| |
to JohnInSJ
Re: [Speed] [BUSINESS CLASS] 12/2 or 22 Tier After Upgradesaid by JohnInSJ:Yep, you were misprovisioned if you were on starter. You are now on the correct tier.
Right. The idea is this: I wouldn't have signed a two year agreement with my current speeds. I was incorrectly given the super fast tier during my 30-day window and was led to believe (by my install tech, phone reps, AND sales rep) that the fast speeds were normal and to be expected. That is not my fault. |
|
Thordrune
Premium Member
join:2005-08-03
Lakeport, CA |
to mario02423
Holy crap, that's nuts. I've never seen that before for business, it definitely must have been provisioned wrong. |
|
 pflogBueller? Bueller?
MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA |
to mario02423
Well I received a call from escalations who had spoken to the technician I'd spoken with (who told me he knew the modem swap wouldn't fix this) and she indicated the tech said everything is fine. She didn't even know about the newer speeds!  ComcastDJ  , who was helping me swap the modem and seemed to have been working on this issue, has not logged into the site in over 2 weeks, and your and my posts in the direct forum are being ignored. This is business class support? It's been nearly TWO MONTHS since this profile change and they still don't even know about it, let alone how to fix it apparently. |
|
| pflog |
to mario02423
I am working with someone from escalations, and I think if I can give them the address of a few people whose connection is NOT working properly with 27/7 and some whose connection is IS working properly, they may be able to identify a commonality (be it type of CMTS or something).
If anyone is willing, can you please PM me your address or nearest cross street and city? I have a feeling they'd need the service address to be able to find the CMTS, but perhaps someone from Comcast can chime in and let us know what the minimum amount of info they'd need in order to locate the CMTS would be.
Thanks in advance! |
|
| |
said by pflog:If anyone is willing, can you please PM me your address or nearest cross street and city? I have a feeling they'd need the service address to be able to find the CMTS, but perhaps someone from Comcast can chime in and let us know what the minimum amount of info they'd need in order to locate the CMTS would be.
PM sent. Thanks for taking this initiative! |
|
Thordrune
Premium Member
join:2005-08-03
Lakeport, CA |
to pflog
I sent one too. Good luck in getting this resolved!  |
|
pflogBueller? Bueller?
MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA |
pflog
MVM
2012-Dec-4 11:14 am
Thank you both and depster as well for sending me your info. I passed your 3 addresses and your symptoms on and hopefully with enough data points, they will figure out what's wrong. Please if you are experiencing this, or if you have a working 27/7 or 17/3 with consistent speeds after PB and "a lot" of power boost still, please consider IM'ing me your address so those of us experiencing problems may get this resolved sooner. It's already been nearly 2 months.  |
|
| pflog |
pflog
MVM
2012-Dec-5 11:45 pm
Well the escalations people are telling me "everything on the CMTS looks fine" (meanwhile, they didn't even know about the 27/7 plan until I told them). Tech came out, fixed some loose fittings, a nicked cable, etc. But despite what he called a "better signal" and that he eliminated the ripples, the problem persisted (we both knew that would be the case). He called someone who noticed a problem or "extra code" in the boot file or something. They removed that, pushed it to my modem and still no change. The tech couldn't do anything so they had to leave, which is why the ball is yet again back in the court with escalations (who want me to have yet another tech sent out  ). I suppose I should be happy I'm using FreeBSD. I plugged both my windows 7 work laptop and my wife's macbook pro directly into the modem and the throughput is even more erratic. Though perhaps their TCP stacks aren't tuned. I thought win7 and OSX 10.5+ had "auto-tuning" TCP stacks. |
|
| |
Corporate Escalations called me once two weeks ago, left me a message to return her call, and I did about 10 minutes later. I left a voicemail, called and left another one the next day, then called last week and lft one last one. Each time her message says she's "On the other line," so I've written a letter to Comcast Corporate that was mailed today. People are starting to notice that this is a much bigger issue than one person's speed... Plus a Comcast rep on Twitter told pflog that PowerBoost doesn't exist on Business Class... » twitter.com/jkc120/statu ··· 93838336 |
|
pflogBueller? Bueller?
MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA |
pflog
MVM
2012-Dec-6 9:56 pm
My corporate escalations person REALLY is trying to help me. I know she is. I think her hands are tied because they're telling her "the boot file and CMTS check out". So I spoke with her again tonight, and as an experiment we tried dropping me to the 17/3 profile. It is doing the exact same thing as the 27/7 profile (see attached). What's even MORE interesting is that the powerboost is lasting almost exactly for the first 100MB of the file on the downstream side. PB lasted for ~40 seconds on this 17Mbps plan, whereas it lasted ~24 seconds for 27Mbps. From JohnInSJ 's 17/3 IO graph, his powerboost is lasting for almost exactly 20s, about half what mine is. I still think the CMTS isn't honoring the modem's boot file parameters, but I can't get anyone at Comcast to give this any serious inspection.  *edit* attaching 17Mbps IO graph. |
|
 ropeguru
Premium Member
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA |
ropeguru
Premium Member
2012-Dec-7 9:26 am
I got your IM but have been busy. I will try and get what you requested this evening or tomorrow morning and get it over to you. |
|
 JohnInSJ
Premium Member
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA |
to pflog
said by pflog:*edit* attaching 17Mbps IO graph.
