espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·Embarq Now Century..
 ·VoiceStick
·Vitelity VOIP
 ·Comcast
·Comcast Workplace
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Callcentric
·ViaTalk
| reply to ztmike
Re: Die!
said by ztmike  :That its going to kill any users using their connection for 3rd party VOIP 64kbps RTP voice streams aren't even close to being an issue.
said by ztmike :I also guess I can kiss goodbye to hosting a game server on my Playstation 3, and be at the mercy of other people hosting the game.  Game server traffic isn't a problem either.
Downloading the last 4 seasons of House from BT in one shot, now that might be an issue. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Embarq Now Century..
·VoiceStick
·Vitelity VOIP
·Comcast
·Comcast Workplace
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Callcentric
·ViaTalk
| reply to jc100
Re: Waiting...
said by jc100 :Simple solution. Limit the speed of high users, hence alleviating congestion and free up speed for everyone else. That's exactly what it sounds like Comcast is implementing here, no? |
|
Jovi
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA
 ·T-Mobile US
| Good luck with that Comcast
As I said over on another site about this topic:
It is easier to limit bandwidth, instead of increasing it. People are using the internet for more than just email and basic browsing. Instead of meeting the challenges of the ever evolving internet, they 're holding it back. I do not see how the bad habits of the few downloading hundreds of gigs a months, can set a companies policy for the other 97% of users. Good job Comcast.
--
"Where's my coffee? Oh. I guess it's my turn to make it."  |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10 | reply to espaeth
Re: Waiting...
Nope they are instituting usage caps (X amount allowed) versus speed caps (no limits on usage but limits on bandwidth capacity). I think a bandwidth capacity limit would be better than a usage cap. My 2 cents. |
|
AlexNYC
join:2001-06-02
Edwards, CO | reply to phantom6294
Re: Voip 911
Network going down because of unexpected problem is one thing, throttling on purpose and affecting other providers VoIP service on purpose is totally different and could be considered a predatory practice. |
|
jarthur31
join:2006-04-14
Carlsbad, NM
| reply to jc100
Re: Beware of the backlash from your customers.
Man you make too much sense! But the thing with that logic is if it diminishes their bottom line corporate America will never adopt such a policy. They surely don't want to scare away new victims, I mean customers.
I have nothing against caps either but they need to spell it out in black and white and allow the consumer to view how much traffic they're generating. They should've started doing this years ago instead of lying. And remove the most aggregious offenders.
Yes, I have done and will continue to do some d/l and u/l but I've never consumed more than 40 gb in any month that I've had broadband. It makes me angry that they think it's ok to just throttle everything and reduce my d/l speed to under 100 kb/s when my connection is really 8 times faster than that. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Embarq Now Century..
·VoiceStick
·Vitelity VOIP
·Comcast
·Comcast Workplace
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Callcentric
·ViaTalk
| reply to jc100
Re: Waiting...
Actually, I don't disagree with that at all. The key constraint in networks is rate, not quantity, so it only makes sense to come up with a good mechanism for balancing the traffic rates that each subscriber gets. In the hosting world quantity based limits are loved by users and hated by providers, because all too often someone will wait until the last 3 or 4 days of the billing cycle to decide they want to move 400GB of data but still be under their 1500GB/mo limit.
The problem is that most users have trouble with the difference between rate and quantity when it comes to talking about bandwidth. It happens in nearly every thread on this site.
I wonder if there is any good way to bridge that gap in understanding to arrive at a shared network plan that is truly fair? |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Embarq Now Century..
·VoiceStick
·Vitelity VOIP
·Comcast
·Comcast Workplace
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Callcentric
·ViaTalk
| reply to AlexNYC
Re: Voip 911
said by AlexNYC :Network going down because of unexpected problem is one thing, throttling on purpose and affecting other providers VoIP service on purpose is totally different and could be considered a predatory practice. .. but it's not VoIP traffic that would cause the throttle to kick in. You'd basically end up in the same situation you have today where you can screw your VoIP traffic by saturating your line with other non-related traffic (P2P / streaming whatever / large downloads / etc)
It's not predatory -- you have a great deal of control over your own destiny through how you use your connection. |
|
AlexNYC
join:2001-06-02
Edwards, CO | Please read the previous two posts above my last post. We are not discussing saturating your own line regarding VoIP service. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Embarq Now Century..
