dicen
join:2007-05-16
90000 | Comcast throttling high bandwidth users secretly. Comcast has just started throttling my link at 200 KB/s down after a few minutes of >100 KB/s (lowest I tested) usage. This effects everything. So encrypting Bittorrent (I have) doesn't matter. Lowering its usage doesn't matter. Just browsing the web after this becomes a painful experience. I have the highest speed account level 8 Mbits/s (1 MB/s). Testing my link with the tools on this site will not show this. You have to actually use the bandwidth for a few minutes before the throttle is activated. (Like I need 8 Mbits/s for only a few minutes at a time.)
I am in Sunnyvale, CA (the Bay Area). I am now looking for a new ISP. Does anyone know of any Fiber ISPs available here? I just moved. I would love Verizon but it isn't here. Will it be?
What did I do to deserve this? I never used more then 500 KB/s peak. Usually around 400 KB/s on and off for a few days downloading some videos I paid for. Total around 30GB.
I encourage everyone on Comcast to look for this. It is very sneaky. You may be capped, you just don't know it.
dicen |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
1 edit | How long?
I'm here in the Bay Area as well... they aren't throttling me!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
dicen
join:2007-05-16
90000 | said by dadkins:How long? I'm here in the Bay Area as well... they aren't throttling me! I just discovered it today. But, I think it started a few days ago. I just tested again and it looks like it kicks in at >150 KB/s for a few minutes. I am definitely gone. This is of course what they want. But, when everyone leaves for Verizon what will they have? Typical Corporate America thinking. Idiots. I suggest everyone start looking.
dicen |
|
|
|
dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | As you can see by my pics... I am pulling 8.6mbps steady.
I think there might be some other problem aside from throttling.
Sorry that you are leaving. Good luck with whomever you choose as you new provider! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
dicen
join:2007-05-16
90000 | said by dadkins:As you can see by my pics... I am pulling 8.6mbps steady. I think there might be some other problem aside from throttling. Sorry that you are leaving. Good luck with whomever you choose as you new provider! Well, I don't think they do this to everyone. This just happened to me after downloading a lot of data over a few days. It appears to be very smart throttling. They look at how much I am downloading, for how long, and I think they may even look at the number of network connections I have.
Like I said high bandwidth users. You get put in a penalty box.
dicen |
|
dicen
join:2007-05-16
90000 | You know, you sound like you work for Comcast. I wouldn't be surprised. This throttling is not a problem on my end. I go from >500 KB/s to exactly 200 KB/s at exactly the same amount of time, every time I test it. It is like clock work.
dicen |
|
dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | said by dicen:You know, you sound like you work for Comcast. I wouldn't be surprised. This throttling is not a problem on my end. I go from >500 KB/s to exactly 200 KB/s at exactly the same amount of time, every time I test it. It is like clock work. dicen I'll take that as a compliment!
I don't work for Comcast.
I don't work for anyone actually - being disabled sucks!
I can still peg my connection, and I live just North of you here in The Bay Area.
Other than throttling, it could be your headend, some fried router between you and where ever, a modem or router problem at your end, or even your computer.
Since you are sure it is not within your house(I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), then any of the other items outside the house between you and ??? may be borked.
Comcast has never throttled my connection.
Ask anyone here in this Comcast forum what my connection is like.
If you would like, I will see if I can get someone that *DOES* work for Comcast to come to this thread and reply... 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
 CableToolPoorly Representing MYSELF.Premium
join:2004-11-12 | reply to dicen
I only have this to add. |
|
 RR ConductorHappy 40th AmtrakPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to dadkins
No throttling up here in Mendocino County on Comcast either, we're part of the Comcast North Bay Network (Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino Counties). |
|
lart
join:2002-08-19
united state
1 edit | reply to dicen
How are you testing your download speeds? most clients will take an average speed. I think you are giving comcast more credit then they deserve. |
|
 JahntassaWhat, I can have feathersPremium
join:2006-04-14
Conway, SC
kudos:4 | reply to CableTool
I second that! |
|
 b1gdr3I Blame Your Mother
join:2001-07-28
York, PA | reply to dicen
said by dicen:I encourage everyone on Comcast to look for this. It is very sneaky. You may be capped, you just don't know it. I guess it's not possible that the server you are downloading from sucks.....no that's not possible, Comcast has to be doing it huh {/sarcasm}
--
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers. |
|
approval from:
dadkins 
Cabal
agaprazr
RR Conductor
dbw09
| I hate to break it to you but comcast's HFC network isn't designed to deliberately throttle as you are suggesting. If comcast thinks you're doing too much or going too fast on their network they simply reassign your modems config file and force it to reboot taking it offline until you call them.
Speedtests are flaky at best and torrents are far from reliable for speed tests as the seeder/leecher ratio makes a huge difference as well as upload issues.
Rather than doing a blind assumption of deliberate throttling, why don't you post your modem info, signal levels, equipment(router/wireless), and screen shots of http downloads from servers near you geographically and maybe the good users of this forum can help you fix your issue. |
|
CableToolPoorly Representing MYSELF.Premium
join:2004-11-12 | reply to dicen
said by dicen:I encourage everyone on Comcast to look for this. It is very sneaky. You may be capped, you just don't know it. dicen Dude, Id know. There is nothing "Sneaky" about going down to 100-200KB/s. Everyone would notice. I suggest you take a hard look at your system and its settings. Im sure everything is perfect, untouched and optimal.. but stuff usually is until it craps out.
