EFF report on Comcast packet-forging
p2pnet news | P2P:- Following revelations that Comcast has been deliberately interfering with the abilities of its customers to share files with each other, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) has published a comprehensive account of the company’s packet-forging activities and released software to test for this or other forms of interference by their own ISPs.
A California man, Jon Hart, is suing Comcast, or Scumcast, as it’s being called, saying its use of sneak blocking technology to impede P2P applications violates federal computer fraud laws, user contracts and anti-fraudulent advertising statutes.
But, “Comcast continues to issue incomplete and misleading statements about their practices and their impact on its customers,” says the EFF.
The company is, “discriminating among different kinds of Internet traffic based on the protocols being used by its customers,” says EFF senior intellectual property attorney Fred von Lohmann.
“When confronted, Comcast has been evasive and misleading in its responses, so we decided to start gathering the facts ourselves.”
Protocol-specific discrimination, “gives ISPs a tremendous amount of power over the kinds of new applications and services that can be deployed by innovators and competitors,” says the EFF, going on:
“To the extent that practices like those employed by Comcast change the ‘end-to-end’ architecture of the Internet, those practices jeopardize the Internet’s vibrant innovation economy.
If ISPs won’t give their customers accurate information about their Net traffic controls, “we have to detect and document them for ourselves,” says EFF staff technologist Seth Schoen.
Says Packet Forgery By ISPs: A Report on the Comcast Affair >>>
Initial investigations suggest that Comcast is interfering with some subset of protocols, rather than interfering equally with TCP/IP traffic generally.
[The] EFF has run tests of Comcast’s treatment of BitTorrent, Gnutella, and World Wide Web (i.e., HTTP) protocols. We have seen definite interference by injection of RST packets into certain classes of BitTorrent and Gnutella TCP sessions (which we explain in more detail below).
There have also been credible reports of TCP RST packet forgery occurring against Lotus Notes communications, a “groupware” suite used by many businesses for email, calendaring and enterprise file sharing. 9 Following public discussion of this issue, Comcast reportedly adjusted its systems so that Lotus Notes works correctly again. 10 One firm also reported that Comcast was jamming their clients’ Windows Remote Desktop connections. The report appeared quite credible (the submitter informed us that they had numerous clients, and were experiencing problems only with those using Comcast), but it did not contain concrete evidence in the form of packet logs. The submitter subsequently informed us that the problem had dissipated. Because the resolution coincided with the resolution of Lotus Notes interference, we believe that changes to Comcast’s jamming algorithms are the most likely explanation for these changes.
[The] EFF has also received unconfirmed reports that Comcast is interfering with other protocols. In particular, some Comcast users have reported that medium and large-sized FTP and HTTP transfers have been interrupted. The FTP and HTTP reports, however, have not included enough detail for us to be certain that there is a problem attributable to forgery of packets by Comcast. Our attempts to test for interference in large HTTP transfers have occasionally resulted in what seem to be interrupted connections, but these results are not consistently reproducible, and we cannot say at this point that there is any interference or that it is caused by Comcast. 11
We do not presently have enough data to form complete theories about the details of the algorithm that Comcast has been using to select connections for interdiction. We intend to continue testing, however, and will post an update based on our results or those of others.
Stay tuned.
Also See:
deliberately interfering – Comcast threatens staff in P2P scandal, October 29, 2007
sneak blocking technology – Comcast sued for blocking file sharing, November 15, 2007
EFF – EFF Releases Reports and Software to Spot Interference with Internet Traffic, November 28, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for the download, and here for details. Click here or here to learn how to by-pass censorship in your area.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:31 am
It will probably be argued in court, since they do have a lawsuit against them.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:59 am
/sigh
1. ‘quality of service’ means that they need to provide for equal service level to all customers. If a punk is using up 95% of available bandwidth in a certain area, such as my neighborhood, that will prevent ME from enjoying the Internet service I pay for. That is simply wrong. It is OK for them to ’slow down’ his bittorrent traffic IMHO so that everyone else can at least view web pages and read email.
