dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2008-03-27 10:06:26: Comcast and BitTorrent this morning jointly announced that by the end of this year, Comcast will migrate "to a capacity management technique that is protocol agnostic. ..

prev page · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · next

TIGERON

join:2008-03-11
Pacifica, CA
reply to DHRacer

Re: Don't assume anything

THANK YOU


djtr4in

join:2008-03-27
Frederick, MD
reply to Matt3

direct opti line to my house...same speed through out the day compared to comcast which slows at peak hours..6pm-9pm due to everyone in the area home from work and relaxing and browsing the net.



funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

2 edits
reply to FFH

Re: What if pirates don't use the new friendlier BitTorrent S/W?

said by FFH:

And what if the pirates don''t use the new friendlier versions of BitTorrent and continue to use versions that don't play nice with the ISPs? What then?
That's an excellent question.

The current version is not unfriendly. The real question is whether a "smarter" location-aware version provides a better overall experience for P2P users.

IMHO:

I've used BitTorrent DNA. I've also used some of the other emerging features in Vuze and uTorrent. Ninety percent of the time, these features do provide at least the same or better performance for the end-user with no expense to privacy or coexistence with other uses.

"Better" will always win. "The Same" will take longer to adopt, but it does mean that these features that are normally turned off by default in current versions have been tested and can be turned on by default in later releases.

Part of the challenge will be to convince the ISPs that peer data caching will never catch on with users who feel that it may invade upon their privacy. Regardless, it is still a good idea as it will offload a significant portion.

Much of today's P2P traffic is clear to download (example: Open-source software) and much is copyrighted but of little concern of the copyright holder toward enforcement (example: the latest OTA broadcast of the soap-opera "One Life to Live").

Downloaders have got to get over some things, too:

    •The hoarding mentality -- no, you don't need to download every file you can find on a private tracker somewhere. These will always be available. If you're eventually going to use them without paying, you can just download it later.
    •The 1:1 or 100% ratio as a measure of fairness -- no 'sharing' relationship is accounted for so closely as the relationship between file sharers. In Real Life (IRL), sharing relationships are often quite lopsided, with those that have more sharing more.
    •Ignoring copyright does not make it go away. The law has been lobbied and stretched to the point it is broken. Copyright was designed so that Walt Disney (now dead 40 years) could make a living on his creations. Mickey Mouse, now 80 years old, has fifteen years to go before he 'retires' into the public domain. Copyright is a good idea gone bad. Don't ignore it, fix it!

--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report.

TIGERON

join:2008-03-11
Pacifica, CA
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service

1 recommendation

reply to JasonD

Explain how is it stealing bandwidth when:

1. Comcast has stated record profits just last year even though their stock is down,
2. At almost $60 a month for each of the 12 million subscribers, Comcast is simply the conduit and it should NOT matter what is being is traveling on their network LEGAL OR NOT. It is not their responsibility to play traffic cop. That is law enforcement's job.
3. If you want to attack Bittorrent and its business model saying that its trouncing on some else's network for free, then you might as well attack iTUNES, Amazon.com (which sells digital downloads of audio and video) the ZUNE store, and many many others out there.



LeftOfSanity
People Suck.

join:2005-11-06
Dover, DE
reply to pokesph

The point being the content providers should provide the servers and bandwith to serve/host their content themselves.



Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09

1 recommendation

reply to Rick

Re: Talk about cutting the Comcast naysayers off

I expect no less bullsh!t from you, Rick.


Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
reply to TZi

Re: Don't assume anything

said by TZi:

I too believe that Comcast ought to be more upfront about just what constitutes over-use. However when you take into account how diverse the plants that they own are (750Mhz, 850Mhz, 1Ghz?) + (DOCSIS 1.1, DOCSIS 2.0 DOCSIS 3.0) , and even the different nodes within systems (100 subs on node A, 17 subs on NODE B), you can understand why it is somewhat difficult to put in the TOS a black and white definition of overuse. Not to mention the fact that services and subscriber load on a system could change on a weekly or daily basis.
That's a good point, but Cox somehow manages to do it, and I'm sure they suffer from exactly the same issues that Comcast does.

