koolin Posted February 17, 2006 Report Posted February 17, 2006 Not sure how accurate this information is. Its not really an official response from Rogers. Post from dslreports.com forum, Rogers section.Rogers: "Encryption will not matter in throttling BT"I have a friend who works as a system admin for the Rogers network in St john's nfld. Apprently he was told bout 2 weeks ago that the new encryption would not affect the throttling of Bt clients. They are limiting port connections. My friend said the only flaw so far, is some websites downloadable content connect via multiple servers and it is impacting downloads from these sites. But he did tell me, that Bt is not always throttled. Its goal is to lower the download rates so people just quit trying. You could go on during early morning(for example) with no throttling. Then be kicked ofline and when you reconnect, you would be throttled. He said tey keep changing connection amounts and in the near future will be given a newer piece of hardware to fine tune connections even more. When bitcomet became widely used, they started using packet sniffing devices but soon found encryption was defeating the purpose. they switched toport throttling but a network admin from Ontario noticed people using port 1720(ironically from reading this site). So now, rather then try to detect which packets are voip, email, etc... they have hardware which in the future will have a safe list feature. So, for exaple, packet data for voip will have high priority over data that can not be decrpted. so if a packet is encrypted and the hardware is unable to determine its origins and destination, it will lower its priority. Secondly(already implemented), is the filter process by max connections. This is why encrpyted packets are still be depriortized and speeds flucuate. After my discussion with my friend( not really a friend, but someone i knew from university who i met few days ago), i decided that i will cancel rogers and try sympatico like alot of people here in St john's are doing. Once i sign up, ill let you know how it turns out
1c3d0g Posted February 17, 2006 Report Posted February 17, 2006 They need to hunt down that stupid motherfucker admin in Ontario and teach him a lesson. Nevertheless, this cat and mouse game will continue. Rogers has no right to do this bullshit to its customers...instead of investing in useless detection equipment, how about better service, huh? :/ I hope they go bankrupt and a better ISP take over their day-to-day operations.
Switeck Posted February 18, 2006 Report Posted February 18, 2006 So, for exaple, packet data for voip will have high priority over data that can not be decrpted. so if a packet is encrypted and the hardware is unable to determine its origins and destination, it will lower its priority. Secondly(already implemented), is the filter process by max connections.Firstly, this sounds like DEEP packet inspection. It almost sounds like they can decrypt (and wiretap) VoIP. The "origins and destination" can only mean ip addresses and/or programs that created or receive these connections...probably programs. So that means they have to spy on your computer to identify which programs you are running to identify what/where the traffic is coming from.Secondly, the filter process by max connections is just a clever way of rendering p2p "swarming" techniques nearly useless. Anything that makes lots of connections can expect <5 KB/sec speeds. And the definition of "lots" is up to the ISP's.Arbitrary (especially draconian/cruel) rules established by 1 final authority with no oversight is the definition of tyranny.
Technarch Posted February 18, 2006 Report Posted February 18, 2006 Hmm, won't little Johnny with his Xbox Live 360 be surprised when he goes to play a game.As will big Bobby home from work and ready for World of Warcraft.
Switeck Posted February 18, 2006 Report Posted February 18, 2006 World of Warcraft at least seems to use a client-server networking design. Users can even be firewalled, routered, proxied, etc...and still connect and play because everything gets routed through the server which is not firewalled for purposes of the game...but good luck hacking into it!Much of XBox Live is likely (not sure) the same way -- probably only 1 bi-directional connection PER player in any particular game. So 16 players might yield 16 connections to them (15 + 1 for server).Hardly the 40+ connections at once that is typical with µTorrent.
splintax Posted February 18, 2006 Report Posted February 18, 2006 Fortunately, I'm not affected by any such traffic shaping, though I probably will be in the future.What I can't understand is the extreme reactions from some. Your ISP, within the limits of the law, can do whatever the fuck they want. I don't believe there is a law against traffic shaping. Sure, you may disagree with it - I do - but it's not like they're doing anything morally wrong in my opinion - it's not like they're claiming BT is only used for illegal traffic or something - they're just trying to maintain QoS for their network.Sure, it's no good for us, but I think comments like "we should hunt down the fucking CEO" and such are a little over the top...
