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


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
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



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to moonpuppy

Re: Don't assume anything

said by moonpuppy:

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?
Good point. They should take them offline until they get their machines cleaned.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


Froggy

@teksavvy.com

What took them so long?

Well it's about time! The shareholders' meeting must have changed things.



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

Re: Don't assume anything

said by FFH:

said by moonpuppy:

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?
Good point. They should take them offline until they get their machines cleaned.
On this we're in 100% agreement. Get them offline ASAP.

hescominsoon

join:2003-02-18
Brunswick, MD

This is a load of BS

»gigaom.com/2008/03/27/spin-city-···on-deal/



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

FCC Commish: Comcast-BitTorrent Deal Proves FCC Role Needed

The following statement can be attributed to Commissioner Michael J. Copps in response to the Comcast-BitTorrent announcement today.

"Today's announcement confirms my belief that the FCC needs to play a proactive role in preserving the Internet as a vibrant place for democratic values, innovation and economic growth. If it had not been for the FCC's attention to this issue earlier this year, we would not be having the conversation that we are having now among network operators, edge content providers, consumers and government about the best way to implement reasonable network management.

"I look forward to learning more about this issue next month when the FCC holds a second hearing on Internet issues. I am confident that, through this process, the FCC can come up with clear rules of the road that will benefit American consumers and provide much-needed certainty to both network operators and Internet entrepreneurs."
»www.fcc.gov/
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.

bngdup

join:2007-02-20
Old Bridge, NJ
reply to espaeth

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

Yes I am aware of the flaws in the Highway Analogy.

My point remains the same. You say that you need 50Mbps to Stream an HD movie and Browse the web. I understand that but whether you are streaming that HD movie or legally downloading it doesn't matter to the router waiting to cap your ass.

Wow, I can now stream my Movie in HD clearly....for 30 minutes until you hit the bandwidth cap.

My point is that there are plenty of people who had no issues with 8Mbps down, that was plenty for them. The only problem was the cap. Now offering 50Mbps is not going to be that much different unless the caps are equally raised. So they'll hit their cap quicker....of course they will. That does little to alleviate the issue with the caps unless these customers are going get connections faster than 8 Mbps to their VPN's, File servers, game servers, whatever. Yes they can pack more down the pipe locally, but so long as its capped upstream it doesnt make that much of a difference.



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

FCC Chair to Comcast: Actions Speak Louder Than Words

said by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin :

... Comcast has not made clear when they will stop this discriminatory practice. It appears this practice will continue throughout the country until the end of the year and in some markets, even longer. While it may take time to implement its preferred new traffic management technique, it is not at all obvious why Comcast couldn’t stop its current practice of arbitrarily blocking its broadband customers from using certain applications. Comcast should provide its broadband customers as well as the Commission with a commitment of a date certain by when it will stop this practice.

The Commission will remain vigilant in ensuring that consumers have the ability to access the lawful content of their choice on the Internet. Our hearing on April 17 offers us the opportunity to explore more fully what constitutes reasonable network management practices ...
More from Martin and the other Commissioners can be found at »www.fcc.gov/
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to gaforces

A Q&A from Comcast VP on BitTorrent deal

»www.news.com/8301-10784_3-990468···1_3-0-20

To try to figure out what exactly Comcast is planning to do later this year as its part of this detente, I sat down with Comcast's Joe Waz, who is the senior vice president for external affairs and the company's public policy counsel. (Both of us happened to be here at a technology policy conference; I'm scheduled to do an onstage interview of Ashwin Navin, BitTorrent's president and co-founder, as part of the conference on Thursday afternoon.)
See the above link for the actual Q&A.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


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

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

First off, streaming video isn't going to be able to require 50mbps over the Internet until 100GigE interfaces become commonplace on backbones. (ie, not anytime soon)

Second, just because you have faster speeds doesn't necessarily mean you'll be downloading more content. In most cases people download what they download today plus a small amount more; the big benefit they just get the potential to download it a heck of a lot faster. There's only so much large content being generated that is worthwhile to fetch. In most cases to significantly ratchet up your usage you have to work on downloading insane amounts of crap.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to DHRacer

Re: Don't assume anything

More speed is irrelevant to more usage. You can just get what you want quicker. That doesn't mean you have to consume more just because you can. You can continue to try to skew the facts if you choose, but you are 100% wrong and not a single ISP or network manager will tell you otherwise.

