dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23146
share rss forum feed


Morty7
Premium
join:2004-09-18
reply to WhosAbuser

Re: Comcast abuse phone call.

said by WhosAbuser :

...Judging from the posts on a message board, you can conclude the number with the accuracy of less than 27500.
Yes and quite easily. And no, it's really not amazing at all. But maybe it is to someone who posts anonymously. If you think Comcast is unfair, don't use them. Stop beating a dead horse.

DMS1

join:2005-04-06
Plano, TX
reply to dvdivx

The people receiving these abuse calls are paying for a residential service, yet I suspect that in many cases their bandwidth usage far exceeds that of many small and even mid-size businesses. Such businesses are expected to pay hundreds of dollars a month for their internet services - why should these "abusing" users be any different?



WhosAbuser

@comcast.net
reply to juniorx

I can not eat more than 2 hotdogs. It is hard for me to image to eat more than 50 hotdogs. But such person does exist. Even though it is hard to believe for me, I do acknowledge the fact. People are different and have different need/taste/appetite. The world is much diversified. It is just as simple as that. 10 years ago, your current usage is probably qualified for "abuser". If everyone was narrow minded and believed that the average internet usage 10 years ago was sufficient, we would not have the internet where are today. The demand will keep the technologies advancing. What is wrong with 24/7 downloading if it is not prohibited and no explicit limit was set. You ISP is running a decent business by letting you know the explicit limit. It is not about whether you will exceed the limit. But rather it is about whether people are unfairly burdened on the usage.



WhosAbuser

@comcast.net
reply to Morty7

People can conclude anything without reasoning and facts. It is indeed pretty easy as you have done. Could you offer me a little reasoning on the relationship between amazing and anonymous? Avoiding unfairness may be your choice. Don't expect others choose the same.



WhosAbuser

@comcast.net
reply to DMS1

Good point. Tell Comcast to come up a better and reasonable pricing structure instead of attracts user then cracks down on their usage. Without an explicit limit, users are entitled to what service is supposed to offer. ¡°abusing¡± users are not different. Comcast just treats them collectively under the plat fee plan. If you think someone who eats more than 10 hotdogs, s/he has to pay more than buffet fee. It is not right under the flat fee structure. The restaurant owner, of course, can change the pricing from flat fee to pay per order. But it is not right if the restaurant owner advertises ¡°all you can eat¡± then stop you eating and ban you for a year for an invisible consumption limit.


Badonkadonk
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Dish Network
reply to DMS1

said by DMS1:

The people receiving these abuse calls are paying for a residential service, yet I suspect that in many cases their bandwidth usage far exceeds that of many small and even mid-size businesses. Such businesses are expected to pay hundreds of dollars a month for their internet services - why should these "abusing" users be any different?
Kind of a undereducated response there.

Businesses pay a large chunk for certain service levels and guaranteed uptimes, etc. Typical home consumers don't. That's why CC can at their leisure get a broken home connection up. For businesses, they have to hop.


Morty7
Premium
join:2004-09-18
reply to WhosAbuser

said by WhosAbuser :

People can conclude anything without reasoning and facts. It is indeed pretty easy as you have done. Could you offer me a little reasoning on the relationship between amazing and anonymous? Avoiding unfairness may be your choice. Don't expect others choose the same.
DSL Reports has a high page ranking in google, Comcast has 11+ Million subscribers. Given previous incidences over the past 3 1/2 years, years you can learn to correlate affected subscribers to number of views/posts in a thread. It is not accurate to 50 or 100, but when you're dealing with thousands it is very accurate. Especially in the case of abuse issues, because now your not dealing with old lady down the street, you're dealing with people who are tech savy. They find this site rather quickly and are usually very vocal.


WhosAbuser

@comcast.net

Ok, you methodology is simply based on one website and you concluded it is very accurate at thousands level. I am not going to argue with the number since as I said the exact number is less relevant at issue. People who know more statistics can draw the conclusion on your methodology. I just want to point out that your sample base is only one website and you actually put 500 while you stated as thousands level. If you admitted your sample base is tech savvy, you further undermine your statistics credibility.