--
CableFAQ.org/Technicians Unplugged
|
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to dicen
said by dicen:You know, you sound like you work for Comcast. I wouldn't be surprised. This throttling is not a problem on my end. I go from >500 KB/s to exactly 200 KB/s at exactly the same amount of time, every time I test it. It is like clock work. dicen, meet Dadkins, one of the most knowledgeable and helpful people here. He won't steer you wrong.
One other possibility is the "Optimistic Unchoke" effect. When a new peer connects, the other peer is supposed to give him a 33% (1 in 3) chance in getting the next optimistic unchoke. That means, within 30-40 seconds of connecting, 1 in 3 peers should start downloading to you. That download should last for at least 30 seconds. After that, you are in that peer's regular rotation for another optimistic unchoke (unless that peer selects you as one of its better reciprocators).
None of the above necessarily applies to seeds -- especially that last sentence, since seeds do not care about reciprocation.
So after joining a swarm, if you connect up to your swarm rather quickly, and if that swarm is light on full seeds, it could be (and should be) normal to have a bit of a drop that peaks about 1:10 minutes from the time you connect, and begins to drop 30-40 seconds later.
Just another theory for you to test. Personally, this one doesn't happen to me, because I don't connect up to swarms very fast -- about one new connection every 3-4 seconds -- so the effect isn't very pronounced to me if it happens at all. (I'm really not a participant in any of the really popular torrent swarms -- my music/video tastes are just not hip enough.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
~ Keeper of the D-Link FAQ ~ Did you Search? ~ More features, Free! Join BBR! ~ |
|
 toolkit
join:2001-01-16
Crystal Lake, IL | reply to dicen
I think funchords may have identified your problem. With Ethernet in general (not just BitTorrent, but all ethernet), every packet needs to be acknowledged. If you have an asymmetric connection (where download is a different rate than upload), you can easily create problems if you saturate the slower connection. In this case, if the upload connection gets saturated, you will see the download connection reduce performance to approximately equal the upload performance.
This has nothing to do with Comcast, or DOCSIS, or cable. It happens on DSL, and even asymmetric dial-up too - anything that has a different download and upload rate.
The problem is caused when the upload pipe is full. Then the ack packets for the download pipe can't be sent as fast as they want, and they have to wait in line with the other upload traffic. The end result is that both upload and download start operating at a speed near the slower of the two. The only time you wouldn't have to worry about this is if you had a link where the upload and download were the same rate (a symmetric link, like SDSL or a T1 line).
If BitTorrent is causing your upload pipe to saturate, I would look at limiting the upload. Most BitTorrent clients have the ability to limit the amount of upload bandwidth. I personally would limit it to about half of your total upload capability (yes HALF). If your advertised upload rate is 768Kbit/s, then I would limit the BT client to about 384Kbit/s or around 50 KBytes/s. That leaves plenty of room for other stuff to get into the stream, and you shouldn't notice any impact on web surfing.
Please try configuring your BT client to limit upload bandwidth. Failing that, try closing the client. Then see if your bandwidth almost immediately returns to normal. If it does, then you can be pretty sure this is the problem. Let us know what you find. We're here to help - really. Just remember to stay calm and you'll find a lot more help. |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | said by toolkit:With Ethernet in general (not just BitTorrent, but all ethernet), every packet needs to be acknowledged. That's not true at all, but you are along the right lines. With TCP/IP over Ethernet, acknowledgements only come into play at the TCP level (which is OSI layer 4). IP (layer 3) and Ethernet (layer 2) are essentially send and pray protocols. However, because TCP requires acks, then anything above it, such as P2P applications (layer 6 or 7), is also dependent on acks. |
|
| said by DMS1:said by toolkit:With Ethernet in general (not just BitTorrent, but all ethernet), every packet needs to be acknowledged. That's not true at all, but you are along the right lines. With TCP/IP over Ethernet, acknowledgements only come into play at the TCP level (which is OSI layer 4). IP (layer 3) and Ethernet (layer 2) are essentially send and pray protocols. However, because TCP requires acks, then anything above it, such as P2P applications (layer 6 or 7), is also dependent on acks. I hardly think the *technical* semantics change his point. Way to needlessly clarify something. |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | said by DreamWraith:said by DMS1:said by toolkit:With Ethernet in general (not just BitTorrent, but all ethernet), every packet needs to be acknowledged. That's not true at all, but you are along the right lines. With TCP/IP over Ethernet, acknowledgements only come into play at the TCP level (which is OSI layer 4). IP (layer 3) and Ethernet (layer 2) are essentially send and pray protocols. However, because TCP requires acks, then anything above it, such as P2P applications (layer 6 or 7), is also dependent on acks. I hardly think the *technical* semantics change his point. Way to needlessly clarify something. No, it doesn't change his point, but your technically incorrect information could mislead others. For example, one might easily think that your argument extended to VOIP applications too, when in fact it doesn't because VOIP uses UDP instead of TCP. |
|
toolkit
join:2001-01-16
Crystal Lake, IL | You're right. I should have been more careful with my language. When I talk about ethernet, I often think of the entire TCP/IP stack. I should have used the term TCP, I guess, to make it more accurate.
In any case, I think there is a good chance a saturated uplink is the cause of the download problem the OP is seeing. Kudos to funchords for thinking of that. |
|
