MegaUpload and MegaVideo are gone.

mjs020294 · 23rd January 2012, 14:31

I can’t quote from work but wanted to comment on the costs involved for the USJS. This issue is a growing problem and its going to get worse. Last year US companies lost hundreds of billions in piracy and industrial espionage. If the piracy alone is a $100 billion drain on US companies, that would equate to $20-$30 billion in lost tax revenues. Increasing the size and reach of the department investigating and prosecuting this sites is pretty much self-funding.

AND it is not as simple as hosting your servers in a country without an extradition treaty. They can still track you and your assets if you move within countries with extradition treaties.

evra · 23rd January 2012, 14:51

I imagine that any of these figures representing lost revenues to the entertainment industry are based on what is being illegally watched for free. The thing is that there are many things that people will give a chance when the cost in nil but would never pay a tenner to go and watch at the cinema.

RK · 23rd January 2012, 15:18

Yeah it's hard to take any figures seriously considering the obvious miscalculations that have been made in the past. I'm not saying this invalidates mjs's point though.

Hectic · 23rd January 2012, 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjs020294

I can’t quote from work but wanted to comment on the costs involved for the USJS. This issue is a growing problem and its going to get worse. Last year US companies lost hundreds of billions in piracy and industrial espionage. If the piracy alone is a $100 billion drain on US companies, that would equate to $20-$30 billion in lost tax revenues. Increasing the size and reach of the department investigating and prosecuting this sites is pretty much self-funding.

AND it is not as simple as hosting your servers in a country without an extradition treaty. They can still track you and your assets if you move within countries with extradition treaties.

I'm going to guess that those estimated figures are a load of bullshit.

mjs020294 · 23rd January 2012, 16:08

I pulled the figures out of my ass...BUT....First google search returned this:

Supporters estimate that online piracy costs the U.S. at least $100 billion annually and thousands of jobs; even the bills' critics say sales of pirated products must be stopped. But foes say the legislation goes too far, threatening to curb Internet free speech, stifle online innovation and burden online businesses with damaging regulations.

Online Companies Win Piracy Fight | News | Manufacturing Business Technology

mjs020294 · 23rd January 2012, 16:09

On the industrial espionage numbers. A report last month estimated China alone is stealing $250 billion a year from US companies.

Hectic · 23rd January 2012, 16:17

I meant along the lines of what Evra had said. They estimate on the idea you would purchase something if you hadn't have downloaded it, which is very poor reasoning.

mjs020294 · 23rd January 2012, 16:27

I don't think the numbers presume everyone downloading would buy.

MikeUpNorth · 23rd January 2012, 18:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hectic

I meant along the lines of what Evra had said. They estimate on the idea you would purchase something if you hadn't have downloaded it, which is very poor reasoning.

If we look at the music industry, annual global revenues were about $15Bn in 1999 (just before the piracy boom), with industry growth of around $1Bn a year for the preceding decade... This would give an expected revenue figure of about $25Bn for the year 2009 had piracy never happened.

Actual 2009 revenues were about $7Bn. Therefore I would estimate, in a back-of-a-fag-packet kind of way, that piracy is costing the music industry alone around $18Bn a year (as of 2009). Add on the movie, games, book and software industries and I don't think $100Bn is that ridiculous.

mjs020294 · 23rd January 2012, 19:14

The numbers don't really matter. People are stealing, and I find it incomprehensible so many are defending that.

With more and more being stored and shared electronically the industry has every right to try and shut down sites and individuals that facilitate what is basically criminal activity.

Red Dreams · 23rd January 2012, 19:37

a lot of the people who download, just do it because they can. there are a lot of 'addicts' if you want to call them that, that do it and don't even listen to the stuff. I don't think these people would be buying any recordings anyway.

Also a lot of the stuff they download is bootleg stuff that is not being released anyways.

it really is difficult to quantify what is being stolen, which I agree is just theft.

but it would seem the Acts that are being proposed may be worse than the cure.

Raoul · 23rd January 2012, 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjs020294

The numbers don't really matter. People are stealing, and I find it incomprehensible so many are defending that.

With more and more being stored and shared electronically the industry has every right to try and shut down sites and individuals that facilitate what is basically criminal activity.

It goes well beyond this. Technology is changing the way intellectual property is disseminated. We can no longer look at this through the lens of how things used to be in the 80s and 90s. Its incumbent on the industry to readjust their pricing schemes and find new avenues to get their content to the public.