Morty7
Premium
join:2004-09-18

1 edit

said by WhosAbuser :

Ok, you methodology is simply based on one website and you concluded it is very accurate at thousands level. I am not going to argue with the number since as I said the exact number is less relevant at issue. People who know more statistics can draw the conclusion on your methodology. I just want to point out that your sample base is only one website and you actually put 500 while you stated as thousands level. If you admitted your sample base is tech savvy, you further undermine your statistics credibility.
The majority of people getting the calls are tech savy, a large portion of tech savy people find this site. That does not 'ruin' statistics, I'm not looking for a 'fair sample' or anything, this isn't polling. Merely numbers of phone calls being placed accurate within 110,000 (1%). Any way you want to cut it, less then 1% of Comcast's customer-base gets a phone call. That means 99% of Comcast's customers aren't getting phone calls, and therefore are not abusing the service in terms of bandwidth.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to WhosAbuser

said by WhosAbuser :

I believe you are over analyzed the price structure. The market will figure it out. I bet Comcast won't come up with 10GB cap instead much higher due to the competition. The competition is good for customers. Monopoly or leveraging monopoly is what you should be concerned.
I don't think Comcast has the bandwidth to sustain more than 10GBytes per month download for every one of 11 million customers. Do the math: That is 1x10^10 Bytes of data for each of 1.1x10^7 customers. IOW, Comcast must 1.1x10^17 GBytes of bandwidth to give all of their customers a sustained 10GBytes of download bandwidth. That would be 110,000,000,000,000,000 Bytes of bandwidth!
Regardless you hate the car analogies or not, the logic stands unchallenged.
Eh? I just challenged it!
If you don't pass, it does not mean nobody should. I¡¯d be interested in knowing when the California law has been actively enforced.
When fog has cut visibility to the point that the maximum safe speed on a highway to only 25 MPH; even though it is posted at 65 MPH. If the CHiP doesn't enforce it, nature does. Or don't you ever read about those 115 car stackups on I-5 into the Grapevine?
Without active enforcing, Comcast's vague rules would probably not been challenged.
I do wonder how many times "The Phone Call" is received because Comcast has received complaints of laggy, and slow Internet from other customers.
Exactly, "there is no help for people who make unwarranted assumptions". Why not let people know instead of assume?
Because of the size of the signs you would have to post to cover every possible contingency.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


Billyboob

@gte.net
reply to Morty7

said by Morty7:

said by WhosAbuser :

People can conclude anything without reasoning and facts. It is indeed pretty easy as you have done. Could you offer me a little reasoning on the relationship between amazing and anonymous? Avoiding unfairness may be your choice. Don't expect others choose the same.
DSL Reports has a high page ranking in google, Comcast has 11+ Million subscribers. Given previous incidences over the past 3 1/2 years, years you can learn to correlate affected subscribers to number of views/posts in a thread. It is not accurate to 50 or 100, but when you're dealing with thousands it is very accurate. Especially in the case of abuse issues, because now your not dealing with old lady down the street, you're dealing with people who are tech savy. They find this site rather quickly and are usually very vocal.
Since your numbers are still made up you should have put them in bold.


Billyboob

@gte.net
reply to Morty7

said by Morty7:

said by WhosAbuser :

Ok, you methodology is simply based on one website and you concluded it is very accurate at thousands level. I am not going to argue with the number since as I said the exact number is less relevant at issue. People who know more statistics can draw the conclusion on your methodology. I just want to point out that your sample base is only one website and you actually put 500 while you stated as thousands level. If you admitted your sample base is tech savvy, you further undermine your statistics credibility.
The majority of people getting the calls are tech savy, a large portion of tech savy people find this site. That does not 'ruin' statistics, I'm not looking for a 'fair sample' or anything, this isn't polling. Merely numbers of phone calls being placed accurate within 110,000 (1%). Any way you want to cut it, less then 1% of Comcast's customer-base gets a phone call. That means 99% of Comcast's customers aren't getting phone calls, and therefore are not abusing the service in terms of bandwidth.
You forgot the bold again. So I fixed it for you.


Morty7
Premium
join:2004-09-18

1 edit

1 recommendation

Number isn't made up, it uses deductive and inductive reasoning and common sense. The point is, it's clearly less then 110,000. You don't need abundant amounts of proof to know it, if it's common sense. If it's a bird and it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's likely a duck.



WhosAbuser

@comcast.net

1 edit
reply to NormanS

said by NormanS:

I don't think Comcast has the bandwidth to sustain more than 10GBytes per month download for every one of 11 million customers. Do the math: That is 1x10^10 Bytes of data for each of 1.1x10^7 customers. IOW, Comcast must 1.1x10^17 GBytes of bandwidth to give all of their customers a sustained 10GBytes of download bandwidth. That would be 110,000,000,000,000,000 Bytes of bandwidth!

Eh? I just challenged it!

When fog has cut visibility to the point that the maximum safe speed on a highway to only 25 MPH; even though it is posted at 65 MPH. If the CHiP doesn't enforce it, nature does. Or don't you ever read about those 115 car stackups on I-5 into the Grapevine?

I do wonder how many times "The Phone Call" is received because Comcast has received complaints of laggy, and slow Internet from other customers.

