
Ajit Pai and the FCC want it to be legal for Comcast to block BitTorrent - craigc
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691794/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-comcast-block-bittorrent
======
imglorp
Oh boy, all the market forces are lined up against the consumers on this one.
BT implies content holders have a teensy bit of interest: around $2 trillion
annually[1]. That dwarfs by 20x the $1B cable industry[2]. Maybe we've been
looking for for Ajit's daddy in the wrong place.

1\.
[https://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/global/1565728/s...](https://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/global/1565728/study-
global-entertainment-industry-poised-to-top-2-trillion-in)

2\. [https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-trends/market-research-
re...](https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-trends/market-research-
reports/information/broadcasting-telecommunications/cable-providers.html)

------
toast0
If we're going back to the past, let's go back to the 1996 Telecom act, and
get unbundled last mile; but apply it to all mediums this time, instead of
only telephone.

I don't care if Comcast blocks BitTorrent for its direct customers, as long as
it doesn't touch it for wholesale customers, and as long as wholesale prices
are lower than retail prices (learning from Telco dsl pricing shenanigans)

------
sergers
The foundation for the great firewall of America has been laid.

Trump admires china, and promised a wall.. we just had the wrong context.

But seriously this sucks... But I am sure evolution of the protocol to thwart
detection will happen.

Vps/seedbox usage would go up as a quick bypass... But who knows, this could
allow them to block whole network segments in worst case scenario.

I can see this play out like long distance plans

~~~
eqtn
This wouldn't work. Only pre approved streams will be allowed.

------
thisisit
I can be wrong, but something similar might happen to Bitcoin and
cryptocurrencies too.

~~~
shadoxx
My thoughts exactly. Blocking arbitrary protocols is a slippery slope.

------
jokoon
Ok, I'm really scared now...

I mean if legally they can block bittorrent or other protocols, does it mean
that one could create a new protocol each time it's legal to block it, rince
and repeat, and force the legislator to create a new law forbidding each nez
appearing protocol?

Also one might implement ways to prevent protocol detection into a BEP, but if
comcast ends up shutting down any traffic that is peer to peer... I wonder if
legally they could forbid any traffic that is "too much peer to peer" and
argue that it's illegal downloading. Hard to say if comcast could win in
court, because if you do the stats, most of peer to peer traffic is indeed
illegal.

The internet could end up without any peer to peer traffic, and only works
with servers, most users would not really complain, things would still work
like they already are. It would really create pressure from users to change
ISP.

Some ISPs might not block peer to peer, and I wonder if subscribers would end
up moving out of neighborhoods where comcast has a monopoly.

~~~
croon
AFAICT it's not about making bittorrent illegal, but to make it legal for ISPs
to block any specific protocol.

I'm assuming you're thinking in terms of designer drug legislation? Comcast in
this case would simply need to match the new protocols to block, no new
legislation needed.

------
INTPenis
I'm more interested in whether it will be illegal to circumvent the legal
block of a protocol.

~~~
twelvedogs
not immediately, they could pass extra laws though (and probably will if they
get momentum)

------
unabridged
The problem is you can't tell bittorrent or any other protocol from SSL if its
encrypted. The only way to stop it is slow all random ip to random ip
connections, basically if one of the endpoints isn't a major, known company
its in the slow lane. Count on AWS creating a few Canadian regions.

~~~
svet_0
AFAIK You can still use statistical analysis to determine the app type under
SSL. I'm not sure you can even eliminate that with protocol improvements.

------
ForFreedom
The government does not understand that, the more they restrict, people will
find alternatives. Privacy of movies/songs is still on in-spite of all laws

------
jakeogh
If my ISP filters by protocol I'll get a new ISP.

It should be standard to:

1\. Cancel your acct.

2\. (nd amendment) use protocol 6 port 443; emulate SSL

Why ignore one's ability to apply market forces? Is acting too hard?

Extra LOL on the thought of filtering BT. Who pay's who?

~~~
dmarlow
I have a choice between Time warner (now spectrum) or ATT. I have zero
confidence in either and my choices are slim. I'd rather have net neutrality
enforced so I'm not left having to choose which of those two I'd rather use.

~~~
jakeogh
Sounds like you are a prime customer for a 3rd option. Market forces are real.
BTW, since you have 2, competition is still there. Zero confidence or not, one
will take advantage of the other's mistake. Do you also have telco DSL avail?

------
anigbrowl
Mesh networking time

~~~
ZenoArrow
If you want to see that come to pass, I'd recommend trying out CJDNS and/or
B.A.T.M.A.N and documenting your experiences:

[https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/blob/master/README.md](https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/blob/master/README.md)

[https://www.open-mesh.org/projects/open-mesh/wiki](https://www.open-
mesh.org/projects/open-mesh/wiki)

------
tehlike
Someone will come in and give free vpn for everyone, then they are royally
hosed.

~~~
glandium
Until Comcast blocks VPNs, because why wouldn't they?

~~~
tzs
Suppose the VPN is on port 443, 465, 993, or 995. Would the ISP be able to
tell that it is a VPN and not an HTTPS, SMTP, IMAP, or POP server?

~~~
icebraining
Ports are not enough, they can inspect packets. I believe most VPN protocols
can be detected, although you could probably adapt one (possibly OpenVPN,
which can already use TLS) to look like a regular HTTPS or IMAPS connection
(assuming they don't analyze the patterns of traffic).

There's still the possibility of blocking commercial VPN services by their IP
addresses, making it harder for anyone who can't host one themselves on a VPS
or something.

~~~
twelvedogs
VPNs can and will adapt, they're only detectable if they behave a certain way,
last article i read a while ago openvpn was generally being detected by the
way it did the handshake.

but yeah, the only permanent way to block VPNs is to get rid of encrypted
traffic, otherwise they're going to be in a running battle of updating their
detection methods and vpn providers obfuscating their protocol

