BT Openworld port throttles?

[silver]

well - who knows how valid the tests are, wrt reproducible tests etc.. but.. http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=393

Users of the Openworld broadband service have variously complained about peer 2 peer application speeds in the last few weeks, mainly affecting Kazza, Gnutella and EDonkey.

An enterprising Software Developer Mark Hutton who is using the BTO Home 500 service has run some tests sending just data between two machines on the various ports that the sharing programs use, a summary of the results follows:

Napster Port 6699 58.1KB/sec
Gnutella Port 6346 3.75KB/sec
Edonkey Port 4662 1.5KB/sec
Kazza 2.8KB/sec
Test (Kazza port+1) 58.1KB/sec

It does very much look like some form of throttling intentional or otherwise is occurring on traffic through BTopenworld. Perhaps BTopenworld are running a maximum bandwidth per port policy, and restricting some ports to ensure that any single application does not overwhelm the network - there is no documentation to suggest this or any feedback to users from the helpdesk. The full post and discussion can be seen in our forums here.

from this ADSL forum post

I've just performed what I deem a definitive P2P test for throttling on certain ports:

I'm using TTCP, a very old *nix utility to measure network throughput - there's a windows port knocking about on the web which I used on my machine.

00:16 2nd October 2001

::TEST 1:: Kazaa port:

Receiver (me, BTo Home 500 ADSL): [wsttcp -r -s -p1214]
Sender (XMbit conn to Nildram backbone): [ttcp -t -s -p 1214 <myhost.com>]

I sent raw data for 60 seconds:

wsttcp-r: 628432 bytes in 217.47 real sec = 2.82KB/sec (23118.04 bps)
wsttcp-r: 315 I/O calls, msec/call = 706.95, calls/sec = 1.45628432 1001978074.78 1001978292.25 217.47 23118.04

NB: The output on screen of the raw data being received was extremely bursty and continued far beyond the 60 seconds of sending, as shown above (217.47 secs)


::TEST 2:: Kazza port + 1:

Receiver (me, BTo Home 500 ADSL): [wsttcp -r -s -p1215]
Sender (XMbit conn to Nildram backbone): [ttcp -t -s -p 1215 <myhost.com>]

I sent raw data for 60 seconds:

wsttcp-r: 3646064 bytes in 61.38 real sec = 58.01 KB/sec (475250.70 bps)
wsttcp-r: 823 I/O calls, msec/call = 76.36, calls/sec = 13.413646064 1001978496.88 1001978558.25 61.38 475250.70

NB: Extremely fast output on screen, stopped as soon as the source was stopped.

v interesting if true, happy to test it out by port testing between me an somone on BTO to see what happens

Sil

[silver]

btw - edonkey uses lots of ports, I think the 4662 one is used between the user (client) and the edonkey server, throttling this port AFAIK won't drastically alter the peer to peer speeds, ie DL / UL speed.

Sil

[silver]

Looks like it's true

See BT Openworld (ADSL) does port throttle!?!

Sil

[squidgy]

I have a question about this. What is it that people are finding? I don't yet understand, but there are two possibilities, I think.

Is it the more likely possibility that they throttle TCP connections between remote clients and local servers on a given port number of your IP address? Or the slightly less likely possibility that they throttle TCP connections between remote servers and local clients on a given port number of the remote IP address? Or do they do both of these? It would be interesting to find out.

Of course, I reckon that if you want to do file swapping, then using FTP should enable you to get around these problems. If you're using an active mode client, you can choose the local port numbers for data connections, if your FTP client supports this. Likewise, if you're using an FTP server, and you encourage people to conenct using passive mode, then it should be possible to configure your server to "prefer" certain port numbers.

[Onslo]

All you get are transfer speeds of around 1.5 - 3K/sec instead of the speeds you actually pay for. Edonkey isn't affectec like some apps are, and WinMX seems fine. I don't use any others.

I didn't buy ADSL for P2P specifically, but I should imagine that some might well have done.

'Slo

[silver]

Good Q squidgy, I believe they are doing it on the local port number only (ie local to the BT network) and not the remote port (but I could be wrong).

If its just done on the local port then you could 'hit it' accidently as many things use a 'random port' in that range, further it should be pretty straight forward to port map another local port, so you arn't using that port.

I'm sure more details esp of how to get round it (if possible) will emerge, as I don't use BTO (ADSL) I can't test anything.

