 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Rick
Re: Cry... Rick, you can't have a contract without the people knowing what it is they are supposed to be doing or adhering to.
Let's face it, the Caps have always been there, but Comcast didn't want to take the marketing flap for admitting it.
Some people did get away with 300+ GB, but didn't get hit. Others got hit at lower amounts.... it all depends on how much capacity they had.
Declaring it is much fairer to all.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
| reply to NOZIREV
said by NOZIREV:agreed, but there are other ways to back stuff up but i hear ya barkin big dog. Welcome back johnnyb, Comcast employee.
»The question is . . .
--
"A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
|
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to Rick
said by Rick:As for honesty Rob..I also think honesty comes in many flavors...such as posting threads and then having it ultimately discovered by a poster that you were suing the company and seeking support for class action status. That certainly put a different spin and light on your posts entirely IMHO with that "unannounced" disclosure. So, Rick, I'm dishonest because I posted a thread and didn't disclose that I was suing?
How so?
Rick, I've been saying the same thing for over a year prior to the suit -- that Comcast ought to sell its service honestly and disclose things like speeds, caps, and devices that it uses that interfere.
Despite my complaints, Comcast didn't change its practices. I sued. That's a civilized process that responsible people in disagreement must do. (The alternative, resorting to violence, is unacceptable.)
Suing is a public act. It's pretty hard to keep a suit a secret. Why would I try?
And I don't make my living suing people. I make my living as a technologist, and I adhere to codes of ethics that require my honesty and objectivity.
And finally, as to the topic you mention, the sequence of events goes something like this...
- I started the ball rolling on the suit some time before, but it had not been filed to my knowledge and I wasn't certain when it would be.
- Then I learned from one terse web report on 7/22 that it was finally filed, but I wasn't sure why that lonely report was out there since I didn't hear from anyone else.
- I started the thread that you're talking about on 7/23.
- Then TK picked up about it and posted it and you started giving me hell.
- Then I heard from our lawyers who had just got the stamped copy back from the court about a week later 7/25 or so.
Even if I had known, I'm not sure I would have disclosed it, because it doesn't really make a difference (it was off-topic to the issue), but if I had disclosed it, I wouldn't have disclosed it until I had heard from the lawyers.
Edit: corrected order, turns out my first clue was the day before I posted that thread.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | reply to ptrowski
I have never been in favor of caps. Instead, I have often written in the Comcast and other forums about people trying to be reasonable and responsible instead. If I was someone who wanted to consume 400 gigs of bandwidth per month, I simply wouldn't expect it from a 42 dollars a month residential isp service. At the very least..I'd upgrade to a business class type of service and perhaps split my usage across a dsl and cable connection. In short..I'd respect both my neighbors and the company I'm getting service from.
Some simply haven't done that. They've treated this like an all you can eat 6.99 chinese buffet that they go in and attach a chain to their pickup truck with and drag it home.
And do it under the guise of "they said it was all I can eat".
This is what I mean about being reasonable and responsible.
As for Rob and his suit..that's up to him if he feels wronged. Personally I'd have to severely question however how wronged someone could be obviously using the connection as much as he did..at the price he paid for it.
I saw in the news he was asked how much he felt he was due and his response was "the answer was tremendously difficult".
To me..the answer seems pretty simple.
Zero.
But...that's really here nor there. This is America..and if a person would like to waste their time on a frivolous suit..feel free to I guess. My point wasn't that..it was the "undisclosure" in response to his own post above where he talks about Comcast doing that.
Did he contribute to what is occurring with caps now?
Probably. In some ways...I think the answer is yes. But it's far from being just him. It's collectively "they"..who I feel never seemed to appreciate what they had for the price they had it.
Isp's really are going to have no choice but to cap if reasonable network management practices..ie: throttling..aren't allowed.
And, I don't think it's going to hurt me or the average user at all..unless the numbers get so low as to be in the range Time Warner is talking about. Being a former RR customer..I certainly hope that doesn't come to pass. But I think who they can thank for it is the ones who simply could never get enough.
They are driving the industry to this.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by Rick:As for Rob and his suit..that's up to him if he feels wronged. Personally I'd have to severely question however how wronged someone could be obviously using the connection as much as he did..at the price he paid for it. Rick, my average use falls around 150 GB a month, and I'm also hyper conscience about ensuring that any use that I'm about to do and I won't contribute to the neighborhood's congestion.
During tests with Seth Shoen at the EFF, even when I was transferring at data rates limited to 1 KB/s, I was receiving the RSTs. Comcast was keeping me from accessing bandwidth that I paid for.
Quit throwing bombs at me.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | reply to funchords
said by funchords:So, Rick, I'm dishonest because I posted a thread and didn't disclose that I was suing? I didn't say you were being dishonest. I said it was undisclosed for the purpose of that thread and this website..which it was. People can form their own opinions from there..or not if they don't want to.
I think that both I and others in that thread were somewhat taken aback by the non disclosure and it did put your opening post in a very different light.
