Virgin Media to dump neutrality and target BitTorrent users

[Toto]

Originally Posted by martyh

i have mentioned this before in other threads, vm cannot ,will not and never will target bit torrent users or any other type of torrent user without gov legislation
the technology isn't avaailable yet to monitor everyones connection all the time everytime they connect which they will have to

i bought a buffalo nas drive at christmas which has bittorrent pre installed into the firmware so how can it be illegal to use it

p.s all my torrents are fine

Cannot and will never target torrent users?

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...s,867329.shtml

The new service reflects the shared commitment of Virgin Media and Universal Music to keep step with growing demand for online music in an increasingly digital world. In parallel, the two companies will be working together to protect Universal Music's intellectual property and drive a material reduction in the unauthorized distribution of its repertoire across Virgin Media's network.

This will involve implementing a range of different strategies to educate file sharers about online piracy and to raise awareness of legal alternatives. They include, as a last resort for persistent offenders, a temporary suspension of internet access. No customers will be permanently disconnected and the process will not depend on network monitoring or interception of customer traffic by Virgin Media

Given that that p2p and torrents are the biggest problem, I am not sure you're statement has merit. Granted the above states that there won't be any traffic interception, because it may be illegal. However there are other means

It may have looked that way in the past, but there looks to be a clear move by the Government to force ISP's to make such activity difficult for file sharers.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by martyh

the technology isn't avaailable yet to monitor everyones connection all the time everytime they connect which they will have to

It is, VM have it installed and shaping the DSL platform along with some of it monitoring and recording traffic stats on the cable platform. Doesn't matter whether the torrents are legal or not. Slowing torrents down is perfectly doable.

Anyway a few vendors of such equipment:

http://www.proceranetworks.com/index.php
http://www.allot.com/
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps7045/index.html
http://www.arbornetworks.com/

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

It is, VM have it installed and shaping the DSL platform along with some of it monitoring and recording traffic stats on the cable platform. Doesn't matter whether the torrents are legal or not. Slowing torrents down is perfectly doable.

Anyway a few vendors of such equipment:

http://www.proceranetworks.com/index.php
http://www.allot.com/
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps7045/index.html
http://www.arbornetworks.com/

I seem to remember the name Allot associated with VM?

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

It is, VM have it installed and shaping the DSL platform along with some of it monitoring and recording traffic stats on the cable platform. Doesn't matter whether the torrents are legal or not. Slowing torrents down is perfectly doable.

Anyway a few vendors of such equipment:

http://www.proceranetworks.com/index.php
http://www.allot.com/
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps7045/index.html
http://www.arbornetworks.com/

does this equipment tell vm what the content is of all it's customers who are downloading all of the time ?
i ask because if vm are targeting torrent users then they will have monitor all traffic at all times and the content, and that is illegal, exactly the same as if i tried to monitor your connection and what you were downloading
alot of bitorrents files are legal how can they distinguish between the legal and illegal? and why should a respected manufacturer like buffalo supply bittorrent built into it's firmware ?

[Toto]

Originally Posted by martyh

does this equipment tell vm what the content is of all it's customers who are downloading all of the time ?
i ask because if vm are targeting torrent users then they will have monitor all traffic at all times and the content, and that is illegal, exactly the same as if i tried to monitor your connection and what you were downloading
alot of bitorrents files are legal how can they distinguish between the legal and illegal? and why should a respected manufacturer like buffalo supply bittorrent built into it's firmware ?

The legal aspect I am not sure - but given that VM have agreed a deal with Universal music, it should'nt be too difficult to have a database of their titles, and match them against p2p/non encrypted torrent titles.

The issue here is not whether p2p or torrent software is illegal, its what is being shared that could be.

Originally Posted by Toto

The legal aspect I am not sure - but given that VM have agreed a deal with Universal music, it should'nt be too difficult to have a database of their titles, and match them against p2p/non encrypted torrent titles.

the way i see it is unless they the complete backing of the law to monitor all connections and the content of the dl then i think they are onto a hiding to nothing
and lets face it vm can't afford to lose any customers

[Toto]

Originally Posted by martyh

the way i see it is unless they the complete backing of the law to monitor all connections and the content of the dl then i think they are onto a hiding to nothing
and lets face it vm can't afford to lose any customers

No ISP can afford to loose any customers - that's a no brainer. Sky have signed up to a similar deal, and others may follow if it proves to be popular. Sky will have to have the same agreement as VM have, in that they agree to deal with the file sharers.

It may come down to a handful of smaller ISP's not getting on the bandwagon, and that's fine you could go there.

Originally Posted by Toto

No ISP can afford to loose any customers - that's a no brainer. Sky have signed up to a similar deal, and others may follow if it proves to be popular. Sky will have to have the same agreement as VM have, in that they agree to deal with the file sharers.

