[Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols in Comcast HSI

said by espaeth

said by funchords

:

This Topic is supposed to be about throttling

Except according to all of the documentation on the Comcast site they are not throttling, but rather reprioritizing traffic.

I think it's an important distinction to make -- this should only be a factor during times of congestion, and this only influences who gets the better deal for packet priority during those times. If you're a heavy network user and your traffic gets marked into the "best effort" queue -- if the network is really otherwise idle then there is no impact to the delivery of your packets.

said by TKJunkMail

said by Somnambul33t

:

i DL probably 100GB and UL around 50GB a month, would i be affected?

their vague language is dubious...

You wouldn't hit the declared cap and be kicked off the system as a customer. But you could still be affected by their other policy - temporary de-prioritization of your traffic if you are hogging a node for some measured period of time.

said by delusion FTL :

but something is not right here.

said by funchords

:

This Topic is supposed to be about throttling, and we're trying to support Sorto's request to -- well -- keep them sorted. :)

said by Somnambul33t

:

i DL probably 100GB and UL around 50GB a month, would i be affected?

their vague language is dubious...

said by funchords

:

This Topic is supposed to be about throttling

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.

said by Rob

:

I guess Costco can single us out, but Comcast can't.

said by Rob

said by funchords

:

If I go to a gas station, they can't water down my gasoline because I don't also go inside their food store buy my groceries there!

The other day I was driving and I saw a sign "Gas - $3.20".. "3.20!" I said to myself.

So I did a quick U-turn and pulled up to a pump. I get out of my car, swipe my credit card at the machine, insert the gas nozzle and waited for the famous "Please start pumping" message to come across the LCD screen.

It never showed up, You know why? Because it was a Costco gas station and I wasn't allowed to buy their gas unless I went inside and bought their membership.

I guess Costco can single us out, but Comcast can't.

said by funchords

:

If I go to a gas station, they can't water down my gasoline because I don't also go inside their food store buy my groceries there!

said by tshirt

:

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.

said by MysticGogeta

:

Get a server then for that.

said by MysticGogeta

:

If he backed up every 2 days then he would be fine.

said by MysticGogeta

:

What you want to tell me that you can hit over 250 GB using that (I use YouTube and Hulu VERY often and only hit 25 GB once)

said by MysticGogeta

:

Get a server then for that.

said by MysticGogeta

:

If you use that much your probably pirating WAY to much or if your not you have no business being on a residential line.

said by delusion FTL :

said by sturmvogel

:

Should and could are 2 different things. Those of us that would like to upgrade to a business line are not offered that option.

And this is why the business line garbage is just that. Comcast doesn't want you on a business line because it does nothing to alleviate oversold nodes or high bandwidth users impacting neighbors. If you were a heavy user on a 60$ line, you'd be the same on a $120 dollar line.

Every user who's answer to caps and throttling is to get a business line, doesn't understand DOCSIS and comcast's implementation of it.

said by MysticGogeta

said by sturmvogel

:

Should and could are 2 different things. Those of us that would like to upgrade to a business line are not offered that option.

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.

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.

said by MysticGogeta

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

said by funchords

:

The gym can keep selling memberships because it can still reasonably deliver what it is offering.

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.

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.

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.

said by funchords

:

No fake RSTs

said by funchords

:

non-standard throttling regimes that are protocol-agnostic by name only..

said by funchords

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

said by funchords

said by Rob

:

They can sue all they want. It's the government's job to decide what is fair and what is not fair.

[I think you mean "court's" here, Rob]

No, "fair" is part of bargaining. It's the court's job to consider the claims and enforce the laws -- claims which aren't always easy and laws which aren't always fair. One thing that is for certain is that it'll take a long time and it'll be expensive, and that's enough to keep venture capitalists on the sideline.

said by Rob

:

Sounds to me like your and everyone else's issue isn't with Comcast, but with the way the FCC and the government has handled all of this.

Comcast is responsible for its own behaviors. Comcast ought to do the right things without having to be forced to do them. But you are not wrong about the FCC and the government's role. That we're still classifying cablemodem, DSL, and FIOS an "Information Service" seems to be at the root of many current problems.

said by Rob

said by funchords

said by Rob

:

Then maybe Earthlink should invest in their own infrastructure.

Under the threat of regulation, the cable providers have told the FCC repeatedly that they would be glad to offer wholesalers the ability to share their network. They weren't regulated, and guess what happened next.

A similar thing is happening on the TelCo side, except that they were regulated and are in the process of being less regulated. The number of wholesale operators available is shrinking.

And any time a 3rd party -- private or municipality -- tries to lay infrastructure, the incumbent operators sue to protect "their territory."

And even if those facts weren't true, how efficient is it, anyway, to have 14 different network interfaces running to the side of your house -- one for each competitor? Or fourteen different street projects to lay fiber or coax to feed them?

They can sue all they want. It's the government's job to decide what is fair and what is not fair. Sounds to me like your and everyone else's issue isn't with Comcast, but with the way the FCC and the government has handled all of this.

said by Rob

:

They can sue all they want. It's the government's job to decide what is fair and what is not fair.

said by Rob

:

Sounds to me like your and everyone else's issue isn't with Comcast, but with the way the FCC and the government has handled all of this.

said by funchords

said by Rob

:

Then maybe Earthlink should invest in their own infrastructure.

said by Rob

:

Then maybe Earthlink should invest in their own infrastructure.

said by Rob

said by sturmvogel

said by Rob

:

Then maybe Earthlink should invest in their own infrastructure.

Excellent point ! Except they can't, due to Comcast's franchise.

Actually, they can. They just refuse to. It would take millions of dollars to build a new infrastructure that would take years to break even.

said by sturmvogel

said by Rob

:

Then maybe Earthlink should invest in their own infrastructure.

Excellent point ! Except they can't, due to Comcast's franchise.

said by Rob

:

Then maybe Earthlink should invest in their own infrastructure.

said by sturmvogel

said by EG

said by CleanGene

:

The problem is that those potential customers aren't generally willing to pay what that sort of service costs.

Amen on that !

And in my experience, when Earthlink tried to service my location, Comcast blocked them. Somehow, I had no problem to pay Earthlink, but they could not offer service due to some interesting monopolistic conditions that supposedly do not exist.

said by EG

said by CleanGene

:

The problem is that those potential customers aren't generally willing to pay what that sort of service costs.