The connection is always on and available and you can use it any time you want. However, if you think it is there for you to absorb 100's of GB or even TB of data at your leisure just because you can then you are sadly mistaken and it is clear in every TOS that if you are doing such they have the right to limit you or terminate you.

I would like to advocate limiting you through tiers and throttling as I think that is the most reasonable and consumer friendly approach. It also gives them another revenue stream for true user’s of that bandwidth to get it for a price if they want it. But the casual moron’s that try to download the entire internet every month just so they can say they did, won’t be willing to part with their cash (or mommy and daddy’s cash) so quick to continue doing so.



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

quote:
However, if you think it is there for you to absorb 100's of GB or even TB of data at your leisure just because you can then you are sadly mistaken and it is clear in every TOS that if you are doing such they have the right to limit you or terminate you.
Well then it's time to tell the marketing department to stop pretending the connection has no limits, impose overage fees, and deal with the public relations consequences instead of constantly whining about and demonizing users who actually use their connection.

wierdo

join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK

said by Karl Bode:

quote:
However, if you think it is there for you to absorb 100's of GB or even TB of data at your leisure just because you can then you are sadly mistaken and it is clear in every TOS that if you are doing such they have the right to limit you or terminate you.
Well then it's time to tell the marketing department to stop pretending the connection has no limits, impose overage fees, and deal with the public relations consequences instead of constantly whining about and demonizing users who actually use their connection.
Agreed. But maybe that's because I only use significantly more than Cox's almost never enforced cap one month out of ten lately.

When I had DSL, I was constantly downloading, though. Of course, that might have been because it was only 20% of the speed, so it took 5 times as long to download anything.

If I were the cable companies, I would impose a soft cap and throttle you after you exceeded it. The more you use, the slower it gets until you're down to 1.5Mbps. And I would publicize that as being my policy. None of the normal folks who use the satellite providers find their FAPs to be unreasonable in principle, only in the excessively low number at which they kick in. Unlike the cable companies, however, they are 100% up front about it.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
reply to Rick

Re: Talk about cutting the Comcast naysayers off

Is April Fools day here early because this HAS to be a joke.

Progressive? They created this issue to begin with! They use Sandvine, LIE about it, get the FCC involved, use placeholders to keep the public out of the meeting, then slink back and say they will use a traffic management system that will not block legitimate users of P2P, and that is PROGRESSIVE? I call it a defeat.

Responsive? They had some HORRIBLE PR over this, again had the FCC on them, and they are defeated and that is responsive?

You really thing they are forward looking by have Bittorrent at their press release?

You honestly think they are progressive, responsive, and forward thinking?

To use your own words-

"Amazing.

Simply Amazing".
--
"A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Jim Kirk

Re: If they actually make good on their promise

Comcast (and other ISPs) are spending billions to upgrade infrastructure, so I believe they're concerned with more than just short term profits


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Jim Kirk

Re: "Protocol Agnostic" means EVERYTHING

I doubt that. How will screwing with a majority of people's "Internet experience" drive them to ask for network neutrality? If anything, I would think that this will drive a majority of people to say "f@*% the hogs, fix my connection" and you'll have a majority of customers asking for P2P throttling.



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

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

I'd have to have a real P2P or Videophile fanatic confirm this -- but it seems to me that when I started looking into this P2P stuff a couple of years ago, that a popular file size for a full-length DIVX/AVI movie was about 700 MB. I have a sense now that 700 MB is on the way out and 1.4 GB seems to be rising a lot faster as the popular size.

The movies aren't any longer today than 2 years ago, they're just using better(?) resolution (or perhaps the HD dimensions are causing this?). Again, not my strength. I don't have the attention span for movies.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.



funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to openbox9

Re: If they actually make good on their promise

said by openbox9:

Comcast (and other ISPs) are spending billions to upgrade infrastructure, so I believe they're concerned with more than just short term profits
They're in a really tough spot right now. Investors want blood. During times like this, the quarterly results often get too much attention and the long term vision too little. (None of that is unique to Comcast.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif.


dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4

Key markets

Also known as fios areas.



dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4

Reasonal methods

We'll just throttle everything encrypted like rogers does.



LeeRich

@comcast.net

More Than Meets the Eye

It seems to me that there is more to this debate the average political rhetoric would suggest. A lot of the changes that some people demand just simply aren't possible the way the networks are currently engineered. And it may take many different companies - applications and operators - to re-engineer the network to accommodate the most number of users. Check this post by Richard Bennett, it goes into some of the technical detail that engineers, not politicians, need to do to solve the problem.

»bennett.com/blog/index.php/archi···shaping/