dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
305131
share rss forum feed

cablejoe

join:2002-01-15
Las Vegas, NV

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to funchords

Re: Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P Connections

Playing the devil's advocate, here:

Let's say you own a restaurant that offers an all-you-can-eat buffet. People come in, pay for their meal, eat their fill, and then leave. And everyone is happy.

But then someone develops a machine that can eat for them, even when they're not around. They bring this machine into your restaurant, tell it what food to get, and leave the machine there to eat for them. And the machine eats.....and eats...and eats. It's basically eating 24-7, even when the owners aren't there.

You soon discover that a small handful of these eating machines are responsible for 90% of your food costs. What's more, your regular customers are complaining because there's not enough food left to feed everyone else.

As the restaurant owner, what do you do? Do you bite your lip while your food costs go through the roof? Or do you find a way of dealing with the machines, and limit their consumption?

JJV
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Seattle, WA
reply to funchords
I have been using Skype to do video with my friend in Alaska for a couple years. Now it doesn't work at all. The call drops in less than 60 seconds.

Is anyone else having issues with Skype?

I have tried the relakks vpn and a free one and they both suck.


EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:10
HUHHHH?????


moko

join:2002-12-22
Fayetteville, GA
reply to cablejoe
but cable joe....thats not the same....because its not advertised as a 24/7 service....when isp's do advertise 24/7 unlimited service for the whole month....i'm paying for unlimited 24/7 use....that includes if i'm dl/up some video's and there taking several hours,it does'nt matter i'f i'm in front of the pc,in the kitchen,bathroom,or down at barnes and noble,waiting for the dl/up to finish

i make alot of home videos that i would like to share for other family to dl....instead of paying for them to be hosted so someone can dl them[i'm talking 200/or more meg vids]would'nt it be nice to just email everyone with a link to a bit torrent....then they click on it and it opens there p2p....thats easy,and i don't have to be infront of the pc to do it.

this is another reason comcast advertises there powerboost upload .....but somethings you can only use a p2p program....and then comcast goes and stops you from using your payed for speed.

i know comcast and other isp's know that alot of naieve customers don't know when their p2p is still running in the background on there "allways-on" pc but alot of others do....and besides....this is why they should only sell a dl/ul speed to its customers that can run 24/7.

if i want to watch 6 hours or 24 hours a day of comcast cable tv....i still pay the same price.....i know that a network is different....but they should set up the service so it could be run this way...IMO.

plat2on1

join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY

1 edit
which ISP advertises that? certainly not comcast

if they set it up like that we'd all have 128k/128k connections. i'l stick with what we get now over that.

shades

join:2001-06-26
Williamstown, NJ
reply to funchords
is there any solution to this seeding problem, my upload speeds are terrible

FreakyOne

join:2007-07-07
Stuart, FL
reply to plat2on1
I never received anything from Comcast when they took over from Adelphia stating that my service would be altered or changed in any way whatsoever, including the ability to receive 24/7 365 service whenever i choose. Since i am paying for the service on a monthly basis i never thought to ask them on what days or hours in those days is it appropriate to expect my service to be fully functional and will be able to have full bandwidth, both up and down, so that i might actually enjoy the time i spend online instead of waiting like i used to on dial-up. I am highly anticipating switching to ( hold on to your undies now) DSL. I never asked to be switched they just came in and starting making changes that i had no choice to agree or not. In this i believe is not a very smart move on their part. As far as this P2P issue is concerned i think that could be a totally new subject matter which should not be discussed here. The issues are not whether or not you get service its the fact they are shackling their customers by limiting our usage.

FreakyOne

join:2007-07-07
Stuart, FL
reply to cablejoe
said by cablejoe:

Playing the devil's advocate, here:

Let's say you own a restaurant that offers an all-you-can-eat buffet. People come in, pay for their meal, eat their fill, and then leave. And everyone is happy.