Amen on that !

said by CleanGene

:

The problem is that those potential customers aren't generally willing to pay what that sort of service costs.

said by funchords

:

As to incompatible users, I've always held that Comcast shouldn't offer subscriptions to people that they don't intend to serve. Enough incompatible users just might create a market looking for a provider or technology that can serve them.

said by funchords

:

How did the Internet ever make it all the way to 2007 without the ability to discriminate against heavy bandwidth users?

said by ShanghaiSurprise :

Did anyone NOT see this coming from ISP companies not being able to throttle P2P traffic? You have a flat rate service, that works economically when everyone uses a reasonable amount of bandwidth. But you have 1% of users hammering the network with P2P, and due to pressure at the FCC (thanks Rob), you say hey ISP dudes, you cannot mess with P2P in any way or any other app.

Are you confused about Net Neutrality? Who isn't? Some people argue it is necessary for continued innovation on the Internet, and point to Comcast's bandwidth metering as a sign of things to come. Others claim that it is unnecessary regulation that will create unintended consequences in its wake. Opposing Views, the debate site that pits experts against each other to argue the pros and cons of the big questions of the day (read our launch review), last night put up a page on Net Neutrality. The page lays out the arguments pro and con for Net Neutrality, and then links to fuller arguments.

Marshaling the arguments for Net Neutrality are the Save The Internet Coalition, the Open Internet Coalition, and Public Knowledge. (It's a freedom of speech issue, the ISPs are quasi-monopolies that cannot be trusted, innovation on the Web is at stake). Arguing against are the Cato Institute and Hands Off The Internet (it's a technical issue best left to engineers, the cost of Net Neutrality will be passed onto consumers, regulation will backfire). Readers are then encouraged to vote on who is winning the argument, and add their own points of view, which can be elevated to the main discussion page.

said by sturmvogel

:

Well, no. They will generate this level of traffic quite quickly, that is why Comcast is desperate to cut this off NOW.

said by espaeth

:

This, of course, is tempered with the fact that every customer is paying about the same amount for access. That being the case, those who use the network frequently/heavily should yield to those who use it scarcely.

said by espaeth

:

If another light user wants to surf a couple web pages for a few minutes after you've been pushing bits on the network for hours, why shouldn't their traffic take priority over yours?

said by espaeth

:

You're treating this situation as the rule, when it's really the exception.

said by funchords

:

But if my neighbor and I are on equal tiers, we both have the same right to admit or receive that next packet and Comcast has a responsibility to each of us to handle both.

said by funchords

:

But under the current packaging, where customers are told about fast access to music, movies, and other rich media, the consumption of which often occurs in prime-time, customers have few clues that their use impacts their neighbors and will effectively be bait-and-switched when they find out.

said by Johkal

said by AVonGauss

:

Considering a few Comcast employees routinely post on this board and are probably reading this thread, it can't hurt to post opinions and/or constructive criticism.

Opinions and constructive criticism are what these forums breed, however, I doubt Comcast is secretly reading this thread to decide how they should proceed. LOL!

said by Johkal

:

What if the plan isn't fair or to your liking? What are you going to do? A lot of discussion in this thread for some posters who have no other ISP choice. Seems like beating a dead horse worrying about what will happen; when in reality, most will continue to pay for their service no matter what Comcast does.

said by AVonGauss

:

Considering a few Comcast employees routinely post on this board and are probably reading this thread, it can't hurt to post opinions and/or constructive criticism.

said by tshirt

said by sturmvogel

:

I agree with you.

However: CC lied about the Sandvine implementation and also it was shown that Sandwine would screw up P2P traffic all the time.

Maybe their goals were noble. However, when confronted with outright liars, one may have doubts.

Just my opinion.

The (alleged) lying was the major error. (the cover up is often worse than the original transgression)
Trying to find a way to fairly use/share the currently available network bandwidth wasn't wrong, trying sandvine wasn't wrong (but it didn't work out) this new plan is another step in the right direction (if it works as described)
Perhaps ComCast has seen the light, and perhaps You'll have a chance to try it, Sturm, if you can forgive their previous actions.
If not, enjoy your new provider

said by sturmvogel

said by espaeth

:

If another light user wants to surf a couple web pages for a few minutes after you've been pushing bits on the network for hours, why shouldn't their traffic take priority over yours?

said by espaeth

said by funchords

said by ChrisXP

:

Don't know how Comcast will figure it all out, but if I'm paying for it, I want it up and running.

And that, my friends, is the most important definition of "fairness" to consumers.

This, of course, is tempered with the fact that every customer is paying about the same amount for access. That being the case, those who use the network frequently/heavily should yield to those who use it scarcely.

When Comcast started implementing Sandvine, I assume their goal was to make sure there was always a bit of bandwidth available for their non-P2P-using subscribers. The charge then was "if the network is idle, we should be able to use as much as we want" -- under this new plan you get your wish. The remarking of packets for heavy users is just that, marking and not specific throttling. If you're using a lot of bandwidth and nobody else is trying to use the network, no problem, you can continue to push your traffic onto the network unrestricted but simply marked at a lower priority.

If another light user wants to surf a couple web pages for a few minutes after you've been pushing bits on the network for hours, why shouldn't their traffic take priority over yours?

said by funchords

said by ChrisXP

:

Don't know how Comcast will figure it all out, but if I'm paying for it, I want it up and running.

And that, my friends, is the most important definition of "fairness" to consumers.

said by ChrisXP

:

But I agree if P2P downloaders weren't such hogs, this whole cap vs throttle issue would've been moot.

It hurts me on eMule to limit uploads, but I'm also considerate of those on the node (let alone my sis on her laptop). Plus, I may P2P once every 3 to 6 months, so by no shape or form do I abuse P2P.

said by ChrisXP

:

Don't know how Comcast will figure it all out, but if I'm paying for it, I want it up and running.

said by funchords

:

Define "Hog" -- is it my mom who uploaded 1100 8 MB jpegs to Walgreens? C'mon. These people aren't technical.

said by FifthE1ement

:

It is all relative. I don't think 400GB is excessive in this day and age of internet everything. Almost everything uses the net today including phones, computers, cars, televisions, satellite systems, stereos, games, hell even some refrigerators and other appliances etc.

said by FifthE1ement

:

Instead of trying to update their network and invest in future technologies, Comcrap will do what is loves to do which is screw it's customers.

said by Rob

:

No, because I don't agree with throwing them off for using 300GB. Although I find it excessive, I don't find that's too much. When you have a household of 6-7 family members, it's easy to reach 200-300GB. But 600GB? I think that's excessive.

said by sturmvogel

:

Is 500 GB or 400 GB excessive ?

said by Rob

:

Yes.

said by tshirt

:

Better quality devices can set a minimum bandwidth for a given device when active (even some cheap ones handle that) and some sense throughput near real time (in fact it isn't really QoS unless it handle priortiy devices in that manner, why else would you buy such a feature, unless it was dynamic, rather then static "auto-sense" from the last start up?)

