  S_engineer
join:2007-05-16 Chicago, IL | I wonder If Comcast will have the brains enough to cross reference whom are business clients and whom are home users in order not to cut off vital VPNs?
Is it who or whom? -- Burn a tire, but make sure you buy that carbon offset! | |
|
 |  jester121
join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL | Re: I wonder Who. | |
|
 |   School Marm
@fdn.com
| The rule is, use "whom" when it's the object of the verb that can't be replaced by "he" or "she.
So, "To whom did you give the gift." Because "whom" is the object of the verb "to give" and you would also say, "I gave the gift to him or her."
Now in your case, "Comcast will have the brains to cross-reference who are business clients." Because you could also say, "cross-reference [if] he/she is [a] business client" or, "cross-reference if they are business clients."
Bottom line is, when the question is who/whom, try replacing the who part with he, she, they. If the sentence works with that replacement, use "who." | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  |   Transmaster Onward Through The Fog
join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY | Re: I wonder This is all true but it really depends who's style book you use. I have several here, New York Times, AP, etc. -- Eat pork chops for Allah! | |
|
 |  |   Datatechs Life is What You Make it Premium join:2003-05-22 West Monroe, LA
·Comcast
| said by School Marm :
The rule is, use "whom" when it's the object of the verb that can't be replaced by "he" or "she.
So, "To whom did you give the gift." Because "whom" is the object of the verb "to give" and you would also say, "I gave the gift to him or her."
Now in your case, "Comcast will have the brains to cross-reference who are business clients." Because you could also say, "cross-reference [if] he/she is [a] business client" or, "cross-reference if they are business clients."
Bottom line is, when the question is who/whom, try replacing the who part with he, she, they. If the sentence works with that replacement, use "who." Y'all dun screwed up da whole thang. | |
|
 |  |  |   avd706 Premium join:2003-02-06 Great Neck, NY | Re: I wonder said by Datatechs :Y'all dun screwed up da whole thang. Whom did? | |
|
 |  |  |  |   jdong Eat A Beaver, Save A Tree. Premium join:2002-07-09 Rochester, MI clubs:  
| Re: I wonder said by avd706 :said by Datatechs :Y'all dun screwed up da whole thang. Whom did? Err... that's who did. -- Ubuntu MOTU Developer and Forums Council | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   avd706 Premium join:2003-02-06 Great Neck, NY | Re: I wonder Brilliant!!! | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 dentman42
join:2001-10-02 Columbus, OH | DOS? Sandvine forges a packet to cause a dropped connection? Sounds dangerously close to a Denial of Service attack to me. | |
|
 |   tao Chaos Impends Premium join:2000-12-03 Lansing, MI
·Comcast
| Re: DOS? I was wondering about the legality of forging a packet while still having a IP header with the originating users IP address as the sender of said packet. Further, this said packet informs the recipient that the sender wishes to terminate the conversation.
This clearly is a fraud. | |
|
 |  |   swhx7 Premium join:2006-07-23 Elbonia | Re: DOS? Yes, and somehow I suspect that if a Comcast customer started forging packets to sabotage someone else's internet connection, it would be against Comcast's rules. Kinda hypocritical. | |
|
 quatrix
join:2005-02-11 Davie, FL | Solutions? "Funchords continues to dissect Comcast's efforts, and has since come up with some solutions."
SOLUTIONS. Good one. Just like radar detectors are a "solution" to police trying to enforce the law. | |
|
 |   TScheisskopf World News Trust
join:2005-02-13 Belvidere, NJ | Re: Solutions? You know, there ARE legitimate uses of BitTorrent. | |
|
 |  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Solutions? said by TScheisskopf :You know, there ARE legitimate uses of BitTorrent. as far as comcast is concerned, so what.
comcast and others are throttling bittorrent for two reasons:
1. they can get away with it because bittorrent has been so vilified by the content industry, that anyone that supports using bittorrent MUST be a pirate - this doesn't cause a big stink in the main stream media because they are battling pirates, not violating network neutrality; they also get away with it because there is so little competition in the U.S., pissed off customers have no other ISPs to go to
2. bittorrent uses bandwidth and by throttling one of the primary applications using that bandwidth they reduce bandwidth demands on their system | |
|
 |  |  |   TScheisskopf World News Trust
join:2005-02-13 Belvidere, NJ | Re: Solutions? I suspect it has much more to do with oversold nodes than anything else.
