 iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | VoIP and Gaming Except Comcast doesn't have their own dedicated gaming network.
So yeah, it's a little uncompetitive to have your own digital voice product un-deprioritized in the face of heavy traffic...but everone else's gets the boot. | |
|
 | Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| Re: VoIP and Gaming Not really. It's called CDV is not internet based. it's network based. It does not touch the internet like Vonage or Packet8 or any other provider.
The FCC should have realized that long before instead of until now.
That's the FCC's fault. | |
|
| |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: VoIP and Gaming said by hottboiinnc:Not really. It's called CDV is not internet based. it's network based. It does not touch the internet like Vonage or Packet8 or any other provider. It does touch "the Internet" as the HSI-side of Comcast's network is part of the Internet. The Internet is a co-op of private networks. CDV packets hit the same first few routers as HSI packets do.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
|
| | |  SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | Re: VoIP and Gaming said by funchords:It does touch "the Internet" as the HSI-side of Comcast's network is part of the Internet. The Internet is a co-op of private networks. CDV packets hit the same first few routers as HSI packets do. That means absolutely nothing at all, and you're still wrong. Telcos operate POTS over IP once you leave the local switch - at least they do up here. That doesn't mean that it is in any way connected to the same Internet we're using to browse this site right now.
I really hate when phone offerings provided by cable companies are labelled as VoIP. It doesn't touch the public Internet and stays internal to their own network. No different than if I pick up a regular Bell landline and dial a number, the only difference being that in the case of Bell there's a long long phone cord going to the CO before it turns IP.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | Re: VoIP and Gaming said by swintec:It is VoIP...even though it may not hit the public internet, why does that make it NOT VoIP? It is Voice Over Internet PROTOCOL...digital phone utilizes packets/packet switching..in other words, it is data. If I make a call from one computer on my LAN to another computer on my LAN which are connected via my router...it is VoIP regardless if it hits the internet as you or I know it since it is still using the protocol called IP. That's fine, technically it is VoIP, but it's not the same as Vonage or anything else like that. People are confusing the marketing term with the technical term.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. | |
|
| | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by Snickerdo:I really hate when phone offerings provided by cable companies are labelled as VoIP. It doesn't touch the public Internet and stays internal to their own network. No different than if I pick up a regular Bell landline and dial a number, the only difference being that in the case of Bell there's a long long phone cord going to the CO before it turns IP. Please identify the "public internet." Hint: it starts closer than you think.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
|
| | | | | SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | Re: VoIP and Gaming said by funchords:Please identify the "public internet." Hint: it starts closer than you think. The UBR - you know, those 10.x.x.x (at least around here) addresses you hit when you do a traceroute - isn't exactly "public internet"
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. | |
|
| | | | | said by funchords:It does touch "the Internet" as the HSI-side of Comcast's network is part of the Internet. The Internet is a co-op of private networks. CDV packets hit the same first few routers as HSI packets do. Not true.
The traffic is routed differently the moment it hits the cable modem.
(It's called Digital Voice, NOT Voice over Internet Protocol. They are two different animals.) | |
|
| | | | | | Re: VoIP and Gaming Call it what you will and dress it up in a skirt if you want. It passes through the same cables and the same network.
ALL traffic from all systems travel along the same backbones to reach all the destinations so it doesn't matter what you call it. | |
|
| | | | | SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | Re: VoIP and Gaming said by Skippy25:Call it what you will and dress it up in a skirt if you want. It passes through the same cables and the same network. ALL traffic from all systems travel along the same backbones to reach all the destinations so it doesn't matter what you call it. A POTS line travels through the same cables and the same internal network as a DSL line. Doesn't mean it touches the public network. I totally fail to see your point.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: VoIP and Gaming Public internet? Do you mean internet backbones owned by public companies... oh wait.... /sarcasm | |
|
| | | | | | You can't tell Robb that. He knows it all about Comcast's products. | |
|
| | | | Re: VoIP or cdv it's the same pipe comcast like to call its phone service a different name. it doesn't matter at all,call it anything they want. problem is it uses the same pipe that the data/internet users are using at least until the data hit their office router and then that phone data may be able to be serperated into a different network.. if anything in the pipe is being de-priority all traffic in the pipe should be subject to the same rule. | |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·ViaTalk
| Act of terrorism Since voip users are now paying all the normal taxes and fees for e911 as pots users. That would put voip services as part of US emergency infrastructure.
