Former FCC Boss On Comcast Traffic ShapingIf we had the network capacity & competition, this wouldn't be an issue... ( old news - 02:28PM Friday Feb 29 2008) tags: fcc · business · bandwidthFormer FCC boss Reed Hundt talks to Telephony Online about the FCC's 700Mhz auction, expanding the USF to cover broadband deployment, the controversy over baby bell wiretap immunity, and other industry topics. Hundt, who is pushing (so far unsuccessfully) for a national emergency broadband network at the behest of Frontline Wireless, takes a shot at the current FCC and complains about a lack of any comprehensive national broadband policy: The FCC and the White House have collaborated in trying to convince the media and the people that everything is peachy whereas global travelers all know that Japan and England and France and Germany are way ahead of the U.S. in terms of broadband. That wass't the way the 90s went. In the 90s, we led in the Internet and wireless and productivity gains and capital investment in communications. We don't lead in the same way on any of these subjects anymore. Hundt has complained that the line-sharing system he implemented in the 90's worked well in France to bring about competition (and $40 IPTV & broadband bundles), but failed here due to shoddy implementation and enforcement (and because incumbents wanted it to). Hundt also has this to say about Comcast's traffic shaping PR problem: The problem with Comcast, the problem with the telephone companies is that they're not delivering 100 Mb/s. The problem is not that they're throttling P2P. Here's what we ought to say: We want 100 Mb/s. We want it to be at the world's lowest price. We want you to tell us what the obstacles are. We'll help you deal with them. If we had 100 Mb/s, we're not going to talk about throttling because there will be plenty of bandwidth. 100Mbps isn't necessary for the average Joe, but he is right that adequate bandwidth keeps providers from needing to throttle P2P (see: FiOS). Of course were there adequate competition, capping and throttling issues (and probably net neutrality) would be taken care of by market forces organically. Comcast can get away with throttling upstream P2P traffic because many of their customers lack other options that would allow them to vote with their wallet.
Related:- Friday Evening Links
- Martin, Comcast, Continue Lover's Feud
- We're Still Bickering Over Minimum Definition Of 'Broadband'
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Time Warner Cable: Let's Not Talk About Net Neutrality
- New Docs Show FCC Glossed Over BPL Flaws
- Verizon Uses Your Forum Complaints Against Cablevision
- Avoiding A $300 Million Broadband Mapping Boondoggle
|
 
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA | Is every FCC boss an idiot? There seems to be a trend.
I have more against the fact that ISP's are being allowed to be more than a dumb pipe, and less issue with the fact that we are apparently behind the rest of the planet in bandwidth available to the home.
| |
| 
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
1 edit | uhh wtf mate! "If we had 100 Mb/s, we’re not going to talk about throttling because there will be plenty of bandwidth."
Does that mean no caps also?
In a theoretical world without oversell - yes he's right.
In the real world?
Uhh. No.
He must be talking about a 100/1 package or something.
If every customer had a 100/100 I have no faith in Comcast to engineer their backbone sufficiently to handle multiple customers uploading @ a full 100mbps. It just isn't feasible at this point in time. | |
|  | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: uhh wtf mate! Every customer wouldn't upload at that speed and for the most part those that do will not do it for an extended amount of time because the general internet to the general user is a very lopsided road on the download side.
The network would handle what it can handle and then the providers should deal with user's individually that are saturating the network. Just as they should now. Just as I do on the network I manage. I have 100mb to the desktop. If there is network slow down I put a sniffer on it and find the user that is "abusing" it. That individual is dealt with and if they don't adhere to my "advice" I get their performance manager involved. | |
| | |
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
1 edit | Re: uhh wtf mate! said by Skippy25  :Every customer wouldn't upload at that speed and for the most part those that do will not do it for an extended amount of time ... I have 100mb to the desktop. If there is network slow down I put a sniffer on it and find the user that is "abusing" it. That individual is dealt with and if they don't adhere to my "advice" I get their performance manager involved. Skippy - Your model works great if P2P didn't exist. What you are talking about of course is a network you manage at work. A consumer grade network is a *very different* beast and it should NOT have admins telling customers what they can/can't do on the network. Network neutrality.
Think about your upstream provider - say your business *wanted* to use your 100mbps upload 24/7 to host a legal bittorrent file your business created. Should your ISP cut you off and tell you NO?
P2P (ie bittorrent) can fill 100mbps up on a popular file if it is configured in a fashion to do so.
