Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized in Comcast HSI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20840076 en Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:45:32 EDT Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:45:32 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20849047 funchords :
said by wenter99 See Profile :

said by funchords See Profile :

Lack of competition means that leaving Comcast HSI behind is quite a big step down for me. But I've had DSL for a few months now, and it's definitely got its own problems --
Enough problems for another lawsuit maybe?
Heh, one ISP at a time.

Yeah, Verizon probably isn't celebrating me at this point, either. :) :D :o ;)

Lest anyone take this idea seriously, don't.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20849047 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:22:43 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20849027 funchords :
said by Rick See Profile :

There is and has been this VERY vocal...VERY minor portion of users who for the longest time now think they own the entire network. And that is the 5% of people who consume 50% of the bandwidth and who expect everyone else to pay for it for them.
Those folks are pretty obvious, aren't they? But the real question to ask is whether or not they should have a reasonable expectation that this is what they'll get.

Up until a couple of weeks ago, Comcast was advertising and selling a 6 Mbps tier on their site, with PowerBoosts up to double-digits. Now there is no mention of that 6 Mbps/384 Kbps tier on the site. Why?

Because Comcast finally realized what Karl, myself, and many others have been saying all along -- that Comcast can't offer something disclosed and then start enforcing undisclosed caps and employing technology in order to deliver less bandwidth secretly. (By the way, they really took the low road by eliminating the basic rate -- now customers are going to expect that "PowerBoost" is the basic rate. Sheeeesh!).

The user got a 6 Mbps/384 Kbps expectation because Comcast gave it to them, and they made a deal based on that expectation.
said by Rick See Profile :

We ALL know what those people are doing. They are trading copyrighted material all day and all night long over their RESIDENTIAL connections.
Do know that your neighbors, right this very minute, might be smoking, cheating on their taxes, or taking 3 Tylenol instead of 2 recommended by the manufacturer?

I don't see the Mortgage company installing smoke detectors, the FDA doesn't audit Tylenol, and the IRS hasn't installed spy-cams in our homes.

If people are not abusing the network by unlocking their modems, sending forged packets, sending spam, keeping you from enjoying your service, or trying to break into the accounts or others -- then why do you care? Licensing of copyrighted material is a matter between the user and the licensee. The ISP has nothing to do with it.

And I'm not sure it's even true these days. Most TV and Movie shows are available in good quality and full length cheaply from licensed sources. Finally, the studios seem to be listening to what their fans want.

The result, HTTP and streaming video are now the largest bandwidth users. What's really changed? Should the ISPs start blocking these in the name of "network management"?

said by Rick See Profile :

Servers are not allowed.
Señor Management disagrees with you.
said by Rick See Profile :

But that just don't matter to them anymore than stealing other peoples work matters to them. Somewhere in the back of their minds it's all ok because they're anonymous. And, it's just "there" for the taking. Well..so too is goods in a store front window after a massive riot smashes storefronts.
It never was theirs to take. They are thieves.
I'll try to remember that you're not talking about everyone here -- lest you are calling me a thief. Unless, of course, you are calling me a thief.
said by Rick See Profile :

"1. Turning Sandvine off right now and replacing it with nothing would be an improvement. It does little good and does a lot of harm to innocent users. I have been asking for this all along."

Comcast is saying in their filing you have no network experience. And that statement proves it.
Because what would happen..just by the very nature of this shared network we're all using..is if that happened..
immediately..we'd all be posting on our dial up connections to the Comcast forum screaming that we simply had no connection at all.
Now whose guessing? Only Comcast and Cox use RST packets from Sandvine.

And I have plenty of network experience, Rick.
said by Rick See Profile :

The p2p crowds unrelenting 24/7 saturation of the upstream would take down comcasts entire nationwide network IMHO.

And..it would take down the entire networks of every cable operator out there.
Only Comcast and Cox use RST packets from Sandvine.
said by Rick See Profile :

Your statement is misinformed..and wishful thinking.
And not reality.

What you would like comcast to do is similar to you asking Citibank to take down their alarms..unlock their doors 24/7..and leave no one in the bank..and trust that no one will rob them.
No, because I'm not saying that Comcast should unlock everyone's modem and turned the shared pools into a free-for-all. However, ironically, they're doing something very similar all by themselves. They just increased the modem uploads from 384 Kbps to 1 Mbps on 100% of the network while they only upgraded the shared bandwidth on 8.7% of the network.

said by Rick See Profile :

I fully understand that Sandvine has some unwelcome carryover effects. On people who don't fall into that 5%.
But no one can reasonably argue that the VAST majority of those it seeks to prevent from harming this network is the ones i've described above. You know it..and I know it.
And everyone who's been around BBR more than a month knows it.
By that logic, Comcast can replace Sandvine with a device that causes the modem to emit Sarin gas instead of sending RST packets. After all, unintended side-effects aren't all that important. (yes, I know you don't support that -- I'm using absurdity to point out absurdity)

said by Rick See Profile :

As you know..what my biggest complaint has been about your posts is that you fail to recognize and acknowledge that.
And even in your statement above..you fail to recognize that. You say that it's comcasts problem and not yours to worry about..but that would be like you saying to your state they need to eliminate all their speed limits and laws and just let everyone else deal with it. You offer up no solutions at all. And in doing so...are simply representing that 5% of people who the 95% are tired of carrying on the backs of their hard earned paychecks.
Rick, here is my original post: »Comcast is using Sandvine to manage P2P Connections

In that post, I do make suggestions, "- These are being installed silently -- why? Why not install them noisily, and provoke action on the makers of P2P applications to seek out peers with lower TTLs (translation: electrically closer, more likely to be 'in-network')."

And even though I'm soooooooo disqualified, I observe that one of the major IETF efforts to come out of the P2PI Working Group has established its goal to do exactly the above suggestion. I must have just gotten lucky, since I'm just a little old software tester.

said by Rick See Profile :

I've said before and I'll say again..I think that what Comcast was and is doing is watching out for not only themselves..but the vast majority of we users.
They have to serve all of their users, or they should not do business with anyone that they don't intend to give full service to. They can't pretend to offer them service and then secretly use technology to take it back.

said by Rick See Profile :

I have a great experience with my connection..get great speeds..and have no problems at all with connecting to anything. I think your criticism of them is unfounded.
My criticism of them is mine, not yours. I think you ought to broaden your view, because how you can consider mine "unfounded" after all that has transpired confounds me.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20849027 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:18:25 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20848881 sturmvogel :
said by wenter99 See Profile :

said by funchords See Profile :

Lack of competition means that leaving Comcast HSI behind is quite a big step down for me. But I've had DSL for a few months now, and it's definitely got its own problems --
Enough problems for another lawsuit maybe?
Let's not turn this into a sniping contest on Robb. He went out of his way to resolve the problem before going to this extreme and hinting that he would be an lawsuit happy individual is far from reality.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20848881 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:44:27 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20848842 wenter99 :
said by funchords See Profile :

Lack of competition means that leaving Comcast HSI behind is quite a big step down for me. But I've had DSL for a few months now, and it's definitely got its own problems --
Enough problems for another lawsuit maybe?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20848842 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:38:40 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20848141 ptrowski : Just because someone may be employed in one field that doesn't mean they care not a professional in another. Some of my QA clients work in the network space such as WAN acceleration products, etc.

