FCC's Comcast Throttling Deadline At Midnight As per FCC order, Comcast must clearly document all practices... Consumer Group Free Press reminds everyone that as per the recent FCC order (pdf), Comcast has until midnight tonight to document their current traffic shaping practices to the FCC as punishment for misleading consumers about degrading P2P traffic. Given the FCC's "sanction" of Comcast included no fine, didn't require they do anything they weren't doing voluntarily, and created no new guidelines -- demanding they come somewhat clean was the only thing the FCC really asked of Comcast. Thanks to hard work by a lot of smart forum users, we already know Comcast was using Sandvine traffic management hardware to forge customer TCP packets and throttle upstream P2P traffic for all users. Thanks to Comcast's settlement with the State of Florida, we also know Comcast has been simply booting the 1,000 heaviest users from their network. Both the FCC and Florida Attorney General have ruled Comcast misled consumers about the nature of these systems, and failed to notify consumers -- in any way -- about the imposed limitations of the Comcast network. Officially however, Comcast has admitted no wrong doing. The nation's largest cable company believes the FCC's authority is irrelevant when it comes to network management, so they've already filed suit challenging the FCC's ruling. Still, Free Press seems boundlessly optimistic that this somehow all works out for the best: "Should Comcast decide to go AWOL and not file, Internet users can trust that the FCC will be an effective cop on the beat. The FCC has made it clear that it will not tolerate anything less than Comcast's full cooperation to ensure that secret, illegal blocking doesn't happen again." Are we talking about the same FCC? Comcast's voluntary reaction to the FCC's investigation was to implement a clear 250GB monthly cap and announce they'll be throttling the heaviest users back to " DSL like speeds" starting October 1. Does anyone think Comcast will do more? Does anyone really think the FCC cares either way? Stay tuned. Update: Comcast will issue their filing tonight, the company tells Portfolio.com. "What I expect is for Comcast to file something incomplete, possibly with a request for the F.C.C. to protect its proprietary data," says the Media Access Project's Harold Feld. Update 2: Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas directs our attention to the Comcast network management website, where Douglas says they'll post all of the filings to the FCC this evening. He also offers a quote from Comcast's Senior Director, Corporate Communications, Sena Fitzmaurice, who has this to say: "We manage our network for one reason: to deliver a superior, reliable, high-quality experience to every high-speed Internet customer, every time they use our service. As we voluntarily announced in March, we are changing the way we manage network congestion by the end of this year. The new technique does not manage congestion based on the protocol or application a consumer uses. This new technique will ensure that all customers get their fair share of bandwidth every hour of the day, particularly during the busiest periods. Only at the busiest times will we apply our new congestion management practices. When we do so, on average, well under one percent of users had their usage managed for brief periods of time based on our trials. As we roll out these new practices, and continuously improve on them, we'll make sure our customers are fully informed." Customers, do you feel informed?
|
 | | Uh... "Should Comcast decide to go AWOL and not file, Internet users can trust that the FCC will be an effective cop on the beat. The FCC has made it clear that it will not tolerate anything less than Comcast's full cooperation to ensure that secret, illegal blocking doesn't happen again."
(said by free press)
Ya right, when does the fcc do anything besides take kickbacks and sleep with the bells? | |
|  |
1 edit | Re: Uh... said by tdumaine:"Should Comcast decide to go AWOL and not file, Internet users can trust that the FCC will be an effective cop on the beat. The FCC has made it clear that it will not tolerate anything less than Comcast's full cooperation to ensure that secret, illegal blocking doesn't happen again." (said by free press) Ya right, when does the fcc do anything besides take kickbacks and sleep with the bells? Dont forget waivers for warentless wiretaps!!
edit: fixed | |
|
 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
| Caps Caps get rid of the internet gluttons. Good riddance to them, and hopefully nearind an end for piracy. Most people get mad about this, but its nice to see a corporation taking responsibility for the internet without directly controlling its content, and trying to make it enjoyable for EVERYONE; not just Mr.-sit-at-home-and-watch-movies-all-day | |
| |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Re: Caps Smokers, overeater, internet gluttons, up against the wall! Should we make a camp for all of the groups that do not meet your standards?
Good riddance to shills. Like that will ever happen. | |
| | | | Now you know good and well these guys are not participating in any illegal activity. They are a small group of dedicated linux users who like to share rare and hard to find linux ISOs with each other. | |
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Or actually sell dedicated internet at a 100% markup of what they pay for the stuff. Wait...that's cheaper than what they're selling the stuff for now. | |
| | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: Caps said by iansltx:Or actually sell dedicated internet at a 100% markup of what they pay for the stuff. Wait...that's cheaper than what they're selling the stuff for now. Then you should stop buying from Comcast and buy directly from one of their upstream providers; cut out the middle man if they're marking it up that much. | |
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| Re: Caps They're marking up the bandwidth, not so much the transport from a peering facility to the home. The problem is that incumbents control the local loop and thus charge outrageous prices. Except it's the telcos instead of the cablecos that generaly control the local loop.
Buying bandwidth from a backbone provider is like buying food from Costco; you get a good deal but you have to buy a lot, and have a membership at the store (local loop cost or peering facility colo costs) in order to play.
Though I'm seriously thinking about starting an internet provider...a provider where a 3 Mbit connection (1 Mbit upload) could transfer a little over 1.25 TB of data in a month, limited only by the speed of the pipe.
IMO ISPs should choose what to cap on: speed or transfer. Not both. | |
| | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Caps said by iansltx:They're marking up the bandwidth, not so much the transport from a peering facility to the home. The problem is that incumbents control the local loop and thus charge outrageous prices. Except it's the telcos instead of the cablecos that generaly control the local loop. Local loop tariffs are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission -- your government at work.
There's a significant cost to the infrastructure to take bits from those cheap pipes at the headend and deliver them to your house. Sure, there's a markup there because ISPs are for-profit entities, but it's nowhere near the numbers you are suggesting.
said by iansltx:Though I'm seriously thinking about starting an internet provider...a provider where a 3 Mbit connection (1 Mbit upload) could transfer a little over 1.25 TB of data in a month, limited only by the speed of the pipe. I think you should do that. It would get you some good perspective on the actual cost of operation. | |
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| Re: Caps $600 a month for 100 Mbit symmetric, maybe $100 x 2 for colocation at the meet me facility and the destination. Then the fixed costs of some high-performance wireless radios (expensive) and a computer or two for routing (cheap) and you're getting to the "node". From there, you use wireless radios at the base statin and customer levels, and you've got yourself a network. Oversubscribe 7.5:1 (not bad at all considering what people might be using, except for a select few, which the network can suppot anyway) and sell at $10 per Mbit. Assuming 250 customers @ $30/month, you've made back your high-performance-radio costs in under a year, and customer CPE equipment would follow shortly thereafter. All customers (though they wouldn't really) could use 250+ GB of data (130 up, 130 down) without slowing bandwidth down to anyone else. Yes, there will be labor costs, taxes and people who use more than 250 GB per month, but there will also be higher tiers, options to sell double\triple play with a referral discount (but it's fine if the user doesn't take it...the internet is freestanding and still a dumb pipe) and the "average" user who might only consume a few, or a few dozen, gigs per month. Not too bad of a deal there...
Also, I don't know about local loop rates, but around here T1's are cheapish ($360 a month) but back home they're over $1000, even in town. Why? Probably because Verizon (they don't sell even DSL back home) is the only telephone company with only one DSL reseller and that reseller (Windstream) only goes up to 1.5 Mbit/s the last tiem I checked. The only other entity bringing high-speed connectivity into town is the cable company, TWC. .. | |
|
| | | said by baineschile:Caps get rid of the internet gluttons. Good riddance to them, and hopefully nearind an end for piracy. The problem with that statement is that you equate high use with piracy and piracy alone. Fact is, that is not always the case. If the ISPs are going to start policing user behavior, looking at how much data they transfer is a $hit way of doing it.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... | |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
4 edits | I'm thinking good thoughts... While it's been a miserable fight, a ton of good has come out of this investigation, and I'm hoping that's a trend that continues.
•Comcast took a huge positive step from ignoring and sometimes abusing Internet Standards to openly and actively supporting them. Comcast donated $25,000 to the ISOC/IETF (the Internet Standards and governance bodies and hosted two major events for them and Comcast employees are now taking an active role in the IETF standards-making process.
•Comcast disclosed its invisible cap, customers can now better understand what they're buying.
•Comcast tripled its upload modem speeds and (based on QAM64 connections being seen more frequently lately) has been recently upgrading the network.
•Comcast opened a new page on its TOS/Legal pages describing its network management in a bit more detail. (With more detail coming, hopefully.)
•Even though it disagrees with the process, Comcast has committed to quit abusing the RST flag and will be disclosing what it did and its future plans to its customers and the FCC rather than make an example of them.
•And finally, Comcast and the Comcast case has served as an example to other ISPs about what's appropriate and not appropriate for an ISP to do.
So I'm really hopeful that these positive things continue.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | Re: I'm thinking good thoughts... I still see the RST packets! | |
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: I'm thinking good thoughts... said by AstroBoy:I still see the RST packets! Yeah, that's a bummer. The FCC effective gave Comcast permission to continue to abuse it until the end of the year.
It's a funny fact about this case -- Comcast questions the FCC's authority to make it stop injecting RSTs -- and I question the FCC's authority to allow it to continue injecting RSTs until the end of the year.
But, oh well. 
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|
|  jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | said by funchords:•It took a huge positive step from ignoring and sometimes abusing Internet Standards to openly and actively supporting them. Comcast donated $25,000 to the ISOC/IETF (the Internet Standards and governance bodies and hosted two major events for them and Comcast employees are now taking an active role in the IETF standards-making process. We are actually a "platinum" supporting member of the Internet Society (ISOC, »www.isoc.org/orgs/benefits.shtml). ISOC and the IETF are great and truly important organizations, and I know I enjoy being active with the IETF, both as a working group co-chair, document author, and contributor (I am even a volunteer on the 2008 Nominating Committee). Apart from me, many other Comcasters are active in the IETF in similar capacities.
We were really pleased in March of this year to sponsor the 71st meeting of the IETF (aka IETF-71), and attracted nearly 1,500 engineers to Philadelphia for the week-long meeting (»ietf71.comcast.net). We took the opportunity to put a 100Gbps backbone link into production testing to support the event, and there was an interesting IPv6 test as well.
Regarding congestion management and P2P applications generally, the IETF has been very active lately. In May of this year, they organized a Peer to Peer Infrastructure (P2Pi) workshop with MIT in Cambridge, MA, which both you (Robb) and I attended. Since then, that spawned two Birds of a Feather (BoF) sessions at IETF-72 in late July.
One BoF was called Techniques for Advanced Networking Applications (TANA) and the other was Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO). TANA is about things like congestion management, scavenger data class, and related topics -- see »tools.ietf.org/agenda/72/tana.html. TANA is on a path to become a WG before IETF-73 in the fall. ALTO is more about P4P iTracker sorts of things, and that's still evolving and I think we will see a second BoF at IETF-73 -- see »tools.ietf.org/agenda/72/alto.html.
Regards
JL
--
JL
Comcast | |
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: I'm thinking good thoughts... Platinum, wow! Maybe I had old data, or just misremembered it. Sorry about that. The positive sentiment was real, nonetheless. | |
|
| jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | said by funchords:•Even though it disagrees with the process, Comcast has committed to quit abusing the RST flag and will be disclosing what it did and its future plans to its customers and the FCC rather than make an example of them. So I'm really hopeful that these positive things continue. I'm hopeful as well.  And I think when people see our response you will agree that it is very detailed and transparent as well.
JL
--
JL
Comcast | |
|
| | well, for starters..... they'll be terminating 10,000 accounts per month for awhile, as opposed to jut lopping off the top 1,000 that Florida busted them for. as for the throttling, we'll just have to wait and see how big a percentage are effected.
of course, i'd expect fios markets to be excluded from this but they'll have plenty of other places to drop the hammer like their biggest market (chicago) where att doesn't and can't effectively compete save for price. | |
| | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: well, for starters..... said by JasonOD :
they'll be terminating 10,000 accounts per month for awhile, as opposed to jut lopping off the top 1,000 that Florida busted them for. as for the throttling, we'll just have to wait and see how big a percentage are effected. I've heard that elsewhere as well, but I don't know where it came from. Comcast's agreement with the Florida AG wouldn't permit them to do this, so I don't think it is true. In my read of the agreement, they agreed to keep the 1,000 account threshold, and that both that and the 250 GB threshhold would need to be breached before a "last warning" call.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|
jammmin
join:2000-12-14
Upper Marlboro, MD | Wonderful opportunity for FIOS Internet
With the advent of Comcast throttling users internet connection and the introduction of overage caps, I do believe the great folks at Verizon FIOS(internet) should go on a massive TV/print campaign comparing how better/faster Verizon internet service is with none of the caps/throttling users experience with Comcast.
And to “encourage” these Comcast customers some more, throw in a $50 gift card to switch right now.
I think this is a great opportunity for them to take advantage of. | |
| | | | Re: Wonderful opportunity for FIOS Internet I'd switch to FiOS tomorrow if I could get it.
I'm about 500 feet outside the coverage area (I could walk to the closest CO, which makes it all the worse). Hopefully they will put in a new line sometime in the next few months, or I'll have to go back to DSL. | |
|
jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Response Now Filed A short time ago, we filed our response electronically with the FCC. Those documents will be made available to the public shortly (I'm guessing within 2 hours) on our Network Management website at »www.comcast.net/networkmanagement/. News outlets are starting to report on the story now, including ArsTechnica here at »arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···ing.html.
--
JL
Comcast | |
| | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Response Now Filed So I just did the quick readthrough of »gigaom.files.wordpress.com/2008/···ices.pdf
It looks like there is no floor, am I right? So the "bandwidth starvation" scenario is theoretically possible (but not experienced under testing) as talked about on page 13 (along with the couple of paragraphs leading up to this).
So was there any basis to the comparison to "A Really Good DSL Experience," which I took to mean that there would be a floor? Or did I miss a detail on my quick read through?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Re: Response Now Filed said by funchords:So I just did the quick readthrough of » gigaom.files.wordpress.com/2008/···ices.pdfIt looks like there is no floor, am I right? So the "bandwidth starvation" scenario is theoretically possible (but not experienced under testing) as talked about on page 13 (along with the couple of paragraphs leading up to this). I guess we have two risk scenarios depicted that we've tried to address. I figured you may ask this so I already wrote up something that I'll paste below. I just didn't think you'd be so fast.
1 - What is oscillation, and how is it prevented or minimized in the new method?
Oscillation refers to the situation where a cable modem is assigned to a lower Quality of Service (QoS) priority (Best Effort, or BE) after one measurement interval, then promoted back to the higher QoS priority (Priority Best Effort, or PBE) in the next interval, just to be assigned to the lower priority again in the following interval. We refer to this up and down assignment as oscillation.
Part of the new congestion management system is the use of thresholds to determine when a cable-modem is in a high consumption state and when it is not. At the start of the trial the congestion management algorithm used a single threshold to determine if a cable-modem was in a high consumption state or not. If a cable-modem’s utilization was just over the threshold in one time interval and it was then put in the lower priority, it is very possible that because of the lower priority its use will now be just below the threshold and so it will be promoted back to the higher priority in the next interval.
To resolve this issue, we instead implemented two thresholds. The higher threshold determines when a cable-modem is put into the lower priority class (BE). The lower threshold determines when the cable-modem can be taken out of the lower priority class and restored to normal priority (PBE). By having the two separate thresholds, the chance of oscillation occurring is greatly reduced.
This kind of oscillation is often found in control systems that use a single threshold for both on and off states. A standard approach to reduce rapid cycling through the states is to add a second threshold which gives the system a range of control. The range between the two thresholds is called hysteresis. Most thermostats that control residential heating systems operate this way, for example, and many other control systems have oscillation-prevention features as the Comcast system does.
2 - What is user starvation and how is it prevented or minimized in the new method?
User starvation was an extreme case identified with theoretical or simulation models of the new congestion management system. That model identified a possible situation that could occur when the connection is fully (100%) utilized, which is an extreme congestion state. If a group of high consumption state cable-modems are operating at low priority (BE), and a new heavy cable-modem appears at high priority (PBE), it is theoretically possible that the high priority cable-modem with PBE QoS can take enough bandwidth away from the low priority BE QoS cable-modems that they appear to no longer be demanding heavy use. At the next measurement interval the low priority cable-modems are promoted to high priority (BE to PBE), and the just recently “new” high priority cable-modem is put at low priority (PBE to BE). The heavy cable-modems at high priority (PBE) now can consume all of the available bandwidth and the low priority cable-modem (BE) is starved, or prevented from getting any bandwidth, until the end of the next measurement period (approximately 15 minutes).
This problem is closely related to the oscillation problem described above. Since the large group of heavy use cable-modems operating at low priority will need to meet a lower threshold before being allowed to be promoted to high priority, this starvation scenario is much less likely to occur. Furthermore, the described scenario only occurs when the network is consistently used at or near 100% utilization, which based upon trials conducted by Comcast, is extremely, extremely rare.
During the trials we worked hard to find locations where utilization was very high, and still did not find a situation that would cause this starvation. We also tested this possible use case in our lab and were unable to produce starvation, possibly due to the exact manner in which CMTS packet schedulers actually work in practice, which could not be adequately simulated in a model. The likelihood of this starvation problem occurring in a real network is very low.
All of that being said, we expect to continue to fine-tune the system. We also had help in performing this analysis -- from an independent consulting firm. They'll be continuing on as we implement and into 2009, to periodically audit system behavior and make independent recommendations.
So was there any basis to the comparison to "A Really Good DSL Experience," which I took to mean that there would be a floor? Or did I miss a detail on my quick read through?
I have a feeling that's one of those things that sometimes gets lost in translation. You should consider the information released today the definitive documents on that question.
--
JL
Comcast | |
| | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Response Now Filed I think that the fact that there is no floor is one of the biggest risks of this plan. And while the scheduler may be effectively be creating a floor (which sure sounds possible), designing in a floor is a better strategy -- especially if some ISP comes along and wants to copy the method and whose particular implementation doesn't recreate the scheduler-caused effect.
Thoughts?
Part of the reason your testing has been been successful (or, at least, your testing has not failed) is that the thresholds are high and the sampling periods are long and that the areas tested were prepped for upgrade.
But what happens when demand increases, or upgrade money is delayed in the budget and you need to lower the thresholds to get by? "Scavenger service" was never intended to carry VOIP traffic.
Why isn't that risk being considered "dangerous?"
Thoughts?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Re: Response Now Filed said by funchords:I think that the fact that there is no floor is one of the biggest risks of this plan. And while the scheduler may be effectively be creating a floor (which sure sounds possible), designing in a floor is a better strategy -- especially if some ISP comes along and wants to copy the method and whose particular implementation doesn't recreate the scheduler-caused effect. Thoughts? Fair to expect that such a capability would be discussed by engineers on the project, but as you noted (and we discussed in the 'oscillation and starvation risk' discussion) it just didn't prove necessary. I am not sure how a network with a different kind of packet processor would implement something like this. Like everything in the system, though, we'll continue to assess all aspects of it (especially as we deploy).
But what happens when demand increases, or upgrade money is delayed in the budget and you need to lower the thresholds to get by? "Scavenger service" was never intended to carry VOIP traffic.
You are spot-on that scavenger, as implemented on Internet2 (and as being discussed at the IETF now), was never intended for real-time traffic. It is more for bulk transfers that are not delay or jitter sensitive, and where the difference of a few seconds (or even minutes) to complete a transfer of data is not problematic.
As for lowering the thresholds to stretch out upgrades, that's expressly stated as something that this congestion management is not for. Capacity upgrades are going to continue as always, which by the way are according to some strict trigger points (I think our CTO even disclosed them at some point a few months ago -- may want to Google that).
Jason
--
JL
Comcast | |
| | | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Response Now Filed You guys. Sheeesh. Build in a floor. It's the sound thing to do. I wouldn't set up my family members with VOIP service on Comcast under this situation. No way.
Throwing the users traffic into "scavenger class" without their notification or involvement borders on carelessness if not recklessness.
And even with a floor, you need more input and you need more test results (no complaints is not data). I've been reading these comments for 3 days and I'm not seeing appropriate scrutiny.
I like the detail, and I like the heads up, and I even like the scavenger class idea coupled with a way to direct some of my traffic into it (as you suggested in another message about user tools that might later be made available). But implementing this plan as written is premature.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|
| | | | | | |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | I found this map of what a typical Comcast HSI path to the backbone internet looks like interesting:
It may help people understand what a hybrid coax/fiber cable network looks like. | |
| | | | jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Re: Response Now Filed said by Romney2012:I found this map of what a typical Comcast HSI path to the backbone internet looks like interesting: Indeed. We wanted to include this graphic so people were really clear on exactly where in the network the new servers will be installed. I know there was some debate about where the old equipment was installed, which we wanted to avoid. (And in the FCC document regarding the current method, we have tried to be as clear as possible about where those devices are installed.)
--
JL
Comcast | |
| | | | | | said by Romney2012:I found this map of what a typical Comcast HSI path to the backbone internet looks like interesting: [att=1] It may help people understand what a hybrid coax/fiber cable network looks like. Now, I'm not N+ certified but judging from that picture there seems to be "statistics collection servers"...ummm I definitely don't already like the sound of that.
And comcast is DEFIANTLY over thinking this. All they have to do is make the "Local Market Router" throttle based on usage per connection. These connections each have a unique MAC addresses on the cable modem. Once the user starts to request a lot of bandwidth in a short period of time, throttle him down to what hes paying for for a time. After an hour of not requesting massive amounts of bandwidth then restore power boost. And once they hit 250GB then throttle them down to the package of what they are paying for the rest of the billing cycle. And if customers wanted powerboost after 250GB then they have to call up (or go on the site) and explicitly authorize another 250GB for a fee (what $50 sounds good). Bandwidth problem solved and we can all go home, and the CEO's are lining their pockets again. It's a win-win.
I don't understand the need to purchase ALL this new equipment, unless the network engineers don't know anything about networking (which could be the case because I was told by a tech at one time that in order to send email to comcast customers from a source that is not on the comcast network, I need to upgrade to comcast business in order to send email to comcast customers from outside the network (sorry for the runon but I just wanted to emphasis that he told me that I need to pay comcast more in order to send to comcast email addresses).
*sigh* We will never learn, human history always repeats itself. AOL started as a pay-per-use service...but now look at where it is (granted dial-up is so last year, but do you actually see pay-per-use dial-up anymore? It seems like cable broadband is about to suffer the same fate, go FiOS!) | |
| | | | | jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Re: Response Now Filed said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:Now, I'm not N+ certified but judging from that picture there seems to be "statistics collection servers"...ummm I definitely don't already like the sound of that. I think we were trying to use a generic term that was easy to understand. To be technically precise, those are IP Detail Record (IPDR) collection servers. Their sole job is to collect usage data, on a per device basis, such as bytes per upstream and bytes per downstream by device. It is very straightforward and simple. You can search the DOCSIS specs at CableLabs for more info about what IPDR is, if you want to learn more.
And comcast is DEFIANTLY over thinking this. All they have to do is make the "Local Market Router" throttle based on usage per connection. These connections each have a unique MAC addresses on the cable modem.
Great question, and that is certainly one design path that can be considered. However, we felt it was better for overall performance to functionally separate / externalize this analysis and action function from the CMTS. That way the CMTS can just focus on handling packets as fast as possible, and does not need to store lots of device usage data - you let this external function handle that.
Jason
--
JL
Comcast | |
|
Qawiy
join:2004-01-05
Menlo Park, CA | g I knew I should of stayed with SBC Yahoo DSL. Nothing but issues with Comcast since I got it 2 days ago. Can't use uTorrent and my internet gaming is useless | |
|
| |
|
|
