dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1262
share rss forum feed


FLengineer
CCNA, CEH, MCSA
Premium
join:2007-06-26
Leesburg, FL

1 edit

Kudos

Grats Comcast.

This is a solution that is perfectly legal and not in violation of Net Neutrality. However I hope Comcast is going to provide a way for the average user to check on their usage. Most people don't know how to log into their router, and some routers don't record this data.


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:5

1 recommendation

I can see now all the claims of the bandwidth meter being off or not working.


Jeffrey
Connoisseur of leisurely things
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3
Reviews:
·voip.ms
said by ptrowski:

I can see now all the claims of the bandwidth meter being off or not working.
Yep, I can see that happening too. How would you dispute your bandwidth amount of your own meters disagreed with Comcast's?

How would you account for all the unrequested bandwidth (like spam) that is sent to the end user?

Would Windows Update be exempt?
--
And so castles made of sand, slip into the sea, eventually.

I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
reply to FLengineer
said by FLengineer:

However I hope Comcast is going to provide a way for the average user to check on their usage.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

I needed a good laugh.

There will be no such way to tell customers how much they use. If anything, Comcast will fudge numbers and if you disagree, you will have to contact their abuse department which promises never to call or email you.


NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO

1 recommendation

reply to FLengineer
Actually it violates network neutrality.

Online video downloads would prevent customer choice because they would quickly hit the caps.

Comcast would quickly be able to create a walled garden just through price controls.


dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
reply to FLengineer
said by FLengineer:

Grats Comcast.

This is a solution that is perfectly legal and not in violation of Net Neutrality. However I hope Comcast is going to provide a way for the average user to check on their usage. Most people don't know how to log into their router, and some routers don't record this data.
It'll be just like rogers cable. When the cap isn't generating enough extra cash, they'll drop the cap.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
reply to NOCMan
said by NOCMan:

Actually it violates network neutrality.
Let's dilute the phase "network neutrality" until it means nothing!

Maybe dial-up providers are violating net neutrality because they are selling a connection that isn't even fast enough to support video!

Bastards!


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

reply to NOCMan
said by NOCMan:

Actually it violates network neutrality.

Online video downloads would prevent customer choice because they would quickly hit the caps.

Comcast would quickly be able to create a walled garden just through price controls.
If it violates NN then how come the cell companies and the satelite internet companies can have caps?

No one said you couldn't still download movies you'd just pay extra if you went over.

By the way 250 GB would be about 42 HD downloads. That's over $200 and if you can afford $200 in HD downloads you can afford the overage cap.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

3 edits

1 recommendation

reply to NOCMan
said by NOCMan:

Actually it violates network neutrality. Online video downloads would prevent customer choice because they would quickly hit the caps.
It does not violate Network Neutrality any more than subscribing to the 6 Mbps or the 8 Mbps plan are non-neutral.

By imposing a cap, Comcast will be defining a maximum average bandwidth that is different from their speed. In this case, 250 GB per month divides out to 768 Kbps.

This is why heavy P2P users get surprised by the limits of Cable technology. Tell someone who P2P's heavily that Comcast only will give them 95 KB/s (combined, up and down, if used 24/7). They'll be shocked! DSL and FIOS users tend to get up to the bandwidth on the ad (regardless if viewed as speed or consumption). Heavy P2P users will tell you that they break 95 KB/s constantly!

Add to this fact that stupid companies make the limits of cable look even worse when they impose needlessly low caps.

Again, for 80% of the customers, this is a difference that doesn't matter. Cable is even fine for the occassional P2P'er and for most of everyone else.

If heavy P2P users have a choice, they really should go to DSL as it better meets their needs and their style. This is not hype, it's physics. It's a limit imposed by how Cable Internet was laid out years ago. Switching to DSL doesn't really help or hurt either Cable or DSL. You're offloading some of the toughest bandwidth that cable has to manage onto a system better suited for it. And even if you use more of it after switching to DSL, the TelCo still eeks out a profit because transit bandwidth is dirt cheap. (This is a generalization, not all systems are built the same.)