Smores · 23rd January 2012, 19:48

They also fail to take into account any indirect profit they gain through piracy, I'm sure I've read that those who do illegally download material spend more on average than those who don't (which could mean a number of things frankly).

mjs, you never commented on the football streaming issue, do you stream matches and do you think that's as much theft as other forms of piracy?

sonymobby · 23rd January 2012, 20:07

A slightly off topic question regarding downloading things from the US iTunes store while living outside the US. How legal is it to create a US account in iTunes, buy iTunes gift cards from ebay, and use them to download episodes of various TV series?

What are legal ways to acquire things that are not provided in our country of residence?

Drifter · 23rd January 2012, 21:16

Filesonic only accepting uploads

Quote:

All sharing functionality on FileSonic is now disabled. Our service can only be used to upload and retrieve files that you have uploaded personally.

If this file belongs to you, please login to download it directly from your file manager.

Raoul · 23rd January 2012, 21:23

The services that capitulate to this latest round of pressure will only be replaced by new ones who host their content in places where the tentacles of corporatavist governments can't reach.

sonymobby · 23rd January 2012, 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drifter

Filesonic only accepting uploads

From another website:

PHP Code:


			
Megaupload – Closed

Fileserve – Stopped filesharing. You can only download your own files. Deleting multiple files. Banning Premium accounts. Closed Affiliate Program.

Filesonic – Stopped filesharing. You can only download your own files.

Changed server location today.

Taken down its Facebook page

Now using Digital fingerprinting. Files are being deleted as soon as uploaded (as Hotfile did).

VideoBB – Closed Affiliate Program.

Filepost – Started suspending accounts with infringing material (as Hotfile did)

Uploaded.to – Blocked U.S. access.

Videozer – Closed Affiliate Program.

Filejungle – Owned by Fileserve (same as above). Testing USA IP addresses blocking.

Uploadstation – Owned by Fileserve (same as above). Testing USA IP addresses blocking.

EnterUpload - Down (Redirect)

Wupload - Many accounts disabled.

mjs020294 · 23rd January 2012, 21:27

Smores, yes I did answer the question regarding illegal football streams. If they are streaming illegally then no one can complain when they are taken down.

I actually get pretty much every United game legally on either ESPN, Fox Soccer or Fox Soccer+. United are not on maybe two or three times a year, and obviously I stream those games. No big deal if they close that loophole for good.

rcoobc · 25th January 2012, 08:31

MikeUpNorth · 25th January 2012, 08:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcoobc

If the 'postman' was shown to have email correspondence with other colleagues proving he was complicit in illegal activity and even rewarded people for sending illegal mail, then he would be in trouble too.

Wibble · 25th January 2012, 09:47

The post companies and the phone companies know full well that a proportion of their service is used for illegal activities. They just don't think it is up to them to police it. They also reward retail outlets that sell stamps, sim cards and phone recharges who must know that some people use their products for illegal activities but I don't think it is reasonable to instigate criminal charges for money laundering.

MikeUpNorth · 25th January 2012, 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wibble

The post companies and the phone companies know full well that a proportion of their service is used for illegal activities. They just don't think it is up to them to police it. They also reward retail outlets that sell stamps, sim cards and phone recharges who must know that some people use their products for illegal activities but I don't think it is reasonable to instigate criminal charges for money laundering.

The Megaupload indictment states that emails between executives discussed cash rewards for uploaders who had provided specific DVDs and other copyrighted works. Further emails supposedly show how some of the executives scoured their site to download copies of The Sopranos and various albums for themselves.

This shows explicit complicity in criminal activity, not the 'innocent bystander' from your post and phone company example.

Wibble · 25th January 2012, 10:08

But that isn't all they are being charged with is it?

And the other companies who haven't such evidence against them are shitting themselves anyway.

MikeUpNorth · 25th January 2012, 10:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wibble

But that isn't all they are being charged with is it?

And the other companies who haven't such evidence against them are shitting themselves anyway.

As well they should, because we all know what they're up to. Let's not feign ignorance here Wibble.

Going back to the postal service analogy - I'm not even sure it's a valid or worthwhile comparison to begin with. A physical parcel is a private delivery from one sender to one recipient. Whereas these upload sites are public services, with content able to be downloaded by unlimited numbers of people... essentially they 'broadcast' their hosted content to the public. In this regard, they are probably more comparable to something like a newspaper that prints articles from many different contributors. If a newspaper repeatedly printed copyrighted books and articles without permission, they would be in huge trouble, and that is essentially what Megaupload were doing.