The Mighty Buzzard Posted February 18, 2006 Report Posted February 18, 2006 Someone keep Switeck and 1c3d0g away from sharp things, please? They're not able to read the process table off your computer to know what you have running. What they are able to do, and absolutely have to do, is look at every single packet your computer sends and recieves. Origins and destinations means source and destination ip/port and a best guess at what sort of packets you have coming or going. You can do the same to yourself with, for example, Ethereal.You seem to have badly misunderstood networking in general if you think the client-server model, as opposed to p2p, has any bearing on getting through firewalls/proxies/routers. Only the configuration of the firewalls/proxies/routers and your friendly neighborhood codemonkey's skills do. You're also astoundingly wrong about the WoW servers not being firewalled. Not even an admin with an MCSE is that stupid.Now if you want to be paranoid, here's some things they can do. They can read and/or delete your email without even getting asked for a password. They can see every website you visit. They can read any unencrypted traffic to/from said websites (I found a lot of good porn that way in my sysadmin days). They can see every word you type or read in IRC. The same goes for most IM traffic. They can listen in on your VoIP calls. And they can do all of that without you ever knowing.You have extremely few secrets from your ISP if they're the nosy types. The good news is that most of that is illegal without your consent. Except, and this is important, where necessary to make sure things are working right on their end. For their definition of "working right".Tyranny? No right? You two seem to have taken unrestricted Internet access from their network as an entitlement rather than the paid-for service that it is. If you don't like their service, stop paying them to give you something you don't like. Go to their competitors and pay them instead. Yay capitalism!
shadek Posted February 18, 2006 Report Posted February 18, 2006 The Mighty Buzzard is absolutely right.
DreadWingKnight Posted February 18, 2006 Report Posted February 18, 2006 Now if you want to be paranoid, here's some things they can do. They can read and/or delete your email without even getting asked for a password. They can see every website you visit. They can read any unencrypted traffic to/from said websites (I found a lot of good porn that way in my sysadmin days). They can see every word you type or read in IRC. The same goes for most IM traffic. They can listen in on your VoIP calls. And they can do all of that without you ever knowing.All in violation of canadian laws.World of Warcraft at least seems to use a client-server networking design. Users can even be firewalled, routered, proxied, etc...and still connect and play because everything gets routed through the server which is not firewalled for purposes of the game...but good luck hacking into it!Patching is still torrent-based.
splintax Posted February 18, 2006 Report Posted February 18, 2006 Good point, I didn't think of that. :| Doesn't Valve also use BT-based patching in Steam?The way I see it, this could be a lot bigger deal than I imagined. I mean, if BT traffic is encrypted, there's no way they can identify it for sure as BT traffic, is there? They'd have to do traffic analysis and throttle in the event of swarming-like activity. While I don't think cutting off BT traffic would cause them much hassle (after all, admittedly most BT is for warez, and people aren't exactly going to say "the ISP is cutting off my warez supply" ), I can see a lot of people getting pissed off waiting for Steam to patch itself. It takes long enough as it is
Technarch Posted February 18, 2006 Report Posted February 18, 2006 I am starting to see Rogers as a gym.The idea behind gyms is that you oversell memberships way beyond the capacity to provide services under the idea that most people won't bother showing up after January.And Rogers has done that, they've sold lots and lots of memberships to the internet.. except what's different is that people are actually showing up at the gym.And the gym's not large enough to hold them all.So instead of building an expansion to the gym or a 2nd location, they are trying to regulate the clients. You can only do this many reps on that machine, you have to shower with cold water, etc.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.