thesaucier
join:2004-09-21
Sacramento, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols
Will I do feel that if Comcast is going to do this then they need or should be forced by law to disclose what they do in there advertisement. Also they need to define just what a hog is as well as have a means by witch a consumer can monitor their usage. If the consumer gets close to or goes over the allotted usage they should be notified that they are or about to be throttled. |
|
kadar
Premium,ExMod 2001-02
join:0000-00-00
| said by thesaucier  :they should be notified that they are or about to be throttled. And notified in a timely manner.
Not during the second month, post-abuse, once it is too late.
--
The Revolutionary War was fought over a 14% tax, what % are you paying now? |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | reply to fishmaster
fishmaster , Rockford, IL is not a test market for "Fair Share." |
|
kwayzcat
join:2002-10-22
Chicago, IL | reply to TKJunkMail
Will business accounts be throttled? Someone please speak up if you know. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  reply to TKJunkMail
Free Press & Public Knowledge still not happy
2 of the groups that complained to the FCC about Comcast aren't happy about this NEW method of throttling Comcast is testing:
»www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_852573C4···chnology
Representatives of Free Press and Public Knowledge, two digital rights advocacy groups that filed a complaint against Comcast for slowing P-to-P traffic, expressed reservations about Comcast's apparent new direction.
"It's an interesting reflection on the claim that there is a free market for broadband," said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for Public Knowledge. "If there was competition, could you slow down your best customers?" Brodsky is quite humorous when he characterizes Comcast's heaviest and most abusive bandwidth hogs as Comcast's BEST customers. Those customers are the absolutely WORST customers. They use the most services; pay the least possible; and complain non-stop whenever their hoggish ways are questioned.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
CEO greed
@comcast.net
 from:
I pos rep
thumbs down from:
TKJunkMail
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols
This still doesn't explain why in areas where Comcast has to compete with FIOS, they simply provide cheaper rates and up he bandwidth.
It doesn't matter how or when they are going to throttle, it matters that they ARE! If the company would invest more into their current customers instead offering such low rates for their new customers, they wouldn't have to do this.
Funny thing is, I have 3 different ISP to choose from... I'm going to set up my second computer to monitor my bandwidth. If I feel they are throttling my weekend sessions, I will dump them.
I'm paying $63/month for internet..! Jesus Ch!st, thats alot and now they say they're going to throttle us..?
Greedy azz companies... |
|
Juicy Fruit
@comcast.net
thumbs down from:
TKJunkMail
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Free Press & Public Knowledge still not happy
said by TKJunkMail Brodsky is quite humorous when he characterizes Comcast's heaviest and most abusive bandwidth hogs as Comcast's BEST customers. Those customers are the absolutely WORST customers. They use the most services; pay the least possible; and complain non-stop whenever their hoggish ways are questioned.
[/BQUOTE :You can only use the amount of bandwidth your paying for, no more. Right after AT&T moved into our city, Comcast immediatly offered 6mb bandwidth at no extra cost. So thats what I PAY for. |
|
jlivingood
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols
said by TKJunkMail :All good links. If people here in the forum take the time to read them, many of their questions on throttling will be answered. That's very true, I think. And it is probably reasonable to conclude that questions not answered in this deck (which is actually from late May) are likely to be clarified within something like 30 days.
JL |
|
TallMatthew
@comcast.net
from:
I pos rep
| reply to TKJunkMail
I live in Chester County, PA, and have noticed within the past week that my torrent downloads are being shaped. They start off at line rate, then dwindle down to a trickle after a few minutes. They still get there eventually, but I'm paying extra for a 15 Mb/s connection. For not much longer ... FIOS, here I come.
Am I a "bandwidth hog"? That sounds like moralistic, finger-wagging, corporate-serving bullshit to me. The problem with allowing ISPs like Comcast to dictate proper use is they will always make the decision conservatively. Instead of forking down the cash to upgrade their upstream pipes, they turn the onus on the consumer and suddenly anyone who is using their connection for anything but low-bandwidth apps is a "bad person."
