dslreports logo
Leaked Comcast Memo on Traffic Shaping
Customer service rep was just doing her job
Earlier this week, we reported on an email received by a Comcast customer in response to questions about the company’s traffic shaping practices. An internal Comcast memo published by The Consumerist shows that the customer service rep who called the issue a “web rumor” was probably just trying to keep her job. The memo shows the “talking points” that Comcast has said employees are to use when asked about BitTorrent throttling. These talking points prove Comcast’s insistence on denying that they are engaging in any such practices. Furthermore, the employee providing the email said that Comcast employees were told that any deviation from the provided script would result in their termination. But that’s probably “just a rumor”.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next

newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium Member
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD

newview

Premium Member

"Talking Points" = Comcast Speak

Once again, proof of the Comcast Corporate Culture of lying through your teeth.

scutenski
@comcast.net

scutenski

Anon

Re: "Talking Points" = Comcast Speak

Unfortunately I have been a Comcast customer for too long. But it is the only alternative in our area.

In the past couple of years we have experience intermittent problems with email. For example, not receiving any mail for several hours or a day or two. Then all of a sudden a ton of email arrives all at once. When we call Comcast customer service and ask whether they are having problems with email services they always say "No". Then ,strangely, the problem is fixed.

Secondly, I have noticed in the past few weeks that more spam is getting through Comcast filters. I wonder if they are getting paid to allow this to happen.

I wonder if the above two issues are related to the traffic management problem.

Some government agency(ies)should launch an investigation into Comcast's business practices
Raven313
join:2001-12-17
Washington, DC

1 recommendation

Raven313

Member

Some Throttling of my own

I did some throttling of my own. I throttled the amount of money I pay Comcast down to zero by switching to FIOS. FIOS isn't really better than Comcast of course, that's just a talking point.

koitsu
MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
Humax BGW320-500

1 edit

koitsu

MVM

Re: Some Throttling of my own

said by Raven313:

I did some throttling of my own. I throttled the amount of money I pay Comcast down to zero by switching to FIOS. FIOS isn't really better than Comcast of course, that's just a talking point.
I think most of us would do the exact same, if FIOS was in our area.

I'm glad you have alternative choices to Comcast, but for the rest of us, we're pretty much left with only two ISP options (three in some areas). And around here, Comcast is the only one offering service that 1) are above 6mbit in speed, 2) are wired (wireless is too unreliable/flippant with latency), and 3) aren't limited by CO distance.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David to Raven313

Premium Member

to Raven313
said by Raven313:

I did some throttling of my own. I throttled the amount of money I pay Comcast down to zero by switching to FIOS. FIOS isn't really better than Comcast of course, that's just a talking point.
That's funny!!... thanks for making me happy today
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

1 recommendation

Rick5

Premium Member

Comcasts position on this sounds pretty clear to me

They're saying they are NOT blocking access to it...NOR are they limiting access to it.

As a regular course of business however, they do protect their network from ABUSERS. As well they should.

I would venture to say that the ones complaining about this are the same ones soaking up 400 and 500 gigs of bandwidth per month.

And, perhaps Comcast is doing something about them...for THAT reason, that then impacts their usage overall for bit torrent uses.

Folks..i've never had a problem with my comcast connection.
And as you can see by both my posts..the help I provide to many others..and longevity here at BBR..I'm no normal run of the mill recreational user of this service.
I use it heavily.

And again..no problems on my end. Nor do I expect there will be.

The ones having the problems are the ones who feel that for 42.95/month they're entitled to their own backbone or something. These people know no limits..and their use hurts the rest of us.

I'm not denying them the right to whatever, but I do say that if you're going to need a connection like that..you really should
a)plan ahead for it and
b)not expect a residential provider to give it to you

Do you understand what a connection like that would cost if you had to pay for it yourself?
Thousands of dollars.

You get it for this price because the rest of us contribute to it and subsidize it for all.
Well, I'll tell you..I'm tired of subsidizing your outrageous usage which is basically for the sole intent of stealing others copyrighted works.

