pacamike
join:2007-06-05
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to brianj6
Re: [Connectivity] Contacted by Comcast Abuse Dept Today...
Welcome to the top 1% club! I, too, got such a call today. The number he cited for me was 500 GB (the guy seemed to like saying "half a terabyte", and he said it several times). That sounded high (25% of theoretical max if the back of my envelope is right) 100 DVDs? Seems implausible to me, but of course I have no way of knowing.
I knew there was no point in arguing, so I just politely asked how I would be able to know what the number was, or if there was anything they recommend I use to monitor or limit my usage. The guy was clearly just working from a script, so he had no actual knowledge. He kept referring to the AUP (Acceptable Usage Policy), but he couldn't tell me any particular part of it that might apply to my situation. He wouldn't or couldn't tell me if this month was a lot higher than previous months, or if since they got rid of the people higher than me, they just reached my level.
I guess it's cheaper for them to harrass and drop customers than it is to manage their networks. They could use traffic shaping and throttling to keep heavy users from negatively impacting other users, but that would require people who understood how to configure that fancy network equipment they bought. They could offer tools for people to see and control their usage, but that would mean treating their customers with respect.
I've been looking for an excuse to drop Comcast, so this gives me another one. I hope they don't decide I'm watching too much TV next week! |
|
brianj6
join:2007-06-05
Atlanta, GA
| pacamike, I agree, proper management of the network via traffic shaping and so forth seems like a much better way of addressing the issue. Their current Abuse Team process could be a temporary solution for them to get control of a growing problem until such time as a technical solution can be properly implemented. Who knows. Eventually though, unless the magic cap is always growing, enough of their users, due to increased HD Movie/TV consumption over the internet, will be getting calls like we have gotten. At which point something will have to give. Sorta like the Federal Alternative Minimum Tax. Seems like a good idea at the time it was implemented, but long term it is, arguably, not the best solution. |
|
APG
Premium
join:2007-01-13
| said by brianj6  :pacamike, I agree, proper management of the network via traffic shaping and so forth seems like a much better way of addressing the issue. I disagree. Traffic shaping implies that every bit of a certain kind of traffic is throttled. By why penalize someone who occasionally downloads a Linux distribution via P2P because someone else is going 24/7 on p2p pirating?
I still think the so-called "invisible" cap isn't so invisible. I don't know this for a fact, but I still think it's more a matter of, "moving this much traffic means something's wrong. Either you're violating the AUP, or you've got a rogue program running you're not aware of." And Comcast -- or any other ISP -- isn't going to figure it out for the user. There's still a matter of personal responsibility... if a person is going to connect their computer to the internet, they ought to know what it's doing. And, if it is an AUP violation, the ISP isn't going to say, "If you cut your violation down by half, then that's okay."
Let's look it at it this way... imagine a person is called in for an IRS audit. The examiner sees the person drive up in a $70,000 car... while claiming an income of $5,000 a year. If the person is just borrowing the car from a friend (that is, uses it once in awhile) no one's going to care. But if the person is always using that car... there's going to be questions. And the IRS isn't going to say, "If the next time you come here, you're driving a $44,999 car, it's okay... but if you're driving a $45,000 car, we're going to investigate." |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to brianj6
Re: [Connectivity] Contacted by Comcast Abuse Dept Today...
said by brianj6 :...Their current Abuse Team process could be a temporary solution for them to get control of a growing problem until such time as a technical solution can be properly implemented... The first report (in this forum) of Comcast's dreadful bandwidth policy was August 2003: »Comcast Bandwidth Exceeded Notice!!!
4 years is an awfully long time for a "temporary" solution. |
|
CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12
| said by JTRockville :said by brianj6 :...Their current Abuse Team process could be a temporary solution for them to get control of a growing problem until such time as a technical solution can be properly implemented... The first report (in this forum) of Comcast's dreadful bandwidth policy was August 2003: » Comcast Bandwidth Exceeded Notice!!!4 years is an awfully long time for a "temporary" solution. Im not sure how people STILL dont understand its SHARED BANDWIDTH. 600gb suddenly is less of a shared network and more of an abused network.
The "technical solution" is to reinvent the internet. You can go to DSL where is isnt shared.. at least to the switch  but every foot away from the CO you are the less of that precious bandwidth through speed you have.
This is the technology, this is how it works, this is how to keep it working and this is how to be as fair as possible to the 21million customers that subscribe to it and ensure it is there to be used. Not abused.
I dont agree with the process, but I understand it 100% and know why it is in place. Business wise it makes sense. Perfect sense.
And after all... its a business.
--
CableFAQ.org/Technicians Unplugged
|
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| Why do you think people don't understand the problem?
It's Comcast's draconian solution, delivered by the most surly of personnel, that is the puzzle. Of all the ways to approach the problem, Comcast chose the most unsavory.