Certainly, as you say the issue was ongoing long before that thread however and so that should certainly be weighed in as well.
For my part..personally I think your suit is completely without merit and ranks with the kinds of things that are wrong with this countries legal system.
Why? Because of the price paid for the service. And what it was..and was intended to be. My critique isn't just directed at you when I say too many people expect thousands of dollars worth a service per month for 42 bucks. And it's off the backs of everyone else that they get it.
Comcast has the right to reasonable network management and doesn't have to open their doors to nonstop 24/7 p2p users.
Comcast hasn't capped people at 5 gigs or 20 gigs or 100gigs.
It's been at 300 to 400 gigs for christs sake. It is outrageous what people expect for 42 dollars per month and to criticize it..critique it to death..and sue on top of it is just flat out wrong IMO.
I and MANY others use our connections a LOT! And have ZERO problems with it. Our voices have been silent for too long about this. What REASONABLE people want is for our connections to be fast..and service to be good and consistent. I don't want my 24/7 bandwidth hogging neighbor to take down my and others connections. Comcast has the RIGHT..and OBLIGATION..to PROTECT US.
Again..to be clear...I'm not saying you're dishonest. You obviously feel strongly about your point..enough so to feel it's right to sue them.
Don't object however to other peoples points who don't feel that way. Because there are many very happy..very satisfied users as well.
And it's time we had something to say about this.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | And for the record, I agree with all of these things --
- Comcast has the right to reasonable network management
- Comcast hasn't capped people at 5 gigs or 20 gigs or 100gigs. It's been at 300 to 400 gigs for christs sake.
- What REASONABLE people want is for our connections to be fast..and service to be good and consistent.
- I don't want my 24/7 bandwidth hogging neighbor to take down my and others connections. Comcast has the RIGHT..and OBLIGATION..to PROTECT US.
Comcast doesn't have the right to prohibit P2P users as a category, but does have the right to ensure that users don't unduly interfere with other users. And you know I have zero tolerance for that. "Cut 'em off!"
If you don't want to have users that are simply heavy users of bandwidth (that don't interfere), then don't offer services to them. But if you do business with them, you are obligated (ethically, morally, legally?) to serve them and deliver the product that you described when they laid the money down.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | And does your local chinese buffet owe you "all you can eat" for a week, month or year for 6.99 simply because you laid your money down (and they didn't say in their tagline..all you can eat HERE in one sitting)?
I think it's the same thing. It's about being reasonable in ones expectations.
You paid what for your service..42.95? You say here you consumed over 120 gigs a month of bandwidth.
Rob..tell us. If that was a dedicated line...how much would you have paid? You say you're a professional in this industry..you should know or have a pretty good idea.
Did you get your 42.95's worth in that 125 gigs of data you consumed compared to what it cost the provider?
You see Rob..that is where I think you lose the argument completely. And, not just you..but all those consuming mega amounts of bandwidth. You're simply not being reasonable and are spinning words and meanings to fit your needs.
How much would a T1 cost you? 500 a month? And this was at what..4 times those speeds?
Does that make your 125 gigs worth maybe 1600.00 a month..that you paid 43 dollars for?
Perhaps someone can chime in who does buy bandwidth like this because I don't know how much it would cost.
I sure know it's a lot more than 43 bucks though.
Rob..with all due respect I see your suit as being like you hooked up your chain to that buffet table.dragged it home..fed your family and friends..and now want them to replenish it again for you.
And I don't think that's going to fly very well in court.
But..if you feel wronged..then so be it. This is America.the land of the free...and home of the lawsuits.
Good night.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
| reply to axus
Comcast hasn't used "unlimited" for some time now. TWC does but their ISP actually limits. RR is NOT unlimited. |
|
| reply to markofmayhem
How Comcast plans to throttle in future revealed »www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=···NA18k1dY
The top Internet speeds for targeted customers will be reduced for periods lasting 10 minutes to 20 minutes, keeping service to other users flowing, Mitch Bowling, Comcast's senior vice president and general manager of online services, said in an interview yesterday.
The new system will move away from a focus on specific applications that hog Web traffic, Bowling said. Comcast will determine ``in nearly real time'' whether congestion is caused by a heavy user, he said.
``If in fact a person is generating enough packets that they're the ones creating that situation, we will manage that consumer for the overall good of all of our consumers,'' Bowling said.
Comcast has decided to use the new system, which it calls ``fair share,'' and will fine-tune it further before introducing it, Bowling said.
The company is considering whether to charge subscribers more for heavier Internet use, a step announced by some other cable companies, Bowling said.
In trials, Comcast has found the fair share system to be effective if the slowing lasts for ``roughly between, probably, 10 and 20 minutes,'' Bowling said. The user's Internet speed would then return to normal.
``If they continue that, we would have to manage them again,'' Bowling said.
A user being impeded would have Internet speeds equivalent to ``a really good DSL experience,'' Bowling said. LOL. The hogs will get really upset when their speed is squashed.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to Rick
Re: Cry... You paid what for your service..42.95? You say here you consumed over 120 gigs a month of bandwidth.