Sil

[Onslo]

This from www.btopenwoe.org.uk

BT Openworld have admitted today in a statement, that they are restricting services like Napster and gnutella - along with other popular file sharing services (used for swapping mp3's and divx movies primarily).

We had been suspecting that there is a link between this and BT Openworld's earlier announcement where they were looking to setup a "legal" napster alternative, however, if you believe the information coming from BT Openworld it turns out to be a "bandwidth" conservation effort.

It concerns us deeply that providers are starting to look at restricting bandwidth on certain ports, as we're now not far away from the idea of providing capped services - where you pay for a broadband connection, but then get told "don't transfer more than xGB in a month/day" - making most broadband applications worthless.

Here is the "earlier announcement"...

According to an Article on Silicon.com:

--
BTopenworld is to bolster its range of destination sites in a bid to boost revenues from simple DSL access.

Chief among them will be a music download site funded by monthly user subscriptions which BT hopes will become a legal replacement for file-sharing services such as Napster.



Meanwhile, the arguments over broadband home access rage on. Do you agree with our stance?


The group expects to announce major deals with record companies in the next few weeks. Other 'destination sites' with downloadable services, such as games, will be launched by Christmas.
BTopenworld chief executive Andy Green said: "There is a real demand for somewhere you can put your intellectual property, and be sure that you will get paid for it."

Payment will either be added to users' phone bills or be made by payment card.

Green also hopes that making more broadband content available will boost demand for its ADSL services.

BT has not ruled out acquisitions to boost its content businesses.

Said Green: "There are a lot of cheap companies out there. But you have to be very careful when buying businesses like these - there's really not a lot of point buying it if all the people leave straight away."

However, while investing in destination sites, BT has abandoned hope of making significant revenues from its portal operation.

The news came as BTopenworld launched its first advertising campaign for consumer DSL, costing between £4m and £6m over TV, billboards and the internet, to help promote its new installation charges for ADSL, which began yesterday.
--

We can't help but be suspicious that theres something odd happening, as we've received so many complaints recently that BT Openworld users are experiencing large slowdowns in access when using any common Peer to Peer sharing tool such as Napster (although Napsters pretty much dead at the moment anyhow).

Is there something more sinister to the reasonings behind the slowdown? Time will tell.

If this is true then surely it is breaching the consumers right to choose "fairly" between applications. I bet the BTO P2P app wont be throttled in any way

'Slo

[silver]

I suspect the BT P2P app will be proprietary - ie not compatible with other P2P apps (even tho they could use the open P2P standards - bet they wont). The amount of users using it will be 'skewed' towards being on BTO, most of the bandwidth is kept inside the BTO network - reducing peering cost. Thing is tho since a fair percentage of the P2P bandwidth is used to transfer copyright material (I'm guessing) BT will be made to shut it down or put strict controls on whats on there?

Sil

[Onslo]

......and here is the message that was posted a couple of days ago.

BTopenworld Support" <Support@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:9phdpc$ftk$1@uranium.btinternet.com...> Hi all,
>
> Just to clarify, BTopenworld do not block or restrict / "throttle"
> ports in any way.
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Pasquale
> 2nd Line Support
> BTopenworld
>
>
>

'Slo

[Onslo]

Anyone wishing to register a complaint about this "limitation" can do so by writing to :

Compliants Liason Officer
Ardrop House
Alness
Rosshire
Scotland
IV17 0PH

Also email a copy to compliants@btopenworld.com

Apparently snail mail gets better results.

'Slo

Edit : A more direct route has also been suggested that doesn't go via the call centre :

Customer Liaison Officer
2 Dail Nan Rocas
Teaninich Industrial Estate
Alness
IV17 0PH

[Onslo]

Being that P2P transfers between fellow BTO subscribers are not affected by the throttling, servers could be set up for BTO users only. I think I saw a mention of this in the newsgroups once. Someone set up an Edonkey server and restricted connections to only thise on the BTO range.

Not sure of the outcome, might take a look at some point.

'Slo

[squidgy]

Hmmm .... to me this seems to be a backdoor way of dressing up content provision as basic internet connectivity - that is, you pay for internet access, but you don't actually get internet access, you only get access to content and services provided by BT.

