Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
| reply to sturmvogel
Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols
said by sturmvogel  :said by Rob :said by sturmvogel :So it's the government job to decide, but suddenly when the rule against CC they are abusing their power. So which way is it, then ? When have I said the government is abusing their power? *I* think the government (in this case, the FCC) does too little to regulate companies. I apologize. I must have misunderstood. Not a problem. I do think, however, there is a fine line between regulating a company, and telling them how to run their own business.
|
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| said by Rob :Not a problem. I do think, however, there is a fine line between regulating a company, and telling them how to run their own business. There is. There is also a clear line between doing business and ripping off a captive set of the market.
--
Treason is a matter of dates |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to wizbang
said by wizbang :
Gives me more reason to leave comcast. I don't have good service where I'm at. It was supposed to 6mbps, but now I only get about 768 - 1mbps
This Topic will bury your post, but if you're interested in some suggestions to improve your speeds, then you should post again in the main forum and see if someone can help you out. We have a lot of smart people there, but not everyone reads this thread.
Of course if you've already decided to leave Comcast, don't bother posting a new message. 250 GB is a little or a lot, depending on what your expectations are. The good news is that it's now disclosed, and now you can make an informed choice. But it's also true that some are leaving in protest, and as much as such people have other broadband choices, that's cool too.
My guess is that half of Comcast's subscribers have no alternative that doesn't double the price or halve the capacity.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by funchords :said by wizbang :
Gives me more reason to leave comcast. I don't have good service where I'm at. It was supposed to 6mbps, but now I only get about 768 - 1mbps
This Topic will bury your post, but if you're interested in some suggestions to improve your speeds, then you should post again in the main forum and see if someone can help you out. We have a lot of smart people there, but not everyone reads this thread. You should use this BBR forum to get help with tuning up your system for optimal speed:
»Broadband Tweaks
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| reply to funchords
said by funchords : My guess is that half of Comcast's subscribers have no alternative that doesn't double the price or halve the capacity. Half the capacity or twice the price? So you are saying that comcast is a very good deal?
Or that somehow they MUST" solve" the problem that others won't/can't overbuild, and then provide as cheap/cheaper service?
I'm just confused about what your expectations are..
government forcing a "shared pipe" on an existing company that had the foresight to invest in the best technology at the time?
Or a subsididized alternate "pipe"?
Or what? |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by tshirt :said by funchords : My guess is that half of Comcast's subscribers have no alternative that doesn't double the price or halve the capacity. Half the capacity or twice the price? So you are saying that comcast is a very good deal? 250 GB/mo. at roughly $50 is less service than "unlimited" at $50. I don't blame anyone for feeling angry at what appears to be a bait-and-switch. But if users wish to forgive that and set it aside, most will assess 250 GB/mo. at roughly $50 and call it a good deal.
EXCEPT when you add the prospect of throttling. That's a huge game changer, because users don't know how that will affect them.
Comcast needs to disclose the bandwidth cap pre-sale, raise it continuously to avoid it becoming a cap on future growth, and they need to provide an agreeable usage meter. If they do these things, then they've answered most of my concerns about it. Once they add throttling to the mix, we'll have to see, but I don't like what I've read so far.
said by tshirt : Or that somehow they MUST" solve" the problem that others won't/can't overbuild, and then provide as cheap/cheaper service? A quart can't hold a gallon. It's Comcast's job to serve every customer that it accepts and to serve each one without putting one customer's interests over another. But it's not Comcast's job to offer something that their network can't deliver -- such as a huge upload pipe or continuous full-speed bandwidth.
said by tshirt : I'm just confused about what your expectations are.. government forcing a "shared pipe" on an existing company that had the foresight to invest in the best technology at the time? Or a subsididized alternate "pipe"? Or what? I don't know what your examples mean.
My expectations are that broadband companies operate ethically. The examples of how Comcast has failed to do this up to now are too long for me to get into again -- but some of the On-Topic ones are:
If Comcast wants to have a bandwidth cap, it ought to be disclosed. No invisible quotas or caps or thresholds or other bull.
If Comcast wants to provide Internet access, then it has to comply with the standards that define what the Internet is. No fake RSTs or non-standard throttling regimes that are protocol-agnostic by name only..
If Comcast wants to sell speed tiers, fine as long as it stops selling them if it cannot reasonably deliver what it is offering. Not hiding behind the words "up-to" while living up to only half of what customers thought that they were buying.
If Comcast makes a public statement concerning its network or company operations, ... etc..
Just behave ethically.