said by tshirt

:

It would only effect those who don't/can't/WON'T set their other apps below the trigger point, i.e. the "hogs" that brought this whole issue to this point.

said by tshirt

:

If you don't regulate yourself, they'll do it for you (actually for the benifit of the rest of the people on your node)

said by tshirt

:

Isn't this what you've been asking for all along? publish rules as to useage, deifine restrections on overages, and a more appropiate "penatly" then being booted for a year, for occasional incidents

said by NormanS

:

Actually, I've had gamers with 100 ms+ pings beat the crap out of me, with my DSL latency (around 30 ms to 40 ms on West coast servers).

said by sturmvogel

:

The government has its own projections regarding the taxes it expects to collect. Failing to meet its goal, it might seek to supplement from other sources/easier targets as in the general population tax base.

said by sturmvogel

:

Because, if I recall correctly, you mentioned before that you used P2P do download some anime that was not available anywhere else and, if it where, you would have gladly bought it.

said by espaeth

:

Gaming traffic isn't bandwidth intensive, just latency critical. For you, this system will actually be better in that your traffic will take priority for delivery over a P2P client that's been spewing bits for the last several hours.

To give low latency to some traffic when there is resource contention you need to slow other traffic down; that's just how it works.

said by NormanS

said by sturmvogel

:

A faint difference. Money the goverment did not make due to the tax breaks is money that they ultimately collected from other sources...

Money not collected is money not collected. WRT taxes, you can't collect tax money from "B" that you are not collecting from "A"; primarily because "A"'s money is not "B"'s money.

said by NormanS

:

I am not clear about why you dropped my name into your argument. I've got DirecTV for entertainment (well, the landlady, actually; if it was me, I'd not be paying for stuff I hardly ever use). I've played a little with VoD; but there really isn't a lot of stuff there, either. Cable TV, satellite TV. Hundreds of channels of...nothing worth watching!

And even with the little VoD I've run (over my 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' 3 MB connection), I hardly suck down as much as 50 GB a month.

For me, alternate delivery channels are still physical media. The stuff not on cable TV, or satellite, is available on DVD. Which makes that $25 a month I save on a slower DSL connection all the more important; it gives me access to the alternate means of content delivery!

said by sturmvogel

:

A faint difference. Money the goverment did not make due to the tax breaks is money that they ultimately collected from other sources...

said by NormanS

said by sturmvogel

:

What happened to the subsidies the government gave telcos to invest in fiber, on a side note ?

Which subsidies were those? I have never found any reference to tax monies transferred from government coffers to corporate coffers; only tax breaks. I.e., money not transferred from corporate coffers to government coffers. Not quite the same thing as a subsidy.

said by NormanS

said by sturmvogel

:

I for one have a greater faith in the government than in greedy corporations unchecked by anything.

According to George Washington, your faith is misplaced. He told us:

quote:
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

said by ChrisXP

:

Don't want to be throttled when I absolutely need the bandwidth (like in a gaming mood, and need good pings along with the bandwidth). But I'd pay a little more if it'll keep the throttling off.

said by sturmvogel

:

What happened to the subsidies the government gave telcos to invest in fiber, on a side note ?

said by sturmvogel

:

I for one have a greater faith in the government than in greedy corporations unchecked by anything.

said by I pos rep

:

Throttling=unethical
Caps=need to be reasonable with overage fees or options for customers. I can either have the option to be cut off when I reach the cap or pay extra for more as a customer.

That is my opinion and one I think makes much sense.

said by tshirt

:

Again you are (deliberately, I think) confusing delivery speed, with total throughput allowed. were you a self proffessed 'newbie', I might believe you misunderstood, what comast sells)
Once again this is a residental broadband account, no realistic person has the expectation they are replacing a high cost dedicate line, with this service.

said by TKJunkMail

said by tshirt

said by funchords

:

Then, the device uses this knowledge of the uplink rate to reserve space for the desired usages.

When Comcast suddenly changes that rate when it throws customers in the penalty box, then all these QOS devices will fail to operate properly because they are now misconfigured.

If you don't regulate yourself, they'll do it for you (actually for the benifit of the rest of the people on your node)
Isn't this what you've been asking for all along? publish rules as to useage, deifine restrections on overages, and a more appropiate "penatly" then being booted for a year, for occasional incidents

No, that isn't what he has asked for or wants. He wants Comcast to expand capacity at no cost to the user so that UNLIMITED bandwidth is available to the hogs without any penalties at all, either monetary or in throughput. Of course, he will deny that - but no matter what Comcast comes up with - if unlimited use without additional cost isn't the end result he will be here claiming Comcast is breaking some amorphous, ever-changing network neutrality principles(as he defines them).

said by tshirt

said by funchords

said by tshirt

said by funchords

Better quality devices can set a minimum bandwidth for a given device when active (even some cheap ones handle that) and some sense throughput near real time (in fact it isn't really QoS unless it handle priortiy devices in that manner, why else would you buy such a feature, unless it was dynamic, rather then static "auto-sense" from the last start up?)
It would only effect those who don't/can't/WON'T set their other apps below the trigger point, i.e. the "hogs" that brought this whole issue to this point.
If you don't regulate yourself, they'll do it for you (actually for the benifit of the rest of the people on your node)
Isn't this what you've been asking for all along? publish rules as to useage, deifine restrections on overages, and a more appropiate "penatly" then being booted for a year, for occasional incidents

said by funchords

:

When first started QOS products automatically determine the upload rate. (Optionally, users can manually configure their device by inputting the purchased line rate.)

When Comcast suddenly changes that rate when it throws customers in the penalty box, then all these QOS devices will fail to operate properly because they are now misconfigured.

said by tshirt

said by sturmvogel

:

QoS on the router will not help with the slowing from the provider, especially when their "management" will go wrong.

How do you KNOW it will go wrong?
You don't! You just assume it will, because you beleive ComCast can do no right, when in fact for the majority of people it works fine/serves it intend purpose, just fine, year after year.
If you think you need "Guarunteed" phone service, you shouldn't use best effort VoIP, on a best effort broadband connection.

said by tshirt

:

How do you KNOW it will go wrong?

said by sturmvogel

:

QoS on the router will not help with the slowing from the provider, especially when their "management" will go wrong.

said by tshirt

said by TKJunkMail

said by kadar

:

How well would an emergency voip call work under a throttle?

Even a throttled link would have enough bandwidth for VOIP traffic. Just stop the upload or download that is getting you throttled.