Comcast.please..whatever you're doing..keep on doing it.

I and many others love you for it.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Comcasts position on this sounds pretty clear to me

For me, I hope they are throttling Bittorrent, because the last thing I want is a couple teenagers flooding my local node non-stop with P2P traffic. That affects my enjoyment of the internet.

Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium Member
join:2002-12-17
Wasilla, AK

Boogeyman

Premium Member

Re: Comcasts position on this sounds pretty clear to me

So what about the bt users that only use about 50gb, or 25, or hell, even 10 a month? Should they be punished too because there are others that use it in excess?

I barely use 20gb a mo total, so why am I having to subsidize YOUR heavy usage? (In response to RR, not TCH)
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

Rick5

Premium Member

Re: Comcasts position on this sounds pretty clear to me

said by Boogeyman:

So what about the bt users that only use about 50gb, or 25, or hell, even 10 a month? Should they be punished too because there are others that use it in excess?

I barely use 20gb a mo total, so why am I having to subsidize YOUR heavy usage? (In response to RR, not TCH)
Comcast is saying they are not blocking NOR limiting your use of the service.

I suspect that those who ARE having this problem are the ones who being flagged for overall and excessive usage while people like you and I aren't affected at all.

Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium Member
join:2002-12-17
Wasilla, AK

1 edit

Boogeyman

Premium Member

Re: Comcasts position on this sounds pretty clear to me

That may very well be true, but if they ARE throttling it for the people who use it 24/7 (Which a lot of users say they are getting throttled) why cant they just come out and say "Certain users that are making excessive use of the BT protocol and saturating our nodes have had said traffic throttled for the good of the rest of the node."

I know I am not an excessive bandwidth user most of the time, and I agree that 200gb EVERY month is excessive, there are times when using that amount is reasonable. I mean hell, I pay for 6/768 and usually only use 2/256, but I dont want to be told that I cant max my connection for a few hours here and there because they want to sell everyone on my block 6/768, but we can only use half of it before it starts to affect others and they decide to cut me off. (After a reformat/new computer, I use about 200gb a mo due to updates and having to download and install all the free/shareware I use, and I usually try out a bunch of new ones to see if I like them better, and then for games distributed digitally, like all my Steam games, I just download through Steam instead of trying to find disks and then having to patch what I installed off of the disk.)
*EDIT*
First paragraph edited because it made no sense.
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

Rick5

Premium Member

Re: Comcasts position on this sounds pretty clear to me

Again, I think if you carefully read their statement..you'll see they've said ever way they can..that they are NOT impacting people like you and I.

They ARE managing their network however from abusers for OUR benefit.

Frankly, it would be just plain dumb for them to come out and say exactly what it is they are doing as it relates to THOSE people. Because all THOSE people will do is then use THAT information to work around the issue.

And so, they say it this way.

I really think you have to ask yourself..would someone at THAT level of the company be directing their entire call center staff to tell everyone something that simply isn't true?
That would be just plain dumb.

I think what this all boils down to is you..I..and every person who reasonably uses this service..and who even uses it quite heavily..has nothing to worry about.

And..people who start hitting these outrageous levels that impact us all..have plenty to worry about.

Isn't this what we want..as customers of theirs..looking for a good internet experience?

I sure do. I want them policing the service to make sure we are not impacted by abusers and those who apparently feel that everything in this world should be free.

Remember too..that many of these people have a choice.
They can also upgrade to business level connections.
Or..split their usage among providers.

Comcasts "caps"..are not restrictive for the majority of people. 300 gigs and more is a TON of data.

And, these speeds would cost us thousands per month if we had to buy these pipes ourselves.

It seriously is time for those of us who are not impacted by this..but yet who are paying the price everyday..to stand up to this very small minority and say..it's time they shaped up their acts.

