Re: Don't assume anything in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20233638 en Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:43:00 EDT Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:43:00 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20265811 Skippy25 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20265811 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:03:36 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20238680 a333 : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20238680 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:44:06 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236690 wierdo :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

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. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236690 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:49:45 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236461 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236461 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:11:06 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236453 Skippy25 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236453 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:09:06 EDT A Q&A from Comcast VP on BitTorrent deal http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236225 TK Junk Mail : »www.news.com/8301-10784_3-990468···1_3-0-20
To try to figure out what exactly Comcast is planning to do later this year as its part of this detente, I sat down with Comcast's Joe Waz, who is the senior vice president for external affairs and the company's public policy counsel. (Both of us happened to be here at a technology policy conference; I'm scheduled to do an onstage interview of Ashwin Navin, BitTorrent's president and co-founder, as part of the conference on Thursday afternoon.)
See the above link for the actual Q&A.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20236225 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:31:53 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20235995 MattE :
said by TK Junk Mail See Profile :

said by moonpuppy See Profile :

said by TK Junk Mail See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20235995 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:59:46 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20235844 TK Junk Mail :
said by moonpuppy See Profile :

said by TK Junk Mail See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20235844 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:39:23 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20235341 DHRacer : "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.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20235341 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:33:26 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20235193 Samwoo : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20235193 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:10:34 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20235091 funchords : 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 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20235091 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:55:04 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234866 TZi :
said by Corydon See Profile :

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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234866 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:23:32 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234833 MattE :
said by djtr4in See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234833 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:19:08 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234827 funchords :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234827 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:18:17 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234794 wierdo :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

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. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234794 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:14:25 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234770 Skippy25 : 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".]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234770 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:10:54 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234741 LeftOfSanity :
said by djtr4in See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234741 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:06:41 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234706 funchords :
said by TK Junk Mail See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234706 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:02:36 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234697 moonpuppy :
said by TK Junk Mail See Profile :

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? ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234697 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:01:50 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234664 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234664 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:56:08 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234638 Corydon :
said by TZi See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234638 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:52:30 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234528 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234528 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:34:47 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234514 TIGERON : THANK YOU]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234514 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:32:29 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234465 MattE :
FiOS (BPON and GPON ) is shared. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234465 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:27:21 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234316 TZi :
said by Corydon See Profile :

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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234316 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:07:41 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234053 Corydon :
said by TK Junk Mail See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234053 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:29:31 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234049 DHRacer : 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.)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234049 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:29:03 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234034 Boogeyman : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20234034 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:26:09 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233892 TK Junk Mail :
said by Sabre See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233892 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:06:22 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233735 Karl Bode : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233735 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:39:29 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233705 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"?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233705 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:34:02 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233638 Karl Bode : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233638 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:18:22 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233586 JPuppy :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

...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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233586 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:07:12 EDT Re: Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233509 Karl Bode :
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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233509 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:48:00 EDT Don't assume anything http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233489 gaforces : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20233489 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:43:10 EDT