A diverse plant actually is one of the areas where infrastructure upgrades does make sense. I have no doubt whatsoever that MSOs have network surveillance that monitor nodes for oversubscription, identify good candidates for upgrades, etc. I'm sure they do node splits and similar upgrades all the time as their business grows.

What I would like to see is a high cap on how much you can use the service in a month, one that would pretty much never catch 95% of their users (The MSOs routinely claim that only about 1% of users violate the invisible caps). Give people a way of tracking their usage on their website. Then selectively enforce the cap on those nodes where the heavy users are actually impacting others, while letting heavy users on other nodes that don't have the same impact skate by until they do.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to Matt3

Re: TCP Resets a Red Herring?

said by Matt3:

Now, instead of everyone yelling about the bandwidth hogs, they've accepted that the bandwidth hogs will be throttled, but everyone else won't be. The problem is, who determines what a bandwidth hog is or what is deemed excessive usage?

Very clever ... or as Monte Burns would say, "Excellent!"


Yeah, let's analyze this.

1. BitTorrent, Inc., who is not a party to the FCC complaint or rule-making petition, has "made a deal" with Comcast, who has never told a straight fact twice.

2. Comcast and BitTorrent both stipulate that
a. BitTorrent is the most popular P2P protocol, and
b. that it is the heaviest user of bandwidth.

3. Comcast will change its discrimination target from
a. the BitTorrent protocol, to
b. BitTorrent's users

4. Representing BitTorrent in these negotiations was Jessica "Is Chicken of the Sea chicken or tuna?" Simpson.

Actually, I'm more optimistic than that -- but I have learned that Ronald Reagan's "Trust but Verify" policy was a good one.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

1 edit
reply to Corydon

Re: Don't assume anything

quote:
That's a good point, but Cox somehow manages to do it, and I'm sure they suffer from exactly the same issues that Comcast does.
As an aside, Cox also uses the exact same packet forgery approach to throttle eDonkey traffic, but people generally ignored that when we pointed it out last year.


Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to openbox9

Re: "Protocol Agnostic" means EVERYTHING

said by openbox9:

said by priller:

By saying "protocol agnostic", that means they will target ALL types of traffic, not just BT!
Yes, based on this press release, Comcast users can expect to see a wider swath of traffic shaping. I'm sure everyone will be happy now that Comcast won't be picking on the innocent P2P protocols...
It actually IS a good thing. When they start slowing down ALL traffic, more folks than just the P2P users will start bitching. Hence more calls for network neutrality.


Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to openbox9

Re: If they actually make good on their promise

If companies like Comcrap weren't so caught up in the quest for short term profits, they would be upgrading their networks to handle more traffic. The only one that seems to have a clue is Verizon.


moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
reply to FFH

Re: Don't assume anything

said by FFH:

Yes. And they should take actions to stop illegal content. And also to reign in the bandwidth hogs(top 5% of users).
How about some of that illegal spam bot action that seems to come from Comcast subscribers whose machines are infected?


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 recommendation

reply to FFH

said by FFH:

Yes. And they should take actions to stop illegal content. And also to reign in the bandwidth hogs(top 5% of users).
I have a better idea.

Create a skunkworks to figure out a better "last-mile" solution, and let the bandwidth hogs volunteer to test it FOR FREE.

... erm, well maybe I'd be the only volunteer for that -- I'm probably one of the only guys that downloads porn just to look at the articles datagrams ...
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report.


dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
reply to JasonD

Re: What if pirates don't use the new friendlier BitTorrent S/W?

Think about this... FREE content.
No one nowhere is making a cent off of free content.
It's - FREE!

So, me wanting to get this free content, I understand that I have to use my PAID FOR connection to get it.
At some point in time, whomever made this free content, or someone they know, had to have used their PAID FOR connection to upload it to somewhere or someone, right?