That doesn't mean squat.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20848141 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:17:46 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20847790 Rob :
said by funchords See Profile :

Hi Rick,

First off, the peaceful way civilized people handle unresolvable disputes is through the courts, perhaps you would have preferred something akin to »75-Year-Old Woman Takes Hammer to Comcast Office instead? C'mon.

Secondly, I haven't moved my resume. It's still where it has always been and the link works: »www.funchords.com/Robert_Topolsk···ting.pdf and it is not hosted on my home network. As to my response to Comcast's attack, see HERE and check out the final pages.

Third, I don't want this audience's support. I want them to know why I am not using Comcast anymore. I have been using Comcast all of this time, and now I'm not. I thought that the reason I switched was interesting and that it would be an interesting post. I know where I'm posting and I know that I won't have everyone's support. On the contrary, this is where I'm likely to meet the best critics -- and that's meant as a compliment.

Fourth, I doubt I need to advertise the suit. As Class Action suits go, everyone impacted is easily identified through company records and will be notified at the right time as to how to participate or how to remove themselves from participation. First it has to be certified as a class, so let's not get the cart before the horse.

Finally, good will means that you ought to assume positive intent. Cripes!

--Robb
Robb, I really think it would be more appropriate to put your resume as a bittorrent download file :D j/k]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20847790 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:16:05 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20847743 funchords : Hi Rick,

First off, the peaceful way civilized people handle unresolvable disputes is through the courts, perhaps you would have preferred something akin to »75-Year-Old Woman Takes Hammer to Comcast Office instead? C'mon.

Secondly, I haven't moved my resume. It's still where it has always been and the link works: »www.funchords.com/Robert_Topolsk···ting.pdf and it is not hosted on my home network. As to my response to Comcast's attack, see HERE and check out the final pages.

Third, I don't want this audience's support. I want them to know why I am not using Comcast anymore. I have been using Comcast all of this time, and now I'm not. I thought that the reason I switched was interesting and that it would be an interesting post. I know where I'm posting and I know that I won't have everyone's support. On the contrary, this is where I'm likely to meet the best critics -- and that's meant as a compliment.

Fourth, I doubt I need to advertise the suit. As Class Action suits go, everyone impacted is easily identified through company records and will be notified at the right time as to how to participate or how to remove themselves from participation. First it has to be certified as a class, so let's not get the cart before the horse.

Finally, good will means that you ought to assume positive intent. Cripes!

--Robb
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20847743 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:04:20 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20847381 espaeth :
said by Nerdtalker See Profile :

Many of us also agree that using RST packets to "manage" network congestion harms their network.
This would be a problem if it was their blanket solution to network congestion. The RST packet injection is limited to specific applications that survive having individual sessions reset.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20847381 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:02:06 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20847373 sturmvogel : Re://
And, I put emphasis on these words "
"Topolski is identified in court documents as a networking professional"

Comcast...on the other hand..is saying they discovered his resume that says his experience is in software...

//

There are many software engineers that specialize in networking. TCP/IP is a software protocol, among many others.

I did not read Robb resume, but this is just a reply to your question.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20847373 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:00:24 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20847310 Nerdtalker :
said by jester121 See Profile :

Comcast says P2P harms their network, and some of us agree.
Many of us also agree that using RST packets to "manage" network congestion harms their network.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn

I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20847310 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:51:31 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846991 Pizz :
said by jester121 See Profile :

said by funchords See Profile :

Meanwhile, everyone else knows that Comcast clearly and authoritatively states permits P2P, and the FCC requires them to:

"consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice"
You've clearly been playing this PR game long enough to know how to excerpt quotes and leave out parts that don't support your view.

From YOUR source:

quote:
To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.13


Comcast says P2P harms their network, and some of us agree.
P2P doesnt harm the network - What does harm the network, is having many over-subscribed nodes, with users trying to access content that requires bandwidth. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846991 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:47:29 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846971 Pizz : Good luck Robb, you're going to need it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846971 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:44:04 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846938 jester121 :
said by funchords See Profile :

Meanwhile, everyone else knows that Comcast clearly and authoritatively states permits P2P, and the FCC requires them to:

"consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice"
You've clearly been playing this PR game long enough to know how to excerpt quotes and leave out parts that don't support your view.

From YOUR source:

quote:
To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.13


Comcast says P2P harms their network, and some of us agree.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846938 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:39:21 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846868 sturmvogel : I do not believe there will be a problem for the suit to attain class status by the statements of Comcast's own based on the percentage of heavy users they disconnect.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846868 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:22:25 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846842 Rick :
said by GOLFnSUN See Profile :

Comcast decided to personally attack me several days ago, in a public filing in the FCC case.
Maybe that was because you were suing them:
»www.multichannel.com/article/CA6581628.html
The lead plaintiff in the suit, Oregon resident Robb Topolski...
The suit was filed July 18 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The court has not certified a class.
Funny that you never mentioned that in all your posts in this thread.
That is interesting. And, it gets even more interesting and perhaps Robb can explain this.

In that story it says this..

"Topolski is identified in court documents as a networking professional currently serving as “chief technology consultant” for Free Press and Public Knowledge, two public interest groups that have targeted Comcast over the peer-to-peer issue."

And, I put emphasis on these words "
"Topolski is identified in court documents as a networking professional"

Comcast...on the other hand..is saying they discovered his resume that says his experience is in software...and cited his own resume as proof.
Interestingly enough..when I just clicked on the link to the resume..nothing now comes up..and it just times out. I guess the home network isn't working too good? ;)

»fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···20034944

Rob..can you explain these obvious discrepancies?

It would be only fair to the audience you're trying to illicit support from here in this forum.

And furthermore..with this suit now revealed..my question is was your purpose here just to try to gather support for that and for the class action status you're trying to get it to be?

These are reasonable questions Rob.

That deserve an answer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846842 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:15:43 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846716 sturmvogel : Probably he could not disclose this until made public by the court. Nevertheless, the important thing is his testimony to the FCC, I am sure that will have more bearing than the potential class lawsuit.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846716 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:46:50 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846710 sturmvogel : Hey Robb, nice to see you ! I wonder if Comcast has a life sized poster of you to do target practice with darts :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846710 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:45:01 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846689 GOLFnSUN :
Comcast decided to personally attack me several days ago, in a public filing in the FCC case.
Maybe that was because you were suing them:
»www.multichannel.com/article/CA6581628.html
The lead plaintiff in the suit, Oregon resident Robb Topolski...
The suit was filed July 18 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The court has not certified a class.
Funny that you never mentioned that in all your posts in this thread.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846689 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:41:48 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846685 sturmvogel : Also, I do not believe that the heavy users "own" the network. They expect a level of service that obviously the provider cannot meet and a solution should be negotiated. In most cases the suggestion of "get a business class account" shows only the ignorance of who suggests that, because Comcast would not offer one, as I have found out. The provider treating the heavy users like dirt does not help either. And before I get attacked regarding the dirt statement, let the ones that have had the pleasure of talking to the "abuse" department share their experience or let's focus on the 12 months disconnection "policy", in itself a proof of abuse by the provider. What stance does the 12 month disconnection "policy" show toward the users, heavy or not ? Is this the stance of the provider we see in all the advertisements ?
As I said before, a 1 week or even 1 month disconnection for the at least first time "offenders" could be understandable, but a 12 month is quite too much.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846685 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:40:21 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846623 sturmvogel : I believe that position that what is good for the vast majority of users should take precedence over technological advancement to be an short sighted view. There should be a balance.