By setting the right caps, Comcast is taking a risk by telling a truth that its competitors might exploit -- but it's the right thing to do. By setting them high when compared to caps laid by others in the industry, they're kicking their cable brethren in the ass for making the technology look worse than it actually is. Either way, Comcast's move (if this rumor is true) is good for all consumers and its a step that should be applauded.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...

hottboiinnc4
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to FLengineer
what they were doing was not a Violation of Net Neutrality. There is no such thing- anywhere. Its Network Management. There will never be a such thing as Network Neutrality. Thats just groups like Save the Internet and others crying and boo wooing on they can't max their connections out using P2P or Bit- especially the ones that use it for illegal downloads.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 edit
said by hottboiinnc4:

what they were doing was not a Violation of Net Neutrality. There is no such thing- anywhere. Its Network Management. There will never be a such thing as Network Neutrality. Thats just groups like Save the Internet and others crying and boo wooing on they can't max their connections out using P2P or Bit- especially the ones that use it for illegal downloads.
Kyle,

So when Comcast decides that YOU use youtube.com too much and that it's going to block (erm, 'delay') your use of it -- that's OK because you say there's no such thing as the principle of Network Neutrality?

You'll change your tune then! Management is fine -- it just has to be applied neutrally.

Quit the name-calling and join us in an adult conversation, okay? The Internet was designed to be neutral in the middle. Network operators are breaking that model, and this obviously has consequences. NN is a principle that only recently has been "named," but it's legacy goes back to the day when it was decided that devices in the middle of the network were not allowed to unilaterally apply its own value system to messages sent by the ends.

-- Robb
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...

jaminus

join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
Come on, Funchords. Comcast blocking YouTube? Get real. Theoretically they could do that, but that would be business suicide. The telcos would love it, and customers would flock to competing ISPs.

Do you really think a law is necessary to prevent Comcast from blocking, or even degrading, YouTube. Far too many profitable users would be angered by such a move.

What about Sandvine, you say? Well, that affects only a protocol, not a specific website. And it doesn't even affect leeching, only seeding, and only on some nodes. It is also usually circumventable simply by setting Protocol Encryption to level 5.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

2 edits
said by jaminus:

Come on, Funchords. Comcast blocking YouTube? Get real.
Really? Get Real? How real is blocking more than 60 legal applications that use BitTorrent?

How about the fact that BitTorrent accounts from a third to a half of all Internet traffic? --- a trend that was increasing until throttling started. And so what is supplanting BitTorrent? Flash-delivered content (aka YouTube and its cousins). Why? Perhaps -- just perhaps -- the ISPs are too afraid to be discovered "managing" (blocking) it like they were with P2P.

Can't prove it. Can't disprove it, either. Plausible -- you're damned straight!

Theoretically they could do that, but that would be business suicide. The telcos would love it, and customers would flock to competing ISPs.
IF there is a TelCo offering broadband. Most of the USA lives outside of DSL range.

And if there is a competitor, there is only one. Then cable TV (Comcast, Cox, Roadrunner, etc.) just makes their tiers look more compelling -- when they really aren't.

Why do you think that the tiers keep increasing in these DOCSIS 1.1 areas -- they send a new config to your modem, but they don't provide any more bandwidth to the pool shared to your node.

Bandwidth -- the new Ponzi scheme.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to Jeffrey
said by Jeffrey:

said by ptrowski:

I can see now all the claims of the bandwidth meter being off or not working.
Yep, I can see that happening too. How would you dispute your bandwidth amount of your own meters disagreed with Comcast's?

How would you account for all the unrequested bandwidth (like spam) that is sent to the end user?

Would Windows Update be exempt?
What about if you get a DDOS attack at your cable modem? Who is responsible? Can you tell Comcast to do DOS filtering? and I guarantee there will be a lawsuit if Comcast doesn't offer DOS filtering since Comcast is profiting from their lack of due diligence.

Consumerist will be filled with posts about the bandwidth meter lying and how to scamget overage credits from Comcast.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to NOCMan
said by NOCMan:

Actually it violates network neutrality.

Online video downloads would prevent customer choice because they would quickly hit the caps.

Comcast would quickly be able to create a walled garden just through price controls.
That one is easy. Stop calling it internet service. Call it PC entertainment service or "Online" service or "ComcastNet". If you never sold internet access, then how can you be accused of blocking parts of it?

BTW, caps are content provider agnostic. No difference between Comcast's homepage being accessed and Google.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to jaminus
Sandvine can be configured to read HTTP traffic and look at destination addresses, Comcast has chosen not to do that.

Regarding youtube, your right. If Comcast blocks Youtube, AIM, or email to non-Comcast addresses, Joe Six Pack, teenager Susie, and grandma will leave unless Comcast can provide equivelents, for Youtube there is a remote chance of cloning it, AIM and email, no way, since you can't copy other human beings.