Isn't deliberate interference / hampering of emergency services considered an act of terrorism.
--
Any unauthorized use of your own judgment is strictly prohibited. | |
|
|  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Act of terrorism said by dcurrey: That would put voip services as part of US emergency infrastructure. Isn't deliberate interference / hampering of emergency services considered an act of terrorism. VoIP is not for emergency use; read your ToS. | |
|
| | |
| | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Act of terrorism From your link. No label required for POTS.
quote:
Interconnected VoIP providers must take appropriate action to ensure that their customers have a clear understanding of the limitations, if any, of their 911 service......... They must distribute labels to all customers warning them if 911 service may be limited or not available and instructing them to place the labels on and/or near the equipment used in conjunction with the interconnected VoIP service.
| |
|
| | | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| Re: Act of terrorism said by batterup:From your link. No label required for POTS. I would imagine that is because the powers that be figured that people were smart enough to realize that if their POTS phone didn't have dial tone then they couldn't dial 911. But with VoIP you may have a dialtone even if your VOIP was down, or even if you could make some calls that doesn't guarantee that you could still reach 911. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·ViaTalk
1 edit | Voip is required to have nomadic e911. We pay all fees associated to 911. So it is part of the e911 system.
Granted it may not be as reliable as pots more points of failer. Everything is done best effort rules same as pots. Pots can't guarantee 911 to work either. Has failed several times but they are protected under best effort rules. If a company deliberately hampers that they should be criminally negligent at very least.
But with all things in US it will take a baby dieing because parents couldn't reach 911 because ISP was screwing with connection before things change.
--
Any unauthorized use of your own judgment is strictly prohibited. | |
|
| | I Hope It Turns For Good I really really really hope this turns for good.
1) They have their own voice network. The are de-prioritizing other voice network = bad.
2) They have their own video network. They are capping our ability to watch competitive video and even slowing our ability to watch competitive video = bad.
(caps and de-prioritizing)
If the FCC follows through and becomes a win for the consumer, it should hopefully only lead to more wins for the consumer in the future. | |
|
|  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: I Hope It Turns For Good If Comcast de-prioritizes VoIP traffic, what would be the benefit of using Comcast VoIP (at +40/month) to and indie VoIP such as Vonage for $25/month ? | |
|
| | nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | Re: I Hope It Turns For Good said by en102:If Comcast de-prioritizes VoIP traffic, what would be the benefit of using Comcast VoIP (at +40/month) to and indie VoIP such as Vonage for $25/month ? Why should there be a benefit to using Comcast VoIP over the competition? Just because they supply the pipe doesn't mean they should be allow to control where the traffic flows.
Just wait, now it's VoIP, next they'll "de-prioritize" net-based streaming TV because it competes with their cable product. | |
|
| | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
1 edit | Re: I Hope It Turns For Good said by nitzan:Just because they supply the pipe doesn't mean they should be allow to control where the traffic flows. Have you ever read the story about The Little Red Hen? If you haven't the basic synopsis is that a little red hen wants some help making some bread. But none of the other farm animals want to help planting, harvesting, thrashing, milling, or baking the bread). However in the end they all want to help eat the bread. Same thing applies here. Comcast didn't use the help of others in building out and deploying their physical infrastructure, why should they necessarily be required to let others share in that physical infrastructure if they aren't paying for it?
Network neutrality for internet connections doesn't quite apply here because you are not purchasing Comcast phone service that runs on top of Comcast Internet. One does not require the other. The whole network neutrality debate is that if a consumer is paying for a network connection, then the network connection should be agnostic as to what's being transmitted across that connection. However it doesn't necessarily mean that the connection medium itself must be neutral. If that was the case, then "network neutrality" would also apply to televisions services.
