 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | reply to ThrowDemsOut
Re: [Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols 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 |
|
 beerbumobscurum per obscuriusPremium
join:2000-05-06
Eastern PA | 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.. |
|
 EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9
1 edit | But during those "10-12" hours, am I already being adversely affected on my particular node ? |
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
4 edits | 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? |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| said by ThrowDemsOut:..........(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. |
|
EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9
1 edit | reply to ThrowDemsOut
W.I.W., my question was based in rhetoric.
That said, are you certain that this method will be node specific ? |
|
|
|
RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | reply to beerbum
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. |
|
ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | reply to EG
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? |
|
EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9
1 edit | said by ThrowDemsOut: The congestion that occurs is at the node level - not at the system level. Agree with that is where a majority of congestion occurs. |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
·ooma
| reply to ThrowDemsOut
said by ThrowDemsOut: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." |
|
ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | said by pandora:said by ThrowDemsOut:Am I certain? NO. But it would be the only way the throttling system Comcast's VP announced could work. The congestion that occurs is at the node level - not at the system level. Are business users to be throttled also? Who knows? Only when Comcast finishes their trials and announces the finalized policies would we find that out.
I guess it would depend on what kind of business user you are talking about. For example, a home office for say an insurance salesmen in a residential community paying for a business plan may be subject to throttling policies. But a large medical practice in an office building with a Service Level Agreement and with a negotiated contract price probably wouldn't be.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
 hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:2 | reply to ThrowDemsOut
said by ThrowDemsOut:said by EG:That said, are you certain that this method will be node specific ? Am I certain? NO. But it would be the only way the throttling system Comcast's VP announced could work. The congestion that occurs is at the node level - not at the system level. I think congestion occurs at the upstream level which could be multiple nodes.
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
·ooma
| reply to ThrowDemsOut
said by ThrowDemsOut: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." |
|
| reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:said by ThrowDemsOut:..........(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 |
|
 trent7
join:2005-11-28
Philadelphia, PA
2 edits | reply to ThrowDemsOut
said by ThrowDemsOut:If there is NO node congestion, then no action would be taken to throttle users on that node. That sounds fair at first look. Why throttle users if no one's experience is being affected by those heavy users as long as they stay below the 250GB cap.
But look at it from another angle. If I am on a node with very few users, I might not get throttled even if I max out my connection for an hour or 2 as long as not every user on my node does the same thing at the same time.
Now consider I am on node with loads of users, during peak hours I'm probably gonna get throttled a few minuted after I start maxing out my connection.
So how is that fair!?!
And one more thing. How are we to guarantee that Comcast won't end up abusing this new "Fair Share" to get out of upgrading their network at locations with a large user number, or avoid node splitting?
And another final thing  . At a node that is frequently subject to congestion, what's the point of a user upgrading from 6/1mbps to 8/2 or 16/2mbps, if they are only gonna see their top (up to) speeds for only a few minutes before being throttled to "above DSL speed" or "above 1+mbps"?
I agree with the goal of the whole "Fair Share" thing, but I'm a bit skeptical about the implementation, at least based on what has been revealed so far. |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to sturmvogel
Not yet.........maybe not ever, if that's not the service they choose to offer. Instead you pay more by getting a dedicated line for a "exotic" provider (probably one of the old time telco's), stripped of the lower end residental broadband and phoneline service, business customer will shoulder the whole cost of their plant at extreme prices. |
|
| said by tshirt: Not yet.........maybe not ever, if that's not the service they choose to offer. Instead you pay more by getting a dedicated line for a "exotic" provider (probably one of the old time telco's), stripped of the lower end residental broadband and phoneline service, business customer will shoulder the whole cost of their plant at extreme prices. So then the whole "heavy users should pay more" argument is just talk as far as Comcastic universe is concerned, since really heavy users do not have that option if CC is the only provider around.
Why then does it get repeated over and over as an obvious choice when it is clearly not ? I wish I had a dollar for every answer that said "get a business account" when describing my Comcastic experience.
--
Treason is a matter of dates |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | 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. 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. |
|
| 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. 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 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 |
|
ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | reply to trent7
said by trent7:said by ThrowDemsOut: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!?! 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? |
|
