Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

OptimumOnline Bans uploads to P2P networks 508

Posted by Hemos from the cutting-the-feet-out dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In disturbing news this week Cablevision's high speed broadband unit OptimumOnline has sent letters to subscribers warning that uploading to P2P networks will no longer be tolerated. Obviously bowing to record and movie industry pressure the letter includes a link to a page that gives directions on how to disable file trading on 18 P2P services from KaZaa to Xolox. If you don't comply, they will cut the cord. I remember not to long ago where OptimumOnline ran TV ads touting the ability to grab music from the Net. The story on this can also be read here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OptimumOnline Bans uploads to P2P networks More

OptimumOnline Bans uploads to P2P networks

Comments Filter:

  • Once Again (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cluge ( 114877 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @06:53PM (#4937963) Homepage
    It doesn't matter if your right, it doesn't matter if you've done nothing illegal, what matters is who has the better attorneys. The logic used here is the same that is used with gun control. Punish the innocent and the people capable of potentially commiting a crime. Assume they are guilty first, ask questions later.

    The cable company capitulated because the legal expenses to fight the threat of legal action is more than sending out a letter to each user. It's really that simple. If this isn't a SURE sign our legal system needs a review, then I don't know what is.

    cluge

    • Re:Once Again (Score:5, Informative)

      by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @07:31PM (#4938187)
      No, this has nothing to do with whose attorneys are better. It has to do with the fact that when you signed up for service, you signed a legally binding contract saying that you won't run a server. Even the best attorney in the world couldn't defend against this. You agreed to use their service under their conditions. You break the conditions. The contract is null and void. They don't have to provide you service. Don't like it? Find an ISP that allows server usage.

      • Re:Once Again (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous DWord ( 466154 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @08:26PM (#4938434) Homepage
        First off, I didn't sign a goddamn thing when I signed up. I gave them cash, and they smiled and said thank you.

        Second, I have a copy of the original TOS I got when I signed up, and it doesn't say anything about not running servers. I checked it again to make sure when they spammed me this time (5 emails about not running Kazaa - thanks).
      • While what you say is true, I don't believe anyone with P2P uploads is acting as a server. Isn't the peer to peer model inherently different than the client/sever model? Maybe I'm picking nits.
      • Don't like it? Find an ISP that allows server usage.
        A little ridiculous to "let the market take care of it" when there is no market, don't you think? There's only room for one provider. If they happen to suck, you're SOL because whoever is hogging that slot is preventing a possibly better service from coming along.

  • well, it is illegal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by napoleonin ( 548802 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @06:53PM (#4937967)
    This may seem heavy-handed, but most of the stuff they're uploading is probably copyrighted, and hence illegal to share. So, really all the ISP is doing is banning people from breakng the law. Just because you don't agree with a law doesn't make it ok to break it with impunity - if that was the case, nobody would drive the speed limit.

    • Re:well, it is illegal (Score:4, Insightful)

      by m1a1 ( 622864 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @07:01PM (#4938010)
      This may seem heavy-handed, but most of the stuff they're uploading is probably copyrighted, and hence illegal to share. So, really all the ISP is doing is banning people from breakng the law. Just because you don't agree with a law doesn't make it ok to break it with impunity - if that was the case, nobody would drive the speed limit.

      They are also stifling legal uses such as freely distributable bootlegs, indy music from bands that want everyone to download a copy etc. Sure, most of it may be trouble, but this hampers legitimate use as well.

    • Re:well, it is illegal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @07:05PM (#4938031) Homepage Journal
      stuff they're uploading is probably copyrighted

      You just shot your logic in the foot with the "probably".

      The law does not work on Probably, and Maybe. It either is unlawful or it isn't. Sharing copyrighted files is illegal in many places, but networks that *can* share copyrighted problems are not.
      Guns are bad in many cases and should be restricted, but they are not illegal. They can be used for good or bad. Perhaps P2P needs some restrictions, but not outright prohibition.