Because of the size of the signs you would have to post to cover every possible contingency.
I'd agree with your capacity number. But I don't agree with that Comcast will set the cap at 10GB. If Comcast has the capacity issue, slowing down recruiting new customers, put more efforts in increasing capacities, or imposing an explicit limit per user will be much better solution than humiliating random portion of them. Of course there are many other options available to Comcast. I am not arguing there is a physical limitation, but what the better approach to mitigate is.

The car analogy is to demonstrate the huge burden on the drive. Not sure if you comments have really challenged it.

Well Comcast DL/UL rate varies, which is naturally slowing users down. Comcast also can consider to add throttling technology etc. But again the burden should not be on users side. And it is not justified that users are threaten.

I have no answer to how many times that Comcast received slow internet complaints. Better to ask Comcast if you really want to figure it out. My stand is if Comcast received such calls, Comcast should take care of them and resolve it in a fair and reasonable way. Transferring the burden to users and turn the users into against each other are low standard solutions.

If Comcast choose to post every possible contingency, it is better than vague. I guess customers are used to ridiculous warning on product packages . But I'd expect Comcast is smarter than that to come up with better solution.


WhosAbuser

@comcast.net
reply to Morty7

said by Morty7:

Number isn't made up, it uses deductive and inductive reasoning and common sense. The point is, it's clearly less then 110,000. You don't need abundant amounts of proof to know it, if it's common sense. If walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's likely a duck.
But it is actually not a duck .


AnotherGuy

@york.com
reply to hobgoblin

ping www.yahoo.com

Normally, 15 or 20 ms. During peak usage, I restrict my used bandwidth so as to not increase average latency from my modem to the other end more than 5 ms or so. If I have something large to D/L, I start it at bedtime and restrict it to 100 or 150 kbyte/sec. Spread it out a bit. I can tell when peak usage times are in my area by pinging something known and well connected. I make a conscious effort not to negatively impact my area.

Other than that, how is the average person supposed to determine if they are impacting the service of others? You can be D/Ling like an MF, and if you are still getting a round trip time to www.yahoo.com of 20 ms, you would have to assume that you aren't impacting anyone in a noticeable way.



WhosAbuser

@comcast.net

Comcast should think more like you do. Users will be more enabled than punished.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11

1 edit
reply to AnotherGuy

My comments didn't really apply. They were directed at local usage, not shared usage.



WhosAbuser

@comcast.net
reply to Morty7

If you agree it is not scientific. Don't make the number appear like the fact. Do you get it that the exact number is less relevant to me regardless it is 10%, or 0.001%. Do I need to make this any more clear.



WhosAbuser

@comcast.net
reply to Morty7

The majority of people getting the calls are tech savy, a large portion of tech savy people find this site. That does not 'ruin' statistics, I'm not looking for a 'fair sample' or anything, this isn't polling. Merely numbers of phone calls being placed accurate within 110,000 (1%). Any way you want to cut it, less then 1% of Comcast's customer-base gets a phone call. That means 99% of Comcast's customers aren't getting phone calls, and therefore are not abusing the service in terms of bandwidth.
If you agree it is not scientific. Don't make the number appear like the fact. Do you get it that the exact number is less relevant to me regardless it is 10%, or 0.001%. Do I need to make this any more clear.

BTW, "The majority of people getting the calls are tech savy", "a large portion of tech savy people find this site", and "within 110,000 (1%)" are the facts or your guesses. Just want to make sure.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

1 edit
reply to WhosAbuser

said by WhosAbuser :

If you agree it is not scientific. Don't make the number appear like the fact. Do you get it that the exact number is less relevant to me regardless it is 10%, or 0.001%. Do I need to make this any more clear.
This whole thread has been short on facts, and long on supposition. I haven't seen any objective facts posted in the complaints against Comcast.

Addendum

Except for the fact of receiving, "The Phone Call".

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


Morty7
Premium
join:2004-09-18
reply to AnotherGuy

said by AnotherGuy :

ping www.yahoo.com

Normally, 15 or 20 ms. During peak usage, I restrict my used bandwidth so as to not increase average latency from my modem to the other end more than 5 ms or so. If I have something large to D/L, I start it at bedtime and restrict it to 100 or 150 kbyte/sec. Spread it out a bit. I can tell when peak usage times are in my area by pinging something known and well connected. I make a conscious effort not to negatively impact my area.

Other than that, how is the average person supposed to determine if they are impacting the service of others? You can be D/Ling like an MF, and if you are still getting a round trip time to www.yahoo.com of 20 ms, you would have to assume that you aren't impacting anyone in a noticeable way.
WatchWAN 1.0.0.1


Morty7
Premium
join:2004-09-18
reply to NormanS

said by NormanS:

said by WhosAbuser :

If you agree it is not scientific. Don't make the number appear like the fact. Do you get it that the exact number is less relevant to me regardless it is 10%, or 0.001%. Do I need to make this any more clear.
This whole thread has been short on facts, and long on supposition. I haven't seen any objective facts posted in the complaints against Comcast.

