BitTorrent vs. my ISP: am I missing something?

May 13, 2006 10:17 AM

My ISP doesn't like "unrestricted" peer-to-peer, so shouldn't "restricted" peer-to-peer (namely BitTorrent) be ok?

My current (and only option in my apt. complex) ISP, Ygnition Networks, explicitly states in their Terms of Service that

"Ygnition Networks does not support unrestricted peer-to-peer file sharing and related downloads. File-sharing programs, at the sole discretion of Ygnition Networks, may be limited in order to preserve the capacity of the network."

My beef with them is that if I'm going to run BitTorrent (which, when unchecked could certainly be "unrestricted") and cap my up and down speed to say, 30kb/s down and 10 kb/s up, I would thereby be using a restricted file-sharing program, which in turn falls within their terms of service.

I picked those two speeds because they seemed reasonable, especially since they run a distributed T1 and anything more may actually cause a slowdown for others.

However, everytime I start to use uTorrent, after a week or so, my service gets shut off, and they're supposed to charge me a $25 reconnect fee after the 3rd time; this has happened 4 times, I haven't been charged, but every time they tell me "you can't be using a peer-to-peer program." I always try and make the argument that it's restricted, but to no avail. I've even e-mailed their customer support and got a reply saying "As long as you're not causing an issue with bandwidth, there shouldn't be a problem. Just make sure you take the necessary precaution before doing so." But still my service will get shut off after some amount of time of downloading.

My question is two fold really:

1) Am I wrong in my logic and/or thinking? By the way their terms of service is layed out, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to restrict my speeds and be ok.

2) Is this worth pursuing any more? Can I make a compelling case of why I should be allowed to use a BT client, capped, and not have my service turned off all the time? I mean, BT is becoming more and more prevalent and an increasingly popular way to distribute large files, not just pirated games and music, right?

And I have tried using random ports, as well as using the setting uTorrent provides to encrypt the outgoing protocol.

posted by mrhaydel to computers & internet (19 comments total)

'...at the sole discretion of Ygnition Networks,...'
posted by insomnus at 10:27 AM on May 13, 2006

Right insomnus, so even in that case, shouldn't they then be able to set something up to where they can then restrict me at their end?

I restrict it on my end because I see it as an easier solution, as well as satisfying their claim that these types of programs may be "limited."
posted by mrhaydel at 10:31 AM on May 13, 2006

Is it possible that they mean "restricted" in the sense of "only certain people can download", and "unrestricted" in the sense of "any random person can download"?
posted by Johnny Assay at 10:41 AM on May 13, 2006

No I don't think that is what they mean when they say "unrestricted." The first time my service was turned off, it was because I wasn't capping my speeds at all, and definitely using an inordinate amount of the bandwidth at my complex.

They told me when I called to find out what was going on that I was affecting the bandwidth of the entire complex, so I'm pretty sure they are most concerned about "restricted" vs. "unrestricted" in a bandwidth sense, not so much on a person by person basis.
posted by mrhaydel at 10:55 AM on May 13, 2006

...so shouldn't "restricted" peer-to-peer (namely BitTorrent) be ok?

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to restrict my speeds and be ok.

...shouldn't they then be able to set something up to where they can then restrict me at their end?

(emphasis mine)

The word 'should' has (like other modal verbs) two main meanings, which I feel you are conflating. One is related to duty, the other expectation. Your first question above seems to indicate the latter, your second and third the former.

If you are asking if your ISP ought to have a sensible system of capping bittorrent downloads by bandwidth rather than simply shutting down users they detect using the protocol, then the answer is yes.

If you are asking if your ISP are likely to implement such a system for the sake of the small number of customers who use bittorrent, know how to restrict it and are responsible enough to do so, then... no.

As for the word 'restricted', my guess is that it's there because otherwise the ToS would appear to forbid all p2p, which would (a) be bad publicity and (b) almost oblige them to hunt down filesharers. As it stands, it means something like 'we will ignore p2p until it has an effect on our network capacity, at which point we will put in place automatic procedures to block users from whatever form is eating up the most bandwidth.' The rationale for that policy is simple: to minimise sysadmin workload.
posted by Busy Old Fool at 11:12 AM on May 13, 2006

My reading of the sentences you have provided above is that the first one doesn't dictate the terms of the other. So, you have:

Ygnition Networks does not support unrestricted peer-to-peer file sharing and related downloads.

After which you can certainly make a case that you are restricting your use within appropriate levels, although if this were really the case, couldn't you just call them and ask what level of restriction is acceptable? Then there is this sentence:

File-sharing programs, at the sole discretion of Ygnition Networks, may be limited in order to preserve the capacity of the network.

Is there any sense in which you should assume that they are only referring to unrestricted programs in this sentence? I don't really think so. You've clearly had some communications with them about this, so it seems that you're in a position to have a flat-out conversation with them along these lines

- is what I am doing acceptable? yes or no?
- if no, then how do I get XYZ system upgrade which I need to get via BT
- if yes, then why do you keep cutting my service off?

I have worked for ISPs and my feeling generally is that you can't just offer vague hypotheticals like "I *might* be trying to d/l something legit" you have to actually have a case that you are restricted from what reasonable people should be able to do with their Internet, like access non-pirated music etc. It's easy enough to say that the burden shoudl be on them to limit your badwidth, but it may just be simpler for them to shut down services that appear non-compliant.

BT is becoming more and more prevalent and an increasingly popular way to distribute large files, not just pirated games and music, right?

