Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to Karl Bode
Re: Don't assume anything
I agree 100% Karl. However, you and I both know that the corporations are going to walk the line of deceit as much as the govermental agencies there to protect us will let them. |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Skippy25
Let's hope that doesn't turn the US into another Canada.... I'm OK with the idea, but often times, companies abuse that, and rip customers off. It'd be OK if it was $50/month for 20 Mbps with 350 Gigs included, with $0.50/10 gigs. That's reasonable, in my book. But if it's a Time Warner-style $1/Gb overage, that's just ridiculous. Might as well maintain a DSL connection alongside the cable connection, to take care of big downloads. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode  : quote:
However, if you think it is there for you to absorb 100's of GB or even TB of data at your leisure just because you can then you are sadly mistaken and it is clear in every TOS that if you are doing such they have the right to limit you or terminate you.
Well then it's time to tell the marketing department to stop pretending the connection has no limits, impose overage fees, and deal with the public relations consequences instead of constantly whining about and demonizing users who actually use their connection. Agreed. But maybe that's because I only use significantly more than Cox's almost never enforced cap one month out of ten lately.
When I had DSL, I was constantly downloading, though. Of course, that might have been because it was only 20% of the speed, so it took 5 times as long to download anything. 
If I were the cable companies, I would impose a soft cap and throttle you after you exceeded it. The more you use, the slower it gets until you're down to 1.5Mbps. And I would publicize that as being my policy. None of the normal folks who use the satellite providers find their FAPs to be unreasonable in principle, only in the excessively low number at which they kick in. Unlike the cable companies, however, they are 100% up front about it.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to Skippy25
quote:
However, if you think it is there for you to absorb 100's of GB or even TB of data at your leisure just because you can then you are sadly mistaken and it is clear in every TOS that if you are doing such they have the right to limit you or terminate you.
Well then it's time to tell the marketing department to stop pretending the connection has no limits, impose overage fees, and deal with the public relations consequences instead of constantly whining about and demonizing users who actually use their connection. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to DHRacer
More speed is irrelevant to more usage. You can just get what you want quicker. That doesn't mean you have to consume more just because you can. You can continue to try to skew the facts if you choose, but you are 100% wrong and not a single ISP or network manager will tell you otherwise.
The connection is always on and available and you can use it any time you want. However, if you think it is there for you to absorb 100's of GB or even TB of data at your leisure just because you can then you are sadly mistaken and it is clear in every TOS that if you are doing such they have the right to limit you or terminate you.
I would like to advocate limiting you through tiers and throttling as I think that is the most reasonable and consumer friendly approach. It also gives them another revenue stream for true user’s of that bandwidth to get it for a price if they want it. But the casual moron’s that try to download the entire internet every month just so they can say they did, won’t be willing to part with their cash (or mommy and daddy’s cash) so quick to continue doing so. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by moonpuppy :said by TKJunkMail :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? Good point. They should take them offline until they get their machines cleaned. On this we're in 100% agreement. Get them offline ASAP. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy :said by TKJunkMail :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? Good point. They should take them offline until they get their machines cleaned.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
·Charter Pipeline
·Verizon west (ex G..
1 edit | reply to Skippy25
"You do NOT purchase bandwidth to use 100% 24/7. You purchase it with them having the expectation that you will be an average user using the average amount of bandwidth."
So even though the connection is on, I can't use it? Why not? You don't sign up for speed tiers by "usage" (though maybe they should change the tiers from "speed" to "usage") since everyone seems to think that more speed = more usage.
I'm still wondering where in the TOS is says what an "average user" is, or an how much is an "average amount of bandwidth". I'd hate to be an over achiever.
|
|
Samwoo
join:2002-02-15
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA | reply to LeftOfSanity
Don't forget to mention... The INTERNET as a whole is a shared medium.
Who shares what nodes on the other hand is a difficult question. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to TZi
Our uplinks are too small to blame any one or any few users on a performance degradation. It's like trying to blame a particular rainstorm or a particular sunny day on El Nino or Global Warming.
That said, in the past, I think they have acted reactively -- in just the way that you described. They either looked at nodes with high utilization or looked at nodes with a high number of complaints. Then they made "the warning call."