And, it's time for us to support Comcast and their efforts to keep this a great service for the vast majority of us.

james16
join:2001-02-26

james16

Member

Re: Comcasts position on this sounds pretty clear to me

Look, if they can't afford to supply the high speeds of their competitors without overloading their network then perhaps they need to either UPGRADE THEIR NETWORK or STOP OFFERING WHAT THEY CAN'T PROVIDE. If they want to cap connections then they should advertise their cap, it's like a hard drive manufacturer who advertises 10000 rpm drives for sale but doesnt tell you how many Gigs it is because they KNOW that it's way lower than their competitors and no one would buy it.

Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium Member
join:2002-12-17
Wasilla, AK

Boogeyman to Rick5

Premium Member

to Rick5
I agree that they should be doing something, but I disagree that they are smart enough to tell the truth.

Look at how they liad about the caps at first, then they changed thier story when users started posting the letters stating they were getting capped. Should they have been capped/cut off for excessive use? Yessir. But the company SHOULD have said, yup, we cut off service to the network abusers.

And should they have to say what the limits are? Well, if its a frequently changing number depending on node saturation, then, its reasonable to not expect that number, as long as its a reasonable amount. And yes, I think capping someone at 300gb is reasonable. The MOST I have ever used, was 500gb a month according to D/U meter, and 70% of that was traffic on my home network (I keep most of my media on an older pc because it has more room for HDD's). Now if they want to make a cap of say, 50gb, or 100gb, then they should let us know because a lot of regular users might excede that while normal usage.

I just dont think that the company cares about the customer, its all about company image. If no one notices what they do wrong, they will continue doing it. But when people start noticing it and calling them on it, they do damage control instead of just being up front about it. Its like they are all for screwing the customer untill it affects thier public image. And to me, THATS what is pissing everyone off.

TreeTopFlyer
@sbcglobal.net

TreeTopFlyer to Rick5

Anon

to Rick5
said by Rick5:

And so, they say it this way.
So . . . IF they ARE doing traffic shaping and saying they aren't, then you have no problem being lied to?

whatcanisay
@sbcglobal.net

whatcanisay to Rick5

Anon

to Rick5
said by Rick5:

And, these speeds would cost us thousands per month if we had to buy these pipes ourselves.
Yes, Rick, you are 100% correct on this. But please do realize that, at least in the context of this post, you are only correct in a world where Comcast is the only choice. Of course there are other situations...

However... if you live in an area in the US where you can get ILEC DSL (and Covad still before they get bought out - if they do) you have that kind of connectivity without thousand-dollar pipes; if you live in Japan, South Korea, if you can get Verizon's FTTH... there's no need for thousand-dollar pipes.

Point being, if an ISP sells 6/384 or 20/20 or 50/50 or 100/100 or whatever, that's what's being sold. If a person wants to use it, they use it. That's why they buy it. You either understand that or you don't. If you choose to not use the full capacity of that connection, you're simply not using the full capacity of your connection. You're not subsidizing anyone. An individual should be more than welcome to use the full capacity of the service they have purchased. Yet, however, statistically speaking, 95% of the subscribers choose not to, and that is perfectly fine. The price gets adjusted down, and the bandwidth gets oversold. You're not subsidizing anyone. The primary obligation of the ISP is to deliver that which they advertise. That's not 20/20 .20% of the time. It's 20/20. If the ISP sees that 95% of the subscribers don't use the full capacity, they can go ahead and "overbook", or whatever. If that ratio changes, it's entirely logical that they have an obligation to upgrade to support the new ratio.

There are plenty of situations where you don't need to purchase a thousand-dollar internet connection in order to simply be able to not worry about bandwidth, where you can download and upload terabytes of information and not get cut off -- at residential prices, no less. You buy it, you get to use it. Then again, in those places where this is not the case, you would need to purchase a thousand-dollar internet connection. Many places in Europe, and Eastern Europe, for instance, bill by the byte or megabyte or whatever... so you're only limited by how much money you have (which is the same thing as a thousand-dollar pipe w/o the SLA).

If Comcast is your only choice, then you're stuck with purchasing a thousand-dollar internet connection -- yes, that is 100% true.

