 gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Don't assume anything It's probably a bad idea to assign meaning to what they say such as "he means doesn't involve forging user TCP packets."
It's more likely that they will whitelist legal BT so as to avoid lawsuits.
Pirates are still fair game.
--
There is no greater sign of a general decay of virtue in a nation, than a want of zeal in its inhabitants for the good of their country. ~ Joseph Addison |
|
|
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
It's more likely that they will whitelist legal BT so as to avoid lawsuits.
That's what I was wondering...though the claim here is "protocol agnostic," so they'd be caught in a lie if they went back and started mucking about with even a portion of BT traffic... |
|
 KickrootJava HeathenPremium
join:2002-11-24
Glassboro, NJ | said by Karl Bode: ...so they'd be caught in a lie if... You make it sound like they try to avoid that type of situation.
--
Only through the criticizing of others can we learn to love ourselves. |
|
| Point made, but if they were still planning to take action against illegal Torrents their PR people would have avoided use of the phrase "protocol agnostic" in the press release. |
|
 SabreDi relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17 | Unless they were planning to take action against illegal material of any sort, whether distributed via torrent or otherwise? Wouldn't that still technically be "protocol agnostic"? |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| True. This announcement could be followed in a year by a push where they attempt to purge all illegal content from the network via deep packet inspection like AT&T says they want to do...
There could also be a future scenario where official, sanctioned "BitTorrent Corp." BitTorrent traffic is considered the only legitimate BitTorrent traffic they recognize because they've struck content deals with Cohen and company.
But both of these scenarios would be PR napalm bombs. Can't really tell until someone can poke at the newly managed network later this year. |
|
| reply to Sabre
said by Sabre:Unless they were planning to take action against illegal material of any sort, whether distributed via torrent or otherwise? Wouldn't that still technically be "protocol agnostic"? Yes. And they should take actions to stop illegal content. And also to reign in the bandwidth hogs(top 5% of users).
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 BoogeymanDrive it like you stole itPremium
join:2002-12-17
Panama City, FL
 ·Comcast
| What about the nodes that dont have "hogs" on them? The top 5% would just be the Granny that had a new grandbaby and got over 2 gigs of email video and pics in one day.
If you absolutely must get rid of "hogs" (instead of upgrading infrastructure), going by the top percent isnt a perfect idea. You'd have to do it as the top x users who consume more than y more than everyone else on the node on a consistant basis. That way at least the people who arent hogs but still use a lot wont get hassled as much. |
|
 DHRacerFire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
·Charter
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
How does one define hog? I mean, are there terms in the TOS that say you can only use your connection that you paid for between the hours of 8am to 5pm? If you paid for it, you should be able to use it 24/7. And if you happen to be an avid downloader or uploader who paid more moeny for a faster connection, what's it to you?
You'll notice that I didn't mention whether the content of the downloading or uploading is legal or illegal material, but frankly my stance is the ISP shouldn't care. That's law enforcement's problem. ISPs should just be the straw you use to suck and backwash into the great big internet pool.
--
"No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing /3M Corp.) |
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Yes. And they should take actions to stop illegal content. And also to reign in the bandwidth hogs(top 5% of users). Bandwidth hogs I'm cool with. Let Comcast go after them all they want to—as long as it really is just the top 1% or whatever and the limits are publicly defined. The main problem I have with Comcast is how opaque their practices are. They really need to be a lot more open about what they're doing.
On the other hand, I don't think stopping piracy or any other illegal content is any of Comcast's concern. Yes, they should cooperate with warrants and subpoenas, but I don't want my ISP monitoring my traffic at the behest of the **AAs unless someone's got a damn good reason, like solid evidence that I'm a pirate or kiddie porn trader or whatever. |
|
 TZi
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL | said by Corydon: The main problem I have with Comcast is how opaque their practices are. They really need to be a lot more open about what they're doing. I too believe that Comcast ought to be more upfront about just what constitutes over-use. However when you take into account how diverse the plants that they own are (750Mhz, 850Mhz, 1Ghz?) + (DOCSIS 1.1, DOCSIS 2.0 DOCSIS 3.0) , and even the different nodes within systems (100 subs on node A, 17 subs on NODE B), you can understand why it is somewhat difficult to put in the TOS a black and white definition of overuse. Not to mention the fact that services and subscriber load on a system could change on a weekly or daily basis.
If they defined "overuse" according to the most heavily subscribed node, it would mean a lot of users who could be taking advantage of free bandwidth are being denied unused resources whereas a policy based on the least subscribed node would ultimately result in poor service for all. By addressing the issue of "overuse" on node by node, system by system basis they can ensure that their network resources are most efficiently use.
I don't think they intentionally try to make the definition of overuse a secret, it's just that it's based on so many dynamic factors it's almost impossible to put in black-and-white, but I'm sure it is easy for them to identify in the network management software which can dynamically evaluate all those factors.
--
128kbps too much, 100GBps never enough! |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
1 edit | reply to Anon
Re: Don't assume anything
FiOS (BPON and GPON ) is shared. |
|
| reply to DHRacer
THANK YOU |
|
djtr4in
join:2008-03-27
Frederick, MD | reply to Matt
direct opti line to my house...same speed through out the day compared to comcast which slows at peak hours..6pm-9pm due to everyone in the area home from work and relaxing and browsing the net. |
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | reply to TZi
said by TZi:I too believe that Comcast ought to be more upfront about just what constitutes over-use. However when you take into account how diverse the plants that they own are (750Mhz, 850Mhz, 1Ghz?) + (DOCSIS 1.1, DOCSIS 2.0 DOCSIS 3.0) , and even the different nodes within systems (100 subs on node A, 17 subs on NODE B), you can understand why it is somewhat difficult to put in the TOS a black and white definition of overuse. Not to mention the fact that services and subscriber load on a system could change on a weekly or daily basis. That's a good point, but Cox somehow manages to do it, and I'm sure they suffer from exactly the same issues that Comcast does.
A diverse plant actually is one of the areas where infrastructure upgrades does make sense. I have no doubt whatsoever that MSOs have network surveillance that monitor nodes for oversubscription, identify good candidates for upgrades, etc. I'm sure they do node splits and similar upgrades all the time as their business grows.
What I would like to see is a high cap on how much you can use the service in a month, one that would pretty much never catch 95% of their users (The MSOs routinely claim that only about 1% of users violate the invisible caps). Give people a way of tracking their usage on their website. Then selectively enforce the cap on those nodes where the heavy users are actually impacting others, while letting heavy users on other nodes that don't have the same impact skate by until they do. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | quote:
That's a good point, but Cox somehow manages to do it, and I'm sure they suffer from exactly the same issues that Comcast does.
As an aside, Cox also uses the exact same packet forgery approach to throttle eDonkey traffic, but people generally ignored that when we pointed it out last year. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Yes. And they should take actions to stop illegal content. And also to reign in the bandwidth hogs(top 5% of users). How about some of that illegal spam bot action that seems to come from Comcast subscribers whose machines are infected?  |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Yes. And they should take actions to stop illegal content. And also to reign in the bandwidth hogs(top 5% of users). I have a better idea.
Create a skunkworks to figure out a better "last-mile" solution, and let the bandwidth hogs volunteer to test it FOR FREE.
... erm, well maybe I'd be the only volunteer for that -- I'm probably one of the only guys that downloads porn just to look at the articles datagrams ...
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. |
|