What we see here is a network provider that has oversold its capabilities, advertised "unfettered" access to the Internet, download, view whatever you want using your fast connection available 24/7 and then the applications that could use this "unfettered" access CAME.

Instead of working with the users to reach a solution and pricing scheme agreable for all, the provider chooses to criminalize the users for using what was sold to them. No matter what, if a connection is sold to me as being available 24/7, but then it is not, then it is not what was sold.

The 95% do not bear the weight of the 5% heavy users not more than the vast multitude of car drivers bear the cost unjustly for the usage of the roads for 18 wheelers. This point of view just tries to turn people against each other instead of focusing on the deceptive network access sold. As I have stated before, I have no issue with paying for a clear quota, usage and throttling as long as it is clearly defined when sold and VERIFIABLE.

But I believe Comcast cannot offer really not even a 250 GB quota to its users. That is why they are "toying" with this idea. Because they do not know what to do. They did not foresee the demand and the same people that did not foresee it are still in command and still are not knowlegeable of the technology that the Internet promotes to regular people. They are afraid that if the quota is published then most people will come "close" to it. Here is the crux. So, they decide on a quota that they ALREADY KNOW will be a problem for them if the people actually use. How is this different from the current situation when they sold something that is a problem even if 5% of users use ?

All they want to provide is email and web access and maybe a video trailer here and there, but cannot state it. That is why "servers are not allowed", P2P is not allowed and whatever else is of interest to technologically inclined people is not allowed or will not be once it becomes popular. To me Internet access through Comcast seems more like an afterthought than a serious business to be used.

So what is then allowed ?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846623 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:19:45 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846514 sturmvogel : We ALL know what those people are doing. They are trading copyrighted material all day and all night long over their RESIDENTIAL connections....the terms of which CLEARLY say...you just can't do that. Servers are not allowed.
But that just don't matter to them anymore than stealing other peoples work matters to them. Somewhere in the back of their minds it's all ok because they're anonymous. And, it's just "there" for the taking. Well..so too is goods in a store front window after a massive riot smashes storefronts.
It never was theirs to take. They are thieves.

///

No, we don't. Not all heavy users use their connection for P2P traffic. Many use it for downloading content from video content providers purchased legally.

There are a number of video content providers that are a threat for Comcast's video distributon model and they are using their internet access as leverage to hinder access to these new vendors.

Also, copyright infringement is not stealing, it is copyright infringement.

The fact that many on P2P networks may trade coprighted material does not make it true for all. Many people have guns, not all people that have guns are murderers.

Also, if there is no contractual quota for the heavy users, they are not stealing bandwidth from anyone. They are paying a flat fee that Comcast agreed on and they are using their connection within the transfer SPEED agreed. Stealing bandwidth would be if they would uncap their modem.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846514 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:48:01 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846418 Rick :
said by funchords See Profile :

Rick,

Lest anyone confuse your support for Comcast for an attack on me, let me set the record straight. You've been decent with me. I don't see you as an attacker at all. (You're just wrong -- hahahah - just kidding.) :) :D :o ;) :p

That said, I have said the following pretty consistently, and would like to say it again as my solution for this problem:

1. Turning Sandvine off right now and replacing it with nothing would be an improvement. It does little good and does a lot of harm to innocent users. I have been asking for this all along.

Rob,
First of all, thank you for taking my posts in the spirit in which they're intended. I'm not attacking you. Reasonable people can disagree, and that's what I'm doing. And, just to set the record straight, I'm not supporting Comcast per se.
What I am supporting is myself, my connection..and what I see as the vast majority of Comcast users.

There is and has been this VERY vocal...VERY minor portion of users who for the longest time now think they own the entire network. And that is the 5% of people who consume 50% of the bandwidth and who expect everyone else to pay for it for them.

There is no one in this world who should expect a 24/7...powerboosted up to 30Mb speeds for their very own for the amazingly low price of 43 bucks a month. But that is what they want..and more.

We ALL know what those people are doing. They are trading copyrighted material all day and all night long over their RESIDENTIAL connections....the terms of which CLEARLY say...you just can't do that. Servers are not allowed.
But that just don't matter to them anymore than stealing other peoples work matters to them. Somewhere in the back of their minds it's all ok because they're anonymous. And, it's just "there" for the taking. Well..so too is goods in a store front window after a massive riot smashes storefronts.
It never was theirs to take. They are thieves.

Rob..with all due respect to you and your experience and education..(and..i do believe you're a smart and intelligent guy)...Comcast is right to question your experience.
Because of this statement you just made...

"1. Turning Sandvine off right now and replacing it with nothing would be an improvement. It does little good and does a lot of harm to innocent users. I have been asking for this all along."

Comcast is saying in their filing you have no network experience. And that statement proves it.
Because what would happen..just by the very nature of this shared network we're all using..is if that happened..
immediately..we'd all be posting on our dial up connections to the Comcast forum screaming that we simply had no connection at all.

The p2p crowds unrelenting 24/7 saturation of the upstream would take down comcasts entire nationwide network IMHO.

And..it would take down the entire networks of every cable operator out there.

Your statement is misinformed..and wishful thinking.
And not reality.

What you would like comcast to do is similar to you asking Citibank to take down their alarms..unlock their doors 24/7..and leave no one in the bank..and trust that no one will rob them.

I fully understand that Sandvine has some unwelcome carryover effects. On people who don't fall into that 5%.
But no one can reasonably argue that the VAST majority of those it seeks to prevent from harming this network is the ones i've described above. You know it..and I know it.
And everyone who's been around BBR more than a month knows it.

As you know..what my biggest complaint has been about your posts is that you fail to recognize and acknowledge that.
And even in your statement above..you fail to recognize that. You say that it's comcasts problem and not yours to worry about..but that would be like you saying to your state they need to eliminate all their speed limits and laws and just let everyone else deal with it. You offer up no solutions at all. And in doing so...are simply representing that 5% of people who the 95% are tired of carrying on the backs of their hard earned paychecks.

I've said before and I'll say again..I think that what Comcast was and is doing is watching out for not only themselves..but the vast majority of we users. I have a great experience with my connection..get great speeds..and have no problems at all with connecting to anything. I think your criticism of them is unfounded. For me..and the vast majority of users.

Thanks for considering my position.

Rick]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846418 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:16:54 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846301 ib50MbSoon : From »www.comcast.net/terms/use/

• use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network ("Premises LAN"), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;

--
Comcast has spoiled me rotten!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20846301 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:11:27 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20845950 funchords :
said by nonymousa :

Again, Comcast TOS clearly prohibits servers.
Again, it does not.

“To be clear, Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites, VOIP applications like Vonage, and thousands of other applications online.” -- Charlie Douglas, Spokesman, Comcast Corporation

Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice said the company "does not block any Internet content, application, or service."

David Cohen, Comcast’s executive vice president, “Our limited network management practices ensure that everyone else’s applications and services, even those that may compete with our services and use P2P protocols, work,” Mr. Cohen said.

I suggest that if you think that you know more about what Comcast permits than Sena, Charlie, or David, that you take it up with them. Meanwhile, everyone else knows that Comcast clearly and authoritatively states permits P2P, and the FCC requires them to:

"consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice"

--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20845950 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:49:20 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20845374 anon : Again, Comcast TOS clearly prohibits servers. P2P is a server. Like it or not, no one is forcing you to subscribe. Don't like it, get a T1 for $350+ per month.