Morac
Cat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ

1 recommendation

Morac to Rick5

Member

to Rick5
said by Rick5:

Comcast is saying they are not blocking NOR limiting your use of the service.

I suspect that those who ARE having this problem are the ones who being flagged for overall and excessive usage while people like you and I aren't affected at all.
I call BS on this. The AP and the EFF have both shown that Comcast has been interfering with BitTorrent and even Lotus Notes traffic. I highly doubt the AP and EFF reporters were flagged for excessive use.

I've seen the problem myself and the only thing I use BT for is to download World of Warcraft patches.

Yes Comcast doesn't block downloads via BitTorrent, what they are doing is messing with the uploads and only if the other person is not a Comcast user. Since BT is designed to limit download speeds if the user doesn't upload, it in effect hampers downloads.

A good analogy is if you are talking to someone on the phone and suddenly you hear the other person on the line say "Goodbye" and hang up and they hear you say "Goodbye" and hangup when neither of you did such a thing. If one of you calls back about a minute later the same thing happens again. So technically, if you knew what was happening, you could carry on a conversation by keep calling every time you got disconnected, but since the other person said "Goodbye" you might just assume they don't want to talk anymore and not call back. This is what Comcast is doing with BitTorrent and other types of traffic; faking the "Goodbyes".
tdumaine
Premium Member
join:2004-03-14
Seattle, WA

tdumaine to Rick5

Premium Member

to Rick5
said by Rick5:

Comcast is saying they are not blocking NOR limiting your use of the service.

I suspect that those who ARE having this problem are the ones who being flagged for overall and excessive usage while people like you and I aren't affected at all.
Normally i wouldn't even respond to you rick, but in one breath you contradicted yourself.

Not blocking NOR limiting, but flagging people.....
If comcast was flagging people as such, there goes their privacy talking point.
competence
join:2004-11-24
123456

competence to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

For me, I hope they are throttling Bittorrent, because the last thing I want is a couple teenagers flooding my local node non-stop with P2P traffic. That affects my enjoyment of the internet.
you sir are an idoit. seems to me your enjoyment of the internet is surfing, where as you wont be using damn near any bandwith, dumb bandwagon hopping slizzut!
three6ohchri
join:2004-04-14
Portland, OR

2 edits

1 recommendation

three6ohchri

Member

Re: Comcasts position on this sounds pretty clear to me

said by competence:

you sir are an idoit. seems to me your enjoyment of the internet is surfing, where as you wont be using damn near any bandwith, dumb bandwagon hopping slizzut!
Hahaha, does anyone else see the irony in this guys statement? Check his name, his spelling, and the word he misspelled. Spell check would have saved you about 20 credibility points there buddy.

Anyway... If Comcast's actions are helping the MAJORITY of it's users than I say hooray. I'm tired of the minority ruling the majority. It happens everywhere else in the world, how about a little change finally.

Camelot One
MVM
join:2001-11-21
Bloomington, IN

Camelot One to Rick5

MVM

to Rick5
When it comes to the issue of limiting, capping, etc a user who is maxing out their connection 24/7, I think they have a point. But say so, don't outright LIE about it. Don't use "invisible caps", or caps that vary so much from one node to the next that they can't tell a user what he/she is allowed to use and what they aren't.

But that isn't the issue with the bittorrent traffic. In the areas this technology is being used, they aren't "limiting" or even "delaying" the traffic. They are flat out generating false data to STOP the traffic all together. Most bit torrent clients have the option to set max upload and download speeds. I know this, because I set mine. There is no reason, and no network harm, caused by someone using limited upload/download for legitimate bit torrent traffic.

And for those who want to say it's used for nothing but piracy.....I am a musician. I have released my own albums, and I have released them on bittorrent. They are not pirated, they are my work.

ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium Member
join:2001-08-02
La Porte, IN

ztmike to Rick5

Premium Member

to Rick5
said by Rick5:

They're saying they are NOT blocking access to it...NOR are they limiting access to it.