This is a piss-poor network management technique. |
|
paco
@comcast.net
 from:
dadkins
Cabal
JSRoman
ptrowski
HiSpdJunkie
thumbs down from:
ColorBASIC
Apollo729
dot_null
| Yet another one of "these" threads |
|
hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
clubs:
| reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville :Why do you think people don't understand the problem? It's Comcast's draconian solution, delivered by the most surly of personnel, that is the puzzle. Of all the ways to approach the problem, Comcast chose the most unsavory. This is a piss-poor network management technique. I think as hard as anyone might try any discussion involving this delicate subject causes confrontation. Its gonna happen. Comcast clearly don't want to handhold people through a shut off process and I agree with that decision.
Its gotta be a tough job.....and despite the OP who may have had other issues..most people know the score.
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| What score? Comcast has no score that is the issue. Some people can bust 300GB a month with no issue while others hit 200GB and get a call and the comcast reps won't tell them how much to cut back.
I pay for my net so yes I'm going to use it to it's fullest. Now if the fullest comcast wants to offer is 200GB a month then that is what I'll be using. At least give a basic number to people.
It would be the same as getting stopped by a cop who said you were speeding when no speeds are posted. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to CableTool
said by CableTool :You can go to DSL where is isnt shared.. at least to the switch but every foot away from the CO you are the less of that precious bandwidth through speed you have. Actually, as deployed by most providers, there are discrete steps. For AT&T they are (approximately):
5,000 feet, max, for 6016kpbs
10,000 feet, max, for 3008kbps
15,000 feet, max, for 1536kbps
Barring plant problems, you should be good for those max speeds at those distances.
They won't hook up up if you are farther out than 15,000 feet, or so.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to TOPDAWG
said by TOPDAWG :It would be the same as getting stopped by a cop who said you were speeding when no speeds are posted. Of course that is perfectly legal, they can write you a ticket for going faster than is safe under current conditions. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to TOPDAWG
said by TOPDAWG :It would be the same as getting stopped by a cop who said you were speeding when no speeds are posted. I hate car analogies. California has a speed law to cover the case where none is posted. The Basic Speed law, which has something about "reasonable and prudent". You can be cited for excessive speed when there is no posted speed limit. I presume most other states have similar.
Please...find a better analogy.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to JTRockville
Funny thing is that it would be relatively easy for them to set up the same system some hosting companies have to enable their customers to avoid nasty over-use charges on hosting packages. Set the soft limiter at some reasonable value and have it shoot off an email to you when it's hit. This would, of course, require them to share that precious "abuse" data with the folks paying for service.
Instead of fugly, inane portal nonsense nobody uses, provide some "service" as in Internet SERVICE Provider. Enabling your customers to self-police effectively has got to be cheaper than hiring malcontents and sociopaths to call them up and threaten them.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Morty
Premium
join:2004-09-18 | Most people abusing the limit don't use their isp's email... |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | said by Morty :Most people abusing the limit don't use their isp's email... So? You have proof of that I suppose? How about those who don't even know it's happening, like the OP here?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Morty
Premium
join:2004-09-18 | Take it or leave it. |
|
pacamike
join:2007-06-05
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to APG
said by APG :Let's look it at it this way... imagine a person is called in for an IRS audit. The examiner sees the person drive up in a $70,000 car... while claiming an income of $5,000 a year. If the person is just borrowing the car from a friend (that is, uses it once in awhile) no one's going to care. But if the person is always using that car... there's going to be questions. And the IRS isn't going to say, "If the next time you come here, you're driving a $44,999 car, it's okay... but if you're driving a $45,000 car, we're going to investigate." Imagine the IRS called you up and told you that you hadn't paid enough taxes. They refused to tell you how much you should pay or how much other people paid, but if you didn't send them enough additional money they'd put you in jail.  Sorry, these are stupid analogies. 
I'm a Comcast customer, paying for a service. If they don't want customers who use more than X GB per month, they should say what the limit is and provide a tool to tell you what you use. There are companies that manage this for webhosting, newsgroups, video streaming, and other internet services with no problem.
Comcast was marginally better than the alternatives when I started with them two years ago. However, I have no way to avoid exceeding an unknown limit, so their threat to terminate my contract if I do is unnacceptable. I won't be a Comcast customer next week. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to Morty
If that's the best you can do, then definitely "leave it".
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Morty
Premium
join:2004-09-18
1 edit | said by RadioDoc :If that's the best you can do, then definitely "leave it". Not the best, I just don't have time to waste explaining everything I know and somehow provide absolute proof of everything.. wish I did still, but those days are long gone. If that means my input to these forums is not valuable to anyone.. then I won't bother posting. |
|