That is messed up... |
|
pflogBueller? Bueller?
MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA |
pflog
MVM
2012-Dec-8 1:39 pm
ipfw 27000 Kbit | 
ipfw 28500 Kbit | 
ipfw 29700 kbit |
Well, I found a bug in my ipfw rate limiting rules. I was able to set the limit in ipfw to 28500Kbit: quote:
$ipfw pipe 1 config bw 28500Kbit/s
I can achieve a nearly flat IO graph with this. So I can get by until they (hopefully) fix the sawtooth issue. 29700 (to kind of match the boot file parameter) didn't work out so well. The CMTS side buffering eventually ran out near the end of the download (341 MB). Makes me wonder how long 28500 and 27000 would remain consistent. I'll have to try a larger download. |
|
| pflog |
to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:said by pflog:*edit* attaching 17Mbps IO graph.
That is messed up... Yes. Yes, it is.  A friend of mine with a biz line in Tennessee is seeing the same thing. So we have data from CA, MN, VA and TN (and I think MI?) of this. |
|
pflog
2 edits |
to mario02423
I happened upon this extremely informative paper: » groups.csail.mit.edu/ana ··· auer.pdfIt discusses capped vs. uncapped powerboost, the history and possible motivations for it, and more importantly how the token buckets work. Until recently the amount of buffering for best effort traffic was static and fairly large. Recent revisions of the DOCSIS specification have introduced a buffer control parameter that can be used to match the amount of buffering to the subscription speed tier and Powerboost configuration. I am guessing those of us seeing the seesaw pattern are on a CMTS which either a) cannot be configured properly for capped PB or b) is misconfigured (perhaps still implementing uncapped PB in one token buffer but not the other?) causing a disagreement between the token buckets and therefor the "harsh" discarding of packets which manifests as throttling instead of shaping. I'm ignorant to all this stuff, but after reading that paper it sure sounds to me like some CMTS's either do not support or are not properly configured for capped PB. *edit* The references for the Capped Peak traffic rate vs. MSTR are in this: » www.cablelabs.com/specif ··· 1206.pdfAll kinds of stuff way over my head Although this certainly sounds like it could be related: When a CMTS implements both a Maximum Sustained Traffic Rate and a Peak Downstream Traffic Rate for a
service flow, it limits the bytes forwarded in any interval T to the lesser of Max(T) defined in equation (1) of Annex
C.2.2.5.2 and Peak(T) defined in equation (2). The peak rate parameter P is intended to be configured to be greater
than or equal to the Maximum Sustained Rate R of equation (1). Operation when the peak rate P is configured to be
less than the Maximum Sustained Rate R is CMTS vendor-specific.
When the CMTS enforces the Downstream Peak Traffic Rate, it SHOULD "rate shape" the downstream traffic by
delaying the forwarding of packets until the Downstream Peak Rate expression (2) can be met. The specific
algorithm for enforcing this parameter, with or without concurrently enforcing the Maximum Sustained Traffic Rate
parameter, is not mandated here. Any implementation which satisfies the normative requirements is conformant. In
particular, the granularity of enforcement and the minimum implemented value of this parameter are vendor
specific. The CMTS SHOULD support a granularity of at most 100 kbps. So is this a case where my CMTS is "conformant", but lazy in the way it handles this, resulting in a non-smooth shaping?  |
|
 depster
join:2001-06-07
Grand Rapids, MI |
Here is a link to a more recent DOCSIS 3 version (11/13/12) of the CableLabs specification. » www.cablelabs.com/specif ··· 1113.pdf |
|
pflogBueller? Bueller?
MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA |
pflog
MVM
2012-Dec-18 12:31 pm
I keep hoping for an early Christmas present and these erratic speeds getting fixed, but I'm starting to think they may become an Easter present hahaha |
|
 SpaethCoDigital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN |
said by pflog:I keep hoping for an early Christmas present and these erratic speeds getting fixed Outside of single TCP flow file transfers, what's actually broken? |
|
pflogBueller? Bueller?
MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA |
pflog
MVM
2012-Dec-19 5:34 pm
said by SpaethCo:said by pflog:I keep hoping for an early Christmas present and these erratic speeds getting fixed Outside of single TCP flow file transfers, what's actually broken? It behaves the same way with 20 connections on NNTP and also torrent. And although everyone keeps telling me it shouldn't affect VoIP it sure does and that problem started when this new profile was pushed. |
|
SpaethCoDigital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN |
Strange. I get the same results as you only for a single flow; multiple flows like the NNTP example like you gave all end up balancing here. |
|
pflogBueller? Bueller?
MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA |
pflog
MVM
2012-Dec-19 6:47 pm
Oh it's slightly better, but instead of a sawtooth it looks more like random spikes although the amplitude is tighter, yes.
If they don't fix it, I think I will reevaluate whether I want to be a customer, especially since the people I've been talking to have never indicated they would NOT fix it and I would consider that extremely disingenuous of them to string me along if a fix is not coming at some point. |
|
|
 NetFixerFrom My Cold Dead Hands
Premium Member
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Pace 5268AC
TRENDnet TEW-829DRU
1 recommendation |
NetFixer
Premium Member
2012-Dec-19 6:58 pm
said by pflog:Oh it's slightly better, but instead of a sawtooth it looks more like random spikes although the amplitude is tighter, yes.
If they don't fix it, I think I will reevaluate whether I want to be a customer, especially since the people I've been talking to have never indicated they would NOT fix it and I would consider that extremely disingenuous of them to string me along if a fix is not coming at some point.
Since the erratic behavior that you and others are seeing seems to only be happening with the business class gateway boxes, perhaps that problem will be fixed when Comcast releases IPv6 firmware upgrades for the gateway boxes (but don't hold your breath while waiting for the IPv6 firmware). |
|
pflogBueller? Bueller?
MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA |
pflog
MVM
2012-Dec-19 7:43 pm
said by NetFixer:said by pflog:Oh it's slightly better, but instead of a sawtooth it looks more like random spikes although the amplitude is tighter, yes.
If they don't fix it, I think I will reevaluate whether I want to be a customer, especially since the people I've been talking to have never indicated they would NOT fix it and I would consider that extremely disingenuous of them to string me along if a fix is not coming at some point.
Since the erratic behavior that you and others are seeing seems to only be happening with the business class gateway boxes, perhaps that problem will be fixed when Comcast releases IPv6 firmware upgrades for the gateway boxes (but don't hold your breath while waiting for the IPv6 firmware). Yes, at this point, I am assuming that is the hold up. That or I heard a rumor of a "forklift" of Cisco equipment to be replaced by an "A" vendor (assuming Arris). Either way, sounds like it's going to be like this for months yet, and I wish they'd just provide a rough ETA. But then their customers would know it's not operating properly and then they'd have to shell out credits. Luckily for me I logged a call as soon as I noticed this problem and I will be sure to request some sort of compensation for this. |
|
plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY
1 recommendation |
said by pflog:said by NetFixer:said by pflog:Oh it's slightly better, but instead of a sawtooth it looks more like random spikes although the amplitude is tighter, yes.
If they don't fix it, I think I will reevaluate whether I want to be a customer, especially since the people I've been talking to have never indicated they would NOT fix it and I would consider that extremely disingenuous of them to string me along if a fix is not coming at some point.
Since the erratic behavior that you and others are seeing seems to only be happening with the business class gateway boxes, perhaps that problem will be fixed when Comcast releases IPv6 firmware upgrades for the gateway boxes (but don't hold your breath while waiting for the IPv6 firmware). Yes, at this point, I am assuming that is the hold up. That or I heard a rumor of a "forklift" of Cisco equipment to be replaced by an "A" vendor (assuming Arris). Either way, sounds like it's going to be like this for months yet, and I wish they'd just provide a rough ETA. But then their customers would know it's not operating properly and then they'd have to shell out credits. Luckily for me I logged a call as soon as I noticed this problem and I will be sure to request some sort of compensation for this. a rough ETA wouldn't be any good anyway, they already provided one for ipv6 on cisco and that came and went. |
|
| |
Received a letter from the Executive Response folks today... it was dated Dec 26 and post-marked Dec 28. Said something to the effect of "our efforts to contact you have remained unanswered" and, the kicker, "if we don't hear from you by 12/29, we will consider this resolved." Oh... I forgot to mention that I received this letter today, 12/31...
The number listed on the letter is the standard 800 Business Class line. This is so ridiculous. |
|
plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY |
said by mario02423:Received a letter from the Executive Response folks today... it was dated Dec 26 and post-marked Dec 28. Said something to the effect of "our efforts to contact you have remained unanswered" and, the kicker, "if we don't hear from you by 12/29, we will consider this resolved." Oh... I forgot to mention that I received this letter today, 12/31...
The number listed on the letter is the standard 800 Business Class line. This is so ridiculous.
the executive support people face penalties for having open tickets so they just close them unresolved. unbelievably frustrating. |
|
| |
How high can I go? I mean, I mailed it to "Executive Department," but I got a call back from the same people. Current contract cancellation puts me at about ~$850 right now. |
|
).
