In a blog post, Codify, the operators of the free WiFi network at last year’s Microsoft Tech.Ed Australia, described the difficulties they had when a minority of users consumed excessive amounts network resources at peak times.

Although network congestion occurred “admittedly only a few times” the blame was leveled at a small handful of people using BitTorrent, Interestingly, bandwidth consumption wasn’t really the problem, it was excessive port usage.

“At this point you have to remember that we have a heap of bandwidth available. Some clients chomping through a lot of bandwidth isn’t a problem and running BitTorrent isn’t a problem per se,” said Codify’s David Connor.

The network operators decided that blocking the ports that BitTorrent uses wasn’t enough since they are easily changed, blocking the tracker URL was deemed insufficient and inspecting the traffic wouldn’t help since the main clients all use encryption. So a much more simple method was used.

“….we implemented certain, ahem, ‘interim countermeasures’,” wrote Connor. “We quickly built a list of all of the top torrent trackers around and got the nod from Jorke [Odolphi, Web Platform Architect Evangelist for Microsoft Australia] to add them all to the local DNS resolver and point them at a local web server containing some RickRoll scripts.”

Microsoft also created a script which categorized WiFi users with a ‘naughty factor’, meaning those with the greatest number of active port mappings to distinct remote hosts were identified as BitTorrent users. The MAC addresses of the ‘most naughty’ users were blocked – around two dozen of them – and although some changed their MAC addresses and returned, they were identified again by their port usage.

For the 2010 event, users will now have to register their MAC addresses to access the WiFi network and will be allocated resources accordingly. Any problems with downloading movies and TV shows can be directed at the new BitTorrent Help Desk.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The CRTC released its long awaited decision last week on Network Neutrality in Canada and specifically set forth a framework for the continued use of Internet Traffic Management Practices (ITMPs), also known as throttling.  While the decision does not go as far as many consumer advocates would like, I believe it does provide a means by which most throttles can be avoided.

In a keynote address, CRTC Chairman Konrad von Finckenstein explained that an ITMP should be implemented only if:

1.  It addresses a justifiable purpose; for example, it is needed to prevent congestion, or disruption of time-sensitive programs.

2. It is as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve the desired result, using the least restrictive means.

3. It causes as little harm as possible to the retail customer, the application provider or the ISP that is the wholesale customer of a primary ISP.

4. And it is well advertised in advance. A full explanation must be given, describing the practice and how it will affect the user.

Fair enough, the thing has to do a particular job with a narrowly defined purpose and the ISPs must be transparent about this job.  So what might they do, you ask?  Specifically, the decision notes the “needs” currently cited by parties for the existing crop of ITMPs:

“Parties generally acknowledged that some traffic management is required to address congestion in order to ensure that all end-users receive acceptable Internet service. Parties also generally agreed that ISPs must employ ITMPs to protect the integrity of their networks from security threats.” (emphasis mine)

Address congestion and mitigate security threats.

We’ve talked at length about µTP and its design which specifically avoids causing congestion.  So on a fundamental level, this decision is good news for µTP.    There should be no need to throttle µTP in an effort to address congestion or mitigate a security threat.   And the framework will not permit it otherwise, given its discriminatory nature.

So why is everyone so glum?  First of all I think the complaint based approach the CRTC has taken is one that will tie up lots of resources (lawyers) on all sides with continued complaints.   While the framework is an incremental and far from radical step in the right direction, we wonder if the ISPs will modify their practices accordingly.  We remain ready to work with them towards this end, to help them understand µTP and its beneficial nature, as we’ve done with many ISPs here is the U.S. and elsewhere.   But while that’s our view, others find it more likely that future complaints testing these points will now need to be adjudicated.

–Eric–