Addendum

Except for the fact of receiving, "The Phone Call".

Even the "fact" people are claiming they're only downloading 200GB, whose to say they are telling the truth and aren't downloading 450GB? 600GB?

I personally don't care if you don't care if it's 1% 10% or 0.00001%, just don't troll over it. No where did I say it was scientific, or that there was margin of error or anything. However, the majority of people would agree that less then 1% of Comcast's customer base are getting a phone call. Nothing is implied by this.


NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage

1 edit

2 recommendations

reply to WhosAbuser

said by WhosAbuser :

Do you get it that the exact number is less relevant to me...

Do I need to make this any more clear.
I think it is quite clear to all that any opinion not in agreement with your assertion that Comcast is abusing it's customers is irrelevant to you.

I sometimes feel neglected, but if I actually felt abused, I would do more than just rant on this forum.
--
Outsourcing is not the same as Offshoring!
Test your firewall. | Smell the flowers.


WhosAbuser

@comcast.net
reply to NormanS

Can you challenge following facts:
Comcast has an invisible usage limit.
Comcast does not tell users what the limit is.
Comcast labels high usage users ¡°abuser¡±
Comcast can cut off the service any time
"abusers" are not all real "abusers"

My counter-argument would be if the issue at hand is just "the phone call", it sounds like there is no pain for users and abuse department did not accomplish much either. Therefore, Comcast can use the resources better.



Billyboob

@gte.net
reply to Morty7

said by Morty7:

said by NormanS:

said by WhosAbuser :

If you agree it is not scientific. Don't make the number appear like the fact. Do you get it that the exact number is less relevant to me regardless it is 10%, or 0.001%. Do I need to make this any more clear.
This whole thread has been short on facts, and long on supposition. I haven't seen any objective facts posted in the complaints against Comcast.

Addendum

Except for the fact of receiving, "The Phone Call".

Even the "fact" people are claiming they're only downloading 200GB, whose to say they are telling the truth and aren't downloading 450GB? 600GB?

I personally don't care if you don't care if it's 1% 10% or 0.00001%, just don't troll over it. No where did I say it was scientific, or that there was margin of error or anything. However, the majority of people would agree that less then 1% of Comcast's customer base are getting a phone call. Nothing is implied by this.
The majority of Comcast users do not have enough information to make an estimate of the number of people who have received the call.

Comcast's abuse department employees are the only people who know how many times the call has been made and they don't seem to be posting here.


WhosAbuser

@comcast.net
reply to Morty7

Good, now you made it clear that you don't care the exact number, which I have stated the same so many times.



WhosAbuser

@comcast.net
reply to NetFixer

If I said one thing is irrelevant, you can generalize to anything is irrelevant. What kind methodology are you using here? Inductive, deductive, or what-ducitve?



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

1 recommendation

reply to WhosAbuser

said by WhosAbuser :

Can you challenge following facts:
Comcast has an invisible usage limit.
The facts that I have seen reported suggest that it is a "variable" limit, not an "invisible" limit.
Comcast does not tell users what the limit is.
Because the limit is "variable", there is no specific quantity which would be correct.
Comcast labels high usage users ¡°abuser¡±
Comcast is labeling violators of their AUP/TOS as abusive, not "high usage users".
Comcast can cut off the service any time
Aside from the fact that every ISP can do that, this only applies to violators of the AUP/TOS.
"abusers" are not all real "abusers"
This is most definitely not a "fact", but an opinion.
My counter-argument would be if the issue at hand is just "the phone call", it sounds like there is no pain for users and abuse department did not accomplish much either. Therefore, Comcast can use the resources better.
Quite the "counter argument". But hardly proving anything at all. "The Phone" call is a notice of violation of the AUP/TOS, and a request to come into compliance with same. If that fails, the next step is sanctions.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


NetFixer
Freedom is NOT Free
Premium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to WhosAbuser

said by WhosAbuser :

If I said one thing is irrelevant, you can generalize to anything is irrelevant. What kind methodology are you using here? Inductive, deductive, or what-ducitve?
A summary analysis of all your posts in this thread (including your anonymous pseudonym) seems to have a common thread that Comcast is abusing all it's customers through it's implementation of network abuse enforcement, and you have certainly rejected any opinions to the contrary.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but as I said, if I felt abused, I would do more than just ranting and trolling in this forum.
--
Outsourcing is not the same as Offshoring!
Test your firewall. | Smell the flowers.