·VoiceStick
·Vitelity VOIP
·Comcast
·Comcast Workplace
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Callcentric
·ViaTalk
| said by AlexNYC :Please read the previous two posts above my last post. We are not discussing saturating your own line regarding VoIP service. Please describe a scenario, as it relates to the description of how Comcast will be rate-limiting heavy users, where VoIP traffic would be impacted by something other than local saturation.
If you have an 8mbps connection and you hit it hard, you would be scaled back to say 2mbps. The only reason your 64kbps RTP stream wouldn't work in that scenario is if you were drowning it with other traffic on your connection. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to dynodb
Re: Waiting...
I tend to agree that there's a limit at both ends.
1. Don't sell something (i.e. +20Mbps/1Mbps) then cap/filter because you can't reasonably sell that product anyways. Eg. If everyone was at 1.5Mbps, there would probably be no issue on that same node.
2. 20Mbps 'looks' better for sales than '1.5Mbps', especially for video apps. E.g. You 'need' to have this package to do 'X'.
Its all marketing, and a way to ensure that the 'unlimited' isn't 'SYN FLOOD'.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to espaeth
Well the honest truth is this, and honestly this. You have a large share of users who are not tech savvy. They are susceptible to hackers, viruses, botnets, etc. These users wouldn't know the difference if they used the bandwidth or someone else. The other half are tech savvy but probably could care less. You have a small amount who given the tools would be conscience of their usage. Therefore, my solution above is the most reasonable. For the less tech savvy, their bandwidth is slowed down. It will cut usage on the network, and make them solve the problem of why they consume bandwidth (virus, hacked, etc). For the other portion that like to download a ton, capping them with speed limits would make them more conscientious. Let's face it, people don't want to wait a long time on their download. Making a 10mbit line 2-3mbit down is quite a punishment. It is enough to where it might discourage high users but not to the point where it pisses them off. Plus, it lessons the strain on the network. I know some foreign isps do this. Cap high users during peak hours. It would be a start. |
|
indy0365
join:2001-08-25
Franklin, IN
| reply to telcolackey
Yeah... they are screwing it up so bad they have become a profitable and successful ISP (not easy to do) that has driven the broadband industry
I would think the profitable isp has to to more with frequent rate hikes on the tv cable side they charge 4.99 to 6.99 for a movie
comcast bought my old cable co out insight
first thing we get is a rate hike
I still have the same speed/package
I had with my old cable co same price to
Damn them for providing a solid product for 99% of the customer base!
sure ok depends which market you in some markets its vs fios some markets its dsl lets see the same price/speed for everyone
Damn them for introducing powerboost that increases speed for interactive apps.
got me on that one i just noticed its increases download speed for the first 10 megs ? then drops off kida like a tease |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to ph03n1x
Re: Must Maintain 100% Policy Transparency
said by ph03n1x :The customers that will be affected by this will never like it, nor should they. However they should demand, unlike previous mystery caps, that Comcast remain 100% transparent about at what point you fall into the "heavy user" category. So far right now it seems like they're setting the bar at 200gigs per month which is a decently high mark. They should not ever consider lowering this limit and should be willing to raise the bar as speeds and bandwidth needs increase. 200 GB/mo is only about 640 kbps -- which is quite easy to hit, even when averaged out over 15 minutes or a half hour.
They'd better set it quite a bit higher than that!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to espaeth
Re: Die!
said by espaeth :said by ztmike :That its going to kill any users using their connection for 3rd party VOIP 64kbps RTP voice streams aren't even close to being an issue. said by ztmike :I also guess I can kiss goodbye to hosting a game server on my Playstation 3, and be at the mercy of other people hosting the game. Game server traffic isn't a problem either. Downloading the last 4 seasons of House from BT in one shot, now that might be an issue. If the node is congested, the heavy users' VOIP packet will get a lower priority than the light users's download of a season of House.