In fact if you have a decent router that supports QoS you could have the VoIP as a high priority, and it would automatically reduce the computers dwn/up throughput to allow best quality for the VoIP., no complicated ;) slowing or stopping the download required.
Do you sense we are back to the dialup days where someone wanting to make a call from a single line house has to tell the online 'fanatic' to "get off the OFF THE @$@%&$ LINE!) ?

said by TKJunkMail

said by kadar

:

How well would an emergency voip call work under a throttle?

Even a throttled link would have enough bandwidth for VOIP traffic. Just stop the upload or download that is getting you throttled.

said by funchords

:

That's not what they're proposing. They're proposing making traffic coming from this subscriber be in the lowest priority queue. That queue might all get dropped if there's enough traffic in the normal queue.

Will attempt to protect real-time applications, where users would
otherwise perceive delays/degradation.
Many of these real-time apps are competing over-the-top services,
such as VoIP services, but may also be video conferencing, gaming,
etc.
Protecting real-time application experiences is extremely important
to users.

said by kadar

:

How well would an emergency voip call work under a throttle?

said by centric

:

So would it be safer to throttle your upload/download speeds right in the P2P to keep you under the caps and the throttling of your internet connection?

said by funchords

:

That's not what they're proposing. They're proposing making traffic coming from this subscriber be in the lowest priority queue. That queue might all get dropped if there's enough traffic in the normal queue.

said by espaeth

said by sturmvogel

:

Distribution of diverse video content not available via other channels for one (ask NormanS).

NormanS

will also tell you that he never breaks over 100GB/mo.

said by sturmvogel

:

Distribution of video without the need for physical media.

We can do that today using broadcast TV and satellite TV. If you mean just shipped physical media (since cable would be a physical medium for transmission) then cable TV is also quite effective at delivering video for mass consumption. The key words there being "mass consumption" -- for popular content it's extremely difficult to match the efficiency of broadcast video. Using a time shifting device like Tivo to take a mass broadcast source and allowing users to choose their time/place/speed they want to watch it improves efficiency, distributing individual copies over the network reduces efficiency.

said by sturmvogel

:

Video communication.

People had webcams with dialup. Video doesn't have to be a high bandwidth affair, the amount of screen pixel change is significantly more limited than watching most feature films.

said by sturmvogel

:

Surveillance and remote security monitoring.

Most folks have jobs, and that's likely to continue to be the case going into the future. As such, it's unlikely that people are going to sit and stare a video feed from their house for hours on end. Checking on a video feed a few times a day, or during an exception event, sure. Typical use is not high bandwidth.

said by sturmvogel

:

Online backups and restore.

Online backup and restore isn't a problem for bandwidth if your backup strategy is sane. I discussed this a bit in another thread here: »Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by sturmvogel

:

High resolution video conferencing.

Tends to be more of an office environment application than a home application, as most folks don't have the equipment for high resolution video recording and transmission.

said by sturmvogel

:

Voice over IP.

Voice over IP is low bandwidth. Even if you made a call and kept it running for 24x7 for 30 days straight, you're only looking at just shy of 26GB of total network consumption. Voice is a natural application to deliver over IP infrastructure. Being an any-to-any application, the efficiencies of packet switched over circuit switched voice have allowed costs to come way down. But again, this isn't a high bandwidth app.

said by sturmvogel

:

Telecommuting

I work for a company that employs roughly 6,000 "work at home" call center agents. We contract our broadband connections to homes out through a company called DSR Global, and our minimum requirement is 1.5/256k service. Telecommuting doesn't need to be a bandwidth intensive application, and in the vast majority of cases it isn't.

said by sturmvogel

:

Distribution of diverse video content not available via other channels for one (ask NormanS).

said by sturmvogel

:

Distribution of video without the need for physical media.

said by sturmvogel

:

Video communication.

said by sturmvogel

:

Surveillance and remote security monitoring.

said by sturmvogel

:

Online backups and restore.

said by sturmvogel

:

High resolution video conferencing.

said by sturmvogel

:

Voice over IP.

said by sturmvogel

:

Telecommuting

said by Rob

:

But I'm sure some will think it's all a conspiracy to get folks to hit their invisible caps faster and get kicked off the netwrk.

said by sturmvogel

:

Throttling is NOT the result of the complaining regarding the caps.

Throttling AND caps are the result of them not being able to meet the demands of their user base, by subscribing too many users on an outdated infrastructure and deceptive advertising, in my opinion.

Besides, you will get throttling AND caps, so you presenting one as a result of complaining about the other is misleading.

said by Rob

said by I pos rep

said by Rob

:

I would love to have 3-4 ISPs to pick from. Right now I have AT&T 1.5/256 (IFITL), Comcast (6/1 or 8/2), or Satelite. I don't even have the option of a 3rd party DSL because my area is IFITL (part fiber) and they don't resell over these lines.

So the only ISP that I have that offers good speeds is Comcast. And fortunately for me, it's stable and works. Otherwise, I'd be stuck on 1.5/256.

Comcast is not terrible, but by no means great by my standards. I currently live in a city and if I just check wifi networks within range of where I'm currently at I pick up 7-9 consistently. This does not include does that are not wireless. My concern with this new throttling method is that I use low bandwidth for large period of the day. I use consistent 400-600kbps for 6hrs a day or more. I do not consistently max it out but wondering how this new throttling will affect me. I stay well below the 250GB caps but like I said I use it consistently on low bandwidth.

I also wonder how this bandwidth cap will work for families that share the connection. Satellite is not even an option for my needs due to high latency. Just a few things to ponder on how this will work. I think a cap is more than enough to stop the real heavy users. I wonder if you will even be able to download a big file like a service pack or something on peak hours now.

While most monopolies are regulated by government Comcast is not. If I use electricity 24hrs a day 7 seven days a week I just get a higher bill than the neighbor. If I use more water than the neighbor I will get a higher bill. Well actually, I think that is a flat fee every year. If you use Comcast more your service is chopped. WTH, that is the problem there. If I use more electricity, I do not get my light bulbs dimmed or my water during my shower cut. Makes no sense. Comcast needs to be regulated with its monopolistic practices. They should simply not be allow throttling PERIOD.

They want reasonable caps for users fine. But do not slow them down, you should simply charge a fee for overage. If they can't maintain their speeds then they need to upgrade or not offer that package. The throttling is worse than Sandvine as it will affect every service and not just P2P.

Throttling=unethical
Caps=need to be reasonable with overage fees or options for customers. I can either have the option to be cut off when I reach the cap or pay extra for more as a customer.

That is my opinion and one I think makes much sense.

If you're uploading at 400-600kbps for 6 hrs a day or more, you will be throttled.

This throttling is a result of the complaints about their invisible caps (between 300-600GB monthly - no throttling). I have said it before, and I'll say it again, the invisible caps worked for the 99% of Comcast customers.