RedKaos · 25th January 2012, 10:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonymobby

From another website:

PHP Code:


			
Megaupload – Closed

Fileserve – Stopped filesharing. You can only download your own files. Deleting multiple files. Banning Premium accounts. Closed Affiliate Program.

Filesonic – Stopped filesharing. You can only download your own files.

Changed server location today.

Taken down its Facebook page

Now using Digital fingerprinting. Files are being deleted as soon as uploaded (as Hotfile did).

VideoBB – Closed Affiliate Program.

Filepost – Started suspending accounts with infringing material (as Hotfile did)

Uploaded.to – Blocked U.S. access.

Videozer – Closed Affiliate Program.

Filejungle – Owned by Fileserve (same as above). Testing USA IP addresses blocking.

Uploadstation – Owned by Fileserve (same as above). Testing USA IP addresses blocking.

EnterUpload - Down (Redirect)

Wupload - Many accounts disabled.

Torrenting traffic will now go up tenfold and businesses selling anonymous torrent programs will flourish. They've only mitigated this 'problem'.

Wibble · 25th January 2012, 11:25

For a few days at best

RedKaos · 25th January 2012, 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wibble

For a few days at best

They're pretty powerless if folk start torrenting while hiding their IP addresses (not really all that difficult nowadays). I mean they tried to shut down Pirate Bay and hilariously failed.

rcoobc · 25th January 2012, 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedKaos

They're pretty powerless if folk start torrenting while hiding their IP addresses (not really all that difficult nowadays). I mean they tried to shut down Pirate Bay and hilariously failed.

It costs money though. Which is the whole reason illegal downloads appear.

I've paid for an illegal service before, and it was amazing

.. But I wouldn't do it every week. Actually I don't do it at all these days.

RedKaos · 25th January 2012, 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcoobc

It costs money though. Which is the whole reason illegal downloads appear.

I've paid for an illegal service before, and it was amazing

.. But I wouldn't do it every week. Actually I don't do it at all these days.

Most of them are pretty inexpensive though and certainly no more pricier than premium memberships at file hosts like Megaupload, filesonic, rapidshare etc. And paying for them essentially means you have a 'license' to download everything to your hearts content with fear of having that nasty letter sent to your home.

girish · 25th January 2012, 22:12

Is This The Real Reason Why MegaUpload Was Shut Down? - Forbes

Quote:

The internet is up in arms over the federal crackdown of file-sharing website Megaupload, from irate blog posts to coordinated digital attacks on secure government servers. The move appeared to be a sort of governmental muscle flexing in the wake of the successful internet protest of SOPA and PIPA. But was there another reason? In the weeks before the crackdown, Megaupload was planning on launching a new music sharing website called Megabox that looked like it had the potential to completely transform music distribution, and even find a way to pay musicians in the process.

From TorrentFreak, via Digital Music News:

“UMG [Universal Music Group] knows that we are going to compete with them via our own music venture called Megabox.com, a site that will soon allow artists to sell their creations directly to consumers while allowing artists to keep 90 percent of earnings,” said MegaUpload founder Kim dotcom.

“We have a solution called the Megakey that will allow artists to earn income from users who download music for free,” Dotcom said. “Yes that’s right, we will pay artists even for free downloads. The Megakey business model has been tested with over a million users and it works.”

This smacks a little of conspiracy theory, but there may be some truth to the timing. MegaUpload no doubt looked like a good target for FBI attention even before this new development, considering it was prime hacker territory and its founder was living like a Colombian drug lord in New Zealand. But the timing seems a little serendipitous, especially since MegaUpload had even begun to acquire legitimate partners in the form of 7digital, Gracenote, Rovi and Amazon.

Smores · 27th January 2012, 17:39

Very Interesting Indeed, didn't know about this Megabox.

I do wonder what companies are going to do when 3D printing becomes mainstream, it's going to open up a whole new world of piracy and lawsuits. It'll be a good few years yet but NewScientist reported the other day that PirateBay now have a 3D printable section.

rcoobc · 28th January 2012, 09:24

What has 3d printing got to do with it? Its 20 years away from "being in every home" and that is the minimum.

My dad and several of his friends invested in a 3d printing company, but they don't really expect it to make a lot of money any time soon and it isn't cutting edge. They are trying to sell them to schools, collages, universities and businesses that could use them.