Robb
PS: I'm just me. These are my opinions alone. I know customers who don't want any limits ever and believe it's completely unnecessary. I just speak for me and my concerns.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
1 edit | said by funchords :If Comcast wants to have a bandwidth cap, it ought to be disclosed. No invisible quotas or caps or thresholds or other bull. Done.
said by funchords : No fake RSTs Soon to be done.
said by funchords :non-standard throttling regimes that are protocol-agnostic by name only.. Nothing non-standard about the new system.
said by funchords :If Comcast wants to sell speed tiers, fine as long as it stops selling them if it cannot reasonably deliver what it is offering. Not hiding behind the words "up-to" while living up to only half of what customers thought that they were buying. Not going to happen. Again, you're talking about the difference between a dedicated and a shared service. Public transportation can't assure you that every subway car or bus you want to get on is going to have capacity. If you absolutely need something to be available, having your own car is the only way to get there. If you want absolute guarantees of no contention at the edge, then you're talking a whole different class of service, and it's not going to come at $50/mo. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | said by espaeth :said by funchords :If Comcast wants to sell speed tiers, fine as long as it stops selling them if it cannot reasonably deliver what it is offering. Not hiding behind the words "up-to" while living up to only half of what customers thought that they were buying. Not going to happen. Again, you're talking about the difference between a dedicated and a shared service. [...] If you want absolute guarantees of no contention at the edge, then you're talking a whole different class of service, and it's not going to come at $50/mo. No, I am NOT talking about absolute guarantees, I'm talking about the reasonable expectation that it can offer what it's selling.
It's like subscriptions to the gym. If the gym holds 100 people, then they can sell many more than 100 memberships because not everyone uses the gym at the same time.
So let's say they sell 200 memberships, and observe that the gym population is still never more than 35. The gym can keep selling memberships because it can still reasonably deliver what it is offering.
I've been very consistent on this. Am I saying it wrong?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
netcool
@comcast.net
| said by funchords :No, I am NOT talking about absolute guarantees, I'm talking about the reasonable expectation that it can offer what it's selling. So is any amount of throttling reasonable to you? What if it only affected 10% or less of the total active downstream/upstream ports on the network?
If a downstream/upstream port is running hot people at Comcast are more than likely trying to figure out ways to fix them (whether it be a virtual/physical node split.) In some cases resolution can take quite awhile (especially in the case of physical splits.)
I suppose your answer would be to turn customers away until the fix was implemented but that would create a whole other logistical nightmare. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :No, I am NOT talking about absolute guarantees, I'm talking about the reasonable expectation that it can offer what it's selling.
»/archive/comca···62&r=696
To me those results seem to indicate that for the vast majority they have no problems delivering exactly what the advertisements say they do.
said by funchords :The gym can keep selling memberships because it can still reasonably deliver what it is offering. Statistically speaking, the average customer that Comcast adds is a light customer with negligible impact on the network. This is like the people who sign up for the gym as a new years resolution and then stop going after 4 weeks.
There's no need to halt new signups in nearly every case because 9,999 times out of 10,000 the user they add isn't going to be a significant draw of resources on the network.
Ensuring that the largest possible number of users get the best possible opportunity to draw performance from the network is what the whole new QoS plan is about. Users who use the network frequently and heavily might see slower than rated transfer speeds on occasion under the new system, but everyone else should see an improvement. |
|
AVonGauss
Premium,MVM
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
2 edits | reply to TKJunkMail
I apologize if I am wrong on this point, but isn't the new system currently deployed in 5 markets at present? Have we heard from people in the test markets, positive or negative? |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to netcool
said by netcool :
So is any amount of throttling reasonable to you? What if it only affected 10% or less of the total active downstream/upstream ports on the network? I'd hate to answer a question like that without knowing the details and comparing them against the standards and traditions that define the Internet.
It is a high bar, but interoperability is at stake.
said by netcool :
If a downstream/upstream port is running hot people at Comcast are more than likely trying to figure out ways to fix them (whether it be a virtual/physical node split.) In some cases resolution can take quite awhile (especially in the case of physical splits.)
I suppose your answer would be to turn customers away until the fix was implemented but that would create a whole other logistical nightmare. I think that ISPs (including Comcast) usually can see this coming in time to start and complete this work before impact is felt. If an ISP was to get surprised for some reason, I think informing the impacted users and asking for some short-term understanding will earn some cooperation in return.
As to turning customers away, the answer is obvious. If an ISP is already poorly serving existing customers in an area, it should not be adding any new ones there.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
1 edit | said by funchords :I'd hate to answer a question like that without knowing the details and comparing them against the standards and traditions that define the Internet. It is a high bar, but interoperability is at stake. The implementations now are still softer than they were back in the dial-up days. There were a vast many providers that had their Livingston PortMasters set to disconnect calls after 2 hours to try and free up slots during peak usage windows.
