And yeah we know this hit Digg almost a week ago, but we were holding on to it for Friday.

If the new owners will screw around with the site, nobody will keep using it. That's the biggest insurance one can have that the site will be run in the way that we all want to. And - you can now not only share files but shares with people. Everybody can indeed be the owner of The Pirate Bay now. That's awesome and will take the heat of us.

Ars Technica sheds a little more light on the site's future path:

In addition to The Pirate Bay assets, GGF will acquire Swedish company Peerialism, which has developed a "new data distribution technology" that is also backwards-compatible with BitTorrent. The Peerialism code will form the basis for the new version of The Pirate Bay,

While The Pirate Bay name comes mired in legal uncertainty, it's still one of the world's best known domains, and GGF is acquiring it for under $8 million-a bargain if it really does have a workable plan for crafting a P2P version of iTunes out of the site.

Pirate Bay users, would you ever consider paying for legitimate version of the site, or would you seek out new coves to fulfill your torrenting needs?

Pirate Bay sold, to become more like Carnival Cruise Lines [Ars Technica]

A Qwest customer in Washington has been having trouble viewing streaming video, but suspiciously everything else he accesses online seems to come through at the advertised speed. After a long phone call today where he was passed among agents and technicians repeatedly, he ended up being told that Qwest reserves the right to throttle users who exhibit "excessive use." Ah, that old term again. So what counts as excessive use to Qwest? According to their FAQ, it could be as little as exceeding 3 gigabytes per month.

I live in western Washington. My DSL provider is Qwest: I bought 1.5Mb/800Kb service. About a week ago, my companion said that her download speed with YouTube, TED and others was substantially less than it had been. I suggested that it might be the outbound load on host site. Her complaints about poor performance persisted.

This morning I ran some standard tests: speed test (speedtest.net) reports that I have the full 1.5Mb/sec I bought. I tried viewing a YouTube video, a long one (50 minutes) and found the experience painful, about 20% of the speed it should be. I suspected Qwest of rate limiting. I used an external proxy server to view the same YouTube video. It appeared to download at full speed.

I called Qwest DSL support. They were unhelpful, even when I escalated to a supervisor. I next called "customer service". The lady I talked to said she wasn't a techie and barely understood the terms "rate limiting" and the like. She transferred me to "Broadband Retention". I explained the apparent rate limiting to that individual. He denied knowing anything about it, but did transfer me to "Louis" in some tech department (not regular DSL support). I explained my observations and tests one more time to "Louis". He denied that Qwest was rate limiting. Louis did put me on hold for a good while. When he came back he referred me to the Qwest "subscriber agreement" at:

http://www.qwest.com/legal/highspeedinternetsubscriberagreementfilesHSI_Subscriber_Agreement_ENG_v20_042209.pdf

He cites the second page, end of the first paragraph, where it says that Qwest may limit speeds. He also cites a "FAQ on Excessive use Policy"

http://www.qwest.com/internethelp/eup/16915_EUP_Details-15.pdf

and admitted that Qwest was, indeed, rate limiting YouTube and other streaming sites.

I asked for a discount based on degraded service. Louis conferenced me to "Jason" in the "loyalty group". I told Jason that I thought 1.5Mb/sec but with rate limited access to YouTube, etc, was worth about $10/month. Jason offered $15/month for 3 months. I said, "Not good enough. Make it permanent". He declined.

I told both Jason and Louis that would post a summary of my discussion with Qwest to Consumerist, Reddit and Slashdot. I ended the conversation with a polite "Good day".

About 20 minutes later Louis called to change his previous statement that Qwest rate limits YouTube and others. He now declares that Qwest does not rate limit. — From my observation, it does appear that Qwest does rate limit. Maybe smarter folks than I can determine the truth.

We wonder just what kind of conversation Louis had with his supervisor or another technician in that 20 minutes before he called you back to change his statement.

For the record, here are a couple of sections from the FAQ linked above. They're not exactly contradictory, but there seems to be a lot of uncharted middle ground between a 3 GB soft cap and the "excessive" examples that immediately follow.

2. A Qwest spokesperson contacted us and said under no circumstances do they throttle YouTube traffic:

We just want to be clear that Qwest doesn't block lawful Internet traffic on its network; never has. It is our responsibility to make sure that our network delivers an optimal Internet experience to customers. If a customer is transferring volumes of data comparable to commercial-grade volumes (hundreds of times more than normal use - examples are included in your story), we have the products to meet those needs and we work closely with these customers to get them the right service.

They also told us they have a Twitter account if you need to reach a Qwest person to discuss a problem you haven't been able to resolve through the standard channels: http://twitter.com/talktoqwest.

If you missed the story the first time around, here's a two-minute recap that will fill you in on what Comcast was doing, how they were caught, what the FCC had to say about it, and the consequences of the whole ordeal. (Hello download caps and tiered packages!)