What Comcast should do if they want to reduce use is throttle everyone across the board. Don't sell a 15 Mb/s pipe if you can't provide the service. Just because you want to oversubscribe 100:1, doesn't mean you have the right to, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to campaign against people who rightly expect to use the service that you sold them. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by TallMatthew :
Instead of forking down the cash to upgrade their upstream pipes..
I always hear this comment. First, they upgraded 6/384 to 6/1 and 8/768 to 8/2. Second of all, they continue to upgrade their network. Just because they throttle/cap or do anything else does not mean their network cannot handle it. Comcast network can handle it.
Rather than making inaccurate statements that you have no clue about, why not stick with what you know? |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| reply to CEO greed
said by CEO greed :
This still doesn't explain why in areas where Comcast has to compete with FIOS, they simply provide cheaper rates and up he bandwidth.
It's called COMPETITION. It's nothing new and Comcast did not invent it. Any business will do that same. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
3 edits | reply to TallMatthew
said by TallMatthew :
The speeds you're describing are to the consumer. Upstream pipes are an ISP's connection to other ISPs. They're very expensive, and Comcast has determined it's cheaper to market against "bandwidth hogs" than to upgrade theirs.
Wrong. Comcast partners with different tiers. But once you leave their network, Comcast can't be held responsible. There aren't that many to partner with in the first place.
Comcast is addressing bandwidth hogs, like every ISP is or will be addressing them. The idea to throttle individual uses, on all protocols is something they are being forced to do after their initial attempt to only ban the .01% apparently isn't "allowed".
This has nothing to do with the network - it can very much handle the load. It has to do with the cost of bandwidth. Sure, they can just stick with cogent and pay for cheap bandwidth - but then everyone suffers. The problem is not the available bandwidth, it's the cost!
We all have to suffer now. |
|
TallMatthew
@comcast.net
1 edit
thumbs down from:
TKJunkMail
| No. You're wrong.
The Internet is not about to tip over. There is plenty of capacity out there if you spend the money to connect to it properly. Rather than upgrade to higher capacity, more expensive circuits (and perhaps to more powerful network gear), Comcast has decided to throttle its endusers. Someone in that monstrous bureaucracy came up with a cost-benefit analysis that proved it was more effective to market against the top tier of users (and perhaps even lose them) than to spend money on capacity. That's what this is all about, protecting Comcast's coffers. It's a well-known ISP business issue.
This, at the same time they're selling fatter pipes to compete with FIOS. Indefensible.
Corporations are like communist regimes. They do what's in their best interest, customer rights be damned. They mangle the truth and cover their own ass. They lie and they cheat and they steal. This behavior of Comcast is exemplary of that. That's why the FCC is hounding them, and that's why they deserve our scorn. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
1 edit | said by TallMatthew :
No. You're wrong.
The Internet is not about to tip over. There is plenty of capacity out there if you spend the money to connect to it properly. Rather than upgrade to higher capacity, more expensive circuits (and perhaps to more powerful network gear), Comcast has decided to throttle its endusers. Someone in that monstrous bureaucracy came up with a cost-benefit analysis that proved it was more effective to market against the top tier of users (and perhaps even lose them) than to spend money on capacity. That's what this is all about, protecting Comcast's coffers. It's a well-known ISP business issue.
This, at the same time they're selling fatter pipes to compete with FIOS. Indefensible.
Corporations are like communist regimes. They do what's in their best interest, customer rights be damned. They mangle the truth and cover their own ass. They lie and they cheat and they steal. This behavior of Comcast is exemplary of that. That's why the FCC is hounding them, and that's why they deserve our scorn.
Who said anything the Internet tiping over? The Internet is just fine. We all know this.
Again, you're wrong. Comcast is upgrading their entire network (CRAN?), but their idea of throttling is NOT because they can't support it, instead, it's because they don't want to dish out the money on those who consume more than the average joe (or what Comcast has labeled as the top 0.01% of bandwidth "hoggers") |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| reply to Rob
said by Rob :said by TallMatthew :
Instead of forking down the cash to upgrade their upstream pipes..
