you, but until then....I mean if they really wanted to cut down on traffic and stop less than legal downloads, they could simply block all clients except a client that reported your activity to a watchdog group (I think). With purchased BT downloads, the seller could always pay a bandwidth fee to Concast and add that to the price of the download. Regarding free trade, I don't think interest would be as high for 30 yr. old Dead shows or a German TV broadcast of SRV as they would for the new Britney album, so traffic drops. I think what Concast is selling is the idea that you can download music. They don't want to lose customers who want to get the Britney album for free because they're selling the possibility that you can get it free. But in reality they are taking steps to prevent it, without being too obvious about it.huh ?
I dont think comcast made this move to get into the bittorrent business. Have you seen anything to make you think they wish to sell its customers a torrent ?

[rhinowing]

You need to use a client with encryption, like Bittornado 3.18 or Azureus. I would steer clear of the new version of uTorrent (1.7) though. Certain trackers have banned it because it reports all your BT activity to the RIAA and MPAA automatically.
are you fucking serious

[Tubular]

relax rhino, I was prolly wrong, there is no wireshark data to prove that. I guess I got caught up in the rumor. But it is suspicious that uTorrent first signed a deal w/an anti-p2p company, then sold out to BitTorrent Inc., which now sells movies via BT.

[saltman]

Now couldn't a client disable the RST flag that Sandvine sends out before it has a chance to work?.If legit RST traffic is sent it will also be dropped and you will end up with half open connections. Looks like the mouse is about to step up, though. Don't fret.

[rhinowing]

a thought

what if someone wrote a bt program that changed the headers on outgoing packets to indicate that they're HTTP?

the issue of course is that other people would need the client to decrypt. So I guess you might as well just write a new protocol...

[rhinowing]

i just cut my upload bandwith in half and my download doubled. funny how that works. :hmm:

[Tubular]

www.bittorrent.com sells all kinds of stuff. I'm saying that in order to offset the cost of bandwidth consumed by BT in a purchased download, the online store pays a nominal fee to Concast. :thumbsup

Then after you complete you can't upload anymore. Perfection: the seller hawks his wares, saves a little money with the amount that was uploaded by the buyer while he was downloading, and the ISP saves bandwidth by cutting yo ass off after completion. I mean, maybe the only reason the record and movie industry let file sharing on the net continue for so long was to let some genuis develop an awesome bulletproof protocol for file sharing. Then they buy out the invention, and use what was intended to be for free exchange for profit. :clap: :lol

[U2Lynne]

i just cut my upload bandwith in half and my download doubled. funny how that works. :hmm:
Actually, not so funny. If your max upload is 50 and your max download is 200, that is without the other. So, if you are downloading AND uploading, you will never reach the max for either. If you were maxing out your upload, then your download will be severly reduced and vice versa.

[rhinowing]

I used to be able to upload at 50 and down at 300 no problem....

[rhinowing]

I think my Isp might have those separated somehow, seeing as how whatever they put in is only affecting download traffic (STUPID beyond belief, upload is what costs money)

[Tubular]

I would still switch back to uTorrent 1.6.0, if only for the reason that 1.7 messes with your stats. You won't be able to keep up a good ratio with it.

[rhinowing]

just switched back to 1.61, thanks for the advice :)

[Tubular]

No problem, glad to help. :D

[randytravis]

So it can't be hacked like Azureus gets hacked.

that's total bs. if you look in the right places, you can get copies of modified utorrent clients that report improper stats.

the reason utorrent was always closed source, is because ludde knew he was sitting on something that would be valuable one day. like clockwork, someone with a big enough offer came along and he sold it.

[direwolf-pgh]

more trouble for comcast and their Internet subscribers.

Heavy Internet users unplugged by US cable company Sat Sep 8, 11:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Several Internet users in the United States have been unplugged by their service provider because they download too much, a press report said here Friday.

Cable Internet and entertainment provider Comcast "has punished some transgressors by cutting off their Internet service, arguing that excessive downloaders hog Internet capacity and slow down the network for other customers," the Washington Post reported.

Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas told AFP the company was addressing "the problem of abusive activity that adversely impacts on everybody else's experience."

"I can't give you a number" for clients who have been disconnected, said Douglas, while assuring that customers whose plugs were pulled are "very rare."

According to the Washington Post, a customer would have to download the equivalent of 1,000 songs or four feature films a day to trigger a disconnection warning.

Comcast gives customers a month to fix problems or upgrade their service before they are disconnected, the Washington Post said.

An unplugged client in Rockville, a suburb of Washington, has filed a complaint with the county he lives in, saying his contract with his service provider states that he is entitled to unlimited Internet access, officials in Montgomery County said.

A recent report by the ABI market research company warned that the growth in demand for "bandwidth-hungry services such as HDTV and online gaming is leading to a critical lack of capacity" in US cable operators' networks.

"Cable TV operators trying to satisfy the increasing bandwidth demands of HDTV customers feel very much like the thrifty grocer who tried to cram ten pounds of potatoes into a five-pound bag," ABI research director Stan Schatt said last month.

"The increasing bandwidth demands on cable operators will soon reach crisis stage, yet this is a 'dirty little industry secret' that no one talks about."
the writing is on the wall - they are running out of bandwidth.