    • You are saying it would be ok for Ford and GM to put monitors on all of our cars so that if we exceed the speed limit they can come take the car back? How about we get smart money going to make sure we pay every cent of our taxes and never use it to buy anything illegal? Condoms should come with monitors too? Wouldn't want to let us go sticking them into prostitutes, animals, or other men where it's illegal.

      It doesn't SEEM heavy handed, it IS heavy handed. Not everyone is ready to bend over like you and accept being treated like a criminal for refusing to be disneyfied lumps of consumerism.

      If bandwith consumption is their issue, then they can always go the capping/rate increase route.

    • those using "illegal" should understand the law (Score:5, Informative)

      by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @07:18PM (#4938129)
      As a "common carrier", the ISP is not responsiable for uploads by the user any more than the telephone company is responsiable if you make a threatening or harassing call. However, if they start censoring, then they assume responsability for anything later done that they didn't catch, a point I doubt the RIAA thugs pointed out in their threats.

      Clearly not all shared content is illegal (although there is little doubt that most of it is). Small artists have been able to use it legally for self-promotion, a perfectly legal use that the RIAA is also glad to put a stop to, as it might slightly impeed their ability to steal from artists.

      • It is worth stating again: ISPs are not common carriers.

        Telephone companies are common carriers. ISPs, including cable modem operators, are technically "information service providers". A DSL ISP service has two separable components, the DSL (common carrier) and the ISP. This distinction matters in various areas of law and regulation.

        Now it is true that legally, ISPs are often not responsible for content put out by users. But sometimes they are, and they have certain responsibilities. I don't think that Cablevision (ISP) is responsible for copyright violations by peer-to-peer subscribers, but they could be asked to "take down" certain users or content. This type of thing keeps lawyers busy.
    • Don't think that is the main motivation of any ISP. A data carrier is not responsible for the contents of the data transmitted, stopping customers from breaking copyright protects the customers (unless you are in Canada, where there is law on the books introducing ISP liability for caching of material... see Tariff 22 will be the death of Canadian Internet Radio [kuro5hin.org] and Intellectual Property laws meet the modern age [dslreports.com] for discussion on the issue).

      Cable internet services are designed for downstream data at high rates, as are the cable plants (the RF networks themselves). Upstream is a huge problem, and P2P represents a substantial portion of network traffic... scaling to meet the demand placed on the network by a small segment of users (P2P bandwidth hogs) does not make good business sense. Ask any cable operator, look at specs for cable equipment, do a little research and you'll see that limiting upstream, specifically going after P2P usage, is a coming trend that makes sense. This massive upstream used by a small proportion of users is the same as running a high traffic FTP server on a residential service. It is abuse. Whether it is illegal or not isn't relevant, P2P costs ISPs money and hurts other customers by degrading network performance.

  • Upload vs. Download (Score:2, Insightful)

    by syntap ( 242090 )
    I remember not to long ago where OptimumOnline ran TV ads touting the ability to grab music from the Net

    Right... cutting off the upstream means you can't UPLOAD music... you can still download all you want.
  • From what I can tell, they're only trying stop to uploads, not downloads, so you're ability to download music from the net isn't affected.

    So basically, everyone on that ISP is forced to be a leech. Given that most people on P2P networks are already leeches, this won't be much of an effect. :)
  • Obviously bowing to record and movie industry pressure the letter includes a link to a page that gives directions on how to disable file trading on 18 P2P services from KaZaa to Xolox.

    I'm sure the excessive bandwidth being used by tens of thousands of customers letting people leech pirated music and movies from them 24/7 has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it. Don't like it? Find a different provider.

    • Re:Yeah, right (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I didn't recall seeing a clause in the product description that read:

      "Bandwidth may only be used for buisiness and educational purposes. Do not waste our bandwidth on anything frivolous or we'll take it away. Mneh."

      Can you point me to where it was?
      • Read it again. Bet there's a clause that says, in so many words, that they retain the right to remove users whose use their network in a manner that reduces overall network performance or threatens to diminish customer satisfaction, or is behavior that violates any applicable legislation.

