US Cable Support > Comcast HSI > Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized

Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized

reply to funchords
Wow, that's some seriously high powered stuff they've got there in that letter. I think that, if anything, the level of exposure they've given into the underpinnings of both sandvine as well as the mentality of the whole thing is telling.

They contradict themselves many times in this, saying that they strive to provide

I found this particularly unnerving:

reply to funchords

reply to Nerdtalker

Specifically, Comcast’s current P2P management is triggered when the number of P2P uploads in a given area for a particular P2P protocol reaches a certain, pre-determined level, regardless of the level of overall network traffic at that time, and regardless of the time of day when the applicable P2P protocol threshold is reached.

A. publicly organizing their business model with "metered usage" which was not widely accepted in the marketplace nor directly addressing congestion, or
B. secretly blocking uploads using packet forgery methods and also not widely accepted in the marketplace and ALSO not directly addressing congestion

reply to funchords
In reference to the bit about network upgrades.

Doesn't changing upstream modulation profiles count as an upgrade? Going from 16QAM to 64QAM for example gives you a nice bit of extra upstream bandwidth. Or even going from a 3.2mhz 16QAM carrier to a 6.4mhz 16QAM carrier for that matter. Comcast may not have implemented DOCSIS 2.0 everywhere but it seems to be implementing it on a as-needed basis. Which is probably what prompted them to give everyone a boost in upload speed in the first place.

And to your point about the placement of sandvine servers, I think you should have visited Comcast so you could re-evaluate that point.

It's not surprising that this whole debate has generated into an attack on your character sadly. It is a legal move to discredit one of Freepress' star witnesses so to speak.

reply to funchords
It is clear at this point that the only way for Comcast to deliver unhindered service that they oversold to the customers is to have the company massively fined and split apart into smaller entities that would be more customer service oriented.
Hopefully the federal agencies will see this massive problem Comcast has become and will act accordingly to resolve it. Comcast has chosen to buy many other smaller cable providers and the experience has been negative for the many of the acquired customers (InsightBB, Time Warner being some). Clearly, those customers were much better off before both technologically and price wise.
Clearly the company does not intend to deliver service to meet the rising demand of the market, nor does it even want to introduce metered access, because even if the customer paid more they would still not be willing to provide the service they already sold, therefore they choose to delve into legalese explanations why really black is white.
Maybe they simply can't. It is difficult to know since they are so opaque in their policies and confused in daily communications. It is too bad that rather than work with the many knowlegeable customers toward a mutually rewarding business relationship the company chooses the heavy handed approach typical of a monopoly, but such is the way sometimes things go.
When they accuse knowlegeable people as Mr. Topolski of not knowing their network, they are only themselves to blame. We, as customers, have as sources of information only confused CSR's or threatening "abuse" department reps that would not even disclose usage caps that supposedly do not even exist. We can draw conclusions only empirically and reactively regarding network architecture and topology vs. preferred cherry picked companies that Comcast chooses to disclose minimal network information to.
We have to deal with the stress of trying to figure out what affects our traffic while we have purchased "unfettered Internet access".
It is important for our country to be a leader in Internet access and development of new technologies as both a promoter of technological growth and as a stream of revenue. The greed of a huge cable video provider should not be the determining factor why this should not happen.

reply to funchords
People..and Companies..have every right to defend themselves in this country. And to call into question the knowledge and experience of those making allegations against them.

Any Judge Judy show demonstrates that.

On many occasions on this website you have documented everything from your investigation to your belief that Comcast should even be fined for their actions.

But now you feel they shouldn't have the right to respond to that?

It seems so. And part of that certainly should involve calling into question the experience of those making the allegations. It's the basis of this countries legal system that allows it. And, in fact..demands it in the interest of fairness.