But then someone develops a machine that can eat for them, even when they're not around. They bring this machine into your restaurant, tell it what food to get, and leave the machine there to eat for them. And the machine eats.....and eats...and eats. It's basically eating 24-7, even when the owners aren't there.

You soon discover that a small handful of these eating machines are responsible for 90% of your food costs. What's more, your regular customers are complaining because there's not enough food left to feed everyone else.

As the restaurant owner, what do you do? Do you bite your lip while your food costs go through the roof? Or do you find a way of dealing with the machines, and limit their consumption?
SO you are saying the ISP is paying for our bandwidth use? if so maybe you can tell us to whom they are paying it to? I thought i was the one paying a bill for bandwidth use. If anyone is not using their Cable bandwidth at its fullest it is like paying 5 times what you would already be paying for the same meal down the road. If it were me i would get the cheaper same quality meal. And it looks like Comcast is gonna have a big change in their customer base if they dont stop making ridiculous changes in our service. I have not had a full connection since they took over a few months ago. I have had numerous technicians out to look at our issue and they through their hands in the air and say they have no clue where the problem is. Take into consideration that these technicians are prior Adelphia employees so they might not be aware of any limitations on system, although i find it doubtful. I am glad to hear that i am not the only one in this takeover that is having issues of this type.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by FreakyOne:

SO you are saying the ISP is paying for our bandwidth use? if so maybe you can tell us to whom they are paying it to?
Comcast pays for the infrastructure which makes up their backbone. In addition, Comcast generally pays for transit routing to other parts of the Internet. They are not a "peer" in the common Internet sense, or so I am told, because they are a net consumer (thanks to residential accounts) of bandwidth. Unlike Level 3 and AT&T Worldnet services (not the former SBC DSL provider!), who have a net parity of packet exchange.

Guess where Comcast gets the funding to build out and operate their backbone? And how much does Comcast have to pay AT&T Worldnet Services, and Level 3 for transit to the rest of the Internet? And what happens to the service for all Comcast users on a "node", when one user takes it upon himself to run full bore at 8MBps down/768kBps up (or whatever the up speed is on the 8Meg package)?
I thought i was the one paying a bill for bandwidth use.
If you are receiving packets from a corner of the Internet which requires transit through AT&T Worldnet Services, or Level 3 routers, Comcast has to pay them for that transit.
If anyone is not using their Cable bandwidth at its fullest it is like paying 5 times what you would already be paying for the same meal down the road.
Most ISPs base their business model on residential consumers not running their connection at full peak bandwidth 24/7.

Frankly, with more residential consumers on "always on" connections, it is probably time for HSI providers to re-evaluate their business model.
If it were me i would get the cheaper same quality meal. And it looks like Comcast is gonna have a big change in their customer base if they dont stop making ridiculous changes in our service.
Comcast isn't changing. Customer expectations are changing.
I have not had a full connection since they took over a few months ago. I have had numerous technicians out to look at our issue and they through their hands in the air and say they have no clue where the problem is. Take into consideration that these technicians are prior Adelphia employees so they might not be aware of any limitations on system, although i find it doubtful. I am glad to hear that i am not the only one in this takeover that is having issues of this type.
I expect that the changes caused by the Comcast buyout of financially troubled Adelphia have a lot to do with commitments for transit services. You could test that, if you had any trace routes from the Adelphia days. Trace route to the same points under Comcast as you did under Adelphia; see if they are still using the same transit routing to places like Google, or MSN, or Yahoo!.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