To me, that's a bit like providing a telephone service, but not allowing you to phone your friends (except possibly those who are using the same telco), and only otherwise allowing you to make calls to or receive calls from telesales call centres run by associated retailers that pay your telephone service provider a hefty fee for the privilege of being able to do it. There will always be a market for REAL internet access, in the same way that there will always be a market for a real telephone service. And if BT don't do it, then someone else will.

[Onslo]

So far.......

Affected :
eDonkey
Kazaa
Gnutella

Unaffected (so far) :
Napster
WinMX (uses same port as Napster)

unknown :
Morpheous
Audio Galaxy

Maybe they haven't throttled Napster or WinMX ports because of Napsters legitimate standing as a legal p2p now?

'Slo

[Onslo]

One has to wonder whether this is the start of an overall bandwidth saturation problem.

Broadband Britain is only just taking off and BT are unable to support the level of usage already? Is there a bandwidth problem appearing here that could affect all ISP's ?

I find it hard to believe that the bandwidth has been saturated already, even if the transparent proxy has been lifted. How many subscribers does BTO have? 80,000 or so? nothing left in reserves then?

What happens if people start using FTP heavily instead of these p2p programs now, would we see throttling on port 21 appear? port 80? what next?

If this is a glimpse of things to come then the future doesn't look too bright for broadband subscribers.
Transfer of large amounts of data is what broadband is intended for and certainly what I signed up for. Restricting it now is just not accepable.

'Slo

[silver]

I dont think its anything to do with 'saturation' - my reckoning is that BT don't like the soaring bandwidth costs of supporting an increasing number of their ADSL users dipping their toes in the P2P pond

Sil

[Onslo]

Then they shouldn't have entered the broadband game should they?

It just seems that BTO are restricting the service becuase of it's popularity in these areas. Obviuosly it is costing them money, but it could well end up losing them money because people will leave. I for one will definately leave BTO if the situation isn't rectified. I did not pay for broadband only to have it restricted in such a way.

Like I said before, if people strat using FTP heavily, will they throttle that too? Nah, I don't like the way this has been handled and am not happy with the outcome.

I have been a BTO supporter for sometime now and have been lucky not to suffer with certain problems as some customers have stated, but I am not happy with this at all.

I don't think any ISP should be able to throttle ports like this without specifically expressing their intention beforehand. There are various things that add to the trauma here.....

1. Users started questioning the poor transfer speeds, no response at all from BTO
2. Users persist and begin to start their own tests, BTO issue a statement confirming that port throttling is not in force.
3. Users prove that some sort of "throttling" is in place, silence from BTO.
4. BTO change their T&C (I need to look into this)
5. BTO announce that "throttling" is in force. Shock Horror.

The change in T&C needs looking into, but I am certain to see some sort of change regarding the termination of contract details, and the alterarion of service details. Since the throttling actually started before the change in T&C, any change in the T&C regarding this would effectively be void?

'Slo

[silver]

more from http://www.silicon.com/p48039

BTopenworld has clamped down on customers using its DSL services for bandwidth-heavy applications.

Hardcore users of peer-to-peer networking applications have found their BTopenworld DSL services running slower than their old dial-up modems.

An email from BTopenworld to customers yesterday said: "Our traffic analysis has shown that a small percentage of customers using P2P applications use up a very large percentage of the available bandwidth, to the detriment of the majority of customers who use the network for normal browsing, email and gaming."

It continued: "In response, in the short term we have had to impose traffic controls on particular applications and ports to ensure that our customers retain their great internet experience."

In practice, this means restricting the service available to heavy users, some of whom have seen speeds fall to less than a tenth of the 512Kbps download speed available through BTopenworld's consumer DSL.

In the email, BTopenworld said it is considering lifting the restrictions in off-peak times, but it seems likely that peer-to-peer buffs will have to open their wallets before long.
The email added: "In the near future we will be launching a new service with a network configuration more suitable for particular bandwidth-hungry activities such as peer-to-peer communications, at a price that fairly reflects their usage of the network."

A BTopenworld spokesman said that the restrictions have been in place for some time, but they only affect people using peer-to-peer networks for downloading files in the region of gigabytes, not smaller music files through services like Napster.

He added that the restrictions were lifted between 01:00 (BST) and 09:00 (BST), recommending that users set up their systems to perform downloads at that time.

Sil

[silver]

if you use emule you can easily change the ports that it uses to communicate to the server

check tweak + tips guide / how to speed up emule ed2k network client

Sil