| reply to Rob
Re: I don't get it... said by Rob:said by fiberguy:Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. I disagree. The amount of people that were barking about the 'unknown cap' were so few outside of tech forums that it was contextually insignificant. Comcast used this as an excuse to implement a cap in order to continue the policy of overselling an overburdoned network. This excuse (blaming excessive piracy through torrents) is a much easier sell than going back to the share holders and saying 'we need to spend x amount of dollars to expand our infrastructure in order to accomodate the expanding network use and applications'. Look at it this way, with continued growth of applications through their network, they'll have to upgrade anyway. By implementing a cap system, they can also sell tiered usage with this as a baseline.
And a question for the Jason the comcast guy....what versions of Linux is Comcast using to host sandvine? |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by S_engineer:said by Rob:said by fiberguy:Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. I disagree. The amount of people that were barking about the 'unknown cap' were so few outside of tech forums that it was contextually insignificant. Comcast used this as an excuse to implement a cap in order to continue the policy of overselling an overburdoned network. This excuse (blaming excessive piracy through torrents) is a much easier sell than going back to the share holders and saying 'we need to spend x amount of dollars to expand our infrastructure in order to accomodate the expanding network use and applications'. Look at it this way, with continued growth of applications through their network, they'll have to upgrade anyway. By implementing a cap system, they can also sell tiered usage with this as a baseline. And a question for the Jason the comcast guy....what versions of Linux is Comcast using to host sandvine? It was through their complaints, that the FCC took notice and started to investigate.
Comcast continues to upgrade their network. The caps have nothing to do with the network - it has to do with the cost of bandwidth. It's all about bandwidth. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by Rob:It was through their complaints, that the FCC took notice and started to investigate. Rob, the FCC had nothing to do with the caps.
Footnote 3 in "FCC New Network Management Technique" addresses Comcast's position directly:
These congestion management practices are independent of, and should not be confused with, our recent announcement that we will amend the “excessive use” portion of our Acceptable Use Policy, effective October 1, 2008, to establish a specific monthly data usage threshold of 250 GB per account for all residential HSI customers. This excessive use threshold is designed to prevent any one residential account from consuming excessive amounts of network resources as measured over the course of a month. That cap does not address the issue of network congestion, which results from traffic levels that vary from minute to minute. We have long had an “excessive use” limit in our Acceptable Use Policy but have been criticized for failing to specify what is considered to be “excessive.” The new cap provides clarity to customers regarding the specific monthly consumption limit per account. As with the existing policy, a user who violates the excessive use policy twice within six months is subject to having his or her Internet service account terminated for one year. said by Rob:Comcast continues to upgrade their network. The caps have nothing to do with the network - it has to do with the cost of bandwidth. It's all about bandwidth. Not only do I think you're right about that, I think that the 250 GB amount is still a net money-loser for Comcast. That doesn't make the cap a good thing, I'd prefer no cap. But if they're going to have a cap, it's good to have it disclosed.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
| There is a correlation. The lower the latency, the more bandwidth available. Or, how many transactions per second are being accomplished. Its all about response time.
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | I understand. I agree with you that the Cap and the prioritization are related in probable effect. Comcast shouldn't need both. |
|
| reply to S_engineer
Who cares if you are capped or even throttled, the thing to be alarmed about is what they claim is their throttling practice. Send RST packets is NOT throttling, it is faking packets. People, wake up on this one. I am not going to bust into any damn stupid analogies. Just remember this, Comcast's "traffic shaping" or "throttling" service does nothing more than pretend to be the site or service you are connecting to and send you bullshit back so you information being sent and received is lost. Slow me down, cap me, just don't touch my shit! |
|
|
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | said by Wake up please :
Send RST packets is NOT throttling, it is faking packets. But that's not what they are going to be doing. For all intents and purposes what the new system is is QOS, pretty much the same QOS you can do on most recent home routers. It doesn't look like it is going to send reset packets.
Basically if you're targeted and the system has the choice of sending your packet or someone else's it will send that other persons. Your packet is delayed but unless the system is really congested it shouldn't be for more than a split second.
The only time packets would be lost would be if there were so much congestion that the packet buffers on whatever machine is handling this became full; but in that case packets are going to be dropped whether or not you were low priority.
It would be nice if they could say, apply the lower priority classification to specific protocols (ie: place bulk transfers like Bittorrent in a lower priority than say streaming video or VOIP; which is basically how I have my m0n0wall router set up) but they can't since everyone will whine about Network Neutrality or whatnot.
--
The world’s elusive, remember
where love's the leaf
faith, the river
what's born as flame dies in ember
see for yourself! |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
2 edits | said by Combat Chuck:It would be nice if they could say, apply the lower priority classification to specific protocols (ie: place bulk transfers like Bittorrent in a lower priority than say streaming video or VOIP; which is basically how I have my m0n0wall router set up) but they can't since everyone will whine about Network Neutrality or whatnot. There is no NN issue if they let YOU control which packets go into which priority bucket.
The lower traffic class they're proposing is actually a very cool idea, suited for particular background tasks like file transfer, remote backups, and other non-time-sensitive stuff.
But, as you mentioned, to take advantage of this class, there are NN issues (as well as Standards issues) involved unless the user is doing the identification of the traffic (or specifically authorizing Comcast to do it). They -can- enable this, but such things take time. They're under a clock to change from the old RST method by the EOY.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | said by funchords:They -can- enable this, but such things take time. They're under a clock to change from the old RST method by the EOY. What's driving me nuts is that people seem to be more concerned about the QOS than they were the packet resets. QOS is loads better than random resets. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by Combat Chuck:said by funchords:They -can- enable this, but such things take time. They're under a clock to change from the old RST method by the EOY. What's driving me nuts is that people seem to be more concerned about the QOS than they were the packet resets. QOS is loads better than random resets. Some are objecting because they see "Forged Resets" vs. "the new QOS scheme" as a false choice, especially with a capped service (a fact many just learned).
Have you ever seen the commercial of the Comcast Powerboost guy running in the desert? To some customers, it must seem like seems like he's suffered two broken legs and a concussion. This premium service doesn't look so premium anymore.
Others are objecting because the RSTs never affected them. Still others think that the new effects will hit download in a big way (which I doubt it will). I'm objecting certain technical aspects but I think you're right about this being better targeted to congestion and about this being disclosed -- which permits discussions like this in the first place!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