I know full well, that when using BT, that if I were to kill uploading, my download would dwindle and maybe even stop.
I know that if my share ratio gets too low, people(other BT users) will boot me and even ban me.
All my life, I have had it pounded into me to "share".
Well, duh!

So you see my friend, no one is "stealing bandwidth".
Peer 1 - 1000 are paying for their connection(that means bandwidth BTW) and are sending me small parts and bits of a LEGAL file I request.
Since I am a nice person, and realize that others might want to see fine women in bikinis, I have NO PROBLEM letting my upload send out the various episodes of MariposaHD...

»www.mariposahd.tv/

"Welcome to the future of television!

mariposaHD is the world's first High Definition TV series distributed directly on the Internet. And it's free. mariposaHD is recorded, edited, and distributed in the full 1920x1080 pixel resolution of the 1080i standard. We distribute mariposaHD using the BitTorrent peer-to-peer software. With a broadband Internet connection, you can download and watch mariposaHD on your PC, your HDTV, or even a video iPod."

.. to ANYONE that happens to request it via the BT protocol.
My shit is paid for, period!
Pretty sure, 99.99999% of the peers I happen to pull from are also paid for connections and they are willing to help make my downloads max out.

Learning is fun!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera


moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
reply to Rick

Re: Talk about cutting the Comcast naysayers off

said by Rick:

at the knees.

Today..they wake up to a joint press release from Comcast..

and bittorrent themselves.

OMFG!!

I'll tell you..anyone who says that this isn't one very progressive and responsive ISP has been barking up the WRONG tree.

Since being converted over from Adelphia last year..I've been continually amazed and impressed at what this company has done and offered us...taking us from 4400k speeds with adelphia to 30,000k powerboost speeds now.

At zero additional cost nonetheless.

And, as of late..it's been docsis 3.0 and their aggressive plans there..and now...this.

This is a company that if forward looking if I've ever seen one. And one that delivers a lot of value.

And today..with this announcement..they've proved it once again..even to the loudest and most vocal among BBR users.

Comcast..and Bittorrent..aligned.

Joint press prelease.

Amazing.

Simply..amazing.
Extra dose of Comcast Kool-Aid today Rick?

Tell us again how Comcast never forged packets or lied about it.


LeftOfSanity
People Suck.

join:2005-11-06
Dover, DE
reply to djtr4in

Re: Don't assume anything

said by djtr4in:

direct opti line to my house...same speed through out the day compared to comcast which slows at peak hours..6pm-9pm due to everyone in the area home from work and relaxing and browsing the net.
Is that standard throughout the country or an experience that you or someone you know had?

Fios is a shared medium also.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

reply to DHRacer

You are incorrect in your assumptions regardless of legality.

You do NOT purchase bandwidth to use 100% 24/7. You purchase it with them having the expectation that you will be an average user using the average amount of bandwidth. They do understand that there will be those that use more and those that use less than the average. However, those that are using an extreme amount need to be dealt with as it effects everyone (them and the other customers).

I personally would say they need to have tiers with caps above what a 'typical' user would use. As you move into those tiers your connection is throttled more and more. If you need more bandwidth or higher caps you buy it and pay a "surcharge" to be an "avid downloader or uploader".


wierdo

join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK

1 edit
reply to Karl Bode

said by Karl Bode:

quote:
That's a good point, but Cox somehow manages to do it, and I'm sure they suffer from exactly the same issues that Comcast does.
As an aside, Cox also uses the exact same packet forgery approach to throttle eDonkey traffic, but people generally ignored that when we pointed it out last year.
Oh, they do it to BitTorrent in some markets (or at least were a couple of months ago)

Edited to add: As of a few minutes ago, they're not blocking outright anymore, they're just throttling the crap out of it. I have a server connected over GigE to Cox San Diego (among other ISPs) with an all Cox path to my cable modem in Tulsa. Using BitTorrent, the server can seed a given file to me in Tulsa at a mere 25.6KBps. Over HTTP, I can download the same file at my full cap.

