Re: Bandwidth Limits - Meter in Comcast HSI

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:25:09 EDT

IPPlanMan : The first month of 50/10? What was your usage for August? Did they tell you when they called or did you keep track of it?

What tier were you on before that and what was your usage?

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:42:21 EDT

sortofageek :

said by theskillz39 :

This might have been brought up before, but I don't believe merely going over the 250 gb per month does it. ...

Yes, it has been discussed. Check the links in the first post of this topic.

For example, »This is how Comcast's congestion management works
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:37:09 EDT

anon : This might have been brought up before, but I don't believe merely going over the 250 gb per month does it. I think you not only have to go over that, but also be in a certain percentage of users. I was warned that my August usage (first full month I was on their 50/10 plan) that I went way over for that month.

I received a call from them on September 10th, so I was very scared of going over in September, considering they waited until the 10th to alert me. They told me if I went over again, I would have my internet shut off and not be allowed back on for 12 months.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:16:28 EDT

espaeth :

said by IPPlanMan :

It's also about preventing things from arising that would negatively affect revenues in the first place.

Yes, your position here is well documented.

»The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~
»Again, opinion cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options
»Bandwidth Management in Relation to CC TV Offerings
»Again, the 250 GB Cap is to prevent competition with CC TV

Of course, that doesn't explain why DSL companies who offer no competing video services also are implementing caps.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:57:04 EDT

IPPlanMan : It's not only about preserving the profit margin... It's also about preventing things from arising that would negatively affect revenues in the first place.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:06:51 EDT

espaeth : Forgive me if I don't believe the Comcast Twitter PR guy on this one, especially when I personally know of local businesses that have received a call from their business account rep regarding substantial usage.

"Unlimited" when used as a marketing term has been redefined to mean "limited to some arbitrary amount that preserves the profit margin associated with the service." Sadly Comcast is far from alone in their use of "Unlimited" to sell things. (See VZ with "unlimited" wireless data, Vonage with "unlimited" calling, fast food restaurants with "unlimited" refills, etc.)

With phrases like "caveat emptor" and "if it sounds too good to be true" so ingrained in the public lexicon, it seems odd that people are suddenly willing to implicitly trust a company because one of their PR reps befriended them on Facebook.

Just because I can supply a vast amount of documentation that declares that Disneyland is the happiest place on Earth doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:30:20 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by K Patterson :

Business internet does have a cap - undisclosed, considerably higher than residential.

Not exactly...

»Re: If you read the TOS, you'll know about the cap
--
"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

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:50:00 EDT

perki : Boy some times comcast makes no sense lol. If i do upgrade to business im taking the password off my router, spread the wealth

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:33:29 EDT

K Patterson : Yes, raw internet has the same cap as internet purchased as part of a bundle.

Business internet does have a cap - undisclosed, considerably higher than residential.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:19:28 EDT

perki : Does Comcast internet with no cable or phone have a cap? Im paying $15 dollars more so i thought maybe it didnt have a cap.

Hell for 7 dollars more i can get a business tier with basic cable and no cap.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:25:11 EDT

hata28 : I can't believe myself too, I went over the cap this month already a few days before the end of the month, and I am prepare to get a call from them if they do. I got the Netgear WNDR 3700 on the Nov 3rd and the Traffic meter is counting. Fortunately, FIOS is available in my area and ready for installation in Dec. I have choice to switch, if CC call me about the cap. And Verizon have some very good price too. I am tired of this cap, is like I have the speed but have to restrict myself from downloading stuff I want.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:37:40 EDT

nate1234 : Yea, i feel the same way. I have gone over the cap (only by a little bit) in the past 2 months. I feel that when i finally get a netflix acct. i will really go over. It is too bad that they feel the need to cap, even though they use plenty of other network management techniques.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:48:46 EDT

Fiveby5 : Well, I managed to clear the cap last month and now I'm terrified of clearing it again this month. Most of my games are purchased via Steam and I've been benchmarking alot. That means formats, which leads to re-downloading software occassionally to get them back on the machine.

The Age of Conan client, for example, is about 28 GB. That's unpatched or expanded. Dragon Age: Origins is similar. Throw in a few more games and you're already closing in on the cap rapidly.

Suddenly my hands are tied up on when I can and cannot work on my system, I find myself not buying software because I don't want to lose my internet for a month. I had no idea I downloaded as much as I did either, that's the amazing thing. When the guy talked to me on the phone he even started chuckling about it.

The amount? 1.5 TB. I only have 2 TB in hard drive space total and I'm no where near close to that being full (currently 600 GB total across 2 1 TB drives) so it's mainly online hosted software reinstalls.

I never thought twice about buying a game on steam before, but now I'm scared to even download patches half the time or drivers. With the sheer speed I pull down at (8 megabytes/sec) I can clear 250 GB in less than 1 day of peak use.

It's gotten so bad that between working remotely and streaming netflix etc, that I am considering changing to a business account and just swallowing to the 190 a month charge just so I don't feel like I need to balance my online bandwidth check book every moment of the day.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:55:43 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by Minkinky :

I feel like with youtube now providing 1080p content and netflix streaming and all the "streaming" shouldn't be long before we move to a 500GB a month cap... If not its clearly a conflict of interest between the two services...

Really? Comcast won't even raise the cap for the introduction of its own TV Anywhere product, much less for a competitor like Netflix Streaming...

»www.multichannel.com/article/388···mber.php

....Banse acknowledged that On Demand Online usage will count against Comcast's 250-Gigabyte monthly cap, as the operator's executives have previously said. "I know from my own experience, that's plenty," she said."

Speak for yourself Ms. Banse.... :uhh:
--
"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

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:30:58 EDT

anon : I feel like with youtube now providing 1080p content and netflix streaming and all the "streaming" shouldn't be long before we move to a 500GB a month cap... If not its clearly a conflict of interest between the two services...

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:49:13 EDT

joetaxpayer :

said by Smallfry7 :

The abuse department has that information, but it is not public. Comcast is creating a solution though, and it will probably on comcast.net within a few months.

The meter would be welcome. Short of that, a 200GB warning email. If it comes in last week of month, you're ok, if earlier, time to back off. If you're me, time to change WiFi passwords and check for viruses, etc.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:38:26 EDT

Smallfry7 : The abuse department has that information, but it is not public. Comcast is creating a solution though, and it will probably on comcast.net within a few months.

If this is your first time, then don't worry about it. The AUP states that you must be over 250GBs a month AND you have to be one of their biggest users. Not one or the other. At least that is what I got out of it.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:14:31 EDT

perki : then who or what keeps track of it?

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:33:56 EDT

IPPlanMan : I don't think Comcast reps can do this... Take your best guess, use a software-based meter (from Comcast), or buy a router with a "meter"....

Pick your poison...

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:21:00 EDT

perki : If i messaged a comcast rep could he/she tell me where i am on my monthly allowance? I never worried b4 but this month i have servilely abused my internet. :(

I dont want to loose my comcast, cause Verizon is nothing but stealing lying thiefs with a crumbling copper infrastructure, which will never be upgraded because there selling the local franchise to frontier. :huh:

Please and thanks

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:49:53 EDT

sortofageek : It is total bandwidth, both up and down are counted.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:46:01 EDT

Akujin : Does the 250GB cap mean upload and download combined or is it just download? It's not specified in the acceptable use policy.

Re: The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:45:58 EDT

WernerSchutz :

said by fbg :

Using cell phone analogy is phony, as ISP don't charge usage by the minute.

Neither do phone companies, unless you pass a "cap".

Re: Is Comcast "throttling" torrent downloads in Oakland?

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:20:21 EDT

sortofageek :

said by jlivingood :

Recommendation - start a new thread. Posting a new issue on a 115-page thread is unlikely to result in satisfactory troubleshooting by other users.

Jason has a good idea here. I started to split your post(s) out to a new topic, but it was impossible to separate your two different subjects.

Try a new thread and post the requested info: »Comcast High Speed Internet FAQ »How To Get Help!
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: Is Comcast "throttling" torrent downloads in Oakland?

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:36:50 EDT

JohnInSJ :

said by DavisPhotog :

They don't advertise that eating their food makes you fat because it doesn't do that by itself. It requires excessive consumption. Just playing the devil's advocate here.

LOL

Yes, this was my point. I'm glad someone got it.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: Is Comcast "throttling" torrent downloads in Oakland?

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:30:32 EDT

jlivingood :

said by DavisPhotog :

said by EG :

said by DavisPhotog :

Comcast seems to be throttling torrent downloads in Oakland, albeit not heavy enough to immediately suspect them as culprits.

Do you have any packet captures such as from the Wireshark application showing spoofed TCP resets to prove it ?

Recommendation - start a new thread. Posting a new issue on a 115-page thread is unlikely to result in satisfactory troubleshooting by other users.
--
JL
Comcast

Re: Is Comcast "throttling" torrent downloads in Oakland?

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:28:15 EDT

DavisPhotog :

said by EG :

said by DavisPhotog :

Comcast seems to be throttling torrent downloads in Oakland, albeit not heavy enough to immediately suspect them as culprits.

Do you have any packet captures such as from the Wireshark application showing spoofed TCP resets to prove it ?

I would in fact like to get to the bottom of this. I can't seem to make WireShark work on OS X (it opens, says something about building a font library, and then closes). Can you recommend any alternatives?
--
I am the Flying Photog, see my website accordingly named Flyingphotog.com. User known formerly as zakooldude.

Re: The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:07:19 EDT

IPPlanMan : So here's a summary:

Comcast Residential:
Ads: No cap mentioned
TOS: Cap mentioned - 250 GB

Comcast Business:
Ads: No cap mentioned
TOS: Excessive use clause, but no cap mentioned
Comcastcares post on DSLR: "... at this time our business accounts do not have a bandwidth cap."

Verizon DSL
Ads/Website Comparison: No cap mentioned -"Unlimited usage - We don’t charge extra or otherwise limit your Internet usage."
TOS: "Bandwidth limits from time to time"

Verizon Fios
Ads/Website: No cap mentioned
TOS: No cap mentioned - Verizon AUP - »https://www.verizon.net/central/vzc.port···tableUse - Specific Examples of AUP Violations. The following are examples of conduct which may lead to termination of your Service. Without limiting the general policy in Section 1, it is a violation of the Agreement and this AUP to: ... (i) generate excessive amounts of email or other Internet traffic;

Does this state things correctly?
--
"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

11-10-2009 IETF meeting/Internet Society lunch briefing

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:13:15 EDT

jlivingood : Since I agree that the thread is a bit long in the tooth, here's some new content:

Today at the IETF meeting, the Internet Society hosted a lunch briefing. You can get the slides and the audiocast here:
overview: »www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/bwpanel/
audio: »videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/ietf768.m3u

Internet Bandwidth Growth: Dealing with Reality
Held during IETF 76

The possibility of the Internet's impending collapse due to the explosive growth in Internet bandwidth use is a recurring high-profile theme in the popular media.

However, the reality of measuring and understanding Internet bandwidth growth and its implications at macro-scales is complex. While policy debates around issues such as "network neutrality" are underway, network operators are already managing their networks to address issues raised by bandwidth-intensive applications.

This briefing session will share, in accessible terms, the realities of measuring bandwidth growth on the Internet today, as well as efforts to identify and deal with issues it raises, addressing questions such as:

* Is there anything different about bandwidth growth today that will cause problems not faced in the past?
* Are there better ways than those currently employed by network operators to manage issues raised by bandwidth-intensive applications?
* How does related work underway in the IETF factor into these issues?

On the panel

The panel will feature:

Leslie Daigle, ISOC (Moderator)
Slides: »www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/bw···igle.pdf

Leslie Daigle is the Chief Internet Technology Officer for the Internet Society. She has been actively involved in shaping the Internet's technical evolution for more than a dozen years. Her role with the Internet Society is to provide strategic leadership on important technical issues as they relate to ISOC's ongoing programs. She has worked with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) since 1995, and was an appointed member of the related Internet Architecture Board (IAB) from March 2000 to March 2008.

Kenjiro Cho, IIJ
Slides: »www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/bw···_cho.pdf

Kenjiro Cho is Deputy Research Director at Internet Initiative Japan, Inc. He is also an adjunct professor at Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, and a board member of the WIDE project. His current research interests include traffic measurement and management, and operating system support for networking. He has been involved in residential traffic measurement in Japan since 2004.

Lars Eggert, Nokia Research Center, IETF Transport Area Director
slides - »www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/bw···gert.pdf

Lars Eggert is a principal scientist at the Nokia Research Center in Helsinki, Finland and a member of Nokia's CEO Technology Council. He is also an adjunct professor at the Helsinki University of Technology (HUT/TKK). Lars has worked on research projects ranging from internetwork architecture, transport protocols, virtual networks to resource scheduling. He is a member of the ACM, a senior member of the IEEE and an individual member of ISOC as well as an active participant in the IRTF and IETF, where he currently serves as Area Director of the Transport Area and previously served as Working Group Chair.

Danny McPherson, Arbor Networks
Slides: »www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/bw···rson.pdf

With over 15 years in the Internet network operations, security and telecommunications industries, Danny brings to Arbor extensive technical leadership experience. At Arbor, he is a main contributor to Arbor's overall strategy and product architecture. Prior to joining Arbor he was with Amber Networks, and prior to that worked in network operations and architecture positions for nearly a decade; at internetMCI, Genuity (acquired by GTE Internetworking), Qwest Communications and the US Army. He has been an active participant in Internet Standardization since 1996, is currently a member of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and co-chairs the IETF's PWE3 WG.

Richard Woundy, Comcast
Slides: »www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/bw···undy.pdf

Richard Woundy is Senior Vice President of Comcast, one of the United States' leading providers of entertainment, information and communication products and services.
--
JL
Comcast

Re: Is Comcast "throttling" torrent downloads in Oakland?

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:36:15 EDT

EG :

said by DavisPhotog :

Comcast seems to be throttling torrent downloads in Oakland, albeit not heavy enough to immediately suspect them as culprits.

Do you have any packet captures such as from the Wireshark application showing spoofed TCP resets to prove it ?

Re: Is Comcast "throttling" torrent downloads in Oakland?

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:20:01 EDT

jlivingood :

said by DavisPhotog :

They don't advertise that eating their food makes you fat because it doesn't do that by itself. It requires excessive consumption. Just playing the devil's advocate here.

Comcast seems to be throttling torrent downloads in Oakland, albeit not heavy enough to immediately suspect them as culprits. I find it hard to get more than 100-300kb/sec down on many torrents, whereas my friend on Time Warner consistently gets 1mb/sec down on a comparably-tiered connection.

What gives, Comcast?

Sorry - we're not doing that. Your problem lies elsewhere.
--
JL
Comcast

Re: Is Comcast "throttling" torrent downloads in Oakland?

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:16:31 EDT

DavisPhotog : Thanks!

Re: Is Comcast "throttling" torrent downloads in Oakland?

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:14:34 EDT

sortofageek : In regard to "throttling," please check out these links from the first post in this topic:

Subtopics about the new Congestion Management System:
»[Speed] Does Comcast Throttle Following Large Download Sessions
Comcast Clarification on Network Management System
»Question about new throttling system
»Comcast does not "throttle" YouTube or Hulu
»[NEWS]Comcast quits throttling bit torrent
»Comcast does not "throttle" Netflix
»Comcast QOS system is not a "throttling" system
»[Resolved] Comcast messing with my torrent?
»Comcast Caps/Throttle
»Bittorrent activity causes disconnects
»[Congestion Mgmt] Comcast checking BT port
»Can exceeding the cap affect your speeds?
»[Connectivity] Throttle on torrent?
»CC's Protocol-Agnostic Congestion Management System Draft
»M-Lab test results
»Blatant Throttling
»Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme
»Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme
»This is how Comcast's congestion management works
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Is Comcast "throttling" torrent downloads in Oakland?

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:52:17 EDT

DavisPhotog : They don't advertise that eating their food makes you fat because it doesn't do that by itself. It requires excessive consumption. Just playing the devil's advocate here.

Comcast seems to be throttling torrent downloads in Oakland, albeit not heavy enough to immediately suspect them as culprits. I find it hard to get more than 100-300kb/sec down on many torrents, whereas my friend on Time Warner consistently gets 1mb/sec down on a comparably-tiered connection.

What gives, Comcast?
--
I am the Flying Photog, see my website accordingly named Flyingphotog.com. User known formerly as zakooldude.

Re: The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:36:44 EDT

JohnInSJ :

said by WernerSchutz :

The reason nutrition info is displayed was because that was mandated to prevent glossing over or omitting such important harmful data.

Wow are you being dense on purpose?

I said McDs does not advertise that eating their food makes you FAT.

But you can find the nutrition info posted... in the store.

So, now think about comcast ads, and caps... think really hard... see? They do not mention the massive cap in the ads, but it is there for you to see BEFORE YOU BUY.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:58:50 EDT

IPPlanMan : Of course, it's interesting to note that this "unlimited bandwidth" exists in light of the TOS, which probably say otherwise....

Plenty of contracts have inapplicable provisions in real world practice... even though they're in the contract.

Re: Is this the promised bandwidth meter?

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:54:19 EDT

Alcohol :

said by S60 :

I don't know if this is new or not, but I just noticed it on my account:

Is this the usage meter we've been waiting for? Since I switched to business it says I can't view it.

Which page do you see this on? I've been searching and can't find it anywhere. Maybe i'm going blind... Or it's not on my account yet.
--
I found the key to success but somebody changed the lock.

Re: If you read the TOS, you'll know about the cap

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:03:28 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by sortofageek :

For those with business class accounts, it probably feels unlimited because it is, at least for now.

As documented in first post in this topic:
11-06-09 Business Class Accounts not capped per comcastcares

Well that settles that then.... 20-40 dollars more for an "unlimited" amount of usage with all the extras over the residential tier...

And if you call right now....
--
"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

Re: If you read the TOS, you'll know about the cap

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:58:03 EDT

sortofageek : For those with business class accounts, it probably feels unlimited because it is, at least for now.

As documented in first post in this topic:
11-06-09 Business Class Accounts not capped per comcastcares
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:53:54 EDT

sortofageek :

said by WernerSchutz :

I did not say that McDonalds ads show nutrition info, JohninSJ mentioned that one.

It isn't important enough to me to keep hammering it, but I don't know how else to read what you said here:

said by WernerSchutz :

The reason nutrition info is displayed was because that was mandated to prevent glossing over or omitting such important harmful data.

That needs to be done regarding to the advertising and the cap.

The bottom line for me is that Comcast's management of bandwidth doesn't appear to be an issue for more than a handful of people relative to their entire customer base. I know it upsets you and IPPlanMan. I guess I just don't understand why you need to tell us the same thing over such a long period of time.

I mean, I do know you don't like it. I'm just as sorry as I can manage to be over that, but it is well documented here, so I'm not likely to forget and most people have better memory than I do. You're on record. You can stop now until such time there truly is something new to tell us.
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: If you read the TOS, you'll know about the cap

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:46:39 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by JohnInSJ :

I use it without regard for any caps (mine are much higher then the non-business class caps, but even so I would not come close to a 250gb cap with extensive use by multiple users) and I am in no way a "typical" home comcast user.

Without regards? Does it feel unlimited? It's because the cap is high enough in the first place, not because of how much you "use the living crap" out of it.
--
"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

Re: The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:03:43 EDT

anon : Using cell phone analogy is phony, as ISP don't charge usage by the minute.

Re: The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:01:17 EDT

WernerSchutz :

said by sortofageek :

I asked you because you are the one who said Comcast needs to include the cap in their advertising, implying having disclosure in the TOS and elsewhere on their website isn't enough.

You used McDonald's nutrition info as an example, but I have never seen McD ads which spell out nutrition info.

I did not say that McDonalds ads show nutrition info, JohninSJ mentioned that one.

I drew the comparison regarding cell phone minutes limitations.

Re: The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:21:19 EDT

sortofageek : I asked you because you are the one who said Comcast needs to include the cap in their advertising, implying having disclosure in the TOS and elsewhere on their website isn't enough.

You used McDonald's nutrition info as an example, but I have never seen McD ads which spell out nutrition info.
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:46:38 EDT

WernerSchutz :

said by sortofageek :

Where are the McDonald's ads which spell out the nutrition info?

Why don't you ask the one that said that the info was displayed (JohnInSJ) ????

"Show me where, in marketing materials, McDonalds says you'll get fat from eating Big Macs. They show you the nutrition (if you could call it that) numbers, but they market taste, cost, and convenience. It's up to you (the consumer) to decide if the product you are buying is suitable to the task you have in mind."

Re: The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:22:48 EDT

sortofageek :

Where are the McDonald's ads which spell out the nutrition info?
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:11:42 EDT

WernerSchutz : The reason nutrition info is displayed was because that was mandated to prevent glossing over or omitting such important harmful data.

That needs to be done regarding to the advertising and the cap. The fact that I and other informed users know is not the issue, but the fact that the vast majority of users DO NOT.

If it is not such a big deal, why not include the information ?

Would it be ok for a cell phone company with a limited data plan/minutes to omit such important limitations ?

Talking 3000 minutes a month is quite a bit. Would omitting in the advertisements that $50 gets you 3000 minutes be important or not ? Would it mater if the limit would be 100 minutes or 1000 or 2000 ?

If you read the TOS, you'll know about the cap

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:28:11 EDT

JohnInSJ :

said by WernerSchutz :

Using "the living crap" is a subjective appraisal.

I use it without regard for any caps (mine are much higher then the non-business class caps, but even so I would not come close to a 250gb cap with extensive use by multiple users) and I am in no way a "typical" home comcast user.

I believe if there is a cap, it should be clearly stated, as in the speed, in all advertsisements regarding such connection. What is is for, averages, and all that smoke screen is just marketing to compete against a superior product, as FiOS is.

It is clearly stated.
Just like all the other TOS are clearly stated. They're right there in the contract you get before you sign up. You do read all that, right?

Show me where, in marketing materials, McDonalds says you'll get fat from eating Big Macs. They show you the nutrition (if you could call it that) numbers, but they market taste, cost, and convenience. It's up to you (the consumer) to decide if the product you are buying is suitable to the task you have in mind.

The FTC has to come down on all the broadband folks with caps - AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Comcast, Etc. for their capped plans.

You clearly know about the cap.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:32:06 EDT

WernerSchutz :

said by JohnInSJ :

said by espaeth :

It is the job of marketing departments to sell product, not to be concerned about being 100% forward and showing the full truth.

Especially when trying to take away market share from the established, dominant player :D

I use the living crap out of my 12/2 business class connection. My average usage is between 120 and 150GB/month: »www.schettino.us/monitor/schetti···and.html

Sure, you can use more. But you're a very very very small minority of the overall subscriber base. We've been round this pole before

Using "the living crap" is a subjective appraisal. I believe if there is a cap, it should be clearly stated, as in the speed, in all advertsisements regarding such connection. What is is for, averages, and all that smoke screen is just marketing to compete against a superior product, as FiOS is.

Until the FTC (not FCC) comes down against this misleading advertising, nothing will happen.

msg deleted

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:44:58 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:51:55 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:05:42 EDT

anon :

said by JohnInSJ :

We've been round this pole before

No kidding. Round many, many times ad nauseam, despite the best efforts of the moderator.

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:34:27 EDT

JohnInSJ :

said by espaeth :

It is the job of marketing departments to sell product, not to be concerned about being 100% forward and showing the full truth.

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:08:18 EDT

espaeth :

said by IPPlanMan :

"Feel"? What do you mean by "feel"? If you mean that the cap, if one exists, is high enough so it's not noticed by the customer or ISP unless he/she streams for 1 month flat out 24/7... is that "feel"?

I mean the overwhelming majority of folks use their broadband connections to meet their needs without any concern about how much bandwidth they're using and yet don't come anywhere close to cap contention. As you've pointed out there are an infinite array of possibilities in which people could possibly go over a 250GB cap .... and yet most don't. This isn't just me saying this, click around through »www.dtc.umn.edu/mints/home.php or look at recent reports like Cisco traffic study: »Cisco: Average Connection Consumes 11.4 GB Per Month

You can argue about methodology all you want, but seriously at this point there are dozens of studies that all say about the same thing.

said by IPPlanMan :

How are Verizon's costs different? Things cost them money too.

You're comparing marketing materials -- that's like the adult equivalent of "My dad can beat up your dad." Just look at how the page you reference points out that cable is shared and glosses over that DSL is also shared and oversubscribed, just at a different point in the infrastructure.

Also, if you look at the ToS that K Patterson posted just a couple posts up, the actual legal print doesn't paint the same "unlimited" picture, and in fact points out that bandwidth restrictions could apply.

It is the job of marketing departments to sell product, not to be concerned about being 100% forward and showing the full truth.

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:52:33 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by espaeth :

Some people can indeed use their broadband connection in a manner that they feel is unlimited without running into problems; that doesn't mean everyone can. If you apply a little bit of logic as to the cost of infrastructure, it's clear why that is.

"Feel"? What do you mean by "feel"? If you mean that the cap, if one exists, is high enough so it's not noticed by the customer or ISP unless he/she streams for 1 month flat out 24/7... is that "feel"?

How are Verizon's costs different? Things cost them money too. If you want to raise that as an issue, I'll say that DSL is a proven, time-tested, cost-amortized, technology. This is not Fios requiring a build-out. Not sure why else it's relevant, because neither of them have a cap affecting users in any way... and now you've got Verizon's DSL vs. Cable comparison page pointing out that cable is capped.

Unlimited usage
Verizon High Speed Internet:
We don’t charge extra or otherwise limit your Internet usage.

Cable:
Since cable can have a shared connections, some cable providers charge extra or restrict usage if limits are exceeded.
--
"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

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:33:46 EDT

JohnInSJ :

said by espaeth :

If you apply a little bit of logic as to the cost of infrastructure, it's clear why that is.

Yep, this is the place where we run into the brick wall.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:51:12 EDT

espaeth :

said by IPPlanMan :

Is it an ad if it's on the website?

To be fair, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of ads that promise to make your body bigger or smaller if you take a handful of pills, give you 6 pack abs with just 5 minutes a day of using a $30 exercise device, and companies that can make your debt disappear for pennies on the dollar.

The common thread at the bottom of those ads is tiny print that says "results not typical"

Some people can indeed use their broadband connection in a manner that they feel is unlimited without running into problems; that doesn't mean everyone can. If you apply a little bit of logic as to the cost of infrastructure, it's clear why that is.