Comcast currently uses their sandvine application to do essentially what you describe, but on an automatic basis. Thus transfer caps and throttling again rear their ugly head.
BT is an amazing protocol, because for the very first time users - even (and perhaps especially) uneducated ones - can do exactly exactly what you state they won't: "upload at that speed (100mbps) ... for an extended amount of time" | |
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: uhh wtf mate! You damage the network neutrality argument.
ISP's can ABSOLUTELY manage their network by limiting heavy users. A consumer grade network should be no different. If anything, if Comcast can't manage their network properly, maybe they do have too much market share, and SHOULD be limited.
If a Business wants to upload 24/7 they get a business account, and no problem.
Network neutrality is about treating every protocol the same, from every provider.
Sandvine doesn't do at all what he says, it completely disables a portion of protocol, weather it be abusive or not. | |
| | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·ViaTalk
| said by Jerm :If every customer had a 100/100 I have no faith in Comcast to engineer their backbone sufficiently to handle multiple customers uploading @ a full 100mbps. It just isn't feasible at this point in time. Yeah, it all sounds magically simple -- they should "engineer" their network to perform faster!
Too bad that handling that sort of traffic requires thousands of multi-million dollar routing/switching platforms, and hundreds of very well paid engineers to manage them. Billions of dollars doesn't sound like an engineering challenge to me. | |
| | |
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| Re: uhh wtf mate! Economically Feasible.
Think about it this way. Lets say for the sake of argument the current average cable modem upstream is 1mbit - Comcast is only at 768kbps for example and they feel the need to throttle torrents already.
Oversell ratio on residential lines is commonly in the area of 25:1 (25mbit sold to customers for every 1mbit of actual backbone bandwidth).
DOCSIS 2.0 running QAM16 upstream (common configuration) would have 10mbps of upload bandwidth shared between all users on the "node".
Do the math: This works out to a "node" with 250 customers that would share 10mbit of upload bandwidth. (25/1 oversell x 10mbps x 1mbps per customer)
The problem is in reality it only takes 10-15 users uploading at their full bandwidth to saturate the upstream - ruining the experience for everyone else.
------------------------
Now give everyone 100x the upload (100mbps) and the problem magically goes away?
Oh wait, whats that sound? I think it's Comcast sh**ting their pants! | |
| | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: uhh wtf mate! said by Jerm :DOCSIS 2.0 running QAM16 upstream (common configuration) would have 10mbps of upload bandwidth shared between all users on the "node". Go with 32-QAM, 64-QAM and 128-QAM and you get 3 times the bandwidth (30.72 [27] Mbit/s) to share. | |
| | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by jester121 :.... Too bad that handling that sort of traffic requires thousands of multi-million dollar routing/switching platforms, and hundreds of very well paid engineers to manage them. Billions of dollars doesn't sound like an engineering challenge to me. Japan, France, S.Korea, etc etc have all done it or close to it.
You saying the U.S. is not as good or capable as them? | |
| | | lvlorpheus
join:2008-02-17
Eureka Springs, AR | It's nice to see you agree with me. If our country can pump 12 billion a month in to Iraq it should be nothing to invest billions right here at home. | |
| | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
| said by Jerm :"If we had 100 Mb/s, we’re not going to talk about throttling because there will be plenty of bandwidth." If every customer had a 100/100 I have no faith in Comcast to engineer their backbone sufficiently to handle multiple customers uploading @ a full 100mbps. It just isn't feasible at this point in time. I think it's possible to do. Just because there is no solution out right now doesn't mean it's not possible to do. It's only not possible right now because they're not trying to do it. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: uhh wtf mate! GPON, nuff said. Standards have existed for ages. | |
| | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: "If we had 100 Mb/s..." said by justbits :"If we had 100 Mb/s, we’re not going to talk about throttling because there will be plenty of bandwidth." There will always be applications that can consume more bandwidth than what's already available. This quote is equivalent to: "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981 he never said that or you are at the very least misconstruing what he said. like the famous Al Gore invented the internet thing. I wish people wouldn't be sheep and regurgitate crap all the time.
So, aim higher dude. We want next generation, not what everybody already has. Require Gigabit to the home and Petabit or Exabit backbones!  | |
| | | 
bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND
·Midcontinent Commu..
| Re: "If we had 100 Mb/s..." said by BF69 :at 100 Mbps one could download 44 GB of data in an hour. and this is a problem why? 