It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to Karl Bode

said by Karl Bode:

quote:
That's a good point, but Cox somehow manages to do it, and I'm sure they suffer from exactly the same issues that Comcast does.
As an aside, Cox also uses the exact same packet forgery approach to throttle eDonkey traffic, but people generally ignored that when we pointed it out last year.
I'm 100% sure the same was happening with BitTorrent. My Cox partner in testing was having too many wireshark problems for me to be able to prove it, however. So the only evidence I had was anecdotal.

My confidence is based simply on the fact that Cox is using Sandvine and ED2K is an "also ran" as far as P2P protocols go. A USA cable MSO is not going to use Sandvine P2P policy enforcement without going after BitTorrent.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report.


Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
reply to djtr4in

said by djtr4in:

direct opti line to my house...same speed through out the day compared to comcast which slows at peak hours..6pm-9pm due to everyone in the area home from work and relaxing and browsing the net.
I also have a direct optical line to my house that is based upon BPON technology.

That doesn't negate the fact it's still shared at the neighborhood node.


LeftOfSanity
People Suck.

join:2005-11-06
Dover, DE
reply to Jim Kirk

Re: If they actually make good on their promise

said by Jim Kirk:

If companies like Comcrap weren't so caught up in the quest for short term profits, they would be upgrading their networks to handle more traffic. The only one that seems to have a clue is Verizon.
Docsis 3?


TZi

join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Corydon

Re: Don't assume anything

said by Corydon:

What I would like to see is a high cap on how much you can use the service in a month, one that would pretty much never catch 95% of their users (The MSOs routinely claim that only about 1% of users violate the invisible caps).
The reason these caps are "invisible" is because it would ultimately mean issuing a cap on a node-by-node basis which would be ridiculous considering most users don't even know what a bandwidth cap is. I don't even really think that Comcast even has a number that constitutes abuse, they simply identify users on a node which are consuming resources to the point that it is causing performance degradation and dealing with them accordingly.

If they told you don't transfer over XYZ amount a month then 100 subscribers signed on next month, that number would no longer be relevant or effective. So too, if 100 users cancelled next month and you were forced to adhere to XYZ that would mean loads of network capacity go unused which could be used to satisfy you as a subscriber.

I don't think comcast intends to hide the "invisible" cap from us, it's just that the number is ultimately dynamic.

As for a webpage that details your total transfer, there are several programs for windows (in fact windows itself) and some routers that can keep track of your total usage. While it is easy for satellite providers who have one central NOC to provide such usage statistics, it would be a nightmare for comcast who is constantly acquiring older systems, migrating recently acquired systems and building out new systems to aggregate all this data onto a webpage.
--
128kbps too much, 100GBps never enough!


LeftOfSanity
People Suck.

join:2005-11-06
Dover, DE

1 recommendation

reply to djtr4in

Re: Comcast blows

said by djtr4in:

Shit has been wack for years
Case Closed,

How could you possibly argue with that?

wierdo

join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
reply to LeftOfSanity

Re: Hmmm...

said by LeftOfSanity:

I was never a fan of BT myself, anything I have ever tried to D/L with it took forever.
Download some Linux ISOs and you'll find exactly the opposite.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to TZi

Re: Don't assume anything

Our uplinks are too small to blame any one or any few users on a performance degradation. It's like trying to blame a particular rainstorm or a particular sunny day on El Nino or Global Warming.

That said, in the past, I think they have acted reactively -- in just the way that you described. They either looked at nodes with high utilization or looked at nodes with a high number of complaints. Then they made "the warning call."