"We're gonna give you 12Mbs down, but don't you DARE use it! You pay to HAVE the 12Mbs service, not actually download anything more than a webpage with it." | |
|
 |  |  |  |  magusat999
join:2005-07-08 Oakland, CA
·Comcast
| Re: Solutions? said by TScheisskopf :I suspect it has much more to do with oversold nodes than anything else. "We're gonna give you 12Mbs down, but don't you DARE use it! You pay to HAVE the 12Mbs service, not actually download anything more than a webpage with it." My sentiments exactly - I'm surprised some idiot didn't respond with "Show me in the TOS where it says 'Unlimited"..." - which is the usual stupid reply to the type of statement you are making. I could car less what's in a TOS - if I am paying for something, I want and expect to use every last bit of what I paid for. If Comcrap cannot provide my 8+mbps, and I have been using all of the bandwidth I am paying for, 24/7 for 500 years straight - I should not be penalized! It's Comcast that failed to be able to deliver (or just flat out lied about it) the service they sold to people, and it's COMCAST who should bite the bullet for it! | |
|
 |  |  |  |  SimonGibson
join:2007-11-17 Crystal Lake, IL
| said by TScheisskopf :I suspect it has much more to do with oversold nodes than anything else. "We're gonna give you 12Mbs down, but don't you DARE use it! You pay to HAVE the 12Mbs service, not actually download anything more than a webpage with it." This happens in UK with British Telecom's DSL service - My elderly aunt couldn't understand why she kept loosing her connection - She was merely browsing and e-mail - Turns out the hardware just couldn't cope with the bandwidth demand in a small rural area - A few terse phone calls to BT explaining that the elderly lady had some very tech savvy family ready to turn it into an issue... | |
|
 |   vpoko Premium join:2003-07-03 Jamaica Plain, MA | Yes, just like that. So? | |
|
 |   telcolackey The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06 Death Valley, CA | Who said anything about impacting VPNs? Stop the FUD | |
|
 |  |   cdru Go Colts Premium,MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon FIOS
edit: August 29th, @02:52PM
| Re: Solutions? said by telcolackey :Who said anything about impacting VPNs? Stop the FUD Did you even READ the summary at the top of the page. In case you missed it, I'll highlight the key part:
quote: The question now becomes whether this evolves into a game of cat and mouse now familiar to subscribers of Canadian cable operator Rogers, who took traffic shaping to an entirely new level by using deep packet inspection to strangle all VPN and encrypted traffic in order to thwart such workarounds.
| |
|
 |  |  |  scottie
join:2006-05-05 Waterloo, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Re: Solutions? I can still access all of my VPN's. The problem for me only seemed to be with SecureIX VPN services. I was never able to figure out if Rogers was causing the issue or if Secureix's vpn servers were down.
I have long given up on bit torrent now with Rogers. I have been hearing rumors that they have laxed their throttling nowadays tho. | |
|
 |   swhx7 Premium join:2006-07-23 Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by quatrix :"Funchords continues to dissect Comcast's efforts, and has since come up with some solutions." SOLUTIONS. Good one. Just like radar detectors are a "solution" to police trying to enforce the law. It's more like the police sending all red cars on twenty-kilometer detours on remote streets. while letting the rest go on their way.
And if you ask why, they say, "There are too many cars on the roads. We have to reduce the number on the main roads. And our statistics show that red cars are more often driven by criminals than other colors, so this is the best way to manage the roads."
Then when someone points out that lots of innocent people drive red cars, and workers are kept away from jobs, and parents from children, and that policies affecting all cars equally would be a fairer way to reduce traffic jams - such arguments are denounced as attempted excuses for criminals. | |
|
 |
 |   telcolackey The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06 Death Valley, CA | Re: VPNs are important! No VPN issues... This is FUD | |
|
 |  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD | Re: VPNs are important! i was just using VPN a few days ago, so unless they just started blocking VPN in my area, no problems here. | |
|
 |   b1gdr3 I Blame Your Mother
join:2001-07-28 Whitewright, TX
·Comcast
| said by reelbigfish :If I worked out of my home and my work paid for the connection I would get a Comcast business line or a Verizon DSL line. I don't see how you can complain when you are using a RESIDENTIAL connection for BUSINESS purposes. -- I wasn't born with enough middle fingers. | |
|
 |  |   beldin Permanently barned Premium join:2006-06-06 Union, SC
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: VPNs are important! So, when you are using your home account, you do not check your business email. Is that right? Otherwise, you are using a residential account for business purposes.