Now, we all have to suffer with throttling.

said by espaeth

said by sturmvogel

:

Where "after" could be up to 20 minutes, quite neat for an emergency situation.

If you kill whatever app caused you to get "best effort" queued, there should be plenty of bandwidth for you to make the call.

said by sturmvogel

said by Rob

:

Robb, what I was trying to get at is if Comcast is, as so many believe, not upgrading their network and using throttling/invisible caps to help their network's congestion, then they wouldn't have boosted upload speeds. Especially not from 384 to 1mb. Maybe 512.

But I'm sure some will think it's all a conspiracy to get folks to hit their invisible caps faster and get kicked off the netwrk.

No, it is just a conspiracy to be able to advertise higher numbers with the expectation that people will hardly ever use them.

Not that it did not happen before.

said by I pos rep

said by Rob

said by funchords

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.

No, Rob, they didn't. They sent down new modem configs that tripled the amount of upload bandwidth that the modem can access. That doesn't mean that they upgraded the network. In fact, they said that they upgraded about 10 percent of the network (or 8 or 12, I can't remember).

When you start seeing a slew of users with QAM64 on the uplink, then MAYBE that user's area network has been upgraded. So far, we're still seeing QAM16.

said by espaeth

said by sturmvogel

:

Where "after" could be up to 20 minutes, quite neat for an emergency situation.

If you kill whatever app caused you to get "best effort" queued, there should be plenty of bandwidth for you to make the call. VoIP is downright demure when it comes to bandwidth utilization. Also, given that E911 is all but universal now, if you call 911 from your VoIP service your address information will be sent to the emergency PSAP to pop up on their screen. So even if you don't kill the app, the call will still go through -- but your RTP streams might result in choppy/broken audio. Either way, your address pops up at the PSAP.

If that doesn't work, then you just pick up *ANY* cell phone (with a charged battery) whether it has a service plan or not and dial 911. If you have VoIP and you don't have that backup, then I think the teachings of Charles Darwin might apply to you.

said by sturmvogel

:

Where "after" could be up to 20 minutes, quite neat for an emergency situation.

said by espaeth

said by kadar

:

How well would an emergency voip call work under a throttle?

It'd work just fine after you shut off whatever app is generating traffic to bring your utilization down.

Apps can step all over VoIP traffic today if you let them, this case would be no different.

said by Rob

:

their initial attempt to only ban the .01% apparently isn't "allowed".

said by kadar

:

How well would an emergency voip call work under a throttle?

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.

said by Rob

said by I pos rep

said by Rob

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.

That is one of the few good posts you made in this whole topic.

This is a major problem good sir. EVERY SINGLE COUNTY IN THE WHOLE DAMN USA should have a min of 3-4 ISPs. If one is going out of business the government should help it. Why? Stop this monopoly and duopoly hindrance in the development of networks and speed. As soon as one caps all the customers can leave the damn ISP and tell it to **** off with their wallets. When the area only has Comcast or AT&T it is hard to tell them to **** off when they clearly should because there is no else to go to. Dial-up or crippled broadband, crippled broadband is still better which is why most of these ISPs have a high retention rate.

said by Rob

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.

said by espaeth

said by sturmvogel

:

A tiny percentage of users is what drives progress in general. Maybe you should recognize that as an engineer.

What innovation is massive consumption of network bandwidth sparking?

A more expensive, less scalable way to deliver TV?

A way to share files that moves the distribution load from the core where bandwidth is plentiful and cheap to the edge where bandwidth is limited and expensive?

said by sturmvogel

:

A tiny percentage of users is what drives progress in general. Maybe you should recognize that as an engineer.

said by sturmvogel

said by Rob

said by sturmvogel

No, because I don't agree with throwing them off for using 300GB. Although I find it excessive, I don't find that's too much. When you have a household of 6-7 family members, it's easy to reach 200-300GB. But 600GB? I think that's excessive.

Is 500 GB or 400 GB excessive ?

said by user=Rob

Yes

said by sturmvogel

said by Rob

said by sturmvogel

Is 500 GB or 400 GB excessive ?

said by Rob

said by sturmvogel

:

I for one have a greater faith in the government than in greedy corporations unchecked by anything.

said by sturmvogel

:

You are now talking likelihoods. Any likelihood is better than what we have now. If the likelyhood is so low, why wouldn't Comcast open the franchise ? Obviously they are afraid of something, so maybe the likelyhood is quite larger then.

The fact that you used the upper limit of the range (300-600 GB) in your argument while clearly knowing the full spectrum shows that you also like to slant arguments greatly in your favor.

said by Rob

said by sturmvogel

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 ?

300-600GB is what I have seen a person use that has been kicked off. This is why Comcast made the cap 250GB (when they were discussing public caps).

Even if the franchise opened up the market and allowed other MSO's to come in, the likelyhood is very slim. The cost to build on top of an existing system is just too much. Yes, Comcast could "lease" out their lines like telco's do, but chances are that won't happen. In some markets, there are multiple MSO's.

The only ignorance I am seeing is from posters feel they are entitled to some type of service and have been "wronged". Comcast is a player in the game, and if anything, the blame should be on those who make the rules - our government. Could Comcast be a little nicer? Sure. But why should they? They are playing the game with the rules given to them by the government. The bottom line is profit. Profit makes investors happy. P

A T1 is a dedicated line. You are wanting the same service from a T1 ($200+/mo.) that you get from Comcast for ~$60/mo.

You and I have already exhausted this issue, right? You feel one way, I feel another.

Really there's no point in debating this issue. All we can do is just let Comcast and the government dish it out and see where it takes us. I fear it takes us to a worse place, not a better place. When the government gets involved, nothing gets done right.

said by Rob

said by sturmvogel

said by Rob

said by espaeth

said by sturmvogel

:

the fact that users that PAID for 8 MBit download speeds cannot use it 100% of the time while NOWHERE is stated how much they can actually use the purchased bandwidth.

Users PAID for 8mbps burst usage; if you have knowledge of the pricing of equipment, bandwidth, and what it takes to deliver access that's very clear.

For the average user who doesn't have the background on pricing, I agree, the marketing has been somewhat misleading. That being the case, 99.9+% of subscribers use their connections without running into issues. All of this noise is just about resetting the expectations for a very tiny percentage of the subscriber base.

You have a chip on your shoulder because you're part of that tiny percentage of the subscriber base that uses (or used, I guess) their connection heavily. Granted, Comcast does appear have poor policies and practices for how to deal with exceptions.

said by sturmvogel

:

the fact that users that PAID for 8 MBit download speeds cannot use it 100% of the time while NOWHERE is stated how much they can actually use the purchased bandwidth.

said by sturmvogel

said by Rob

said by espaeth

said by sturmvogel

:

Maybe in some select markets they did. Is that 100% ? No. But they advertise the higher "speeds" EVERYWHERE, not only where they upgraded, so it is quite misleading.