And FWIW, if all the illegal content was removed from P2P, bittorent traffic wouldn't be the problem that it is today. I guess you can thank the thieves for causing the problem.

Just my 2¢]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20845374 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:43:27 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20844055 Nerdtalker : funchords See Profile, I think this whole thing is completely and wholly telling of the corporate stance toward "net neutrality," and a remarkable perspective at how transparently this tenet has been violated.

Essentially, you've found yourself at the heart of a technology which represents one of many ways that a non-net neutrality network stance would be implemented. In essence, whether intentionally or by accident, Comcast (and Cox, to a lesser extent, since they also Sandvine) and the Sandvine scandal have become the cause célèbre for everyone following what future net neutrality, or, as I call it, "protocol-agnosticism" has in the future of the internet.

Obviously, their reaction has been to completely defend this position. To some extent, there's nothing else they can do. The proverbial Sandvine cat is out of the bag, it's common knowledge, and they're denying a capacity issue as being the impetus when in fact they argue that BT traffic represents a disproportionate amount of traffic. This is paradoxical; if capacity wasn't a problem, who cares what proportion of traffic is what protocol?

Then again, there's the other side of the issue. From their perspective, enough capacity is never enough. But that's the way it should be, there shouldn't be more than 30% or so of their bandwidth laying around unused at any time; active connections should consume the bandwidth available (a-la Powerboost). It just makes sense that way. Of course, this means they must strike a delicate balance between overselling, and underselling, everyone knows it.

I couldn't agree more that shutting off Sandvine today would make the network better. As I see it, using RST packets to terminate established connections is a bastardization of TCP/IP. If we can't abide by the open standards which made the network what it is in the first place, what's the point? Cut the legs out from under the pretense of internet routing, edge-to-edge routing, that is, and now I can't trust any network traffic.

Honestly, I'm beginning to feel that the recent speed increases are entirely arbitrary. I know in my area that capacity itself hasn't been increased, so why can we suddenly deliver 1.1 megabits upstream? They're selling something they don't have and can't deliver without sandvine, without shaping and a glass cap. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have 768 or even 384 up without sandvine.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn

I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20844055 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:19:43 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20843658 sturmvogel : Truth. I just have soft spot in my black heart for the usage argument that has been preached to me.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20843658 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:10:41 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20843619 anon :
said by sturmvogel See Profile :

Many people got disconnected based on usage, so the second governor analogy seems valid to me.
Yes but comcast's sandvine implementation (which is the topic of funchords issue) does not disconnect or ban users for excessive downstream bandwidth consumption (or upstream consumption for that matter). Although it probably could if configured to do so. Instead they use weekly/monthly network usage reports and their abuse department for that purpose. :-)

Just for comparison (HFC vs Fiber). You can get a 50/50 FTTH connection here (Utah) for about 50-60 dollars a month with a 500GB transfer limit. And if you go over, you don't get kicked, you simply have to pay for the extra. As an additional bonus, you can run servers (web, ftp) as long as it's not for a business. Although you can get a business account if you want. Now lets see... How much does comcast want to charge for their 50/5 with sandvine and hidden caps and TOS\AUP against servers? $150???

You would not believe how much money comcast has spent to try and get this network to go away.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20843619 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:04:43 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20843479 sturmvogel : Many people got disconnected based on usage, so the second governor analogy seems valid to me. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20843479 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:43:31 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20843440 anon :
said by sturmvogel See Profile :

said by Bad analogys FTL :

Cars with speed govenors? Well now that's a novel idea.
There are TWO governors in this analogy to have it correct. The speed governor is the cap speed set in your modem. Nothing really wrong with that, you pay for a 6 or 8 Mb download speed (we will not realy focus on the scarce upload speed inherent to the shared cable topology here). The questionable one is the USAGE governor, where you can transfer through the network only 250-400 GB before apparently attracting their wrath. So then the car analogy is more like a leased car with undisclosed contractual usage terms. How would you like to rent a car and suddenly be left in the middle of Sahara with a dead car since you have to "drastically alter your" driving habits ? No odometer provided, you kind of just have to have adhoc meetings with fellow drivers on the road and figure out if you stand out of the crowd. Can't really see them either to figure out how much they drive, because you cannot see their network traffic on the node.
Way to twist the car analogy to make it semi-work. I like it :-) But remember that the car would be rented or used under the assumption that you can drive it anywhere nearly as much as you want. Only to find that if you drive it certain places or with certain items in it, the car will behave erratically (like stranding you).

It's important to note that comcast's sandvine makes no distinction between heavy users and those that are light users. It doesn't matter if you use less than 1GB a month. It doesn't matter if the torrent you are participating in has illicit content or not. Your upstream torrent traffic is going to get defrauded.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20843440 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:38:14 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20843231 sturmvogel :
said by Bad analogys FTL :

Cars with speed govenors? Well now that's a novel idea.
There are TWO governors in this analogy to have it correct. The speed governor is the cap speed set in your modem. Nothing really wrong with that, you pay for a 6 or 8 Mb download speed (we will not realy focus on the scarce upload speed inherent to the shared cable topology here). The questionable one is the USAGE governor, where you can transfer through the network only 250-400 GB before apparently attracting their wrath. So then the car analogy is more like a leased car with undisclosed contractual usage terms. How would you like to rent a car and suddenly be left in the middle of Sahara with a dead car since you have to "drastically alter your" driving habits ? No odometer provided, you kind of just have to have adhoc meetings with fellow drivers on the road and figure out if you stand out of the crowd. Can't really see them either to figure out how much they drive, because you cannot see their network traffic on the node.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20843231 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:08:56 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20843188 funchords : Cool, we're left with this then...
said by espaeth See Profile :

said by funchords See Profile :

We've had this discussion before -- why ignore the obvious solution to the straw-man problem that you posit? Give each person an equal quota for highly-prioritized traffic -- enough to deal with VOIP but not enough to abuse with P2P. That way if someone chooses to burn it up on P2P, then that's a choice that they made.
1) More traffic classes means more queues for the queue manager on the CMTS to handle, which means upgrades would likely be necessary.

2) This would only benefit those users who setup their gear correctly. Look at all the people who come here just for SMTP port 25 issues even though 587 has been the chosen standard for client mail submission since it was defined in RFC 2476 nearly a decade ago. Sure, you and a handful of other folks on this forum would likely configure traffic classification correctly, but the average Joe is screwed unless his equipment vendor makes it the default config *AND* Joe actually updates his firmware.
The good news here is that the users really won't have to do anything. The applications that they use will have to identify their DSCP correctly. It will involve getting users to upgrade, but after about a year or two (think the limited lifetime of technology), it'll be an 80%/20% problem.

And you would be right to say, at this point, that I'm admitting that DSCP isn't a short-term fix. I'm not sure it's really a fix that Comcast wants at all because it doesn't support their always-under-congestion view -- they're looking for robustness in a continuously congested network, a situation made because they're not upgrading the underlying network as fast as user demand in a competitive environment would normally drive it. I don't think that expecting Internet applications to work well in a chronically congested network is a reasonable goal or even doable goal.

The result of congestion is delayed and dropped packets and the more congested it is, the more delayed and dropped packets that you have. Ultimately, some applications will become severely degraded and fall out of favor. Coincidentally -- or perhaps not -- these include bandwidth heavy video transfers that compete with Comcast's Cable-TV and OnDemand services.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20843188 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:01:02 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20843162 anon : The steady stream of bad analogies just serves to expose those posters that don't understand what comcast's sandvine implementation is doing.