2. there is a disconnect between the marketing division and the technology division. Perhaps the marketing folks need to change their term ‘unlimited’ to something more specific and technical, but it is not illegal nor false advertising. They are not limiting your download ability, simply slowing down the huge bandwidth hog of a few people to ensure quality for all customers.
3. if you don’t like it, go use DSL or another company as an ISP and stop moaning. I support what they are doing and the reasons behind it, and have spoken at length to one of their network engineers about it, so I’m sure I know more than just about everyone who has and will weigh in on this matter. And frankly, the majority of p2p traffic is for music and video downloads, probably unpaid for, and probably not falling within fair-use rights of American copyright laws, so those people have no foot to stand on…
November 28th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Typical apologist blindness there, “Reader’s Write”.
1 – All customers on the service pay for a set maximum amount of usable up and down bandwidth, HOW THEY USE THAT IS UP TO THEM. Since the network as a whole throttles the usage of customers so they CANNOT use more bandwidth than they HAVE PAID FOR….said “punk” using 95% OF HIS PAID-FOR BANDWIDTH has shit-all to do with YOUR ability to check your fucking hotmail.
2 – This is the SERVICE CONTRACT’S language, not the “marketing division”s. That means it was written by LAWYERS, not ad executives. If scumcast’s network in your area is incapable of handling the traffic of its subscribers, then that IS THE FAULT OF THE COMPANY WHO PROMISED THE SERVICE!
3 – If you don’t like having your head ripped off when you walk into Safeway, shop at Bel Air. Of course, it is illegal, and by then its too late…. Same argument you use, taken to its logical extreme. If you can’t handle it, then maybe you should re-asses your argument.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
What you don’t realise is this is just the first step toward non net neutrality. Who knows what they will block / interdict next ?
This kind of behaviour is called contract fraud. They are taking actions not explicitly stipulated in the customer agreement; hence the fraudulent claims.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
If my ISP says that I have 10meg down and it is unlimited and so I choose to use my 10meg in downloading I am well within my rights and service contract. If my uploading/downloading interferes with anothers experience then it isnt my fault but the ISP’s for selling a service that cannot do what it claims it should do, hence false advertisement. I dont remember the advertisement of my ISP claiming that the 10meg down was to be a partyline and would be SHARED amoungst my neighbors, no they claimed that each of us would have the same service…. lies lies lies Now that the technology has caught up to what they claim the service can do and it is being proven that it cant, now it is the technology that is to blame. It seems to be always the customer’s fault and not the ISP… what a load of pure crap
November 28th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Ahh…
This reminds me of a problem that came up in the UK several years ago (no, I don’t live there), where ISPs started charging for excess downloading on an “unlimited” account, because they their idea of “unlimited bandwidth” didn’t include using the net for more than checking email, and browsing the web.
Now, I don’t have the exact numbers on me (If anyone in the UK remembers this incident, please feel free to correct me), but I think I remember the monthly cap to be around 300 Gib, and either you get charged premium rates over that amount, or they stopped your account until the next month.
The courts later ruled that this was false advertising, and they had to abandon this “ploy”.
So what it comes down to, is that “unlimited” does not equal “unlimited, but we’ll slow your connection down if we don’t like ya”, and if Comcast is not willing to follow their service contract, then they are at fault.
As for “punks” using bandwidth down the street, that should not affect your Internet connection, where as if you are sharing an Internet connection in an apartment, this can really be a major problem, because many shared-line
contracts state that the connections are best effort, and you can not complain if the connection is slow because of these “punks”. And in many cases you have no other choice of ISPs to choose from.
Just my two cents
November 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
This comes down to ISPs not upgrading their equipment to meet demand. What they promise to sell you their service (if you have the choice and many don’t) is what they have to deliver. If they tell you unlimited until you use it, what then is unlimited to mean?
Whether your bandwidth is affected by others has nothing to do with the promise of unlimited. If you buy unlimited it means just that for each and every customer.
The ISPs are great for promising as long as it doesn’t cost them to upgrade. If it does then they want government handouts to improve it. The government doesn’t own their equipment so should have nothing to do with the over selling of and ISPs service.