 fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
1 edit | reply to espaeth
Re: Here we go again about bandwidth throttling ... said by espaeth:said by perki:I don't see how there congestion management system its not Throttling Throttling defines a fixed arbitrary limit, like a speed limit on a highway. Under normal circumstances the speed limit serves as an artificial limit to your top speed, if it didn't exist you could go faster. Rush hour traffic is congestion; your speed reduction is related to real, tangible traffic also on the road. The congestion management system is a prioritization system, not a throttle. Under congested conditions everyone's traffic is going to be impacted. If Comcast had no congestion management system, your throughput would still be reduced due to resource exhaustion. On a DOCSIS system you need to request resources (timeslots) to get packets on the wire upstream and downstream. When the line becomes saturated, queuing occurs and packets experience a delay waiting for resources to be freed up so that they can be transmitted. The congestion management system simply bumps packets for lighter users ahead of those of heavy users during times of congestion/queuing. Unlike a throttle the impact is not artificial; heavy users only have their throughput impacted in relation to other real traffic on the wire. which in non-BizarroWorld is called "throttling"
--
***************
I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
- Stephen Hawking |
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | said by fuziwuzi:which in non-BizarroWorld is called "throttling" I'll ask again, did you take the time to read any of the information provided about how the system actually works? |
|
fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | said by AVonGauss:said by fuziwuzi:which in non-BizarroWorld is called "throttling" I'll ask again, did you take the time to read any of the information provided about how the system actually works? Yes, I did, and I stand by my statement. You may use all the contortionistic verbage you like, but it all boils down to throttling.
--
***************
I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
- Stephen Hawking |
|
1 edit | Yes, it is throttling. JLivingood's explanation is good in showing the "nuances" and how CC uses a less draconian derivative.
In CC speak, throttling seems to be a brutish limiting to a specific speed while the version of throttling they use they define as QoS, packet prioritization and congestion management.
In my mind it is throttling, but way better than other alternatives and something I could live with as a compromise.
I personally have not been aware of being affected by it, although I believe I am a heavy user. I believe the company has made great strides in finding compromises with the heavy users and actually trying to resolve issues rather than having a ham fisted approach. |
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | reply to fuziwuzi
Not to doubt your word, but the system doesn't operate the way you have described in your prior posts on the subject. Maybe there are some sections in the FAQ or the document itself that are unclear or ambiguous that can be improved upon? It's not a game of contortionistic verbiage, semantics or any other clever expression that you want to come up with. There is a fundamental difference in both concept and implementation between prioritization and a throttle. |
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | reply to WernerSchutz
said by WernerSchutz:In CC speak, throttling seems to be a brutish limiting to a specific speed while the version of throttling they use they define as QoS, packet prioritization and congestion management. In my mind it is throttling, but way better than other alternatives and something I could live with as a compromise. If it matters; one of the fundamental differences that makes it a prioritization vs a throttle system is if it was a throttle your throughput would definitely change while because it actually is a prioritization system your throughput may or may not change depending on the actual conditions. |
|
 jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | said by AVonGauss:said by WernerSchutz:In CC speak, throttling seems to be a brutish limiting to a specific speed while the version of throttling they use they define as QoS, packet prioritization and congestion management. In my mind it is throttling, but way better than other alternatives and something I could live with as a compromise. If it matters; one of the fundamental differences that makes it a prioritization vs a throttle system is if it was a throttle your throughput would definitely change while because it actually is a prioritization system your throughput may or may not change depending on the actual conditions. I've concluded that some people aren't interested in the nuances for whatever reason.* If it was really a throttling system, we'd have lots of people here complaining about seeing XXXkbps for some period of time for all apps, and generally unhappy. Such is life. 
In any case, this recent presentation may be of interest to folks on this thread, from a panel discussion I was on last month (12/3/2009): »www.phoenix-center.org/symposium···good.pdf
(Someone from AT&T and from Verizon also presented. The AT&T slides are not posted, but the VZ ones are here »www.phoenix-center.org/symposium···tner.pdf)
* If you don't like the system, what would you do differently is always an interesting question.