Cars with speed govenors? Well now that's a novel idea. And actually is the way that comcast SHOULD control congestion on the network. Don't sell what you cant provide. If you cannot reasonably provide the meager upstream bitrate that your current userbase is using, you do not offer more bitrate to customers in an attempt to appease investors and analysts anxious that the HFC network is getting its butt kicked by FTTH connections and then cripple those that actually use the bitrate you advertised and gave them.

The best analogy by far I have used is this. Comcast rolls out fancy new telephone service, but doesn't have the infrastructure to back it up. They offer this service in such a way that they cannot meet the demands that their userbase will use their product for. So instead of offering the service at a rate they can sustain, they add new technology that when certain phone calls are made comcast will simulate the voice of the other party with a "sorry gotta go" and hang up. And they do this to both parties.
They do this under the semantics of "not blocking phone calls" and being "phone call agnostic". OR "it's just delayed, they can call that person back if they want"

If our phone companies did this today, people would freak out.

But what's worse is that comcast didn't implement this (sandvine) to work based on congestion profiles or heavily burdened times of day, but rather a blanket manipulation of certain network protocols across the board.

What funcords did was expose this "packet fraud" and comcast says he has no credentials to do it? Uhh well he was smart enough to find it, and anyone who has "credentials" can list dozens of thier "expert" peers who know less than amateurs. Only an idiot would give creedence to the idea that because funcords doesn't have certain paperwork he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I don't work for comcast but I have a huge amount of knowledge of their HFC networks and DOCSIS implementations, probably more than all but a few dozen comcast employees. I certainly know more about it than a bunch of comcast execs, managers and lawyers and I'm pretty sure funcords is the same way.

No, i don't think that a network owner should not make steps to have network efficiency, but to commit packet fraud to do so is out of bounds. Kick off heavy users? sure. Drop users to lower speed tiers if they exceed certain thresholds? creepy, but Ok.

Now lets take away the unacceptable packet fraud practice and look at throttling in general. What will the users say if comcast throttles back uploading movies to youtube to such a point that it's painfully slow and it would make a competing site seem more attractive? Are you ok with this on the basis that they need to manage their network (even though as has been shown the throttling isnt done because of current congestion on the network)? Now imagine if that youtube competing site was owned by comcast and/or paid comcast for a "good user experience"? Now how would you feel? This is the big fat slippery slope that only leads to more money for the company and less service for the consumer.

The right answer is not packet fraud or throttling, but to not sell speeds your to your userbase that you cannot provide. They should upgrade to a technology that they can sell those speeds to and then offer them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20843162 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:56:44 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842938 ztmike : I've been able to seed on torrents just fine..seems like they changed their ways for my area..

But still got that "invisible cap" and then the upcoming 250gb cap. :hmm: :(
--
WhY sO SeRiOUs!?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842938 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:21:03 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842878 espaeth :
said by funchords See Profile :

We've had this discussion before -- why ignore the obvious solution to the straw-man problem that you posit? Give each person an equal quota for highly-prioritized traffic -- enough to deal with VOIP but not enough to abuse with P2P. That way if someone chooses to burn it up on P2P, then that's a choice that they made.
1) More traffic classes means more queues for the queue manager on the CMTS to handle, which means upgrades would likely be necessary.

2) This would only benefit those users who setup their gear correctly. Look at all the people who come here just for SMTP port 25 issues even though 587 has been the chosen standard for client mail submission since it was defined in RFC 2476 nearly a decade ago. Sure, you and a handful of other folks on this forum would likely configure traffic classification correctly, but the average Joe is screwed unless his equipment vendor makes it the default config *AND* Joe actually updates his firmware.

said by funchords See Profile :

Wouldn't pricing be a lot more transparent and honest than Sandvine?
Sure, but to implement differential pricing you need a boatload of infrastructure, marketing, billing changes, etc to do that.

It's easy to look back retrospectively and say they should have done something different. The progression was likely a simple: 1) There are higher incidents of congestion on the network 2) The majority of the traffic on the congested links is P2P traffic 3) action needs to be taken to solve the P2P problem.

With regards to all of your arguments that Comcast should have informed their customers what was going on, I am in 100% agreement. Implementing network management without informing your customer base is reckless and I believe the FCC should indeed force Comcast to be open in disclosing their traffic management practices. What I don't believe is that Comcast (or any carrier) should be forced to "do nothing". Managing traffic (read: discarding some traffic) is an inherent function of operating a network, and that's why the features to do so are present in network devices from every vendor.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842878 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:08:54 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842694 funchords : I never said anything about pricing, although that's another alternative to consider in lieu of Sandvine. Wouldn't pricing be a lot more transparent and honest than Sandvine?
2. Using DSCP (DiffServ, RFC 2474 ET AL) is a way to make VOIP applications more robust during moments of congestion.
If you and I pay for the same connection, it's not "fair" that your 512kbps flow takes priority over mine just because you marked your packets into a video class and I marked mine as standard delivery. Without different pricing between the traffic classes you're begging for abuse by application developers.
We've had this discussion before -- why ignore the obvious solution to the straw-man problem that you posit? Give each person an equal quota for highly-prioritized traffic -- enough to deal with VOIP but not enough to abuse with P2P. That way if someone chooses to burn it up on P2P, then that's a choice that they made.

As it is we have the network abusing its role by deciding my traffic is expendable -- totally expendable as it turns out.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842694 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:35:12 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842613 espaeth :
said by funchords See Profile :

1. Turning Sandvine off right now and replacing it with nothing would be an improvement. It does little good and does a lot of harm to innocent users. I have been asking for this all along.
I know you're a smart guy; you really need to stop making this ridiculously stupid statement. That's like saying "Rivers were fine for millions of years without dams, so let's just remove all the dams and things will be fine". Or better yet, it's like the idiots here in MN that lobbied to shut off the freeway ramp meters because people complained that they would sit on the on-ramp even when it looked like the freeway wasn't congested. During that test period I actually moved from the suburbs to an apartment downtown because my commute went from 30minutes to 60-70 minutes each way. See: »www.dot.state.mn.us/rampmeterstudy/

You spend money on congestion controls to solve congestion problems. (the spend money part is critical, because someone had to put together a proposal and get budget to purchase the solution. You don't get that funding unless you can at make a compelling internal case)

said by funchords See Profile :

2. Using DSCP (DiffServ, RFC 2474 ET AL) is a way to make VOIP applications more robust during moments of congestion.
Traffic classification has been around for a long, long time time. Frame-relay networks had CIR/Burst, ATM has various commit levels based on bit rate and class, and MPLS networks today offer at least 3 classes of traffic (gold/silver/bronze). When you start talking about classifying and reprioritizing traffic, then it really becomes a discussion about setting up different pricing structures based on network priority. If you and I pay for the same connection, it's not "fair" that your 512kbps flow takes priority over mine just because you marked your packets into a video class and I marked mine as standard delivery. Without different pricing between the traffic classes you're begging for abuse by application developers.

said by funchords See Profile :

3. The only actual way to meet increasing demands for bandwidth is to meet those demands. You cannot "throttle the future" and for Comcast and other monopoly/duopoly ISPs to keep chanting "you can't build your way out of it" ignores 26 years of Internet history which shows that you can (and must). I have been saying the same thing for several months as well.
That's a great rant that doesn't address the actual limits of the technology. The effort involved in creating demand is highly disproportional to the effort involved to create capacity. For the long term, you are absolutely correct that you need to build your way out of congestion. The problem is that between now and when you can complete that buildout you need to do something. If my roof is leaking, the right way to fix it is to repair the roof and re-shingle to ensure water can't get in. If I can't get a roofing contractor out for 30 days, however, that doesn't mean I'm not going to throw a tarp over it to stop the damage in the short term. In terms of national network infrastructure, "short-term" tends to be months, not days/hour.

