fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
|reply to JohnInSJ |
Re: Here we go again about bandwidth throttling ...
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