Happy New Year!
JL
--
JL
Comcast |
|
| said by jlivingood:said by AVonGauss:said by WernerSchutz:In CC speak, throttling seems to be a brutish limiting to a specific speed while the version of throttling they use they define as QoS, packet prioritization and congestion management. In my mind it is throttling, but way better than other alternatives and something I could live with as a compromise. If it matters; one of the fundamental differences that makes it a prioritization vs a throttle system is if it was a throttle your throughput would definitely change while because it actually is a prioritization system your throughput may or may not change depending on the actual conditions. I've concluded that some people aren't interested in the nuances for whatever reason.* If it was really a throttling system, we'd have lots of people here complaining about seeing XXXkbps for some period of time for all apps, and generally unhappy. Such is life. In any case, this recent presentation may be of interest to folks on this thread, from a panel discussion I was on last month (12/3/2009): » www.phoenix-center.org/symposium···good.pdf(Someone from AT&T and from Verizon also presented. The AT&T slides are not posted, but the VZ ones are here » www.phoenix-center.org/symposium···tner.pdf) * If you don't like the system, what would you do differently is always an interesting question. Happy New Year! JL I am interested in the nuances and did not mean to offend you. Although the definition is debatable, it is a good compromise that seems to be working well in the field. |
|
jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | said by WernerSchutz:I am interested in the nuances and did not mean to offend you. Although the definition is debatable, it is a good compromise that seems to be working well in the field. You didn't by any means, and in fact you had a complimentary post a page or so back that I appreciated.
--
JL
Comcast |
|
|
|
 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·Comcast
| reply to fuziwuzi
said by fuziwuzi:which in non-BizarroWorld is called "throttling" Nope. In non-bizarroworld its called QoS
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | reply to JohnInSJ
Re: Here we go again about bandwidth throttling ... said by JohnInSJ:said by fuziwuzi:which in non-BizarroWorld is called "throttling" Nope. In non-bizarroworld its called QoS Sorry, but in my opinion your "QoS" is simply more double-speak for what is, effectively, throttling.
--
***************
I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
- Stephen Hawking |
|
JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| said by fuziwuzi:Sorry, but in my opinion your "QoS" is simply more double-speak for what is, effectively, throttling. Sorry, but in Computer Science the actual correct term for assigning priority to packets based on the quality of service desired is called QoS.
Throttling is something you do to people who just cannot wrap their heads around a concept that there is only so much capacity in a system, and when you've saturated that capacity then some packets are not going to get through as fast.
The FACT that you cannot shove more packets through a pipe then it can actually handle means you have to SELECT some packets to go ahead of others to maintain overall Quality of Service. Simple as that.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | said by JohnInSJ:said by fuziwuzi:Sorry, but in my opinion your "QoS" is simply more double-speak for what is, effectively, throttling. Sorry, but in Computer Science the actual correct term for assigning priority to packets based on the quality of service desired is called QoS. Throttling is something you do to people who just cannot wrap their heads around a concept that there is only so much capacity in a system, and when you've saturated that capacity then some packets are not going to get through as fast. The FACT that you cannot shove more packets through a pipe then it can actually handle means you have to SELECT some packets to go ahead of others to maintain overall Quality of Service. Simple as that. You get caught up in semantics. If I am transferring data and Comcast or anyone else at some point during that transfer causes that data transfer to be slower, by whatever method they choose, then effectively that data transfer has been throttled. You can choose to call it "QoS" or "packet prioritization" or a host of other terms, but effectively it is throttling. The data transfer becomes slower because of ACTIVE ISP manipulation. I am not talking about the passive capacity of "the pipe", which is irrelevant to the discussion, I am talking about active manipulation by Comcast of the effective (key word) speed.
Your ad hominem insults aren't necessary here.
--
***************
I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
- Stephen Hawking |
|
JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| You're completely wrong however.
Packet prioritization only happens when the node is saturated. Which means SOMEONEs packets will not get through.
QoS marking of the packets that are causing the saturation means everyone gets a fair share of the capacity.
