lordicon72
@integraonline.net | reply to funchords
Re: COMCRAP
Beaverton and Portland Oregon |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to tshirt
said by tshirt  : As to why they are in denial about it (other than obvious security/ operation concerns) I'd guess that's input from the PR dept. and therefore likely has little resemblance to reality ... 'Three point shot from mid-court --- SCORE!!!'  
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to funchords
said by funchords : I don't get the "Massive Connections" being an issue. Perhaps you can explain that one to me. Comcast's routers don't need to be stateful (like a SOHO router does), they just need to route IP. An idle TCP/IP connection is not "chatty" so what's the beef if I happen to open several hundred of them (if I can)? [don't flame me -- it's an honest question -- if I'm wrong, teach me!] That's true, but my take on it is that they're better than that. Despite all the heat that these threads have raised, Comcast has been a relatively good ISP over the years. BitTorrent clients like uTorrent and Azureus/Vuze have bandwidth autotuning that throttles down the upload speeds (Azureus also does download) if network latency increases. Innovations like that sure seems a like a key part of the solution to me. All that to say this: Yes, it's their call. But, Comcast would be hard pressed to honestly say that a filetransfer was having a negative impact on the Comcast network if the program itself is constantly monitoring and effectively acting to prevent it. I doubt torrents or any other app, open large number of connections just to sit idle (unless by poor design) there is always some overhead, no matter how small.
For CC to rely on the autotuning feature is essentially turning control of that latency adjustment over to a third party app on thousands of machines, without control over how it is configured, or the ability to set the limits ads they see fit.
CC also has an overriding interest to be sure their own services (VoIP, IP video, game invasion and normal client transfers) receive the HIGHEST QoS priority
sandvine allows them to add a new, almost stateful like inspection to packets on their network and deprioritize certain traffic/ use patterns.
I do agree that overall Comcast has been a fairly good ISP and think that taking better control over latency, etc.
I also believe that they would not have agreed to (most likely) millions in licensing, hardware/changes, and maintenance to sandvine unless they believed it would assist in providing a better user experience to the majority of their customer base.
In fact any difficult you now have might be due to the initial tuning and testing phase as they iron out any bugs in network wide usage.
As to why they are in denial about it (other than obvious security/ operation concerns) I'd guess that's input from the PR dept. and therefore likely has little resemblance to reality |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | reply to tshirt
said by tshirt :said by bmn I need proof from people claiming that BT is "interfering with the operation of their [Comcast's : network." Well take a deep breath, hold it, hold it, hold it, and I'll get back to you soon. Sorry, No PROOF will be provided I put forth 3 possible reason why I believe comcast would choose to block/slow torrent activity 1}bandwidth usage 2}massive connections/virus like activity 3}massive connections/ router/network overload any of which COULD be seen as interference I don't get the "Massive Connections" being an issue. Perhaps you can explain that one to me. Comcast's routers don't need to be stateful (like a SOHO router does), they just need to route IP. An idle TCP/IP connection is not "chatty" so what's the beef if I happen to open several hundred of them (if I can)? [don't flame me -- it's an honest question -- if I'm wrong, teach me!]
said by tshirt : and none of which needs to meet your or my burden of proof to violate the TOS, the only burden of proof is In the sole opinion of Comcast that it interferes or disrupts their network. That's true, but my take on it is that they're better than that. Despite all the heat that these threads have raised, Comcast has been a relatively good ISP over the years.
Charter just announced a 16/1 Tier, and I know Comcast has these, too. That's rather irresponsible, isn't it? All it takes is 3 wide-open BitTorrent downloads (or any kind of downloads) to slow down a whole neighborhood.
BitTorrent clients like uTorrent and Azureus/Vuze have bandwidth autotuning that throttles down the upload speeds (Azureus also does download) if network latency increases.
Innovations like that sure seems a like a key part of the solution to me.
All that to say this: Yes, it's their call. But, Comcast would be hard pressed to honestly say that a filetransfer was having a negative impact on the Comcast network if the program itself is constantly monitoring and effectively acting to prevent it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to tshirt
said by tshirt :...the only burden of proof is In the sole opinion of Comcast that it interferes or disrupts their network... There is an old saying... Opinions are like assholes; everyone has one but some are full of shit.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to bmn
said by bmn I need proof from people claiming that BT is "interfering with the operation of their [Comcast's : network." Well take a deep breath, hold it, hold it, hold it, and I'll get back to you soon.
Sorry, No PROOF will be provided
I put forth 3 possible reason why I believe comcast would choose to block/slow torrent activity
1}bandwidth usage
2}massive connections/virus like activity
3}massive connections/ router/network overload
any of which COULD be seen as interference
and none of which needs to meet your or my burden of proof to violate the TOS, the only burden of proof is
In the sole opinion of Comcast that it interferes or disrupts their network. |
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to funchords
said by funchords : To both of you -- I'm curious what further proof that you feel is needed? Have you read the thread that is linked to my sigline? The evidence is plain -- not to mention that the procedure is clearly spelled out in their patent! I browsed through your other threads and agree something is effect your downloads in a sandvine like manner.
In most cases it appeared to be at the edge of the CC network or perhaps at the edge of the AT&T network, however you did post one example where it appeared to be effecting a purely CC to CC user transfer.
so I must agree that CC is using sandvine
|
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| reply to grandpinaple
said by grandpinaple :Then it's time to upgrade to meet user demand. BT users may be a minority, but they are a significant minority. They bring in other low use customers and they may be a minority percentage wise, but in sheer numbers they are large. Which CC is constantly doing.
