IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
3 edits | reply to EG
Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here
A car with a one gallon tank of gas is not enough to get anywhere.... But according to Comcast, it is in ComcastTown.
That's what we've got here.... and Comcast's response if you run out of gas is, "you're driving excessively".
Really, why would you want to drive anywhere else besides "emailville"?
This is what's really interesting:
From Comcast's FAQ, as pointed out by JL (Comcast): »customer.comcast.com/Pages/FAQVi···upport=1
What is excessive use?
Excessive use means bandwidth or data usage that is significantly higher than typical residential usage. Excessive use is very atypical – less than 1% (currently it’s about one tenth of 1%) of Comcast customers today use an excessive amount of data. Excessive users consume so much data that the usage could negatively impact the online service for other customers.
-----
Negatively impact? What kind of negative impact? Isn't that what the "congestion management" system is for preventing? Why have a 250 GB cap which doesn't relate to preventing real-time congestion, per JL's comment?
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army |
|
Sofa King
Premium
join:2009-03-01
Littleton, MA
| reply to sortofageek
Been a while since clicked on this thread... Did I miss anything new and interesting? |
|
JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·Comcast
| said by Sofa King  :Did I miss anything new and interesting? Nope. Still 250gb. Still no meter. Still the same arguments either way. Try again in the spring 
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH | Moreover, Ohio State lost.
The 250 Gbyte cap has no more relevance to society.
We will all now consume poison Hemlock. |
|
JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
| said by K Patterson :We will all now consume poison Hemlock. "I drank WHAT?" - Socrates
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
sortofageek
Premium,Mod
join:2001-08-19
Valhalla Dr
clubs:
·Comcast
Host:
Team Helix
Distributed Comput..
Linksys
Comcast HSI
Comcast Cable TV
1 edit | reply to Sofa King
And, of course, that is the reason for ...
this topic instruction:
said by sortofageek :Before posting in this topic, check all the links in the thread to make sure your points have not already been beaten to death. Please see this post before posting.
yt gives good advice here ---> »Google before you post ... which appears in this post at the beginning of this topic.
Fortunately, this forum's membership is usually self moderating. 
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends . |
|
IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
2 edits | reply to JohnInSJ
Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner
Did I miss something here? What were the arguments for the 250 GB cap, given that real time congestion isn't addressed by it?
I have yet to hear one problem that the cap truly addresses. |
|
Sofa King
Premium
join:2009-03-01
Littleton, MA
4 edits | said by IPPlanMan :Did I miss something here? What were the arguments for the 250 GB cap, given that real time congestion isn't addressed by it? I have yet to hear one problem that the cap truly addresses. Real-time network congestion management is meant to address real-time and unexpected congestion. CAPs are meant to address expected commercial level 7x24 usage of a extreme minority who use far more resources than the 99+% of users are paying for. Without this, the remaining 99+% of us are sharing the cost of your traffic. Scaling / pricing the service for this type of 7x24 planned usage (commercial), vs the occasional sustained download spikes(residential) is the difference.
If someone used just congestion management, proper capacity planning would be very difficult as if one upgrades a path at say 70% usage, the minority TB300GB+ user base would always have it at or close to 100% if allowed. This is due to the fact that users running over 100% typically run their connections 7x24 sharing all their "legal" content with the entire Internet.
Is it impossible to capacity plan for this? No, I guess you could build all new logic, tools, processes, etc to understand if the capacity issue is due to normal traffic vs 1 or 2 users trying to consume all available resources. Or you could just inform those very few users that there are other services out there (i.e. commercial) that are more suited to their need to share their multi-terabyte movie library.
I think it is just logical that TB300GB+ users cost more to support and scale for and should buy a services more suited to their usage
NOTE: Please don't bring up the tired argument of "I pay for 12Mb so I should get 12Mb continuous 7x24." That horse is dead. That type of product is, again, a commercial level of service (which all ISPs STILL oversubscribe) and if networks had to be built to support dedicated end to end BW, the costs would be thousands of times more expensive. |
|
JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to sortofageek
Here we go again!
Sofa King nailed it (yet again)
Congestion is addressed by de-prioritizing your packets
Bandwidth limits address uses that break the 5-10% cost model for consumer broadband pricing.
We've beaten this horse before.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
WernerSchutz
join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
4 edits | reply to Sofa King
You keep on bringing the TB+ usage level in your argument. Many people here got calls at less than 500 GB level.
"I think it is just logical that TB+ users cost more to support and scale for and should buy a services more suited to their usage"
You CANNOT buy that service once you are flagged. Try it.