I don't agree with some of the personal attacks that Comcast has launched against you, but quite honestly I'm surprised more people haven't called you on some of your statements. You invested a lot of effort in identifying the Sandvine issue with Comcast, and many of your statements are technically accurate and valid -- but some of the statements you've made based on that research, while they may make logical sense, have significant flaws with respect to reality.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842613 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:20:20 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842566 jester121 : If funchords is going to come out and make bold public editorial comments ...

- Is Sandvine "network management" or not
- Is the limited capacity argument valid
- Is congestion a serious problem

... mixed in with his technical analysis (and indeed he has, just reference the posting history as well as the original analysis docs) then Comcast is perfectly within their rights to question his credentials. In a thread last week I pointed out some (in my opinion) glaring flaws in Robb's statements, and mentioned that this helps his detractors in their efforts to discredit him. His response to Comcast's FCC filing was pretty much more of the same; it came across sounding whiny and not very impressive at all.

Robb, if you want to be a big shot and stand in the spotlight, you need to learn to take the big punches when the tables turn.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842566 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:12:33 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842533 sturmvogel :
said by funchords See Profile :

Sturm, you're a great contributor. I sure wish you were a DSLReports member so I could give you thumbs-ups and send you PMs. :) So consider this as such -- and hopefully you'll be a member someday!
There you go. Thank you for your kind words.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842533 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:08:09 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842508 deblin : I'll keep this brief.

Just because someone does not have a degree in a particular field, or credentials to back something up, does not mean their findings are invalid or wrong.

We all know that what funchords See Profile found is in fact happening and has been well-documented. What does his other personal experience/etc have to do with what he found? Nothing.

Comcast is just pissed off that someone called them on their use of Sandvine. They thought they could just ignore it and deny it, and they got b*tch slapped with facts and hard evidence. They STILL did not back down.

Bottom line is - Comcast got caught, they're pissed, and they're going after someone to seek revenge. Tarnishing someone's personal or technical reputation serves only to mud sling and shows just how vehement their management is. Instead of admitting what they were doing and working with the consumer to find a better solution, they deny it and then when they get caught with their pants down, they try to make funchords See Profile look like some kind of 16 year old downloading things illegally. For shame Comcast, for shame.

Ok, not so brief, sorry :D
--
perl -le 'print $i=pack(c5,(8**2+3**2),42-10,sqrt(3600),oct(63),(unpack(c, "&")-6)),pack(c7, (70,114,101,101,66,83,68))']]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842508 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:02:59 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842246 funchords : Sturm, you're a great contributor. I sure wish you were a DSLReports member so I could give you thumbs-ups and send you PMs. :) So consider this as such -- and hopefully you'll be a member someday!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842246 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:14:09 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842189 funchords : Hi Dillz85,

As far as uproars go, this is pretty tame. There have been zero stories on national television about this case. Yes, it has reached a status of some fame in the geekdom but, let's face it, P2P blocking has nothing on Paris Hilton.

Stepping out of the role as a "Company Man" and into the shoes of the "Consumer" I feel strongly that "Whats in the best interest of most" is what should stand.

Be it wrong that Comcast "withheld" or was not totally "forthright" with its network management policies or right, I think that the vast majority of those who use the internet as a source of information and entertainment appreciate the ability to use their service without a consistent degradation of quality.
Absolutely. Another thing I have consistently said is that if someone is interfering with someone else on the Internet, they ought to be removed from the network. Not secretly blocked or passively throttled, but overtly and outright disconnected!

The Internet "interconnects" us all and while all of us will impact the other to some degree, none of us has the right to commandeer the net for ourselves and deny or significantly degrade service to another.

Back to your automobile metaphor: We all have to share the road in 3D-space or we lose our license.

I stand behind companies that deliver service in a way that benefits most because in ANY situation, the majority is what matters.

I mean honestly, get a petition started and grab a soap box and plead your case to 11.6 Million Comcast Internet subscribers [as of MAR 08']. Maybe they will feel the way that you do and cater to what a few power users need/demand. But I guarantee you that they will tell you to find a service that fits your needs instead of trying to change what works for the majority.

As they say, "One size fits most", for the rest, your in the wrong store.
Imagine what the Internet would be today if the capability to innovate was cut off and only mainstream uses were allowed? We have examples of that today, one is Cable TV, and another is the wireless "cell" phone -- the number of ways a consumer can interact on it is limited, has a high cost, and grows slowly.

The Internet has become so successful because anyone can innovate on it. There is no secret handshake. The standards are open and accessible and free of cost, and the number of new sites and services appearing daily defy any ability to track all of it.

That wonderful chaotic freedom and the rapid growth it brings doesn't cancel innovators' responsibilities to behave responsible on it in ways that don't interfere. We all must share the road.

Yes, Comcast owes you a duty to deliver the Internet Access to You-Tube and iTunes you paid for. Sometimes this means they must be the policeman and cut-off the kid down the street who somehow has managed to saturate the neighborhood with whatever crap his modem will spew. I'm not against that kind of policing -- on the contrary, I'm for that.

But they cannot be allowed to dumb down the Internet by making it only suitable for mainstream uses. As the leading cable internet provider, such a prohibition again innovation would affect our nation's technology leadership in the world! It HAS to be open for legal, non-interfering innovations.

This is why I say that Sandvine isn't "Network Management," it's Application Management. It's an attack on a legitimate use and it attacked it whether or not that use was legal or interfering with anyone.

I appreciate your opinion, and thanks for hearing me out.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842189 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:01:49 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842054 anon :
said by Dillz85 See Profile :

I feel strongly that "Whats in the best interest of most" is what should stand.
::Re-Initiate "Company Man"::
That position would ensure that today we still would have a 286 with 640k of RAM and the Internet would still be only for a few universities' communications and the military.

It is the few demanding users that drive the technology push that in the long run benefits the large group and historically that few have always been critiqued by the large group that is unaware of the future posibilities and the greedy companies who's core belief that what is good enough for most users is and will be good enough for all.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20842054 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:40:42 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841853 Dillz85 : This one is a little out there but this is too much...

Was there this much of a uproar when Top Speed Governors had began being implemented into US automobiles?

I mean, you buy a car with 160 on the dash and you can only go 120-130? Or, depending on the chip, not rev past say 6500rpm in 5th gear... Had there been NHSA hearings and public cry's of bloody murder.

Stepping out of the role as a "Company Man" and into the shoes of the "Consumer" I feel strongly that "Whats in the best interest of most" is what should stand.

Be it wrong that Comcast "withheld" or was not totally "forthright" with its network management policies or right, I think that the vast majority of those who use the internet as a source of information and entertainment appreciate the ability to use their service without a consistent degradation of quality.

Self admittedly, I am not what most here would consider a Power user. I download movies and music using ITUNES not Azerues/Limewire/Bittorrent, I occasionally stream videos over You-Tube, I may even listen to streaming radio over Rhapsody and play my online games both PC and over Xbox 360 and my PS3.

