The trouble is that most of the time people using P2P traffic are gorging themselves on downloads all the time swallowing tons of bandwidth, i.e. leaving it running for weeks on end.

While there are many careful P2P users who understand the amount of network resource they are using there are many more who do not or don't care.

If you are on a 50p cheapo ISP offering you free this, free that, infinite downloads do what you like for 50p a year then this is what you should expect. 

This is a numbers game, if you give away your ISP services for a pittance, then the only way it pays is through volume, and, that means controlling people troughing on P2P traffic.

I have no sympathy for users in this predicament, you get what you pay for, you want to trough all day long on P2P traffic then get your money out and start paying, its as simple as that. Anybody who argues differently is either not commercially minded, selfish or greedy or all three...

Blocking it to maintain service to everyone not using P2P traffic on cheap provisioning seems more than reasonable to me.

(Queue flame from people on el cheapo ISPs).

So in short, stop whining and open your wallet. But hey, isn't P2P file sharing all about not opening your wallet? What a dichotomy that is....

Personally I use P2P for downloading DVD images of Linux distros etc... for which its very useful and my ISP doesn't block it. But I pay a premium for the exceptional performance my ISP offers all the time 24x7 based in the uk.

Traffic shaping is not necessary. They charge us to make profit. The sell "unlimited" access. If they have bandwidth issues, they need to fatten up their trunks. It's not 20Mb 37834789 times faster than dialup, if it's not! The End.

Net neutrality a bad idea? What planet bizzaro are you from? Net neutrality is what the internet was designed for. Perhaps your ISP should decide they want to charge extra for Microsoft updates.

I happened to catch reset commands comming to my modem, from comcast, while doing the wonderfully huge microsoft service pack downloads. They have oversold their bandwidth and have secondary agendas to other internet services. (read joost, skype...etc)

You really want some corporation telling you what you are allowed and not allowed to do?

It figures that Comcast would be doing this. It is consistent with the poor quality of service I've received from them over the past year.

Well, from my point of view, this action is a cover to hide a possible "arrangement" with the RIAA/MPAA.

The reason I am saying this: I am totally for it if ISP's wish to regulate traffic, as "internet congestion" is indeed a problem in some hours of the day. This could be done by limiting the download to 50KB/s and the upload to 5KB/s. Or to whatever speeds they wish. They could even limit it to 9KB/s download and 1KB/s upload. And (bonus) the subscriber would think it's due to lack of seeding, and would start to loathe torrent. Voila!!! Problem solved.

But blocking traffic is just ridiculous. Is there any term in the contract which says anything about "heavy p2p users" and the punishments on them, or how I shall use my connection in general? No. Anyway, it's we the users who have the upper hand this time.

In the worst case scenario, the user would simply change ISP. And I don't know how many dissatisfied it will take for the ISP to regret the arrangement with the MPAA.

In the usual case scenario, the user would just enable the little encryption button on utorrent, and that's it. If you are using the latest version of utorrent (1.7.7), you can get past through the traffic shaping filter, right?

Well, from my point of view, this action is a cover to hide a possible "arrangement" with the RIAA/MPAA.

The reason I am saying this: I am totally for it if ISP's wish to regulate traffic, as "internet congestion" is indeed a problem in some hours of the day. This could be done by limiting the download to 50KB/s and the upload to 5KB/s. Or to whatever speeds they wish. They could even limit it to 9KB/s download and 1KB/s upload. And (bonus) the subscriber would think it's due to lack of seeding, and would start to loathe torrent. Voila!!! Problem solved.

But blocking traffic is just ridiculous. Is there any term in the contract which says anything about "heavy p2p users" and the punishments on them, or how I shall use my connection in general? No. Anyway, it's we the users who have the upper hand this time.

In the worst case scenario, the user would simply change ISP. And I don't know how many dissatisfied it will take for the ISP to regret the arrangement with the MPAA.

In the usual case scenario, the user would just enable the little encryption button on utorrent, and that's it. If you are using the latest version of utorrent (1.7.7), you can get past through the traffic shaping filter, right?

We should get what we pay for!!!

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20484600-TomatoMLPPP-released-evade-throttle-or-bond-two-DSL-lines

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20397518-Any-ideas-how-to-Do-MLPP-with-xp

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20452999-MLPPP-on-WRT54GTomato-progress-report-with-download

http://www.digitalalchemy.tv/2007/04/increase-bittorrent-speeds-bypass-isp.html

http://www.digitalalchemy.tv/2007/08/encrypt-bittorrent-traffic-to-avoid-isp.html

i would like to add that rogers cable in canada also blocks my p2p upload rates i buy 2 mb/s up but i can only ever get above 60 kb/s but when ever i to upload tests it shows over 700kb/s and also when i transfer between my net work i achive much higher speeds

I dont understand why the Max Planck institute hasn´t searached in germany. Kabeldeutschland does the same thing and you need to encrypt the trafic if you dont want to get stuck at 512 kb/s (and I have 20 Mb/s)... It pisses me off every day. I dont care if they dont have the apropriate infrastructure. I pay for 20 MB/s and I want it.

There is a world outside of the US, remember that.

I had written a blog about this too, http://mjwalcott.blogspot.com/2008/05/net-neutrality.html

Clean forgot about that at first.

Hopefully the company that is running down here in Anguilla, where I'm currently working, is US owned and has to abide by these laws as well.

LMAO

Net neutrality is a bad idea......the more we can keep the governments sticky fingers away from the internet, the better.