"NOTE: Please don't bring up the tired argument of "I pay for 12Mb so I should get 12Mb continuous 7x24."
Then it should not be advertised as such, but with the CAP being disclosed. Expecting 12 Mb/sec 24x7 and being able to use less than 1 Mb/sec continuously is SIGNIFICANT. |
|
Sofa King
Premium
join:2009-03-01
Littleton, MA
3 edits | OK. Fixed my post above... Users that use 300GB cost far more than everyone else and I as a 40-80G user (as I expect others) would rather not personally fund the extreme minority who feel they are entitled to unlimited bandwidth.
Networks are typically built for usage at peak. A 300GB user is most assuredly using their maximum capacity at all peak times for hours and not 1Mb/s 7x24. I expect they contribute to most of the cost to upgrade networks to keep up with capacity.
Should there be an all you can eat low speed... sure.
If a user needs those speeds at all peak times, they should probably have a fiber/T1/DS3/etc run to their home and buy a commercial service... that is something that is available via many ISPs |
|
WernerSchutz
join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
2 edits | "A 300GB user is most assuredly using their maximum capacity at all peak times for hours and not 1Mb/s 7x24. " That is what the throttling is supposed to take care of, no ?
Well, no. My brother was one of those that specifically was setting the FTP downloads at low speed during the night, at 1/7th of what the 8 Mbit was supposedly capable of.
The policy does not care. "Most assuredly". Funny.
If a cell phone provider would have the same policies about usage minutes surely there would be some interesting arguments. |
|
Sofa King
Premium
join:2009-03-01
Littleton, MA
4 edits | I'm not going to argue the extreme corner case. That is impossible to design for... I would expect that your brother was warned and chose to keep doing it.
"That is what the throttling is supposed to take care of, no ?"
No... reread my post.
EDIT ADD: [Have chosen to end my discussion with this specific user here based on... I don't want to waste your bits towards your cap |
|
WernerSchutz
join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
| said by Sofa King :I'm not going to argue the extreme corner case. That is impossible to design for... I would expect that your brother was warned and chose to keep doing it. You may want to read the entertaining 109 pages in this thread, his story is part of it. Using 1/7th of what one purchased would not be "impossible to design for" I "would expect".
There is a simple IT solution: do not sell crap you cannot deliver. Not that extraordinary of a concept. |
|
WernerSchutz
join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
| reply to Sofa King
said by Sofa King :I'm not going to argue the extreme corner case. That is impossible to design for... I would expect that your brother was warned and chose to keep doing it. "That is what the throttling is supposed to take care of, no ?" No... reread my post. That is EXACTLY why I said it, because of your post. You said that the cap is supposed to deal with heavy users at all times, but then you said that "most assuredly" the 300 GB user would use the network for hours at PEAK times, implying that would be THE issue. According to your post, the throttling was supposed to deal with that. But then, when I asked, you said that the throttling would NOT deal with it.
So, then, as IPPlanMan is so fond of asking, what does the CAP deal with again ?
I would say, "most assuredly", that has to do with video competition. |
|
JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
| reply to WernerSchutz
said by WernerSchutz :There is a simple IT solution: do not sell crap you cannot deliver. Not that extraordinary of a concept. Buy a service that provides uncapped service if that's what you want. Not that extraordinary of a concept either.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
WernerSchutz
join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
| said by JohnInSJ :said by WernerSchutz :There is a simple IT solution: do not sell crap you cannot deliver. Not that extraordinary of a concept. Buy a service that provides uncapped service if that's what you want. Not that extraordinary of a concept either. Was discussed before. Monopolistic conditions make that service unavailable. I am sure you read that argument before. What was the reference to the dead horse again ? |
|
joetaxpayer
I'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to JohnInSJ
In a better world, cable throughput would be metered like cell minutes. "Free nites/weekends"-like. So each user can decide how to use their allotment, and maybe download a TB, but if 90% of it is between 2-6 am, the network isn't impacted, in fact such a deal would probably improve daytime performance as the unmetered time would draw away usage from peak times.
I don't need it. I'm at about 50GB/mo, and not going up. Just a thought. |
|
JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
| reply to WernerSchutz
It's all dead. In respect for the dead, I will not dig up the corpse until October 31st.
I use business class from comcast, and pay a lot more for my 12/2 service then the residential 12/2, but my caps are more in line with my usage (and given I need statics and servers, my usage matches the business class AUP as well)
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
good one
@comcast.net | reply to WernerSchutz
Look at who's talking about beating a dead horse. You have constantly misconstrue the monopoly term in this thread to suit your personal crusade against CC. You obviously have no clue as to what the legal definition of monopoly is. |
|
