 |
 | 
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| Re: Sigh... Not sure it is possible to make everyone happy. Top 1% is not happy that bandwidth is not 100mb, unlimited and free. Bottom 20% don't care about unlimited BW and want it cheaper. Middle of the road think the bandwidth is fine, but are not happy that they are subsidizing the top 1%'s DVD download library.
Can't please them all.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik | |
|
| | 
Noah Vail
Serial Thread Killer
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
 ·VoicePulse
| Re: Sigh... said by telcolackey  :Middle of the road think the bandwidth is fine, but are not happy that they are subsidizing the top 1%'s DVD download library.Can't please them all. And I'm not happy that I had to subsidize the MoR's who couldn't be bothered to live somewhere with existing infrastructure so that I had to pay for their new lines to be run.
Since Everybody subsidizes Each Other, how is it a relevant discussion point?
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
|
| | 
knightmb
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
 ·Comcast
·Vonage
 ·Speakeasy
| said by telcolackey :Not sure it is possible to make everyone happy. Top 1% is not happy that bandwidth is not 100mb, unlimited and free. Bottom 20% don't care about unlimited BW and want it cheaper. Middle of the road think the bandwidth is fine, but are not happy that they are subsidizing the top 1%'s DVD download library. Can't please them all. Given that bandwidth is shared, the middle would only be affected if everyone else on their shared pipe was burning up P2P apps, in which case they would be the minority of the group instead of the "top" of everyone else left. So unless the top bandwidth users have found a way to "control" what is allocated to them, the arguments of them using all the bandwidth falls apart when you examine it from a technical standpoint.
So some confusion is:
Are they affecting network performance as a whole? Maybe.
Are they taking all of "your" bandwidth? No, they are sharing just like you.
Can the ISP better tune it's performance? Sure, that's what QoS and Traffic Shaping was invented for.
Is blocking traffic the same as QoS and Traffic Shaping? No, by definition, QoS and Traffic Shaping don't stop traffic, just control it's flow based on a set of rules. Blocking P2P is identical to blocking HTTP or PPTP traffic, except more people would get upset if they couldn't web surf or connect to the company VPN. Customer service nightmare for sure. | |
|
| | |
| | mikenolan7
Premium
join:2005-06-07
Torrance, CA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
| Can't please them all, therefore we can advertise whatever we want, and they get whatever we give them. How on earth does "you can't please them all" justify false advertising to everyone?
There is a simple solution here. Advertised data rates should include a percentage of time that the data rate is available. Don't spout BS about that's what you pay extra for on a business connection. Lower the uptime and availability numbers from the business connections. No more 784kb/6mb connections that run at that rate 10% of the time, unless you advertise it that way. If you advertise 90% availability, and it only reaches that rate 10% of the time, you deduct 80% from the bill. End of arguments. End of excuses. Tell the truth and you won't have to spend so much on lawyers. | |
|
| 
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| said by gatorkram :Why don't companies just put text in their TOS/AUP that states they don't have to do ANYTHING at all to keep you happy, and in fact they hate you. Which is funny, because it didn't used to be that way with providers 15 years ago. The utterly bizarre "anti-customer" corporate attitude is something fairly new (and I'm still baffled by the fact that it grows rather than diminishes). | |
|
| | |
| | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cox HSI
| Re: Sigh... Dialup really was the perfect competitive environment for internet access. The only limiter was your local phone company, pretty much every local zone would have an ISP or 10. Prices dropped to the minimum, and the fittest/most friendly flourished.
The thing dialup had going for it was the phone routing system, so you could dial anywhere that gives the best deal. A modern net connection goes to one place, and you need an account to even get there. Every competitor needs to bring you a separate line to your door, instead of going over one line. Its a shame that line-sharing could not be done in a way to make customers and the line-sharer happy. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Embarq
·Comcast
| Re: Sigh... There are some telcos that still have this kind of flexibility on their DSL service. Since DSLAMs just map each DSL connection into ATM PVCs, they can terminate the connection on any other ATM end-point on the same network.
When I lived downtown I was in Qwest territory and was able to order DSL with my choice of ISPs, so I was able to get provisioned to a local ISP that routed me a /29 and provided all kinds of nifty features like shell access on one of their user SunOS machines. | |
|
| | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
edit:
February 7th, @02:22PM
| That is why I call for one nationwide network that any provider of any service can "lease" to get to any customer in any location that is willing to pay for one of their services. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | utahluge
join:2004-10-14
Draper, UT
 ·MSTAR
·On-Digital / JustR..
| UTOPIA UTOPIA
Welcome to the network where I get to choose the provider over my fiber line. (Re: Dialup comment) I have the freedom to choose from a handful of providers. Why do you think Utopia is having such a hard time making its way into new cities?? The ''Big Boys'' are scared out of their pants!! They are doing all they can to force city officials from going with Utopia. If more of us let our cities know we want Utopia then we can make it happen. I know this will only start to break ice in Utah but enough of you push for it in your states I am sure it would quickly grow. | |
|
| | | | | | 
o rly
@enta.net
| Re: Sigh... said by Skippy25 :That is why I call for one nationwide network that any provider of any service can "lease" to get to any customer in any location that is willing to pay for one of their services. At least that's one good thing about the evil UK. BT has one or more DSLAMs in nearly every telephone exchange that they own (something like 5564 exchanges have ADSL out of 5592), and they (obviously) have to wholesale it. This means that I can choose out of over 100 ISPs, and if I don't like them, I can change with minimal downtime.
Speeds are pretty good too - I have 8Mbit down, 832k up and for the most part I get them.
Things should get better when BT finally trundle out ADSL2+ in the next few years (the reason for their lateness being that they're ripping out their whole phone/DSL network and replacing it with a shiny new IP one). | |
|
| | | | | | espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Embarq
·Comcast
| said by Skippy25 :That is why I call for one nationwide network that any provider of any service can "lease" to get to any customer in any location that is willing to pay for one of their services. You can get that today. You can order a DSx or OCx circuit from your local telco and have the end point be any carrier or ISP you wish. The problem is nobody but businesses and die-hard end-users are willing to pay for that kind of flexibility. (it comes at a steep price) | |
|
| | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: Sigh... Really, thats gives us one nationwide network not controlled by the current kingpins?
I think you missed the entire point and concept of my post. | |
|
| | | | | | | | espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Sigh... Maybe so? Who are you suggesting would be responsible for operating this nationwide network? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: Sigh... I would suggest 1 to 3 companies that are overseen by the government. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Embarq
·Comcast
edit:
February 9th, @11:43PM
| Re: Sigh... said by Skippy25 :I would suggest 1 to 3 companies that are overseen by the government. Verizon, ATT, and Qwest are 3 companies that cover the overwhelming majority of the US. They will all sell you data circuits on copper (DS1/3,etc) or fiber (OC3-768) to any destination endpoint you wish. Moreover, the pricing on these connections is regulated by tariffs set by the Public Utilities Commission (the government).
For example, I currently live in an Embarq territory. If I wanted to get a DS3 to Savvis, I could just call up Savvis to order the circuit and they will in turn contact Embarq for the actual delivery of the end-point of the circuit at my house. My monthly bill would only come from Savvis, and they would get charged by Embarq a standard tariff rate set by the PUC.
The network you describe already exists today. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | If the government controlled it, we'd all have ISDN lines | |
|
| | Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL
·AT&T Southeast
| said by koitsu :said by gatorkram :Why don't companies just put text in their TOS/AUP that states they don't have to do ANYTHING at all to keep you happy, and in fact they hate you. Which is funny, because it didn't used to be that way with providers 15 years ago. The utterly bizarre "anti-customer" corporate attitude is something fairly new (and I'm still baffled by the fact that it grows rather than diminishes). Companies like Wal-Mart started this type of corporate attitude by instituting things like absurd return policies. Customers then started demanding more and more for companies to bend over backwards to please them. Now those corporations have back-lashed against the customer. They finally realized it is impossible to make everyone happy, so they no longer even try.
I'm not taking up for the corporate attitude but rather simply explaining where it comes from. | |
|
| |
swiffatek
join:2003-12-20 | subject goes here They probably should have stated some type of hard cap, because as it is my ability to use their network is already limited. It's limited by the tier of service that i pay for. | |
|
| 
hopeflicker
IheartPhotog
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| Re: subject goes here The company uses reasonable network management practices that are consistent with industry standards
What a load of dog crap!!
Throttling is not STANDARD
--
Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent. | |
|
| |
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| Re: subject goes here said by hopeflicker :The company uses reasonable network management practices that are consistent with industry standardsWhat a load of dog crap!! Throttling is not STANDARD Clarification: injecting falsified/unsolicited TCP packets into a stream (sent bidirectionally nonetheless) is definitely NOT a standard.
Throttling (traffic shaping via QoS, rate-limiting, or even via packet loss) is a general standard. | |
|
| | | 
Skeedatl
To Provoke and Annoy
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: subject goes here In Canada maybe. | |
|
| | | 
BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Night-Owl
join:2007-01-11
| said by koitsu :Clarification: injecting falsified/unsolicited TCP packets into a stream (sent bidirectionally nonetheless) is definitely NOT a standard. Throttling (traffic shaping via QoS, rate-limiting, or even via packet loss) is a general standard. Really? CISA* would disagree with you. 
*Comcastic International Standards Assoc. | |
|
firewire9999
join:2004-07-11
Livonia, MI
| What are they thinking? "Comcast manages its network with one goal: to deliver the best possible broadband Internet experience to all of its customers. High-speed bandwidth and network resources are not unlimited."
That quote from the article sounds they have the Public Relations and/or Lawyers writing the TOS now?
LOL | |
|
| 
TK Junk Mail
Drop dead to the DDos scum
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: What are they thinking? said by firewire9999 : they have the Public Relations and/or Lawyers writing the TOS now? Lawyers always wrote the TOS. Just a byproduct of our sue-happy society and the fact that there are too many law schools pumping out too many lawyers.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | MichaelWacey
Premium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: What are they thinking? I am no defender of Lawyers or Comcast. However, your comment about lawsuits and lawyers does require some clarification. First, corporations file far more lawsuits than individuals. So, if sue happy refers to companies suing each other and their customers (a very strange policy but all too common), then you are correct. If you are referring to consumers suing companies, then you are following the Insurance industry line. Please do some research on both sides of this issue and you will find that there is ample evidence that it is companies that are sue happy and not consumers.
Yes, law schools do produce far too many lawyers. The result however is not as bad as one might expect. I do not have current statistics, but I believe that close to 50% of law school graduates are practicing law after five years. So, it is the law students (and their parents in many cases) who pay the price for too many lawyers.
Take Care | |
|
| | |
| | | emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX | Re: What are they thinking? Not to mention the political science majors...
wig | |
|
| | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: What are they thinking? said by emptywig :Not to mention the political science majors... wig What does a poli sci major have to do with either MBAs or attys? | |
|
| | | | | emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX | Re: What are they thinking?
Really? You don't see the connection.
Just think about it a minute, I'm sure you'll figure it out.
wig
--
"There is nothing- absolutely nothing- half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats." | |
|
| | | | | | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Re: What are they thinking? No really, why don't you explain it to us? Unless you are confused and actually think political science actually has anything to do with politics? | |
|
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs:
| time warner i would like to see time warnewr they are managing their network to provide optimum speeds to everyone as i barely get 10-5% of what is advertised speeds. as long as att doesn't go nation wide with the filter program I will be glad i switched. I say this seeing as the cable industry seems to copy each other.
--
3 free for you/3 free for me: Free Stock Trades : PM Me | |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| seem reasonable but... the question still remains if essentially forging/altering packets is reasonable and should be allowed. in my opinion altering how someone experiences the internet should not be done (messing with packets, dns redirection, and similar, but not bandwidth allocation). i think they should just decrease bandwidth allocated to a user as the network load increases, starting with those that use the most.
i'd be curious to see how much bittorrent traffic actually effects comcast's network. does it really slow down sections of thier network? which could be solved by upgrading maybe? since comcast is not a tier 1 ISP, is the bandwidth caused by bittorrent costing them a lot of money? | |
|
Skeedatl
To Provoke and Annoy
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Now ADVERTISE it Now instead of claiming "lightning fast downloads" in all yer advertising, put that part of the TOS in bold print in all the advertising so customers aren't mislead and know exactly what they're signing up for. | |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| IMHO.. We need to move on from this issue.
Those who this is ultimately affecting are the extreme..way over the top users who feel that they have the right to everything and anything for one low price.
I..and the vast majority of Comcast customers are very satisfied with our service and expect this company to do whatever it takes to preserve exactly that and to deliver a quality experience for the majority of us..not the minority.
What regular visitors to the comcast forum at this site know is that Comcast has VERY liberal usage policies allowing for upwards of 20Mb speeds with powerboost..as well as VERY generous "caps" exceeding 200 to 300 Gigs per month of downloading.
What we have ALL seen is other isp's who..when pressed to the wall on this issue..have THEN had to state their policies to allow for perhaps only 20 to 30 gigs.
Comcast hasn't done that..but what is being risked here in continuing to press them on this issue is that they will be FORCED to do that. Obviously they don't want to..and haven't...but if this minority is allowed to continue to speak on this issue..and given this continued voice to do so by BBR in the process...then that is most likely exactly what could wind up happening.
Comcast..nor any isp for that matter..does not owe any customer these kinds of speeds and download amounts for this kind of a price on an absolutely unlimited basis 24/7.
These networks have limitations that can cause the service to totally crash for the rest of us..and it is comcasts responsibility to protect us from that which is exactly what they are doing.
This company is more than fair in what they allow the vast majority of us for this kind of price..and I believe are even going above and beyond what they even need to do in the interest of delivering us a very quality product and experience.
If the bandwidth hogs want what they want..then they should seek out other resources and isp's to get that.
Perhaps they should pay for their own unlimted 20,000k pipe that would probably cost them 10,000 or more per month.
WE..as their regular customers..do not owe that to them.
Nor do we want to subsidize their activities any longer.
If they have a problem with this..then move to another isp's territory. Or split their usage up among a second connection.
BBR should STOP promoting their interests which is, in fact..endorsing them. Publicly posting under the guise of "news" workarounds as to how they can get around this only puts yourself in the light of being something that you really shouldn't be yourselves IMHO.
Comcast..keep right on doing what you're doing.
The vast majority of us respect you for it..and appreciate it.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
|
See 62 replies to this post |
|
blips
join:2001-04-17
Addison, IL
| P2P, bandwidth hogs, et all It may start with P2P and the "bandwidth hogs" but where will it end. Will they interfere with VoIP providers, movie download services, site providing TV over the internet or anyone else that my be a potential competitor in the future. Where does it end and when will they be accountable? I can careless about P2P downloaders and bandwidth hogs, but I get nervous when they can shape my traffic and interfere with any other services I use or might use in the future. You give them an inch and you better believe they will take the whole mile. | |
|
| MJRudzik
join:2002-01-13
Independence, MO
·Speakeasy
edit:
February 7th, @11:38AM
| Re: P2P, bandwidth hogs, et all I've said it before and I'll say it again here.The ProP2P side of this debate is still mistating what is being interfered with by simply stating that Bit Torrent is being throttled. To be clear Bit Torrent has 2 parts Downloading and Uploading (aka seeding). Downloads are in the clear and NOT being interfered with. Just last night I downloaded a large file via BT on Comcast as full speed. Uploading seeding is being blocked. when you download via BT you don't violate the TOS. But as soon as you start to seed that file you just got your Bit Torrent becomes a public server. You have just made that file available to the whole world via your pc. This is not allowed by the TOS. And no its not like email a file to grandma Sue that is a one to one event with a defined start and end. Bit torrent seeding is you (one) to the hordes (the entire internet) until such time a you stop sharing. If Comcast sees users running other servers that are generating a lot of traffic they'll block those too. I hope they dont get forced into getting there by people who cant respect a TOS. I still think that they are within their rights to block BT uploads. As afar as IPtv and voip go there will be no need to block them as once again they are download services and where some upload might occur it will be small and on a one to one basis. Unless you like calling the entire internet or allowing the entire internet to watch your tv.
edited typo | |
|
| |
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Re: P2P, bandwidth hogs, et all "Just last night I downloaded a large file via BT on Comcast as full speed"
In order for you to download someone has to upload. If other isps started doing the same thing how far do you think you would get with everyone trying to download and no one uploading?
The idea with seeding is that you give some and you take some. Unfortunately it always comes to pass that few people give and many people take so you end up with a smaller subset of the population doing most of the seeding. Hence your "bandwidth hogs". If MORE people would seed the present bandwidth hogs wouldn't have to be carrying so much of the upload traffic and there wouldn't be bandwidth hogs, traffic would be more evenly distributed and there would be the recognition that consumption of a broad majority of the population is on the rise.
We would then be perceiving this problem correctly. That, in reality, the majority of broadband users are consuming more than they were, but that much of the upload is being borne a few users because most people take more than they give. To repeat, an uploading bandwidth hog couldn't be an uploading hog unless there were people like you downloading. Trying to claim that the problem is them uploading and that you are a good guy because you are only downloading makes no sense. If no one was downloading upload traffic would be essentially ZERO. | |
|
| | | MJRudzik
join:2002-01-13
Independence, MO
·Speakeasy
| Re: P2P, bandwidth hogs, et all There is a little validity to you post but only a little. The fact is the majority of private citizens that are seeding are doing so with illicit pirated material that a large number of people are downloading.