        In other words, using an ISP's network is a commercial transaction, not a right.
    • most broadband ISPs have very low upstream caps anyway. I had 384 on RR, 160 on Epix DSL, 128 on DSL in Ohio, and now I have 256 w/ATTBI.

      They are not losing so much bandwith on upstream. Point is people can track if you are hosting music/movies, etc. They cannot as easily track if you are downloading it (b/c if they host it themselves for offer it's just as illegal).
  • If you use any of the peer-to-peer file services listed below without disabling the file sharing option, the entire Internet can access the files on your hard drive.
    Umm...no. No matter what P2P network you use, you can only get files from a certain number of users--the people connected to the same node or supernode or hub or server or whatever.

    Also, they don't mention Direct Connect, so if I did use them I'd still be ok.

  • Bait and Switch? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jailbrekr ( 73837 )
    If they using music downloads as an incentive to switch to their service, only to cut off the ability to download music, would this not be considered as bait and switch tactics? Is this not illegal?
    • No, you have the ability to download all of the music that has legally been put on the 'net. They're not taking that away from anybody.
    • Dude, read the article! *UPLOADS* are being CAPPED. There is no banning of downloads in any way whatsoever.
      • Exactly right. They're trying to stop their network from *distributing* the copyrighted material. It takes the best card that the RIAA/MPAA/etc. can play in the setting of a lawsuit and tosses it out the window. "Our users aren't distributing copyrighted material, and if you want to stop them from downloading it you should go after those ISPs that let their users distribute it."

        In the current environment, I think OptimumOnline is making a smart move. Depending on how various lawsuits and legislation shake out over the next couple years, they could easily revisit the issue and allow P2P uploads again, but until then they are limiting their own legal exposure.

    • Who said anything about cutting downloads? Upload != Download...small difference.
    • The article never mentions not being able to download music, only upload it.

      Besides, I would doubt that their motivation for doing this is anything besides $$$ and consideration for their other users. I work for a university and we bandwidth capped p2p stuff with a packetshaper [packeteer.com] not for the "moral" or legal aspect of it. We wanted the bandwith that we were paying for! Before limiting the p2p protocols, something like 80 to 90 % of the data leaving the university was due to p2p, and like this cable provider's customers, I doubt most of them even realize the volume of data that they are "sharing".

  • DMCA Violations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by papasui ( 567265 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @07:01PM (#4938011) Homepage
    At my present job, we recieve DMCA violation tickets sent to us, which include the ip address of the customer that was sharing files. We then track down the customer based on the ARP logs and issue them a letter notifying them that they are in violation of our Acceptable Use Policy which prohibits the usage of servers on a residential service, as well as our clauses that allow us to terminate a customers service. If we recieve 3 DCMA tickets from a particular customer we permanetly terminate their service. On a side note, due to the asynchrous nature of most cable modem service, as well as the fact that a node is essentially a LAN, I can certainly understand the concern about people constantly uploading files. Saturating the forward path can cause problems with download traffic as TCP requires ACK packets to be sent stating that a packet has reached it's destination, if the ACK packet is not recieved the packet needs to be re-transmited. So the next time you think your not causing any problems for anyone when you spent the last 2 weeks on Kazaa allowing people to leech files think again.

    • Re:DMCA Violations (Score:5, Insightful)

      by radish ( 98371 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @07:05PM (#4938035) Homepage
      And of course you do all this because someone TOLD you that there were copyrighted files being shared yes? I don't see the step where you verify the truthfulness (or otherwise) of the complaint you recieve?

      Jerk.

      • Re:DMCA Violations (Score:4, Informative)

        by papasui ( 567265 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @07:09PM (#4938072) Homepage
        We recieve a list of copyright materials that were sucessfully downloaded from the individual. As the law currently stands, we have to uphold the request of the copyright holder, and if we don't do this then we can have legal action brought against us. If you don't like the law, I would suggest contacting your senator.
        • Do you also grant your paying customer his full rights under the DMCA?