Wibble · 21st February 2012, 06:38

I tried to watch Game of Thrones and this is what happened - The Oatmeal

digitalnirvana · 26th February 2012, 17:47

I ought to really start a new thread but posting here because the issues are somewhat similar.

Today I found out my ISP is blocking torrent clients like bit torrent. Initially thinking it was a config problem I googled the error only to find it is a commonplace issue whereby the ISP blocks the ports most torrent clients use.

The problem I see with this is manifold and more complex because this is p2p rather than client server as this thread discusses.

First - the ISP's T&C or the country's (India for me) IT policy nowhere blanket bans peer-to-peer sharing. It is simply an example of an ISP taking advantage of largely ignorant user base to turn off the tap at their end, thereby saving on traffic costs and also ensuring they do not land up in potential complaints from piracy watchdogs.

Second - p2p might not be in all cases about illegal sharing of copyrighted materials. Many work groups collaborate over file sharing networks and not everyone uses a VPN for this. How do we identify that any traffic over a port that is commonly used for p2p is always going to be illegal.

Third - not all ISPs block/throttle p2p. E.g. comcast in the USA does, Time Warner does, BT in the UK does, Reliance and as I found out, Airtel in India does, but there are a host of other ISPs who do not. On what basis/grounds are some ISPs taking this step which effectively curbs network neutrality while others are not, and is it not an infringement on the customer's rights. If a subscriber is in contract with the ISP for particular bandwidth, can the ISP unilaterally decide which services it will and will not allow that bandwidth to be used for.

The internet is all about traffic on various protocols like http, tcp, ftp, udp etc. Bit torrent is nothing but another such protocol. Wikipedia says that btp accounts for 43-70% of all internet traffic and at any month the number of users using btp is a quarter billion, which is a significant number compared to the other traditional protocol usage.

We have successful mainstream applications like Skype and Spotify that use p2p, even leaving aside the fact that the BitTorrent network (including gnutella/edonkey etc.) constitute the highest network traffic on the Internet.

I have been rambling on but there surely needs to be a clear policy framework on p2p. ISPs should be made to compensate for taking money from subscribers and then denying them service.

prateik · 26th February 2012, 17:57

Which ISP? ah Airtel.
They have been doing it for over a year..
limit it from 4pm to 9pm on weekdays.
cunts.. but still the best in India. So havent changed.

digitalnirvana · 26th February 2012, 18:09

I found it out today a weekend and after 9 pm. It is not difficult to route torrent traffic over http so the ISP can only make things difficult but there are workarounds nonetheless. But the main issue here is, how can the ISP block/throttle selective port traffic, when they are not supposed to differentiate between types of traffic - goes against the very premise of net neutrality and should be considered as breach of service to be honest.

crappycraperson · 26th February 2012, 18:18

I have Airtel.. never noticed this.. will do some experimentation from now on to confirm this..

digitalnirvana · 26th February 2012, 19:14

You can verify it using the glasnost test but they might have different policies in different circles.

crappycraperson · 26th February 2012, 19:19

India is in a desperate need of active consumer watch dog body. There is a consumer complain forum about and it works but not everyone is patient enough to follow through on that.

TheBest · 26th February 2012, 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalnirvana

You can verify it using the glasnost test but they might have different policies in different circles.

There's nothing like this on MTNL as far as I am concerned.Don't know about airtel although I do have some friends who use airtel, so will ask them.

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

MegaUpload and MegaVideo are gone.

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

23rd January 2012, 14:31	#81 (permalink)
mjs020294 First Team Regular Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ex-Pat in Florida Posts: 14,985	I can’t quote from work but wanted to comment on the costs involved for the USJS. This issue is a growing problem and its going to get worse. Last year US companies lost hundreds of billions in piracy and industrial espionage. If the piracy alone is a $100 billion drain on US companies, that would equate to $20-$30 billion in lost tax revenues. Increasing the size and reach of the department investigating and prosecuting this sites is pretty much self-funding. AND it is not as simple as hosting your servers in a country without an extradition treaty. They can still track you and your assets if you move within countries with extradition treaties.

23rd January 2012, 14:51	#82 (permalink)
evra First Team Sub Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right. Posts: 8,037	I imagine that any of these figures representing lost revenues to the entertainment industry are based on what is being illegally watched for free. The thing is that there are many things that people will give a chance when the cost in nil but would never pay a tenner to go and watch at the cinema.

23rd January 2012, 15:18	#83 (permalink)
RK First Team Regular Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 13,931	Yeah it's hard to take any figures seriously considering the obvious miscalculations that have been made in the past. I'm not saying this invalidates mjs's point though.