As a regular course of business however, they do protect their network from ABUSERS. As well they should.

I would venture to say that the ones complaining about this are the same ones soaking up 400 and 500 gigs of bandwidth per month.

And, perhaps Comcast is doing something about them...for THAT reason, that then impacts their usage overall for bit torrent uses.

Folks..i've never had a problem with my comcast connection.
And as you can see by both my posts..the help I provide to many others..and longevity here at BBR..I'm no normal run of the mill recreational user of this service.
I use it heavily.

And again..no problems on my end. Nor do I expect there will be.

The ones having the problems are the ones who feel that for 42.95/month they're entitled to their own backbone or something. These people know no limits..and their use hurts the rest of us.

I'm not denying them the right to whatever, but I do say that if you're going to need a connection like that..you really should
a)plan ahead for it and
b)not expect a residential provider to give it to you

Do you understand what a connection like that would cost if you had to pay for it yourself?
Thousands of dollars.

You get it for this price because the rest of us contribute to it and subsidize it for all.
Well, I'll tell you..I'm tired of subsidizing your outrageous usage which is basically for the sole intent of stealing others copyrighted works.

Comcast.please..whatever you're doing..keep on doing it.

I and many others love you for it.
Don't it make you wonder why isp's such as Fios or OOL don't impose these Comcast techniques to their users when they themselfs are offering speed tiers that will probably take years for Comcast to even think about raising to?

Comcast basically implanted Sandvine so they don't have to upgrade their systems to meet the growing demand of p2p..its not just illegal activities but the growing population of p2p and CC just doesn't want to upgrade their systems to meet it.

Ever wonder why they still have a 384 upload speed? When in all reality docsis 2 can support higher speeds (which some systems in CC already have.)
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

1 recommendation

Rick5

Premium Member

Re: Comcasts position on this sounds pretty clear to me

Your position has no merit whatsoever.

Comcast has and is investing heavily in their networks all the time.

Proof of that is in January, I was getting about 4400k speeds with Adelphia.
Now I see 20,000k + with Comcast with Powerboost on the DL side..and almost 2,000k on the upload side.

How can you say that this isn't a great leap forward and progress..and giving we customers a whole lot more for our money.

And, I will note..not a single dime more has been charged for all this.

It is simply amazing that those who complain about this are the ones who expect comcast..or any provider..to give them over THREE HUNDRED GIGS of access per month..for the price of 43.00 a month.

that is outrageous to expect. That kind of speed and bandwidth would cost them THOUSANDS of dollars per month to buy for themselves. And yet..they feel that it should just be handed over to them for this price.

I'm sorry..but 300 gigs per month is NOT a cap at all. It's a number that is in the stratosphere. And, if people are hitting that..then they deserve to have warning letters sent to them and their service cut off.
Comcast..nor any isp..should not have to have their network ruined and the rest of the 95% of we customers affected to make this very small base of customers happy.

What these people SHOULD do is upgrade to a business account..or split their access across a couple providers.

This is a residential service..not their own personal backbone to steal copyrighted material.

This issue is beyond old....
Comcast has now spoken out clearly about it.

And really..it's time to move on.

ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium Member
join:2001-08-02
La Porte, IN

1 edit

ztmike

Premium Member

Re: Comcasts position on this sounds pretty clear to me

said by Rick5:

Your position has no merit whatsoever.

Comcast has and is investing heavily in their networks all the time.

Proof of that is in January, I was getting about 4400k speeds with Adelphia.
Now I see 20,000k + with Comcast with Powerboost on the DL side..and almost 2,000k on the upload side.

How can you say that this isn't a great leap forward and progress..and giving we customers a whole lot more for our money.

And, I will note..not a single dime more has been charged for all this.

It is simply amazing that those who complain about this are the ones who expect comcast..or any provider..to give them over THREE HUNDRED GIGS of access per month..for the price of 43.00 a month.

that is outrageous to expect. That kind of speed and bandwidth would cost them THOUSANDS of dollars per month to buy for themselves. And yet..they feel that it should just be handed over to them for this price.