But really, I can see that being eaten up with HiDef on demand...
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE!
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/ | |
| | | | | | | 
Piggie
I Actually use Windstream
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Orange Springs, FL
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
 ·Windstream
| Re: "If we had 100 Mb/s..." said by KrK :I like this Bill Gates quote... "The Internet? We are not interested in it."-- Bill Gates, circa 1993 Still shows............. | |
| 
JasonD
@comcast.net
 from:
LiamJunket
| Oh yeah.... I'd like 100MB/s too, but not the gov't oversight/direction that goes with it. Hasn't it already been established that markets left to their own devices, will produce the best possible outcomes?
Unless you want to pay 60~70~80% of your income in taxes for that 'free' health care, cheap fast broadband, and other 'govt provided' services whether you want them or not. | |
| |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Oh yeah.... said by JasonD :
I'd like 100MB/s too, but not the gov't oversight/direction that goes with it. Hasn't it already been established that markets left to their own devices, will produce the best possible outcomes?
Unless you want to pay 60~70~80% of your income in taxes for that 'free' health care, cheap fast broadband, and other 'govt provided' services whether you want them or not.
Please a program to make sure everyone had broadband that was 100% government funde would cost approximately $500 per person. Even at minimum wage that's 3% if paid all in one year. And that could be spread out of 10 years since it would take at least the long to do it. And no one is suggesting it be 100% government funded.
As far as health care give me a break. First of all why do people get universal health care and FREE mixed-up. My state provides universal health care for kids. It's not FREE. Cheap yes, but not 100% free. Secondly you forget to take into account ancillary benefits of people being able to go to the doctor when they are sick which ake up for most of the costs. | |
| | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·ViaTalk
| Re: Oh yeah.... forty-twelve, elenty-six.
See, I can pull numbers out of my arse too, just like they did in the study you're thinking of. The $500 is a ridiculous figure, and if the government bureaucrats are involved, it's probably off by a few orders of magnitude. | |
| | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Oh yeah.... said by jester121 :forty-twelve, elenty-six. See, I can pull numbers out of my arse too, just like they did in the study you're thinking of. The $500 is a ridiculous figure, and if the government bureaucrats are involved, it's probably off by a few orders of magnitude. That would be more than our GDP dummy. There are 300 MILLION people in the US. So just getting $1 from everyone is $300 MILLION. So do the math again. | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Verizon has quoted $1000 to pass (make available) 1 customer, and $1000 for installation. These probably have gone down a little bit. Government manadated would bring much larger economies of scale and reduce prices further. | |
| | 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| said by JasonD :
I'd like 100MB/s too, but not the gov't oversight/direction that goes with it. Hasn't it already been established that markets left to their own devices, will produce the best possible outcomes?
Where? What markets, when left to their own devices, have produced the best possible results? Please name some.
Even Adam "Invisible Hand" Smith knew that government regulation was needed in capitalistic systems, to mitigate the worst instincts of the participants, IE: greed. Which generally is a precursor to mind-roasting stupidity on a grand scale.
Take the credit markets, and the failing hedge funds, for starters. | |
| | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
1 edit | Yeah.... how's that working out for you?
Considering a vast majority of people have 1 choice of a true provider (cable, FTTx, or DSL) and these companies do not really compete with each other when they are in the same market I am going to venture to guess your answer is "It's not". Unless of course you have a vested interest in the market not working in the consumer's favor and working more in the corp's favor.
EDIT: In addition, I would like to see the government handouts to the current incompetent incumbents redirected to a national system. No reason to raise taxes, just redirect it from them. | |
| | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Oh yeah.... said by Skippy25 :EDIT: In addition, I would like to see the government handouts to the current incompetent incumbents redirected to a national system. No reason to raise taxes, just redirect it from them. Exactly. BILLIONS in USF money is being handed out to the telcos and no one is using it for what it's for. Requiring them to use it to provide broadband ot rural areas is not raising atxes nor is it being unfair to the telcos. Those people in rural areas pay into the USF too and they should get SOMETHING for all the money they've paid into it over the years. | |
| | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by JasonD :
I'd like 100MB/s too, but not the gov't oversight/direction that goes with it. Hasn't it already been established that markets left to their own devices, will produce the best possible outcomes?