Gimme a break. I'm not Comcast, but with AT&T, there's nothing in the TOS that says that I can't use my residential account to connect to my business with a VPN. As long as I don't violate the TOS, it shouldn't matter what I do online. -- DSL Extreme 6.0 | |
|
 |  |  |   hhawkman Premium join:2001-02-08 Port Hueneme, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: VPNs are important! said by beldin :So, when you are using your home account, you do not check your business email. Is that right? Otherwise, you are using a residential account for business purposes. Gimme a break. I'm not Comcast, but with AT&T, there's nothing in the TOS that says that I can't use my residential account to connect to my business with a VPN. As long as I don't violate the TOS, it shouldn't matter what I do online. Everything I use my residential connection for is business, MY BUSINESS  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  SimonGibson
join:2007-11-17 Crystal Lake, IL
| Re: VPNs are important! said by hhawkman :said by beldin :So, when you are using your home account, you do not check your business email. Is that right? Otherwise, you are using a residential account for business purposes. Gimme a break. I'm not Comcast, but with AT&T, there's nothing in the TOS that says that I can't use my residential account to connect to my business with a VPN. As long as I don't violate the TOS, it shouldn't matter what I do online. Everything I use my residential connection for is business, MY BUSINESS Hear Hear!! Where does it say your residental phone can't be used by you to call your business to say that you'll be late. As far as I'm concerned to only differential between business and residential service is the level of support you get. Obviously a business is perhaps more mission critical - Ooops - I messed up there - Did I say business is more important than the very necessary lifeline a phone provides to a sick person??? Anyway you get the point - If it says 24/7 then it had better be available 24/7... | |
|
 |
  Rick Premium,MVM join:2001-02-06 Waterbury, CT clubs: 
| I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... take this issue to the same level as the "capping" issue.
And, by that ..I mean ...Let's have BBR just continually rip this company to shreds for taking steps to preserve the integrity of their network for those of us who do NOT abuse it.
Heck, why not just post the "solutions" for how people can even get around this and continue on with their ever loving ways of soaking up so much bandwidth that there's simply none left for the rest of us to use and enjoy.
Oh.Wait. That's exactly what this story now does. Silly me for thinking that is what would come next.
Well, allow me this post to post my opposing view. As a comcast customer.
Dear Comcast.. Keep right on doing whatever it is you're doing. We love you for it.
Some of us are of the belief that you give us a tremendous amount of value for our money. And even believe that 300 gigs per month is still a WHOLE lot of data..and those who seek to use their connection more than that really should a)cough up the money for a business class connection or b) get a secondary line to split your use between the two services.
Ladies and Gents..Comcast does not owe us the world for 42.95 per month. Nor do they owe the abusers an unlimited license to take whatever it is they want..at whatever cost it is to comcast..in order to satisfy their own demands.
You see...the problem with that..is that SOMEONE is going to pay anyway..and who it will be will be YOU..and I.. those who do use our connections for very reasonable and then some...downloading and uploading.
Comcast is VERY fair when it comes to their limits.. and those limits are in place for the benefit of us all..not the detriment to us all.
Comcast should NOT be engaged in the business of allowing the kinds of copyright stealing abusers who exist out there to seed an entire p2p network. And, for this website..BBR..to post "solutions" and "workarounds" to that is really..just flat out wrong.
And, you elevate yourself to a much LOWER level..IMHO.
Listen. I'm not against people connecting to work..nor even using their connections..a LOT. And Comcast does allow for that. I'm always using my connection. It's my right arm...and it's always there to serve me..no problems..no questions asked.
What that tells me is that the people who ARE having problems are by far..exceeding EVERY reasonable boundary there is.
And quite frankly..for BBR to be aiding that kind of behavior..and worse yet..to be presenting Comcast in an unfavorable and negative light because of it..almost non stop these days..
Is really...
Just plain..
Flat out...
Wrong.
Thank you for allowing me my op Ed piece.
~Rick Satisfied Comcast Customer -- The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
 |  See 65 replies to this post |
|
 luckycat007
join:2002-03-14 Milford, MI
| VOIP causing drops of network connection? I have two homes (one summer home), both with Comcast basic tier. No issues at one, but at the summer home when I was trying to use bittorrent (to download some files that were in fact legally shared!), my net connection went down; I was not able to get it back up until I changed my router MAC address to clone my computer network card. I contact Comcast about this, they couldn't explain why it happened, and said that they do not block MAC addresses.