I always hear this comment. First, they upgraded 6/384 to 6/1 and 8/768 to 8/2. Second of all, they continue to upgrade their network. Just because they throttle/cap or do anything else does not mean their network cannot handle it. Comcast network can handle it. Rather than making inaccurate statements that you have no clue about, why not stick with what you know? They did NOT upgrade. They just sold more of the stuff they already could not provide and they just allow a higher BURST speed to give you the impression of better network troughput.
And if the network can handle it, they should not cap/traffic shape. And if it can't, they should admit it. Cannot have it both ways as your argument above:"Just because they throttle/cap or do anything else does not mean their network cannot handle it. Comcast network can handle it. ". Maybe they simply do not WANT to provide the service they advertised and we paid for. Even worse, then.
--
Treason is a matter of dates |
|
TallMatthew
@comcast.net
| reply to Rob
"Again, you're wrong. Comcast is upgrading their entire network (CRAN?), but their idea of throttling is NOT because they can't support it, instead, it's because they don't want to dish out the money on those who consume more than the average joe (or what Comcast has labeled as the top 0.01% of bandwidth "hoggers")"
So ... they have the capacity, but they don't want people to use it because ... somehow ... it costs them more money if the circuits to their peers are utilized more than they currently are?
Dude. Not even close. Quit getting your facts from press releases. |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
1 edit | reply to TallMatthew
said by TallMatthew :
Corporations are like communist regimes. They do what's in their best interest, customer rights be damned. They mangle the truth and cover their own ass. They lie and they cheat and they steal. This behavior of Comcast is exemplary of that. That's why the FCC is hounding them, and that's why they deserve our scorn.
As a former subject of one of the most autocratic Communist regimes in history, I have to agree with you.
--
Treason is a matter of dates |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| reply to TallMatthew
said by TallMatthew :
Dude. Not even close. Quit getting your facts from press releases.
I haven't even seen a press release from Comcast. You're making assumptions that have no evidence to support it. You're the one who reads a press release and then seems to go the other way.
Yea Comcast is evvvvill |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| reply to sturmvogel
said by sturmvogel :said by Rob :said by TallMatthew :
Instead of forking down the cash to upgrade their upstream pipes..
I always hear this comment. First, they upgraded 6/384 to 6/1 and 8/768 to 8/2. Second of all, they continue to upgrade their network. Just because they throttle/cap or do anything else does not mean their network cannot handle it. Comcast network can handle it. Rather than making inaccurate statements that you have no clue about, why not stick with what you know? They did NOT upgrade. They just sold more of the stuff they already could not provide and they just allow a higher BURST speed to give you the impression of better network troughput. And if the network can handle it, they should not cap/traffic shape. And if it can't, they should admit it. Cannot have it both ways as your argument above:"Just because they throttle/cap or do anything else does not mean their network cannot handle it. Comcast network can handle it. ". Maybe they simply do not WANT to provide the service they advertised and we paid for. Even worse, then. They provide the service, just not to those who are consuming 600GB a month.
Last time I checked, they had a right not to service a customer. And they are simply expressing that right. Yea, it saves them money - but they are a corporation - of course their interest is in $$$! |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
2 edits | said by Rob :They provide the service, just not to those who are consuming 600GB a month. Last time I checked, they had a right not to service a customer. And they are simply expressing that right. Yea, it saves them money - but they are a corporation - of course their interest is in $$$! How about the people that use 500 GB month ? Denied.
400 ? Denied. Does not make your argument as neat, since we are approaching what other people may see as high but reasonable usage. Use then the Comcastic term of "half a terabyte" to make it look bigger.
They are abusing their franchise. Their franchise prohibits other cable operators to service the area (discussed in this forum before and confirmed to be true) under the assumption (maybe obligation) to serve all potential customers in this area, then they turn around under undisclosed conditions and refuse service for customers they consider not to be worth servicing.
Ignorance does not make your argument valid.
Also, you state that is obvious that a corporations' interest is to make money as an obvious point that all other is secondary, but you imply that customers that want to use as much as possible the connection they paid for are bad people for saving money over say a T1.
Corporations are made out of people, Rob. So the people that make up these corporations are also bad ?
--
Treason is a matter of dates |
|