But you (they) don't just run down to walmart and buy 10,000 cisco routers and plug them in.
there are engineering studies, finding/build rack space which means adding power, backup power,power conditioning, cooling, fire suppression, etc. then you probably need to add backhaul fiber, node splits and so on. and more deskspace at the NOC to manage and monitor said equipment, plus more technical staff to maintain it.
Not only are you talking about millions/billion of $ (all within current budget, and with careful choices of equipment, so as not to become obsolete at the next major upgrade), but months/years of planning and design (wasted $ means higher bills to customers)
So demand will always out strip supply.
You suggest a massive, out of planned cycle upgrade to the plant for either
a}a small portion of the customer base, who are using far above the planned typical user resources, and already complain that what they pay is too much and that they will leave at the drop of the hat for other providers
or
b} a growing percentage of customers (10-20%) who have recent discovered much higher bandwidth applications, but are likely to feel priced out of the service, if asked to shoulder the true costs of the improvement and bandwidth bills
all of which while attempting to keep the service usable and affordable for the other 80-90% of your customer base (group C), who are paying 80-90% of the income for your business.
a Massive rush buildout for group a} (who are driving peak demand, MAY generate some additional low-use customers (but probably not as much as a similar $ spent on promos and plant area expansions), and certainly promote high churn rates) makes no sense.
a carefully planned buildout to meet the needs of b} as well as bandwidth control to keep it usable/affordable for c} make a better model for continued long term growth.
In this this case being in the a}'s (cutting edge, geeky, elite, greedy) pushes you outside their desirable customer envelope at least under the current flat rate/no contract model (yes there are several tiers, but that's more about speed than volume)
Should they go to a longterm contract, price per byte system?
That introduces something the cable companies have carefully avoided, becoming a creditor......unlike the current prepaid model PPB means you have to collect fees from the user after the fact even some ordinary users might end up using more that they are prepared to pay. and certainly some of the a} group would run up $$$ in bandwidth fees and default (my impression is many of the BT users down load movies, etc. and *nix etc. because it is "free") leaving the company and the remaining customers holding the bag/bill.
monthly fees to c} group would likely not drop, b} group would rise somewhat, and only the most dedictaed, well-heeled a}'s would remain. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | reply to Lordicon
said by Lordicon :
well..I can't connect to any p2p or torrents.... What city are you in? Are others in your city similarly affected? |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | reply to tshirt
Then it's time to upgrade to meet user demand. BT users may be a minority, but they are a significant minority. They bring in other low use customers and they may be a minority percentage wise, but in sheer numbers they are large. |
|
Lordicon
@comcast.net | reply to LiberalKing
well..I can't connect to any p2p or torrents....so I'm ditching these bozos. DNS has always been crap and their routing sux. I'm moving soon anyways so I'll go live in an area served by FIoS. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :I'm curious what further proof that you feel is needed? Have you read the thread that is linked to my sigline? The evidence is plain -- not to mention that the procedure is clearly spelled out in their patent! I need proof from people claiming that BT is "interfering with the operation of their [Comcast's] network."
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to formercanuck
said by formercanuck :
Gotta love 3rd party DSL resellers like DSL Extreme... no traffic shaping, and any port blocking is listed.
I've been giving that a lot of thought, myself. I've had DSL 3 times. I've subscribed to Verizon directly, and I've subscribed to resellers on two different occasions.
As a power user, I really appreciated the way that the resellers worked. They were much more eager to make me happy! |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :said by tshirt :even if comcast is blocking torrents specifically (so far un- PROVEN) I would doubt they know or care about the legality of the content, merely that it is interfering with the operation of their network. The statement that Bittorrent is "interfering with the operation of their network" is also an "un- PROVEN" statement... To both of you --
I'm curious what further proof that you feel is needed? Have you read the thread that is linked to my sigline? The evidence is plain -- not to mention that the procedure is clearly spelled out in their patent! |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to dvd536
said by dvd536 :Simple then. cap your download until you've seeded how much you want. This really is a good idea, folks.
For any particular torrent, set your upload limit at 20kB/s, set your download limit to about 15kB/s of this. You should be able to complete your download with a great ratio every time!
The exception might be old torrents that have few peers, but it's always been tough to make a ratio on those -- with or without Comcast's "management" getting in the way.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | reply to Cheese
Re: COMCRAP
Simple then. cap your download until you've seeded how much you want.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to bmn
said by bmn :said by tshirt :even if comcast is blocking torrents specifically (so far un- PROVEN) I would doubt they know or care about the legality of the content, merely that it is interfering with the operation of their network. The statement that Bittorrent is "interfering with the operation of their network" is also an "un- PROVEN" statement... Notice the if (I'm not yet convinced it is happening) In fact I am convinced that ComCast would only choose to do this, if in fact it was interfering with network operations or under legal duress (which I am sure we would have heard about by now.)
The third Problem large numbers of torrents could cause for network operations is the sheer number of connections.
Let's say 2 of CC's 12 million HSI customers are running BT or similar with an average of 50 connections, that's 100 million connections above the normal/expected traffic hitting CC's routers, DNS, CRAN, etc.
If you have been reading the boards here for even a couple years, you might have read about the rapidly rising route congestion, CC routers dropping packets, DNS failing to respond, etc.,etc.
Just like some basic home routers become overwhelmed by excessive connections, so do their big brothers at CC given enough traffic.
|
|
sanitarium09
join:2002-09-01
| reply to LiberalKing
They'll lie about anything that will effect the bottom line in the same way that they'll cut someone off if they deem them to be using too much bandwidth. They never define "unlimited" because they want you too believe that it is. If anything they should start listing unlimited as "Unlimited*" in their ads. Every corporation that has ever existed is worried about one thing and one thing only, money. |
|
gizmopt2002
join:2004-09-10
Fox River Grove, IL | reply to formercanuck
I have a cousin that works there in California. lol. |
|