        • We recieve a list of copyright materials that were sucessfully downloaded from the individual.

          That's kind of surprising, because that could be illegal, for whoever's doing the downloading. But I wouldn't put it past anyone...

          As the law currently stands, we have to uphold the request of the copyright holder, and if we don't do this then we can have legal action brought against us.

          ROFL. You don't have to uphold the request in this case. (And you can have legal action brought against you either way; the DMCA can't prevent that.) I think you're confused about the infringement liability exemptions. You might want to take a look at this [eff.org].

          But to summarize:

          Yes, an ISP only has DMCA immunity from liability for infringement of copyright involving content stored on their servers if they designate an agent, comply with notice & counter-notice time limits, etc. That's probably what you're thinking of. See USC 17 Ch. 5 S 512(c).

          But that's irrelevant, because we're not talking about content stored on the ISP's servers.

          The ISP has blanket immunity for content that passes through their network but isn't stored there more than transiently. This is covered a couple of paragraphs up in S 512(a). (Notices could be involved, but only if a proxy is maintaining content that has been removed at the source; and we're not likely to find an inward transparent proxy on a network with an AUP that prohibits servers. =)

          If you don't like the law, I would suggest contacting your senator.

          Heh. And if my ISP constantly tries to cover their ass at my expense (but can't even get that right, since they don't seem to know where their ass it), then who do I contact? Their shareholders? =)

    • Re:DMCA Violations (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rmohr02 ( 208447 )
      Okay, it does make a difference on cable modems, but not on 56K or DSL.

      For DSL, I'm paying for a constant speed anyway, and they damn well better let me use it.

      For 56K, nobody cares.
      • Huh? Guess what, your DSL line itself might not be shared bandwidth, but guess what happens on the other side when it meets it switch. If everybody maxes their DSL line at the same time, the switch doesn't have enough outbound for everybody.
        • That's not the problem of the customer, it's a problem with the ISP. If they sell accounts with gauranteed constant speed then they should provide the infrastructure to handle what they promise. Just because they don't provide what they sell doesn't mean that it's the fault of the user for using what he/she has paid for.
      • For all DSL carriers I've seen, unless you have a business-class SDSL account, you aren't guaranteed any upstream or downstream bandwidth outside of "best effort" service.
    • BTW I can tell none of you know anything about how the DMCA works, the ISP just passes on the complaint that is alleged by the company who informed us with their evidence, should the information be incorrect the accused can sue the company who made the complaint. In the case that the person who sues sucessfully defends theirselves in court, there service would be restored.
      • You've demonstrated that you know little about the DMCA. The accused doesn't have to win in court, all they need to do is send you a counter-notification letter and you are required to turn their service back on.
    • Ok.. I herby submit three complaints (once today, once they day before, and once they day before that) that they user by the nick of "papasui" has voilated the DMCA. Please terminate his service :)

      Oh, you mean staff gets special concideration? funny that
  • If you use any of the peer-to-peer file services listed below without disabling the file sharing option, the entire Internet can access the files on your hard drive.

    If they would have said "some files", or even just "files", then that would have been more truthful. "the files" means the same as "all files".

    • Cable companies always do this. They word their statements so that there is always unclear defintions, where the reader tends to see what the cable company wants to communicate, but not what they actually said.

      Of course, we know "the files" means "the files you have selected in the program to share", but the hacker-scared users will see "all the files" and be scared into going to do what they say.

  • not really for power users (Score:3, Interesting)

    by exhilaration ( 587191 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @07:02PM (#4938017)
    I think they're just trying to inform the average user that he or she might be sharing files without realizing it. These people are unknowingly giving away up a massive amount of bandwidth.

    Optimum Online doesn't seem to have a good method of tracking or enforcing these rules. I've been running servers off my home OOL cable connection for over a year, and they've never said a thing, though I've contacted technical support for other unrelated issues.

    Anyone else have any problems with running servers on Optimum Online? I'm running POP/SMTP/HTTPS/SSH services for my own use.