But within the past year or so, there has been a stronger campaign and it seems to me that they may have made "the warning call" to certain users proactively -- perhaps where they were about to add a 16Mbps tier or where they were about to launch Comcast Digital Voice.

said by TZi:

As for a webpage that details your total transfer, there are several programs for windows (in fact windows itself) and some routers that can keep track of your total usage. While it is easy for satellite providers who have one central NOC to provide such usage statistics, it would be a nightmare for comcast who is constantly acquiring older systems, migrating recently acquired systems and building out new systems to aggregate all this data onto a webpage.
Assuming that you are right, then fair enough. However after "the warning call," the user should be able to get some periodic self-monitoring feedback from the provider. Perhaps someone can manually grab the data each week and send it via e-mail to those under "the warning." This way, a user at risk can understand whether the high usage is something nefarious (like a virus or a leeching neighborhood) or accidental (a lousy remote-backup configuration, or someone watching an HD-quality video stream 24/7 and merely turning off the monitor before going to school).

Currently, the only feedback they get is whether or not you have Internet service 30 days after that warning call.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report.

Samwoo

join:2002-02-15
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
reply to LeftOfSanity

Don't forget to mention... The INTERNET as a whole is a shared medium.
Who shares what nodes on the other hand is a difficult question.


Samwoo

join:2002-02-15
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA

1 edit
reply to bngdup

Re: What good is DOCSIS 3.0 if there are inivisible caps?

Caps don't put a bandwidth speed limit like pipe size does.
A cap, if we are using highways as an analogy is like telling someone they can only travel up to 100 miles in a day. So if we increase the pipe size/speed, and in analogy increase the speed limit, commuters can get to their destinations faster, but they still might not be able to go to far away destinations.

Bah. just think of it in terms of a longer term power boost. You can download faster, but you can't download a whole lot more on the average.

Because, if you can reach your 100 Gig cap in 1 day, well then you can get all that much content in 1 day rather than 1 month.

A 50 mbps would be necessary for something like clicking on the web browser and streaming a HD movie with minimal latency. It doesn't mean that the user will be able to watch 100 more movies (because of the overall caps), but it means that the user won't have to wait 20 minutes to buffer the stream.

To some people, the internet isn't a continuous download crunch. I guess you do not understand this, as you do not download things for instant gratification (how could you? you seem to be downloading more content than you can even consume at once). But there is definitely reason to increase bandwidth, yet keep caps where they are. And many people will see benefits to the bandwidth increase.

I'm not saying that bandwidth increases will be more beneficial to you. Nor am I trying to say that your use of the internet is wrong or anything. I'm just trying to point out that there will definitely be benefits for higher caps, just benefits that you, personally may not understand or be able to realize (benefit from) for your internet needs.



DHRacer
Tech Monkey

join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA

1 edit
reply to Skippy25

Re: Don't assume anything

"You do NOT purchase bandwidth to use 100% 24/7. You purchase it with them having the expectation that you will be an average user using the average amount of bandwidth."

So even though the connection is on, I can't use it? Why not? You don't sign up for speed tiers by "usage" (though maybe they should change the tiers from "speed" to "usage") since everyone seems to think that more speed = more usage.

I'm still wondering where in the TOS is says what an "average user" is, or an how much is an "average amount of bandwidth". I'd hate to be an over achiever.



espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
reply to bngdup

Re: What good is DOCSIS 3.0 if there are inivisible caps?

said by bngdup:

Thats no different than building a 6 lane highway and setting the speed limit at 45mph
I think you mean keeping the 2 lane highway but bumping the speed limit to 90mph. (increasing speed, not quantity)


Addertooth

@qwest.net

throttling

This is still against the principal of broadband links. Comcast promises to provide X bandwidth for a given price. However, If you actually fill the data pipe you have paid for, you will recieve action against you, thus throttling you back to a lesser amount of effective bandwidth. Don't get me wrong; I have a broadband connection that I rarely use more than a fraction of its bandwidth. But should I wish to use more bandwidth some day, I would have the expectation I can use it freely, and without restrictions. It is the whole concept of throttling, and getting less than you pay for that I find reprehensable