Any Form of Gnutella Client kills internet connection

[nickciv3]

I recently switched from sbc/at&t DSL to comcast cable internet. When I did, I lost use of the limewire I had been using for many years with no problems. I am now on Comcast with a Linksys WCG200 Modem/Router/WAP. I say all Gnutella Clints because I initialy suspected Limewire. So I tried Frostwire, then Bearshare, all to the same result. When ever I connect to any Gnutella client, after a few minutes, five max, My internet connection times out on a ping screen. If I immedietly close the application I am running, sometimes my modem can recover. If I don't close it fast enough, I have to do a manual, power switch reboot of the modem. When I do run the client I can search and Download or upload, but then bang, it's gone, no internet. PLEASE HELP, I MISS YOU!!

[stief]

Does the new modem plug into your USB or Ethernet port? (people report problems with USB modems )

Actually, it would be interesting to ask for an explanation from BOTH comcast and sbc, and copare their answers

[nickciv3]

Actualy I connect wirelessly. Also I forgot to mention, but I do have port forwarding enabled, and have allowed gnutella within windows firewall, my modem's is disabled.

[stief]

When you switched, did the new company install any equipment? I'm assuming that your wireless connection is just within the house, and somewhere the base station (router?) connects to a wire.

That's what I meant by "modem" When you say your modem is disconnected, I assume you mean the modem that is built into your machine to connect to dial-up service through the telephone wire. I was thinking about the cablemodem or DSL modem.

I should have clarified: sorry

[Lord of the Rings]

As a side-note, you might want to check for firmware updates for your Linksys WCG200. I'm aware of at least one Linksys model that struggles as described HERE (click link). But I haven't heard of this issue for other linksys models.

When you say wireless, is the receiver a card within your computer? Is there any usb or ethernet cabling between any of the devices?

[garbagefan2]

It's not comcast. I have comcast and they allow p2p.

[Hyper-kun]

This is not true. Read the terms of service before you claim
anything:

http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp

"Prohibited Uses and Activities Prohibited uses include, but
are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment,
or the Comcast Equipment to:
[...]
14. run programs, equipment, or servers from the
Premises that provide network content or any other services
to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network),
also commonly referred to as public services or servers.
Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are
not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy
services and servers;"

[AaronWalkhouse]

The fact is they do allow it, but put that in there in case they need an excuse
to rein in their heaviest users. Other ISPs do that too.

[Hyper-kun]

No, a normal ISP does not prohibit running servers at all
because strictly speaking you're not an ISP if you do that
rather some kind of "online" service that partially overlaps
with the internet. You certainly won't be subject to such
terms when using a proper ISP.

They can hardly get more explicit than that. Don't think
they "allow" it because they use no technical measures to
prevent it. As with law and order, most things which are
illegal are not and cannot be efficiently be prevented.

However, regarding the original problem I would guess that
the user's router is too crappy for P2P. Some of them cannot
handle more than dozen connections at any time. Or the
user should just decrease the bandwith limits.

Furthermore, just because some people can use P2P applications
at comcast that doesn't imply everybody can. It's well-known
that certain ISPs ban P2P only in certain areas, at certain
times etc. That's either because they cannot technically
handle complete blockings e.g., it might require special
routers - there's is hardware available for messing with
P2P in several ways. Another reason might be that they do
this on purpose to prevent that anyone can easily prove it
and instead blame it on the users' software or hardware.

[AaronWalkhouse]

Actually, if you look around, virtually all ISPs have a similar clause in their
terms even though they allow users to do as they please.

Like I said, such a clause is a tool they all keep handy but not all of them use it,
instead only invoking it when they get into a dispute with a user over bandwidth.

Aside from that, the original post from two months ago likely arose from a
weak router, as I have always been able to freeze a Linksys by simply using
BearShare. Since the original poster never came back I presume he followed
our advice and resolved the problem.