"The Die is Cast" [On the Media @ NPR]

RELATED
our posts on the scandal
(Photo: Comcast)

M-Lab [Google]

"Wal*Mart shutting down DRM server, nuking your music collection — only people who pay for music risk losing it to DRM shenanigans" [BoingBoing]
(Photo: Kamoteus and Joe Mad)

The main problem with the system, researchers contend, is that enforcement agencies are only looking at IP addresses of those participating on peer-to-peer networks and don't focus on the actual files being transferred. The article says,

In two separate studies in August 2007 and May of this year, the researchers set out to examine who was participating in BitTorrent file-sharing networks and what they were sharing. The researchers introduced software agents into these networks to monitor their traffic. Even though those software agents did not download any files, the researchers say they received more than 400 take-down requests accusing them of participating in the downloads.

The research team, including Michael Piatek a graduate student, says these takedown notices should be viewed with some skepticism. He says, "Because current enforcement techniques are weak, it is possible that anyone, regardless of sharing content or using BitTorrent, could get a D.M.C.A. takedown notice claiming they were committing copyright infringement."

Mr. Kohno, an assistant professor at the university said, "Our study scientifically shows that flaws exists." He adds, "It’s impossible to prove that other flaws don’t exist, especially since current industry practices are so shrouded in mystery. Ultimately, we think that our results should provide a wake-up call for more openness on the parts of content enforcers."

We hope that these kinds of studies help to bring about changes in the way that DMCA takedown notices are issued. Copyright infringement lawsuits have turned into big business for trade groups but they continually fail to consider the innocent victims which are being snagged in their massive net. To accuse someone of a crime is serious business, it is only fair that the method by which they are accused be just as serious.

The Inexact Science Behind D.M.C.A. Takedown Notices [New York Times]
(Photo: Getty)

A few months ago Azureus petitioned the FCC, which led to a FCC hearing in February. One of the complaints from the commission was that there is little data available on the scope of BitTorrent throttling, a gap Azureus now tries to fill by collecting data on the prevalence of TCP-resets among ISPs worldwide.

Last month Azureus published a plugin through which users can help distinguishing the good from the bad ISPs, and today we have a preview of some early findings. A massive 1,000,000 hours of data from over 8000 users has been collected over the past few weeks. The preliminary results again confirm that Comcast continues to use TCP-resets to manage BitTorrent traffic on their network, but they are not alone.

BitTorrent Throttling ISPs Exposed by Azureus [TorrentFreak via Digg]

Comcast PR rep Jen Khoury told Portfolio, Comcast informed our local employees about the hearing and invited them to attend... Some employees did attend, along with many members of the general public," adding that, "For the past week, the Free Press has engaged in a much more extensive campaign to lobby people to attend the hearing on its behalf."

Whichever side you believe, one thing is for certain: Comcast employees are very tired (exhibit A, exhibit B).

The self-policing marketplace and blogosphere, combined with vigilant scrutiny from policymakers, provides an ample check on the reasonableness of such [network management] judgments.

Comcast: The Blogosphere Will Keep Us Honest [IP Democracy] (Thanks to Ninja of the DC!)
Comments Of Comcast Corporation (PDF)

FCC to Probe Comcast Data Discrimination [AP]
(Photo: AP)

EFF Releases Reports and Software to Spot Interference with Internet Traffic [EFF]

ISPs want to block BitTorrent, ban political text messages, and censor concert lyrics. The only political solution to bad faith is to strip of ISPs of their right to discriminate.

Net neutrality advocates want two things: hearings in the Congressional Commerce Committees; and for the FCC to join them at the woodshed to slap Comcast with a massive fine. Now is the time to write to your Members of Congress, write to the FCC Commissioners, and visit SaveTheInternet.com.

Write Your Senator
Write Your Representative
PREVIOUSLY: How To Write To Congress
(Photo: SuziJane)

"Comcast's blatant and deceptive BitTorrent blocking is exactly the type of problem advocates warned would occur without net neutrality laws," Ben Scott, policy director at Free Press, also in Washington, said in a statement. "Our message to both the FCC and Congress is simple: We told you so, now do something about it."

What do you think about OiNK being shut down?
Trent: I'll admit I had an account there and frequented it quite often. At the end of the day, what made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store. Pretty much anything you could ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format you wanted. If OiNK cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn't the equivalent of that in the retail space right now. iTunes kind of feels like Sam Goody to me.

I don't feel cool when I go there. I'm tired of seeing John Mayer's face pop up. I feel like I'm being hustled when I visit there, and I don't think their product is that great. DRM, low bit rate, etc. Amazon has potential, but none of them get around the issue of pre-release leaks. And that's what's such a difficult puzzle at the moment. If your favorite band in the world has a leaked record out, do you listen to it or do you not listen to it? People on those boards, they're grateful for the person that uploaded it — they're the hero. They're not stealing it because they're going to make money off of it; they're stealing it because they love the band. I'm not saying that I think OiNK is morally correct, but I do know that it existed because it filled a void of what people want.

