Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » US Cable Support » Comcast » Comcast HSI » Comcast Bandwidth Abuse/Limits - Discuss here only
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
56220
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Posting:
[NEWS] NY AG Will Sue Comcast If They Don't Pretend To Fight Chi »
« [Speed] yet another low speed thread (east houston)  
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 ...40 · 41 · 42
AuthorAll Replies


Sturm

@alconlabs.com


1 edit
reply to funchords
Re: Comcast Bandwidth Abuse/Limits - Discuss here only

Everything you said here was perfectly reasonable. My question had to do with a matter of degrees of "wrong"-ness. I think you've answered it well enough. I'm with you, buddy!
Thank you for your kind words.

Mod Note: Lock info is in the first post of this topic. ~sorto'


Sturm

@alconlabs.com

reply to funchords
It is a quote from the Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas, but I believe I also saw it in some writings of Sun Tzu, do not remember too well, has been many, many years. To me, everything is seen through a political tint (therefore the rants some find annoying), but when I see trends in a bigger picture it becomes worrisome. I have had the pleasure of seeing close Communism, studied it's close cousin practiced in the 40's Germany and I see other interesting trends these days that many see also. So not all my comments are made for no reason when I see TCP packets dropping or being "delayed".


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype

reply to Sturm
said by Sturm :

Treason is a matter of dates.
HAHAHAHAHA! I hope I can remember that one. It's beautiful!

said by Sturm :

I get disconnected for usage that soon is going to be acceptable. I get the whole lecture from the CC "abuse" dept PLUS a group from this board. When next year the 500 GB / mo usage will be fine, what changed ? Nothing, except that the CC backbone finally caught up with demand. So it was not my usage that was "abusive" but the network hardware that was inadequate and the policy that tries to justify that. I do not have a problem with caps as long as they are clearly defined, I do not have issues with paying extra for my usage, I do have an issue with the 1 year disconnection, the misleadingly defined caps and ESPECIALYY being called an abuser when I am a customer in good standing.
Everything you said here was perfectly reasonable. My question had to do with a matter of degrees of "wrong"-ness. I think you've answered it well enough. I'm with you, buddy!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...


Sturm

@comcast.net

reply to funchords
said by funchords See Profile :

said by Sturm :

That is a big if and does not make this practice less wrong.
Sturm, that's interesting.

I think it does make the practice less wrong. Disclosure of the limits makes the limits less wrong. Increasing the limits as time goes on keeps the Internet growing and innovative and is likewise less wrong.

Let me know if you disagree, maybe you see something that I don't.
Treason is a matter of dates. I get disconnected for usage that soon is going to be acceptable. I get the whole lecture from the CC "abuse" dept PLUS a group from this board. When next year the 500 GB / mo usage will be fine, what changed ? Nothing, except that the CC backbone finally caught up with demand. So it was not my usage that was "abusive" but the network hardware that was inadequate and the policy that tries to justify that. I do not have a problem with caps as long as they are clearly defined, I do not have issues with paying extra for my usage, I do have an issue with the 1 year disconnection, the misleadingly defined caps and ESPECIALYY being called an abuser when I am a customer in good standing.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype

reply to nice one
said by nice one :

As far as whether Comcast should publicly reveal the limits, the pros and cons have been discussed ad infinitum in this thread. I like the idea of Comcast setting the limit and charging for overage. But we got plenty of whiners complaining about that.
I'm glad that whole 250 GB trial-balloon happened. That was one of the most revealing moments of truth in this whole debate. I learned more from that episode than the x,000 other messages I've read about the invisi-caps or blocking.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
reply to espaeth
ROTFL! I love it!!!

I want to assemble a team and start making those phone calls!


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq

reply to funchords
said by funchords See Profile :

"Read your e-mail and send Instant Messages at Blazing Speeds!" (For everything else, try FIOS...)
1) Robb Topolski hasn't received a call for network abuse
2) only those who use their connection for email and basic web surfing don't get calls

Ergo:

Robb Topolski only uses his Comcast connection for email and basic web surfing.

Comcast should put a message on the bill of the 14 million HSI subs that don't get calls: "Notice to subscriber: the people of the Internet have determined that your usage of your HSI connection is lame."


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype

reply to nice one
said by nice one :

Getting the bandwidth hogs off the systems so that other people can have normal use is the right thing for Comcast to do.
Oink.

"Read your e-mail and send Instant Messages at Blazing Speeds!" (For everything else, try FIOS...)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype

reply to Sturm
said by Sturm :

That is a big if and does not make this practice less wrong.
Sturm, that's interesting.

I think it does make the practice less wrong. Disclosure of the limits makes the limits less wrong. Increasing the limits as time goes on keeps the Internet growing and innovative and is likewise less wrong.

Let me know if you disagree, maybe you see something that I don't.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype

reply to Cabal
said by Cabal See Profile :

A year ago they were disconnecting people for 250 GB use, and now we never see posts with less than 400 GB (more often 1/2 or full terabyte). If they're almost doubling it every year, that's outpacing backbone growth by a significant margin, not too shabby.
FWIW, I agree that I seem to be seeing the same trend. It sure would be helpful to have the real numbers. Comcast has nothing to hide here.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...


nice one

@comcast.net

reply to Sturm
said by Sturm :

It is a widely used principle.
Certainly not in the field of logic.

