<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Re: Finally in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21520015</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:28:37 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:28:37 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21559484</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><b>funchords</b></A> : Thanks for the kind and thoughtful reply<br><div class="bquote"><small>said by anothercomment :</small><br><br>Because congestion management is to manage <b>unexpected congestion</b> in a fair way. Upgrades on the network still happen as per the business plan in an organized way around expected growth.  Otherwise you would have to run congested all the time.<br><br>Usage management is to manage the situation where this now becomes expected requiring <b>unexpected upgrades</b> to the network outside the business plan.  Since the business plan justifies upgrades, new speeds and price points, you want to ensure you distribute the costs in a "fair" way across a user base.  </div>It appears that the business plan is to grow available bandwidth slower than typical Internet growth trends.  Assuming 250 GB was the right amount for October 2008, we should have a cap of 275 GB now.<br><br>But who cares if I use 500 GB if I use them when nobody else is competing for them?  If I am successful and avoid transmitting my massive data spew during signs of congestion, then my use of 500 GB is -- by definition -- not only within the business plan but within the existing system.  <br><br>And if I'm unsuccessful, then Comcast's "sloppy-seconds" bandwidth management takes hold and I can't harm normal users anyway -- under that plan, I am not entitled to any bandwidth and any that I do get is bonus.  <br><br>As a result, one way or the other, we don't need a cap.<br><br><div class="bquote">Since studies show that top "unlimited expecting" users will consume all available bandwidth they are given,</div>Study or not, the notion is wrong on its face.  Most users only use 3 GB (we are repeatedly told), despite having much more at their disposal and having the service that was not sold with limits. <br><br>(We've never seen such a study. ISPs have quoted this amount without explanation or qualification. My guess is that my idle computers probably consume 3GB/mo.)<br><br><div class="bquote"> their cost of carry exceed their revenue provided.</div>It's silly to look at this in any level other than the aggregate, otherwise you create the situation where the owner of an all-you-can-eat buffet is running a secret per-plate tally and kicking out customers when they exceed his hidden business plan.    (That's not a shot at Comcast -- as they have now disclosed that they have done something like this for years.  That's not about fairness, that's about fairer dealing.)<br><br><div class="bquote">  Summary: 1 manages unexpected congestion (to keep networks fair) and one managed unexpected growth (to keep costs fair). </div>I hold that the "15+15 and out" plan really does both. Aggregators (Aggregaters?) don't pay by consumption, they pay by the width of the pipe which Comcast controls. Those costs are, by definition, fixed. As the heavy users force it toward full, Comcast deprioritizes their traffic which allows others to remain unimpacted.  <br><br>There's zero need for a cap. <br><br><div class="bquote">The idea is either to find a "good" cap and grow with it,</div>A cap that grows at some guaranteed minimum rate with adjustments to match actual Internet growth trends would be very good for users and innovators.  Right now, we probably have VC's sitting on the sidelines because who wants to invest in projects that might hit the cap?<br><br><div class="bquote"> or charge to offset the cost of usage as is done under commercial terms.</div>That's another angle. But let's not stop there.  What about families of 5 users or more -- why can't they buy a second allocation of 250 GB or 70%-70%-out for their home?  (AT&T's and RoadRunner's trials of 150GB/mo and 40GB/mo are actually the best examples of this problem. 250 GB is still a lot of bandwidth.)<br><br>  <div class="bquote">You don't have to like it, you can continue to argue against it, but there is plenty of Internet history showing this method and it is reality. </div>This is the first we've brought up history.  If you'd like, we can go there.  We did struggle with this in the past and how we handled it is very illuminating and useful.  <br><br>Nice reply, thanks! <br><small>--<br>Robb Topolski -= <A HREF="http://funchords.com/">funchords.com</a> =- Hillsboro, Oregon<br>More features, more fun, <i><A HREF="/join/new/">Join BroadbandReports.com</a></i>, it's free... <br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21559484</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:30:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21558095</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1173383"><b>ptrowski</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  jacour <A HREF="/useremail/u/536693"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>The Comcast cap inspired me to install DD-WRT at long lost, mainly due to concerns about bricking my router (which didn't happen).  The graph is a very handy tool and the DD-WRT software is much nicer than the LinkSys supplied firmware.  I can strongly recommend it.<br> </div><div class="bquote"><small>said by  jacour <A HREF="/useremail/u/536693"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>The Comcast cap inspired me to install DD-WRT at long lost, mainly due to concerns about bricking my router (which didn't happen).  The graph is a very handy tool and the DD-WRT software is much nicer than the LinkSys supplied firmware.  I can strongly recommend it.<br> </div>I use Tomato and it also has the bandwidth meter.  Very handy indeed as it catches all traffic.<br><small>--<br>"So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."<br><br>Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?  &raquo;<A HREF="http://www.venganza.org" >www.venganza.org</A></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21558095</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:43:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21534034</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  funchords <A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>If Comcast's anti-congestion plan that it's rolling out is truly effective, why do we need caps?  Why not go back to unlimited?<br> </div>Not sure I am the fish you are looking for, but I do have some ISP experience and will bite on that baited question...  <br><br>Because congestion management is to manage <b>unexpected congestion</b> in a fair way. Upgrades on the network still happen as per the business plan in an organized way around expected growth.  Otherwise you would have to run congested all the time.<br><br>Usage management is to manage the situation where this now becomes expected requiring <b>unexpected upgrades</b> to the network outside the business plan.  Since the business plan justifies upgrades, new speeds and price points, you want to ensure you distribute the costs in a "fair" way across a user base.  <br><br>Since studies show that top "unlimited expecting" users will consume all available bandwidth they are given, their cost of carry exceed their revenue provided.  Summary: 1 manages unexpected congestion (to keep networks fair) and one managed unexpected growth (to keep costs fair).<br><br>The idea is either to find a "good" cap and grow with it, or charge to offset the cost of usage as is done under commercial terms.  You don't have to like it, you can continue to argue against it, but there is plenty of Internet history showing this method and it is reality.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21534034</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:06:04 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21528234</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><b>funchords</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  Qumahlin <A HREF="/useremail/u/489579"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Um, the modem receives the traffic BEFORE the router.  The modem is the gateway device..not the router.  The traffic would not be forwarded on to your PC's but it is still hitting the modem and your router as well.</div>Right.<br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  Qumahlin <A HREF="/useremail/u/489579"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>No this traffic most likely won't be counted, but the one post about 60Kbps sec in arps is something that is a fluke and typically a "storm" of that size would be killed by other management software in place at the CMTS level if it continued for more than a few minutes.</div>Who knows? We're just guessing here. It will be interesting to see how close they get.  The screen shots from the news article showed the summer months -- so I've got to wonder whether all this time spent now on something apparently there for a while is about looking at and fixing the accuracy of an existing system.<br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  Qumahlin <A HREF="/useremail/u/489579"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Notice the user said it caused his overall speeds to crash when it was happening, it's not a normal occurence<br> </div>IIRC, his area was coming back up from some kind of problem.  I'm really not worried about ARP alone, or DHCP broadcasts, or munged packets, or any single thing.  The combination of problems of monitoring "delivery" in a best-effort system like the Internet may cause some different results in different environments -- a one-size-fits-all system is unlikely to get it right, we'll be talking about this a lot.  <br><br>Continuing to focus on perfecting metered Internet, we are continuing to underline the fact that broadband with Comcast sometimes involves a choice between expensive, bursty, boosty, laggy, lossy, limited cable ISP service and a cheaper, unlimited, "fast-enough" alternative (with its "we suck even harder" customer service in my Verizon DSL area).<br><br>If Comcast's anti-congestion plan that it's rolling out is truly effective, why do we need caps?  Why not go back to unlimited?<br><small>--<br>Robb Topolski -= <A HREF="http://funchords.com/">funchords.com</a> =- Hillsboro, Oregon<br>More features, more fun, <i><A HREF="/join/new/">Join BroadbandReports.com</a></i>, it's free... <br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21528234</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:51:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21527788</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/489579"><b>Qumahlin</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by anon123456 :</small><br><br>ARP or DHCP broadcasts would stop at the router and not be forwarded onto the cable modem.<br> </div>Um, the modem receives the traffic BEFORE the router.  The modem is the gateway device..not the router.  The traffic would not be forwarded on to your PC's but it is still hitting the modem and your router as well.<br><br>No this traffic most likely won't be counted, but the one post about 60Kbps sec in arps is something that is a fluke and typically a "storm" of that size would be killed by other management software in place at the CMTS level if it continued for more than a few minutes.<br><br>Notice the user said it caused his overall speeds to crash when it was happening, it's not a normal occurence]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21527788</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:37:16 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21527125</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : TRUTH. I'm a great example of big ISP's worst nightmare. I pay out $150/mo to Comcast. I'm now going to drop TV service and go with internet service only. I have a Xbox 360, PS3 and 2 PC's. I have plenty of viewing options on those machines through a combination of pay (Netflix) and free (Hulu) services. Comcast no longer has value to me. In fact, I'm probably going to go over to uverse, drop TV and get either the 10 or 18mbps program for LESS money than a 8mbps pipe @ Comcast. That is ofcourse unless AT&T releases the BS caps they're testing nationwide. <br><br>Either way... they see the writing on the wall. Their business model is falling apart in the long run. As it should. People shouldn't have to pay $X for 300 channels when they only watch 4-5 of them on a regular basis. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21527125</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:44:12 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21524256</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : ARP or DHCP broadcasts would stop at the router and not be forwarded onto the cable modem. So unless you are directly connected to the cable modem with your PC or a switch you would not need to worry about it. And if your router is making the DHCP requests to your cable modem you would not be sending any traffic from your PC's etc at all.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21524256</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:53:42 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520177</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : And if the numbers don't match the bandwidth consumed is there a resolution short of terminating more Concast customers?<br><br>I only ask because I'm sure a Concast shill as yourself would have the answer.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520177</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:24:45 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21521768</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1054326"><b>wifi4milez</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  funchords <A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  wifi4milez <A HREF="/useremail/u/1054326"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Basically anything that passes through your cable modem will register, </div>I hope not, or I hope typical network broadcasts get subtracted out. <br><br>I've never measured this on Comcast, but <A HREF="http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21309880-TWC-got-152-60kbits-in-unsolicited-packets">one Roadrunner user showed 60 Kbps of sustained traffic</a> of what sounds like ARP or DHCP broadcasts that -- if it continued -- would total 20 GB/mo.  <br> </div>I suspect they will omit that traffic then. If I am not mistaken, TWC has a 20G cap in some of their Texas markets. If they were to include that data then every sub would be over their limit before even using the service. That would certainly cause many customer complaints, and would be a huge headache for TWC to deal with. <br><small>--<br><b>&#1050;&#1086;&#1084;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1090; &#1075;&#1086;&#1089;&#1091;&#1076;&#1072;&#1088;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1073;&#1077;&#1079;&#1086;&#1087;&#1072;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;</b><br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21521768</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:50:09 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21521712</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/340409"><b>funchords</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  wifi4milez <A HREF="/useremail/u/1054326"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Basically anything that passes through your cable modem will register, </div>I hope not, or I hope typical network broadcasts get subtracted out. <br><br>I've never measured this on Comcast, but <A HREF="http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21309880-TWC-got-152-60kbits-in-unsolicited-packets">one Roadrunner user showed 60 Kbps of sustained traffic</a> of what sounds like ARP or DHCP broadcasts that -- if it continued -- would total 20 GB/mo.  <br><small>--<br>Robb Topolski -= <A HREF="http://funchords.com/">funchords.com</a> =- Hillsboro, Oregon<br>More features, more fun, <i><A HREF="/join/new/">Join BroadbandReports.com</a></i>, it's free... <br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21521712</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:42:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21521624</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1440579"><b>iansltx</b></A> : Correct. I was referencing a post that talked about how Comcast is currently offering McAFee.<br><br>It'll be interesting to see how router-based traffic loggers (DD-WRT, Tomato) compare to Comcast's ISP-based logger...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21521624</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:27:24 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21521244</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1048555"><b>BF69</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  jlivingood <A HREF="/useremail/u/1498458"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>That's not what is intended at all.  In fact, its the job of our CSA team to work with customers like that and help them try to remove malware and properly secure their networks, etc.<br><br>Jason<br> </div>No see once watching movies and TV on the internet becomes more common place and higher bitrates are used it's your job to let customers know that if they only got their content from Comcast they wouldn't go over thier cap which in the end is the REAL reason for the cap. Because honestly a straight cap is a VERY VERY retarded way of managing bandwidth. Anyone with even 1/4 of a brain knows that.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21521244</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:21:07 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520967</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/906493"><b>knightmb</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  jlivingood <A HREF="/useremail/u/1498458"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>That's not what is intended at all.  In fact, its the job of our CSA team to work with customers like that and help them try to remove malware and properly secure their networks, etc.<br><br>Jason<br> </div>Fair enough, my opinion is that those that are upset by the cap will point to this as another reason why they are against it. I think maybe it should be worded a little different so that it doesn't seem to blend in the excessive users and those users that are excessive but didn't know any better because they had a virus/trojan/wi-fi, etc.  