Trent Reznor and Saul Williams Discuss Their New Collaboration, Mourn OiNK [NY Mag]
(Photo:AdamL212)

"Sandvine already counts top U.S. cable provider Comcast Corp (CMCSA) among its customers, Barron's said." - Easing network debate may aid Allot/Sandvine-paper, Reuters, Sun Apr 8, 2007

Here's the orginal Barron's article (subscription required): Here's How the Drama Over 'Net Neutrality End

Sandvine also posted the article in the press archives section on their very own website.

Oops. Hard to play the no comment game when the facts are already in print.

PREVIOUSLY:
LEAKS: Insider Tells Us There's Proof Comcast Contracts BitTorrent Sabotaging To Sandvine
Comcast's "We Don't Throttle BitTorrent" Internal Talking Points Memo

A Comcast insider tells us, however, that in the Comcast trouble-shooting system there is a list of third-party vendors. Sandvine was on the list.

UPDATE: Damning Proof Comcast Contracted To Sandvine

All,
You may get customers who are contacting us with regard to several articles which were published recently, accusing Comcast of blocking or otherwise filtering customers' Internet traffic. An in-depth AP story suggests Comcast is hindering our customers' ability to use BitTorrent, a peer to peer file sharing program. If a customer contacts us to inquire about this, please use the following talking points.

Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent

We respect our customers' privacy and we don't monitor specific customer activities on the Internet or track individual online behavior, such as which websites they visit. Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTorrent or any other site...

We have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good experience online and we use the latest technologies to manage our network. This is standard practice for ISPs and network operators all over the world.

We rarely disclose our vendors or our processes for operating our network both for competitive reasons and to protect against network abuse.

If a customer asks:
I read that Comcast is limiting customer access to BitTorrent. Is this true?

Respond:
No. We do not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent. We also respect our customers' privacy and don't monitor specific customer activities on the Internet or track individual online behavior, such as which websites they visit. Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTorrent or any other site.

We have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good experience online and we use the latest technologies to manage our network. This is standard practice for ISPs and network operators all over the world.

Are you working with Sandvine as these reports claim?

Respond:
We rarely disclose our vendors or our processes for operating our network both for competitive reasons and to protect against network abuse.

Please do not deviate from the responses above. If you have any questions about this issue, please reach out to Brian Becker, Gene Bridges or myself.

Thanx...
________________________________________
Michael S. Groman
Manager / IP Support
MD-DE-RCH Region

The insider tells us that employees were told not to say a word outside the pre-ordained script. Management said that anyone who otherwise discussed the issue would be terminated. A meeting was held last week to cover the issue as well.

Our source says, "It is definitely being covered under tight wraps. Why else would they go through with all this if they didn't have anything to hide?"

UPDATE: Insider Tells Us There's Proof Comcast Contracts BitTorrent Throttling To Sandvine

(Photo: cmorran123)

I've found that Comcast isn't throttling traffic now that they've been exposed. I'd been throttled for the few days prior to the story, then two days after bam, I was downloading. I downloaded 2 gigs of music.

RELATED:
Comcast: "We Throttle Traffic To Help Other Users; Besides, It's Not Permanent"
Comcast Impersonates Users' Computers To Meddle With Internet Traffic

A senior VP at Comcast said,

"During periods of heavy peer-to-peer congestion, which can degrade the experience for all customers, we use several network management technologies that, when necessary, enable us to delay - not block - some peer-to-peer traffic. However, the peer-to-peer transaction will eventually be completed as requested."

However, the EFF and Open Internet Coalition are calling bullshit on Comcast's overall explanation. Peter Eckersley at the EFF says,

"Characterizing that as delaying traffic I think is ... a stretch. What they are doing is spoofing traffic or jamming traffic. I think they are trying to create as much confusion about this story as they can because they've done something really scurrilous and out of line for an ISP, and I'm sure they've been burned by the community's reaction to it."

RELATED
"Comcast Tries To Sterilize, Decapitate BitTorrent"
(Photo: Getty)

There aren't many FCC regulations against traffic shaping—"the act of throttling a given piece of Internet traffic based on its type, like BitTorrent or VOIP"—but Comcast's selective targeting and disruption of P2P services is the strongest evidence of a company intentionally degrading service by "actively impersonating" its customers' computers.

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."

"Comcast blocks some Internet traffic" [MSNBC]
"Comcast Screws with File-Sharing Traffic" [DailyTech]
(Photo: Getty)

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. Most vulnerable are users in a relatively small swarm where you only have a couple of peers you can upload the file to. Only seeding seems to be prevented, most users are able to upload to others while the download is still going, but once the download is finished, the upload speed drops to 0. Some users also report a significant drop in their download speeds, but this seems to be less widespread. Worse on private trackers, likely that this is because of the smaller swarm size.

"We're not blocking access to any application, and we don't throttle any traffic," says Charlie Douglas, a Comcast spokesman.

Douglas didn't explicitly deny the use of deep packet inspection or traffic shaping products. "[Comcast] has a responsibility to manage our network to ensure our customers have the best service, and we use available technologies to do so."

Comcast Throttles BitTorrent Traffic, Seeding Impossible [TorrentFreak]
(Photo: CarbonNYC)