I am not running large servers, I don't swarm files 24/7 I don't run business critical operations over my connection; because If I were, I would look into Enterprise/Large business offerings from Comcast et/al.

I stand behind companies that deliver service in a way that benefits most because in ANY situation, the majority is what matters.

I mean honestly, get a petition started and grab a soap box and plead your case to 11.6 Million Comcast Internet subscribers [as of MAR 08']. Maybe they will feel the way that you do and cater to what a few power users need/demand. But I guarantee you that they will tell you to find a service that fits your needs instead of trying to change what works for the majority.

As they say, "One size fits most", for the rest, your in the wrong store.

::Re-Initiate "Company Man"::]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841853 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:08:41 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841687 funchords :
said by Rick See Profile :

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.
Rick,

Lest anyone confuse your support for Comcast for an attack on me, let me set the record straight. You've been decent with me. I don't see you as an attacker at all. (You're just wrong -- hahahah - just kidding.) :) :D :o ;) :p

That said, I have said the following pretty consistently, and would like to say it again as my solution for this problem:

1. Turning Sandvine off right now and replacing it with nothing would be an improvement. It does little good and does a lot of harm to innocent users. I have been asking for this all along.

2. Using DSCP (DiffServ, RFC 2474 ET AL) is a way to make VOIP applications more robust during moments of congestion. I have been talking about this for several months, but Comcast and I have two very different pictures of applicable Congestion. Healthy networks do not idle at "congested," and Comcast's view of the future is one of a Congestion Regime.

3. The only actual way to meet increasing demands for bandwidth is to meet those demands. You cannot "throttle the future" and for Comcast and other monopoly/duopoly ISPs to keep chanting "you can't build your way out of it" ignores 26 years of Internet history which shows that you can (and must). I have been saying the same thing for several months as well.

But as others have pointed out, it's not my job to fix Comcast's problems. It is Comcast's job to deal fairly with all of its customers (not just the "majority"), to speak honestly when speaking at all, to follow Internet Standards on the Internet, and to answer to the applicable authorities. They have failed to do these basic things.

Robb Topolski
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841687 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:41:03 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841380 anon : The arguments on both sides are fairly legitimate and can be argued effectively with "what if" doomsday scenarios.

If you are going to be very vocal about your beliefs with the FCC, press, etc, in a manor that has the potential to impact a multi-billion dollar business that provides services to multi-millions of customers, expect some reaction and questioning of you expertise, data, actions and motives.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841380 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:48:05 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841306 anon :
said by Rick See Profile :

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.
The analogy is deeply flawed. The camera and dye does not impact your usage of the money you get from the bank. A proper analogy would be if the bank delays, diverts and plainly blocks transfers of your money just because some people use money to buy drugs and it "may" harm your "experience" in using your money.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841306 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:35:01 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841248 rolfp :
said by Rick See Profile :

I don't see what comcast was doing as illegal [..]
With FCC investigations and, at least, one lawsuit, perhaps we'll see.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841248 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:23:26 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841114 Rick : 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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841114 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:56:12 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841110 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841110 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:54:59 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841039 rolfp :
said by Rick See Profile :

[..].he rarely if ever offered up a better solution [..]
If, as credible evidence has been given to support, what Comcast was doing was illegal, the first step it to identify and acknowledge the problem. There's no burden on Funchords to provide the solution. To spin and deflect by trying to put the onus on the reporter of the problem is the common strategy of those in denial. A solution will not be found if the problem is denied. Attacking the ethos of your adversary draws the discussion into the realm of name-calling, where the denier might hope to prevail, relying on ignorance of the facts.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841039 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:40:33 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841000 Rob : *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 :D

Me too tired to retype it all. Maybe later.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.US ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20841000 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:31:04 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840976 tdumaine :
said by Rick See Profile :

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.
So by that statement, the following would be true?

Friend has his roof redone. Contractor leaves a giant hole in the roof. I point out said hole and say thats not right. I have no qualifications to point out said hole or that it isn't quality work since i am not a roofer.

Am i understanding correctly here?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840976 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:26:43 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840959 Rick : 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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840959 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:23:09 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840958 tdumaine :
said by Rick See Profile :

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.
So in your opinion hes a bandwidth hogging porn downloader?

Whos interest do you really feel he is looking out for then?

Cmon, out with it already, no need to guise your comments in obscurity]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840958 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:23:04 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840912 Rob :
said by Rick See Profile :

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.
It was, without a doubt, a benefit to the consumers. It's not about bandwidth hogs, or about the millions of us who use the serve for reasonable purposes - which right there tells me you have no clue. P2P is not illegal - as are mp3 formats not illegal. Yet corporations assume P2P = illegal and Mp3 = illegal.

The benefit was for us. If Comcast wants to block ports, or reset packets, fine, but they have to be upfront and honest about it to us. Then allow consumers to make a decision whether them degrading our service is worth the price or not. Obviously Comcast knows the answer to this, which is why they've been been hush hush about it.

They have every right to question Robb's education and "expertness", and I agree with you - but he has every right to feel that they should be fined for their actions.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840912 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:13:00 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840886 Rick : 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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840886 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:07:48 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840879 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840879 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:06:52 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840373 anon :
Yes, if and where that happened. But Comcast has been rather vocal about where it does network improvements and it hasn't been saying much about doing DOCSIS 2 upgrades. I think it's been holding out for DOCSIS 3. (Wouldn't you if you were them?) It has DOCSIS 2 in the former Adelphia areas and anywhere else it may have inherited the equipment from a network purchase.
DOCSIS 3.0 does not fix the problem of using old modulation schemes on the upstream. It introduces channel bonding on both the up and downstream but what would you rather channel bond, QPSK channels or 64QAM channels? Getting the plant to DOCSIS 2.0 is an important step in the grand scheme of things. To get to a 50/10 speedtier you basically need to have DOCSIS 2.0 upstream modulations deployed. Upstream channel bonding will not be available for awhile yet.

As to your question about which areas are seeing DOCSIS 2.0, well we all know Minnesota has DOCSIS 2.0 deployed. I believe quite a few markets have deployed 6.4mhz channels but that is hard to glean from one's cable modem.

As you mentioned in your rebuttal letter virtual node splits can be implemented with relative ease and with little impact to the end subscriber. With the way most CMTS line cards are designed there usually ends up being quite a few extra Upstream ports available for use. Using multiple returns to a node is another way to effectively "uprade" capacity. As is changing modulation schemes. I think Freepress' generalization of the upgrades as window dressing is based merely on opinion and not fact. We know the options discussed above are available to Comcast and would cost them relatively nothing to implement. My point is that it is fine to remain skeptical with Comcast but to note that upgrades are possible without costly upgrades to "the core network."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840373 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:32:40 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840346 funchords :
said by netcool :

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.
Yes, if and where that happened. But Comcast has been rather vocal about where it does network improvements and it hasn't been saying much about doing DOCSIS 2 upgrades. I think it's been holding out for DOCSIS 3. (Wouldn't you if you were them?) It has DOCSIS 2 in the former Adelphia areas and anywhere else it may have inherited the equipment from a network purchase.