For the past two days, I've been calling into work using VPN from this address, and that has not been a problem. However, when using my company-provided VOIP my entire Internet connection simply drops and restarts occasionally.
Could these things I'm experiencing be related to this? | |
|
 |  dentman42
join:2001-10-02 Columbus, OH
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: VOIP causing drops of network connection? said by luckycat007 :I have two homes (one summer home), both with Comcast basic tier. No issues at one, but at the summer home when I was trying to use bittorrent (to download some files that were in fact legally shared!), my net connection went down; I was not able to get it back up until I changed my router MAC address to clone my computer network card. I contact Comcast about this, they couldn't explain why it happened, and said that they do not block MAC addresses. For the past two days, I've been calling into work using VPN from this address, and that has not been a problem. However, when using my company-provided VOIP my entire Internet connection simply drops and restarts occasionally. Could these things I'm experiencing be related to this? That actually sounds like a bad or obsoleted cable modem. On RR, when Insight upped us from 3/384 to 5/512, my old SB3100 (in use since early 2000) started rebooting every minute or two when I used any significant upstream (most notably Torrents or an active VPN connection). It would stay up as long as there was little or no upstream in use (retrieving mail via POP or surfing). A new modem resolved the issue and I now get 55+KB up on torrents and still have enough headroom to surf. Haven't seen any effects of traffic shaping yet. | |
|
 |  |   Vchat20 Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16 Warren, OH
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: VOIP causing drops of network connection? Agreed. When I started out I had an OOOLD Toshiba pcx1100 modem and any time I ran any sustained downloads or uploads, after about a minute it would drop the connection completely and force me to reboot it before it would all come back up. Upgraded to a PCX2500 and the issue was solved. Looks like a new modem is an order for you. -- I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz | |
|
 |  |  luckycat007
join:2002-03-14 Milford, MI
| Thanks, I'll look into that..this is an older SB4200 - not incredibly old really - but I haven't used it a ton w/VOIP. What puzzles me though is why would would my router not be able to get a WAN IP address unless I change it's MAC address, and that happened only coincidentally after doing a few bittorrent transfers (comcast cable). | |
|
 |  |  |  compton
join:2002-02-08 Brooklyn, NY
| Re: VOIP causing drops of network connection? said by luckycat007 :Thanks, I'll look into that..this is an older SB4200 - not incredibly old really - but I haven't used it a ton w/VOIP. What puzzles me though is why would would my router not be able to get a WAN IP address unless I change it's MAC address, and that happened only coincidentally after doing a few bittorrent transfers (comcast cable). Your modem might be going. Maybe you can upgrade the firmware. I had the SB4200 when I was with Optonline. The service was 16Mbps/2Mbps. I had 2 VOIP lines, as well as, 4 computers hooked up to the SB4200, and I never had a problem. | |
|
 |
  Craigenator
@optonline.net
| Is this pretexting? Is this pretexting? Is comcast pretending to be someone else you intended to communate with? Interesting legal question, is it legal for Comcast to pretend to be someone else and send you information (i.e. an IP packet) from that person's address?
I mean, if I sent you a letter and signed someone elses name, wouldn't that be illegal? Is this the same thing? | |
|
 |  DufiefData
join:2006-06-13 Gaithersburg, MD
| Re: Is this pretexting? A very interesting question. Network providers in the US typically have very limited rights to interfere with the content that users transmit/receive over the network. (Then again, that presumes the content is legal.... it could be argued that Bittorrent content has a default presumption of illegality.)