FreakyOne

join:2007-07-07
Stuart, FL

1 edit
I am not bashing Comcast as an ISP i am only agreeing with the original post here which implies that Comcast is in fact "filtering" its customers connections in some way. I have no trace routing from Adlephia days but i can tell you that i can not have more than 1 open connection running at once while online. For instance, when my VOIP phoneline is in use i have limited usage to surf at the same time. This never happened with Adelphia. Also, if i try to download any files with a BT client i can get fairly decent download speeds but my uploads are decreased if non-existent. This tells me that there are changes made to the service for which i am paying. My bill has increased over what i was paying with Adelphia with the promise i would have an 8mb connection versus a 6MB connection. I can tell you that i am not thrilled with theseso-called upgrades. As for the ISp paying someone else for me to have internet connectivity i am not made aware of this in any of my agreements that i have read. If this is the case i am certain that there would be some sort of legal jargen regarding this. What i want to know is how much Comcast is actually saving while i am limited with my broadband usage when they are not giving me at any time i can testanywhere close to my 8MB connection.
Say i have a land line phone with BellSouth/AT&T, they tell me i have connection 24/7 365 but i can not use that line for more than so many hours of use per day otherwise it ties up the lines for everyone else.
Guess what? I wouldnt use BellSouth/AT&T if that were the case. It would be a totally bogus way of doing business. If the ISP can not afford to offer 8MB connection to its customers at full bore 24/7 365 than they shouldnt do it. Because some of us out here in this world will use what we pay for. It is your choice whether or not you wish to do so. If i didnt want or need the 8MB connection i certainly wouldnt have upgraded.


jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit
reply to funchords
Sabotaging my traffic or otherwise actively interfering with the TCP/IP protocol should not be tolerated.

Perhaps we should dig some holes in Comcast's driveway. Same thing, right?

My traffic is my property. I pay Comcast to deliver it. Why would I pay Comcast to modify or break my traffic.


EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:10
said by jjoshua:

My traffic is my property.
Hmmm.... I wonder if the federal government agrees with that ?
--
Let us never forget 9/11


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to FreakyOne
said by FreakyOne:

As for the ISp paying someone else for me to have internet connectivity i am not made aware of this in any of my agreements that i have read. If this is the case i am certain that there would be some sort of legal jargen regarding this.
No more than there is legal jargon regarding the cost born by Ford Motor Company for the S.A.E. rated bolts holding their engines together. The cost of third party transit should be transparent to you; built into the price you pay for your connection.
What i want to know is how much Comcast is actually saving while i am limited with my broadband usage when they are not giving me at any time i can testanywhere close to my 8MB connection.
Say i have a land line phone with BellSouth/AT&T, they tell me i have connection 24/7 365 but i can not use that line for more than so many hours of use per day otherwise it ties up the lines for everyone else.
Well, I know for a fact that none the ILECs can't provide you with full access to the PSTN network when half the country is trying to call in to Los Angeles after an earthquake, New Orleans after a hurricane, or Pennsylvania after airing a radio show purporting to be reporting an invasion from Mars. There are PSTN bottlenecks which result in loss of service to saturated regions.
If the ISP can not afford to offer 8MB connection to its customers at full bore 24/7 365 than they shouldnt do it. Because some of us out here in this world will use what we pay for. It is your choice whether or not you wish to do so. If i didnt want or need the 8MB connection i certainly wouldnt have upgraded.
This is the part where the customer expectations are changing, and the ISPs need to adjust. I suspect that some percentage of the people using the Internet still use it in a limited sense; but more are finding ways to use their bandwidth than the ISPs have counted on. I suspect that it is time to start charging for a base amount of data moved; say, $42.95 per month for up to 150GBytes, and charge extra, in a metered fashion, for data volume in excess of the base rate. Just as you pay per kilowatt hour for electricity, or per gallon for gasoline.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


Anonymim

@comcast.net
reply to funchords
Can I get a clarification here? Lots of tutorials out there simply say to enable encryption in order to get better upload speeds with ISP who throttle torrent activity. But I'm finding that enabling encryption has little to no effect. Peers connect, I get a very brief time of upload activity, and then the speed is throttled back to zero. Peers disconnect. Rinse and repeat.

Is this Sandvine fundamentally different from standard throttling, or just a different variety?