If Comcast is successful in arguing that their phone service is indeed a VOIP and not subject to all the same regulations and fees that POTS is, but is also not true VOIP and be subject to any current or future network neutrality arguments, I would suspect that you may see FiOS make the same argument. While their physical infrastructure is different, FiOS is also analogous in some respects. However ultimately I don't see Comcast succeeding in both their arguments. I think they will be ruled as either like a POTS provider or as a VOIP provider, but not neither or both. | |
|
| | | | nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | Re: I Hope It Turns For Good I agree. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Personally I think cable companies and fiber should be classified as telco's to level the playing field. If they want to compete against the telco's then they need to play by the same rules as the telco's.
Regarding the little red hen: I disagree. While I agree with you that they built the infrastrucure (or in many cases bought the companies who did) - they sell a very specific product - "internet connection". They cannot backtrack and re-define it as "internet connection for only web surfing" or "internet connection for anything but TV and phone" or more to the point "internet connection for anything except what competes with our other products".
While I'm all for free market, there's a point in the game where a single entity holds too much power. Consumers don't have a choice - in many cases they have one or even no other ISPs available to them. Think about it in terms of a highway- what if a company controlled all the highways around you, and also controlled a specific car company. Now, one day they decide that in order to sell more cars, they'll designate a fast lane reserved only for cars they manufacture, and at the same time deliberately create pot-holes and other traffic disturbances for anyone driving a car they didn't make.
It might sound stupid, but this is exactly what they're doing - and regulators would do right with consumers to prohibit it. | |
|
| | ... According to the diagram once a user becomes BE the state of congestion is no longer considered for establishing PBE. You're in the slow lane until you slow down. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: ... I have already run into this moving files as small as 200 megs.
They slow you down , until they deem your bit bucket as being "full" again.
Im paying out the butt for a docsis 2 connection that is supposed to be 20/5 and is a "business" connection.
The powerboost on the upload sucks , because i can't make a transfer outside the us at more then 60 K a second.and uploading to any one not on comcast in the US I get luckily 120 K a sec. if they are blessed by the comcast gods.
Last Result:
Download Speed: 11870 kbps (1483.8 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 4177 kbps (522.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
While i shouldn't gripe about the 10 mbit download , that sucker is powerboosted ? im lucky if i can hit 5 mbit to some of the nations most well connected sites.
Utterly disappointing. And really it's starting to frustrate some of my other co workers as well. We can't do much except wait any more.
It's so bad I have renewed my search for homes in the fios market areas. It's worth an extra 50 k on a home price for the broadband phone and video choice.
I don't even want to start on the HD video options either.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | | Re: ... Powerboost only has one reason for its existence, and that is to fool speed tests.
Good luck on searching for a FiOS connected home. In NJ, as much as FiOS is appealing, the congestion, traffic, higher crime rate and property taxes that go along with it don't make it worth it for me.
In other words, I like where I live, but my ISP could improve. It's not a deal breaker for me though. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: ... It's the opposite here in Ma, most of the areas with FiOS have less crime.
And my city don't ever plow streets , so its a win win for me to move. Comcast just made it easier for me to narrow down where I want to live.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | | | | Re: ... I live in a semi-rural area, where people don't have to lock their doors (but I lock mine!)
Compared to other suburbs, FiOS connected areas probably have lower crime rate. But comparing here to the other suburbs, here wins.
Furthermore, property taxes in those areas are out of control. Some people are paying $15,000 per year. This is mostly thanks to abbot districts and the NJEA. | |
|
| | |  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Never transfer smaller files, do you?
Uploading 20MB files at 5-11mbps is a snap!
Downloading 100MB files and 40MB of that cruises at 30mbps is extremely useful.
*FOR ME* I couldn't care less about a speed test, but when sending photos or downloading porn uhm... split videos, PowerBoost is welcomed
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by fifty nine:Powerboost only has one reason for its existence, and that is to fool speed tests. Good luck on searching for a FiOS connected home. In NJ, as much as FiOS is appealing, the congestion, traffic, higher crime rate and property taxes that go along with it don't make it worth it for me. Randolph NJ a hot bed of crime? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: ... said by batterup:said by fifty nine:Powerboost only has one reason for its existence, and that is to fool speed tests. Good luck on searching for a FiOS connected home. In NJ, as much as FiOS is appealing, the congestion, traffic, higher crime rate and property taxes that go along with it don't make it worth it for me. Randolph NJ a hot bed of crime? It has a higher crime rate than where I live.