It's really not. They've only had the option of buying D2 CMTS line cards for a long time now, so it would have been only their initial deployment of D1.1 line cards that would have needed to be upgraded. I'd guess as little as 1/3rd of their cards were still only D1.1 capable when they started prepping for D3 upgrades, but they likely maintained D1.1 upstream modulation across the board to stay configuration consistent.

With purchasing new D3 capable line cards they should have been able to displace all of the D1.1 cards. (Ie, you upgrade a CMTS card to D3 and it had a D2 card, use that D2 card to replace a D1.1 card in another CMTS)

said by sturmvogel

:

Maybe in some select markets they did. Is that 100% ? No. But they advertise the higher "speeds" EVERYWHERE, not only where they upgraded, so it is quite misleading.

said by espaeth

said by sturmvogel

:

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.

In order to provide that upgrade they changed the upstream modulation to bump 9mbps US channels to 27mbps. They could do this because they've been upgrading CMTS line cards for DOCSIS3 and phasing out their old pure DOCSIS1.1 cards. Any existing DOCSIS 2 capable line card in addition to the new DOCSIS 3 capapble cards they've been buying support the new modulation scheme they used to bump their US channel rates.

said by sturmvogel

:

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.

said by TallMatthew :

Upstream pipes. 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.

said by Rob

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.

said by TallMatthew :

Dude. Not even close. Quit getting your facts from press releases.

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.

said by Rob

said by TallMatthew :

Instead of forking down the cash to upgrade their upstream pipes..

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.

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.

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.

said by TallMatthew :

Instead of forking down the cash to upgrade their upstream pipes..

said by TKJunkMail

said by jlivingood

:

As I posted in a related thread - this may help inform the discussion (particularly the PDF below):
Folks interested in this topic may want to check out »www.comcast.net/networkmanagement/ (now and on an on-going basis for updates). One of the downloads at »downloads.comcast.net/docs/Comca···0528.pdf is also informative.

JL

All good links. If people here in the forum take the time to read them, many of their questions on throttling will be answered.

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20986229 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:45:20 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20986194 anon : 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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20986194 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:40:01 EDT Free Press & Public Knowledge still not happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20986166 TKJunkMail : 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?"

, Rockford, IL is not a test market for "Fair Share."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20985888 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:33:38 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984585 kadar :

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984585 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:56:57 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984467 thesaucier : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984467 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:34:12 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984459 Cabal :

said by rexbinary

:

SO glad I have FIOS. I couldn't deal with caps and throttling.

I'd much rather deal with a billing department that threatens my credit after overcharging me every month by 2-3x for a year despite calling in every month to have it "corrected." :D
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984459 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:32:43 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984442 sturmvogel :

said by Rob

said by sturmvogel

:

I am glad that you have such a positive attitude regarding my state of affairs. Sorry to dissapoint you, but at two of my rental properties I still have Comcast and have to deal with them, so the "experience" continues.

I feel terrible.. for Comcast.

You know, Rob, I usually do not walk away from a fight, but I do not wish to annoy the mods here so I will not pick up a fight with you.
--
Treason is a matter of dates]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984442 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:29:15 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984428 Rob :

said by sturmvogel

I feel terrible.. for Comcast. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984428 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:27:58 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984422 sturmvogel :

said by Rob

said by sturmvogel

said by rexbinary

:

SO glad I have FIOS. I couldn't deal with caps and throttling.

Do not forget the poor customer service, the outages and the menacing "abuse" department personnel.

Good thing you don't have to worry about any of that anymore!

I am glad that you have such a positive attitude regarding my state of affairs. Sorry to dissapoint you, but at two of my rental properties I still have Comcast and have to deal with them, so the "experience" continues.
--
Treason is a matter of dates]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984422 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:27:02 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984415 Rob :

said by sturmvogel

said by rexbinary

:

SO glad I have FIOS. I couldn't deal with caps and throttling.

Do not forget the poor customer service, the outages and the menacing "abuse" department personnel.

Good thing you don't have to worry about any of that anymore!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984415 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:25:05 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984409 sturmvogel :

said by rexbinary

:

SO glad I have FIOS. I couldn't deal with caps and throttling.

Do not forget the poor customer service, the outages and the menacing "abuse" department personnel.
--
Treason is a matter of dates]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984409 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:23:28 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984394 trent25 :

said by jlivingood

:

One of the downloads at »downloads.comcast.net/docs/Comca···0528.pdf is also informative.

It's good to see that so far Comcast is basing their heavy usage calculation on percentage use of provisioned speed and period of usage. So a customer paying more at least benefits by being throttled later, compared to a lower tier customer paying less.

I don't know if I missed it, but that presentation doesn't seem to indicate how long the decreased priority of a heavy user lasts, and how the determination is made. Is it a set time? Until congestion is gone? Recalculation is done after a certain period of time and things proceed from there on?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984394 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:20:54 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984303 rexbinary : SO glad I have FIOS. I couldn't deal with caps and throttling.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20984303 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:05:52 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983994 sturmvogel :

said by TKJunkMail

said by trent25

said by TKJunkMail

:

If there is NO node congestion, then no action would be taken to throttle users on that node.

Life isn't fair. Anyone beyond their teenage years learns that unpleasant fact of life.

The fact that life is not fair is not carte blanche for anyone to practice dishonesty as daily business.
--
Treason is a matter of dates]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983994 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:00:27 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983914 CUBS_FAN : Comcast presents PowerBoost.

Disclaimer:
Active ingredients include Power-Decrease :D :p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983914 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:38:28 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983899 TKJunkMail :

said by trent25

said by TKJunkMail

:

If there is NO node congestion, then no action would be taken to throttle users on that node.

Life isn't fair. Anyone beyond their teenage years learns that unpleasant fact of life.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983899 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:35:24 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983889 TKJunkMail :

said by EG

said by TKJunkMail

:

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 ?

Not unless the node you are on is under congestion.
»downloads.comcast.net/docs/Comca···0528.pdf
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983889 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:33:35 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983866 TKJunkMail :

said by jlivingood

All good links. If people here in the forum take the time to read them, many of their questions on throttling will be answered.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983866 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:28:02 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983765 sturmvogel :

said by tshirt

said by sturmvogel

said by tshirt

:

..... business customer will shoulder the whole cost of their plant at extreme prices.

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.

