| reply to pandora
Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols said by pandora:said by fAcEtIOUs:Am I certain? NO. But it would be the only way the throttling system Comcast's VP announced could work. The congestion that occurs is at the node level - not at the system level. Are business users to be throttled also? Who knows? Only when Comcast finishes their trials and announces the finalized policies would we find that out.
I guess it would depend on what kind of business user you are talking about. For example, a home office for say an insurance salesmen in a residential community paying for a business plan may be subject to throttling policies. But a large medical practice in an office building with a Service Level Agreement and with a negotiated contract price probably wouldn't be.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
 hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:4 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols said by fAcEtIOUs:said by EG:That said, are you certain that this method will be node specific ? Am I certain? NO. But it would be the only way the throttling system Comcast's VP announced could work. The congestion that occurs is at the node level - not at the system level. I think congestion occurs at the upstream level which could be multiple nodes.
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
 ·Comcast
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:By yourself, no. But if many users on your node are doing the same, as a group you could trigger the throttling and you could then be affected. My concern about that is it could result in Comcast not building sufficient infrastructure to handle its users.
It is an interesting problem. Lets hope Comcast can manage this without impairing too many users.
I'd also like to know if business users will be exempt from this policy. Paying $89 a month vs paying $54 to be exempt doesn't look quite so bad, depending on exactly how the policy is implemented.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
|
|
hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:4
1 edit | reply to Xoulz
said by Xoulz :
Class Action Law Suite.
I wondered how long it would be before hotel rooms would be bought up!
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Who knows? Only when Comcast finishes their trials and announces the finalized policies would we find that out. I guess it would depend on what kind of business user you are talking about. For example, a home office for say an insurance salesmen in a residential community paying for a business plan may be subject to throttling policies. But a large medical practice in an office building with a Service Level Agreement and with a negotiated contract price probably wouldn't be. This does bring up an issue. Comcast seems cryptic about how it divides up residential from business users with respect to various internet bandwidth policies. It would be nice to read a clear articulation of bandwidth limitation implementation(s) from Comcast per class of service.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
thumbs down from:
fAcEtIOUs 
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
this will never happen.
1.still considered throttling and degradation of service not allowed by fcc bylaws.
comcast will be slapped again with violation for not delivering quality service to proper levels. u cut down my upstream from 2mbit to 384 and your in violation of contract and i can refuse payment for violation of contract for those of us that are locked in 1yr or 2yr contracts this is an easy escape clause. |
|
 hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
I have a solution for Comcast. Upgrade your system for todays internet use. Pony up and get off DOCSIS 1 and 2
--
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. |
|
| reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:said by fAcEtIOUs:..........(until docsis 3 comes along?)........ except docsis3 has nearly the same up/down ratio as 1 & 2 (when you look at other planned services), it does increase total bandwidth available over the same hfc network, we'll just be talking about GB caps vs MB caps Everyone should get used to the idea "Residental" broadband will have limitations (though few residental type users will hit the wall) anyone doing business or "extreme" user from home will (and should) pay more. Except that when you try to pay more to get the service, they would not sell it to you.
--
Treason is a matter of dates |
|
 EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:By yourself, no. But if many users on your node are doing the same, as a group you could trigger the throttling and you could then be affected. Guy. Again, how do you know this for certain ?
I thought that an individual could trigger this (alleged) mechanism, and were going to be throttled ? |
|
 trent7
join:2005-11-28
Philadelphia, PA
2 edits | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:If there is NO node congestion, then no action would be taken to throttle users on that node. That sounds fair at first look. Why throttle users if no one's experience is being affected by those heavy users as long as they stay below the 250GB cap.
But look at it from another angle. If I am on a node with very few users, I might not get throttled even if I max out my connection for an hour or 2 as long as not every user on my node does the same thing at the same time.
Now consider I am on node with loads of users, during peak hours I'm probably gonna get throttled a few minuted after I start maxing out my connection.
So how is that fair!?!
And one more thing. How are we to guarantee that Comcast won't end up abusing this new "Fair Share" to get out of upgrading their network at locations with a large user number, or avoid node splitting?
And another final thing  . At a node that is frequently subject to congestion, what's the point of a user upgrading from 6/1mbps to 8/2 or 16/2mbps, if they are only gonna see their top (up to) speeds for only a few minutes before being throttled to "above DSL speed" or "above 1+mbps"?