It may come down to a handful of smaller ISP's not getting on the bandwagon, and that's fine you could go there.

i'm not bothered either way about the file sharing side of things it's the principle behind it that bothers me more than anything
call me paranoid but it's like giving the public a new toy (the internet )and then breaking it with restrictive laws because a few narrow minded men in suits have lost a few quid and instead of working with the new tech they try to take it away.."because we cannot have people saving money ,we want it all"

[Toto]

Originally Posted by martyh

i'm not bothered either way about the file sharing side of things it's the principle behind it that bothers me more than anything
call me paranoid but it's like giving the public a new toy (the internet )and then breaking it with restrictive laws because a few narrow minded men in suits have lost a few quid and instead of working with the new tech they try to take it away.."because we cannot have people saving money ,we want it all"

Ahh, I was wondering when this part of the thread would turn into the justification of file sharing bit.

Look, this subject has been done to death on a different thread. Whether we like it or not, a deal has been done with a rights holder, and they are asking for some action on illegal fire sharers. VM have gone as far as saying they won't disconnect persistent abusers....but then they don't need to.

How many times will it take a persistently suspended account move to another ISP?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Toto

I seem to remember the name Allot associated with VM?

It's the Omega Series Service Gateway that's attached to the DSL network and the Net Enforcer that monitors on the cable one.

Originally Posted by Toto

Ahh, I was wondering when this part of the thread would turn into the justification of file sharing bit.

Look, this subject has been done to death on a different thread. Whether we like it or not, a deal has been done with a rights holder, and they are asking for some action on illegal fire sharers. VM have gone as far as saying they won't disconnect persistent abusers....but then they don't need to.

How many times will it take a persistently suspended account move to another ISP?

your absolutley right this has been done to death time to finish it

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by martyh

does this equipment tell vm what the content is of all it's customers who are downloading all of the time ?
i ask because if vm are targeting torrent users then they will have monitor all traffic at all times and the content, and that is illegal, exactly the same as if i tried to monitor your connection and what you were downloading
alot of bitorrents files are legal how can they distinguish between the legal and illegal? and why should a respected manufacturer like buffalo supply bittorrent built into it's firmware ?

This is totally irrelevant. Legal or illegal Bittorrent eats bandwidth, especially upstream.

Of course BT itself isn't questionable, it's used in a number of legal content delivery systems. BT is a protocol same as HTTP, Gnutella, FastTrack, NNTP, etc.

---------- Post added at 22:25 ---------- Previous post was at 22:24 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

the way i see it is unless they the complete backing of the law to monitor all connections and the content of the dl then i think they are onto a hiding to nothing
and lets face it vm can't afford to lose any customers

Legal backing is irrelevant, do you mean if there were a legal compulsion?

Virgin will never, ever monitor content of downloads themselves apart from the protocol being used. To do anything else leaves them open to liability for what customers do.

Many other ISPs shape Bittorrent amongst other things.

[fizgog]

Originally Posted by WeyounTDB

Well, they've started.


Every time I load up a bit torrent client and start to download something- even a frickin LEGAL FILE - my net connection gets shut off.

Virgin have just lost a client.


Unless someone knows a way around this? It's intolerable.

If you use something like uTorrent then make sure you turn on protocol encryption, this should make your speed go back up, it did for me

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by martyh

i'm not bothered either way about the file sharing side of things it's the principle behind it that bothers me more than anything
call me paranoid but it's like giving the public a new toy (the internet )and then breaking it with restrictive laws because a few narrow minded men in suits have lost a few quid and instead of working with the new tech they try to take it away.."because we cannot have people saving money ,we want it all"

Downloading copyright material over BT isn't 'saving money' any more than stealing something from a store is saving money. While it's not something physical and you aren't denying other people the usage the point is the same regarding 'saving money'.

It doesn't save me any money that's for sure.

---------- Post added at 22:28 ---------- Previous post was at 22:26 ----------

Originally Posted by fizgog

If you use something like uTorrent then make sure you turn on protocol encryption, this should make your speed go back up, it did for me

Weyoun has an issue somewhere with something not being able to handle the amount of connections BT opens, nothing to do with protocol encryption or otherwise. If speeds improve on the cable network through using encryption it's thanks to the encryption avoiding throttling by other ISPs on your peers. If ISPs can't detect encrypted BT they need to invest a few more quid in updates on their shaping hardware anyways

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

This is totally irrelevant. Legal or illegal Bittorrent eats bandwidth, especially upstream.

Of course BT itself isn't questionable, it's used in a number of legal content delivery systems. BT is a protocol same as HTTP, Gnutella, FastTrack, NNTP, etc.

---------- Post added at 22:25 ---------- Previous post was at 22:24 ----------



Legal backing is irrelevant, do you mean if there were a legal compulsion?

Virgin will never, ever monitor content of downloads themselves apart from the protocol being used. To do anything else leaves them open to liability for what customers do.

Many other ISPs shape Bittorrent amongst other things.

yes that's what i mean "legal compulsion"