But within the past year or so, there has been a stronger campaign and it seems to me that they may have made "the warning call" to certain users proactively -- perhaps where they were about to add a 16Mbps tier or where they were about to launch Comcast Digital Voice.
said by TZi :As for a webpage that details your total transfer, there are several programs for windows (in fact windows itself) and some routers that can keep track of your total usage. While it is easy for satellite providers who have one central NOC to provide such usage statistics, it would be a nightmare for comcast who is constantly acquiring older systems, migrating recently acquired systems and building out new systems to aggregate all this data onto a webpage. Assuming that you are right, then fair enough. However after "the warning call," the user should be able to get some periodic self-monitoring feedback from the provider. Perhaps someone can manually grab the data each week and send it via e-mail to those under "the warning." This way, a user at risk can understand whether the high usage is something nefarious (like a virus or a leeching neighborhood) or accidental (a lousy remote-backup configuration, or someone watching an HD-quality video stream 24/7 and merely turning off the monitor before going to school).
Currently, the only feedback they get is whether or not you have Internet service 30 days after that warning call.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. |
|
TZi
k1L0
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| reply to Corydon
said by Corydon :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). The reason these caps are "invisible" is because it would ultimately mean issuing a cap on a node-by-node basis which would be ridiculous considering most users don't even know what a bandwidth cap is. I don't even really think that Comcast even has a number that constitutes abuse, they simply identify users on a node which are consuming resources to the point that it is causing performance degradation and dealing with them accordingly.
If they told you don't transfer over XYZ amount a month then 100 subscribers signed on next month, that number would no longer be relevant or effective. So too, if 100 users cancelled next month and you were forced to adhere to XYZ that would mean loads of network capacity go unused which could be used to satisfy you as a subscriber.
I don't think comcast intends to hide the "invisible" cap from us, it's just that the number is ultimately dynamic.
As for a webpage that details your total transfer, there are several programs for windows (in fact windows itself) and some routers that can keep track of your total usage. While it is easy for satellite providers who have one central NOC to provide such usage statistics, it would be a nightmare for comcast who is constantly acquiring older systems, migrating recently acquired systems and building out new systems to aggregate all this data onto a webpage.
--
128kbps too much, 100GBps never enough! |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to djtr4in
said by djtr4in :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. I also have a direct optical line to my house that is based upon BPON technology.
That doesn't negate the fact it's still shared at the neighborhood node. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode : 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. I'm 100% sure the same was happening with BitTorrent. My Cox partner in testing was having too many wireshark problems for me to be able to prove it, however. So the only evidence I had was anecdotal.
My confidence is based simply on the fact that Cox is using Sandvine and ED2K is an "also ran" as far as P2P protocols go. A USA cable MSO is not going to use Sandvine P2P policy enforcement without going after BitTorrent.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
1 edit | reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode : 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. Oh, they do it to BitTorrent in some markets (or at least were a couple of months ago)
Edited to add: As of a few minutes ago, they're not blocking outright anymore, they're just throttling the crap out of it. I have a server connected over GigE to Cox San Diego (among other ISPs) with an all Cox path to my cable modem in Tulsa. Using BitTorrent, the server can seed a given file to me in Tulsa at a mere 25.6KBps. Over HTTP, I can download the same file at my full cap.
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to DHRacer
You are incorrect in your assumptions regardless of legality.
You do NOT purchase bandwidth to use 100% 24/7. You purchase it with them having the expectation that you will be an average user using the average amount of bandwidth. They do understand that there will be those that use more and those that use less than the average. However, those that are using an extreme amount need to be dealt with as it effects everyone (them and the other customers).
I personally would say they need to have tiers with caps above what a 'typical' user would use. As you move into those tiers your connection is throttled more and more. If you need more bandwidth or higher caps you buy it and pay a "surcharge" to be an "avid downloader or uploader". |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| reply to djtr4in
said by djtr4in :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. Is that standard throughout the country or an experience that you or someone you know had?
Fios is a shared medium also. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :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. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :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? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to Corydon
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. |
|
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| 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. |
|