I'm sorry..but 300 gigs per month is NOT a cap at all. It's a number that is in the stratosphere. And, if people are hitting that..then they deserve to have warning letters sent to them and their service cut off.
Comcast..nor any isp..should not have to have their network ruined and the rest of the 95% of we customers affected to make this very small base of customers happy.

What these people SHOULD do is upgrade to a business account..or split their access across a couple providers.

This is a residential service..not their own personal backbone to steal copyrighted material.

This issue is beyond old....
Comcast has now spoken out clearly about it.

And really..it's time to move on.
You do realize that all comcast did was upgrade your service to their "standards" from your last isp Adelphia, ever since you got on the CC wagon you say how good they are, yet i have been with them since the @Home days and CC has literally taken this service down the shitter.

Only good thing about CC is for the average joes who surf the net.

The Powerboost speeds just goes to show that they COULD up the speed tier but all they want to see is profit, granted they might actually have to do a little WORK and some money to split some nodes to reach say a 20/2 tier but my god 384,768 upload is just fucking sad. Powerboost is nothing but a PR move they use on tv to trick customers.

Also 300gigs in a month is not so uncommon these days as bandwidth programs take hold (more than just p2p) Heres some examples, Directv's Download program supposedly coming, Xbox 360 HD movies download, Xbox 360 p2p game hosting, Ps3 download service, Online gaming patches, VoIP, Linux OS's downloads.

So 300gigs in a month is believe it or not not uncommon as these programs take hold.

So Rick, you bash Atat and yet with CC because they gave you powerboost speeds that youll protect them with whatever comes their way as bad PR..yea..you can say fanboy in denial.
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

1 recommendation

Rick5

Premium Member

Re: Comcasts position on this sounds pretty clear to me

Perhaps what you should do is to just start shopping around for your own DS3..T3..or whatever it is you need to satisfy you.

It's nothing that a few thousand a month won't cure.

As for me, i'll just continue to think that up to 300gigs a month at speeds up to 20 to 30Mb for 42.95 month is one helluva good deal.

And, that not only comcast..but the industry as a whole has done a pretty good job..and in some cases..a very good job..at giving us all more over the years.

I mean..heck..it was just over 10 years or so ago that I was paying hundreds per month for a slow as molasses dialup connection. And, just 4 or 5 years ago that I was paying this same price for a 1500~2000k RR connection.

Now..I get up to 30Mb speeds with Comcast..for the same money.

But yet you suggest they're not doing all they can...and ripping us off.

Well man..I don't know what to tell you.

I just think that opinion is way out in left field somewhere..and has no real basis in reality when you look at the bigger picture.
Are there other providers who give more? Yep. A few.
But comcast is sure at the top of the list I think.
And there's lots of providers below them.

DSL is no value. In fact..speed for speed..its' downright expensive compared to comcast.

Why anyone would want that is way beyond me..when for literally 20 to 40 cents per day more..you can have the best that's out there.

We're just not talking about a lot of money difference.
Several hundred a few years ago was a lot.
today..whether it's 25 or 45.00 is really insignificant compared to that.

People should also understand that Comcast is a huge company. They can't just turn on a dime..and give everyone the absolute latest that's out there on a moments notice.
For their size though..I think they do a great job.
Even better than my old favorite ISP..time Warner.

FWIW..I do think that speed increases are coming in the not too distant future. As is docsis 3.0.

Until then, i'll just be happy with what I have.

Because it's pretty darn good I think.
gaforces (banned)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

gaforces (banned)

Member

Re: Comcasts position on this sounds pretty clear to me

Doublespeak >> »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do ··· blespeak.
Claybraker
join:2002-04-13
none

Claybraker to Rick5

Member

to Rick5
said by Rick5:

As for me, i'll just continue to think that up to 300gigs a month at speeds up to 20 to 30Mb for 42.95 month is one helluva good deal.