Exactly what I did not want to happen -- someone's background transfer will get a priority over a VOIP 9-1-1 call.
This is dumb and it is not network neutral.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to Jovi
Re: Good luck with that Comcast
said by Jovi :As I said over on another site about this topic: It is easier to limit bandwidth, instead of increasing it. People are using the internet for more than just email and basic browsing. Instead of meeting the challenges of the ever evolving internet, they 're holding it back. I do not see how the bad habits of the few downloading hundreds of gigs a months, can set a companies policy for the other 97% of users. Good job Comcast. Meanwhile, we, the country that invented the Internet, remain 15th to 24th place (depending on the survey) in the Broadband rankings.
If we were in first place, maybe I could agree with you.
Cable ought to be figuring out how to give their customers the product that they're charging us for -- not figuring out how to "fairly" prevent us from accessing it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | reply to espaeth
Re: Waiting...
said by espaeth :The problem is that most users have trouble with the difference between rate and quantity when it comes to talking about bandwidth. It happens in nearly every thread on this site. Q. What's the difference between 60 miles per hour or a mile per minute?
A. None
Bandwidth is bandwidth is bandwidth. If you have an amount divided by a time period, that's an expression of bandwidth.
Only in Comcast land do people invent concepts to purposefully cloud the issue. What's surprising is that people actually buy it and repeat it!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to espaeth
Re: Voip 911
said by espaeth :If you have an 8mbps connection and you hit it hard, you would be scaled back to say 2mbps. The only reason your 64kbps RTP stream wouldn't work in that scenario is if you were drowning it with other traffic on your connection. No, they're not scaling back to 2 Mbps. They're giving the heavy user's traffic a lower priority for a while, meaning the traffic with higher priority (everyone elses) has to clear the queue to avoid your packets getting dumped.
The good thing about that is that they're not scaling back traffic to an artificially low threshhold -- the entire neighborhood can consume the entire bandwidth pool.
However, the bad thing about that is that someone's VOIP 9-1-1 call can and will get a lower prioritization than their neighbor's 1100 photo upload to Walgreens.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Embarq Now Century..
·VoiceStick
·Vitelity VOIP
·Comcast
·Comcast Workplace
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Callcentric
·ViaTalk
| reply to funchords
Re: Die!
said by funchords :If the node is congested, the heavy users' VOIP packet will get a lower priority than the light users's download of a season of House. It doesn't work that way -- they will most likely only rate limit the heavy users, not change the priority. (DSCP isn't granular enough to prioritize a downstream or upstream channel on a per-user basis)
said by funchords :Exactly what I did not want to happen -- someone's background transfer will get a priority over a VOIP 9-1-1 call. 2 words: guaranteed minimum. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Embarq Now Century..
·VoiceStick
·Vitelity VOIP
·Comcast
·Comcast Workplace
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Callcentric
·ViaTalk
| reply to funchords
Re: Waiting...
said by funchords :Q. What's the difference between 60 miles per hour or a mile per minute? 60 miles per hour could be 50 minutes of 0 miles per minute, and 10 minutes of 6 miles per minute.
said by funchords :Bandwidth is bandwidth is bandwidth. If you have an amount divided by a time period, that's an expression of bandwidth. But interfaces are only capable of moving so many bit per second. It doesn't matter if 1mbps is roughly 330GB/mo -- that doesn't mean you can try to move 330GB in just one of those 30 days and have it work.
This is like reporting how many cars a highway can move per hour vs how many cars it can move per day. Those are vastly differently numbers with very different meanings.
You're demonstrating my point quite nicely though, Robb. You're an incredibly sharp guy (I mean this genuinely, no BS), and yet you're falling into the same pitfalls most on this site do. |
|