    I'd be interesting to hear stories from people who have been told to shut down servers or reduce their bandwidth usage.

    • POP, SMTP (presuming you are smart enough to block spammers), HTTPS (presuming it is not a site that gets thousands of users) and SSH are all things that "aren't hurting anybody" and can be allowed to continue.

      P2P-obsfucation apps however exist only to violate copyrights, and therefore the ISPs must shut down customers when notified or risk DMCA lawsuits.
  • Just set up an encrypted VPN with like-minded pirat*cough*people on the net and all your ISP will see will be your encrypted traffic.

    I'll leave setting up the P2P-like program for encrypted packets as an exercise for the student (It's been done at least a couple of times thus far...)

    • While they may not know _WHAT_ you're sending they would certainly be aware that you are sending large amounts of information, most ISPS have clauses that allow them to terminate the service of individuals who use excessive amounts of bandwidth (and usually they don't state what qualifies as excessive).
    • Just set up an encrypted VPN with like-minded pirat*cough*people on the net and all your ISP will see will be your encrypted traffic.

      Sure thing there, peppy! You'll find yourself quickly disconnected, though. ;)

      Bell Sympatico and Rogers Cable both have (or had, at one point in time) wording in their AUPs that forbid "commercial grade virtual private network" software from being used on their connection.

      "Hey! That's encrypted traffic!" *plonk!*

      • Bell Sympatico and Rogers Cable both have (or had, at one point in time) wording in their AUPs that forbid "commercial grade virtual private network" software from being used on their connection.

        OOL has no such policy. OOL has the following restrictions:

        1. No servers.
        2. 1 MBit up/10 Mbit down modem caps.
        3. Port 80 is blocked.
        4. No bandwidth abuse

        Recently they have been applying 1 & 4 to people running ftp/p2p servers. My understanding is the criterea they use is continuous use of 1 Mb/sec for more than 3 hours continuously, with multiple upload ip destinations. When this is detected they apply a reduced upload speed cap of 150K/sec.

  • Hmm. (Score:2)

    by skyfish ( 2889 )
    Or maybe theyre just tired of people irresponsibly leaving Kazaa and other like programs open after they get what they want, wasting everyone else's bandwidth.

  • Other links and info (Score:4, Informative)

    by Hadean ( 32319 ) <hadean.dragon+slashdotNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday December 21, 2002 @07:04PM (#4938028)
    Good information can also be found here [napsterites.net] , here [dslreports.com] and here [dslreports.com].

    Basically, their excuse is security related, which is crap since more security problems occur with Internet Explorer, IIS and Windows itself than with P2P software...

    As mentioned at DSL Reports, the upload is being capped at 128kb/s, NOT banned... Here's a quote from one of the links above (by HaveOOLnow)

    No, it affects all uploads. If you upload at a certain rate for more than a certain amount of time, you automatically get capped [at 128kps]. But all you have to do is call them to get uncapped. The system is just designed to make people aware of the fact that they might have P2P apps running in the background.

    The cap seems to be about 6 hours in length. Quite horrendous, but we all saw this coming, right? To be honest, I'd rather this and have unlimited download/uploads, than both... *shrug* Or, maybe if it only happens when the server is being heavily used (evenings and such).
  • Aparently OptimumOnline has done a rick analysis in which they concluded the rick of an RIAA lawsuit is greater than the rick of loss of business due to restricting the customer's online experience.

    It is our job as customers to prove not only that the customer is always right, but that the loss of business (and revenue) due to failure to cater to customer, rather than the legally questionable demands of an organization borne of greed and nepotism, which seeks to control not only products of it's members but all music and other entertainment materials, over which it has no legal standing whatsoever.

    --CTH
  • Obviously bowing to record and movie industry pressure

    How do you figure? Perhaps they've simply noticed that their network isn't capable of handling as much upstream as they've been getting lately (cable is asymmetric), and they determined that P2P was the reason.
  • It may seem kind of hash, but this is probably the only way to keep P2P networks from degrading due to stunts like this. P2P needs clients that upload to be useful, otherwise the clients that do allow uploads will receive an unfair amount of load.