So the invisible cap is now 300gigs a month? I'd heard of folks getting in trouble for 200gigs. Glad to hear they raised it

AtomicZero
join:2004-11-24
West Palm Beach, FL

AtomicZero

Member

Re: Comcasts position on this sounds pretty clear to me

said by Claybraker:

said by Rick5:

As for me, i'll just continue to think that up to 300gigs a month at speeds up to 20 to 30Mb for 42.95 month is one helluva good deal.

So the invisible cap is now 300gigs a month? I'd heard of folks getting in trouble for 200gigs. Glad to hear they raised it
But who really uses that much really? 200/300GB a month just sounds obscene to me.

whatcanisay
@sbcglobal.net

whatcanisay to Rick5

Anon

to Rick5
The extent to which this is a problem is the extent to which people are forced to stick with a company that does - or should I say __DOESN'T DO__ these types of things.

I'll just go somewhere else. Anyone who uses BT and seeds will go somehwere else. Anyone who can. It's basically that simple.

Yet there are many who can't. Yes, if Comcast wants to have these types of rules and create these types of situations which require solutions like business accounts and someone to point your fingers at, then let it be. I'll just go somewhere else ASAP.

So the problem is really that Comcast doesn't have any competition - but that's been said a million times before, anyway.

I guess that the way I see it is that the ultimate point of doing what you do, the ultimate point of having a business, the ultimate point of offering a service to customers is to provide a quality product to those customers. Powerboost is a gimmick. The caps are high, yes, but the problem is that Comcast gets folks mixed up. You're as safe downloading 1 gig as you are downloading 200 gigs. If they get you mixed up, they'll cut you off even if you disconnect your modem from the wall and hand-deliver it to your lawyer for safe keeping.

1. There are people being disconnected who are wrongly accused.

2. Comcast is forging packets.

3. Comcast is the only choice for broadband many people have.

That either makes sense to you, or it doesn't.

It's as simple as that.
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA

4 edits

qworster to Rick5

Member

to Rick5
Reply to Rick:

Are you a moron or what?
Speed tests mean nothing.

N O T H I N G !!!!!

I get speed tests that show I'm getting 10 mB downloads, yet half the time, web pages load slowly.

What the HELL does having BLAZING speeds on a speed test matter if your DOWNLOADS crawl because LYING Comcast FORGES your packets on that BLAZING network?

DON'T YOU GET IT??

Comcast has built a network that LOOKS GOOD, but DOESN'T WORK!! In some ways. it's like the story "The 3 Little Pigs" in that YOU seem to want the PRETTY house made out of STICKS over the strong one made of BRICKS!

Comcast LIES to you! They TELL you that their service is COMCASTIC, when in reality all that speed you THINK you're getting is a LIE!

But as long as speedtest.net's needle flies up, you're happy. RIGHT???

I pity you!
Rick5
Premium Member
join:2001-02-06

Rick5

Premium Member

Re: Yeah-on speedtests you do!

said by qworster:

DON'T YOU GET IT??

I get it perfectly well. I have no issues with webpages loading slowly..nor with the service.

And, I think that powerboost is great for the kinds of files I download. The other day I had to download about 150Mb's worth and can't recall my speeds dipping even once below the 20,000 + mark.

And I should be upset about that? And, I don't get it you say?

I get it perfectly well.

It's a great service as far as I'm concerned.

If what you're suggesting however is that comcast should give you and others unlimited bit torrent access at these speeds..I'd have to say you're expecting too much. For right now anyway.

And, if you're not experiencing the same kind of Comcast service that I am..perhaps you should head over to the comcast forum..answer the questions in the link at the top..and let us have a look at things to see if it can be improved upon.

Plenty of folks are there to help.

Including myself.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to qworster

Premium Member

to qworster
said by qworster:

I get speed tests that show I'm getting 10 mB downloads, yet half the time, web pages load slowly.