My personal feelings are that while you "uncovered" what you did...I have to call into question for who's benefit was it?
There are millions of us who use the service for reasonable purposes..who aren't "bandwidth hogs"..and who expect our ISP to provide reasonable safeguards against those who degrade our service. I see Comcasts efforts in that light and, while maybe not perfect..I realize that little is in this world. It wasn't a conspiracy to harm their customers.
This company allowed people to download 300 and more gigs per month, has given us 30Mb powerboost speeds..and does it for a reasonable price.

Your portrayal of them has been anything but that IMHO.

With that said..I respect the right you have to your opinions. But..I also respect the right of Comcast to call into question your experience.

It really is only fair.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic!

reply to Rick

Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized

reply to Rob
Of course sandvine was about bandwidth hogs. Why else would they have utilized it?

And no, every p2p user wasn't doing something illegal..but do you really think that the majority weren't? If you do, I'd suggest you've been living in a dream world for the 7 years you've been on this site.

Like I said..sandvine isn't the perfect solution. But I think their reasoning for it and the category of user it addressed was as right on point as they could possibly make it. Without it..you and I wouldn't be writing this. Our entire networks would be saturated with 24/7 copyrighted p2p activity.

Are there better ways? Perhaps. And, I think the industry and Comcast is now addressing it and hopefully will come to a fair resolution.

As I stated..my critique of funchords wasn't about his right to express himself. I defend that 100%. But, it's also fair that a company then has a right to defend themselves and to call into question the experience of someone who makes allegations against them. My belief over the last few months has been that while he certainly critiqued them..he rarely if ever offered up a better solution and he failed to talk at all about the need to have some controls in place for the benefit of the rest of the users.

That's what I saw as biased and one sided.

Anyways....

I've stated my position.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic!

reply to Rick
*sigh* I just typed a long response to your post and it's gone without being posted.

So just imagine me responding to each of your answers

Me too tired to retype it all. Maybe later.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.US

reply to Rick

reply to funchords
If Comcast is so willing to share it's network architecture, then why don't they just publicly share it? I mean, if they're not doing anything wrong, and their network management is "reasonable" then they don't have anything to hide right?

That's the biggest problem to me. They hid the fact that they were "delaying, blocking, covering with mustard, etc" anything from packets to content from their customers. As a customer, it outrages me and I've let them know it several times. I'm not a BT user or P2P guy other than the occasional linux distro or trial app, it's just the fact that they were so deceptive.

I really hope the FCC makes an example of this abuse of their customers.

reply to rolfp
I don't see what comcast was doing as illegal anymore than I see a bank having the right to install a camera and dye trap in their money drawer as being illegal.

Both companies have the right to protect themselves and their customers from abuse and harm. It has been well documented in many places by many isp's that 5% of users soak up 50% and more of the bandwidth when allowed to continue unabated with their p2p usage. Comcast has every right to call into question the technical expertise of someone making accusations against them because..without some kind of network controls on the 24/7 bandwidth hogging copyright stealing p2p crowd...ALL of our connections would come to a grinding halt because of the limitations of this kind of a shared network.

I've said it before and will say it again. The system is not perfect. And, what also was not perfect is that some people who were using p2p for legitimate means may also have been impacted.

With respect however to funchords..what he didn't do was to acknowledge at all..at least that I saw..that there was a greater common good which comcast and probably most other cable companies were trying to address.
When we go into a bank..we're ALL filmed and perhaps ALL have our privacy imposed on. But it's also for the greater good..and protection of us all.

Anyways...I think the point of this thread isn't that..it's now whether a company or person should have the right to defend themselves. And whether that defense should call into question the experience and expertise of an individual who makes claims against another.

Imagine a witness on a witness stand in a court of law..involved in a malpractice suit against a hospital..telling the jury that everything the doctors did was wrong. Doesn't the defense have the right to ask if that person is even a doctor themselves..and to question their expertise? It seems that what comcast is saying in their filing is that funchords isn't a doctor at all. And has cited evidence of that.

They have the right to do that. And funchords has the right to respond to it and to correct any inaccuracies.

It's only fair.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic!