dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9
share rss forum feed

FreakyOne

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

Re: Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P Connections

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:11
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.



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

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

FreakyOne

join:2007-07-07
Stuart, FL

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.



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

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

FreakyOne

join:2007-07-07
Stuart, FL

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:11
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

FreakyOne

join:2007-07-07
Stuart, FL

Your suggestion is actually quite good as far as the bandwidth hogs are concerned... it would certainly make up for the loss of Recording Industry, Gaming and Movie Industries as well. Maybe they should band together and develop their own Broadband company and make a system like this so they wont care if movies or CD's or Games are transferred via the net .. they would be making too much dough to worry about that. It would also save on attorney fees. I dont believe in the agreement that is posted on that link so i am certain i wont be a customer of Comcast for long. It would make a difference if the Customer Service dept. actually admitted to something along the terms of this topic but they dont admit nor do they have to admit to this or any other kind of filtering of "Comcast" bandwidth. If i were to operate my business like this on a retail level i wouldn't last long. First rule of thumb is "The Customer Is Always Right". For those businesses that don't buy into this philosophy they wont last very long. Or maybe they are just too big for their own good and don't care about their customers. At least individually.


gregbot

join:2007-07-09
Chicago, IL

2 edits

1 recommendation

As an entrepreneur as well as someone who has a lot of experience in the Computer Services industry I must say the customer is not always right.

That's a very common saying among customers, especially difficult ones, but it just wouldn't make sense to do business with that assumption.

Its easy to say that a big company should bend down towards the customer and satisfy them no matter the cost, but we are not given access to their cost structure or network limitations so we don't know how big their sacrifices would be if they did give unlimited bandwidth.

I am sure Comcast would rather piss off the top 1% of its bandwidth hogs or even bully them into downloading less than risk losing 25% or 50% of its less consuming customers to competing services because their connections are running too slow because of the bandwidth hogs (afterall, they all pay the same monthly bill so its easier to rid of 1% of your customers than 50%).

The point is the customer is not always right and in my field (computer repair) the customer is very seldom right (If I could have a nickel for every customer who insisted the problem is the hard drive or motherboard when it was just a case of limewire downloaded spyware or for every customer who insists that their hardware warranty should cover virus removal I'd have my own OC3 line by now).

With that said, I agree that bandwidth limits should be posted so that people don't live in fear of the dreaded letter or phone call. The bandwidth limits should also be high enough so that casual users who like YouTube and download some movies (Amazon.com's Unbox service movies are as much as 2GB each) don't come dangerously close to or over the limit on a consistent basis. I myself fear getting into trouble with Comcast in the future even though I am a new subscriber and don't have the service hooked up yet which would be alleviated if I just knew the limit.

With the internet increasingly being multimedia I am in shock that bandwidth limits or caps today are the same as they appear to have been in 2002 or 2003 when posts online first started appearing about them since SO MUCH has changed since then on the internet especially in the direction of everything taking up more bandwidth.

As far as people always downloading just under their cap to avoid being terminated while it is a valid concern there are work arounds.

They could introduce what some universities do for their access as in the first 100GB are your regular speed and the more you download after that the slower your speed gradually gets which minimizes the impact your downloads after that speed have on other users.

(Ex. first 100GB are downloaded at rated speed of 8mbps, the next 25GB are 4mbps, the next 25 are 1.5mbps, and everything after that is 768kbps - a speed which should not dent users around you).

This would be favorable to just terminating users.



elvey
Spamassassin

join:2001-02-17
San Francisco, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Sipgate VOIP
·Virgin Mobile Br..
reply to NormanS

said by NormanS:

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.
What's your source? This is false. When comcast and AT&T signs up at a public peering point, everyone and their uncle wants to peer with them. They have to pay for transit for a small fraction of their traffic. My source is the public peering database.
--
SBC is the world's second-largest SpamHaus and leads an Organized Crime Syndicate. Also see TURN.org or UCAN.


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

said by elvey:

What's your source?
I was heavily criticized for speaking of Comcast as a peer provider. Now I am criticized for hedging. I can't win for losing! :huh:
This is false. When comcast and AT&T signs up at a public peering point, everyone and their uncle wants to peer with them. They have to pay for transit for a small fraction of their traffic. My source is the public peering database.
AFAIK, nobody signs up with Comcast to use their backbone for transit between non-Comcast endpoints. The only trace routes I have seen posted seem to support that; the Comcast backbone always appears to have one end at a Comcast POP.
08/17/07 13:43:56 Slow traceroute www.comcast.net
Trace www.comcast.net (204.127.195.15) ...
192.168.102.1   RTT:   1ms TTL:170 (chihiro.aosake.net ok)
192.168.0.1     RTT:   3ms TTL:170 (suzuka.aosake.net ok)
68.127.107.254  RTT:  10ms TTL:170 (adsl-68-127-107-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ok)
64.164.97.131   RTT:  10ms TTL:170 (dist4-vlan60.pltn13.pbi.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
151.164.93.239  RTT:  11ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
151.164.191.66  RTT:  14ms TTL:170 (ex1-p10-0.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net ok)
12.122.79.97    RTT:  16ms TTL:170 (gar7.sffca.ip.att.net fraudulent rDNS)
12.122.85.130   RTT:  17ms TTL:170 (tbr1.sffca.ip.att.net fraudulent rDNS)
12.123.13.174   RTT:  18ms TTL:170 (gar4.sffca.ip.att.net fraudulent rDNS)
12.122.255.218  RTT:  16ms TTL:170 (idf22-gsr12-1-pos-7-0.rwc1.attens.net ok)
63.241.85.98    RTT:  16ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
192.168.64.73   RTT:  26ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
204.127.195.15  RTT:  28ms TTL: 52 (www.comcast.net ok)
 
The 'sbcglobal.net' to 'att.net' transition is leaving the old SBC (formerly "SBC Internet Services") backbone for the AT&T (AT&T Worldnet Service) transit backbone.

While there is transition from AT&T to Comcast, there is no transition from Comcast to anyplace else. I do not know of a destination where I can jump from my end, through Comcast, to a non-Comcast end.

In general, Level 3, MCI/UUNet, AT&T Worldnet Services, and the other transit providers can make deals for mutual exchange of packets based on symmetric exchange. But Comcast, Net Access Corporation, and AT&T Internet Services (the old SBCIS) tend to have asymmetric packet exchanges, and cost their peers for data transit; they get to pay for that transit.

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


elvey
Spamassassin

join:2001-02-17
San Francisco, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Sipgate VOIP
·Virgin Mobile Br..

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by NormanS:

I was heavily criticized for speaking of Comcast as a peer provider. Now I am criticized for hedging. I can't win for losing! :huh:
Well, it's quite complicated - peering and transit agreements and terminology are often not consistent. Sometimes carriers play 'chicken' with each other.
Example: »www.phoneplusmag.com/articles/33···er2.html .
It gives a definition of Peering and then says the definition is changing...

My point is that if you have eyeballs, you tend to have clout to not have to pay to receive traffic, especially if you have a nationwide or worldwide network.

But then some traffic sources often don't have to pay either, like google.
There's also a tendency that the bigger you get the less you pay per bit, to the point that the biggest guys get paid per bit, whether they're sending or receiving.

I think Comcast's only customers are its cable customers. So in the sense of providing transit to other ISPs, I don't think it does that.

Interesting traceroute I just did:
Shows AT&T's backbone being used to get from SF to Denver for a comcast in SF - comcast in Denver route!
This is atypical, I think.
 1  c-76-21-22-240.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (76.21.22.240) 1.434 ms
 2  *
 3  ge-1-1-ur01.oakland.ca.sfba.comcast.net (68.87.196.201)  14.551 ms
 4  12.117.240.14 (12.117.240.14)  12.235 ms
 5  12.117.240.13 (12.117.240.13)  10.181 ms
 6  tbr2.sffca.ip.att.net (12.123.12.53)  40.439 ms
 7  tbr1.dvmco.ip.att.net (12.122.12.134)  35.429 ms
 8  12.122.101.9 (12.122.101.9)  38.941 ms
 9  12.87.19.14 (12.87.19.14)  45.028 ms
10  te-9-3-ur02.arvada.co.denver.comcast.net (68.86.103.42)  47.117 ms
11  te-9-2-ur01.arvada.co.denver.comcast.net (68.86.104.97)  48.326 ms
12  *
13  c-75-71-116-143.hsd1.co.comcast.net (75.71.116.143) 46.28 ms
 

--
SBC is the world's second-largest SpamHaus and leads an
Organized Crime Syndicate.
Also see TURN.org or UCAN.