FreakyOne

join:2007-07-07
Stuart, FL
reply to NormanS
If this is the case then i want my money back because i believe it is false advertising in every aspect. I cant place an ad in the newspaper/T.V/Radio stating i can offer a plane ride to Spain for 50 dollars and not give it because the demand is so high. I think its rather deceptive if what you are saying is the case. And i am certain that it will not take much time until most of the Customers that demand the most out of their bandwidth get fed up with the BS. Same as the government so i suppose they would agree with Comcast or any other ISP that uses the same tactics. This is my opinion and i am sticking to it.


jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit
reply to EG
said by EG:

said by jjoshua:

My traffic is my property.
Hmmm.... I wonder if the federal government agrees with that ?
What does the government have to do with this discussion?

When you send a document via FedEx, do they open the package, look at the document, decide if the contents are 'acceptable' and make modifications to it? Of course not.

Comcast, or any other ISP, should be no different. I create the packets and they deliver it - end of story.

cablejoe

join:2002-01-15
Las Vegas, NV
By using a P2P client, you are allowing remote users to download files from your computer; this essentially makes your computer a server, which is specifically prohibited by the TOS and AUP.

Personally, I'm not real crazy about the decision.

However, it seems to me that if Comcast chooses to implement technology that prevents users from violating the TOS and AUP, they are well within their rights to do so.

SirchMeister

join:2003-03-03
Hopewell, VA
Not quite. Bittorrent doesn't work that way. When you think of server you think of one entity serving up files. When you're defining bittorrent traffic and the way it works it cannot be deemed that anyone seeding is running a server. I suppose if you were the only seeder one could argue that point. It is a gray area.

Either way, the issue to most people I believe is not whether they are breaking any TOS/AUP. But whether it is right for Comcast to implement technologies that are basically unwrapping your packets.


Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
reply to jjoshua
I think you would have a difficult time trying to make the case that Comcast is not within their rights to shape and prioritize traffic as they see fit on their network. They do it every day for VoIP and other latency-critical traffic.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?


jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by Cabal:

I think you would have a difficult time trying to make the case that Comcast is not within their rights to shape and prioritize traffic as they see fit on their network. They do it every day for VoIP and other latency-critical traffic.
Shaping and prioritization is one thing, interrupting and sabotaging the TCP/IP protocol is another thing.


telcolackey5
The Truth? You can't handle the truth

join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
reply to SirchMeister
said by SirchMeister:

Not quite. Bittorrent doesn't work that way. When you think of server you think of one entity serving up files. When you're defining bittorrent traffic and the way it works it cannot be deemed that anyone seeding is running a server. I suppose if you were the only seeder one could argue that point. It is a gray area.
Would seeding Bittorrent be similar to file sharing?


EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:10
reply to jjoshua
Ignorance can certainly be bliss....
--
Let us never forget 9/11


kadar
Premium,ExMod 2001-02
join:0000-00-00
reply to jjoshua
said by jjoshua:

said by EG:

said by jjoshua:

My traffic is my property.
Hmmm.... I wonder if the federal government agrees with that ?
What does the government have to do with this discussion?

When you send a document via FedEx, do they open the package, look at the document, decide if the contents are 'acceptable' and make modifications to it? Of course not.

Comcast, or any other ISP, should be no different. I create the packets and they deliver it - end of story.
FedEx no. Uncle Sam Yes.
»sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f···rintable


jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit
said by kadar:

FedEx no. Uncle Sam Yes.
»sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f···rintable
I'm failing to see the connection. Uncle Sam isn't going to open your package and change the contents. And it's still my property even if Uncle Sam does decide to take a look.

slovokia

join:2005-01-31
Belmont, CA
reply to funchords
I've done some more observations and reached the following conclusions. If you attempt seeding with bittorrent using encryption, Comcast will tear down the TCP connection after 30 seconds or so. I think the seeding limit is time based not bandwidth based. The heuristic appears to be if Comcast sees a TCP connection established that involves only sending data from a subscriber to another host, that connection is terminated after 30 seconds or so. I'd imagine this limit would affect any TCP flow which cannot be recognised as being "good".