    Having individual clients that don't share is one thing, having entire networks that don't is much bigger problem.

    I think it's time P2P clients start including easy ways to ban entire IP blocks.

    This would also provide OptimumOnline customers another reason to (i) complain to OptimumOnline about the policy and/or (ii) change providers.
  • The letter says nothing about 'banning' uploads. From the letter:

    use of these services can lead to network problems that may result in your upstream speed being temporarily reduced to control this abuse of service.

    It sounds like they're going to throttle bandwidth on these ports, which makes perfect sense to me.

    • It's unfortunate that slashdot has such an amazing critical mass of community, yet those who run it refuse to allow moderation of the content of the stories. This item should be moderated -1 FUD.

      The number of 'news' items that are a total waste of time to read could be drastically reduced, giving slashdot readers what they want: "stuff that matters".

  • This has been an on going problem with many ISPs. What they don't want is the *traffic*. Part of the premise of broadband with the dot com boom was that people would only use just a small part of the available bandwidth. Thus, ISPs could lure people in with highspeed transfers and expect that that usage would be in small burps of highspeed. User is happy with getting their web page or video file in seconds and ISPs would reap a line that generally unused 95% of the day. It is interesting to note that ISPs failed to have a killer app to draw people to their service. A killer app has sprung up--P2P. The problem with P2P for ISPs, however, is that it actually *uses* their services all the time and in the wrong direction. Depending on the popularity of the P2P user, the software can spit gigabytes of data upstream daily. This is exactly inverse to the model that broadband ISPs want. Upstream bandwidth is what hurts them. Hence, the vast majority of providers have in their terms of use contract (yeah, that sheet of paper so many of you probably never read) states *no* servers. All they are doing is enforcing what they said in the beginning they wouldn't allow. Whether you think its right or not, that's the contract. Personally, I think the real issue is that there should be a law that regulates data connections. (Mind you, I'm not overly fond of creating laws.) ISPs should not be able to state if you are "over using" your unlimited connection. But then, that would probably collapse broadband because it works from totally overly allocated bandwidth expectations. Prices have been going up because they sold broadband below cost and under the expectation of it not being used much and then something came along that made people really, really want to use the hell out of the pipe.

    My two cents,

  • This article is completely innacurate . . . (Score:5, Informative)

    by jgaynor ( 205453 ) <jon@gaAUDENynor.org minus poet> on Saturday December 21, 2002 @07:17PM (#4938127) Homepage
    Im sorry but this article is completely inaccurate. Im an OOL customer and I actively participate in the OOL discussions on broadbandreports. The discretionary cap was put into place because users were clogging upstream channels with p2p uploads. It got so bad that DHCP requests on some nodes (mine in particular) could not be recieved within even a 17 second ack window. It does NOT have to do with pressure from the RIAA.

    Here's why: The cap is not a new portblock (they already block 80 to discourage webhosting), but simply a different cable modem config file with a lower upstream maximum. The ordinary config for OOL is 10 megabits down and 1 megabit up. the altered config file is 10 megabits down and only 150 kilobits up.

    Obviously this is a solution that was implemented to control bandwidth, not specific applications. If OOL were to start battling p2p apps, it would come in the form of a portblock or traffic shaper - NOT an upload throttle.

    To the author of the story, please do your homework. You can start in the OOL forums on BBR:

    http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/cable,opt [broadbandreports.com]
    • You say the default config for OOL is 10 megabits down and an ENTIRE MEGABIT upstream?

      Sounds like the idiots that run the place have no fucking clue how the cable system works. Upstream bandwidth is severely limited because it runs on lower frequencies (5-42 MHz) with fewer channels to work with. Assigning every user an entire megabit of upstream data when each node is only capable of handling about 10 megabits is a recipe for disaster -- put a few heavy P2P users on the line and you'll be saturated in no time.