23rd January 2012, 16:08	#85 (permalink)
mjs020294 First Team Regular Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ex-Pat in Florida Posts: 14,985	I pulled the figures out of my ass...BUT....First google search returned this: Supporters estimate that online piracy costs the U.S. at least $100 billion annually and thousands of jobs; even the bills' critics say sales of pirated products must be stopped. But foes say the legislation goes too far, threatening to curb Internet free speech, stifle online innovation and burden online businesses with damaging regulations. Online Companies Win Piracy Fight \| News \| Manufacturing Business Technology

23rd January 2012, 16:09	#86 (permalink)
mjs020294 First Team Regular Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ex-Pat in Florida Posts: 14,985	On the industrial espionage numbers. A report last month estimated China alone is stealing $250 billion a year from US companies.

23rd January 2012, 16:17	#87 (permalink)
Hectic Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mike Phelan WILL kill you. Posts: 6,844	I meant along the lines of what Evra had said. They estimate on the idea you would purchase something if you hadn't have downloaded it, which is very poor reasoning.

23rd January 2012, 16:27	#88 (permalink)
mjs020294 First Team Regular Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ex-Pat in Florida Posts: 14,985	I don't think the numbers presume everyone downloading would buy.

23rd January 2012, 19:14	#90 (permalink)
mjs020294 First Team Regular Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ex-Pat in Florida Posts: 14,985	The numbers don't really matter. People are stealing, and I find it incomprehensible so many are defending that. With more and more being stored and shared electronically the industry has every right to try and shut down sites and individuals that facilitate what is basically criminal activity.

23rd January 2012, 19:37	#91 (permalink)
Red Dreams First Team Regular Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Thunder Road to Old Trafford Posts: 23,452	a lot of the people who download, just do it because they can. there are a lot of 'addicts' if you want to call them that, that do it and don't even listen to the stuff. I don't think these people would be buying any recordings anyway. Also a lot of the stuff they download is bootleg stuff that is not being released anyways. it really is difficult to quantify what is being stolen, which I agree is just theft. but it would seem the Acts that are being proposed may be worse than the cure.

23rd January 2012, 19:48	#93 (permalink)
Smores First Team Sub Join Date: May 2011 Location: Dark side of the moon Posts: 6,446	They also fail to take into account any indirect profit they gain through piracy, I'm sure I've read that those who do illegally download material spend more on average than those who don't (which could mean a number of things frankly). mjs, you never commented on the football streaming issue, do you stream matches and do you think that's as much theft as other forms of piracy?

25th January 2012, 08:31	#99 (permalink)
rcoobc Not as crap as eferyone thinks Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Corrupting West Brom Posts: 17,197

23rd January 2012, 20:07	#94 (permalink)
sonymobby Reserve Team Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,402	A slightly off topic question regarding downloading things from the US iTunes store while living outside the US. How legal is it to create a US account in iTunes, buy iTunes gift cards from ebay, and use them to download episodes of various TV series? What are legal ways to acquire things that are not provided in our country of residence?

23rd January 2012, 21:23	#96 (permalink)
Raoul Administrator Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Budapest Posts: 39,784	The services that capitulate to this latest round of pressure will only be replaced by new ones who host their content in places where the tentacles of corporatavist governments can't reach.

23rd January 2012, 21:27	#98 (permalink)
mjs020294 First Team Regular Join Date: May 2008 Location: Ex-Pat in Florida Posts: 14,985	Smores, yes I did answer the question regarding illegal football streams. If they are streaming illegally then no one can complain when they are taken down. I actually get pretty much every United game legally on either ESPN, Fox Soccer or Fox Soccer+. United are not on maybe two or three times a year, and obviously I stream those games. No big deal if they close that loophole for good.

25th January 2012, 09:47	#101 (permalink)
Wibble Ingadus Speramus Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Centre Back Posts: 49,868	The post companies and the phone companies know full well that a proportion of their service is used for illegal activities. They just don't think it is up to them to police it. They also reward retail outlets that sell stamps, sim cards and phone recharges who must know that some people use their products for illegal activities but I don't think it is reasonable to instigate criminal charges for money laundering.

25th January 2012, 10:08	#103 (permalink)
Wibble Ingadus Speramus Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Centre Back Posts: 49,868	But that isn't all they are being charged with is it? And the other companies who haven't such evidence against them are shitting themselves anyway.