Rob..tell us. If that was a dedicated line...how much would you have paid? You say you're a professional in this industry..you should know or have a pretty good idea.
Did you get your 42.95's worth in that 125 gigs of data you consumed compared to what it cost the provider?
So my 120 GB a month. That works out to about 365 Kbps when averaged over the entire month.
If this was a T1, it would cost about $350 (many sources) to as low as $309 a month (Intercom, promo deal). But keep in mind that's a T1 1500 Kbps in each direction (3000 Kbps combined). I used about 365 Kbps or about 12% of that, so -- guess what Rick -- it works out to around $40.
So you lost your "unreasonableness" case completely. (That is if I bought this apples and oranges comparison, which I don't.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| reply to Rick
Who gives you permission to say what Comcast can and can not do? It's their network. IF you don't like it Robb then take your business else where.
The only thing you're going to do is get everyone a higher cable bill in the end so you can come back here and bitch some more that you're cable bill went up along with everyone elses.
But then again I hope you have big enough pockets so when it does NOT become a class action and they drag it through court you won't end up selling your house to them just to turn around and give the money back to them.
Be prepared to lose. |
|
| reply to iansltx
don't be to sure about VZ. By what their CTO had to say at their think tank they may have something planned. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: How Comcast plans to throttle in future revealed I think it should be and it would be funny as hell. Especially once they get on here and start bitching about it. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to hottboiinnc
Re: Cry... Kyle,
Who gives you permission to say what Comcast can and can not do? It's their network. IF you don't like it Robb then take your business else where. Kyle, I'm a Comcast customer and I have a contract. I'm also an American with the rights to an opinion and the freedom to speak it.
Let's say you rented a hotel room at the Marriott and after you accepted the room, they moved all of the furniture out? Should you just keep quiet and take your business elsewhere or do you do something about it?
The only thing you're going to do is get everyone a higher cable bill in the end so you can come back here and bitch some more that you're cable bill went up along with everyone elses. Maybe. But the risk of jacking up everyone's bill is that it provides incentive for more complaints, more customer defections, and the invitation of new competitors.
But then again I hope you have big enough pockets so when it does NOT become a class action and they drag it through court you won't end up selling your house to them just to turn around and give the money back to them.
Be prepared to lose. I don't have big pockets. My biggest vacation in two years was to go to the Stanford hearing. Might does not make right.
And what did I ever do to you? You must be in some real pain to treat other people like that.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to ross
Nah, they at least mean 1.5 Mbps, because that seems to be the usual quote of DSL speed. Still not too bad (T1 speed) but it's not what you're payin' fer! |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to funchords
I just realized that our 150 GB/mo turned into 125 or 120 GB/mo somewhere in this calculation. That changes things a little bit. |
|
| reply to Rick
I don't know robb topolski. I have no connection to this comcast business except as an interested spectator.
Those of us who spend considerable time here know that robb was at the center of uncovering the whole comcast forged rst issue from the beginning. This goes back to the middle of last year, if you are interested. Robb also went before the fcc earlier this year in april.
Suggesting that he is engaged in hiding some scheming or that a thread from july of 2008 "uncovered" some heretofore hidden information doesn't accord with the history of this issue.
You have been pretty clear in your opinion about this whole comcast business. If you aren't really aware of the way this issue has played out you should be forgiven your lack of awareness, but you shouldn't be trying to hint or imply that there is some underhanded plot on robb's part. |
|
 ChrisXPUnited We Stand, Divided We FallPremium
join:2002-12-13
USA | reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:Or do online backup. Yes, otherwise 250GB is reasonable and even for P2P I'd think it'd be fine, but for online backup stuff I'm not so sure. And don't forget gaming. When I'm in that mode, that's 20GB of http traffic easily (and much more than I'd download from P2P in 6 months even).
With D2D being an outlet now, and online movies, 250GB may not be enough. Downloading the full EQII+Patches = 16GB alone. It all adds up!
--
Zionism is a crime
»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org |
|
1 edit | reply to Rick
said by Rick:For my part..personally I think your suit is completely without merit and ranks with the kinds of things that are wrong with this countries legal system. I think the reason that there is merit, and why the FCC got pissed off as well as me is that Comcast flatly denied the use of sandvine once they were caught red handed. No big deal if they had just fessed up to begin with. But for a corporation as large as CC to just lie about something like that is just beyond me. Right there comcast earned its right to be monitored and to be held responsible to make all their moves transparent. Its their own freaking fault that they are on a short leash now. Had they just acknowledged the truth when faced with the facts they could have avoided being on a short leash with the FCC. I am convinced this is what put the FCC on their tail. Nobody likes being lied to. I fully support Robb and appreciate all his efforts making Comcast a honest company.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but sometimes I wonder if some posters work for comcast or what. I mean to you support a company that can drastically hamper your internet performance without telling you what, why or when? And if you find out what and when they tell you no were not? Its childish behavior nothing less. But if some want to defend this behavior then I guess that's their choice. |
|