No such thing has ever been established. What's clear from the last 200 years of theoretical and practical economics (roughly Adam Smith to the present) is that free markets work best when there are many sellers, many buyers, minimal transaction costs, and minimal differences in bargaining power. However, this situation is hardly ever found in the real world. And the more the situation differs from that ideal model, the worse the consequences of laissez-faire. There is also a need for state intervention to protect workers and consumers beyond the classical model.
In the case of internet, almost everywhere in USA, one company has a monopoly on each means of getting the connection to the residence - one company has a monopoly on the coaxial, another on the phone lines. This "last mile" is a classic example of a scenario where a regulated public utility is the correct solution. Then many companies could compete to be the one that provides service to the "last mile" public monopoly for each customer. Only then could we finally have the benefit of markets in broadband. | |
| |
factchecker
@archdiocese-no.org
| said by JasonD :
I'd like 100MB/s too, but not the gov't oversight/direction that goes with it. Hasn't it already been established that markets left to their own devices, will produce the best possible outcomes? That statement would be true if the free market worked with respect to internet access.
Until a carrier neutral network exists, where any company can offer services exists, your mythical market forces won't be at work with respect to internet access. | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by JasonD :
Hasn't it already been established that markets left to their own devices, will produce the best possible outcomes? Uh, no. No economic theory says that is the case 100% of time. Look up the terms "market failure" and "tragedy of the commons" and get back to us. | |
| 
Alakar
Facts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI
| A national broadband strategy I think he's correct about a national broadband strategy, we have none. Thats the first thing we need to start with. Set some goals, and then figure out how to achieve them.
He loses some credibility with this self serving remark though;
Hundt has complained that the line-sharing system he implemented in the 90's worked well in France to bring about competition (and $40 IPTV & broadband bundles), but failed here due to shoddy implementation and enforcement (and because incumbents wanted it to).
The '96 Telecom Act was a joke. It had to have been some of the most poorly written legislation ever produced, and to try to say that "shoddy implementation and enforcement" are what caused it to fail is laughable. It failed because it had tons of holes in it, letting the ILEC's, CLEC's and the government get away with stuff that undermined it.
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the arguments of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger | |
| | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: A national broadband strategy said by Alakar :The '96 Telecom Act was a joke. It had to have been some of the most poorly written legislation ever produced, and to try to say that "shoddy implementation and enforcement" are what caused it to fail is laughable. It failed because it had tons of holes in it, letting the ILEC's, CLEC's and the government get away with stuff that undermined it. I don't know. After that act was passed I was able to reduce within 2 yrs the telecomm budget for the company I worked for from $20 million/yr down to $8 million/yr and within 4 yrs it was down to $6 million/yr. And all because it deregulated long distance charges.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| 
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Not so fast Competition does nothing to prevent P2P throttling. In fact, it ENCOURAGES it.
Just think. In Canada, we have tons of competition. Bell Canada, the DSL incumbent, now throttles P2P down to 30KB/s. This annoys people who use filesharing. Those people then jump ship to other ISPs who provide better service at lower prices.
Great for those customers, right? They've got choice.
Only problem is that this scenario encourages Bell to throttle! They annoy all the people who use filesharing, and they leave (Bell still gets a $20/line cut for access to their lines from the other ISPs, so it's win-win). Bell gets to retain only the low-usage people who surf the web and check their e-mail.
So in our market up here, the ample competition is the REASON why P2P throttling is happening. It's an easy way to convince your least profitable customers to go elsewhere, while still making money off them. | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
joker5656
join:2006-06-23
Greenville, SC
·Charter Pipeline
| Smaller countrys???? Wow they compare us to smaller countries. i mean were basically a continent. wth. There is no comparison. bigger country takes more time and cost a hell lot more money which companies aren't going to spend. it will cost billions to run cable or internet out through all the country sides. | |
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Smaller countrys???? 80% of the US population lives around the urban centers, and most of them are just as underserved.
The geography argument has been shot down by every single group (ex the incumbants) that have studied it. | |
| tigernike23
join:2006-03-26
Decatur, IL
·Comcast
·Insight Communicat..
| This guy is so right on. This guy is right, we are waaaayyyyyy behind on the speed to cost ratio. Give me Japan's speed and price. This guy helped with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, his successor helped with the wireless industry. Under this guy, we were the tops in the world on communication. Now, we're getting ripped off by big corporations that keep swallowing up the competition. Stephen Colbert had a good segment a while back. It went like this:
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6nuwQmhrZ8 | |
| | | |
|
|