Also property taxes are higher. | |
|
| | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: ... said by fifty nine:said by batterup:said by fifty nine:Powerboost only has one reason for its existence, and that is to fool speed tests. Good luck on searching for a FiOS connected home. In NJ, as much as FiOS is appealing, the congestion, traffic, higher crime rate and property taxes that go along with it don't make it worth it for me. Randolph NJ a hot bed of crime? It has a higher crime rate than where I live. Also property taxes are higher. I ass/u/me you live in Sussex. The facts do not support your assertion.
"Crime per 1000 in 2007, Sussex 26.3 Randolph 8.4.
»www.njsp.org/info/ucr2007/pdf/20···ct-7.pdf
Tax rate per $100 value Sussex $31.34 Randolph $3.87
»php.app.com/mod4_07/search.php " | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: ... I don't live in Sussex. I live in Wantage.
Most people from outside of the area don't know the difference between Sussex and Wantage.
Sussex is the post office (postal district), which is why DSLR shows by town as Sussex instead of Wantage when I put in my zipcode (07461).
Sussex is actually a borough, an octagonal shaped 1 mile radius area which is surrounded by Wantage township. It is a separate municipality and it was originally known as Deckertown back in the old days.
Anyway, I wasn't specifically comparing Randolph. Randolph would actually be a nice place to live if I could afford a comparable house there. I have 6 acres of property (which I use for amateur radio antennas and horses). I paid around $400,000 for a house here. An equivalent one in Randolph would be around $700,000 if I'm lucky.
In general the places where FiOS is available aren't as desireable as it is here for a multitude of reasons. I worked in Essex and Morris counties for a number of years, as well as having friends who live there. The traffic congestion and closeness of houses, as well as lack of available property were big turn offs. | |
|
| | | | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: ... said by fifty nine:In general the places where FiOS is available aren't as desireable as it is here for a multitude of reasons. Thank you Verizon does not cheery pick to the Holy Poly. | |
|
| | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by fifty nine:Powerboost only has one reason for its existence, and that is to fool speed tests. .. and to speed the transfers of anything that isn't a large file transfer, i.e. Web-page loads.
This is confirmed by browsing speed comparisons done by various sources, including those reported here: »PC Mag Ranks ISPs By Browsing Speed | |
|
| | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: ... From your link.
said by Jodokast96:Optimum Online, FrontierNet top magazine's ratings... And FIOS smokes them both at 931. No bogus "boost" FiOS all of the time. I lost over 20% with my ownership of Verizon. I gladly give that up so the unwashed masses can have fast cheap porn. | |
|
Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
2 edits | Doesn't matter... If Comcast has the ability to sort out IT'S VOIP traffic from other stuff, then by default they have the ability to sort out ALL VOIP traffic from the other stuff. The fact that they aren't shows that their system is NOT protocol agnostic.
People here have asked how long before the content 'walled garden' appears....I would say that it's already THERE on Comcast!
They should be fined, big time! | |
|
|
See 41 replies to this post |
|
 jsz0Premium
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT | Comcast owns the plant From my perspective Comcast paid to install & maintain the HFC plant. They should be able to do what they want with it. If a customer doesn't like how they do business they can switch to DSL, satellite internet, wireless cell data, FTTH, 802.11 wireless services, T1/3, etc, etc, etc, etc. If you happen to live in an area where no other company wants to offer you service I guess you're out of luck. | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
| | Finally someone noticed FCC is surprised to learn that Comcast's new system impacts competiting VoIP products I'm glad someone else noticed this was happening. I'm one of those Comcast customers experiencing poor voip with 3 different providers. | |
|
| | Seems agnostic to me. It seems pretty protocol agnostic to me. They are throttling the user they deem to be the bandwidth hog. That means they are getting everything, VoIP, gaming, downloads etc that travels across that network connection.
From what I understand Comcast runs their voice (to keep it simple) on a separate network. Let's not forget that the throttling is based on the actions of the end user. | |
|
| | | Re: Seems agnostic to me. I felt the gaming/ 2nd party voip part a longtime ago. Posting here it was shot down immediately. The "experts" here told me there was no way they could prioritize internet traffic esp UDP packets? Its a miracle now they can I am truly amazed at the "new" technology they have.