That's what I took from it when I read it.<br><small>--<br>Fight NebuAD and the like:<br><A HREF="http://wanip.org/anti-nebuad/">Click Here to pollute their data</a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520967</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:21:29 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520876</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1054326"><b>wifi4milez</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  iansltx <A HREF="/useremail/u/1440579"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>McAfee can only track the data used by the PC it's installed in. How would it measure full network usage? You have to be at the router, modem or ISP level to do that.<br> </div>Correct, however the ISP provided service being discussed here is <b>not</b> the McAfee software. This thread is referring to a new bandwidth meter that is in the process of being released. The new bandwidth meter is going to track at the cable modem level, or perhaps the MAC address of the router attached to it. In either case, all traffic will be tracked regardless of which device is using it. <br><small>--<br><b>&#1050;&#1086;&#1084;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1090; &#1075;&#1086;&#1089;&#1091;&#1076;&#1072;&#1088;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1073;&#1077;&#1079;&#1086;&#1087;&#1072;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;</b><br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520876</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:01:46 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520699</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/536693"><b>jacour</b></A> : The Comcast cap inspired me to install DD-WRT at long lost, mainly due to concerns about bricking my router (which didn't happen).  The graph is a very handy tool and the DD-WRT software is much nicer than the LinkSys supplied firmware.  I can strongly recommend it.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520699</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:34:11 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520470</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1498458"><b>jlivingood</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  knightmb <A HREF="/useremail/u/906493"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Ok, so they pull out the "only 1% of Comcast customers are excessive users" and then further go on that it's actually even less because those that were excessive tend to be virus/spam/open wi-fi abuse. So actually, what they are saying is that instead of helping to fix grandmom's virus/trojan infected machine, we will blame the problem on the 1% of the 1% of the 1% that actually use more than 250GB a month of bandwidth instead which out of the many thousands of customers they have, would probably be about 2 or 3 people per state who aren't virus/trojan/open wi-fi users? </div>That's not what is intended at all.  In fact, its the job of our CSA team to work with customers like that and help them try to remove malware and properly secure their networks, etc.<br><br>Jason<br><small>--<br>JL<br>Comcast</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520470</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:55:42 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520422</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : I doubt it explicitly says it anywhere (I didn't read it), but if it's software running on a computer there's no way it's going to know about all the other traffic passing through a router. That's why the BEST solution for a home user is to get a router that's compatible with a custom firmware that provides traffic monitoring: I use and recommend DD-WRT v24 firmware on a Linksys WRT54GL router, which is targeted at enthusiasts who actually want to install third party firmware. The firmware lets me view my bandwidth usage month-by-month or, if you hover your mouse over each bar, even day-by-day as the attached screenshot shows.<div class="borderless"><TABLE WIDTH=95% align=center border=0 CELLPADDING=4"><TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#000000 nwrap COLSPAN=3 WIDTH=100%><A HREF="/speak/slideshow/21520422?c=1376163&ret=L2ZvcnVtL3IyMTUyMDAxNS54bWw%3D"><IMG TITLE="62236 bytes" BORDER=0 WIDTH=592 HEIGHT=415 SRC="/r0/download/1376163~9502468ccdec881bf3d4311d736ccf77/wan_usage.jpg"></A></TD></TABLE></div>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520422</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:45:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520344</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1440579"><b>iansltx</b></A> : McAfee can only track the data used by the PC it's installed in. How would it measure full network usage? You have to be at the router, modem or ISP level to do that.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520344</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:32:55 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520337</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/906493"><b>knightmb</b></A> : Found something interesting in their FAQ<br> <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>How does Comcast help customers who have been identified as excessive users?