Regardless of the chilling effect that an isp blocking seeders has on Bit Torrent overall you miss the point. Allowing the mass public to connect to your pc on an ongoing basis is against the rules that Comcast subscribers agree to when they order service. The bottom line issue is that NO serving is authorized by the TOS, so when an isp decides to block a server they are within their rights to do so. Legitimate sites that offer files via Bit torrent will have commercial lines unaffected by this requirement. The fact is this is residentila service and under no obligation to allow anyone to perform functions outside of the TOS. If you want to run a server with a lot of traffic get Comcast Commercial. | |
|
|
BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Night-Owl
join:2007-01-11
| said by blips : You give them an inch and you better believe they will take the whole mile. Not only that but they'll raise your rates for the privilege of that mile long journey. Or perhaps some fees or un-fees.  | |
|
| | JerryTongue
join:2003-04-01
Auburn, WA
·Comcast
| Re: P2P, bandwidth hogs, et all Comcast goal is to hold onto and grab all basic users which means not most of you here, you are all a small % of what they are going after. Now and then someone smart enough comes along and figures out there little tricks they use but as long as it is said to be legal then they really dont care because the basic Joe user isn't here reading about this and wouldn't understand anyways.These are people that just found out they are getting 150 new channels (going to pay more of course) but dont even realize they are channels they wouldnt watch anyways, but wow more channels.Comcast will continue to buy who they can and bring in who they can and not spend a dime more than they have to and that my friend is the whole reason behind what they are doing, to be able to keep the network up to handle the traffic to a level Joe user can still load web pages, read e-mails, and watch cable TV. That level of user is not going to be here reading this. More and more new things are coming out that are done over the Internet and not Just Comcast is feeling the pressure from this but who is going to take the lead in all this are the ISP that are investing in there network to take on more, Comcast is lacking in this field and when the dust settles? Just watch what happens. I think this time next year we will see some cool commercials coming out about who is who and who does what. They are starting to be almost as good as the Bud Commercials at half time  No, not really. | |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| Industry standards ? The company uses reasonable network management practices that are consistent with industry standards. I'll call bullshit on this one. There was just a long discussion on the North American Network Operators Group mailing list and forging IP packets clearly is anything but an industry standard method of network management.
Yes, you had a couple of hard liners who agreed with the boneheaded stance of breaking the network, but a majority of the posters disagreed with it and felt that caps are a better method of controlling bandwidth waste (ie - leaving a torrent seeding forever). | |
|
Cruzinmy64
@ameritech.net
| FORCED to advertise ONLY the bandwidth they Can dish 24x7 If we pay for bandwidth that is what we should get. They should be FORCED to advertise ONLY the bandwidth they CAN SUSTAIN 24x7. Don't lie to me saying I have 12mbits download / 3mbits upload when in fact I don't. I am lucky to see 256kbit to 512kbps upload on Comcast! I want a consistent experience not a "maybe you can get that speed". If they can't handle P2P, I say they should be forced in 1 or 2 possibilities. Either shut their mouths and provide TRUE UNLIMITED bandwidth or advertise and deliver a constant "throttled" internet which can be maxed out 24x7 if I choose.If I buy 512kbs upload I want 512kbs ALL the time, not when they feel like it. Much rather have them be HONEST saying you only have 512k not the 3Mb outright LIE. What about legitimate traffic? Why do I have to stress about too much video conferencing with my loved ones? Why do I have to stress about watching a LEGAL downloaded movie from Netflix upsetting Comcast? Why do I feel like I should only be able to watch my Slingbox a little bit because of the fear of getting capped?? I ordered DSL and while their advertised speeds are much lower than cable, I actually get a HIGHER throughput!!! F'' cable! | |
|
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
| World of Warcraft Updater If you are a comcast customer having difficulty updating or are encountering errors (corrupt files) after updating your World of Warcraft MMO, You must disable all P2P ports, and download the update at 16kb/s from only the HTTP and/or FTP server provided directly by Blizzard. It may take a while to d |
|
Comcast Changes TOS In Response To Traffic Shaping Firestorm
·
Sigh...