Best thing I ever did was get rid of Comcast internet. | |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Let me "bloviate"... We should all just come to grips with the fact that the government should own the last mile. Personally, this goes against every capitalist instinct in my body but if we could actually get the government to collect a reasonable tax from us and not eat up 50% of the proceeds with pork and me too politics, we could build a quality, last-mile infrastructure and take over the local telco central offices.
Now anyone willing to get their service to the CO can do so practically free of charge and focus on content rather than the network. The tax would fund and maintain the last mile and CO premises. This ends the last mile fight, network operators trying to be content providers, having several refrigerator-sized devices in our back yards that belong to different providers and the last-mile monopoly (at best duopoly) that now exists.
Next up, create "Mr. Fusion" (re: Back To the Future) so that we can generate local, green energy and tear down all the darn utility poles.
It might be a while before we have "Star Trek" food replicators that can turn your poop and toilet paper into drinkable water. For now the water and sewer companies will have to remain. However, once we create replicators we'll certainly have the technology to create a race of androids that can govern us and eliminate the last vestige of partisan politics. I suppose this truly is a pipe dream because there would always exist those who create ways to vaporize or deactivate the androids so they can kill someone for the vitamin D provided by the sun that shines on their face. (Couldn't think of anything more petty...) | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
 jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | In this case... Voip = internet
Internet video = internet
Digital cable != internet
CDV != internet | |
|
| | | Re: In this case... said by jjoshua:Voip = internet Internet video = internet Digital cable != internet CDV != internet 1/2 right anyway.
--
I'll do it later. | |
|
| | jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | Re: In this case... said by LeftOfSanity:said by jjoshua:Voip = internet Internet video = internet Digital cable != internet CDV != internet 1/2 right anyway. Do tell. | |
|
| | | | | Re: In this case... said by jjoshua:said by LeftOfSanity:said by jjoshua:Voip = internet Internet video = internet Digital cable != internet CDV != internet 1/2 right anyway. Do tell. Digital Cable does not route over the public Internet. Nor does CDV.
--
I'll do it later. | |
|
| | | | jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | Re: In this case... said by LeftOfSanity:Digital Cable does not route over the public Internet. Nor does CDV. !=
means "does not equal" or "is not equivalent". | |
|
| RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | said by jjoshua:Voip = internet Internet video = internet Digital cable != internet CDV != internet Correct. Except that Comcast wants its CDV unregulated as if it were = internet.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | hmm doesnt cables voip run over a diff portion of the network then its internet? Doesnt other voip providers phone go over the internet conenction?
So what can comcast do to tell the qos software to not interfere with other voip products? | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: hmm said by majortom1029:doesnt cables voip run over a diff portion of the network then its internet? Doesnt other voip providers phone go over the internet conenction? So what can comcast do to tell the qos software to not interfere with other voip products? It does. It runs over a private portion of the network, not the "internet" part of the network. At no point does the CDV packet hit the "public internet".. so, rather, it runs on an INTRANET or company network.
Comcast haters will play tit for tat over the wording and meaning of "words" used.. and for that I can't help them.
I don't see how the FCC, or anyone else, is going to try and pin this on Comcast for not degrading their own services here. They're not Vonage, they're not Packet8, this is their own product.
If phone is important to people, they certainly have 250 gig to use to handle their 3rd party voip calls. I guess its all about choice.
MANY people here would like to see comcast ditch everything they have and offer in order to simply be a dumb pipe for their internet..
Personally, comcast should not care about other's Voip product, the same as they shouldn't care if it's Skype, FTP, HTTP, POP, movie downloads, P2P, or any other service. Comcast's Phone service, as far as they are concerned, is another line service they offer.
I'm just curious how much people would care if Comcast was still running their own classic switched phone service..? That service used it's own frequency to run up and down signals via a house mounted active RSU unit. Would the same argument go today over 3rd party voip? would they still be asking Comcast to not degrade 3rd party voip simply becuase they have a 'competing' phone service?
Something the shit gets really deep here. | |
|
| | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
1 edit | Re: hmm "Comcast haters will play tit for tat over the wording and meaning of "words" used.. and for that I can't help them."
Comcast used the words when they lobbied to get their HSI product deregulated as an information service. Now they are trying to hide their POTS product behind that. Comcast is being held to their earlier definition. You clearly delineated the boundary between CDV and HSI and the FCC is taking them (and you) at their word. Since Comcast is running a private network for their POTS then it needs to be regulated as such. The Internet-transported VoIP tussle is just one part of this
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: hmm VoIP is now POTS? Interesting.
And, I do believe it was the Supreme Court that played a hand in the decision on what cable services were, last I checked.
However it comes out, if you're going to continually attack cable, mostly becuase of personal griefs, then be honest and make sure you point out that Telephone has done MORE than it's fair share of paying for definitions, rules, and priveledges.
But, really, the service is a VoIP based service using the VoIP protocol to operate on a separate from their HSI network (private intranet) and yet you want to define this as POTS? and that it should be regulated?
Doc, I have LONG stated one thing, that you also fail to remember.. If you make a call from any device that has a 10 digit NANP issued number to any other device connected to a NANP issued number.. then it's considered PHONE SERVICE and should be subject to the same regulation as such. At SOME point, the service routs to the PSTN and that is subject to regulation.
My argument here is based on how people are trying to say that its subject to the same throttling system becuase their service uses VoIP so it must be handled the same as 3rd Party VoIP. That's tit for tat and thankfully the legal system doesn't work that way. This one I'm siding with Comcast on. But, I promise you this, if Comcast's VoIP is subject to throttling, I hope AT&T will be ready to throttle their IPTV service as well when the caps are issued company wide. (to which I don't agree they should either) | |
|
| | Shows net neutrality legislation is needed. It's about time that federal lawmakers step up to the plate and pass net neutrality legislation that breaks up companies that provide pipes, services via broadband and content. The corporate structure that's responsible for managing the pipes needs to be separate and independent from other parts responsible for content and services via broadband. Most importantly, all content and services delivered via broadband, regardless of where it originates, must then be treated equally. If you have caps, they must apply to all content and services, period. Otherwise, you'll have issues like this occur and efforts to kill competitors through ridiculous policies that are harmful to the general public, too. (If you don't think failure to implement net neutrality is harmful to the general public, just think in context of a baby bell recently claiming they'll move to all VOIP in the near future. In areas where they control pipes and deliver this service, should the general public be locked into only their service if caps are implemented to put competitors at a disadvantage. What about situations where the public cannot make a call out in an emergency because their VOIP is via a competitor and the data passed via specified UTP ports has exceeded the daily quota? I can see Comcast execs cringing over the PR affect if some emergency situation arises and calls for help are impeded, resulting in a death. However, they're not the only company engaging in this type of practice. It's far too widespread.) | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
|
| funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: This is a non-issue and can't be fixed even if it was said by Morac:The amount of bandwidth that VoIP uses is trivial enough that it should never trigger Comcast's network management system by itself. Now if you are also running a torrent and using VoIP, then you could trigger the network management system which could end up delaying your VoIP, but simply stopping the torrent would fix that. ...no, stopping the torrent and waiting 15 minutes would fix that... until then, you're in the fight-for-scraps mode whether you use 1 bps or 1 Mbps.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
|
| | | said by Morac:Basically Comcast can't do what the FCC wants since there is no way to tell whether a VoIP packet is actually a VoIP packet and not something else wrapped in a VoIP packet. As I mentioned in another post, VoIP flows appear different from ordinary data, aside from the differences in payload and port numbers.
VoIP has a very fixed, stable flow of packets that (usually) use no more than 100kbps. If you tried to constrain P2P packets to match those characteristics, people would complain about the performance. It would be self-defeating.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
|
approval from:
fiberguy 
NOZIREV
| This whole argument is ridiculous If people ABUSE the network..they are negatively impacted.
They control whether or not this happens by deciding to play by the rules or not. | |
|
| | updated with a link »Gaming sucks because of this...?
heres one of my post. one of them in the topic was totally removed of course so I had to write criptically that they prioritize there data somehow. I tried start a post to collect data on people who game on Comcst HSI but it was locked modded as well. | |
|
| |
| | Treating all VoIP the same? I don't understand this.
- 911 is important
- Comcast has a way to make 911 work better because it's on their network.
- Because they can't treat the other VoIP the same, Comcast VoIP should be best effort too?