I agree with the goal of the whole "Fair Share" thing, but I'm a bit skeptical about the implementation, at least based on what has been revealed so far. |
|
 beerbumobscurum per obscuriusPremium
join:2000-05-06
Eastern PA | reply to EG
thinking about it, the trigger should be on uploads.. when the upload channel is saturated, everyone is affected..
the shared upload channel has much less bandwidth which a handful of p2p users can easily fill up..
the download channel, would take longer to reach saturation -- consider just how many sites can serve out sustained 8mbit or 16mbit worth of data..
another thing to consider.. should a user paying a premium to get 16mbit downloads be throttled before a 6mbit user? remember these people are already paying a premium for the higher download rate, not to be punished/throttled first before everyone else.. |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| reply to sturmvogel
Not yet.........maybe not ever, if that's not the service they choose to offer. Instead you pay more by getting a dedicated line for a "exotic" provider (probably one of the old time telco's), stripped of the lower end residental broadband and phoneline service, business customer will shoulder the whole cost of their plant at extreme prices. |
|
| said by tshirt: Not yet.........maybe not ever, if that's not the service they choose to offer. Instead you pay more by getting a dedicated line for a "exotic" provider (probably one of the old time telco's), stripped of the lower end residental broadband and phoneline service, business customer will shoulder the whole cost of their plant at extreme prices. So then the whole "heavy users should pay more" argument is just talk as far as Comcastic universe is concerned, since really heavy users do not have that option if CC is the only provider around.
Why then does it get repeated over and over as an obvious choice when it is clearly not ? I wish I had a dollar for every answer that said "get a business account" when describing my Comcastic experience.
--
Treason is a matter of dates |
|
| reply to pandora
I agree that comcast has I believe spent tons of money on getting new customers and lacking in investment of infrastructure. This is a way to give them time to catch up.
Commcast best hurry improving infrastructure in our area as soon there will be fiber optics and they don't have this issue as much as cable. It also bothers me that I keep hearing "bandwidth hog" but no real definition as to what that really is or a way of measuring what that is. I can see that changing as comcast feels the need as time goes on. |
|
thumbs down from:
fAcEtIOUs
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Comcast shouldn't be acting as a form of insurance, your not paying a flat rate for full coverage when you need it. It should be there ALL THE TIME.
Their nothing more than a hedge fund, because if everyone sat down to their computers, there should be enough bandwidth built into that neighborhood to support capacity. If not, then Comcast is absolutely lying to their customers and overextended themselves.
This is one of the instances where I think the government should step in an fine such companies. Blaming them for using what their PAYING FOR!
-Calling Verizon |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by upset :
if everyone sat down to their computers, there should be enough bandwidth built into that neighborhood to support capacity. If they built it out to that level of capacity the overwhelming majority of folks would never be able to afford it, and the network would sit 90% idle. |
|
| Why..? Comcast hasn't been in my back yard since 1981 when I got cable. AT&T on the other hand (5 years ago) put Fiber to the 4-yard pot in the back yard (mine).
I've have a cable modem since 1995! What has comcast done in my neighborhood/city over the last 13 years..? WHen I see them at the neighborhood hub I usually pull over and ask if their upgrading, etc. Seems like they are always troubleshooting.
If Verizon seems to think it's worth spending 500 million to do it, perhaps they already know Comcast is about 4 years behind and by next year, we will all be Verizon customers. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| The LECs have needed to upgrade their existing twisted pair copper plant to be able to compete in the triple play service offering. You can't deliver video with the physical plant of the legacy PSTN, and it was being able to sell video services that drove Verizon to roll FiOS.
You've had the same coax run to your house since 1981 -- how many times has your speed increased since you got HSI in 1995? How many times has that required Comcast to roll new infrastructure? In the DOCSIS world 6MHz = 38mbps of capacity, so in a 750MHz plant you have 4.75gigabit of total capacity on the wire. The biggest issue right now is that analog TV is a pig for frequency usage -- as analog TV slowly fades away, they'll be able to tap more space on that line to offer higher speeds, and it still won't require them to come replace the cable drop running into your house. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to joepublic
said by joepublic :
Why..? Comcast hasn't been in my back yard since 1981 when I got cable.
Comcast actually came into our backyard in 2004. Sometime ago, some company installed digital lines on the poles in our backyards. ATTBI? I think, or they bought somebody else's installation. They were in a franchise dispute with the City of San José, and did not complete the installation. Then Comcast bought ATTBI. Then Comcast worked on the lines on our poles. Then Comcast sent sales reps canvassing the neighborhood, offering cable Internet for the first time (in early 2005). Until then, all we had was PacBell DSL; if there was a port available in the DSLAM.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