It's possible that they've been quietly upgrading the DOCSIS 1.1 network to DOCSIS 2.0 in order to change the upstream modulation. But their silence on the matter, pressure by investors to keep capital costs down, and the advent of DOCSIS 3 indicate that, by and large, the DOCSIS 1.1 areas will remain DOCSIS 1.1 until DOCSIS 3 rolls around.
said by netcool :

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.
Can you give some examples?
said by netcool :

And to your point about the placement of sandvine servers, I think you should have visited Comcast so you could re-evaluate that point.
Even if they told me point blank (which they have, in filings), I'd still have to point back at the data which indicated that it was at the Access Router. The test result is the result. Why would the TTLs be exactly right for the Access Router and be all wrong for the CMTS? We are talking about TTLs on forged packets, though -- but that they would choose exactly the wrong TTL is somewhat of an unlikely coincidence.

I also wonder if things changed. I first detected this in March of 2007 and my tests that showed TTL were in August '07 (I think). Could Comcast have bought more Sandvine and/or reconfigured between then and now?

But as I said in the filing, it's ultimately a moot point since Sandvine doesn't look at congestion so where to place the box in the network has no effective difference (and it is more efficient to put it at the Access Router since Congestion is not even looked at before blocking uploads).

said by netcool :

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.
Although I see where you're coming from, that's ultimately no excuse and no way to treat a very-long-term customer. We should be debating with data being shared openly, not personal attacks to divert attention from the facts.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840346 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:11:40 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840286 anon : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840286 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:36:24 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840273 funchords :
said by Nerdtalker See Profile :

I found this particularly unnerving:
We considered whether some form of metered usage could adequately address the problem. Metered usage would allow us to ensure that we are appropriately distributing the costs of the network usage to those who use the network most. However, metered usage has not been widely accepted in the marketplace, and, in any event, doesn’t directly address the issue of congestion in the network.
It's funny you should pick that. They've also admitted in a previous filing HERE, that Sandvine doesn't directly address the issue of congestion in the network, either.
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.

That's right!! -- Sandvine doesn't use congestion as a factor. It simply counts connections that it thinks are uploading and cuts off anything above that count, even if there is bandwidth available! It's what I had been saying all along that the level of interference didn't go up and down following probable congestion patterns (despite my obvious lack of qualifications :(), but was the same level 24/7.

So, here's their defense? Given the choice of preventing congestion by ...
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

... Comcast chose "B"? Not that I would want metered usage, but at least it's honest.

Our reply to that disclosure is HERE and most of the geek stuff starts on page 8.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840273 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:25:56 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840175 Nerdtalker :
said by funchords See Profile :

My reply to the attack --
I think your reply was extremely professional, to the point, and exacting.

The part at the end about the blatant mudslinging going on from Comcast's side is very well done.

I find it ironic that they see fit to make claims that you don't understand the network, when it is the blatant level of secrecy they approach these kinds of supposed "end-user-transparent" network changes which prevents you from knowing about it in the first place.

Honestly, all this stuff is making me wonder whether ISPs shouldn't be required by the FCC to deploy, maintain, and update some basic standardized network topology map for their customers. This way, there's no guessing about if/where/to-what the NebuAD boxes are connected to, and where Sandvine is running from. Some sort of transparency may well benefit the consumer, as well as the FCC in dealing with these kinds of issues.

The problem with the whole thing is that, for some reason, the "last mile" has decided it can arbitrarily violate the most sacrosanct of TCP/IP routing rules; only devices at the "edge" of the network actually change or modify data. The stipulation is that everything in-between doesn't do SPI, doesn't deliver user-tailored ADs, doesn't track browsing metrics. All that this news does is tell me that the edge to edge stipulation of network routing is basically dead. If ISPs can do it, what's stopping Level3? What's stopping all the hops between you and me from inserting their two cents, sending reset packets, or throttling?
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn

I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840175 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:27:15 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840156 Nerdtalker : 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:
We considered whether some form of metered usage could adequately address the problem. Metered usage would allow us to ensure that we are appropriately distributing the costs of the network usage to those who use the network most. However, metered usage has not been widely accepted in the marketplace, and, in any event, doesn’t directly address the issue of congestion in the network.
I also find that this is a complete misunderstanding of what the reset packets, and moreover the whole reset-packet based shaping architecture is like:
This action is nothing more than the system saying that it cannot, at that moment, process additional high-resource demands without becoming overwhelmed, just as a traffic light regulates the entry of additional vehicles onto a freeway during rush hour. One would not claim that the car is “blocked” or “prevented” from entering; rather, it is briefly delayed, then permitted onto the freeway in its turn while all other traffic is kept moving as expeditiously as possible.
Not only is the use of an analogy such as this overly simplified, it's fundamentally wrong. Sending a reset packet is more along the lines of allowing the traffic to proceed through the intersection at a green light, yet suddenly alerting the driver that they've ran a red light and need to reverse back across the intersection. It's flawed because the connections are actively being rejected.

Comcast’s network management practices are not discriminatory and are entirely agnostic as to the content being transmitted, where it is being sent from or to, or the identity of the sender or receiver.
This is just an outright lie, considering that they themselves admit to targeting specific protocols (BT/P2P) and the upstream path in particular for sandvine throttling. What they've said here is that they employ a completely protocol-agnostic QoS policy (essentially the pure definition of Net Neutrality), yet in the course of the document, shoot it all to pieces. This is a complete fabrication I hope the FCC doesn't let be pulled over itself.

Comcast does not block peer-to-peer (“P2P”) protocols.
This is entirely semantics. It's clear that all that Comcast has to defend itself is its unending stream of semantic, lawyer-esque semantics about what constitutes "blocking."
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn

I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840156 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:12:49 EDT Re: Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840092 funchords : My reply to the attack --
Reply to Com···lski.pdf
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840092 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:47:44 EDT Complain about Comcast=Have your Reputation Scrutinized http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840076 funchords : I'll keep this short. Certainly the Comcast forum has had its share of "hurt letters" by users who switch to DSL or FIOS and want to give a final F-U. I liked Comcast -- I never thought I'd be one of 'em.

I liked Comcast HSI, because it generally worked very well and it was very open and useful for net junkies like me. I thought it was surprising when the company was caught blocking P2P uploads, but I kept the faith and figured if I hung on long enough that they'd change their ways. I've had my service since it was TCI, then AT&T Broadband, and now Comcast.

Clearly, it's now going to take an act of the FCC to change their ways, because Philadelphia has drawn a line in the Sand(vine). That would have been okay, too, because once Sandvine was gone, things could return back to normal, right?

No, because Comcast decided to personally attack me several days ago, in a public filing in the FCC case.

The last time I looked, I was a paying customer in good standing. Yes, I had a grievance but I tried to remain factual and objective and positive throughout, working within the system and through all levels of corporate and government channels and for what? To have my qualifications questioned by a bunch of bumbling bureaucrats at "One Comcast Center?"

What the hell does the contents of my blog -- which neither supports nor refutes the facts of this case -- have to do with anything? Answer -- nothing.

When the AP and EFF have independently confirmed my findings, what does digging into my resume have to do with anything whatsoever? Answer -- nothing.

But now it's clear to me that exercising my rights as a consumer and working within the system isn't enough for this company -- they want to tarnish my reputation as well. How, then, can I trust you not to monitor my transmissions and use the contents of my private transmissions between my trusted advisors and friends to win your case?

Answer: I can't.

Lack of competition means that leaving Comcast HSI behind is quite a big step down for me. But I've had DSL for a few months now, and it's definitely got its own problems -- but one of them isn't a "dirty tricks" campaign against a customer with a service problem.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20840076 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:41:02 EDT