I believe you are missing my point here. Once the "abuse" line is invoked for heavy usage, the business class service is NOT offerred AT ALL, even if repeatedly requested.

Cost is not a factor in that discussion. What you are trying to compare is the cost of the T1 or better service with its SLA's to the CC business offerings. This comparison is of interest only as an academic exercise since it does not apply in the vast majority of cases where it could be actually useful.
--
Treason is a matter of dates]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983765 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:57:07 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983751 sturmvogel :

said by gabeman

:

I wonder how this will affect those of us who subscribe to Blast. What is the point of paying all of that money for extra speed? To get to the throttle point quicker?

You could read your emails from Comcast accusing you of "abuse" so much sooner and faster.

Think of Comcast, in my opinion, as the motorcycle of ISPs. Fast, unreliable, should not be used in rain, can hardly carry anything and to be used only when nothing else is available. Sure it is fast, but when you would actually like to get anywhere and do anything useful you may want to use a car.

Not that I have anything against motorcycles, just my personal observation as with my Comcastic "experience".
--
Treason is a matter of dates]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983751 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:52:39 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983748 tshirt :

said by sturmvogel

said by tshirt

:

..... business customer will shoulder the whole cost of their plant at extreme prices.

Because once the alternative,dedicated line w/service level agreement shows it's true cost, some business and heavy users will find a CC "business account" w/a limited service agreement, and maybe some bandwidth limits an acceptable mid priced alternative.
I don't think these phase will be very clearly defined, all will overlap, and acceptance will vary according to alternatives available in each area.
ComCast (or any other provider) will work hard, not to discontinue or discourage service to any customer (aquistion costs are too high) but instead attempt to upgrade/upsell them to a more appropriate level of service.
still I don't think they intend to have residential and unlimited (business) tiers, all tiers have some limitations. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983748 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:51:44 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983628 anon : I know because living in Canada all the cities of congestion are the cities where everyone is a welfare recipient. In America this would translate into the cities where no one works and lives on food stamps. Canada pays in welfare about the same as a working person makes in earnings. Moral is if you live in a city where no one works expect to be throttled and you know who to blame.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983628 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:10:39 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983555 gabeman : I wonder how this will affect those of us who subscribe to Blast. What is the point of paying all of that money for extra speed? To get to the throttle point quicker?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983555 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:28:38 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983530 jlivingood : As I posted in a related thread - this may help inform the discussion (particularly the PDF below):
Folks interested in this topic may want to check out »www.comcast.net/networkmanagement/ (now and on an on-going basis for updates). One of the downloads at »downloads.comcast.net/docs/Comca···0528.pdf is also informative.

JL]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983530 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:11:55 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983423 ChrisXP :

said by espaeth

:

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.

At this rate a T3 line looks good.

When I win the lottery! :D
--
Zionism is a crime

»www.jewsagainstzionism.com »www.christianzionism.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983423 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:25:04 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983413 NormanS :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983413 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:10:38 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983234 espaeth : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983234 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:21:42 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983208 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983208 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:09:17 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983159 espaeth :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983159 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:45:00 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983149 anon : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20983149 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:41:01 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982978 thesaucier : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982978 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:28:29 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982972 sturmvogel :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982972 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:25:14 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982927 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982927 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:13:58 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982893 beerbum : 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..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982893 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:02:41 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982882 trent25 :

said by TKJunkMail

:

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 :p. 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982882 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:00:41 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982858 EG :

said by TKJunkMail

:

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 ?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982858 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:52:47 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982839 sturmvogel :

said by tshirt

said by TKJunkMail

:

..........(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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982839 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:45:48 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982808 hopeflicker : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982808 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:37:20 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982800 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982800 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:35:05 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982770 pandora :

said by TKJunkMail

:

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."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982770 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:26:43 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982761 hobgoblin :

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
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982761 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:24:50 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982759 pandora :
said by TKJunkMail :

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."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982759 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:24:08 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982747 hobgoblin :
said by TKJunkMail :

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
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982747 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:22:11 EDT msg deleted http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982746 anon : deleted by a moderator]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982746 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:22:08 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982741 TKJunkMail :
said by pandora :

said by TKJunkMail :

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982741 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:21:44 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982710 TKJunkMail :
said by pandora :

What percent of utilization of bandwidth qualifies as "heavy" use?

How many minutes of "heavy" use are required to trigger bandwidth restriction?

If I am having a VOIP conversation, my kid is playing an on-line game on a PS3, another is listening to youtube while surfing and my wife is downloading a TV show to our DVR will we trigger it?

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 BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982710 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:13:43 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982699 TKJunkMail :
said by fishmaster :

As far as my experience has been going. I must be getting the brunt end of the deal even tho I am not a heavy user. I just posted yesterday on me Comcast review, 'Appears the evening 'Protocol Agnostic' throttling has kicked in.'

Much more likely that you are the VICTIM of the very users on your node that Comcast wants to throttle. Your node may be overloaded by a large number of users that are doing massive uploads(or by many P2P users).

If you are NOT doing non-stop large uploads, then I am sure you are not being throttled by Comcast, but are being affected by others on your node doing large uploads.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982699 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:11:46 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982686 pandora :
said by TKJunkMail :

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?
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982686 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:10:00 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982681 pandora : What percent of utilization of bandwidth qualifies as "heavy" use?

How many minutes of "heavy" use are required to trigger bandwidth restriction?

If I am having a VOIP conversation, my kid is playing an on-line game on a PS3, another is listening to youtube while surfing and my wife is downloading a TV show to our DVR will we trigger it?
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982681 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:08:36 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982659 fishmaster : As far as my experience has been going. I must be getting the brunt end of the deal even tho I am not a heavy user. I just posted yesterday on me Comcast review, 'Appears the evening 'Protocol Agnostic' throttling has kicked in.'
--
Browse A lot - Sign In Little - Post Even Less]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982659 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:05:08 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982653 EG :
said by TKJunkMail :

The congestion that occurs is at the node level - not at the system level.

Agree with that is where a majority of congestion occurs.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982653 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:03:23 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982626 TKJunkMail :
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.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982626 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:59:22 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982589 Rob :
said by beerbum :

said by Rob :

Will be interesting to watch. If this "fair share" application was developed by Comcast, then I suspect that they will start leasing the application out to other ISPS, like they are doing with Powerboost.

This is the wave of the future folks. Rather than letting the .01% of the customers get kicked off Comcast's network - we all have to suffer now. Shame.

hey those .01% are paying customers.. why not try to keep them!

Because as we've already seem numerous times on these forums, those .01% believe they are entitled to something that isn't there. These aren't dedicated lines, or business lines. Those .01% are not profitable customers. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982589 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:50:02 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982587 EG : W.I.W., my question was based in rhetoric.