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to FreakyOne
said by FreakyOne:

If this is the case then i want my money back because i believe it is false advertising in every aspect. I cant place an ad in the newspaper/T.V/Radio stating i can offer a plane ride to Spain for 50 dollars and not give it because the demand is so high.
I take you have never been bumped from a flight.
I think its rather deceptive if what you are saying is the case. And i am certain that it will not take much time until most of the Customers that demand the most out of their bandwidth get fed up with the BS.
I honestly don't have a count on Comcast's high volume data movers; a Comcast insider seems to think it is on the order of 0.10%. That isn't enough to break any company.
Same as the government so i suppose they would agree with Comcast or any other ISP that uses the same tactics. This is my opinion and i am sticking to it.
As I have said, ISPs base their business on the assumption that normal users aren't using their computers 24/7; even though they can access the Internet 24/7. Most people I know don't spend more than a couple of hours per day online; most don't download a lot of movies, music, porn videos, anime, etc.

It may actually be time for the ISPs to move to metered Internet. You get your 8Mbps/768kbps package, or 10Mbps/1Mbps, or whatever, for a flat $50 per month for up to 150GBytes of data. You pay $1 per GB over that base amount. That would actually make it possible to plan for bandwidth availability for the network engineers; give the network additional revenue to apply towards bandwidth capacity, as well.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to SirchMeister
said by SirchMeister:

Not quite. Bittorrent doesn't work that way...
Eh? The purpose of BitTorrent is distributed service. Every client is serving up pieces of the file being downloaded. Why do you think you need port forwarding to make BT work? Port forwarding through NAT allows unsolicited access to a computer; that is a typical signature of a server.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to jjoshua
said by jjoshua:

When you send a document via FedEx, do they open the package, look at the document, decide if the contents are 'acceptable' and make modifications to it? Of course not.
I wasn't aware that Sandvine modified the contents of the data being downloaded. Only that it used the contents in making a decision on packet priority.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

FreakyOne

join:2007-07-07
Stuart, FL
reply to NormanS
Apparently you would not say a word if bumped from a flight? It is not my responsibility to make sure my ISP can give me the service i am paying for, it is their responsibility. My responsibility as far as they are concerned is to pay my bill a month in advance for service i have not received and assume it will be as described. I am not going to put money out month after month while they are scratching their heads about my connection issues.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

1 edit
said by FreakyOne:

Apparently you would not say a word if bumped from a flight?
Depends upon the fine print on the ticket.
It is not my responsibility to make sure my ISP can give me the service i am paying for, it is their responsibility. My responsibility as far as they are concerned is to pay my bill a month in advance for service i have not received and assume it will be as described. I am not going to put money out month after month while they are scratching their heads about my connection issues.
What does the Comcast fine print say?
quote:
Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment to:
...
vii. restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or otherwise disrupt or cause a performance degradation, regardless of intent, purpose or knowledge, to the Service or any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) host, server, backbone network, node or service, or otherwise cause a performance degradation to any Comcast (or Comcast supplier) facilities used to deliver the Service;

The whole shebang is here.

To the best of my knowledge, no ISP, not even mine, expects the customer to keep his computer sucking bandwidth 24/7. Hey, we all have to eat, sleep, shower, work, etc. sometime during the day. Lately I've been spending extra time reworking a brick sidewalk that had to be pulled up for removal of a hedge, and replacing of a fence.

If Comcast deems P2P to be a drag on their network, they have the obligation to their customers feeling the drag to manage the network in a manner which mitigates that drag.

Now, if Comcast needs to add capacity to support those 24/7 downloaders, maybe it is time to implement a "Pay-per-Byte" system. Say, $50 per month for 150GBytes, and pay an additional $1 per GByte over that. Metered service, as it were. Those who choose to download 600GB per month can pony up an extra $450 per month toward alleviating bandwidth bottlenecks.

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