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:56:26 EDT

IPPlanMan : Is it an ad if it's on the website?

Comcast Residential is a consumer-grade service too, and not intended to be used for a commercial purpose. It's not supposed to be resold either.

Maybe I'm in a bubble... Has anyone been kicked off Verizon DSL for bandwidth reasons alone?

Gosh... this reminds me of when Comcast said "Unlimited" in their ads... and now they don't anymore. Maybe Comcast should put the 250GB monthly usage cap on their advertising. ;)

What do you mean "for free"? People pay for it.
--
"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

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:45:17 EDT

K Patterson : That's a wonderful ad.

Here's the applicable portion of the contract:

"Restrictions on Use. The Service is a consumer grade service and is not designed for or intended to be used for any commercial purpose. You may not resell the Service, use it for high volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute such use (commercial or non-commercial). If you subscribe to a Broadband Service, you may connect multiple computers/devices within a single home to your modem and/or router to access the Service, but only through a single Verizon-issued IP address. You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service."

Do you really think that they, or anyone for that matter, is going to offer unlimited use for free?

If you do, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:15:33 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by funchords :

Why is it irrational to expect unlimited? Certainly many ISPs cap but many do not. Are Verizon customers irrational for enjoying unlimited service?

Not sure if this is a recent update to Verizon's DSL page, but see this...

»https://www22.verizon.com/Residential/Hi···able.htm

Clearly, Verizon customers are not irrational to expect this... The company even says that they aren't.
--
"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

HSI.tiff 156,180 bytes

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:05:17 EDT

JohnInSJ :

The whole point of the method they implemented was that the system now behaves rationally and fairly, so the only people who would notice it at all would be those who were running full out, for long periods of time, and who happen to be on nodes where there were periods of congestion when they were running full out.

In the time I've been monitoring this forum I have seen may people posting complaining about throttling who were in fact experiencing connection issues, or problems upstream. I've yet to see one instance where anyone actually saw deprioritisation of their packets (which is the only "throttling" you'll ever see.)

Based on the algorithm and the general overcapacity of the comcast infrastructure, I'd bet that fewer then 1 in 100 would ever see it.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:18:34 EDT

funchords :

said by Drizew :It would be nice to know how long the systems stay overcrowded once the throttling system is activated. How well has it addressed the problem in the top 5 (bottom 5 technically) overcrowded markets? That is the kind of information I was looking to hear from Comcast. I understand the chances of them releasing any real information is small, but it is worth the effort to ask.

Comcast is currently in a period of technical Glasnost (which we love), and they really do like their latest solution for network management. Ask and they very well may provide some kind of answer.

Fixed uneven quote tags. ~sorto'

--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:24:54 EDT

Drizew : I understand everything they said in the pdf. I was looking for MORE information. I wanted information/data they have collected since this system has been implemented, not theory or estimates. It would be nice to know how long the systems stay overcrowded once the throttling system is activated. How well has it addressed the problem in the top 5 (bottom 5 technically) overcrowded markets? That is the kind of information I was looking to hear from Comcast. I understand the chances of them releasing any real information is small, but it is worth the effort to ask.

This is how Comcast's congestion management works

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:34:35 EDT

JohnInSJ :

said by Drizew :

Edit: I would like somebody from Comcast to chime in and maybe give us a better idea of how this all works. The analogy in the pdf was decent, but I would prefer to see some raw data. One tenth of a second is hardly a delay in delivery, but I doubt the system works as intended 100% of the time.

The pdf explains the system just fine.
When you are identified as a user that is contributing to congestion on a node (and only if you fall into the "if more than 70 percent of your max bandwidth (downstream or upstream) is used for more than 15 minutes" then your packets will be marked as lower priority for the next 15 minutes. There is no throttling.

Here is a simple metaphor:

You and 10 other people have drain pipes. All 10 drain pipes feed into a single sewer line.

Everyone's pipe can drain 10 gallons per second
The sewer can drain 70 gallons per second.

If all 10 users are draining at 7 gps or less, no problems.

If all 10 users are draining at 7gps, and then you start draining at 8pgs, there is now an extra gallon per second that cannot be drained. water backs up. At first, it backs up equally across all 10 of you, so you get 7.9gps, and everyone else gets 6.9gps. After 15 minutes, your water is made to wait so everyone else's water goes first. You get 7gps, and everyone else does too. If another user drops down to 6gps, you'll get 8gps - your water soaks up EXCESS capacity, but no longer GRABS capacity from other users.

It's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully it helps clarify things.

To recap, you can use 100% of your pipe all day and night (for a few days, anyway, then you'll hit the cap - a whole different ball of wax) as long as the nodes you pass through are not saturated. If they become saturated your packets go to the 'bulk' category - you soak up all the excess capacity of the node, but if someone else needs it, your packets wait.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:48:05 EDT

Drizew : I guess I just didn't construct that sentence as well as I should have. It should have read something like this. "By the way, there is absolutely no relation between Comcast lowering your speeds by throttling and powerboost."

Excuse me, I am trying to multi task. Things slip by me from time to time.

Edit: I would like somebody from Comcast to chime in and maybe give us a better idea of how this all works. The analogy in the pdf was decent, but I would prefer to see some raw data. One tenth of a second is hardly a delay in delivery, but I doubt the system works as intended 100% of the time.

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:44:36 EDT

Daveid :

said by Drizew :

Well at least we both agree that Comcast throttles the speed for Powerboost. They increase the flow of.....

I'm guessing you're taking back your previous statement of "By the way, there is absolutely no relation between throttling and powerboost." then?
--
ISP: Comcast - Download: 25.6mbps - Upload: 1580 kbps

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:41:27 EDT

Drizew : Well at least we both agree that Comcast throttles the speed for Powerboost. They increase the flow of.....

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:40:09 EDT

Daveid : Dictionary: throt·tle
tr.v., -tled, -tling, -tles.
1. a. To regulate the flow of
b. To regulate the speed of

Dictionary: reg·u·late
tr.v., -lat·ed, -lat·ing, -lates.
1. To control or direct
--
ISP: Comcast - Download: 25.6mbps - Upload: 1580 kbps

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:30:44 EDT

Drizew : I never said Powerboost was a "thank you" to customers. They just want you to download faster so you can clear space for others on the network to have faster speeds. It's a clever way for them to squeeze a little more out of their network, so they can increase the subscriber base with minimal cost/effort.

Edit: I guess I had a little more to add... Quick question first... What happens if you use 140% of your rated speeds? throttled in 7 minutes.. lol

"When in reality, You only get that 30/4 for a few moments.. until your speeds get "throttled" (See?) down to 22/5."

How can you say you are being throttled when you are getting 100% of what you are paying for? You subscribe to Ultra, which is 22/5. I see Powerboost as a bonus for both parties.

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:27:48 EDT

Daveid : I could understand "little" relation between throttling and powerboost.. but "absolutely no"?

Let me break it down nice and easy for ya

Why do you think powerboost even exists? A friendly "thank you" to customers? That's not how businesses work bud.

It's all apart of the huge marketing gimmick. It's so they can advertise 30/4 to customers and make it seem like Comcast is so "fast".

When in reality, You only get that 30/4 for a few moments.. until your speeds get "throttled" (See?) down to 22/5.

So, don't say there's "absolutely no" relation between Power boost and throttling.
--
ISP: Comcast - Download: 25.6mbps - Upload: 1580 kbps

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:26:10 EDT

Drizew : I have had Comcast for over 7 years (since they were first available). I am not about to run. I am sitting with open arms enjoying the speed increases.

I agree that they shouldn't try to do more then they are capable of, but thats business.

Know any good realtors that could get me a room @ a data center? I would really enjoy a 99.99% uptime Gbit connection.

msg deleted

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:21:18 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:17:54 EDT

Drizew : How can you say that 22/5 is the advertised "powerboost" speed? Especially when you are provisioned @ 24.2/5.5. There have been people reporting speeds of up to 90Mb/s when "powerboost" is activated.

By the way, there is absolutely no relation between throttling and powerboost.

Edit: Mistakes.

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:09:28 EDT

Daveid : If you noticed, I put quotations around powerboost.

I was trying to emphasize the relation between their throttling plan and their feature, powerboost.

Powerboost as described by Comcast:
"PowerBoost is a patented-pending Comcast network technology that enables you to experience faster connection speeds while you are downloading and uploading large files to the Internet."

Thus, I was trying to make a connection that an advertised speed like 22/5 is actually a "power boost" as they only allow me to normally use 15.4/3.5.
--
ISP: Comcast - Download: 25.6mbps - Upload: 1580 kbps

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:00:40 EDT

Drizew :

said by Daveid :

If they advertise a 22/5 plan, and I pay for a 22/5 plan, I ~~except~~ expect a 22/5 plan.

This .pdf basically describes that I'm only allowed to use 15.4/3.5, and 22/5 is my "powerboost" for a few minutes.

The .pdf makes no mention of Powerboost. I guess you have trouble understanding complicated text like "...during those times when the network is already being overwhelmed." [/sarcasm]

Nobody forces you to use their products. However, if you choose to use them, then you must play by their rules. Grin and bear it. I know the rest of us are.

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:52:59 EDT

Drizew : The difference is speed vs latency. If you are so bothered by the way you are being treated then you can always change providers. Here, I will even give you a list of providers that are OBVIOUSLY better then Comcast.

Hughesnet
Qwest -- it is fiber after all :/
Verizon Wireless -- MOBILE!
Sprint --- Check out the bandwidth allowance!
and my personal favorite... Netzero

I know you won't have trouble switching. Last time I checked Comcast didn't require you to sign a service contract.

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:30:10 EDT

naturecannon :

said by Drizew :

they don't actually throttle your speeds. They just delay them from getting to you asap. This will have no effect on gamers unless they are also downloading a huge file while they are playing.

LOL, whats the difference?

Delayed/ throttled, whatever you want to call it, you are not getting whats advertised.

If a service provider can't sustain full bandwidth for more than 15 minutes then they're not really giving me the rated bandwidth. They need to advertise speeds that they can give people 100% of the time.

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:23:12 EDT

Daveid : Even if that is the case, it's still false advertising on Comcast's behalf.

If they advertise a 22/5 plan, and I pay for a 22/5 plan, I expect a 22/5 plan.

This .pdf basically describes that I'm only allowed to use 15.4/3.5, and 22/5 is my "powerboost" for a few minutes.

Hence, they should either start selling lower speed tiers, or stop complaining that they can't deliver the speeds the advertise.
--
ISP: Comcast - Download: 25.6mbps - Upload: 1580 kbps

Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:04:37 EDT

Drizew : That is old news Daveid. Look at the first post of this thread. There are posts about it dating back to January maybe earlier. Maybe they just started implementing it, but there have been discussions about it before this.

Edit: OK I just read into a PDF and they don't actually throttle your speeds. They just delay them from getting to you asap. This will have no effect on gamers unless they are also downloading a huge file while they are playing.

Read this. »downloads.comcast.net/docs/Attac···ices.pdf

Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:02:10 EDT

Daveid : »www.engadget.com/2009/11/05/comc···-scheme/

"if more than 70 percent of your max bandwidth (downstream or upstream) is used for more than 15 minutes"

"expect to find yourself down-throtted for at least 15 minutes, or until your average bandwidth utilisation rate drops below 50 per cent for 15 minutes."

Thread was locked, reposting here.

Source: »downloads.comcast.net/docs/Attac···ices.pdf
Page 9

Mod Note: The "new" bandwidth "throttling scheme" isn't new. Please see this BBR article ---> »Comcast Slammed For Non-Existent Throttling Changes
--
ISP: Comcast - Download: 25.6mbps - Upload: 1580 kbps

Re: Is this the promised bandwidth meter?

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:37:28 EDT

crese24 :

said by IPPlanMan :

said by S60 :

I don't know if this is new or not, but I just noticed it on my account:

Is this the usage meter we've been waiting for? Since I switched to business it says I can't view it.

Yes. But you should say it this way: it's the one we're "still waiting for".... ;)

As it states, the usage meter doesn't apply to business accounts...

How about that.... :uhh:

Its great to be a business customer!! Please don't give them any ideas or they may just cap business too. :(

Re: Is this the promised bandwidth meter?

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:01:52 EDT

WernerSchutz :

said by IPPlanMan :

said by S60 :

I don't know if this is new or not, but I just noticed it on my account:

Is this the usage meter we've been waiting for? Since I switched to business it says I can't view it.

Yes. But you should say it this way: it's the one we're "still waiting for".... ;)

As it states, the usage meter doesn't apply to business accounts...

How about that.... :uhh:

Since I moved to business class, I did not check my usage that much. Why ? Because before I could work for weeks without having to reboot the modem, now I have to reboot the SMC gateway almost daily and sometimes my router using the Tomato FW just in case.

The issue seems to be the SMC, but I did not have time to troubleshoot it yet.

.

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:08:11 EDT

Ted Sheckler : .

Re: Is this the promised bandwidth meter?

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:56:05 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by S60 :

I don't know if this is new or not, but I just noticed it on my account:

Is this the usage meter we've been waiting for? Since I switched to business it says I can't view it.

Yes. But you should say it this way: it's the one we're "still waiting for".... ;)

As it states, the usage meter doesn't apply to business accounts...

How about that.... :uhh:
--
"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

Is this the promised bandwidth meter?

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:24:59 EDT

S60 : I don't know if this is new or not, but I just noticed it on my account:

Is this the usage meter we've been waiting for? Since I switched to business it says I can't view it.

Re: When do I get the call or will I?

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:24:35 EDT

JohnInSJ : The business class limits are not spelled out in the TOS, only that "excessive use" will get you a request to move up to a higher speed.

There have been a few posts here where other folks have tossed around the numbers 750GB for 12/2 (starter, in docsis 3.0 land, crese24, so you'd be fine using 500GB/mo, you're 250GB under the limit) and 1.5TB for the next level up.

Edit: this is the first post where someone suggested the possible caps for business class: »Re: [Business] I signed up for comcast business

I've been a Business Starter sub for 7 months now, and my typical month is 150GB. I have some headroom ;) I'm not a business class user to get more, I need the statics and the right to run servers.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: When do I get the call or will I?

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:36:14 EDT

crese24 :

said by IPPlanMan :

said by JohnInSJ :

Yeah, I think it's .750 for 12/2, 1.5tb for 22/5.

How do you know that?

He's prolly just guessing. I do at least 500GB and sometimes a little more, on a Starter Business Package and they haven't called me yet.

Re: When do I get the call or will I?

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:27:00 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by JohnInSJ :

Yeah, I think it's .750 for 12/2, 1.5tb for 22/5.

How do you know that?

Re: When do I get the call or will I?

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:09:20 EDT

JohnInSJ : Yeah, I think it's .750 for 12/2, 1.5tb for 22/5.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: When do I get the call or will I?

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:02:50 EDT

espaeth :

said by S60 :

Again, I just signed up for business, so I hope I should never get a call.

Business service isn't unlimited -- it's more than the 250GB cap, but if you're using more than 1-1.5TB on a regular basis you can probably expect a call from your rep looking to move you to a non-DOCSIS connection.

Re: When do I get the call or will I?

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:40:50 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by Strykur :

I live in a frat with 16 guys using the line, and we certainly pass 250GB within a month FOR SURE.

You've been pretty lucky it sounds like.

250GB/16 = 15.625 GB per person per month (uploads/downloads combined)

No surprise there....
--
"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

Re: When do I get the call or will I?

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:15:13 EDT

S60 : Again, I just signed up for business, so I hope I should never get a call.

said by yt :

said by S60 :

I download a lot of stuff. I also don't delete anything… I a lot of hard drive.

That is a lot!! Do you do the same over your Verizon connection?

No that's at home at my parent's place. I still manage and take care of it, but I don't actually get to use it. I love my parents; they always wonder why everyone's Internet is slower than their "free" service; they're not very computer savvy; never know that I have them strung with the fast broadband available.

Re: When do I get the call or will I?

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:00:44 EDT

Strykur :

said by S60 :

said by jsgiv :

Wow - 3.5 TB? what the heck are you transferring?

I download a lot of stuff. I also don't delete anything… I a lot of hard drive. I was on the 16/2 plan. Anyways I took the initiative and signed up myself for Comcast Business. 22/5 is what I got. I can't understand the $250 set up fee though.

WOW...even though I have Residential Extreme 50, I feel much better now about running into any cap issues if you can grab that much without a call. I live in a frat with 16 guys using the line, and we certainly pass 250GB within a month FOR SURE. But the Bay Area has high speed everywhere, so even with caps I doubt bandwidth issues are a major problem here.

Re: When do I get the call or will I?

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:03:05 EDT

IPPlanMan : Wow.... it's amazing you haven't been kicked off yet... A teachable moment re the Business Tier vs. the Residential Tier....

Re: When do I get the call or will I?

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:41:06 EDT

yt :

said by S60 :

I download a lot of stuff. I also don't delete anything… I a lot of hard drive.

That is a lot!! Do you do the same over your Verizon connection?

Re: When do I get the call or will I?

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:25:08 EDT

S60 :

said by jsgiv :

Wow - 3.5 TB? what the heck are you transferring?

Re: When do I get the call or will I?

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:08:55 EDT

low strife :

said by S60 :

No I didn't get banned, but I wondering if I will…

I transfered at least 3.5TB of data 2 months ago and at least 3TB last month. I didn't get a call or anything… should I expect one? Or do they send an email or letter? Or will they just cut off my service?

I've surpassed the 250GB\mo cap by a minimum of 50GB for the last 7 out of 9 months... But certainly not by that much.

If you're on the normal 12\2 line, you averaged 73% usage (upload & download combined) over the entire month. Some 100mBit servers don't do that much in a month (I know mine didn't in October!).

Re: When do I get the call or will I?

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:18:03 EDT

EG :

said by S60 :

I transfered at least 3.5TB of data 2 months ago and at least 3TB last month. I didn't get a call or anything… should I expect one?

Were I you, I wouldn't be mentioning that here... ;)

Re: When do I get the call or will I?

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:48:28 EDT

jsgiv :

Well - considering that you're violating your agreed upon TOS by 1100% (is that right??? - wow) - I'd say to expect something along those lines.. though - as other's have posted here - unless you're in the top percentile of usage - you'll fly under the radar. I can't imagine though that there are others in your region/area exceeding your usage.. but hey.. ya never know.. :D

Wow - 3.5 TB? what the heck are you transferring?

When do I get the call or will I?

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:43:56 EDT

S60 : No I didn't get banned, but I wondering if I will…

I transfered at least 3.5TB of data 2 months ago and at least 3TB last month. I didn't get a call or anything… should I expect one? Or do they send an email or letter? Or will they just cut off my service?

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:33:50 EDT

nate1234 : Uh oh... I hit 296.74GB this month! I hope i dont get a call or letter

msg deleted

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:31:03 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:47:33 EDT

sortofageek : Kidding or not, the ban is on the "tired, downtrodden, dead-horse discussion." One more time, if you have something on topic and new, we would be interested.

(Not kidding ... just not kidding!!!!) :)
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:17:34 EDT

jsgiv : One could correlate this entire thread to the topic at hand in that sortofageek has officially "capped" the "bandwidth" of this tired, downtrodden, dead-horse discussion.. ;)

Perhaps exhibiting a bit o' "monopolistic" action.. :D

(Kidding.. just kidding!!!!)

(topic move) [Speed] Slow in Jupiter, Fl

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:14:35 EDT

sortofageek :
Moderator Action
The post that was here (and all 1 followups to it), has been moved to a new topic .. »[Speed] Slow in Jupiter, Fl

Re: Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:03:25 EDT

sortofageek :

said by IPPlanMan :

I have yet to hear one problem that the cap truly addresses.

OK, you have now heard at least one problem the cap addresses and we're branching into the redundancies once again. Your subthread is also now a link in the first post of this topic.

Let's give it a rest before it gets ugly. Please realize your positions and Werner's (or Sturm's or whoever) have been heard and re-heard. Lets let it stand on record now and it's OK for this topic to go silent if there isn't anything new to report. It really is. :)
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:57:03 EDT

anon : 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.

Re: Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:56:43 EDT

JohnInSJ : 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

Re: Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:54:55 EDT

joetaxpayer : 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.

Re: Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:00:11 EDT

WernerSchutz :

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 ?

Re: Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:58:40 EDT

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.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:58:12 EDT

WernerSchutz :

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.

Re: Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:54:30 EDT

WernerSchutz :

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.

Re: Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:51:42 EDT

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.

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

Re: Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:34:25 EDT

WernerSchutz : "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.

Re: Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:03:53 EDT

Sofa King : 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

Re: Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:26:44 EDT

WernerSchutz : 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.

Re: Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:00:31 EDT

JohnInSJ : 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

Re: Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:51:46 EDT

Sofa King :

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.

Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:21:24 EDT

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.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:40:01 EDT

sortofageek : 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 .

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:20:07 EDT

JohnInSJ :

said by K Patterson :

We will all now consume poison Hemlock.

"I drank WHAT?" - Socrates
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:34:01 EDT

K Patterson : Moreover, Ohio State lost.

The 250 Gbyte cap has no more relevance to society.

We will all now consume poison Hemlock.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:21:54 EDT

JohnInSJ :

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

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:00:56 EDT

Sofa King : Been a while since clicked on this thread... Did I miss anything new and interesting?

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:05:18 EDT

IPPlanMan : 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

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:23:46 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by freshzive :

Be careful with the upgraded speed--it becomes MUCH more easy to hit those caps :)

Switching from 8mbit to 50mbit it was unreal how quickly I went through 250gb..

If you're even getting close to the cap, you're clearly doing it wrong... Go back to only checking your email. You won't have a problem with the cap then. ;)
--
"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

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:51:16 EDT

freshzive : Be careful with the upgraded speed--it becomes MUCH more easy to hit those caps :)

Switching from 8mbit to 50mbit it was unreal how quickly I went through 250gb..

msg deleted

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:12:48 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:15:28 EDT

anon : i just had to weigh in after finding out i actually had a limit, increasing my speed (yesterday, from 12mbps to 22mbps at $20/month extra) & going to look for something that would tell me how much i'm using (found NetStat Live from AnalogX).

call me a fool, but i couldn't resist. i just got off Comcast live chat and asked what the status of the usage meter was. actually got the answer i was expecting: "soon. we'll email you when it happens" LOL

just installed NetStat Live from AnalogX so i feel better now. have been downloading a skosh, so figured it wouldn't hurt to know where i'm at. have a couple more things to get before i throttle back & i definitely don't want any warnings.

actually happy with my increased speed...averaging almost 2000kbps on downloads; i was only getting about 500kbps before. uploads are slower, but i don't do much of that...at least not yet. sure would like to see what the 22mbps that i'm paying for would feel like, but i know that's never going to happen.

i really appreciate this forum/topic being here. got a really good education on what i didn't know i had/didn't have. probably need to watch my iPhone usage on my wireless router, though.

thanks to all of you who've given me so much good info!

Re: Again, the 250 GB Cap is to prevent competition with CC TV

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:54:09 EDT

sortofageek : From the first post in this topic:

The caps are to protect Comcast TV profits?
»The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~
»Again, opinion cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options
»Bandwidth Management in Relation to CC TV Offerings
»Again, the 250 GB Cap is to prevent competition with CC TV
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Again, the 250 GB Cap is to prevent competition with CC TV

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:35:00 EDT

IPPlanMan : As mentioned by JL (Comcast) earlier in this thread, the cap does not address "real time congestion", but we can't get an answer from Comcast on what the cap is really for preventing, much less an official meter for over 1 year now since the cap went into effect on 10/1/2008.

»Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

It seems clear to me that the 250 GB Cap is to prevent iTunes/Apple TV, Netflix, YouTube, and Hulu from coming out with a successful true high-def service... That would make Comcast's OnDemand and Premium Channels irrelevant.

And Comcast wants to remain relevant. This fixed cap is how they will do that. They want to keep TV on TV and Internet on Internet. They don't want TV on Internet. Follow the money trail...
--
"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

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:48:57 EDT

snakester :

said by EG :

Exactly ! They are selling speed, not consumption.

Yeah but when you sell that kind of speed, it's almost implied that if you get one of these packages you're not going to be someone's grandma just checking email. Hell, if I tried hard enough I could go over the cap just using my Xbox alone.

I'm definitely going to be downgrading to Economy, because I'm a techie and I can't deal with not having internet (and since there's no real way to monitor your usage on Mac OS X, I know i'll go over again). I wish I had a realistic option for an alternate ISP here, but we've been blessed with LOLpoint here in NH because Verizon couldn't get a statewide cable TV license.

Re: What is a calendar month? (Bandwidth Tracking)

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:43:14 EDT

sortofageek :

said by joetaxpayer :

said by sortofageek :

A calendar month begins with the 1st of the month and ends with the last day of the month.

Yes, but do we think that will continue? i.e. will metering be billing cycle based or stick to calendar if it ever is set up?

You're asking the wrong person. What I know is that Jason said that is how it is now. Now is enough for me to deal with, I think. :)
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:28:39 EDT

EG :

said by snakester :

Comcast gives you no real way to monitor your use, sells these "ULTRA SPEED!!!!!!" packages for "power users", yet the scream their heads off when you use too much.

Exactly ! They are selling speed, not consumption.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:01:45 EDT

snakester :

said by EG :

Same cap. If you consumed enough to raise flags, I doubt that you would be the type of person that would be satisfied with the Economy tier ??

I can deal, I'd rather have 384 up and down then have no internet. All I've got that's media intensive is a Squeezebox, and internet radio rarely goes over 300kbit/sec, I can download podcasts instead of stream them, and I can do heavy downloading overnight if necessary, as my PC is on 24/7. My only other option for internet around here is Verizon Wireless, and they have a 5GB cap. Comcast gives you no real way to monitor your use, sells these "ULTRA SPEED!!!!!!" packages for "power users", yet the scream their heads off when you use too much.

I can't wait until Netflix, YouTube or Hulu comes out with a true high-def service, and everyone becomes an "excessive user".Is Comcast just gonna cancel everyone then, or will they be smart enough to raise their cap?

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:53:24 EDT

funchords :

said by snakester :

Does the economy tier have the same 250GB cap, or smaller? I don't see the point of paying for this Blast! service if they're gonna yell at me for using it. I can live with 384/384.

At the risk of repeating myself, I think Comcast should rent 384/128 modems for $few/mo extra as a cap-free way to permit heavy users to set it and forget it. Or do it for free on that less-than-best-effort priority so that delay-friendly bulk traffic doesn't bang around normal traffic very much.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/

Re: What is a calendar month? (Bandwidth Tracking)

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:33:13 EDT

joetaxpayer :

said by sortofageek :

A calendar month begins with the 1st of the month and ends with the last day of the month.

Yes, but do we think that will continue? i.e. will metering be billing cycle based or stick to calendar if it ever is set up?

Re: What is a calendar month? (Bandwidth Tracking)

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:17:34 EDT

sortofageek : A calendar month begins with the 1st of the month and ends with the last day of the month.

What is a calendar month? (Bandwidth Tracking)

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:14:04 EDT

greatscott : So according to jlivingood the 250 GB cap is for a calendar month. What exactly does this mean? The month of my billing cycle (11th to the 10th) or an entire month (for example, all days in October, then on Nov. 1st the cap starts over)?

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:33:06 EDT

EG : Same cap. If you consumed enough to raise flags, I doubt that you would be the type of person that would be satisfied with the Economy tier ??

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:29:02 EDT

anon : We got "the call" this morning, although they wouldn't talk to us because my deceased grandfather's name is still on the bill, I know it's for that.

Does the economy tier have the same 250GB cap, or smaller? I don't see the point of paying for this Blast! service if they're gonna yell at me for using it. I can live with 384/384.

Re: Oct 1, 2009 - 1 Yr. Anniversary of 250G Cap - No Meter Yet

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:34:22 EDT

funchords : My kids still watch these religiously. Corn is sweet. :)

Re: Oct 1, 2009 - 1 Yr. Anniversary of 250G Cap - No Meter Yet

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:28:34 EDT

JohnInSJ :

said by joetaxpayer :

Aren't the holiday specials still on, every Valentine's Day, Easter, ThanksGiving, Christmas, and a couple others. You got my age right, but do these repeats have no viewers?

Only us old people watch ;)
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: Oct 1, 2009 - 1 Yr. Anniversary of 250G Cap - No Meter Yet

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:40:18 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by WernerSchutz :

"Coming real soon now", just a few minor details being worked out.

Right ?

Werner

1 year and counting...

Re: Oct 1, 2009 - 1 Yr. Anniversary of 250G Cap - No Meter Yet

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:12:11 EDT

joetaxpayer :

said by JohnInSJ :

It's an age test. You must be old enough to have grown up while Peanuts was the hottest comic ever, but not so old that you forgot it. Sweet spot is I would guess late 40s?

Aren't the holiday specials still on, every Valentine's Day, Easter, ThanksGiving, Christmas, and a couple others. You got my age right, but do these repeats have no viewers?

Re: Oct 1, 2009 - 1 Yr. Anniversary of 250G Cap - No Meter Yet

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:32:16 EDT

JohnInSJ : It's an age test. You must be old enough to have grown up while Peanuts was the hottest comic ever, but not so old that you forgot it. Sweet spot is I would guess late 40s?
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: Oct 1, 2009 - 1 Yr. Anniversary of 250G Cap - No Meter Yet

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:05:59 EDT

WernerSchutz :

said by K Patterson :

I'm told by a person in authority that the lead programmer on the meter is Lucille Van Pelt.

I did not get it, had to look it up.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_van_Pelt

Re: Oct 1, 2009 - 1 Yr. Anniversary of 250G Cap - No Meter Yet

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:04:15 EDT

joetaxpayer :

said by K Patterson :

I'm told by a person in authority that the lead programmer on the meter is Lucille Van Pelt.

Very nice. Earlier this week, I gave someone great advice and said "That will be 5 cents please." Blank stare. Now at least I know my friend KiloPatterson would have gotten it.....

Re: Oct 1, 2009 - 1 Yr. Anniversary of 250G Cap - No Meter Yet

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:50:16 EDT

K Patterson : I'm told by a person in authority that the lead programmer on the meter is Lucille Van Pelt.

Re: Oct 1, 2009 - 1 Yr. Anniversary of 250G Cap - No Meter Yet

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:45:49 EDT

WernerSchutz :

said by IPPlanMan :

Coming up to the 1 year anniversary of the 250GB cap (October 1st) and still meterless.... Yup, that's right.

Capped without a meter... For a year now.

"Coming real soon now", just a few minor details being worked out.

Right ?

Werner

Re: Metered billing again

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:37:35 EDT

joetaxpayer :

said by sortofageek :

Check the first post in this topic to find links to the multiples of discussion related to the cap, including the promised bandwidth meter.

Wow, soag, a fine job organizing this. Our thanks to you. Nothing else to add, I'll just stay subscribed to this thread for any sign of an update.

Re: Metered billing again

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:10:20 EDT

EJ8 : sorry i overlooked that. thanks.

Re: Metered billing again

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:48:00 EDT

sortofageek : Check the first post in this topic to find links to the multiples of discussion related to the cap, including the promised bandwidth meter.

From that post:

Will Comcast provide a bandwidth meter? jlivingood says "yes." Here ---> »Re: Bandwidth Limits - Meter
December 2, 2008 update: »Comcast To Offer Bandwidth Use Tracker In January
»Exclusive Screens Of Comcast's New Bandwidth Meter
January 2, 2009 update:
»Comcast Mum On New Bandwidth Tracker
July 24, 2009:
»Comcast Usage Meter Still A No Show

Subtopics about "The Bandwidth Meter":
»Bandwidth Monitor for Computers-Suggestions?
»Cap starts today...Wheres da meter???
»Will we be offered a bandwith monitor?
»I need a bandwidth meter for my mac. Please Help.
»Bandwidth Monitors Again
»Is there an update on the Comcast bandwidth meter?
»Bandwidth Meter???
»Where is the Comcast Bandwidth meter?
»The Bandwidth Meter, is it vaporware?
»Doubtful Comcast will ever release the bandwidth meter
»No meter from Comcast, can I exceed the cap?
»"I don't know what's taking Comcast so long with the meter ..."
»Service is metered, but no meter offered
»The Elusive Meter
»Wish someone would sue Comcast - no meter yet
»Metered billing system, discussed many times
»If metered, What cost would you pay?
»Did they decide not to offer a bandwidth meter?
»bandwidth usage monitor?
»Until there is an official meter, there should not be a cap.

When does the meter start/stop each month?
»Comcast/Sandvine Traffic Managment System Evolves
»When does the bandwidth meter start for the billing period?
»Comcast Montly 250GB up/down limit - when does it reset?
»Meter Stop/Start Time Subtopic #3
»Comcast Monthly CAP Time Rotation
»Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?

Meter Accuracy
»How do we know the CC tracking/quota system is accurate?
»How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Metered Billing?
»Metered billing system, discussed many times
»If metered, What cost would you pay?
»Metered billing again
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: Oct 1, 2009 - 1 Yr. Anniversary of 250G Cap - No Meter Yet

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:42:34 EDT

EJ8 : QUOTE: Coming up to the 1 year anniversary of the 250GB cap (October 1st) and still meterless.... Yup, that's right.

Capped without a meter... For a year now.

What does this mean? You know you aren't being "metered"? How can you tell?

Oct 1, 2009 - 1 Yr. Anniversary of 250G Cap - No Meter Yet

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:53:51 EDT

IPPlanMan : Coming up to the 1 year anniversary of the 250GB cap (October 1st) and still meterless.... Yup, that's right.

Capped without a meter... For a year now.

Re: I got the call ... 680G last month

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:21:28 EDT

K Patterson : Two small things to improve a great post:

1) "packets destined for it's own MAC address" Should be"packets destined for the MAC address of the computer or router connect to the modem".

2) "that would tell you something about your node, maybe" Should be downstream channel, not node.

Re: I got the call ... 680G last month

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:09:07 EDT

JohnInSJ : "Downstream UnErrored Codewords - Number of codewords received by the cable modem's RF interface without error, regardless of destination. Each modem will see all downstream traffic, but will only bridge packets destined for it's own MAC address."

So no, that would tell you something about your node, maybe?
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: I got the call ... 680G last month

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 01:53:36 EDT

dvlogic : Can one assume that the total codewords from the modem status page is somewhat a measure of the usage since the modem was last reset?

topic move (topic move) Offline

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:24:21 EDT

sortofageek : Moderator Action
The post that was here (and all 1 followups to it), has been moved offline ..

Re: I got the call ... 680G last month

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:35:41 EDT

sortofageek :

said by cuetrip :

So how many of you have actually had their accounts suspeneded/cancelled?

There is a recap of subtopics related to that in the first post in this topic.

To date, here it is:

Reported warnings/disconnects for exceeding cap

»Warned for exceeding the cap, used 715G last month
»Got the call. We used 610GB on a 50mbit/10mbit d3 connection
»Account cut off at 250G? Correction: 715G
»I got a warning from Comcast
»So, has anyone gone over the cap?
»Anyone got letter from Comcast ...
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: I got the call ... 680G last month

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:48:06 EDT

AVonGauss : Yes, they have suspended the Internet portion of the people's account for the year period without regard to other services or accounts. If you look in this thread and search (thread search) for the word call, you should get a few testimonials.

I got the call ... 680G last month

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:30:27 EDT

cuetrip : So how many of you have actually had their accounts suspeneded/cancelled?
I got "the call" this morning and have been scouring the boards for hours. They said I'd hit 680 gigs last month. I asked, "so how much have I used so far this month?". They didn't know. I'm pretty sure i'm already over 250.
Anyone actually lost their account? What if you have TV and phone with CC too? I can't believe they'd risk losing me on all accounts, especially when i do have a cable alternative here.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:32:30 EDT

IPPlanMan : It's for total usage: upload and download.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:38:09 EDT

anon : Thanks for your answer. I’m not going to do any heavy downloading but I’m wondering if the 250GB cap is for upload also. I know it’s for download and for upload may be lower.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:24:03 EDT

sortofageek :

said by adymax :

Anyone got letter from Comcast for high upload/month ? I have to steam video at 512kbps 24/7 and I want to know

From the first post in this topic:

Reported warnings/disconnects for exceeding cap

»Warned for exceeding the cap, used 715G last month
»Got the call. We used 610GB on a 50mbit/10mbit d3 connection
»Account cut off at 250G? Correction: 715G
»I got a warning from Comcast
»So, has anyone gone over the cap?

If you are interested in this topic, please read the first post. There are links to many related subtopics there.
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:43:36 EDT

AVonGauss : Unless my math is off, that works out to 5.2 GB per day or 161.2 GB per 31 day month which is under the 250 GB threshold. Unless the only purpose for the connection is strictly streaming, I would definitely recommend getting a connection such as Performance Plus with at least 2 MB on the upload. This of course is assuming a single stream.

The other option would be to look at the Business HSI which has more flexible thresholds.

Anyone got letter from Comcast ...

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:34:19 EDT

anon : Anyone got letter from Comcast for high upload/month ? I have to steam video at 512kbps 24/7 and I want to know if its worth switching from DSL. Thank You!

Re: So, has anyone gone over the cap?

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:10:55 EDT

nate1234 : hahaha that would be funny.

Re: So, has anyone gone over the cap?

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:00:18 EDT

JohnInSJ : You know what would *really* be interesting. If somehow, every comcast HSI sub decided to use 300GB in one month. Exactly.

Yeah, that would be fun. Unless you're the guy that does 300.001gb. Then you're in that 1% ;)
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: So, has anyone gone over the cap?

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:02:01 EDT

nate1234 : ok, i believe i hit 275gb, but i dont know because they dont have a stinking bandwidth meter yet :(

Re: So, has anyone gone over the cap?

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:50:12 EDT

JohnInSJ :

said by nate1234 :

I think I went over this month... 228gb on 8/27, then tomato pooped out stopped recording stats. I hope i dont get the call...

It's not *just* 250gb. You also have to be in the top 1% or somesuch mojo. It's just that once you cross 250gb, you *can* get flagged.

Do let us know if you get a nastygram
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: Metered billing again

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:55:23 EDT

WernerSchutz :

said by IPPlanMan :

Another reason why we need the official meter. (Hello September!)

It's Coming Real Soon now (tm). Maybe jlivingood could give us an update or why this long delay exists.

Re: Metered billing again

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:04:32 EDT

IPPlanMan : Another reason why we need the official meter. (Hello September!)

Your stats mean nothing compared to what readings Comcast has on its end.

The alternative? Fios maybe?

The thing is, even at 240GB a month, you're not a bandwidth hog, even if Comcast wants to make you out to be one. Having an official meter makes sure that you get what you're paying for.
--
"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

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:01:00 EDT

IPPlanMan : Speed sells. Usability doesn't... I guess....

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:58:54 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by fonzbear2000 :

I agree! Also, we should be VERY glad that Comcast isn't implementing a much lower cap like some other ISP's are doing such as Roadrunner.

You can probably thank FiOS for that. There's no apparent cap on RoadRunner in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles has widespread Fios deployment.
--
"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

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:55:21 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by Ted Sheckler :

Some degree of congestion management HAS to be implemented, otherwise none of us would have affordable residential high speed internet service at all.

Comcast's 250 GB cap doesn't address congestion. Fios is affordable isn't it? So is DSL...
--
"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

Re: So, has anyone gone over the cap?

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:42:23 EDT

Lord Fish :

said by hata28 :

but turned out about this BS.....

The exact same thing happened to me. I thought I was toast! :)

Re: So, has anyone gone over the cap?

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:36:53 EDT

hata28 : but turned out about this BS.....

Re: So, has anyone gone over the cap?

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:35:28 EDT

hata28 :

said by nate1234 :

I think I went over this month... 228gb on 8/27, then tomato pooped out stopped recording stats. I hope i dont get the call...

OMG!
I received an email from CC the other day with the heading:

Important information about your Comcast High-Speed Internet Service

WTF...I thought

Re: So, has anyone gone over the cap?

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:28:06 EDT

nate1234 : I think I went over this month... 228gb on 8/27, then tomato pooped out stopped recording stats. I hope i dont get the call...

Re: So, has anyone gone over the cap?

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:44:39 EDT

sortofageek : That information is wrong. Please see jlivingood 's post in this subtopic: »Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?

jlivingood is an official Comcast representative, one who is authorized to represent the company on this site.

BTW, that subtopic is linked in the first post in this thread. You may wish to browse the links in that post as they help find the various discussions which have taken place during the life of this topic.
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: So, has anyone gone over the cap?

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:27:19 EDT

damox :

said by AVonGauss :

I'm not sure where you heard it was a rolling window, the last post I have seen from an official source indicates that it uses a calender month.

»Re: Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?

Well that does sound pretty official. Where I heard it was a "rolling window" was in a few of the other threads within this topic "Bandwidth Limits" under the subject, "Reported warnings/disconnects for exceeding cap". Others had mentioned that a "rolling window" was being used and a few who allegedly had been contacted by the "Comcast Abuse Dept." indicated that supposedly they'd been told that by the abuse representative that it was not a fixed 30 days. If that information is wrong, I'm happy to hear that.
--
DAMOX

Re: So, has anyone gone over the cap?

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:06:57 EDT

AVonGauss : I'm not sure where you heard it was a rolling window, the last post I have seen from an official source indicates that it uses a calender month.

»Re: Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?

Re: So, has anyone gone over the cap?

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:00:03 EDT

damox : I've never gotten a call, but now that I've heard that Comcast uses a rolling 30 day window, rather than a fixed 30 day, I cannot be certain that I haven't gone over. I know we've been close several months. The rolling window makes it almost impossible to figure out how much a person is using in any given 30 day period without a quite a bit of manual work. I check the bandwidth at my router because we have about 5 computers connected to the internet, and I try to check it frequently and copy the current information to clipboard. I'm OK as long as the power doesn't go out, but when the router gets rebooted it starts from 0. Sometimes I have to estimate days because of power outages, so I usually go high in my estimate, like 10 gigabytes per day. This month I'm getting really close, but it makes me wonder . . . I gotta tell you, if I ever get that call, I'm switching to business class immediately! I'm not going to chance it. I just went and checked the availability of business class at my zip code, and it is available. Having said that, I really do not understand why comcast doesn't offer a higher limit for more money. Unless their network is really that saturated. I mean, wouldn't it be to their advantage to offer users higher limits, for say $20 - $50 more per month? Heck, some people would pay that just to be safe, but never actually us it. OK, well now there I go trying to use common sense. I mean we are talking comcast here. Oh well, such is life when broadband choices are slim.
--
DAMOX

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:09:40 EDT

EG : WAWAWA !! :o :D

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:48:12 EDT

sortofageek :

said by K Patterson :

said by nate1234 :

Hahaha this is staring to feel like politics!

Didn't anyone tell you that sortofageek is really Hilary Clinton?

Wrong. I am actually Angelina Jolie. :p
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:47:20 EDT

K Patterson :

said by nate1234 :

Hahaha this is staring to feel like politics!

Didn't anyone tell you that sortofageek is really Hilary Clinton?

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:44:30 EDT

nate1234 : Hahaha this is staring to feel like politics!

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:46:48 EDT

sortofageek :

said by funchords :

What I worry about, though, is that we won't learn about new calls going out, how much they were using or thought they were using when they got the call, and whether it was followed up on.

That, of course, would be news. It would be one of the exceptions.

I said:

said by sortofageek :

I doubt there is much that could be said about the bandwidth limits that has not already been said and most of it has been said repeatedly.

I did not say it would be impossible to say something which has not already been said. Please don't read something into my words which is not there. If anyone wants to bring up something new, by all means, do so.

I am asking people to read the first post in the thread before posting, to try to determine if their new thoughts are truly new.
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:34:39 EDT

funchords :

said by sortofageek :

I doubt there is much that could be said about the bandwidth limits that has not already been said and most of it has been said repeatedly. If you check the first post of this topic, you'll see I have attempted to link to the various subtopics.

What I worry about, though, is that we won't learn about new calls going out, how much they were using or thought they were using when they got the call, and whether it was followed up on. If this topic is truly all that could ever be said on the topic, then nobody should ever post into it again.

But I do get value -- we all have --- of hearing about people getting "the call" and the circumstances around it. I hope they keep posting when it happens.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:06:08 EDT

fonzbear2000 :

said by sortofageek :

said by fonzbear2000 :

So, has anyone gone over the cap? By how much? What was the result? I'm quite surprised I haven't seen any stories on this yet in this thread.

One of the many recaps of this thread in the first post of this thread:

Reported warnings/disconnects for exceeding cap

»Warned for exceeding the cap, used 715G last month
»Got the call. We used 610GB on a 50mbit/10mbit d3 connection
»Account cut off at 250G? Correction: 715G
»I got a warning from Comcast

I doubt there is much that could be said about the bandwidth limits that has not already been said and most of it has been said repeatedly. If you check the first post of this topic, you'll see I have attempted to link to the various subtopics.

Thanks for those! :)
--
»Check this out!

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:24:13 EDT

funchords :

said by Ted Sheckler :

Comcast was ordered to provide a number and that's what they said.

True, but it is not meaningless. That number is now part of the system that caps Comcast's service. It is one of the two thresholds.

said by Ted Sheckler :

Many people have reported going above that number without anything being done by Comcast.

True, because you also have to be one of the top 1,000 bandwidth consumers for that calendar month.

said by Ted Sheckler :

You have to be on a congested node, and be part of the reason for the congestion, and be one of the heaviest users on Comcast's network in order to be warned, let alone cut off.

Completely false. The system is in place systemwide and has nothing at all to do with congestion.

said by Ted Sheckler :

As far as suggesting that Comcast should allow literally unlimited usage, that is obviously impossible. Some degree of congestion management HAS to be implemented, otherwise none of us would have affordable residential high speed internet service at all.

A T1 line costs several hundred dollars a month for a reason. If you want Comcast to provide you the same access to the internet at a much higher speed and at a much lower cost with unlimited bandwidth, you are being irrational.

Why is it irrational to expect unlimited? Certainly many ISPs cap but many do not. Are Verizon customers irrational for enjoying unlimited service?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:26:31 EDT

WernerSchutz :

said by Ted Sheckler :

As far as suggesting that Comcast should allow literally unlimited usage, that is obviously impossible.

The modem is capped at 6 Mb/sec. That would allow a 1.8 TB/month transfer.

Where is the unlimited suggestion ?

The T1 cost has also to do with SLA's. What is the SLA for a CC residential connection ?

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:00:18 EDT

sortofageek :

said by fonzbear2000 :

So, has anyone gone over the cap? By how much? What was the result? I'm quite surprised I haven't seen any stories on this yet in this thread.

Re: 250 GB is meaningless

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:58:14 EDT

fonzbear2000 :

said by Ted Sheckler :

Just a reminder, 250GB is pretty much meaningless. Comcast was ordered to provide a number and that's what they said. Many people have reported going above that number without anything being done by Comcast. You have to be on a congested node, and be part of the reason for the congestion, and be one of the heaviest users on Comcast's network in order to be warned, let alone cut off. I wouldn't worry about using 230 or 240.

As far as suggesting that Comcast should allow literally unlimited usage, that is obviously impossible. Some degree of congestion management HAS to be implemented, otherwise none of us would have affordable residential high speed internet service at all.

A T1 line costs several hundred dollars a month for a reason. If you want Comcast to provide you the same access to the internet at a much higher speed and at a much lower cost with unlimited bandwidth, you are being irrational.

I agree! Also, we should be VERY glad that Comcast isn't implementing a much lower cap like some other ISP's are doing such as Roadrunner.
--
»Check this out!

250 GB is meaningless

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:52:01 EDT

Ted Sheckler : Just a reminder, 250GB is pretty much meaningless. Comcast was ordered to provide a number and that's what they said. Many people have reported going above that number without anything being done by Comcast. You have to be on a congested node, and be part of the reason for the congestion, and be one of the heaviest users on Comcast's network in order to be warned, let alone cut off. I wouldn't worry about using 230 or 240.

As far as suggesting that Comcast should allow literally unlimited usage, that is obviously impossible. Some degree of congestion management HAS to be implemented, otherwise none of us would have affordable residential high speed internet service at all.

A T1 line costs several hundred dollars a month for a reason. If you want Comcast to provide you the same access to the internet at a much higher speed and at a much lower cost with unlimited bandwidth, you are being irrational.

So, has anyone gone over the cap?

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:51:45 EDT

fonzbear2000 : So, has anyone gone over the cap? By how much? What was the result? I'm quite surprised I haven't seen any stories on this yet in this thread.
--
»Check this out!

Re: Metered billing again

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:04:48 EDT

damox : Metered billing doesn't necessarily mean that Comcast would lose money. They could set up metered billing to begin after the 250 gigabyte allowance, for instance. I think that would be a better plan than getting service cut off for a year because I went over my limit! as far as I know, we haven't gone over, at least according to my statics, but we've come close a few times. I think we've used around 230 to 240 gigabytes several times, but I'm worried that at sometime we may go over, and lose service. I don't know how many people have been warned, I haven't yet, and I don't know if anyone has been lost service for going over the limit, since the limit was instituted, but I'd like an alternative to getting cut off.
--
DAMOX

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:00:34 EDT

IPPlanMan : Good points....

I can't stand how vague this all is...

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:47:20 EDT

joetaxpayer :

said by raffletime :

said by joetaxpayer :

BUT, there are situations where in fact 1GB has to equal 8*2^30. A processor with 32 bit addressing doesn't just quit at 4,000,000,000 because some law was passed.)

Meh, technically you are talking GiBs rather than GBs.. 1GB technically never has to equal 8*2^30, just 1 GiB does.

Well, let me offer you this. 8 bit processors that had 64K (16 bits addressing) memory were out long before we talked about this bandwidth. Modems were 300 baud then. 32 bit addressing for 4GB memory was available in the early 80's, still long before this bandwidth discussion. So the use of 2^30 came first. I acknowledged to my friend Kilo-Patterson that common usage now favors all zeros 10^3. No problem. But my 32 bit processor memory is still 2^32. That's all. Binary for me, decimal for Comcast and bandwidth, ok?

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 02:27:23 EDT

raffletime :

said by joetaxpayer :

BUT, there are situations where in fact 1GB has to equal 8*2^30. A processor with 32 bit addressing doesn't just quit at 4,000,000,000 because some law was passed.)

Meh, technically you are talking GiBs rather than GBs.. 1GB technically never has to equal 8*2^30, just 1 GiB does.

As trivial as it seems however, it could mean big differences depending on how much the bandwidth cap actually is.. I mean when you add it all up, say we're talking TiBs vs TBs, if they are counting in TBs rather than binary based TiBs, you could be losing out on just about 100 GBs (which if we are talking servers, that's maybe the month's bandwidth of what, like a server dedicated solely to a semi-popular message board with no extra features than just a forum?)

If you watch a lot of videos online (like I do, I'm a hulu-maniac), depending on how comcast decides to guess it, it could actually have a pretty big difference.

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:29:01 EDT

sortofageek : Yes, that has been pointed out repeatedly. However, that wasn't my question.

msg deleted

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:47:34 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:43:38 EDT

IPPlanMan : Good points.

However, Comcast's expectation is that you "secure" your network to keep this from happening.

»www.comcast.net/terms/subscriber/

7. Use Of Services

You agree that the Services and the Comcast Equipment will be used only by you and the members of your immediate household living with you at the same address and only for personal, residential, non-commercial purposes, unless otherwise specifically authorized by us in writing.

Of course, if someone on your network is legitimately watching a bunch of Netflix/iTunes/Apple TV/Vudu movies without telling you, and their "meter" is not keeping track accurately, you could be in for a nasty surprise from Comcast.

This whole situation is ridiculous, and it's been this way since October 1st of 2008.
--
"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

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:50:21 EDT

TheBigCheese :

said by sortofageek :

Do you know of any instances where anyone has reported a difference in their local metering results as compared to Comcast's. If reported here, I have missed it and would like to link to it.

If you use a PC based meter, then Comcast's count may be different for two reasons:

1. There may be other users such as people stealing your wireless services or other devices on your own net such as a Netflix streaming box.

2. There may be a lot of traffic that never leaves your net. For example, I see a LOT of traffic between my PC and my Motorola router related to UPNP. I think it's a bug in thye Motorola firmware.

Re: Until there is an official meter, there should not be a cap.

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:36:48 EDT

sortofageek : Expressed previously many ways ... your opinion in this subtopic is documented in this section, first post in this topic:

Subtopics about "The Bandwidth Meter":
»Bandwidth Monitor for Computers-Suggestions?
»Cap starts today...Wheres da meter???
»Will we be offered a bandwith monitor?
»I need a bandwidth meter for my mac. Please Help.
»Bandwidth Monitors Again
»Is there an update on the Comcast bandwidth meter?
»Bandwidth Meter???
»Where is the Comcast Bandwidth meter?
»The Bandwidth Meter, is it vaporware?
»Doubtful Comcast will ever release the bandwidth meter
»No meter from Comcast, can I exceed the cap?
»"I don't know what's taking Comcast so long with the meter ..."
»Service is metered, but no meter offered
»The Elusive Meter
»Wish someone would sue Comcast - no meter yet
»Metered billing system, discussed many times
»If metered, What cost would you pay?
»Did they decide not to offer a bandwidth meter?
»bandwidth usage monitor?
»Until there is an official meter, there should not be a cap.
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Repeat: What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:27:17 EDT

nate1234 : as i've said before: »Re: What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?

Re: Until there is an official meter, there should not be a cap.

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:23:19 EDT

WernerSchutz :

said by IPPlanMan :

Until there is an official meter, there should not be a cap.

And I also agree with you.

Until there is an official meter, there should not be a cap.

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:04:24 EDT

IPPlanMan : We pay a flat rate for this service, differentiated by speeds on price.

Comcast is perpetuating underutilization of their service by not clarifying the issues you raised.

I can't imagine why they'd want to exclude control/maintenance packets from the cap. I'd be honestly surprised if they did. And if they did, you'd have to make sure that your third party meter treats data the same way.

Comcast is playing loose with this, but the truth is this: We are nearly halfway through august and still no meter.

Until there is an official meter, there should not be a cap.
--
"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

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:58:26 EDT

WernerSchutz :

said by JohnInSJ :

Which is why, IMHO, it remains a vague definition, and generally speaking you only hear of gross overages getting flagged.

I agree with you.

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:40:29 EDT

K Patterson : Oh, cool!

A kilo Patterson.

Thank you

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:56:38 EDT

JohnInSJ : Yeah, and you have to be really careful how you count.

Are you counting every TYPE of packet (TCP and UDP) UP AND DOWN?
Are you counting the full packet size, or just the payload bytes?
Are you counting all those ACK packets your machine has to send back?
Are you counting the endless background packets (ARP, etc)
Are you counting all the background noise packets that hit your machine, but for which you might not have any service running to "hear" it, or have blocked at your firewall?

Comcast can count all that crap - a "meter" running on your machine might not.

The guy that posted 430 vs 505 could easily have measured exactly 430 content bytes, for example, up *and* down. The 75gb remaining easily could have been ACK and various other crap not counted on his end.

Which then begs the question - the cap is 250GB of WHAT? Content bytes Download, up/down, raw data down, up/down, all traffic down, up/down?

Which is why, IMHO, it remains a vague definition, and generally speaking you only hear of gross overages getting flagged.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:31:31 EDT

joetaxpayer :

said by K Patterson :

You might want to look at the Wikipedia article for "Gigabyte".

Yup - Giga means billion. Wiki does reference both uses. I am in high tech, so for me 64K = 65536 when talking tech, but only 64,000 when talking money. No issue there, but the confusion is understandable. Henceforth, I will think of you as One Thousand Patterson, and not 1,024 Patterson. ;)

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:22:55 EDT

K Patterson : You might want to look at the Wikipedia article for "Gigabyte".

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:16:19 EDT

joetaxpayer :

said by K Patterson :

Boy, you just opened another opportunity for Comcast to create misunderstandings.

1GB = 1000 * 1000 * 1000.

That's hardly negotiable - it's set by international treaty.

Are these the same geniuses who once declared pi to be 22/7?
(I understand your point. BUT, there are situations where in fact 1GB has to equal 8*2^30. A processor with 32 bit addressing doesn't just quit at 4,000,000,000 because some law was passed.)

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:52:17 EDT

sortofageek : OK, if I miss any documented reports of local numbers disagreeing with Comcast's numbers, I hope somebody will let me know.

I looked to see if anyone might have reported the 505G number here. This is all I found:

505

»Re: Comcast Bandwidth Abuse/Limits - Discuss here only

500

»Re: Comcast Bandwidth Abuse/Limits - Discuss here only

Those appear to have been from the same individual, but neither mentions disagreeing with the Comcast count. They were also reported long before the current program in place and before we had quite so many ways to monitor our connections ourselves.
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:47:50 EDT

WernerSchutz : I was using Netmeter on 2 PC's, I added them up and put 10% more for overhead. I did not take any screen shots since the rep would not say how much is too much. That was a while back anyway.

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:27:20 EDT

sortofageek :

said by WernerSchutz :

I would be glad to respond to that. Comcast said that I used 505 GB and I calculated I used about 430. Since at that time the 250 GB cap was not disclosed an argument about that was not useful since they would not disclose how much is too much.

Do you have a screenshot of your calculations? What meter did you use?
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:11:22 EDT

nate1234 : hmmm... that is very interesting!

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:02:09 EDT

cracker 52 : Good point sortofageek. I don't see much of any widespread disagreements over usage levels by those who were warned of exceeding the cap, on this board or others.

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:53:58 EDT

K Patterson : Boy, you just opened another opportunity for Comcast to create misunderstandings.

1GB = 1000 * 1000 * 1000.

That's hardly negotiable - it's set by international treaty.

Unfortunately there are computer folks who insist that

1 GB = 1024 * 1024 * 1024

That's a difference of 7.4 %.

I wonder how McAfee and the various router software calculate??

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:49:52 EDT

nate1234 : It really crazy on the extreme 50 tier... use your internet at full speed for 12hrs, and your done!

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:44:05 EDT

IPPlanMan : Given jl's comment: "Without respect to distribution, etc."... It's become apparent to me through the progression of this thread that the Comcast wants us to think the reason for the 250 GB cap is Comcast's "bandwidth cost". Even if people are using about 5% of their theoretical connection threshold at the 12/2 tier at 250GB of usage, and even less at the Docsis 3.0 tiers, by imposing this cap it seems that Comcast wants us to think that it is unprofitable at 42.95/52.95/etc. to sell more capacity than 250GB, no matter what speed is provisioned. When you include Comcast's own data, if it is taken as true, it shows a median usage of 2-4GB a month which makes this utilization percentage even lower. »www.comcast.net/terms/network/amendment/
--
"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

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:30:09 EDT

WernerSchutz :

I would be glad to respond to that. Comcast said that I used 505 GB and I calculated I used about 430. Since at that time the 250 GB cap was not disclosed an argument about that was not useful since they would not disclose how much is too much.

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:17:35 EDT

sortofageek : Do you know of any instances where anyone has reported a difference in their local metering results as compared to Comcast's. If reported here, I have missed it and would like to link to it.
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:25:37 EDT

IPPlanMan : As far as we know, Comcast's meter is not subject to any regulatory oversight. I'm not sure that pointing to the Mcaffee meter for usage in a dispute will do any good.

Re: How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 14:03:29 EDT

espaeth :

said by IPPlanMan :

How can we be sure about the accuracy of your meter when all is said and done?

You have a cornucopia of options for measuring bandwidth on your own equipment, so you can setup your own basis for comparison on the accuracy of the meter.

I'd argue this is far more reliable than utilities like water, electric, and gas where the only meter is owned by the company and all folks can really do is "gut check" the numbers based on previous bills to determine their accuracy.

msg deleted

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 13:54:55 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 13:37:28 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: Bandwidth Management in Relation to CC TV Offerings

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 13:35:47 EDT

K Patterson : Out of context, and I'm out of this "discussion".

Re: Bandwidth Management in Relation to CC TV Offerings

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 13:08:21 EDT

IPPlanMan : What about this is putting words in your mouth?

said by K Patterson:

....open, unfettered access to all the sources of data, many of which have now and will increasingly in the future be competitive with Comcast's TV offerings.

Re: Bandwidth Management in Relation to CC TV Offerings

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 12:51:17 EDT

K Patterson : Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say anything like that.

What I said was that until there is definitive legislation and regulation insuring a free and open Internet, the ISP's have to figure out on their own what is free and open.

Please don't quote the decision about p2p and reset packets. That was 3 to 2 with two vigorous dissents, and one of the commissioners weighed in last week on the same subject, and it wasn't on our side.

Re: Bandwidth Management in Relation to CC TV Offerings

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 12:10:59 EDT

IPPlanMan : So, unless I am misunderstanding you, it seems that you agree with me that Comcast is protecting the turf of its TV offerings. So I ask, how is it able to do so?

It can:
1) Impose a cap on usage that keeps people from actually watching competitive services in any appreciable volume, essentially keeping Internet for Internet, and not for TV. However, this imposed 250 GB cap has nothing to do with managing real-time congestion as we learned from JLivingood earlier.

2) Impose network congestion management so that the "Internet TV watchers" don't saturate the system and negatively affect the "user experience for others".

In this case Comcast has chosen to do both.

Sometimes it doesn't matter if it's uncompetitive. Try getting a different garbage company.
--
"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

How do we know the CC meter is accurate?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 11:13:08 EDT

IPPlanMan : How can we be sure about the accuracy of your meter when all is said and done?
--
"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

Re: Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:55:55 EDT

jlivingood :

said by DDR4040 :

said by jlivingood :

Calendar month

Just to be perfectly clear, if I reset my modem meter at 12:01am on the 1st of every month, and never go above 225GB during that month, I am safely within the the terms of the AUP? Even if I happen to use 200GB in the last week of a month and another 200GB in the first week of the next month?

It's 250GB for a calendar month, without respect to distribution of your utilization on a day to day or week to week basis.
--
JL
Comcast

Re: Bandwidth Management in Relation to CC TV Offerings

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 05:06:09 EDT

K Patterson : It is familiar. One model is that of the mob-controlled garbage industry on the East coast. If an ISP tries to control by restrictive agreements, constraints, manipulations, etc they will just end up with more regulation that makes them uncompetitive.

Cases in point - Iphone, Bing, Microsoft, Apple.

Bandwidth Management in Relation to CC TV Offerings

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:06:02 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by K Patterson :

....open, unfettered access to all the sources of data, many of which have now and will increasingly in the future be competitive with Comcast's TV offerings.

Sounds familiar...

Re: Bandwidth/Congestion Mgmnt - Back to basics and the future

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 19:44:03 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by JohnInSJ :

Exactly what its used for... to cut off people using 3/4 of a TB/mo or more, so it seems. Expect it to rise over time (the cap that is) but they'll alway need some number where they say "OK, that's enough for you."

Whatever it is.

On my wimpy 12/2 line I can pull 16mbit down and 280kbit up 24/7... that would be about 4.7TB/mo total possible data. Its probably unreasonable to expect to be able to use anywhere near that for a fixed price.

And will the price for the service remain the same?
250GB of the internet today is less than it was a year ago.
250GB divided by 4.7TB is somewhere around 5%.

Is that anywhere near? Not exactly....

People don't realize how much they're paying for how little they're getting. But then again, it's money in Comcast's pocket to do things like this. And as we learned earlier from JLivingood, the 250GB cap has nothing to do with addressing congestion.

5% of usable capacity? Seriously?

And the ratio is even worse for the Docsis 3.0 Tiers.

It's Comcastic!
--
"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

How do we know the CC tracking/quota system is accurate?

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 19:30:40 EDT

IPPlanMan : In addition to the above points made by Werner, what bothers me about these caps, etc. is that there's no regulatory oversight whatsoever as to whether the tracking/quota system is really accurate.

It really is a "Trust us, why would we lie?" model.

Re: Bandwidth/Congestion Mgmnt - Back to basics and the future

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:59:08 EDT

WernerSchutz : "Your position is not universally accepted, at least not by the FCC and not by Congress. It should be, but it isn't. So Comcast does indeed need to figure out how to deal with these issues."

If nobody complains, Congress would not act.

"Whose predictions are you referring to?"

The cable companies "predicting" doom unless they are let loose to do whatever they want with heavy users that paid for their access. Where is the data supporting these restrictions ? It is all on a "trust us, it is so" model, from the same group that used the "trust us" approach in front of the FCC when they said they were not sending the RST packets to p2p users. Except they did.

Re: Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:58:08 EDT

nate1234 : Well, you should be fine then.

Re: Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:56:21 EDT

DDR4040 :

said by jlivingood :

Calendar month

Re: Bandwidth/Congestion Mgmnt - Back to basics and the future

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 12:27:41 EDT

K Patterson :

said by WernerSchutz :

I find the terms "adopts a method of disciplining the worst offenders" to be very questionable.

1. There was no definition of "offense" just a vague subjective interpretation that the paying customer was not even explained what it was.

2. CC was not in a position to "discipline" anyone, much less its paying customers that were breaking no published limits. If it was anyone's position to "discipline", it was Florida's Attny. General, which he did.

'Discipline has two meanings - to punish and to attempt to bring into line. That is exactly what Comcast has done and continues to do.

said by WernerSchutz
Moreover, " they have to figure out how it relates to the issues of open, unfettered access to all the sources of data, many of which have now and will increasingly in the future be competitive with Comcast's TV offerings." . They do not "have" to figure out anything. What the customers access is NOT their business. Would you mind if the phone company would need to "figure out" if you can access long distance services through a competitor's service or calling cards ? Oh, that monopoly was broken a while back. Maybe THAT is the model we should see coming.

Would it not be funny if the electric company would also happen to have a division that makes pricey washing machines and they would have to "figure out" if you are allowed to use electric power to use your own purchased washing machine from Home Depot ?

Your position is not universally accepted, at least not by the FCC and not by Congress. It should be, but it isn't. So Comcast does indeed need to figure out how to deal with these issues.

said by WernerSchutz :

Also, looking at predictions, Bill Gates also believed that 640K of RAM was plenty for a long time and everytime someone buys a large HDD we hear that he/she will never fill that up.

When predictions come from a party directly interested in those same predictions coming true and generating a financial advantage for them, those predictions are questionable. Let's have some neutral third party have access to the actual usage data from ISP's and see what analysis they come up with, would be more believable.

Whose predictions are you referring to?

said by WernerSchutz :

Also, if they would invest heavily in infrastructure as Verizon did, all this changing the business model and "educating users" corporate speak mumbo jumbo would not be necessary.

Who will pay for this "heavy investment"?

Re: If metered, What cost would you pay?

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:17:31 EDT

JohnInSJ :

said by nate1234 :

Inmotionhosting.com = $7/mo for unlimited bandwidth and disk space!

Nice, but bandwidth is only free after you get out of a neighborhood. *all* (essentially) of comcasts costs are NOT backhaul.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: Metered billing again

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:16:33 EDT

JohnInSJ :

said by sortofageek :

Just a reminder to keep this from a repeat of past discussions.

Yeah I was away for a bit... sorry if I rehashed. I was just replying to a post.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: If metered, What cost would you pay?

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:10:00 EDT

nate1234 : Inmotionhosting.com = $7/mo for unlimited bandwidth and disk space!

Re: Metered billing again

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:40:11 EDT

sortofageek : Just a reminder to keep this from a repeat of past discussions. Links to previous metered billing discussions in this thread:

»Metered billing system, discussed many times

»If metered, What cost would you pay?
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: Bandwidth/Congestion Mgmnt - Back to basics and the future

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:33:04 EDT

JohnInSJ :

said by funchords :

said by K Patterson :

Comcast adopts a method of disciplining the worst offenders

What was Comcast really thinking, anyway?

Exactly what its used for... to cut off people using 3/4 of a TB/mo or more, so it seems. Expect it to rise over time (the cap that is) but they'll alway need some number where they say "OK, that's enough for you."

Whatever it is.

On my wimpy 12/2 line I can pull 16mbit down and 280kbit up 24/7... that would be about 4.7TB/mo total possible data. Its probably unreasonable to expect to be able to use anywhere near that for a fixed price.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Metered billing again

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:25:49 EDT

JohnInSJ :

said by K Patterson :

Finally, perhaps the hardest part, they have to figure out how it relates to the issues of open, unfettered access to all the sources of data, many of which have now and will increasingly in the future be competitive with Comcast's TV offerings.

Yeah, almost got it right.

The problem with metered service is that, but their own admission, the vast bulk of their subs are OVERPAYING (assuming comcast makes a buck if everyone actually used 250GB) since by their own data, most users are actually using a fraction of that amount.

So, the day metered billing rolls out, comcast loses free money from 95% of their users, and the small number of heavy users would likely either pay the trivial surcharge (pennies per MB) or leave.

Business Model Fail.

Metered billing is a threat, but its an empty threat. Sorta like holding a gun to your own head....
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: Bandwidth/Congestion Mgmnt - Back to basics and the future

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:05:13 EDT

funchords :

said by K Patterson :

Comcast adopts a method of disciplining the worst offenders

What was Comcast really thinking, anyway?

Was the invisicap (now the kindacap) a way to contain the bandwidth costs of heavy users? Or a cheap substitute for keeping someone from soaking the bandwidth pool dry?

Whatever it was, it doesn't seem to do either very well. So what is it to become? A way to keep Cable TV users from cutting the cord? No, it's still too big for that.

I honestly don't know why it's there. I think it causes more damage than it prevents.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Re: Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:46:27 EDT

nate1234 : yes, very good!

Re: Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:44:16 EDT

Naediel : Thank you, good to know it is by calendar month.

Re: Bandwidth/Congestion Mgmnt - Back to basics and the future

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:05:29 EDT

WernerSchutz : I find the terms "adopts a method of disciplining the worst offenders" to be very questionable.

1. There was no definition of "offense" just a vague subjective interpretation that the paying customer was not even explained what it was.

2. CC was not in a position to "discipline" anyone, much less its paying customers that were breaking no published limits. If it was anyone's position to "discipline", it was Florida's Attny. General, which he did.

Moreover, " they have to figure out how it relates to the issues of open, unfettered access to all the sources of data, many of which have now and will increasingly in the future be competitive with Comcast's TV offerings." . They do not "have" to figure out anything. What the customers access is NOT their business. Would you mind if the phone company would need to "figure out" if you can access long distance services through a competitor's service or calling cards ? Oh, that monopoly was broken a while back. Maybe THAT is the model we should see coming.

Would it not be funny if the electric company would also happen to have a division that makes pricey washing machines and they would have to "figure out" if you are allowed to use electric power to use your own purchased washing machine from Home Depot ?

Also, looking at predictions, Bill Gates also believed that 640K of RAM was plenty for a long time and everytime someone buys a large HDD we hear that he/she will never fill that up.

When predictions come from a party directly interested in those same predictions coming true and generating a financial advantage for them, those predictions are questionable. Let's have some neutral third party have access to the actual usage data from ISP's and see what analysis they come up with, would be more believable.

Also, if they would invest heavily in infrastructure as Verizon did, all this changing the business model and "educating users" corporate speak mumbo jumbo would not be necessary.

Bandwidth/Congestion Mgmnt - Back to basics and the future

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:58:37 EDT

K Patterson : I'd like to come back to some of the basic here.

Comcast (and other ISP's) are stuck with the limitations of the NTSC system for television. The channel width was set in 1936, and the break between downstream and upstream was set in 1948. Now that TV is digital (almost) it is sad that we must send analog signals downstream and upstream through analog devices.

Enter the demands for more Internet speed and data transfer volume. Comcast adopts a method of disciplining the worst offenders, and finds themselves in a legal battle with the Florida Attorney General. They agreed on the awful compromise we have now - awful not because a few folks think that it is too restrictive but awful because it is a lousy solution.

Comcast is free to change it. How can anyone doubt that they will? The issue is that increasing the data transfer costs money, lots of it. And as Comcast correctly states, the vast majority of its customers don't need it, nor are they likely to in the future. Comcast, from a competitive standpoint, cannot increase the limits and pass on the very real costs of doing so to the majority of their customers. A consumption-based model is coming. The meter has not been released for two reasons. The first is that it would create a nightmare for Comcast on boards like this, with people perceiving (and perhaps suing) because the limits were not applied consistently across the board. The second is that they are changing their model. That may sound like a simple thing to do but it isn't. They first have to determine the incremental cost of adding bandwidth, not an easy thing to do. Then they have to make their model work in the real world of competition. Finally, perhaps the hardest part, they have to figure out how it relates to the issues of open, unfettered access to all the sources of data, many of which have now and will increasingly in the future be competitive with Comcast's TV offerings.

So stick around. Change is coming.

Re: Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:22:29 EDT

jlivingood :

said by freshzive :

When I discussed it on the phone with the abuse department the response that I got was that it was based on calendar months. However, Comcast employees have been known to contradict one another, so I'm not 100% certain.

Calendar month
--
JL
Comcast

Re: Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:53:34 EDT

freshzive : When I discussed it on the phone with the abuse department the response that I got was that it was based on calendar months. However, Comcast employees have been known to contradict one another, so I'm not 100% certain.

Re: Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:13:37 EDT

K Patterson : I suggest that you IM jlivingood and ask him.

Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:02:40 EDT

Naediel : Can anyone answer to the claim that it is a rolling 30 day period? I keep track of my bandwidth with a Tomato enabled router and I just assumed it was by actual month.

I've seen people talk about this in the thread before but never saw a definitive answer on when the actual bandwidth period is.

Re: We-used-610GB on a 50mbit10mbit d3 connection

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:14:51 EDT

freshzive : Reported earlier that I got the call for June for using 700+GB of bandwidth on new D3 50/10 service. Unfortunately, the call didn't come until the 10th of July. Our house cut way back after the call, looks like we ended up using a little over 300GB in July, most of that coming within the first 10 days before we received the call. Still no call/disconnection yet, but there's still a few more days before the 10th. Just going to have to wait it out I guess :(

Mod Note: See also ---> »Got the call. We used 610GB on a 50mbit/10mbit d3 connection

Re: Account cut off at 250G?

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:52:05 EDT

K Patterson : Yes, except that to be called/cut off you have to exceed 250Gb and be one of the largest users on the system. They do not take action at a fixed level.

Edit: I went back and checked earlier posts by laserray.

He got the call for 715 Gb.

Mod Note: Refer to his previous thread here ---> »Warned for exceeding the cap, used 715G last month

Re: Account cut off at 250G?

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:12:45 EDT

WernerSchutz :

said by K Patterson :

I don't think his post passes the smell test.

Jlivingood said it didn't seem right, to check with the abuse folks, aand the OP never came back.

Doubtful that it happened as reported, if at all.

Maybe he got fed up, signed for DSL and did not bother to come back. My understanding was that after the first violation there is a call and if there is a second violation the user is being cut off. Somehow that is what I understand happened to laserray and others. Is my understanding incorrect ?

Re: Account cut off at 250G?

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:09:11 EDT

K Patterson : I don't think his post passes the smell test.

Jlivingood said it didn't seem right, to check with the abuse folks, aand the OP never came back.

Doubtful that it happened as reported, if at all.

Re: Account cut off at 250G?

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:05:08 EDT

WernerSchutz : If I recall he got a call and then the second violation got disconnected quietly, which is according to the procedure I have heard is being applied.
Maybe my understanding of the situation is incorrect.

Re: Account cut off at 250G?

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:01:52 EDT

IPPlanMan : What happened with this?

Did the abuse call ever come?

Any chance you missed it?

Being cutoff like that is strange.

Re: I got a warning from Comcast

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:58:20 EDT

IPPlanMan : Indeed. It'll be interesting to see how things play out.

Re: I got a warning from Comcast

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:41:37 EDT

WernerSchutz : Somehow I recall discussions regarding that asking for a business class line from a abuse rep is not going to work.

Re: I got a warning from Comcast

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:40:28 EDT

WernerSchutz : It would be interesting to see how much you have been using. Be polite when talking to the guy even if he is rude, they would like any excuse to kick you off and picking a fight is not going to help any.
Maybe, maybe mention that a meter would help you in the future to monitor your usage. I am not sure that would not open a can of worms with the rep, maybe others here can give better advice.

Werner

Re: I got a warning from Comcast

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:27:42 EDT

nate1234 : Wait... it is a rolling 30 day period? Uh oh, i have gone 300gb once in a 30 day window...

Re: I got a warning from Comcast

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:22:13 EDT

IPPlanMan : Yup. You've been listed already. Stay below 250GB total upload/download for at least the next 6 months.

How much did you use?

Re: I got a warning from Comcast

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:20:40 EDT

joetaxpayer :

said by IPPlanMan :

Would a meter from Comcast have helped any?

"Rolling 30 day" is news to me, and it would depend how the meter shows data. So I'm out for first two billing weeks, and use 240GB in second half of cycle, then I go back to normal use, but I can't go over 10GB for first half of next cycle? Crazy stuff. Meter on track to be a full year late.

Re: I got a warning from Comcast

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:15:41 EDT

IPPlanMan : Of course, neither of those alibis matter really. Comcast's TOS says that it's the user's responsibility to have things locked down.

You could try getting a business line perhaps.

Would a meter from Comcast have helped any?

Re: I got a warning from Comcast

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:14:25 EDT

joetaxpayer :

said by nate1234 :

Or you could say you bought a wireless router and forgot to set the password, and you will set it now and wont go over the limit again

Crazy idea. You think it'll work? ;)

Re: I got a warning from Comcast

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:58:16 EDT

nate1234 : Or you could say you bought a wireless router and forgot to set the password, and you will set it now and wont go over the limit again

Sorry joetaxpayer, your terminology didnt make much sense

Re: I got a warning from Comcast

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:53:41 EDT

joetaxpayer :

said by ccastvictim :

Does what I say matter to them, so that I'm not flagged as being 'on notice'? I see inconsistent reports on how long you need to reduce your usage for until you're not at risk

I'd try this - tell them your wife bought a wireless router for her laptop. You didn't give it much thought, but now realize she never set a firewall, neighbors must have gotten on. You now have it locked down.

I got a warning from Comcast

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:55:07 EDT

anon : I got the threatening phone call from Comcast, but haven't called back yet.

Does what I say matter to them, so that I'm not flagged as being 'on notice'? I see inconsistent reports on how long you need to reduce your usage for until you're not at risk.

Because that's the basic situation now. I can receive a surprise blacklisting from the Internet for one year. Since that Internet connection pays the bills, it's pretty scary.

Re: If metered, What cost would you pay?

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:27:57 EDT

JohnInSJ :

said by nate1234 :

What cost per GB or 10GB would you pay?

Let's look at Amazon Ec2 transport costs (why not?)
from »aws.amazon.com/ec2/#pricing

Internet Data Transfer

The pricing below is based on data transferred "in" and "out" of Amazon EC2.
Data Transfer In
All Data Transfer $0.10 per GB

Data Transfer Out
First 10 TB per Month $0.17 per GB
Next 40 TB per Month $0.13 per GB
Next 100TB per Month $0.11 per GB
Over 150 TB per Month $0.10 per GB

So, you're looking at 10 cents per GB to 17 cents per GB. 250GB is $25-$42.50 depending on the in/out mix - call it $35 on average.

That's probably a bit more then the carry cost for Amazon (ie, they make a buck ;) )

Using a hosting service like Godaddy, you'll get 300GB/mo for your $5/mo web site. That's pretty cheap. Want cheaper? inmotionhosting.com gives you 1TB/mo on their cheap personal hosting plan.

This show you that the cost is associated more with the customer side then the backhaul - apparently backhaul is nearly free.

Funny Aside... »www.isp-planet.com/business/pricing3a.html - in 1999 using a T1 full out would cost you $4/GB! Your 250GB allotment from comcast would be the same as using a full T1 for 35 days, or $1000.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Re: Account cut off at 250G?

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:05:46 EDT

jlivingood :

said by laserray :

OK they disabled my account completely.
Not a peep from them they just turned everything off.
Since I AM tracking my usage I can tell you they cut it off right at 250 gigs. It not calender month, or your billing cycle.
I didn't realize it's a rolling 30 days. I reviewed my records and I was 50 gigs short for the month but if you added in the previous week from last month then I am over.
My mistake. My usage goes in cycles.
I was going to call them and explain the situation but I am really busy and totally piissed.

Now I have to find another provider.

Comastic!!!

This doesn't sound at all like this program works. You should call into Customer Security Assurance to discuss what is going on. »security.comcast.net/get-help/co···ity.aspx
--
JL
Comcast

Account cut off at 250G? Correction: 715G

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:55:54 EDT

laserray : OK they disabled my account completely.
Not a peep from them they just turned everything off.
Since I AM tracking my usage I can tell you they cut it off right at 250 gigs. It not calender month, or your billing cycle.
I didn't realize it's a rolling 30 days. I reviewed my records and I was 50 gigs short for the month but if you added in the previous week from last month then I am over.
My mistake. My usage goes in cycles.
I was going to call them and explain the situation but I am really busy and totally piissed.

Now I have to find another provider.

Comastic!!!

Mod Note: Refer to his previous thread here ---> »Warned for exceeding the cap, used 715G last month

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:39:36 EDT

IPPlanMan :

said by ztmike :

From metal80772

quote:
One more thing, even if you had FIOS(or any residential internet service), i can PROMISE you that you would receive an abuse letter from them as well for 715gig.

Hey, thanks for the laugh! People in the FiOS forum have been said they have used 1-2 TERABYTES in a month without a peep from Verizon.

One of two things is possible:

Verizon can absorb the cost of this level of usage for what they are charging now and this will continue to be the case...

Or Verizon cannot actually absorb it but is doing so to gain marketshare for a new product.

Is Verizon simply using their own network at cost? Does Comcast need more purchased bandwidth and peering agreements because of its network configuration?

Makes me wonder about Comcast's tiers and how much bandwidth is used at each tier versus how much it costs for them to get it.
--
"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

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:20:19 EDT

ztmike : From metal80772

quote:
One more thing, even if you had FIOS(or any residential internet service), i can PROMISE you that you would receive an abuse letter from them as well for 715gig.

Hey, thanks for the laugh! People in the FiOS forum have been said they have used 1-2 TERABYTES in a month without a peep from Verizon.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:13:32 EDT

anon : First of all, you can talk to your state attorney general about your accusations and see what action he takes. Or if you actually listen, he can point out that your accusations don't hold water.

If you're not happy with what the state attorney general does or says, there are plenty of lawyers who work on contingency fees, so you don't have to pay a dime. Just ask your attorney for recommendations of contingency lawyers who work in the industry.

msg deleted

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:37:24 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: Marketing and deceptive advertising - inre bandwidth limits

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:16:23 EDT

Cabal : When will you be suing Comcast over their deceptive advertising?
--
Obamanomics: Trickle-up poverty.

msg deleted

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:05:45 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:36:38 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: Got the call. We used 610GB on a 50mbit/10mbit d3 connection

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:06:49 EDT

IPPlanMan : I agree that this is silly.... But it's not the fault of the users. There's no accurate meter provided, so users are stuck using their best guess. It's no different than guessing one's speed on the road by sticking a hand out the window or distance traveled by sight.

Comcast sells Speed and they charge more for more speed. This is a very profitable model, and to maintain the integrity of the model, they cap usage irrespective of tier.

The unbelievable thing is that Comcast is charging based on speed when the cap for everyone is the same. Does it really cost Comcast more to provide more speed to a user if they are not providing more usability? If not, then why charge more for more speed? The speed isn't a guarantee anyway, so if not, why does Comcast charge more for more speed? You can get to the 250GB cap on the 1 Mb economy tier at 24.95 just like you can get to it on the 12/2 and 16/2 tiers, not to mention the Docsis 3.0 tiers.

So what about the service actually costs more to provide or to subscribe to to justify the higher price? Given that the cap is the same, the cost of 250GB of usage should be the same for the Docsis 3.0 tiers. 140 dollars for what exactly?

Mod Note: Again, please don't continue with the repetitive complaints. It is all still here in this thread. See ---> »Traffic Control For The Remainder Of Topic, Please Read ~sorto'
--
"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

Re: Got the call. We used 610GB on a 50mbit/10mbit d3 connection

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:50:20 EDT

IPPlanMan : DSL, the so-called "dying" technology comes to the rescue again...

There is no point in Comcast selling this kind of speed with such a low cap relative to the speed, especially without a meter.

It's invitable that usage will substantially increase as a result of the faster connection speed. People that have a faster Internet connection aren't going to waste the service at 140 dollars a month watching low resolution clips on YouTube. They are watching HD video on Apple TV, Vudu, or Netflix Streaming. These services function better with higher bandwidth connections and users are more likely to download more when what they are downloading takes less time. Also, users with these kind of connections will gravitate toward higher resolution videos, be they movie trailers or other HD online video sources. How else can you justify having a 50/10 connection? What else can it be used for? People don't get to their cap by checking email, and a 250GB cap isn't enough to appreciate the speed increase over the lower tiers.

This is a house of 5 people, which the cap doesn't account for. (in fact, the more people on the same connection, the less Internet each is able to use... And that squeeze is happening). They said it was hard to track usage amongst themselves. Comcast's expectations are completely unreasonable and they have put users such as these in an untenable position.

Here's to low Rez video and less of it. It's comcastic!

Mod Note: We have been here before, really. It doesn't change anything to repeat it. Please see my post here ---> »Traffic Control For The Remainder Of Topic, Please Read

--
"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

Re: Got the call. We used 610GB on a 50mbit/10mbit d3 connection

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:24:30 EDT

funchords :

said by freshzive :

Unfortunately, I didn't get this call until the 14th of July. Likely, we have already gone over our 250gb for the month. We've basically stopped using our internet for anything other than checking e-mail in hopes that the plug won't be pulled at the end of the month.

Even if you did go over, you should not appear on their list unless you're also one of the top 1,000 users systemwide.

But that's a nice catch-22. If they wait 2 weeks to notify you on a 50 Mbps service, it's possibly too late to change your behavior in time to prevent a recurrence.

said by freshzive :

Even if we did go over, hopefully Comcast would show some mercy given that their call came so late?? I guess we can only hope. Otherwise, back to the dreaded Qwest DSL.

So what do you think is pushing you over the usage limits? It could be that DSL might be a good service for your lower-priority, higher-bandwidth users.

--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Re: Got the call. We used 610GB

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:00:18 EDT

Cabal : So with 14 million Internet customers, only 3 have been enforced against since the policy went into effects? Sounds like they were dead on with the 250 GB cap. I feel sorry for the AT&T, Cox, and Time Warner users.
--
Obamanomics: Trickle-up poverty.

Re: Got the call. We used 610GB on a 50mbit/10mbit d3 connection

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:17:21 EDT

sturmvogel : And this answers again a question the CC supporters asked: is the "cap" enforced on the D3 subscribers ? YES. Is the same comcastic behaviour used (my question) ? YES.
Is a meter available ? NO.

Come on, this will be something legendary in the Internet history for years to come. Arrogant, short sighted and will have the company be hated as AOL still is.

Great work.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Re: Got the call. We used 610GB on a 50mbit/10mbit d3 connection

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:04:50 EDT

AVonGauss : Generally speaking, I believe you can order business service alongside residential service without canceling the residential service first - usually the issue is the residential service does not automatically get canceled when an individual transitions to business. With that said, most if not all of the posts I recall say that at least the security group that you talked to says transitioning at this point is not possible. It probably is also problematic once your service is actually suspended, versus just receiving the warning call. However, if it were me and I wanted to pursue that route I would just call the business office directly and establish service and see what happens. In your particular case, if you truly believe you have already gone over the limit for this month it would probably be advantageous to call the business office sooner than later.

With all that said, I do still believe all this is silly and there has to be a better way to manage this kind of situation.

Got the call. We used 610GB on a 50mbit/10mbit d3 connection

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:41:11 EDT

freshzive : Got the call. We used 610GB on a 50mbit/10mbit d3 connection in June. Granted there are 5 people living in the house using the connection, this is still a lot. I realized that we had likely gone over after making the switch to the much faster service, but didn't realize the extent to which we'd used the new connection.

When I received the call, I asked if Comcast had a bandwidth meter in place to monitor my usage. The tech responded that they didn't, but he pointed me to a free software solution. When I told him that there were many computers on our local network using the connection and that a software solution would be difficult if not impossible to use, he basically said that it was my responsibility and that if my modem ever went over 250gb again that I would immediately be shut off. I also asked if there there was any difference in the cap for the more expensive packages (we were paying $140/month at the time) or if they were more lenient to customers who spent more money for their faster package, he said absolutely not. I also asked about switching to Comcast's business class service, but I was told that it is not possible to transition from residential to business class service--our residential service must first be cancelled and then business class service ordered. After reading this forum, I'm not sure if this is actually true?

Unfortunately, I didn't get this call until the 14th of July. Likely, we have already gone over our 250gb for the month. We've basically stopped using our internet for anything other than checking e-mail in hopes that the plug won't be pulled at the end of the month. Even if we did go over, hopefully Comcast would show some mercy given that their call came so late?? I guess we can only hope. Otherwise, back to the dreaded Qwest DSL.

Mod Note: Followup is here ---> »Re: We-used-610GB on a 50mbit10mbit d3 connection

Re: Did they decide not to offer a bandwidth meter?

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:27:57 EDT

sturmvogel : I did not know about the app, I will give it a try, thx.

Re: Did they decide not to offer a bandwidth meter?

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:51:39 EDT

IPPlanMan : It might as well be vaporware...

The longer this goes on, the more absurd it is... and the more that the internet service is underutilized by customers who pay the same no matter how much they use.

What's happening now is the same as if AT&T or Verizon didn't have a meter for minutes usage.

In spite of that, I have to give Comcast Credit for the new iPhone Application.... Maybe there's a way they can implement the Meter into that as well.

Re: Did they decide not to offer a bandwidth meter?

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:10:11 EDT

jsgiv :

said by joetaxpayer :

Now that it's mid-July did I miss the Bandwidth Meter or have they decided to not offer it?

'round and 'round it goes - where it stops - nobody knows...

Here we go again.. :)

Re: Did they decide not to offer a bandwidth meter?

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:48:36 EDT

funchords :

said by joetaxpayer :

Now that it's mid-July did I miss the Bandwidth Meter or have they decided to not offer it?

No, it's finally here, but they only made one meter so far. We have to share it. Someone in South Carolina has it right now, so you can't have it today. Tomorrow doesn't look so good, either.

(okay, just kidding -- it's still vaporware) :) :D :o :p ;)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Did they decide not to offer a bandwidth meter?

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:37:15 EDT

joetaxpayer : Now that it's mid-July did I miss the Bandwidth Meter or have they decided to not offer it?

Re: Bandwidth Limits - Comcast vs. Verizon FiOS/Cox/ATT

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:20:17 EDT

K Patterson : That was a good catch!

I don't think we've seen that data here before.

Thanks.

Re: Bandwidth Limits - Comcast vs. Verizon FiOS/Cox/ATT

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:12:42 EDT

jsgiv :

said by K Patterson :

Moreover, I have never seen any restrictions such as:

"(Att at 50 gig, Cox cable at 150gig, and Verizon DSL at 200 gig)"

as posted by metal80772 above.

Cox: »ww2.cox.com//aboutus/policies/li···ons_0609

Updated recently for your viewing pleasure.. :) - caps are "restricted" based on plan. That doesn't mean that Cox is/has been actively enforcing those restrictions however. :)

ATT - is/has been evaluating using caps: »/r0/download/1···tcap.png

Whether or not it happens - (again there's that enforcement scenario) - is another question yet to be answered...

And evidently Verizon (as do all/most other ISPs, I'm sure) also has that "vague" cap/limitation clause in their TOS to cover any scenarios where they can terminate service in the event of "abuse" of said service. Apparently - Comcast's current definition of "abuse" is when someone approaches 3x their allotted/defined cap.

It'll be interesting to see how long Verizon holds out with regards to implementing caps. Not that it matters much to me as they're not available in my area anyway.. :)

Re: Bandwidth Limits - Comcast vs. Verizon FiOS/Cox/ATT

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:17:22 EDT

K Patterson : Moreover, I have never seen any restrictions such as:

"(Att at 50 gig, Cox cable at 150gig, and Verizon DSL at 200 gig)"

as posted by metal80772 above.

Re: Bandwidth Limits - Comcast vs. Verizon FiOS/Cox/ATT

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:57:43 EDT

aefstoggaflm :

said by sturmvogel :

quote:
If you look at the TOS with FIOS or any residential connection, you will notice that they all virtually have the same thing.

Could the poster please be so kind to show us a link where there is a cap specified on FiOS, I would like to see what it is.

Thank you.

From »www.verizon.net/policies/vzcom/tos_popup.asp

quote:
You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service.

But is does not say what that bandwidth usage limitation is (or are)...
--
Please use the "yellow (IM) envelope" to contact me and please leave the URL intact.

Bandwidth Limits - Comcast vs. Verizon FiOS/Cox/ATT

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:40:17 EDT

sturmvogel : "If you look at the TOS with FIOS or any residential connection, you will notice that they all virtually have the same thing. "

Could the poster please be so kind to show us a link where there is a cap specified on FiOS, I would like to see what it is.

Thank you.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Re: Warned for exceeding the cap, used 715G last month

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:55:35 EDT

metal80772 : That really does suck that you got flagged for that. I definitely do not agree with whole no bandwidth meter thing, but in all honesty...715gig? seriously? I can tell you that can ONLY be reached through your internet connection. Your high def programming, on-demand rentals, and anything other than internet does not have anything to do with your bandwidth cap.

I do have a question for you, have you contacted the comcast abuse techs? or did you only contact customer service? The abuse techs may be able to give you more insight on this.

Some FYI for everyone out there, the 250ish gig cap has Always been in place, it was just now put it in writing because of the FCC coming down on carriers for not putting a numeric figure towards they're abuse policy's. This is better than any other service cap out there (Att at 50 gig, Cox cable at 150gig, and Verizon DSL at 200 gig). One more thing, even if you had FIOS(or any residential internet service), i can PROMISE you that you would receive an abuse letter from them as well for 715gig.

Half the time comcast looks the other way when you exceed the bandwidth cap, its usually only brought up to you when you become a drain on the service. 715gig, would be a drain on any service. If you look at the TOS with FIOS or any residential connection, you will notice that they all virtually have the same thing.

Re: What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:47:08 EDT

nate1234 : You should make a web page or sticky'd topic that contains all of those IETF documents easily available, so we don't have to look through sub-threads.

It would be great :)

Re: M-Lab test results

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:30:50 EDT

dadkins :

Glad I could help! :)
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

Re: M-Lab test results

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:23:12 EDT

nate1234 : nevermind, thanks dadkins

Re: M-Lab test results

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:20:15 EDT

dadkins : Don't think that is being hosted on your computer - no chance of a DDOS... :)
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

Re: M-Lab test results

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:16:17 EDT

nate1234 : Ok, here it is, thanks Dadkins

Netalyzer results

Re: M-Lab test results

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:13:16 EDT

jlivingood :

said by EG :

In my experience, and with seeing many other posters with similar experiences here and at other forums, I do not put very much credence in to the reliabilty and accuracy of that, and of other NDT testing servers.

I agree with EG --> those tools are not the best.

As nate1234 says, give Netalyzer a try, which is really sharp.

»netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/
--
JL
Comcast

Re: M-Lab test results

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:05:20 EDT

nate1234 : ok. It does seem to increase during peak hours though. What about the ICSI Netalyzer? I dont think it does the same thing though

Re: M-Lab test results

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:02:12 EDT

EG : In my experience, and with seeing many other posters with similar experiences here and at other forums, I do not put very much credence in to the reliabilty and accuracy of that, and of other NDT testing servers.

M-Lab test results

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:47:25 EDT

nate1234 : The M-Lab Network Diagnostic Tool says:
S2C throughput test: Packet queuing detected: 39.47%
This connection is receiver limited 23.06% of the time.
This connection is network limited 76.75% of the time.
45 Mbps T3/DS3 link found. ( is this my connection, or one down the line?)

S2C throughput test: Packet queuing detected: 32.67%
This connection is receiver limited 62.82% of the time.
This connection is network limited 36.98% of the time.
45 Mbps T3/DS3 link found.

That is a pretty high percentage of packet queuing and network limited speed, don't you think?

From the first post in this topic

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:56:03 EDT

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.
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Google before you post

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:58:06 EDT
yt : While the Forum Search functionality is not that great, I recommend people use the "Site" function of Google to search before posting in this thread.

»www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en

Choose the words you are looking for (e.g. "cost of bandwidth") then "Search within a site or domain" = "www.dslreports.com"

What does comcast pay for 1GB of data transfer?

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:24:42 EDT
IPPlanMan : It would be great to know but I am sure it is some kind proprietary info.

msg deleted

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:21:43 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:14:47 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

What does comcast pay for 1GB of data transfer?

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:08:03 EDT
nate1234 : What does comcast pay for 1GB of data transfer?

msg deleted

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:06:32 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:00:22 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:57:34 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:53:34 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:47:49 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:37:42 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:36:50 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:29:36 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

If metered, What cost would you pay?

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:21:19 EDT
nate1234 : What cost per GB or 10GB would you pay?

msg deleted

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:08:09 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:00:48 EDT
nate1234 : how about like this:
"15% of the total amount of bandwidth you could use in a month"
you could increase the percentage over time
i.e.
50/10 Mb/s tier would get: 2.5 TB
22/5 Mb/s tier would get: 1 TB
16/2 Mb/s tier would get: .75 TB
12/2 Mb/s tier would get: .5 TB
8/2 Mb/s tier would get: .35 TB
6/1 Mb/s tier would get: .25 TB

Re: What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:43:26 EDT
IPPlanMan : I'll bet that by that time, 2TB will feel like 250GB... Seriously. Technology does not have a linear growth pattern. It grows exponentially.

Re: What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:36:55 EDT
funchords :
said by jlivingood :

So I'm also working on a 5-year bandwidth plan.... What d'ya think you want and need then? (seriously) ;-)

In 2014, assuming status quo capping
$40/mo, 50 Mbps/10 Mbps, up to 2 TB usage
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Metered billing system, discussed many times

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:36:12 EDT
IPPlanMan : Why not? Phone gas and electric are metered. Are you unhappy with that? If so, then tell them you don't want it.

Use more, pay more.

Metered billing system, discussed many times

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:33:37 EDT
nate1234 : I dont want metered billing...

Metered billing system, discussed many times

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:29:02 EDT
IPPlanMan : A metered billing system addresses this problem better than anything else. Why should someone who uses 2-3 GB a month be charged the same as someone who uses 90-100x that?

Power companies don't do that. If someone runs their A/C all the time, they pay for it. We all don't pay the same electric bill. Imagine the outrage if we did.
--
"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

Re: Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:57:04 EDT
yt :
said by funchords :

I don't think there was a point in time where
A) a content provider started pushing out data and
B) the event in "A" above resulted in a higher payment to the ISP from someone other than the ISP's customer (if even that)
It took me a while to understand this and let me repeat it to make sure I got it right. You are saying that there has never been a point in time where a content provider started sending traffic at increased levels that resulted in a higher payment to an ISP other than that customers ISP or an unrelated ISP from their respective customer.

If that is accurate, I would say you are correct. And this is made possible by trade balance between the respective ISPs. IOW I agree not to send more traffic to you than you send to me and therefor will not exploit our peering relationship. This breaks down a bit with P2P delivery or ISP C like tactics of selling other ISPs capacity at reduced rates.

While it sounds like you get the ISP to ISP dispute, this same concept holds true with Content suppliers. Bandwidth is not free and it is up to both Users AND Content to each pay their portion of the end to end capacity. If one party does things that shift those costs to the other, I would rather see the shift move from Users to Content and find ways to subsidize network growth via other means.

Current State: As usage increases, Users pay the same, ISPs may have more costs (depending on technology/capacity/etc), Content makes more money.

msg deleted

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:37:09 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: What is the capacity/month of a D2 line?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:34:01 EDT
sturmvogel :
said by nate1234 :

so what does 2% mean?

2% is considerably less than 10%.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Re: What is the capacity/month of a D2 line?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:18:52 EDT
nate1234 : nothing?

Re: What is the capacity/month of a D2 line?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:17:59 EDT
crese24 : What happens to the capacity that isn't used? Does Comcast resell it? or Does it rollover into the next month?

What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:45:50 EDT
nate1234 : Until you hit 100 Mb/s?

What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:44:43 EDT
EG :
said by nate1234 :

where does what end?

Keeping up with the *Joneses* ?? ;) :p

Re: What is the capacity/month of a D2 line?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:37:25 EDT
espaeth :
said by sturmvogel :

espaeth said "Generally caps try to address preventing individual users from exceeding a certain percentage of that total capacity. (ie, preventing a single user from consuming 10+% of total shared capacity)"
The last person to get the call used 715GB.

715/12312GB = 5.8%

Assuming there are 250 people per downstream channel (based on averages), on an equal divide, that's 1/250 or 0.4%

So you have someone who represented 0.4% of the paying subscribers on that segment consuming 5.8% of total capacity.

I don't believe the 250GB cap was ever meant to be a true bandwidth allocation per subscriber, it's simply a point at which to look at taking action to stop the bleeding.

What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:28:53 EDT
nate1234 : where does what end?

What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:28:19 EDT
EG : Where does it end... ?

What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:26:18 EDT
nate1234 : I agree. I think all packages should be symmetrical, and in 10mbps increments all the way to 100/100 or higher. 8 channels bonding both ways is probably a good idea. Maybe try to get it down to below 50 users per node, or go FTTH.

What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:22:51 EDT
Cjaiceman :
said by jlivingood :

So I'm also working on a 5-year bandwidth plan.... What d'ya think you want and need then? (seriously) ;-)

More upload. I'm actually happy with the 24mbps download I get now out of my 22/5, but I would be a lot more happy with a 25/25, which is easily done on D3 once upstream bonding is rolled out (and once the CMTS's get gold certs from Cable Labs). 50/50 would great and I would jump all over that. The only thing better would be 100/100, which would be a stretch on a D3 network, but could be done w/ 4 channels in each direction, but by then there may be 8x4, so 100/100 wouldn't even stress the download side with a lot of users on.

A basic residential user would be happy I think with a 20/10.
--
Duct tape is like The Force – it has a light side and a dark side, and it binds the Universe together

Re: What is the capacity/month of a D2 line?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:20:00 EDT
nate1234 : so what does 2% mean?

Re: What is the capacity/month of a D2 line?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:14:20 EDT
sturmvogel :
said by nate1234 :

It would be a slightly lower percentage, but what does that mean?

espaeth said "Generally caps try to address preventing individual users from exceeding a certain percentage of that total capacity. (ie, preventing a single user from consuming 10+% of total shared capacity)"
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:58:14 EDT
nate1234 : I think it would be a good idea to map out what kinds of speed was available 5 years ago, and make a graph showing the increase. Then make a trend line, and add 15-30%
Comcast could help pull America to the top of the average internet connection speed statistics.

"The median download speed increased by only four-tenths of a megabit per second (from 1.9 mbps to 2.3 mbps), and the median upload speed barely changed (from 371 to 435 kbps). At this rate, it will take the United States more than 100 years to catch up with current Internet speeds in Japan."

What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:51:04 EDT
jlivingood :
said by funchords :

I'm personally hopeful that Comcast is looking ahead at bringing the bandwidth instead of holding it off. Signs are that they have no taste for this scarcity game any longer. They want people who think big things about telecom to think good things about Comcast. They don't just want to be ruler, they want to be the elected ruler. I hope that's true.

[personal hat on]

I think it is, personally speaking. That's what we're doing with DOCSIS 3.0. But it is always a balance... We'll throw more and more downstream and more and more upstream capacity in the network, and then the apps have to sort of catch up a bit. You can't out-drive the headlights too much or in the end the finance guys call you on it and you have trouble justifying the investment. But that's also the nice part of our network design, is that the investments can be fairly incremental and understandable.

[personal hat off]

So I'm also working on a 5-year bandwidth plan.... What d'ya think you want and need then? (seriously) ;-)
--
JL
Comcast

Re: What is the capacity/month of a D2 line?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:42:26 EDT
nate1234 : It would be a slightly lower percentage, but what does that mean?

Re: What is the capacity/month of a D2 line?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:42:24 EDT
jlivingood :
said by espaeth :

Average subscribers per channel in 1999: 1000. Average subscribers per channel now: 250.

You can do the math from there.

Good point, and that trend will continue and get smaller and smaller over time.
--
JL
Comcast

Re: What is the capacity/month of a D2 line?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:34:22 EDT
sturmvogel : 250/10465 = 2.38%

Re: What is the capacity/month of a D2 line?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:31:55 EDT
K Patterson : The actual capacity is 43 something. The 38 is after the 15% so we're looking at 12,000 GBytes/month, or 48 users each consuming their 250GB "cap".

Re: What is the capacity/month of a D2 line?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:00:41 EDT
espaeth :
said by sturmvogel :

What is the capacity/month of a D2 line ?
38mbps * 60 sec/min * 60 min/hour * 24 hr/day * 30 days/month * 1byte/8bits = 12312 GB/mo. Factoring out 15% overhead: 10465GB/mo.

Average subscribers per channel in 1999: 1000. Average subscribers per channel now: 250.

You can do the math from there.

What is the capacity/month of a D2 line?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:51:42 EDT
sturmvogel : What is the capacity/month of a D2 line ?

If all use their limits at once, how does the cap help?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:43:17 EDT
espaeth :
said by neil0311 :

Right, so how does an overall bandwidth cap help? Every subscriber could limit their data usage to 10GB/month, but if they all access the network at the same time to do it, you have a problem.
Every person in a city could flush their toilet at exactly the same time and cause a problem with water pressure within a city as well -- in general these things don't happen. Sure it's possible, and you could engineer capacity to handle it, but in most cases it just unnecessarily increases the cost of the infrastructure.

Monthly caps don't directly address point in time congestion. Comcast, in particular, already has a system to do that. The monthly caps are more about total capacity not being unlimited for the month. Each network segment has the ability to transmit {x} GB over the course of the month based on segment interface speed. Generally caps try to address preventing individual users from exceeding a certain percentage of that total capacity. (ie, preventing a single user from consuming 10+% of total shared capacity) It's just not economically viable to have a subscriber who is contributing 0.5% of revenue for a segment generating 10-15% of the demand; the whole thing goes sideways if left unchecked. Monthly caps are not a perfect solution, but it's an exception process. The vast majority (99.99+%) of subscribers don't get anywhere close to the cap.

If all use their limits at once, how does the cap help?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:03:11 EDT
neil0311 :
said by espaeth :

You have to understand that with the topology under which networks are constructed, links are sized to meet demand so utilization does have a direct impact on costs.
Right, so how does an overall bandwidth cap help? Every subscriber could limit their data usage to 10GB/month, but if they all access the network at the same time to do it, you have a problem.

Re: Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:14:37 EDT
yt :
said by funchords :

I kinda get that when it's two transit providers who are fighting. But it never makes sense to me when one end is an ISP responsible for generating both the outgoing request and the incoming result.

There is still an end to end cost of carrying bits. Instead of $/Mb think $/Mb/Mile. To further complicate this, understand that some miles cost more than other miles (e.g. last mile).

If I am ISP A and I carry content 100 Miles to my peer ISP B who then carries it 500 miles… AND I am the one that is paid for it as the Transit provider for that content, then I make out better. However, that same ISP B has situations where they carry it 100 miles and I carry it 500 miles (this is how hot-potato routing works). If both ISPs have a fairly balanced ratio of in vs out traffic then both have equal cost burden and the system is fair. This is how it use to work.

Now we have ISP C that likes the 100 mile part and sells bandwidth cheaper (because they only have to carry it 100 miles). They undercut the cost and take the other ISPs business. Traffic goes imbalanced as one ISP is exploiting the others. ISP C is now so big that depeering is a major disruptor.

Make sense so far?

Now to the next phase. Content goes to ISP C and says I will connect to the same router port as you are connected to ISP A and ISP B and your costs go from 100 miles to 10 meters. Wow… sounds great for ISP C and Content. ISP A and B however have to carry that traffic 500+ miles and lose revenue to ISP C unless they sell for possibly below cost to carry. Traffic goes even more imbalanced and balance of cost/revenue no longer exists. The ISPs carrying the traffic the shortest distance, sell the most for the least. Good for Content. Good for ISP C. Not so good for ISP A and B.

Content then goes to ISP A and B and says peer with me.

Re: Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:06:36 EDT
espaeth :
said by funchords :

I have some basic networking knowledge. More bits or less bits = same cost. It's capacity (idle or not) that drives costs. The rest is just power.
You have to understand that with the topology under which networks are constructed, links are sized to meet demand so utilization does have a direct impact on costs.

Take a data center access model. In a Cisco Catalyst 6509 chassis you get 9 slots to work with, 2 slots are occupied by supervisors (the 'brains' of the switch), and the other 7 slots can be used for line cards. The backplane capacity is 40gbps per slot. Say you are building out a data center of servers all attaching in with GigE links, all plugging into WS-X6748-GE-TX line cards which provide 48 ports of attachment with a 40Gig slot attachment (1.2:1 oversubscribed). That's great for attachment, but the network is only useful if you can go somewhere, so you install a WS-X6704 4 port 10GigE module to attach that switch into an upstream distribution switch, which attaches to the core. So you end up with 6 x 48 (288) edge ports of attachment and 4 x 10GigE ports of upstream attachment.

This works great until some application comes along that drastically changes the traffic you see out of the infrastructure -- say something like database replication to diverse locations for site failure survivability that drives your demand to 60Gbps leaving the access switch. Now you're stuck with a problem -- you haven't increased the link speed on any server, but now utilization causes a change in architecture. You need to setup a new switch chassis (complete with expensive supervisors and power supplies) with yet another 10GigE line card for uplinks and 48 port line cards for server attachment, you need to migrate servers from the existing switch over to it so that you can reduce some of the bandwidth demand and also free up slot capacity to install another 10GigE line card. This additional capacity often drives expansion of the hardware at the distribution layer, which may need to be broken out into even more switches, which also pushes expansion upwards to the core layer as well.

How does this relate to the cable plant? Node splits for capacity require additional CMTS ports, which drives the need for more CMTS chassis, which drives the need for distribution upgrades, etc.

Oversubscription is what makes modern networks work. I'm not just talking data networks, because voice networks use the same model. There are events such as natural disasters which cause phone networks to become overloaded; they could be sized such that such a limit could not be reached, but most people would never be able to afford phones if that were the case.

said by funchords :

And since Moore's law (1995 150 MHz CPU $1500 500 MB RAM 40 GB HDD; 2009 3000 MHz CPU $200 3000 MB RAM 500 GB HDD) indicates that growth ought to come for free or even at a discount, I am persuaded that there are some non-market forces at work here.
Moore's law applies to manufacturing densities, such as the quantity of transistors per chip or the density of storage on a magnetic platter. It applies to items where improvements in manufacturing process can be used to produce gains in performance or storage density.

I/O rates aren't governed by manufacturing process -- they're governed by the coding methods used to deliver signals, the physical media used for the communication, and the laws of physics. Hard drives are a great example, because while the increase in quantity follows Moore's law, the increase in sustained transfer rates from the drives or reduction in seek times do not.

The overall costs of providing network expansion are not going down. The CMTS ports are likely dropping a bit in price, and there are some gains to be had in head-end distribution technology improvements. Those costs tend to be the smallest dollar figure in any expansion anyway. The cost of labor continues to be more expensive, copper material costs have gone up, fiber material costs have gone up, and energy costs have continued to rise. (Energy is a double hit, because hardware that sucks down power must be cooled) A node split that requires the trenching of new fiber and re-engineering of the gain structure on the RF cable plant is more expensive today than it was even 5 years ago. That's why I believe Comcast is focusing so much on Project Cavalry, because money spent on reclaiming frequency space on the existing plant delivers far more value than simply throwing money at node splits.

Re: Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:54:30 EDT
yt :
said by funchords :

Nothing has changed, here, and there's plenty of competition (and low costs) in the transit space. The rates of year/over/year growth are actually lower in the past 5 years than the decade or so before that.

The competitive landscape in Transit is what has changed. There are more ISPs that exploit their peering relationships to "sell" other ISPs networks at below cost and Content uses arbitrage to exacerbate this. I partially described this issue in another thread and below.

In the past, imbalance was addressed through depeering. Some "bad players" today carry enough content (imbalanced) that a depeering event would cause major disruption and, again, one of the reasons the peering environment is not working well for today's Internet.

said by funchords :

Again, this being the Comcast area, it's almost not fair because Comcast is halfway through a technology upgrade that renders the whole conversation moot.

You are mixing up base infrastructure, with capacity growth. One is a major forklift to set the stage for growth and the other is incremental spend to enable the capacity. An example of this is DOCSIS3 and FTTH. Both of these allow the speeds and capacity to grow, but they don't enable readily available capacity. That still comes at a cost including all the access ports, metro interconnects, metro, core and interconnect infrastructure.

said by funchords :

I'm personally hopeful that Comcast is looking ahead at bringing the bandwidth instead of holding it off. Signs are that they have no taste for this scarcity game any longer. They want people who think big things about telecom to think good things about Comcast. They don't just want to be ruler, they want to be the elected ruler. I hope that's true.

I agree. All signs point in that direction. Speeds continue to grow. "Bad things" have stopped. Technology is pushed forward...

It is important however to watch ALL the changes. Are the statistics trending the same as the past or very different? Understand how this is not just an ISP issue and the expectation should be that everyone ensures proper funding for bits end to end. Keep a watch out for what happens around the Internet and not just one part of it.

Re: Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:18:12 EDT
funchords :
said by yt :

The Internet peering world was original built on balance of trade. Ratios have business merit as the network has a cost to carry. Always had, always will. The difference is ISPs have evolved and some have capitalized on ratio imbalance to "dump" traffic at the expense of the receiver. There have been some very public de-peering events related to this.

I kinda get that when it's two transit providers who are fighting. But it never makes sense to me when one end is an ISP responsible for generating both the outgoing request and the incoming result.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Re: Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:13:28 EDT
funchords :
said by yt :

said by funchords :

I've never seen this "incremental revenue" of which you speak. It's never existed.
Perhaps you misunderstand my statement. 95%ile billing on commercial transit has been around since the 90's. The more used, the more spent.

I don't think there was a point in time where
A) a content provider started pushing out data and
B) the event in "A" above resulted in a higher payment to the ISP from someone other than the ISP's customer (if even that)

Nothing has changed, here, and there's plenty of competition (and low costs) in the transit space. The rates of year/over/year growth are actually lower in the past 5 years than the decade or so before that.

Again, this being the Comcast area, it's almost not fair because Comcast is halfway through a technology upgrade that renders the whole conversation moot. But take the clock back 18-36 months ago and it really applies: there exists fiber to the home and it's wonderful. We have a legacy, leaky cable system that can only rightfully sell approximately 4 Mbps/256 Kbps connections without users draining the pooled bandwidth DOCSIS creates. Oh yeah, and we want to get into the voice business so we need to take back some bandwidth for that. Solution -- quietly kick off the big users and attack the big technologies (Sandvine RSTs) and jack up the modem speeds so we look more capable than we actually are. They did that and got busted for both. In the meantime, we actually learned the data that showed that bandwidth growth is not so bad.

In the past 18 months, more and more studios have put their stuff online for free or for cheap. This has further reduced file-sharing's uptake. They've probably also seen that improved capacity means that all those transfers actually do have an end -- the baseline amount of background traffic is probably not growing as fast as it used to be.

I'm personally hopeful that Comcast is looking ahead at bringing the bandwidth instead of holding it off. Signs are that they have no taste for this scarcity game any longer. They want people who think big things about telecom to think good things about Comcast. They don't just want to be ruler, they want to be the elected ruler. I hope that's true.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Re: Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:59:35 EDT
yt :
said by funchords :

I've seen this play out time and time again -- 1988, 1995, 2000, 2003, and 2007 where the demand curve hits the technology step-function due to growth, images, music, and now high-res video.
Again, my point was not "can we keep up". It was to point out that the Funding model of high-bandwidth growth is different as ISPs have evolved, CDNs grew, and the peering/transit business model is about 20 years old. Combine that with speeds have never grown this fast, transit prices have never dropped this fast for Content and it is something interesting to experience.

This is a different perspective of the issue. While it is good to judge the future based on our past experiences, we should watch for the variables in the equation.

Re: Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:59:13 EDT
yt :
said by funchords :

Peering gets the middleman and his bills out of the way. ISPs ought to do it regardless of any balance, because balance just doesn't matter.
That is a common statement by most Content/CDN folks. While it may be true for small ISPs that outsource most of their network costs to transit ISPs, it is not true for larger ISPs that built and support national/international infrastructures. Once you dig a bit deeper, most understand that network growth has cost as much as system growth has costs. Content folks do get this. They just don't want to talk about it.

The Internet peering world was original built on balance of trade. Ratios have business merit as the network has a cost to carry. Always had, always will. The difference is ISPs have evolved and some have capitalized on ratio imbalance to "dump" traffic at the expense of the receiver. There have been some very public de-peering events related to this.

Re: Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:58:20 EDT
yt :
said by funchords :

I have some basic networking knowledge. More bits or less bits = same cost. It's capacity (idle or not) that drives costs. The rest is just power.
While it is true there is no incremental cost if there is available capacity. Most networks build throughout each year to keep up with capacity demand. This equals more power, as well as, more router cards, optical transponders, chassis, space, fiber, cross connects, installation costs, etc. As you stated and have stated before, this is nothing new. But it is not "just power".

What is new is the change of the two payer system for network needs to a one payer system as well as a few other interesting trends around recent broadband speed curve, transit prices, and video/high-bandwidth applications. Again, not calling exaflood, but something to watch closely and not dismiss out of hand.

said by funchords :

The facts you cite seem to forget that the source ends must build for capacity or move data closer to the edges at their own cost. .
Good point, but I was focused on the network side. Content and CDNs garner their incremental revenue based on usage and Content also has ad-based variable usage revenue. The more used, the more $$... In the past this also held true for their network usage, but my point is that is changing.

said by funchords :

I've never seen this "incremental revenue" of which you speak. It's never existed.
Perhaps you misunderstand my statement. 95%ile billing on commercial transit has been around since the 90's. The more used, the more spent. I meant the transit cost of Content vs any incremental user charges (in a two party payer system)

msg deleted

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:52:30 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:48:22 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:31:20 EDT
funchords :
said by yt :

I'm concerned about the traffic growth and while I won't offer free peering, as I have all the network costs, I will offer you the same or lower rate for transit that you pay now

quote:
If you won't peer with me, I will use your most expensive transit provider and they will make money off of you.

or

I will connect to the same router port as you and your peer and pay them small amounts unless you peer with me. (Given the costs of a port vs the full end to end costs are small, the intermediate provider can do this. This is one of the reasons the existing Internet peering environment is a mess. NOTE: Depeering is messy and not a simple solution to this)

IOW:

I will not pay you the same amount I would pay an intermediate provider even though you carry the bits end to end and they just offer 1 router hop.

All of these shifts have the potential to move the cost of high-bandwidth traffic growth from Content, to the Consumer.

"The amount of traffic being routed through my most expensive transit provider is going to be proportionately small. The net effect is that your customers are going to become frustrated with your site because it will be slow. If they call me, I'll blame it on your transit provider because they're the ones with the unattractive connectivity costs."

Who is jerking who around? There's nothing non-neutral about that (before anyone says there is).

You can say "I don't care, I buy bandwidth from my ISP", "Just upgrade your network", but the reality is bandwidth has been a two party payer system and the business plan for high-bandwidth apps does not fit well with the legacy Tier based transit / ISP system.
If the speed and capacity of our network grew in step with technological advances, I might be more sympathetic. But the fact is that around the world, high-speed users are getting more and paying less for it. Our claim to fame on the worldwide stage is the highest bills. We're even going backward -- from unlimited to limited.

If you're tired of the chant, "Just upgrade your network," then tough! It works, and it's what we're going to do! I've seen this play out time and time again -- 1988, 1995, 2000, 2003, and 2007 where the demand curve hits the technology step-function due to growth, images, music, and now high-res video. All the bitching, filtering, caching, clustering, pushing, pulling all eventually leads to a point where the network grows and the pain goes away for a while and we have a few years of wondering "what will ever fill these pipes now? was this a big waste?"
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Re: Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:19:08 EDT
funchords :
said by yt :

Broadband ISP - Not sure I should peer with you as I have all the network costs"

quote:
We both pay for transit, so why don't we just peer

Because any transit savings for the broadband ISP are for current or existing traffic. Unlimited free (for Content) bandwidth has the potential of large end to end, unexpected, growth costs of infrastructure. These new costs no longer have a growth funding source and the costs have moved to the consumer.

Unbalanced peering traffic growth is not mutually beneficial and is an enabler which brings with it large unfunded costs.

We're talking about ISPs here who get money from their consumers for X Mbps up and Y Mbps down. These consumers request all the data coming in the download direction and generate all the traffic in the upload direction. As long as they work within their budget of X Mbps up and Y Mbps down, then their unlimited ISP ought to leave them alone or set a limit Z (booo but okay). If they want more than X and Y and Z, then they can pay comparatively more than those that want less.

Peering gets the middleman and his bills out of the way. ISPs ought to do it regardless of any balance, because balance just doesn't matter. It's an access provider -- it's generally going to have more coming down than going up, but the source of all the activity is that provider's customers.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Re: Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:04:51 EDT
funchords : I have some basic networking knowledge. More bits or less bits = same cost. It's capacity (idle or not) that drives costs. The rest is just power.

The facts you cite seem to forget that the source ends must build for capacity or move data closer to the edges at their own cost. They don't just wake up one morning with a plan to jerk ISPs around, nor can they push their bits onto ISPs without some user requesting the content in the first place.

I've never seen this "incremental revenue" of which you speak. It's never existed. Someone is trying to invent it by "monetizing" my activity. I already pay a premium rate over per-hour or flat-rate dial-up service. And since Moore's law (1995 150 MHz CPU $1500 500 MB RAM 40 GB HDD; 2009 3000 MHz CPU $200 3000 MB RAM 500 GB HDD) indicates that growth ought to come for free or even at a discount, I am persuaded that there are some non-market forces at work here.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

msg deleted

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:01:49 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:41:09 EDT
yt :
said by funchords :

I have examples of caps and metering crushing businesses, but nobody with a 250 GB-ish soft cap, Comcast is a bit unique in this area.
There are probably just as many, or more, examples of successful broadband businesses that grew under "invisible caps" and since.
said by funchords :

The specter of the nation's largest residential ISP having a static cap year after year means that anyone who does have a 3-5 year outlook on their high-bandwidth project is not likely to fund the investment. I know that, you know that, but we don't know that it has -- in fact -- already happened.

Part of the problem is funding the Usage. I think most with some basic network knowledge understand that bits cost money. More bits = more costs. Most also understand that in a Consumer flat-fee billing model, the light+medium fund the majority of heavy users and the costs wash out. The ultra-heavy are a bit different (see ad-nauseum previous discussions on this).

What few understand is that the current Internet transit/peering model does not actually fund high-bandwidth Usage properly.

[Below is mostly from a previous post in another thread]

There is a calculate shift by Content and CDNs to move their high-bandwidth growth costs to the ISPs (and in turn the Consumer). The cost of traffic growth around next gen high-bandwidth apps is something Content and CDNs, obviously, want to pay as little as possible for. Most of the time they pay an intermediate provider that doesn't actually carry the traffic any distance. If the source of traffic no longer pays their network share for the growth, or the broadband carrier that has the majority of the costs is not funded by Usage, there is a challenge. (Please read on before you call me Ed Whitacre)

Examples like ESPN360 may be the future and it is unclear if this is good or not. Also the BBC iPlayer over P2P or the BBC PR campaign to force multicast peering. This gives the BBC unlimited free access and all the end to end traffic growth costs are pushed to the broadband ISPs without incremental revenue that was previously obtained (by someone) via Content transit. While Content may not have paid that specific broadband ISP directly, with peering ratio balance requirements, this typically can wash out as a balance of trade.

The major CDNs and major Content distributors have very creative ways to cause ISPs pain and manipulate peering relationships to either gain peering (typically with smaller broadband w/ transit costs) or exploit an intermediary ISPs peering relationship with a broadband ISP. Two examples were above, and the below quoted blocks are what Content providers are stating:

Broadband ISP - Not sure I should peer with you as I have all the network costs"

quote:
We both pay for transit, so why don't we just peer

Because any transit savings for the broadband ISP are for current or existing traffic. Unlimited free (for Content) bandwidth has the potential of large end to end, unexpected, growth costs of infrastructure. These new costs no longer have a growth funding source and the costs have moved to the consumer.

Unbalanced peering traffic growth is not mutually beneficial and is an enabler which brings with it large unfunded costs.

I'm concerned about the traffic growth and while I won't offer free peering, as I have all the network costs, I will offer you the same or lower rate for transit that you pay now

quote:
If you won't peer with me, I will use your most expensive transit provider and they will make money off of you.

or

I will connect to the same router port as you and your peer and pay them small amounts unless you peer with me. (Given the costs of a port vs the full end to end costs are small, the intermediate provider can do this. This is one of the reasons the existing Internet peering environment is a mess. NOTE: Depeering is messy and not a simple solution to this)

IOW:

I will not pay you the same amount I would pay an intermediate provider even though you carry the bits end to end and they just offer 1 router hop.

All of these shifts have the potential to move the cost of high-bandwidth traffic growth from Content, to the Consumer.

You can say "I don't care, I buy bandwidth from my ISP", "Just upgrade your network", but the reality is bandwidth has been a two party payer system and the business plan for high-bandwidth apps does not fit well with the legacy Tier based transit / ISP system.

msg deleted

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:40:56 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:25:51 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

Again, opinion cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:43:30 EDT
funchords :
said by IPPlanMan :

Isn't it doing that already?

There are plenty of other uses for the Internet besides VOD.

The cap is creating an effective data squeeze here, exacerbated by the fact that there is no accurate meter available.

How would we know?

I have examples of caps and metering crushing businesses, but nobody with a 250 GB-ish soft cap, Comcast is a bit unique in this area.

The specter of the nation's largest residential ISP having a static cap year after year means that anyone who does have a 3-5 year outlook on their high-bandwidth project is not likely to fund the investment. I know that, you know that, but we don't know that it has -- in fact -- already happened.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Traffic Control For The Remainder Of Topic, Please Read

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:49:19 EDT
sortofageek :
said by espaeth :

We've covered this ground earlier in the thread here: »Comcast vs. Cablevision caps

Check out the first post in this thread -- sortofageek has invested quite a bit of effort in summarizing out the various topics.

It's to the point now where "Round and Round" by Ratt should start playing when you click on this thread.

In fairness to all forum participants, as I have heard from so many, the repetition of the circular debates has been dizzying and tiring. It has long been obvious continuing this repetition is only important to a couple of people and I really believe we have given you guys a fair length of time to express your views.

In regard to my links in the first post, yes, I have really tried to rename subtopics and provide those links. I always welcome suggestions if I miss some which should be included. I had two reasons for doing that: (1) to help people searching for info and (2) to help a couple of you find the previous discussions so, hopefully, you would not feel the need to repeat, so that your views were not really buried and you could see they are still accessible.

To those who really would like to see the repetition end, when you see it, heymod the post and give me a link to where it was discussed previously. While even a rantlike complaint is allowed in this forum, to a point, pounding us with it repeatedly just needs to stop.
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:48:33 EDT
IPPlanMan : I think that subthread has been overlooked in certain respects.

DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:26:55 EDT
espaeth :
said by IPPlanMan :

If so, and i am not sure if there's anything to indicate that. But if so, think they're higher than 250GB?
Cablevision has a well documented history of throttling connections of heavy users. If you get throttled to the point that you can't transmit more than a certain amount of bits across the wire, it's essentially coming down to the same thing as a bandwidth cap.

We've covered this ground earlier in the thread here: »Comcast vs. Cablevision caps

Check out the first post in this thread -- sortofageek has invested quite a bit of effort in summarizing out the various topics.

It's to the point now where "Round and Round" by Ratt should start playing when you click on this thread.

DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:14:04 EDT
IPPlanMan : If so, and i am not sure if there's anything to indicate that. But if so, think they're higher than 250GB?

What effect does the footprint have?

What's kept Comcast from adjusting its ratios?

DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:53:34 EDT
yt :
said by IPPlanMan :

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Your facts were correct, but I think the point you were trying to make was not valid. Just because one company does something under their current variables and needs, does not mean all will make the same business decisions at the same time.

My .02: I think this thread has digressed into yourself and sturmvogel agreeing with each other about why you are both upset at Comcast. I think we all get it. Are there any new topics that have not been raised (or beat to death?)

DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:52:43 EDT
espaeth :
said by IPPlanMan :

How is this possible? Again, no caps on a Docsis 3.0 system...
No published caps.

said by IPPlanMan :

What is so different about Comcast that they cannot do this on their Docsis 3.0 tiers?
Different subscriber:channel ratios on the DOCSIS plant, and a vastly different service footprint.

DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:46:27 EDT
IPPlanMan : I'm not sure what you're getting at.

DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:41:15 EDT
yt :
said by IPPlanMan :

It shows that it is technically possible.

Many things are technically possible. Should all businesses do everything that is technically possible?

DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:29:53 EDT
IPPlanMan : Cablevision makes it at least 2 companies that can do this. I am sure that there are more.

It shows that it is technically possible.

DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:26:27 EDT
yt :
said by IPPlanMan :

What is so different about Comcast that they cannot do this?

Are you implying that because one company makes an "at this time" business decision, all companies should operate under the same business decision?

Mod Note: Did this thread lose a sticky?

DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:21:21 EDT
IPPlanMan : How is this possible? Again, no caps on a Docsis 3.0 system...

»twitter.com/midconews/status/2420466717
»West Fargo Gets DOCSIS 3.0 Before Manhattan

Just like cablevision, as was discussed earlier...

What is so different about Comcast that they cannot do this on their Docsis 3.0 tiers?
--
"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

DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:06:28 EDT
nate1234 : Wow... In my neighborhood (where everyone has comcast, and at least 125 homes are served off of one node) One bonded channel would only allow for 100 GB per person per month... but w/ 4 bonded channels that goes to 400 GB per home, and then doubles again with 8 channels.

DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:40:57 EDT
espaeth :
said by IPPlanMan :

So far, we're going to have Docsis 3.0 with the same Caps.
Not all areas have been upgraded to DOCSIS 3.

Greatest common divisor is the easiest approach when setting the policy, considering 99.99+% of the subscriber base won't be affected by it.

A 38mbps DOCSIS channel cannot move more than 12312GB/mo. When you factor out overhead and CDV bandwidth, the HSI share is still divided out across approximately 250 users per channel today. If you do the math, it's not possible to support every user hitting 250GB.

Over time that will improve, but you have to keep in mind that network expansion is done over years, not months.

Again, opinion cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:40:31 EDT
sturmvogel :
said by funchords :

If it does prevent competitive VOD options from reaching critical mass, then such a cap should be heavily scrutinized -- intent or no.

It already prevented it for me.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Again, opinion cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:40:20 EDT
IPPlanMan : Isn't it doing that already?

There are plenty of other uses for the Internet besides VOD.

The cap is creating an effective data squeeze here, exacerbated by the fact that there is no accurate meter available.

Again, opinion cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:30:16 EDT
funchords :
said by IPPlanMan :

That would be great. But I have feeling that the cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options from reaching critical mass.

To me, the question is only partially about intent. If it does prevent competitive VOD options from reaching critical mass, then such a cap should be heavily scrutinized -- intent or no.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Again, opinion cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:27:08 EDT
IPPlanMan : That would be great. But I have feeling that the cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options from reaching critical mass.

So far, we're going to have Docsis 3.0 with the same Caps. What comes next and when? We've already had the analog shutoff.

It seems to me that Comcast's approach to competitive VOD is to have a cap. No matter, Comcast has it's own revenue generating VOD and premium channels.

Verizon is happy to sell you TV but they are not trying to channel their userbase the same way or threatened by competitive VOD services.

Re: Cable internet may be the dying tehchology

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:12:33 EDT
espaeth :
said by IPPlanMan :

Interesting... It may come to that.

Makes me wonder if Comcast has any similar ground-up plans.
Doubtful.

When you look at it, FiOS is really a HFC system with the only difference being the node is at each house. The handoff within each residence is a coax cable -- the TV is distributed within the home using standard QAM over coax delivery so you can use a TiVo or a VZ-provided cable box that can do on-demand. The handoff to the router can be either Cat5 from the ONT or it can also use the MoCA transport over coax.

For the cable system they can keep adding capacity without residential dispatch by continuing to reclaim analog channel space and performing node splits to reduce the number of homes per RF segment. The capacity of the DOCSIS plant can actually match or exceed that of GPON networks if they did the same 16 homes per node scaling, especially if they were aggressive in converting over to switched digital video in each of the segments.

The HFC cable plant is a long way from dead.

Re: Cable internet may be the dying tehchology

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:57:41 EDT
nate1234 : Thats the great thing, its not ground up! they already have 80% of the infrastructure!

Re: Cable internet may be the dying tehchology

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:55:50 EDT
IPPlanMan : Interesting... It may come to that.

Makes me wonder if Comcast has any similar ground-up plans.

Re: Cable internet may be the dying tehchology

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:44:06 EDT
nate1234 : I agree, but since cable is already FTTN, it is easy and cheap to upgrade the: nodes, head ends and cables to go FTTH.

Check this out:
Method for upgrading and converting a coaxial cable with a fiber optic cable
Here is what they could use
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUBRjiVhJTs&fmt=18
Abstract:
A communications system including an initially installed coaxial cable may be readily upgraded by installing a fiber optic cable therein. The coaxial cable has an empty longitudinal channel extending continuously along substantially the entire length thereof. A propellable fiber optic cable is later installed in the channel by a fluid flow which creates a sufficient drag to advance the fiber optic cable into the channel. The fiber optic cable is installed to meet increasing communications demands or when otherwise desired. The coaxial cable may include an empty electrically conductive tube serving as the center conductor for later receipt therein of the fiber optic cable. In other embodiments, the coaxial cable may have a channel provided in a dielectric material between the center and outer conductors, or a channel formed in the outer protective jacket.

They pull the copper and metal out of the plastic sheath, and then shoot fiber through, pretty neat!

Also:
Method for upgrading a hybrid fiber coax network to an all fiber network

Abstract:
Disclosed is a method for making the transition from a hybrid network into an all fiber network. In the preferred embodiment, the first step is to replace an existing fiber optic/coaxial cable conversion device located at a remote node with an optic distribution device. Secondly, a house optical network unit is installed in a living unit. Finally, a downstream optic fiber is installed between the optic distribution device and the house optical network unit.

Cable internet may be the dying tehchology

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:38:43 EDT
IPPlanMan : You said:
"Yes. Dying technology."

Based on Espaeth's most excellent post, it seems to me that Cable Internet might actually be the dying technology that you say DSL is.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:30:15 EDT
espaeth :
said by IPPlanMan :

Is Verizon better able to handle the cost of bandwidth because of the company's size/structure/market position/history?
Verizon is benefiting from simply being the most recent company to do a multi-billion dollar infrastructure overhaul. They are pumping $23 billion into FiOS through 2010, and that only covers conversion of a portion of their total US service footprint.

The key driver behind FiOS is allowing Verizon to compete in bundled services (ie, the voice/video/data triple play). On their twisted-pair infrastructure with DSL they couldn't compete with MSOs on speed, they couldn't compete with phone features (largely due to PUC regulation on POTS infrastructure), and they could only offer video by partnering with satellite providers. Obviously the video margins are smaller with a satellite partner because both companies need to share the marginal profit.

So, in deploying FiOS Verizon is able to:

•Directly compete in Video services, including on-demand video
•Compete with MSO high speed Internet offerings
•Convert legacy POTS customers to internal VoIP allowing them to reduce maintenance costs on legacy circuit-switched TDM hardware (Nortel DMS-250 / Lucent 5ESS) by reducing in-service footprint and port density.

The payoff for FiOS is growth in revenue per subscriber by being able to offer more services, combined with the benefits of reduced maintenance costs.

The cable companies made a similar multi-billion dollar investment in the late 90's to jump from broadcast cable to the hybrid fiber-coax infrastructure that is in place today. For them the driver was enhanced video on demand, and developing a data product that could compete with DSL. Phone service became an unexpected bonus of the system after it was deployed. The limitations on DOCSIS are largely due to having to fit into existing infrastructure (ie, RF channel spacing) whereas FiOS is a complete ground-up redesign.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:23:44 EDT
koshoka :
said by IPPlanMan :

Dying technology?
Yes. Dying technology. Verizon is not spending $25 billion or so to upgrade infrastructure because they think it's fun.

If you dissect the cable coming into your house it is copper.
Are you seriously suggesting that all copper wire is the same?
--
*******
Disclaimer: I am a Comcast employee. Any statements are my own and should not be construed as official Comcast communications.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:08:39 EDT
K Patterson : Part of Verizon's history is the use of net protocols such as ATM that are less suitable for data than IP. Going to an IP network is a major issue for them (and ATT).

Speaking of copper, in Columbus ATT has upgraded many areas to neighborhood concentrators and they are pulling up miles of coax from their ducts. At least one downtown switching office is now condos.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:04:46 EDT
K Patterson :
said by IPPlanMan :

Comcast's is capped. Verizon's "dying" technology is not.

Read Verizon's AUP. Itis just as "capped" as Comcast. They just don't specify a number, just that you can be terminated for excessive usage, either web or email.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:02:58 EDT
IPPlanMan : Is Verizon better able to handle the cost of bandwidth because of the company's size/structure/market position/history?

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:56:26 EDT
funchords :
said by yt :

FiOS is in early customer acquisition mode and I expect they would not rule out having a cap or threshold as there is a point where a residential user consuming 250G+ starts costing more than their monthly bill brings in. This is known as a "loss leader".

I think espaeth characterized it best when he called it a "stop loss."
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:55:33 EDT
funchords :
said by yt :

said by IPPlanMan :

Does Verizon have a more efficient cost structure than Comcast with respect to Internet or are there other factors?
I wouldn't say that. Fiber has a longer lifespan than HFC, but right now it is more marketing as DOCSIS3/HFC can deliver the service needed as well as FTTH can.

I think I spot the marketing, but it's more in the word "needed" than anywhere else.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:50:32 EDT
IPPlanMan :
said by koshoka :

They are taking a loss now because their current copper infrastructure is a dying technology.

Dying technology?
If you dissect the cable coming into your house it is copper.

Seems to me that Verizon is unloading itself of the "dying" technology while Comcast is not making the same efforts. Verizon's implementation of this dying technology actually provides better service to the customer in some respects, especially where usage is concerned.

You can get a 1MB line from Comcast on the economy tier and one from Verizon. Both are about the same price. Comcast's is capped. Verizon's "dying" technology is not.

DSL still has a lot to offer us in that respect.
--
"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

Re: Is this the Comcast Congestion Mgmt mechanism?

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:33:53 EDT
IPPlanMan : What comes after Docsis 3.0?

Verizon Fios and even DSL to a certain degree seem to have a huge technical advantage going forward in terms of capacity for use, aside from speed. I have a feeling that Comcast will be left behind if they are not careful.

I asked this above but it wasn't directly answered: is bandwidth for Comcast's service more expensive than it is for Verizon's DSL service or Fios?

What is Verizon's competitive advantage if any over Comcast?
--
"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

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:09:38 EDT
koshoka : They are taking a loss now because their current copper infrastructure is a dying technology.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:34:55 EDT
anon : What you are not seeing though on "verizon's loosing $769 per household" is the amount of overhead they are slashing on the outside plant side. Yea it is very expensive to put in a new plant, but the cost of maintaining the new fiber plant is 80% less than the old 2 pair.

Once the network is overbuilt in a few years they will be able to bring cost containment into focus and cut the cost down several hundred dollars.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:29:39 EDT
K Patterson : It cost money to be an ISP, or to be in any other sort of business. Comcast does not want to lose money on customers that download/upload excessive (defined by their rules, their network) amounts of data. They limit the amount that customers can use for that reason.

Some fast foods restaurants keep the ketchup and mustard behind the counter and hand it out one or two packets at a time for the same reason. There are other obvious examples.

msg deleted

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:48:16 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:34:45 EDT
crese24 : K patterson said: if you limit the amount of traffic you limit the amount of money you have to spend on system expansion.

Hey, are you saying comcast doesn't want to upgrade capacity? I don't quite get what you mean. Explain in more detail.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:01:50 EDT
AVonGauss : I think at a certain point, you will see the "speed wars" abate and more emphasis placed on delivery techniques and customer experience / services. What is often neglected in conversations regarding speed / capacity is that the Internet, by its definition, is also a shared resource. What matters more than speed (such as seen by a speed test) is that the service does what you want, when you want. If I click on a movie, I want to watch the movie now or if I need to download a Linux ISO, I want it to download expeditiously with little or no waiting.

Does that mean I need a gigabit connection? Perhaps, I don't know, but I am pretty sure as a residential consumer that I don't always need that gigabit allocation of bandwidth. Even with FTTH, which I strongly support, there will always be the need to effectively manage resources . In my opinion, the methods and techniques that will be successful are those that are barely, if at all, noticed.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:56:17 EDT
nate1234 : and you still cant! Their is overhead. We may eventually see a 200mbps internet service, but the article says that even if they can provided you with a 200mbps internet connection doesn't mean you can consistently download at that speed. (due to congestion, small pipe size at peering stations...etc)

Re: Is this the Comcast Congestion Mgmt mechanism?

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:00:45 EDT
jlivingood :
said by rhapsody :

So, I have a question.

I've noticed after I download 3-4gigs, my modem will go toast. The only way to get back online and surf the internet is to restart the modem.

Is this comcast's congestion management mechanism? maybe I have a faulty modem.

My DSL never does this.

Sounds like an issue with your modem or home gateway. When the congestion management system changes your priority from Priority Best Effort (PBE) to Best Effort (BE), a restart of your cable modem won't reset it back to PBE. (it is persistent through modem reboots)
--
JL
Comcast

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:58:32 EDT
Cabal :
said by nate1234 :

"Why you'll never see 200Mbps from a 200Mbps 'Net connection"
People said that about 10 Mbps (LAN equivalent!) Internet connections 10 years ago.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:16:21 EDT
nate1234 : Ars Technica has a good article on congestion and speed:
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···slow.ars

"Why you'll never see 200Mbps from a 200Mbps 'Net connection"

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:37:34 EDT
K Patterson :
said by IPPlanMan :

Reduce the need to expand the network? What does that mean?
if you limit the amount of traffic you limit the amount of money you have to spend on system expansion.

said by IPPlanMan :

Comcast is rolling out Docsis 3. Why does it have the exact same 250GB cap as before?
Comcast's choice.

said by IPPlanMan :

What do competent reps have to do with a cap? Am I missing something?
Nothing. I started a thought and didn't finish it.

said by IPPlanMan :

What has now been confirmed is that the cap doesn't address congestion.
Not so. Shat has been confirmed is that the cap is unrelated to Comcast's method of controlling congestion on individual upstream and downstream channels

said by IPPlanMan :

If there's not a congestion problem because of the traffic control system, then why are you concerned? What negative effect are you implying?
The traffic control system only controls one part of the system.

said by IPPlanMan :

Would you support a metered billing system: you don't want to pay for the usage of others.
Yes.

said by IPPlanMan :

And why doesn't Fios have this issue?
Why doesn't DSL have this issue? (Sturm did the math on running a 1MB connection 24/7.... Verizon can handle that for about 20 dollars a month. Compare that to Comcast's economy plan which costs the same and has the 250GB cap.)
Why doesn't cablevision have this issue?
They all have the problem in that subscribers that generate more thaffic incur more expenses for the company. All the terms that I have seen include prohibitions against actions that impact negatively on the network.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:26:17 EDT
nate1234 : Lets hope comcast goes FTTH soon :)
Comcast could do gigabit Ethernet to the last mile (well, it probably wouldn't even be a mile), From the node to the houses.

On another note... my local node is busted (EDIT: misconfigured), and comcast wont fix it until they replace my: modem, splitter, crimps, and drop :( (their just cheap... my internet has been out for almost a week now, and my EMTA is barley working... 58dBmV upstream)

Well, they came and ran a temp line. My upstream signal went from 58dBmV to 50dBmV, still not too great. My downstream signal and SNR are unchanged

msg deleted

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:11:16 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:48:47 EDT
yt :
said by nate1234 :

I think that verizon is willing to spend money on infrastructure, and not make as much money, whereas comcast is trying to milk all that they can out of their current cable lines and system, and make tons of money.
Good rhetoric, but not very accurate. The reality is they both spend a lot on infrastructure every year. Telco "milked" about a hundred years out of their twisted pair infrastructure before going to FTTH (to compete with cable). Cable's HFC is only about ~10-15 years old and as they move to all-digitial, they have enough capacity for the near future (at current usage and speed growth profiles). Going from FTTN to FTTH is the next logical step when needed.
said by nate1234 :

Verizon does have a competitive advantage, their network capacity is MUCH greater, and they can offer people more and more speed in the future. For now, comcast is limited to 160 Mb/s.

A few points on this
• While "who has the bigger pipe" is fun to talk about here. The reality is the market (i.e. need) for these speeds today to the home is very, very small. The competitive advantage is more how many homes do you serve and can you keep that customer base with quality service.
• The network is more than just the last mile. Given Comcast's customer base, I expect beyond the last mile, Comcast has larger network capacity than Verizon in their metro and core. Comcast was the first Nx40G infrastructure (2 years ago) and pushed 100G and IPv6 technology more than most of the telcos.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:44:06 EDT
yt :
said by IPPlanMan :

Interesting...

Is Comcast able to subsidize with its cable tv service in the same way?

Given the costs of programing, I think TV has lower margins.

Another example is when a store has a sale (e.g. day after Thanksgiving), they subsidize this off the non-sale items most people buy.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:32:37 EDT
IPPlanMan : Interesting...

Does bandwidth on Fios or dsl cost less than bandwidth on cable? People have been talking about the technical limits of dsl. Now I think we've seen the money limits of cable instead of the technical limits. Would money limits explain why the cap is the same regardless of provisioned speed, even on the Docsis 3.0 tiers. Any thoughts?

Is Comcast able to subsidize with its cable tv service in the same way?

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:30:20 EDT
koshoka : Verizion is losing money hand over fist on FiOS. It's estimated that they *lose* $769 on each FiOS customer. They expect to burn through something like $6 billion.
--
*******
Disclaimer: I am a Comcast employee. Any statements are my own and should not be construed as official Comcast communications.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:27:01 EDT
yt :
said by IPPlanMan :

Does Verizon have a more efficient cost structure than Comcast with respect to Internet or are there other factors?
I wouldn't say that. Fiber has a longer lifespan than HFC, but right now it is more marketing as DOCSIS3/HFC can deliver the service needed as well as FTTH can. The cost to deliver FTTH is very high and the ROI for Verizon is probably a few years / sub. That said, they had to do something as twisted pair was not going to cut it. Also, Comcast is FTTN and could go FTTH cheaper than VZ, but the reality is it is not needed... yet.

FiOS is in early customer acquisition mode and I expect they would not rule out having a cap or threshold as there is a point where a residential user consuming 250G+ starts costing more than their monthly bill brings in. This is known as a "loss leader".

said by IPPlanMan :

Given that the purpose of the cap is not about addressing congestion, Is the capacity (cap/usability) difference between Verizon's DSL/Fios and Comcast's cable internet due to infrastructure (Docsis) limitations as has been said before or is it more about the cost of doing business?

As said before, it is about the cost of doing business and a diferentiator from residential speed and commercial usage. To VZ, customer numbers and the marketing around this is worth the competitive edge, even at a loss. (IMO)

said by IPPlanMan :

Is Verizon going to go broke doing what they do or they have a competitive advantage over Comcast? If so, what is it?

No. They have a lucrative wireless income and subsidize one line of business with another.

msg deleted

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:24:15 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:15:16 EDT
nate1234 : I think that verizon is willing to spend money on infrastructure, and not make as much money, whereas comcast is trying to milk all that they can out of their current cable lines and system, and make tons of money.

Verizon does have a competitive advantage, their network capacity is MUCH greater, and they can offer people more and more speed in the future. For now, comcast is limited to 160 Mb/s.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:59:19 EDT
IPPlanMan : Does Verizon have a more efficient cost structure than Comcast with respect to Internet or are there other factors?

Given that the purpose of the cap is not about addressing congestion, Is the capacity (cap/usability) difference between Verizon's DSL/Fios and Comcast's cable internet due to infrastructure (Docsis) limitations as has been said before or is it more about the cost of doing business?

Is Verizon going to go broke doing what they do or they have a competitve advantage over Comcast? If so, what is it?
--
"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

msg deleted

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:46:28 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:33:09 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: Is this the Comcast Congestion Mgmt mechanism?

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:01:38 EDT
AVonGauss : Nevermind, you already started a separate thread.

Re: Is this the Comcast Congestion Mgmt mechanism?

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:46:41 EDT
rhapsody : Thank you. I wonder if i should get from a different retailer, if there is a bad batch of them floating around.

Re: Is this the Comcast Congestion Mgmt mechanism?

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:24:55 EDT
nate1234 : Yes, but you could just get another of the same modem.

Re: Is this the Comcast Congestion Mgmt mechanism?

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:20:29 EDT
rhapsody : i'm just trying to cover all the bases. is there even another Docsis 3.0 modem available?

Re: Is this the Comcast Congestion Mgmt mechanism?

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:19:00 EDT
nate1234 : Well, you have other modem problems. Its not comcast. I would get another modem

Is this the Comcast Congestion Mgmt mechanism?

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:15:56 EDT
rhapsody : So, I have a question.

I've noticed after I download 3-4gigs, my modem will go toast. The only way to get back online and surf the internet is to restart the modem.

Is this comcast's congestion management mechanism? maybe I have a faulty modem.

My DSL never does this.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:24:25 EDT
funchords :
said by sturmvogel :

I believe a lot of that disclosure has to do with the settlement with the FL AG and the FCC and not about "listening to customers" as the FAQ says.

Sturm,

It's very important that users take note that this is not a consumer disclosure made at the threat of government regulation, this is a open and voluntary submission to the Internet Engineering Task Force. This the exactly the kind of thing that the Internet community wants to see. It's open disclosure, cooperative, open to critique and constructive suggestions, and it's an important part about how the worldwide Internet agrees to work together.

I salute the move. I probably won't like everything about the draft, but I don't criticize submitting the Internet Draft itself -- this is how Internet Governance works.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:04:17 EDT
nate1234 : As I understand it, Comcast must purchase bandwidth from their peers (such as Level3 and Cogent). My guess is that they buy 250gb x # of subscribers. If everyone went over, their would probably be a large cost, if they can "kick" people for going over the bandwidth cap, they can save money. There are probably other reasons.

This doesn't explain why Verizon doesn't have caps, but they are willing to spend a lot more money than comcast (as shown by FiOS costing tens of billions of dollars).

I think that the cap should be something like: "15% of the total amount of bandwidth you could use in a month"

i.e.
50/10 Mb/s tier would get: 2.5 TB
22/5 Mb/s tier would get: 1 TB
16/2 Mb/s tier would get: .75 TB
12/2 Mb/s tier would get: .5 TB
8/2 Mb/s tier would get: .35 TB
6/1 Mb/s tier would get: .25 TB

That seems like a fair distribution to me :)

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:36:25 EDT
IPPlanMan : Reduce the need to expand the network? What does that mean?

Comcast is rolling out Docsis 3. Why does it have the exact same 250GB cap as before?

What do competent reps have to do with a cap? Am I missing something?

What has now been confirmed is that the cap doesn't address congestion.

If there's not a congestion problem because of the traffic control system, then why are you concerned? What negative effect are you implying?

Would you support a metered billing system: you don't want to pay for the usage of others.

And why doesn't Fios have this issue?
Why doesn't DSL have this issue? (Sturm did the math on running a 1MB connection 24/7.... Verizon can handle that for about 20 dollars a month. Compare that to Comcast's economy plan which costs the same and has the 250GB cap.)
Why doesn't cablevision have this issue?
--
"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

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:16:33 EDT
K Patterson : The new publication deals with one topic having to do with a small part of the system.

The 250GB cap has an obvious purpose - to reduce the need to expand their network. Some of you may recall that when this subject started a couple of years ago, i was the voice in the wilderness crying "the last thing you really want is a stated cap".

I lost. And now you who won and got the cap view yourself as having lost.

I don't use Comcast, it's not available. I use TW, but the arguments are the same. I have no desire to have them hire more competent reps because there time will still be taken up by simple problems and so-called experts criticizing them them.

And I also don't want to pay more money so folks can download large amounts of data. If you have big needs, pay big money. I shouldn't have to.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:57:54 EDT
IPPlanMan : Agreed 100%

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:24:38 EDT
IPPlanMan : I think it's great that Comcast is disclosing this. As JL said, unless I am misunderstanding, the 250GB cap has nothing to due with addressing congestion. Thank you for clarifying that.

So I am left asking what problem is an excessive use policy with a 250GB cap trying to address if it's not congestion.

There has not been full disclosure on the purpose of the 250GB cap.

I have my own theories...
--
"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

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:24:04 EDT
sturmvogel :
said by K Patterson :

A draft of an RFC disclosing what a lot of firms might regard as confidential data is pretty full disclosure.

Viewed from the perspective of a customer who cannot/will not be appeased, everything is inadequate disclosure.

I believe a lot of that disclosure has to do with the settlement with the FL AG and the FCC and not about "listening to customers" as the FAQ says.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:14:45 EDT
K Patterson : A draft of an RFC disclosing what a lot of firms might regard as confidential data is pretty full disclosure.

Viewed from the perspective of a customer who cannot/will not be appeased, everything is inadequate disclosure.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:08:45 EDT
IPPlanMan : Not exactly full disclosure by Comcast...

We still do not have full disclosure on what problem the cap is trying to solve... But it's not congestion as said above.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:50:34 EDT
K Patterson : An extraordinary attitude resulting in an extraordinary post!

Many thanks for the full disclosure of what Comcast is doing.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:23:01 EDT
jlivingood :
said by IPPlanMan :

That FAQ doesn't clear it up.

What is the purpose of defining and implementing excessive use and what benefit does that definition and implementation provide when Comcast already has a congestion management system?

If the purpose of the cap is not about congestion, as you said it was not above, what are you trying to prevent?

The 250GB limit does not relate to the system to mitigate the effects of real-time congestion. In terms of the purpose, I can only refer you to this other FAQ (this is more a job for an official spokesman and not a guy like me)... »customer.comcast.com/Pages/FAQVi···sive-Use
--
JL
Comcast

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:07:34 EDT
IPPlanMan : That FAQ doesn't clear it up.

What is the purpose of defining and implementing excessive use and what benefit does that definition and implementation provide when Comcast already has a congestion management system?

If the purpose of the cap is not about congestion, as you said it was not above, what are you trying to prevent or what problem are you trying to address with a static cap at 250GB?

Again, excessive use as to what?

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:00:46 EDT
jlivingood :
said by IPPlanMan :

This RFC is about preserving "bandwidth" in the terms of speed, not capacity. If the 250GB cap really helped prevent congestion etc. in conjunction with this system, I am sure they'd mention.
Quite so.

Also, this FAQ is still valid in this respect: »customer.comcast.com/Pages/FAQVi···50relate
--
JL
Comcast

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:57:19 EDT
jlivingood :
said by nate1234 :

That was an interesting read jlivingood. Will the % and time until your traffic gets bumped from PBE => BE ever be increased?

We regularly review how the system works and consider tweaking the %s and times and whether they need to change. I'd say the likelihood of minor changes here and there is high, but when those things may change is impossible to say.
--
JL
Comcast

Re: More on monopolies

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:43:55 EDT
jsgiv :
said by sturmvogel :

I am certain that the "handy search" is a lot more accurate that a person living in the area that contacted each provider for alternative service once the CC service has been disconnected.

Dial up and satellite are not comparable "alternatives".

I never said they were "comparable" (versus Comcast HSI) - however - your argument doesn't hold water in the eyes of the law/government that you are so willing to bring to the forefront as the solution to this "problem".

By legal definition - these providers *are* alternatives. You may not like the solutions they offer with regards to speed, accessbility, etc. - but they are considered alternatives with regards to determining whether or not a corporation, etc., has a monopoly over a certain area.

The foundation of your argument is that Comcast is a monopoly. I'm asking you to simply bring forth evidence to PROVE it - for *any* area that Comcast services.