The mere lack of evidence or proof does not support any conclusion, positive or negative.

What's indisputable is that the capacity of today's broadband systems/technology is finite.


EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ

1 edit
reply to Sturm
said by Sturm :

You do not have proof that it does, either.
Certain technical *facts* may dictate otherwise...


Sturm

@comcast.net


1 edit
reply to nice guy
said by nice guy :

said by Sturm :

said by nice one :

You don't have proof that bandwidth hogs don't affect other nearby users.
You do not have proof that it does, either. Presumption of innocence then should be the principle.
That's only true in US criminal system, but there's no such principle in logic.
It is a widely used principle.


nice guy

@comcast.net


1 edit
reply to Sturm
said by Sturm :

said by nice one :

You don't have proof that bandwidth hogs don't affect other nearby users.
You do not have proof that it does, either. Presumption of innocence then should be the principle.
That's only true in US criminal system, but there's no such principle in logic.


Sturm

@comcast.net

1 edit
reply to nice one
said by nice one :

You don't have proof that bandwidth hogs don't affect other nearby users.
You do not have proof that it does, either. Presumption of innocence then should be the principle.


nice one

@comcast.net


1 edit
reply to Sturm


You don't have proof that bandwidth hogs don't affect other nearby users. Yes, there are some maintenance issues that affect usage. But systems properly maintained and upgraded only have so much capacity for traffic.

As far as whether Comcast should publicly reveal the limits, the pros and cons have been discussed ad infinitum in this thread. I like the idea of Comcast setting the limit and charging for overage. But we got plenty of whiners complaining about that. But if you don't like Comcast's present policies or their arbitration procedures, then you should go to DSL or, if that's not available, T1. With T1, you'll be paying the proper price for constant heavy bandwidth use.


Sturm

@comcast.net


1 edit
reply to nice one
said by nice one :

Getting the bandwidth hogs off the systems so that other people can have normal use is the right thing for Comcast to do.
Would be nice if normal use would be clearly defined so one could know what his usage should be so not to be kicked off by an arbitrary unknown limit.
Also there is no proof in many cases that the bandwidth hogs affect other people's normal use. The hogs are often blamed for the substandard performance of the network due to substandard maintenance and lack of upgrades.
Also, if now we no longer have an issue with users that download approx 250 GB/month but now they are considered normal vs. one year when they were "abusers" shows the arbitrariness of those characterizations and the enforcement. Treason is a matter of dates, I guess. If we continue the trend, my supposed "abuse" of 500 GB next year would be fine, so then should I not be upset for the disconnection ?


nice one

@comcast.net
reply to Sturm
Getting the bandwidth hogs off the systems so that other people can have normal use is the right thing for Comcast to do.


Sturm

@comcast.net
reply to Cabal
That is a big if and does not make this practice less wrong.


Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA

reply to ztmike
said by ztmike See Profile :

said by Sturm :

said by darkman :

I just got a call from comcast saying my account was flagged for downloading 460 gigs in the month of June. If I get flagged again, I was told my service would be disconnected for a year without them needing to inform me. It will just be done and i won't get a warning.

Welcome to the Comcastic experience.
lol.

Its only going to get worse..
A year ago they were disconnecting people for 250 GB use, and now we never see posts with less than 400 GB (more often 1/2 or full terabyte). If they're almost doubling it every year, that's outpacing backbone growth by a significant margin, not too shabby.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Thread is
Forums » US Cable Support » Comcast » Comcast HSI[NEWS] NY AG Will Sue Comcast If They Don't Pretend To Fight Chi »
« [Speed] yet another low speed thread (east houston)  
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 ...40 · 41 · 42


Saturday, 05-Dec 00:09:21 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [163] Comcast Releasing Promised Usage Meter
· [145] Avast Antivirus Has Gone Mad
· [126] Comcast Makes NBC Universal Acquisition Official
· [104] Graduate Student Unveils Sprint's GPS Sharing With Feds
· [101] Google Invades ISP, OpenDNS Turf With Google Public DNS
· [83] FCC Ponders Moving From PSTN To IP Voice
· [81] Latest Consumer Reports Survey Not Kind To AT&T
· [77] The Bandwidth Hog Does Not Exist
· [74] Sprint Defuses GPS Privacy Media Bomb
· [70] Baltimore To Ban Lazy Cable Installs
Most people now reading
· False positive in Avast! or is it real? [Security]
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· Farewell [Bell Canada]
· ToC 4th boss - Preliminary Strategy for Twin Valkyr [World of Warcraft]
· Using AirMax to provide triple play services? [Wireless Service Providers]
· IPComms Free DIDs now with sip registration maybe?? [VOIP Tech Chat]
· [Rant] Disrespect of PTO [Rants, Raves, and Praise]
· Google takes aim at browser redirection [Security]
· How happy are you with your current ISP? [General Questions]