The Sandvine equipment sounds like direct manipulation of customer-transmitted information. Then again, I imagine that Sandvine's legal team analyzed this issue for some time before starting the company. Somehow or other it is probably legal in practice. | |
|
 compton
join:2002-02-08 Brooklyn, NY
| It's Comcast what do you expect. What may be happening is Comcast is feeling some pressure over the capping and is turning to this alternative. I don't know what percentage of Comcast bandwidth usage is due to bit torrent but interfering with bit torrent applications is a bad way to manage the bandwidth issues. | |
|
 |  |
 tdumaine
join:2004-03-14 Federal Way, WA edit: August 29th, @09:54PM
| Is rick a comcast employee? Stinks like one | |
|
 |  DufiefData
join:2006-06-13 Gaithersburg, MD | Re: Is rick a comcast employee? Oh please! You don't need to be a "Comcast employee" to think that customers should respect basic standards of consideration and good citizenship when using a public utility. | |
|
 |  |  |
  rosepalmandfive
@comcast.net | yes business has a different type of account than normal end user | |
|
  Silly Comcast
@qsoprotection.com | Thwart Their Attempts by Switching to DSL That's how they will learn. | |
|
 macguy
join:2007-08-18 Bloomfield, NJ
| This is the point. Comcast preventing people from seeding is wrong. That is why these work arounds are being allowed on the site. At least that's what I think.
This has nothing to do with people downloading 300 gigs or for that matter even uploading 300 gigs. Comcast is preventing people from using their connection that they pay for. The issue isn't how much data is being transfered, it's the fact that comcast is flat out preventing people from sending ANY data outside their network. Thus saving comcast money, so the fat cats at the top can keep their fancy cars and big houses.
It's a simple matter of comcast being cheap and not wanting to improve their network. | |
|
  sharingislegal
@rogers.com | Comcast sucks! I'm overjoyed I don't have those crooks as providers.  | |
|
 |  |
  TFergason
@mchsi.com
| Why just Comcast? Other MSO's are doing it too... Why is Comcast in the spotlite? Every MSO I have ever worked for has Sandvines in place. How each chooses to shape or filter the traffic differs... but it's out there.
I do not work for Comcast, but I have/do work for other MSO's that employ Sandvine technology to limit and filter traffic.
Also... the "article" if you can call it that... states the Sandvine is somehow connected to the CMTS ??? Never seen that configuration. It's usually on 2 GigE ports on an HSD router... and routes are in place routing traffic from specific Vlans or scopes out one GigE interface to the Sandvine... then back into the router from the Sandvine and out the MSO's circuits.
At any rate... don't hammer Comcast for trying to keep the situation under control. At the rate which people are starting to P2P more and more... they would have to add so many new circuits to the backbone to support the added bandwidth that the customer could no longer afford the charges they would impose to cover the cost of said circuits. | |
|
 |   funchords Robb Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
edit: August 30th, @02:11AM
| Re: Why just Comcast? Other MSO's are doing it too... said by TFergason :
Why is Comcast in the spotlite? Every MSO I have ever worked for has Sandvines in place. How each chooses to shape or filter the traffic differs... but it's out there.
I do not work for Comcast, but I have/do work for other MSO's that employ Sandvine technology to limit and filter traffic. I think some points go into Sandvine's column for coming up with a solution that has generally remained transparent to the user for as long as it has.
said by TFergason :
Also... the "article" if you can call it that... Gee, thanks! 
said by TFergason :
states the Sandvine is somehow connected to the CMTS ??? This fact surprised me, too. Statements from Comcast employees initially alerted me to it, and later my testing showed it to be true.
said by TFergason :
Never seen that configuration. It's usually on 2 GigE ports on an HSD router... and routes are in place routing traffic from specific Vlans or scopes out one GigE interface to the Sandvine... then back into the router from the Sandvine and out the MSO's circuits. I've never worked for your industry, but everything I've read about how it is recommended to be deployed agrees with you. Comcast's implementation is different, however.
Part of the explanation, possibly, is that Comcast.net alone, is a very vast network -- and one that has been consuming other networks at a regular rate. Comcast's internal congestion problems and topology realities may vastly overshadow those of most of Sandvine's customers. The conventional wisdom may be different.
But one of the reasons that Comcast is getting a lot of attention is that their implementation seems broken -- and we can't get it fixed because they entirely deny it exists!!
said by TFergason :
At any rate... don't hammer Comcast for trying to keep the situation under control. At the rate which people are starting to P2P more and more... they would have to add so many new circuits to the backbone to support the added bandwidth that the customer could no longer afford the charges they would impose to cover the cost of said circuits. I hope you really did read my articles. I've tried to see it evenhandedly, and I've strived to both be factual and to differentiate between objective fact and subjective opinion.
It's been suggested by more than one person intimately familiar with the technology that it sounds like Comcast's implementation is both inconsistent and broken. I have no way to prove that -- all I can do is report what happens when I try to do something and it doesn't work out as expected. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. | |
|
 |