<br><br>Comcast's experience shows that some customers identified as excessive users were not aware of the activity that caused the excessive use. For example, after being notified by Comcast some customers identify another person in their household, such as a child or roommate, who uses the service in ways that generate excessive use. In other cases, a customer's personal computer may be compromised by a virus or spyware that uses the computer to send large amounts of spam or perform repeated bulk transfers of large files. Still other customers may have an unsecured wireless router or be using our residential Comcast High-Speed Internet service for a commercial or business purpose and not the intended residential purpose. In each of these situations, and many others, Comcast is able to help the customer identify and address the cause of the excessive use made with his or her account. In fact, most customers identified as excessive users change their usage patterns or make other adjustments and continue to use the service. Only a small fraction of the tiny number of users who are identified as excessive users ever have their service terminated for one year because of continued excessive use. <br><hr></blockquote><br><br>Ok, so they pull out the "only 1% of Comcast customers are excessive users" and then further go on that it's actually even less because those that were excessive tend to be virus/spam/open wi-fi abuse. So actually, what they are saying is that instead of helping to fix grandmom's virus/trojan infected machine, we will blame the problem on the 1% of the 1% of the 1% that actually use more than 250GB a month of bandwidth instead which out of the many thousands of customers they have, would probably be about 2 or 3 people per state who aren't virus/trojan/open wi-fi users?<br><br>Talk about reading between the lines.  :D<br><small>--<br>Fight NebuAD and the like:<br><A HREF="http://wanip.org/anti-nebuad/">Click Here to pollute their data</a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520337</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:31:10 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520221</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/906493"><b>knightmb</b></A> : Looks like Business customers are in the clear, all the wording is aimed towards residential users everywhere that I read.  :D<br><br>At least I'll hope since I top many TB a month.  :o<br><small>--<br>Fight NebuAD and the like:<br><A HREF="http://wanip.org/anti-nebuad/">Click Here to pollute their data</a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520221</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:11:10 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520218</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1054326"><b>wifi4milez</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  bender <A HREF="/useremail/u/1175837"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by  NOZIREV <A HREF="/useremail/u/1564987"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</small><br><br>Its not like they didnt have something for you to use while this was being developed, "Currently, the Comcast FAQ tells users to do a web search for bandwidth meters or use the meter included in the McAfee Security Suite the company gives out free to subscribers." please stop the crying... :)<br> </div>you are aware that this does not tell you about thirdparty devices that are using the internet. devices like xbox360's, wii, ps3, streaming music players, etc.<br> </div>As I understand it, this counts all traffic delivered to your IP address. Basically anything that passes through your cable modem will register, regardless of whether its your PC or Xbox. You are thinking of the applications like DL Meter (I think thats what its called) that only track the data used by the PC its installed on. <br><small>--<br><b>&#1050;&#1086;&#1084;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1090; &#1075;&#1086;&#1089;&#1091;&#1076;&#1072;&#1088;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1077;&#1085;&#1085;&#1086;&#1081; &#1073;&#1077;&#1079;&#1086;&#1087;&#1072;&#1089;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;</b><br></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520218</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:11:04 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520091</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1138665"><b>FicmanS</b></A> : Agreed...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520091</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:48:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520015</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1171845"><b>JSRoman</b></A> : Where does it say that?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21520015</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:36:14 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21519878</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1175837"><b>bender</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  NOZIREV <A HREF="/useremail/u/1564987"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Its not like they didnt have something for you to use while this was being developed, "Currently, the Comcast FAQ tells users to do a web search for bandwidth meters or use the meter included in the McAfee Security Suite the company gives out free to subscribers." please stop the crying... :)<br> </div>you are aware that this does not tell you about thirdparty devices that are using the internet. devices like xbox360's, wii, ps3, streaming music players, etc.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21519878</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:10:53 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21519854</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1483806"><b>mlabate</b></A> : One would think, but this is Comcast we are dealing with.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21519854</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:06:41 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21519851</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1564987"><b>NOZIREV</b></A> : Its not like they didnt have something for you to use while this was being developed, "Currently, the Comcast FAQ tells users to do a web search for bandwidth meters or use the meter included in the McAfee Security Suite the company gives out free to subscribers." please stop the crying... :)]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21519851</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:06:06 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Finally</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21519835</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1590874"><b>DarkLogix</b></A> : They should have put this out before issueing the CAPs]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21519835</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:01:49 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