Back then we didn't have nice repair tools like PAR2 or CRC-checking file transfer methods that are now integral to applications like BitTorrent. If you were lucky the FTP server you were grabbing from supported resume, and if you were really lucky the resulting file wouldn't end up being corrupted.
It's easy to look back with nostalgic blindness and think the world was better back then, but in the glory days of dialup the telcos were constantly bitching about switch capacity, and providers were regularly enforcing no line camping policies. ISPs have a long history of doing what they need to do to keep a shared service working for as many people as possible, usually to the detriment of a subset of the customer base. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | reply to funchords
said by funchords :A quart can't hold a gallon. It's Comcast's job to serve every customer that it accepts and to serve each one without putting one customer's interests over another. If every customer of the San José Water company opened all of their spigots at once, 24/7, I wonder what would happen to the water pressure?
BTW, the San José water company, like PG&E (and Comcast!) is an investor-owned, private corporation, not a government owned entity. Aside from sewers, streets, roads, and the airport, I don't think that the City of San José owns any utilities.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by NormanS :said by funchords :A quart can't hold a gallon. It's Comcast's job to serve every customer that it accepts and to serve each one without putting one customer's interests over another. If every customer of the San José Water company opened all of their spigots at once, 24/7, I wonder what would happen to the water pressure? It would drop (???) but what would NOT happen is that San José Water wouldn't install cameras into your homes and drop the pressure of NormanS's shower because Billy down the street wants to flush the toilet!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
1 edit | camera's? No, but they do meter the water, and above a base amount (enough for every customer to flush, shower, wash clothes, etc. as needed within reasonable limitations) charge higher and higher rates per cubic foot, to make it prohibitively expensive to use more than normal amount. If progressively higher charges and fines don't curb excessive use, there usually is a legal mechanism to cut service. (which effects the "habitable residence" status, meaning you can no longer live there  Much more severe than losing cable service)
every company providing a service metered or not needs a method of refusing/restricting service to those who unreasonably exceed the intended purpose.
every other customer should not be restricted from, at least the minimum service. ie always enough water to flush and drink. |
|
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
It's funny you can't think that you can download 250 GB+ a month and expect it to last. If you use that much your probably pirating WAY to much or if your not you have no business being on a residential line.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| said by MysticGogeta :It's funny you can't think that you can download 250 GB+ a month and expect it to last. If you use that much your probably pirating WAY to much or if your not you have no business being on a residential line. There are many ways to legally use that bandwidth. The fact that you are ignorant of them does NOT give the right to imply that others are pirating.
And there should be no reason to upgrade since the service was sold as flat fee.
Besides, even if one would like to upgrade, in my experience, no one could once Comcast decided they are "abusers".
--
Treason is a matter of dates |
|
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to TKJunkMail
If only a few % of it's total users are abusers, why do the other 90+% have to suffer because of it. Is it that hard to boot off the heavy users, that are bogging down the network.
It's very sad that in this day and age caps are even uttered. Was it really that hard for any MSO or ISP to plan accordingly? Sure it cost's money to run/maintain/upgrade networks. But it costs more when you wait to the last possible minute to implement such things.
I understand people who are just uploading/downloading 24x7 should be either disconnected, or move to a business line. But forcing a cap and restrictions onto people because of a company's negligence is outright sad. |
|
delusion FTL
@mcleodusa.net
| said by Pizz :It's very sad that in this day and age caps are even uttered. Was it really that hard for any MSO or ISP to plan accordingly? Sure it cost's money to run/maintain/upgrade networks. But it costs more when you wait to the last possible minute to implement such things. It's more because the cable companies want docsis to be something it isnt, which is competitive/comparable to fiber. Sure they are trying to get version 3 running, but they already started selling speeds that they cannot provide to their userbase. Raw data exchange is VERY cheap, it's the capacity to exchange that data that is costly for those not on a pure fiber network.
said by Pizz :I understand people who are just uploading/downloading 24x7 should be either disconnected, or move to a business line. But forcing a cap and restrictions onto people because of a company's negligence is outright sad. Again, why the business line? Raw data exchange is dirt cheap. Business pay more for SLA's and such rather than to move more data, sure that comes along with it but it's not a fundamental reason for a business account. Realize that comcast hardly differentiates a business and residential customer on a technical level. Certainly you arent suggesting that if everyone simply bought business accounts the problem would go away. The capacity issues of docsis still exist. Moving a 500GB user to a business account will still impact his neighbors. |
|