Re: More on monopolies

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:32:47 EDT
sturmvogel :
said by jsgiv :

said by sturmvogel :

said by jsgiv :

Name one.

Missouri City, TX. No DSL available in my area, dial up glitchy, highest speed not even 26.4, 3G coverage nil, no possibility for enTouch to do an overbuild.

You just stated in your own response that Missouri City, TX has alternatives (dial-up) - and forgot to mention the potential for internet service via satellite. Nevermind the fact that there are several ISPs (Windstream, Internet America, Cobalt, Verizon, Sprint, Anthill Networks, etc.) available according to the handy-dandy search utility on this site. I didn't feel like spending the time for establishing a T1, etc. - but I'm pretty sure if I did - I'd find a few alternatives there.

(Edited City Name)
Again - Name ONE market that the ONLY solution to obtain internet service is via Comcast - and I'll agree with you 100% that Comcast has a monopoly with regards to internet service there.

I am certain that the "handy search" is a lot more accurate that a person living in the area that contacted each provider for alternative service once the CC service has been disconnected.

Dial up and satellite are not comparable "alternatives".
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:32:26 EDT
nate1234 : That was an interesting read jlivingood. Will the % and time until your traffic gets bumped from PBE => BE ever be increased?

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:22:08 EDT
IPPlanMan : This RFC is about preserving "bandwidth" in the terms of speed, not capacity. If the 250GB cap really helped prevent congestion etc. in conjunction with this system, I am sure they'd mention.

There's a disconnect between what Comcast says the cap is and what it really does.

Proof of this is that nothing is changing with respect to the cap under Docsis 3.0 in the residential tiers.

There is no 250GB hard cap mentioned for the business tiers, which only cost 20-40 dollars more inclusive of the domain services, Microsoft Mail, and business level support. If Comcast is using the congestion management system without the cap on these, then it shows it can be done and that the cap is not necessary.

The purpose of the cap in the residential space has a purpose that comcast hides behind the guise of excessive use.

Excessive use as to what?

Apparently, excessive use is excessive no matter what speed is provisioned. There is a natural cap created by the congestion management system. However, Comcast doesn't want us reaching that because of the threat to the TV biz and Comcast Digital Voice.
--
"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

Re: More on monopolies

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:19:52 EDT
jsgiv :
said by sturmvogel :

said by jsgiv :

Name one.

Missouri City, TX. No DSL available in my area, dial up glitchy, highest speed not even 26.4, 3G coverage nil, no possibility for enTouch to do an overbuild.

You just stated in your own response that Missouri City, TX has alternatives (dial-up) - and forgot to mention the potential for internet service via satellite. Nevermind the fact that there are several ISPs (Windstream, Internet America, Cobalt, Verizon, Sprint, Anthill Networks, etc.) available according to the handy-dandy search utility on this site. I didn't feel like spending the time for establishing a T1, etc. - but I'm pretty sure if I did - I'd find a few alternatives there.

(Edited City Name)
Again - Name ONE market that the ONLY solution to obtain internet service is via Comcast - and I'll agree with you 100% that Comcast has a monopoly with regards to internet service there.

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:18:05 EDT
jlivingood :
said by sturmvogel :

said by jlivingood :

This may or may not be of interest to readers of this thread: »tools.ietf.org/html/draft-living···-mgmt-00

I did not see anywhere in the paper any reference to the 250 cap. Although the dynamic management of bandwidth is described in detail, the cap is not mentioned anywhere that I could see.

Which is due to the fact that the 250GB limit has nothing to do with the congestion management system.
--
JL
Comcast

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:06:17 EDT
sturmvogel :
said by jlivingood :

This may or may not be of interest to readers of this thread: »tools.ietf.org/html/draft-living···-mgmt-00

I did not see anywhere in the paper any reference to the 250 cap. Although the dynamic management of bandwidth is described in detail, the cap is not mentioned anywhere that I could see.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

CC's Protocol-Agnostic Congestion Management System Draft

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:56:34 EDT
jlivingood : This may or may not be of interest to readers of this thread: »tools.ietf.org/html/draft-living···-mgmt-00
--
JL
Comcast

Re: More on monopolies

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:55:25 EDT
sturmvogel :
said by jsgiv :

Name one.

Missouri City, TX. No DSL available in my area, dial up glitchy, highest speed not even 26.4, 3G coverage nil, no possibility for enTouch to do an overbuild.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Re: More on monopolies

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:52:01 EDT
jsgiv :
said by sturmvogel :

said by koshoka :

said by funchords :

......and Comcast operates as a monopoly and as a monopolist.

Clearly, Comcast does not control TV, Internet or telephone service. There are viable alternatives to all services provided by Comcast.

Except that in many areas that is not true.

Name one.

msg deleted

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:22:44 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: More on monopolies

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:59:51 EDT
koshoka : Because you don't like the alternatives to Comcast, does not mean that they don't exist.

Re: More on monopolies

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:57:25 EDT
sturmvogel :
said by koshoka :

said by funchords :

......and Comcast operates as a monopoly and as a monopolist.

Clearly, Comcast does not control TV, Internet or telephone service. There are viable alternatives to all services provided by Comcast.

Except that in many areas that is not true.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Re: July 3, 2009 topic summary ~by Sofa King~

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:56:28 EDT
sturmvogel :
said by AVonGauss :

said by sturmvogel :

said by AVonGauss :

Which speaking of that, hasn't it been a year already?

Yes.

Have you reestablished service with Comcast? Just curious. I would perfectly understand if you never wanted to do business with them again.

No. I would not have an issue with re establishing service at that address, but having to go through the arrogant "abuse" department is not something I want to do. I do have service with CC at two other addresses and I monitor my usage to be under 250. If that arrogant guy would have simply said "keep it under 250" we would have never gotten into this excellent relationship.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Re: Why doesn't the business tier have a 250G cap?

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:53:01 EDT
sturmvogel :
said by anon212 :

If Comcast Houston is capping you at that limit, why don't check to see if Att uverse is available in your area?

Or even often times I find that a second-tier cable company like phonoscope provide higher quality service at the same price, although their channel selection is more limited. You can sign up with your second-tier cable company and then a year from now if Comcast offers you a better deal you can switch back.

I did check the obvious. DSL and other comparable alternatives are not available in many areas, that is why we complain.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Re: More on monopolies

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:51:27 EDT
sturmvogel :
said by koshoka :

said by funchords :

......and Comcast operates as a monopoly and as a monopolist.

A monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which individuals shall have access to it. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of competition.

So lets see:

Internet: Competition from telecos, dial-up, wireless, DBS and cellular. Nope, no lack of competition there.

You forgot IP over avian carriers here. List all "alternatives" while you are at it. How about IP over US mail ?

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Re: Why doesn't the business tier have a 250G cap?

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:17:17 EDT
anon : If Comcast Houston is capping you at that limit, why don't check to see if Att uverse is available in your area?

Or even often times I find that a second-tier cable company like phonoscope provide higher quality service at the same price, although their channel selection is more limited. You can sign up with your second-tier cable company and then a year from now if Comcast offers you a better deal you can switch back.

Re: More on monopolies

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:20:19 EDT
koshoka :
said by AVonGauss :

In fairness, you would need to consider that on an area by area basis. For television, it's a little more tricky in the sense that while all areas have local OTA reception, they offer a unique product - what you really have to ask is if I want say the Discovery Channel, what provider choices do I have?

Your talking about *level* of service which is not the same as the service itself.
--
*******
Disclaimer: I am a Comcast employee. Any statements are my own and should not be construed as official Comcast communications.

Re: July 3, 2009 topic summary ~by Sofa King~

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:42:20 EDT
IPPlanMan : Exactly.... I don't understand why they don't allow upgrades in that case.

msg deleted

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:36:50 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: More on monopolies

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:33:44 EDT
AVonGauss : In fairness, you would need to consider that one an area by area basis. For television, it's a little more tricky in the sense that while all areas have local OTA reception, they offer a unique product - what you really have to ask is if I want the Discovery Channel, what provider choices do I have?

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:25:19 EDT
Ted Sheckler :
said by funchords :

said by Ted Sheckler :

On the other hand, If I was unemployed and had nothing to do but watch streaming video 24/7 then I would be upset about the cap.

Or, if you had a house full of kids or your own content you wished to distribute or... (insert other things supporting my view that the Internet needs to be different things for different people). :)

True, 7 kids plus a spouse each using 28 GB/month would be annoying :)

However, I was ONLY responding to IPPlanMan's claim that Comcast is capping usage to discourage 3rd party video streaming.

Edit - Happy 4th everybody!!

Re: More on monopolies

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:24:30 EDT
koshoka :
said by funchords :

......and Comcast operates as a monopoly and as a monopolist.

A monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which individuals shall have access to it. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of competition.

So lets see:

Television: Competition form OTA providers, telecos, DBS and the internet. Nope, no lack of competition there.

Internet: Competition from telecos, dial-up, wireless, DBS and cellular. Nope, no lack of competition there.

Telephone: Local telecos, cellular telecos and VoiP. Nope, no lack of competition there.

Clearly, Comcast does not control TV, Internet or telephone service. There are viable alternatives to all services provided by Comcast.
--
*******
Disclaimer: I am a Comcast employee. Any statements are my own and should not be construed as official Comcast communications.

Re: July 3, 2009 topic summary ~by Sofa King~

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:03:19 EDT
AVonGauss :
said by sturmvogel :

said by AVonGauss :

Which speaking of that, hasn't it been a year already?

Yes.

Have you reestablished service with Comcast? Just curious. I would perfectly understand if you never wanted to do business with them again.

Re: More on monopolies

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:57:47 EDT
AVonGauss :
said by funchords :

Yes, necessarily, and Comcast operates as a monopoly and as a monopolist. It throws it's greater-than-competitive-market power around pretty strongly and regularly.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word.

More competition and availability of consumer options is always a good thing, but I think the word monopoly gets thrown around a little too loosely for personal convenience.

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:49:20 EDT
funchords :
said by Ted Sheckler :

On the other hand, If I was unemployed and had nothing to do but watch streaming video 24/7 then I would be upset about the cap.

Or, if you had a house full of kids or your own content you wished to distribute or... (insert other things supporting my view that the Internet needs to be different things for different people). :)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Re: More on monopolies

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:46:10 EDT
funchords :
said by Ted Sheckler :

said by funchords :

said by Ted Sheckler :

Nobody is forced to use Comcast, ever.

The same thing could be said of all of the world's famous monopolies.

Not necessarily, also, Comcast is not a monopoly.

Yes, necessarily, and Comcast operates as a monopoly and as a monopolist. It throws it's greater-than-competitive-market power around pretty strongly and regularly.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5

Re: July 3, 2009 topic summary ~by Sofa King~

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:04:52 EDT
sturmvogel :
said by AVonGauss :

Which speaking of that, hasn't it been a year already?

Yes.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Re: July 3, 2009 topic summary ~by Sofa King~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:13:21 EDT
AVonGauss :
said by IPPlanMan :

And furthermore, in the case of Sturmvogel, they don't do upgrades to the Business Tier from the residential tier.
To be specific, I believe the case is they would not let him migrate from residential to business after he had been contacted about his consumption.

Which speaking of that, hasn't it been a year already?

Re: July 3, 2009 topic summary ~by Sofa King~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:48:59 EDT
IPPlanMan : Here's something else that I want to point out to you....

When Comcast boots an "excessive user" in the residential tier, it's interesting that they'd rather give that user the boot than continue to derive subscription revenue from that person for the year that they're booted for...

Does an excessive "residential" user really costs Comcast more than a Business tier user? I find it hard to believe that the 20-40 dollars a month difference between the business/residential tiers, especially given the Microsoft Mail/Domain Service, etc. is enough to cover the extra bandwidth cost over 250GB anyway....

And furthermore, in the case of Sturmvogel, they don't do upgrades to the Business Tier from the residential tier.

Doesn't make sense to me at all how Comcast handles this...
--
"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

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:38:31 EDT
Ted Sheckler :
said by sturmvogel :

said by Ted Sheckler :

We regularly watch movies/tv shows through Netflix streaming on our Xbox 360. I've never broken 40GB/month. Comcast seems to be more than happy to deliver the service to us! :)

On the other hand, If I was unemployed and had nothing to do but watch streaming video 24/7 then I would be upset about the cap.

You do not have to be watching 24/7 to run afoul of the 250 GB cap, actually using the connection only less than 3 hrs/day would be enough. However, your negative connotation that only unemployed watching 24/7 would run afoul of the cap is noted.

I was replying to IPPlanMan's theory that Comcast implemented the cap to curb 3rd party video streaming. Your irrelevent retort is noted.

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:35:19 EDT
IPPlanMan :
said by jsgiv :

I don't use my service for supplanting TV/Video service - nor do I have other Comcast Services at the moment (i.e. Comcast Cable / VOIP). I use it for *internet* access - if I want to watch TV / Videos - that's what my DirecTV / DVD / DVR are for.. :)

That's fine. You can do that. And if someone uses more than 250GB, are you really going to notice that they do? My whole point is that this an arbitrary amount, which coincidentally is exactly an order of Magnitude greater than their 250MB quota for emails. they have a traffic management system and they still need a cap? Doesn't make sense.

You aren't a Comcast TV Customer, but the principle is the same. Direct TV is happy that you're using their service instead of Comcast's Internet to watch shows. Comcast wishes that you used their TV service for TV and internet for internet. That's exactly what they want. They don't want to lose their TV business to people who only want to pay for the internet service... under the guise that 250GB is "excessive use"... and this is in spite of the fact that there is no similar cap for the business tiers, nor does the cap increase under Docsis 3.0 for the residential tiers... and it's the residential tiers that are directly engaged in using these other services like iTunes/AppleTV/Vudu/Netflix, etc.... Probably Slingbox as well.

Comcast apparently isn't concerned with Business users using these services, which is why there's no "excessive use" cap stated.

People don't get to their cap by checking their email. People get to the cap by doing audio/video, etc.
--
"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

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:07:47 EDT
IPPlanMan : I agree with Sturm. You do not need to be unemployed to run afoul of your cap... Maybe you have multiple housemates... Maybe they like using the internet too. Keeping track of their usage with all the different meters on the computers is burdensome... but hey, I can understand why Comcast likes it that way... They don't want us actually using the internet anyway.
--
"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

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:53:03 EDT
sturmvogel :
said by Ted Sheckler :

We regularly watch movies/tv shows through Netflix streaming on our Xbox 360. I've never broken 40GB/month. Comcast seems to be more than happy to deliver the service to us! :)

On the other hand, If I was unemployed and had nothing to do but watch streaming video 24/7 then I would be upset about the cap.

You do not have to be watching 24/7 to run afoul of the 250 GB cap, actually using the connection only less than 3 hrs/day would be enough. However, your negative connotation that only unemployed watching 24/7 would run afoul of the cap is noted.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:59:38 EDT
Ted Sheckler : We regularly watch movies/tv shows through Netflix streaming on our Xbox 360. I've never broken 40GB/month. Comcast seems to be more than happy to deliver the service to us! :)

On the other hand, If I was unemployed and had nothing to do but watch streaming video 24/7 then I would be upset about the cap.

EDIT - THIS POST IS IN RESPONDS TO IPPLANMAN'S CLAIM THAT COMCAST HAS PUT IN A CAP TO DISCOURAGE 3RD PARTY VIDEO STREAMING

msg deleted

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:39:31 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:34:28 EDT
jsgiv : To clarify - (since you've forgotten your own post):

said by IPPlanMan :

Well how about that...

No reports of the network grinding to a halt either...

A scam indeed....

How likely is a business to use iTunes/Apple TV, Netflix streaming, Vudu...

The answer is that they aren't.

So here's the real reason for the cap:
They are used in the residential market. The real reason for the 250GB cap is to prevent these aforementioned services from posing a real threat to Comcast's Premium channels and onDemand, a revenue stream that comes in on top of people's cable bills, not to mention CDV which doesn't count against the cap either.

To which the question posed was "Do you agree?" - I guess - to your stated opinion?

Which some how, after AVonGauss responded quite explicitly to the negative, with additional detail with regards to his opinion of the cap, turned into:

said by IPPlanMan :

So you agree with Comcast's position that 250GB is excessive use for residential use even though no such policy exists for the business tiers, not to mention the fact that the cap remains EXACTLY the same as before?

Please explain.

And for the record - no I don't agree with your post/opinion either - but for differing reasons than others. Primarily - you make the assumption that all/majority of users of Comcast HSI use the service for "competing" products as compared to Comcast's OnDemand, etc.

I don't use my service for supplanting TV/Video service - nor do I have other Comcast Services at the moment (i.e. Comcast Cable / VOIP). I use it for *internet* access - if I want to watch TV / Videos - that's what my DirecTV / DVD / DVR are for.. :)

Obviously others do use it for these purposes (to the tune of 715 GB in a single month) - and then question why they're being flagged as an "excessive" user.

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:32:49 EDT
IPPlanMan : Comcast doesn't want alternative video sources gaining a foothold in the residential market. Hence, they have implemented a cap under the guise of excessive use. They are not applying this policy to the business tiers because these activities are not a threat in this space. Furthermore, the fact that the cap doesn't increase under Docsis 3.0 means that it's all about protecting Comcast's ondemand and premium channels. I find it very suspicious that excessive use under Docsis 3.0 is exactly the same.
--
"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

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:20:29 EDT
jsgiv :
said by IPPlanMan :

So you agree with Comcast's position that 250GB is excessive use for residential use even though no such policy exists for the business tiers?

Please explain.

Eh - That's NOT the answer he stated - quite the contrary. And also, what you've stated above is not the question you asked him to respond to.

But I give you props for re-wording everything to make an argument out of it - you should try your skills in the news/media ... :)

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:20:27 EDT
AVonGauss : Strangely, I don't believe that is what I said. I also believe we discussed the business tiers several (several) pages back.

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:14:49 EDT
IPPlanMan : So you agree with Comcast's position that 250GB is excessive use for residential use even though no such policy exists for the business tiers, not to mention the fact that the cap remains EXACTLY the same as before for Docsis 3.0?

Please explain.

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:20:35 EDT
AVonGauss : Simple answer...

No

Longer answer...

That does not mean...

I am in favor of having a cap, or,
That I wouldn't like to see it removed, or,
That I don't agree that caps can have adverse impacts on other industries and that is something to be concerned about, or,
That I am a Comcast fanboi and think they can or do no wrong

The issue is more complicated than your post is trying to make it out to be. As far as caps and overages, out of the national carriers that have announced or implemented, I do have to concede that Comcast is the more reasonable of them and find it a bit odd that they are the one you like to focus on. I assume they are your provider and that is why.

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:57:08 EDT
IPPlanMan : Do you agree or disagree with my post?

Re: More on monopolies

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:45:09 EDT
Ted Sheckler :
said by funchords :

said by Ted Sheckler :

Nobody is forced to use Comcast, ever.

The same thing could be said of all of the world's famous monopolies.

Not necessarily, also, Comcast is not a monopoly.

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:42:59 EDT
AVonGauss :
said by sturmvogel :

Post deleted.

Considering that there are some 90+ pages on this thread and you are no stranger to posting in this thread, I'm not sure that is a fair evaluation. It seems to me the intent is to keep this discussion in one place and not to intermingle it with other discussions such as connectivity questions or issues.

Personally, I think Sofa King summarized this thread a couple of pages back the best - especially the last paragraph.

Re: More on monopolies

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:33:24 EDT
funchords :
said by Ted Sheckler :

Nobody is forced to use Comcast, ever.

The same thing could be said of all of the world's famous monopolies.

Re: Wish someone would sue Comcast - no meter yet

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:49:30 EDT
K Patterson : Not only can you, but the local authorities "cannot unreasonably" deny your request for a franchise.

Section 62l(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, regulations enacted therunder on December 20, 2006.

Similarly, all exclusive contracts with apartment and condo groups, etc, are now null and void.

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:45:39 EDT
sturmvogel : My opinion regarding the cap is that it is designed to stiffle competition in the video on demand market, because they can. And as long as they have an army to broadcast advertisements, populate forums to endlessly fight against customer dissent and can convince politicians, they will be successful.

And it is up to each one of us to decide what we do and what we think is fair, including preventing people to voice their opinions. Every time we prevent someone else to speak, including those that disagree with us, we chip away at our own freedom.

Good work.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

msg deleted

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:41:47 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:05:31 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:01:50 EDT
IPPlanMan : Do people agree or disagree with this post?

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:48:36 EDT
sortofageek :
said by IPPlanMan :

Drifting away....

Agree, let's keep it more obviously related to the main topic, please. We do have forums for discussion of government and politics, for good reason. :)
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends .

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:45:26 EDT
Ted Sheckler :
said by sturmvogel :

And have the private business accountable to no one. Let's get rid of the FDA, FTC, FCC and SEC while we are at it. Add EPA, too.

It would be such a great world.

I agree 100% :)

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:39:03 EDT
IPPlanMan : Drifting away....

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:35:27 EDT
jsgiv :
said by sturmvogel :

said by Ted Sheckler :

said by sturmvogel :

Once they reach a certain size, government must intervene to curb the monopolistic behaviour.

No, the government must stop this type of behaviour and have less control over private business

And have the private business accountable to no one. Let's get rid of the FDA, FTC, FCC and SEC while we are at it. Add EPA, too.

It would be such a great world.

HA! - You're referring to the same FDA that allowed Peanut Butter processing companies to continue to produce and introduce a salmonella tainted product over the past several years now to our society - causing the death and sickness to thousands of people?

Yes - it *might* would be a better world after all - perhaps people would go back to simply trust their own judgement instead of blindly trusting in a goverment agency that doesn't take responsibility for their inaction and doesn't do their job - but that's another discussion.. :P

Re: Wish someone would sue Comcast - no meter yet

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:32:36 EDT
koshoka :
said by sturmvogel :

"You're free to start your own ISP."

Great. I will do it right away. I choose to start a cable based ISP.

Wait, I can't do an overbuild due to the franchise. What were you saying again about being "free" to start my own ISP ?

Once again, franchise agreements have nothing to do with overbuilding. Pay attention.

Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992)

--
*******
Disclaimer: I am a Comcast employee. Any statements are my own and should not be construed as official Comcast communications.

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:27:18 EDT
sturmvogel :
said by Ted Sheckler :

said by sturmvogel :

Once they reach a certain size, government must intervene to curb the monopolistic behaviour.

No, the government must stop this type of behaviour and have less control over private business

And have the private business accountable to no one. Let's get rid of the FDA, FTC, FCC and SEC while we are at it. Add EPA, too.

It would be such a great world.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:27:16 EDT
jsgiv :
said by IPPlanMan :

This decision did not account for capped or metered service.

First - how would that even impact the judgement?

Second - "Capped" and "Metered" relate to 2 different types of service. :)

Comcast HSI is not "metered" - only "capped" - and even then - only "capped" with regards to residential service (even though there's apparently a mysterious "soft cap" for business HSI that no one here can substantiate).

"Because cable television is neither a necessity nor would Darby be faced with crippling inconvenience in obtaining alternate service, Time Warner is not a utility as contemplated by § 366"

And relevant to the decision - the precedent is now in place .... Considering the fact that you can obtain "alternative" internet service (though you may not like the attributes of that service or feel that it doesn't meet your requirements - by LEGAL definition it IS an ALTERNATIVE).

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:26:53 EDT
IPPlanMan : This is about consumer protection.... Not politics...

Re: Wish someone would sue Comcast - no meter yet

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:25:25 EDT
sturmvogel : "You're free to start your own ISP."

Great. I will do it right away. I choose to start a cable based ISP.

Wait, I can't do an overbuild due to the franchise. What were you saying again about being "free" to start my own ISP ?
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:25:06 EDT
koshoka :
said by IPPlanMan :

This decision did not account for capped or metered service.

It didn't talk about flying monkeys either, since neither are relevant.
--
*******
Disclaimer: I am a Comcast employee. Any statements are my own and should not be construed as official Comcast communications.

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:15:45 EDT
IPPlanMan : This decision did not account for capped or metered service.

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:13:46 EDT
AVonGauss : Sounds like you might want to do a bit more searching and reading about what does or does not govern the cable and telcom industry.

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:09:55 EDT
koshoka : Regulators and US courts have consistently found cable to not be a utility. Most recently, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, has issued a decision in Darby v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (Matter of Darby), No. 05-20931 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2006)

They said in part "cable service is not covered by § 366, and Time Warner is not required to reinstate Darby’s service …Because cable television is neither a necessity nor would Darby be faced with crippling inconvenience in obtaining alternate service, Time Warner is not a utility as contemplated by § 366."
--
*******
Disclaimer: I am a Comcast employee. Any statements are my own and should not be construed as official Comcast communications.

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:08:41 EDT
Ted Sheckler :
said by sturmvogel :

Once they reach a certain size, government must intervene to curb the monopolistic behaviour.

No, the government must stop this type of behaviour and have less control over private business

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:04:58 EDT
IPPlanMan : Technical sense?

The average person is wrong?

The Commerce Clause is again the starting point. Comcast operates a "fiber" network that is interstate. You can reference other laws but it does not change that fact.

Recent amendments?

Re: Is Comcast a monopoly?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:42:26 EDT
AVonGauss : FWIW, wasn't Texas the first state in 2005 to enact statewide franchise agreements?

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:38:15 EDT
AVonGauss : Is Comcast a utility in the technical sense? No
Is AT&T a utility in the technical sense? No
Would the average person consider them utilities? Probably

Its been a while, but don't the commerce laws you are referring to deal with international and inter-state commerce? My point is if you want to reference laws, there are some that are much more applicable to the discussion. Although, I would bet its some of the more recent amendments that you would appreciate more than the original laws.

Re: Is Comcast a monopoly?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:31:56 EDT
koshoka :
said by sturmvogel :

It is not BS but a fact on the ground, as much as every person that I have ever talked to here absolutely hating the cable co and having the same complaints. Maybe you should talk to some of your customers.

Franchise agreements are by law nonexclusive. Somebody in your story is a liar.
--
*******
Disclaimer: I am a Comcast employee. Any statements are my own and should not be construed as official Comcast communications.

Re: Is cable a utility?

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:30:16 EDT
IPPlanMan : I think that you used language too loosely...

Is Comcast a utility.... Yes or No? Please don't put in quotes. :)

I mentioned the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as a starting point... It is from that that all the other laws have derived.