      Cox Communications and Time Warner both cap upstream bandwidth at anywhere between 128-384k, and nothing more. They have successfully managed their bandwidth from the start and hence don't have to backpedal in a panic, pissing off thousands (millions?) of subscribers.

      This is OOL's fault -- not P2P, not the end users.
    • If they don't have the infrastructure to support 1Mb up, then don't friggin sell 1Mb up. Don't sell me a service for $39.95/month, then change the service in the middle based on whether "I use too much of what you have sold me". You can't support more than X upstream, fine. Then sell it that way and cap EVERYONE that way. Don't penalize ME because I am letting my friends grab Red Hat iso's from me, instead of the swamped servers.

  • False advertising? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Exiler ( 589908 )
    It sounds like they're blocking the ports these programs use for upstream...

    "We want you to stay online and stay protected while enjoying the best performance of Optimum Online high-speed Internet access"

    Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "Internet access" pertain to full use of all ports? Wouldn't they have to be selling "Web, e-mail, and IRC" access or something to block ports?
  • Too bad they didn't block downloads too. Now leachers will have their way.
  • While I think this was read into too deeply, and they are NOT banning p2p (just slowing down?), I feel for their users.

    They are basically being held guilty by default. What a crock of shit.

    Enjoy. But if you don't like it, dump the service please, and stop supporting them.

    (standard "but $X is only service in my area" whinings need not apply)

  • Of course they can and will do what they're threatening. There's a reason why it pays to have your provider be classified a common carrier, and not some entity that will block your connections at whim... If you didn't see this coming you need to be hit upside the head with a cluestick...

  • So sending a file with a p2p protocol is outlawed by this ISP. Think about it ......

    You can still download stuff with the p2p protocols. You can even accept file requests ( and acknowledge them ) with a p2p protocol. And you can still use SMTP to send files, even ones that the RIAA doesn't like, to other people (peers). It would serve OptimumOnline right if someone applied this concept to deliver any file now transfered from their users over p2p through their mail servers instead.

    Sometimes doing what people tell you that you are allowed to do can be the best revenge.

  • We use OOL and we got the mail everyone's talking about. And for about two minutes it made me think about switching to DSL and DirectTV.

    Then I remembered that I'm getting mad bandwith/$ (link: fastest ISP's [dslreports.com]). I've measured 6 Mbps to an OOL server and 3.8 Mbps to the other coast. For $30/month. DSL would be 700 kpbs (about 1/10th) for $50/month.

    Also, it's their business and they've had a "no servers" policy since before I subscribed. I wouldn't want anyone telling me how to define my business. If we don't like it we can vote with our wallets. But this compromise is easy for me.

    That said, I am an occasional P2P user, and I think sharing is appropriate to the model. I'll be looking into how much usage it takes to draw any attention and if the penalties are temporary caps (vs. being booted). But at this rate and price, I don't want to get booted!

  • It's obvious that 'security' isn't their motive in this move. If you look at the products listed, it's obvious that they're trying to block p2p applications which, among other things, distribute music files. If 'protecting people from themselves' (that their 'security' really means) is what they're after, they would also have included Freenet and GNUnet.

  • I'm getting a little tired of this talk about "bandwidth stealing". It's hype, and they should be called on it. If the ISP's have the capacity, then it doesn't cost them an extra nickle when you use it. If they don't have the capacity, then they shouldn't be contracting it to you in the first place.

    Now, if the access providers want to put a cap on the amount of bandwidth you use, and tell you this up front, then I have no problem. But, if they want to change the terms of your contract, and if they want to decide which "approved" service you can connect with, then I have a big problem. You should too! It's your resource, you paid for it. Use it.
  • Answer this poll question:
    Since I began downloading audio/video from the internet, My purchaces of same have:
    1. increased very much
    2. increased some
    3. increased very little
    4. stayed the same
    5. decreased very little
    6. decreased some
    7. decreased very much
  • The OOL terms and conditions clearly list servers as unaccaptable use, and always have. In addition OOL has not been 'pulling the plug' on P2P users - they have been throttling the upload bandwidth by decreasing the bandwidth cap on the upload channel from 1 Mbps to 150Kbps.