Help me understand the logic please. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| substantial change in terms of service.. this is the new line in the sand. customers need to rise up and switch to any and all competitiors if these new substantial changes in terms of service are not agreeable to their customer base. when large numbers of customers change providers to a telco and/or a satellite tv competition, then we'll see if that bothers comcast enough (make sure you tell the reps why your switching). in many areas of the country, the competitive offerings totally suck.. and for those people.. your S C R E W E D ! ! ! For the rest whom are not locked down to a monopoly cable company.. it's high time you begin your move to the competition. as we know, change can be a good thing (or shall it take 8 years of 250gb caps and deprioritized service FAP's, aka throttling).. if you don't want to see all isp's get the idea that they can begin offering less product for more money (at a time when wholesale bandwidth is becoming magnitudes cheaper than ever before) you will do the right thing and make comcast pay for this substatial change in terms of service. | |
|
| |
zincPremium
join:2004-02-17
Kitchener, ON | RTFA? The FCC isn't saying Comcast can't affect third party VoIP, they're saying because their throttle doesn't affect their own VoIP it should be considered a "telecommunications service" (like landline) so it has all the extra fees and regulation.
This is just like DSL and POTS. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: RTFA? said by zinc:The FCC isn't saying Comcast can't affect third party VoIP, they're saying because their throttle doesn't affect their own VoIP it should be considered a "telecommunications service" (like landline) so it has all the extra fees and regulation. This is just like DSL and POTS. I disagree with the FCC. The VOIP/CDV comcast carries is in fact VOIP.. it's not classified as "phone service" in the eyes of the current definitions.
What IS different here is that the CDV service does not use the "internet".. rather, it uses a private company 'intranet' to connect their service.. this would be the same if the company provided some of it's television services via IPTV... the IPTV wouldn't be running over the internet.. it would be running over a private portion of their own network/intranet.
This is nothing like DSL and POTS. | |
|
| |  fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | Re: RTFA? said by fiberguy:said by zinc:The FCC isn't saying Comcast can't affect third party VoIP, they're saying because their throttle doesn't affect their own VoIP it should be considered a "telecommunications service" (like landline) so it has all the extra fees and regulation. This is just like DSL and POTS. I disagree with the FCC. The VOIP/CDV comcast carries is in fact VOIP.. it's not classified as "phone service" in the eyes of the current definitions. What IS different here is that the CDV service does not use the "internet".. rather, it uses a private company 'intranet' to connect their service.. this would be the same if the company provided some of it's television services via IPTV... the IPTV wouldn't be running over the internet.. it would be running over a private portion of their own network/intranet. This is nothing like DSL and POTS. Sorry, but it is an either/or situation. Either Comcast's service is VoIP and must be treated like any other VoIP and subject to the same "throttling", or their service is a "telecommunications service" and subject to the exact same rules and regulations that everyone else's telecommunications services are subject. Changing the definition to suit you depending on who is asking doesn't work anymore. That is simply equivocating and dishonest, but then that is par for the course with companies like Comcast these days.
--
***************
I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
- Stephen Hawking | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: RTFA? Sorry, it's not cut and dry as you'd like it to be. It IS a voip service protocol that runs over its private segregated network.
It's silly to say that it has to be one way or another. Their switched service was not regulated and ran over a private network. Why should VOIP protocol based service be different? If they offer IPTV, should it too be subject to throttling? Maybe AT&T, when they introduce their caps, should have the same thing?
I'm sorry.. the argument just doesn't work in this case. | |
|
|
| | | Keeping it simple CDV is not the same as vonage. Vonage uses the internet to route your calls CDV don't. It stays within the comcast network. If you're a cdv customer calling another cdv cust it stays within the network just like at&t uverse. its ip based in the network. If you have cdv and you're calling an at&t cust it is connected to at&t directly at the headend with a softswitch. | |
|
| |  EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9 | Re: Keeping it simple said by Tech CDV :
If you have cdv and you're calling an at&t cust it is connected to at&t directly at the headend with a softswitch.
Are you certain that the switch is located at the headend ?