That said, are you certain that this method will be node specific ?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982587 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:49:56 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982582 hobgoblin : It sounds like a support Nightmare!

Hob]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982582 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:48:29 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982570 tshirt :
said by TKJunkMail :

..........(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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982570 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:46:28 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982399 TKJunkMail :
said by EG :

But during those "10-12" hours, am I already being adversely affected on my particular node ?

Of course you may be. And that is why the timeframe to start throttling speed is proposed to be after 10 to 20 mins and not tens of hours.

So, if there is node congestion & if someone(s) is(are) using all their available upload and/or download bandwidth for their connection non-stop for more than say 20 mins at a crack, then this new system could start reducing the bandwidth available to them right then for the next 20 mins. The user then gets their full bandwidth for another 10 to 20 mins and then gets reduced again. Repeat as necessary until there is the usual pauses in bandwidth use characteristic of interactive traffic and not a large upload or download or non-stop P2P traffic.

If there is NO node congestion, then no action would be taken to throttle users on that node.

As an example, say a user is backing up their harddrive to an online backup service web site and is maxing out their 1 mbps upload bandwidth for hours and hours. Also say there is a dozen users on a node doing this same type of thing at the same time. The upload bandwidth for that node would get congested(until docsis 3 comes along?). Comcast detects the congestion and identifies the users that are maxing out their upload bandwidth without breaks. Comcast "fair share" then reduces their upload bandwidth to say 384 kbps for 10 to 20 mins. If those same users, after that time are still using max bandwidth, then the "fair share" service reduces their speed yet again. At no time do they boot the users off the system. But they do allow other users on the node to get their part of the nodes shared upload capacity.

And if they also say put a 250GB monthly cap in place, then those users will also end up paying surcharges for traffic above 250GB/mo that can fund a node split for example.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982399 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:04:30 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982312 EG : But during those "10-12" hours, am I already being adversely affected on my particular node ?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982312 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:49:49 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982132 beerbum :
said by Rob :

Will be interesting to watch. If this "fair share" application was developed by Comcast, then I suspect that they will start leasing the application out to other ISPS, like they are doing with Powerboost.

This is the wave of the future folks. Rather than letting the .01% of the customers get kicked off Comcast's network - we all have to suffer now. Shame.

hey those .01% are paying customers.. why not try to keep them!

hopefully, the rules for activating the throttling will be complicated.. for instance..:

user who has been downloading for 10-12 hours continuous at 1+ mbit/sec would be throttled, while user downloading 10-12 hrs straight at 200 kbit/sec is not throttled..

users who download 400 + gig in a month would be subject to throttling sooner then a normal user for the following month (and only that month, after the 30 days they are reset)..

priority throttling - a user who has been uploading for 10-12 hours non stop get their upload speed dropped for 24-48 hours..

if done correctly, and I believe it can be, the number of users effected by throttling will be very limited to those who truely deserve it, while the rest of us never see the throttling..

'tho I doubt Comcast would be willing to do something like this, instead of being based completely on quantity, it should be based on bandwidth utilization.. people who are maximizing their download or upload channel non-stop for 10+ hours get throttled for x amount of time, based on time of day..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982132 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:16:49 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982101 Unit649 : If it works correctly, the average user shouldn't see it. Unless they do a major download or something, then they may see a reduction in speed for a short period of time.

I'd be willing to accept that if I did a major download for a short time period. But me willing to accept that is because I'm not a power user or major downloader either. To those that are, anything less than what they currently use or do, unfettered, is unacceptable.

The ISP is simply going to have to set the bar, accept possibly that some people may go away that don't accept that bar, and move on. Had they done this in the first place and raised that bar as needed (when stuff like youtube came along) and keep the bar consistant with the usage of the average user, there wouldn't be any griping now.

The problem is, they let people eat all they could, then realized they couldn't handle it, so they started nailing people. They should have started with limits and fine tuned them.

Doing it backwards means they are going to tick people off. There is no avoiding it. The sooner they implement it, the sooner the crowing can begin, and end, because if they implement a fair use policy like this, and it IS fair to the AVERAGE user, in the long run they may notice a slight decline in their usercount, but thats it. Joe Schmoe user who just gets on the internet and wants it to work (and has never heard of websites like this) won't care, and thats 95% of the internet population, and 95% of the people who will continue the service.

As long as the caps are adjusted when this userbase starts using more on average, they will be fine.

The sooner they do it, the sooner people will adjust to it. And if they set a 250GB cap, I'd guesstimate that 75% won't even notice, 15% will because they are slightly over, they will become educated and realize some of the things they are doing are probably excessive (or things they don't want their kids doing, maybe) and the other 10% will quit. Fine. If every ISP does it, where are you going to go? Either to a T1 which SHOULD allow unlimited, or back to Comcast and you'll accept you can't just run it open full bore 24/7. Or, another ISP will take you on and let you do it.

Either way, Comcast customers will win. Just do it already and let those who go way over deal with the ramifications or cancel. You're not going to lose as many people as you think. Start at 250, if you're affecting more than 25% of the userbase, start incrementing it. Heck, you can implement it right now, but don't enforce it yet, see what people are using. You're the dang ISP, you should know what people are using.

But get it done. The more you talk about it the more people get peeved. We know you raise the rates every year too, but eventually we get over it. Implement it and get it done, and you'll get past this incessant whining about it. People will go elsewhere, sure, but most will simply say "ok".

Just like me. 4 computers on my network and under 100GB a month. A 250GB cap will affect me...none. I don't know if I have a major downloader on my node. If I do, and he cancels, maybe I will notice. But I'm probably above average on use too, but I still won't notice.

Just throw the dang switch already Comcast.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982101 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:11:39 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982015 Rob : Will be interesting to watch. If this "fair share" application was developed by Comcast, then I suspect that they will start leasing the application out to other ISPS, like they are doing with Powerboost.

This is the wave of the future folks. Rather than letting the .01% of the customers get kicked off Comcast's network - we all have to suffer now. Shame.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.US ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20982015 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:54:51 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20981981 Cabal : Sounds great, let's see it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20981981 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:48:38 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20981614 tshirt : I'm sold! roll it out now.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20981614 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:42:43 EDT Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20981275 beerbum : honestly, if I had a choice, this or an invisible cap that gets you terminated, I'll take this..

then again I am not a bandwidth hog..

what I'm curious about, should I go back to the commercial workplace service with static IP (allowing servers), will the same caps and or throttling apply..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20981275 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:22:14 EDT [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20981131 TKJunkMail : The bandwidth hogs will get really upset when their speed is squashed.

»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.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20981131 Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:42:23 EDT