 koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14
1 edit | Source of bandwidth data I'd like to know what the actual source is that they'll be graphing from.
Why?
Because on cable networks, ARP broadcasting is absolutely insane. I sincerely believe there's 50-60kbit/sec worth of traffic that's just ARP.
Thus, I'd like to know if the source Comcast will be using will be from the network switch port (which would include such), or if it will be IP datagrams only.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. |
|
 Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | And will they count spam, DDoS attacks, and ads as part of that usage?
Most likely they will in the case of ads. The others should not be counted as the user has little or no control over how much bandwidth is used by them.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
|
|
|
|
| reply to koitsu
I have DD-WRT and have stopped doing online backup due to the possibility that I'd go over my limit. May start again, but the threat of hitting the cap is always there.
Granted, 250 GB isn't bad, but it'll be really interesting to see how Comcast's graphs match up with my realtime ones.
Also, McAFee to track usage? Gimme a freaking break. |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19
 ·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Doctor Four
one would imagine that they should be able to figure out some statistical data about how much data they can shave off the top. I'd consider spam and DDoS attacks to be a form of overhead. not in the traditional sense, per se. but it is still something that is not controlled by the poor sap that is paying the bill. |
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | reply to Doctor Four
said by Doctor Four:And will they count spam, DDoS attacks, and ads as part of that usage? Most likely they will in the case of ads. The others should not be counted as the user has little or no control over how much bandwidth is used by them. You're probably right WRT ads. Comcast already blocks spam on the server side (though if you don't use their email you may or may not be screwed depending on your provider).
I haven't really heard of residential customers being the target of DDoS attacks, although I suppose it could be possible. As far as your computer being turned into a zombie and used in a DDoS attack, as I understand it, Comcast monitors its network for activity like that, and upstream traffic isn't being capped in any case; the 250 GB is a download cap only.
--
"2 Strangers + 1 20 minute ceremony + $50 + 10 shots of tequila = Holy Matrimony and 1st Class Protections Under the Law… now that’s crazy!" |
|
Ethrem
join:2008-10-03
Arvada, CO
1 edit | said by Corydon  and upstream traffic isn't being capped in any case; the 250 GB is a download cap only.
:
Where did you get this information from? We've been told internally that its a total usage cap, NOT a download cap. It was primarily implemented BECAUSE of people uploading massive amounts of data... |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to Doctor Four
said by Doctor Four:And will they count spam, DDoS attacks, and ads as part of that usage? Most likely they will in the case of ads. The others should not be counted as the user has little or no control over how much bandwidth is used by them. Do cell phone companies charge for wrong numbers? Yes. There is no reason to expect service providers will exclude ads or spam from the bandwidth limit. And everyone is subject to all these issues in equal measure; the purpose of the cap is to ensure that regular users aren't subsidizing heavy users (paying more than they should have to), so what is counted doesn't matter, since those things are counted for everyone. |
|