I always think it's a good idea to try to test limits and make appeals, but at the end of the day it's going to be much more effective if you can explain your situation specifically. Sure, BT is being used to some extent for legitimate purposes, and it's also becoming more prevalent, but do you think the average BT user is using it for what your ISP would consider legitimate uses? What it comes down to is whether you think your ISP is allowed to restrict your internet usage on the basis of content/use and not just for bandwidth considerations. Their ToS seem to imply that they think that this is okay so if you want to mount a strong challenge, you'll need to find some legitimate use that you can argue is being restricted and go from there.
posted by jessamyn at 11:21 AM on May 13, 2006

You bring up a great point Busy Old Fool, as I certainly had not noticed my use of "should" in those two contexts.

And I think you are right, in that they "ought to" cap BT downloads, but are not "likely to."

I am considering writing them another e-mail asking them to change their ToS to better reflect their standards regarding p2p programs, because as best I can tell, they do forbid all p2p in any capacity, even though they told me "there shouldn't be an issue."
posted by mrhaydel at 11:25 AM on May 13, 2006

Jessamyn brings up good points as well.

I can only think of a few places where BT is used as a major means of distribution:

1) WoW does many of their patch updates using their own semi-p2p program

2) A lot of video blogs, podcasts, etc have torrents, but of course there's also other methods of getting those

3) Warner Bros. seems poised to begin to distribute their movies using BT as well.

Are there any other times when I would *need* to get someting via BT and BT only?
posted by mrhaydel at 11:31 AM on May 13, 2006

BT is the often best way to get any file for which there is a large demand. Recently-released game demos and patches are a good example of this. Also, The Decemberists made news when they became "the first band to distribute a music video via BitTorrent -- the self-produced 16 Military Wives (for the song of the same name from Picaresque)."
posted by ludwig_van at 12:11 PM on May 13, 2006

There's no other way to get a lot of the pay-per-download content from legitimate BT media distributors like Prodigem. Maybe if you buy something and put your ISP in the position of blocking an obviously legitimate cash for goods transaction they'll be more inclined to see things from your POV.
posted by moift at 12:34 PM on May 13, 2006

This is why I don't even bother with my apartment's internet service. I Use DSL. Are you sure your apartment internet is the only option?
posted by delmoi at 2:57 PM on May 13, 2006

You can argue that by limiting your BT client's bandwidth you are doing your best to not impact other users. However, based on the fact that they keep shutting you off, they obviously feel differently, that you are using too much bandwidth. Regardless of how they word this in their AUP/TOS, what they really mean is "we'll shut you off if you use too much", where "too much" is not something you are generally privvy to. So, regardless of whether it's Bittorrent, ed2k, newsgroups, soulseek, or whatever, and regardless of whether you're downloading something legitimate or illicit, the fact remains that you are using too many resources under whatever internal metrics they have set up, and so they're going to continue to shut you down.

My feeling is that ISPs primarily care about the "what" (i.e. total bytes transferred in a given time period) and not the "why" (i.e. which protocol/app, and whether the file was something legit or not) of filesharing. If this is correct, then really your only recourse is to either set the caps lower or run the client for fewer hours in the day. You can argue semantics of what "restricted" means or whether downloading your favorite Linux ISO with BT is 100% legal, but at the end of the day it really just does come down to the total traffic used.

If it were me, I would be very disgusted with putting up with that kind of crap, and I would get my own ISP. Certainly look into this if at all possible.
posted by Rhomboid at 4:31 PM on May 13, 2006

Oh, and I forgot to add:

Don't read too much into the fact that they have not charged a fine yet. I would not be surprised if they put that into the AUP/TOS to scare people or for use in extreme cases, but in reality it may be more of a billing/administrative burden for them to actually carry it out every time than it's worth. Or in other words, I wouldn't read into the fact that they haven't charged you as any kind of evidence that you are not actually violating anything -- the fact that you keep getting shut off is evidence enough that you are tripping their set thresholds.
posted by Rhomboid at 4:35 PM on May 13, 2006

@delmoi: I'm about 99% sure that DSL isn't an option at my complex, but it is something that I honestly can't remember for sure, so I'll certainly look into that again with the front office.

@Rhomboid: You make a good point in that most likely they're just trying to ward off the most common avenues of sucking up bandwidth, i.e. "what" versus "why," and I certainly could try setting the caps lower.

However, I guess I just felt that for a T1, 25kb/s and 10kb/s wouldn't be hogging much bandwidth. I've tried to get them to flat out tell me what a reasonable cap would be, but they just seem to be skirting the issue, which just makes it all the more frustrating.
posted by mrhaydel at 6:31 PM on May 13, 2006

A T-1 really is not all that much these days, its full capacity is only 192.5 kB/s. If you used a constant 25 kB/s you would be using about an eigth of its full capacity.
posted by Rhomboid at 7:45 PM on May 13, 2006

I'm about 99% sure that DSL isn't an option at my complex, but it is something that I honestly can't remember for sure, so I'll certainly look into that again with the front office.

Your landlord is getting a kickback for your current internet service--so beware of any answer they provide. Check directly with your DSL / Telco provider.
posted by vaportrail at 12:22 AM on May 14, 2006

or better yet, check here
posted by crazyray at 8:45 AM on May 14, 2006

In addition to limiting your upload/download speeds, you might want to try limiting the number of peers that you're connected to. This is what might be getting you noticed.

But I'd drop these guys in a heartbeat and switch to DSL if I could. As Rhomboid says, you'll probably get better speeds anyway.
posted by exhilaration at 10:11 AM on May 15, 2006

As a followup to me asking this, I actually did find out that I actually can get DSL from AT&T at my apartment.

Of course, I'l have to get a land line too, but after everything, it'll be about $10-15 more a month for their 384kb/s-1.5Mb/s package, which to me is worth it if I can be running a BT client without any worries whatsoever.

Thanks for all the helpful responses and advice.
posted by mrhaydel at 11:58 AM on May 15, 2006