Could it not be somewhere within the local/regional CRAN ? | |
|
| | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Let's just make this simple said by megarock:Because in most places Comcast still has what can be summed up as a MONOPOLY they can and will do what they want when they want. They will get caught and each time it happens they will just find another way to do what they want. Really? Name some of those places would you? Where are these "monopolies" you speak of.. Last time I checked, phone networks existed in every town across america and satellite is available in the 48 states.
It doesn't matter what or who they throttle, they will do it. It doesn't matter what package you pay for, they will find a way to give you less than what you pay for. The sky is falling too, right? Give you less? Last I checked, in the last 8 years, we've gone from up to 1.5 to speeds now reaching 50 meg. The comcast system is currently pushing out 12 & 16 to many areas.. I don't really recall any significant rate changes and yet the speeds have increased. I also certainly bet you come no where near comcast's 250 gig cap for two reasons.. 1) you're not a comcast customer, right? and 2) you probably don't even meter or check yourself.
The only way it ends is to push the FCC to end their monopoly. Right.. becuase the federal government needs to be involved in ever aspect of this country and should extend it's reach further into the rights of states. Let's push further for a one state country.
There should always be at least two competitors in every service field - internet, phone, television service, etc. Fine! Take the plunge.. go find those cities where only one exists and build your own system. What are you really saying here? .. that the government should MANDATE that someone build a system where only one exists? .. if they can't force someone, should the government build it for you? Last I checked, I don't recall phone, who does have a mandate to have network all over, keeping cable of the city, so I think your point is kinda moot all around.
Sad thing is until people demand it in unison and accept nothing but - we will continue to be bashed against the wall by these providers. Sad thing is if it were not for their monopolies most of these companies would have been gone a long, long time ago. They do what they do because most of their clients have no other choice. What you don't realize, is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
In the case of phone, they wouldn't exist anywhere unless they were paid partially by tax payer money to help build these systems everywhere.. and still are!
In the case of cable, built with private money, there would STILL only be ONE provider today even if more came in, which never would have. You just don't get it! You think that there is some sort of unlimited fund pile of money to build all these networks you want, and keep running them. Cable asked for monopoly status when they came in for a reason. They KNEW they had to lay out millions of dollars to build. If it were your money, would you want some sort of protection of your investment? would you want to have stability of the systems in play? If you had 2 systems built, one would most likely fail and get gobbled up by the other anyway. There are some exceptions where two systems exist, like parts of Chicago.. the cases are rare and have certain exceptions as to why two can exist.
Monopolies were once needed so the systems could get off the ground and be built. I will agree, now, that the monopolies are no longer required as the systems are built and in place, however, STILL, while many places allow competition in, where are all the builders eager at the bit to jump in and get going? Even Utopia is not doing well to day with all the providers..
.. all these dreams and ideas sound good in a rant for the "cause".. however, in reality, they will NEVER work.. becuase for one, you also forget one key component.. YOU! .. YOU the consumer doesn't want to, nor will, support their provider to the level that the provider needs to survive financially. As it is already, people use these promotions and offers as a tool and game to beat the prices down. If everyone did that, the companies wouldn't be able to keep investing into their own systems to give you that "more" you want too.
So really.. think about it.. I'd love to see you run any one of these evil empires.. run it with your rules.. your terms.. your ideas... and lets see if you're good at obtaining a bankruptcy firm to handle your bankruptcy too.
I'm not going to say EVERY thing done is in the 'best interest of the consumer'... however, where is it said that is has to be? The business is in business to make money.. the consumer is always looking for lower prices and something new or something more... the fact is that prices go up, and the consumer does in fact get more. However, bitching is just America's favorite past time.
It's a sad state of this country.. its going to get worse too.. watching the inauguration coverage, they're asking some of the younger people what they'd rather see while there.. Obama? or Byonce.. Mylie Cyrus...? (or other stars) Most of the younger people would see the stars.. its becoming a joke around here and people wonder why this country is falling apart - and it is falling apart!
Time to take personal ownership in reality and live by it. I agree with SOME of the arguments.. I know there are some systems of providers that are worse than others.. and then there are some really good systems out there (both cable and phone) however.. this proclaimed national crisis that some people around here like to cry about all day long is FAR more exaggerated that reality would prove. | |
|
|
|
·
This is a non-issue and can't be fixed even if it was