25th January 2012, 11:25	#106 (permalink)
Wibble Ingadus Speramus Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Centre Back Posts: 49,868	For a few days at best

27th January 2012, 17:39	#111 (permalink)
Smores First Team Sub Join Date: May 2011 Location: Dark side of the moon Posts: 6,446	Very Interesting Indeed, didn't know about this Megabox. I do wonder what companies are going to do when 3D printing becomes mainstream, it's going to open up a whole new world of piracy and lawsuits. It'll be a good few years yet but NewScientist reported the other day that PirateBay now have a 3D printable section.

28th January 2012, 09:24	#112 (permalink)
rcoobc Not as crap as eferyone thinks Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Corrupting West Brom Posts: 17,197	What has 3d printing got to do with it? Its 20 years away from "being in every home" and that is the minimum. My dad and several of his friends invested in a 3d printing company, but they don't really expect it to make a lot of money any time soon and it isn't cutting edge. They are trying to sell them to schools, collages, universities and businesses that could use them.

21st February 2012, 06:38	#113 (permalink)
Wibble Ingadus Speramus Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Centre Back Posts: 49,868	I tried to watch Game of Thrones and this is what happened - The Oatmeal

26th February 2012, 17:47	#114 (permalink)
digitalnirvana Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,430	I ought to really start a new thread but posting here because the issues are somewhat similar. Today I found out my ISP is blocking torrent clients like bit torrent. Initially thinking it was a config problem I googled the error only to find it is a commonplace issue whereby the ISP blocks the ports most torrent clients use. The problem I see with this is manifold and more complex because this is p2p rather than client server as this thread discusses. First - the ISP's T&C or the country's (India for me) IT policy nowhere blanket bans peer-to-peer sharing. It is simply an example of an ISP taking advantage of largely ignorant user base to turn off the tap at their end, thereby saving on traffic costs and also ensuring they do not land up in potential complaints from piracy watchdogs. Second - p2p might not be in all cases about illegal sharing of copyrighted materials. Many work groups collaborate over file sharing networks and not everyone uses a VPN for this. How do we identify that any traffic over a port that is commonly used for p2p is always going to be illegal. Third - not all ISPs block/throttle p2p. E.g. comcast in the USA does, Time Warner does, BT in the UK does, Reliance and as I found out, Airtel in India does, but there are a host of other ISPs who do not. On what basis/grounds are some ISPs taking this step which effectively curbs network neutrality while others are not, and is it not an infringement on the customer's rights. If a subscriber is in contract with the ISP for particular bandwidth, can the ISP unilaterally decide which services it will and will not allow that bandwidth to be used for. The internet is all about traffic on various protocols like http, tcp, ftp, udp etc. Bit torrent is nothing but another such protocol. Wikipedia says that btp accounts for 43-70% of all internet traffic and at any month the number of users using btp is a quarter billion, which is a significant number compared to the other traditional protocol usage. We have successful mainstream applications like Skype and Spotify that use p2p, even leaving aside the fact that the BitTorrent network (including gnutella/edonkey etc.) constitute the highest network traffic on the Internet. I have been rambling on but there surely needs to be a clear policy framework on p2p. ISPs should be made to compensate for taking money from subscribers and then denying them service.

26th February 2012, 17:57	#115 (permalink)
prateik First Team Regular Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 19,020	Which ISP? ah Airtel. They have been doing it for over a year.. limit it from 4pm to 9pm on weekdays. cunts.. but still the best in India. So havent changed.

26th February 2012, 18:09	#116 (permalink)
digitalnirvana Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,430	I found it out today a weekend and after 9 pm. It is not difficult to route torrent traffic over http so the ISP can only make things difficult but there are workarounds nonetheless. But the main issue here is, how can the ISP block/throttle selective port traffic, when they are not supposed to differentiate between types of traffic - goes against the very premise of net neutrality and should be considered as breach of service to be honest.

26th February 2012, 18:18	#117 (permalink)
crappycraperson "Resident cricket authority" Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: <Insert something funny here> Posts: 19,571	I have Airtel.. never noticed this.. will do some experimentation from now on to confirm this..

26th February 2012, 19:14	#118 (permalink)
digitalnirvana Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 3,430	You can verify it using the glasnost test but they might have different policies in different circles.

26th February 2012, 19:19	#119 (permalink)
crappycraperson "Resident cricket authority" Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: <Insert something funny here> Posts: 19,571	India is in a desperate need of active consumer watch dog body. There is a consumer complain forum about and it works but not everyone is patient enough to follow through on that.