    Despite speculation that this action is due to pressure from the movie/music industry, nobody has any hard evidence this is the case.

    What is definitely true is that the nature of network use is changing - when the original cable protocol (DOCSIS 1.0) was designed bandwith utilization was 30:1 down to up, so DOCSIS 1.0 was designed for this sort of asymmetric load. This was before the days of VPN, sending digital photos to grandma, videoconferencing, etc. Unshaped traffic right now is running more like 2-3:1. With some optimization it's possible to get a DOCSIS 1.0 network to efficiently handle 10:1, but that's still a long way fron 2:1.

    The result is that there is a big strain on upload channels in cable networks right now. Even OOL, which has the best bandwidth/customer right now is feeling the pinch.

    DOCSIS 2.0 equipment, which is just starting to roll out is capable off symmetric operation - cable operators really want this for a variety of applications, however they also have an equipment plant with relatively new 1.0 hardware and generally a huge amount of debt. It's hard to predict how fast 2.0 will be rolled out.

  • As an Optonline customer... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ellem ( 147712 ) <ellem52@gmai l . c om> on Saturday December 21, 2002 @08:20PM (#4938406) Homepage Journal
    ..let me tell you the service level has dropped off so much it is ridiculous.

    First they have been running "brown-outs" in Brookhaven township (Suffolk County, NY.)

    Second the Helpless Desk has been telling people to turn of and especially DISCONNECT their routers when they call for outages. They do not explain themselves they simply tell people to disconnect the equipment. Then when the problem is not resolved they tell the customer to leave the Router out of the mix and wait a while. "Do not hook the router back up.," they implore.

    Third, and this is just heinous, the cable technicians have been "chopping the lines" of customers they suspect have either extra cable runs, or (God forbid) who have Satellite Dishes. I live in Farmingville and not only has this happened to 6 (SIX) of my neighbors but one of those fukkers was in my yard when they were supposed to be working across the street. My wife confronted the guy and he told her that satellites were unreliable and "anyting" can happen to them and that she should consider going back to cable. I came out and exlained that if he didn;t get off my property I'd bury him in it. I took his plate number and Van number and Cablevision has denied he was even in the neighborhood. We are pressing charges along with our neighbor's who's Sat Dish lines he cut. I doubt we have a rogue installer.

    As soon as DSL is on this block we're switching.

    • Second the Helpless Desk has been telling people to turn of and especially DISCONNECT their routers when they call for outages.

      Well DUH! The help desk drone isn't trained to support routers. It also says specifically in the OOL contract that they don't support routers.

      You can you 'em if you want, but they aren't going to help you with 'em.

  • Lessig talks about this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bgfay ( 5362 ) on Saturday December 21, 2002 @09:34PM (#4938677) Homepage
    I've been reading Lawrence Lessig's _The Future of Ideas_ and he talked about this and made it clear why it would happen and the inevitability of it. Cable is the closed network of our time. There are far too many controls on it. I wonder how it is that the network providers are so short-sighted that they believe that this model is the way to go.

    As for peer-to-peer and that it trades only illegal stuff, well that's hogwash. Yes, p2p is being used for a lot of file sharing right now and most of it is still protected by (an outrageous system of) copyrights. But p2p is an infant and there is no way to tell what it will be used for in even one year's time. I bet that p2p users will outwit the cable companies, bypass them and, unless they open their networks, make them irrelevant.

    What will come in the place of cable. Hell, I don't know, but the cable industries stands of today feel a lot like aol's work of yesterday. Aol's dying. Cable will be next. Something else will take its place.

    Until then, if you've got access to dsl and you value openness, call Verizon or whoever. The phone companies are the only ones who have to leave things open. Though, that might change. Things are getting creepy under the Generalisimo Bush. Egad.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close