In other words, no one should suffer MORE because one user wishes to suffer LESS. The system is not capable of handling 100% usage by all subs at the same time. It's oversold, which is why it costs a fraction of what it would cost if it was guaranteed throughput.
You do NOT pay for full time use of your rated bandwidth 24/7. You just don't. It's not guaranteed in your TOS, nor would you have any reasonable expectation of it. Tell me you at least understand that.
I'm not insulting you, I'm attempting to get you to understand a simple concept.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | reply to fuziwuzi
said by fuziwuzi:I am not talking about the passive capacity of "the pipe", which is irrelevant to the discussion, I am talking about active manipulation by Comcast of the effective (key word) speed. Irrelevant? You really need to take the time to read the document explaining how the system actually works or ask questions rather than making incorrect assumptions and assertions about how the system works. |
|
fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | reply to JohnInSJ
I'm not an idiot, I am a networking professional and have been for over 20 years. YOU are the one getting caught up in semantics. You keep saying it is a simple concept yet YOU are the one trying to turn something simple into something complex.
"Packet prioritization" is just another "politically-correct" term for throttling. It is that simple. If something causes the data transfer to EFFECTIVELY be slower, then that data transfer is being throttled. That's the simple truth.
With Comcast's system, a person using the service at a time when others on their "node" are not causing the "node" be be saturated will "packet prioritize" should you use more than a certain percentage of the bandwidth they advertise for your service level. I'm sold a service that advertises 12mbps download/2mbps upload speeds, yet should I attempt to fully use that speed at ANY time, regardless of how many of my neighbors are using the service, my service will be "packet prioritized" for a period of time. That happens, I've seen it happen. If I stop using the service for a period and then resume, I will have full speeds again for a short while, then get "packet prioritized" again. However, should I limit my data transfer to around 60% of advertised speeds, I don't get "packet prioritized" and my data transfers complete as normal, though of course slower.
So you can call it "packet prioritization" if you choose, but in layman's terms it is cutting the effective speed of data transfer which translates to throttling.
--
***************
I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
- Stephen Hawking |
|
fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | reply to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:said by fuziwuzi:I am not talking about the passive capacity of "the pipe", which is irrelevant to the discussion, I am talking about active manipulation by Comcast of the effective (key word) speed. Irrelevant? You really need to take the time to read the document explaining how the system actually works or ask questions rather than making incorrect assumptions and assertions about how the system works. Please don't become condecending, I have not attacked you or made ad hominem accusations concerning your level of intelligence or understanding so I would appreciate the same professional courtesy that I have extended here.
--
***************
I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
- Stephen Hawking |
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | said by fuziwuzi:Please don't become condecending, I have not attacked you or made ad hominem accusations concerning your level of intelligence or understanding so I would appreciate the same professional courtesy that I have extended here. I'm not sure how you take my last post as condescending or as an attack on your level of intelligence or understanding. On the contrary, I've tried very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt especially when it comes to the motivation for your posts. If you have read the documents then you know how the system is supposed to work, if you feel that the system is not operating as described wouldn't it be more beneficial to post a more detailed description of what you are seeing and your environment? |
|
fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | My motivation is simply to strive for clarity. I loathe the propensity for people and corporations to "double-speak", which has sadly become the normative mode of communication in Western society.
I've explained my observations on how the Comcast system appears to operate from my perspective. I've read the documents and cutting through the "double-speak" leads me to believe that my observations are correct.
I'll make a simple analogy. You have a car that you know will go very fast. The police tell you there is no speed limit on the highway and you think, "wow, great, I can really get out there and have some fun!". However, the police also tell you that while they don't set a speed limit, if they detect you trying to exceed what they consider a safe speed, they will put water into your gasoline. Your engine will sputter and misfire and you won't be able to go as fast as you want or as fast as your car could go if otherwise unfettered.
The police say they set no speed limit, but in effect they have.
Since it is obvious we're both rather entrenched in our opinions, it is pointless to continue debating. I know what I see happening (and others see it as well). Whatever your motivation may be compels you to discredit my observations, creating an impasse.
--
***************
I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
- Stephen Hawking |
|