And how is slow loading web pages Comcast's problem? Web pages load slowly because the web servers are set to limit how fast they provide pages so that they can serve thousands of customers concurrently. Send your complaints to the content providers where they belong.

mr enigma
@ovh.net

mr enigma to Rick5

Anon

to Rick5
and BTW. who is to say that comcast isint getting kickbacks or FREE SANDVINE equipment from the RIAA or MPAA to kill bittorrent traffic? since in their eyes bittorrent "has no legal use" and we're all "communist copyright infringers" (just like how alot of big multimillion dollar corporations hate linux (yet they use it in their own networks)) - just my two cents since this looks and smells a whole lot like crap. i'm happy with my ADSL line

TreeTopFlyer
@sbcglobal.net

TreeTopFlyer to Rick5

Anon

to Rick5
said by Rick5:

And, I will note..not a single dime more has been charged for all this.
So . . . once Comcash gets rid of all the torrent users, they will be dropping prices on internet access?

TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ

1 recommendation

TScheisskopf to ztmike

Member

to ztmike
It's about avoiding capital investment in infrastructure. The sooner the average Comcast user understands that they are nothing but a device that adds money to Comcast's cash reserves, so they can acquire and expand, or just sit on that cash, to the delight of Wall Street analysts, the closer they will be to the nominative societal norm of sanity. Sandvine boxes are cheaper than splitting nodes and running new copper.

Any other explanation is either lunacy or the result of employment by Direct Impact. Or both.
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2

backness

Member

Re: Comcasts position on this sounds pretty clear to me

or they just upgrade where there is direct competition.

People who are low competition footprints are screwed
nanoflower
join:2002-07-14
30876

nanoflower to Rick5

Member

to Rick5
They are not protecting the network from abusers. That's done if they cut someone off. Instead they are blocking/terminating Bit torrent connections for EVERYONE. It doesn't matter if you transfer a terabyte in a month or only 100MB in a month. The blocking hardware doesn't care how much you transfer. It's going to impact your BT transfers no matter what you transfered in a given month. If it only impacted people that transfered large amounts of data then it wouldn't be getting the press that it is.

BaldBeagle
@cogentco.com

BaldBeagle to Rick5

Anon

to Rick5
Your position is cool and all, but it would be nice if these restrictions were noted in their Terms Of Service agreement and were the subject of an online FAQ. It would also be nice if they let their floor agents (sorry, I mean Customer Account Executives) on the phone know that this is going on.

You know what happens when they call and complain? The tech support agents don't know anything about this and end up trying to troubleshoot the problem for a hour before eventually blaming the problem on your computer/router/stupidity.
mworks
join:2006-06-13
Rose Hill, NC

1 edit

mworks to Rick5

Member

to Rick5
I think a good solution to p2p traffic is for them to throttle based on daily usage patterns not monthly.

So if the connection for a neighborhood is at 100% and of that 100% , 30% is p2p then throttle those connections. If the local traffic drops to 90% usage then give those p2p users back there speed.

I don't think adjusting a persons connection speed on how much they download for a month is the correct way to do it. Instead it needs to be based on how that connection is affecting the area at the time.

I would gladly accept a isp that put qos on connections, something in order like. voip, gaming , web sites, email, p2p

high priority stuff first then the others.

Of course if they could provide 100% of what they sell, this wouldn't even be necessary.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to Rick5

Premium Member

to Rick5
said by Rick5:

They're saying they are NOT blocking access to it...NOR are they limiting access to it.

As a regular course of business however, they do protect their network from ABUSERS. As well they should.
Uhmmmm. Well i guess ANYONE that might download a 10mb ebook on BT would be seen as an abuser by sandvine. sandvine doesn't care whether you're a 3GB/month or 500GB/month user. its an equal opportunity RSTer.
pgm_01
join:2003-06-16
Preston, CT

pgm_01 to Rick5

Member

to Rick5
Sorry, but no. It is implemented here already and it effects everyone. I use bittorrent maybe a few times a month and it usually about 1 CD worth of data at a time since I use it to download Kubuntu when it updates and different bootable Linux discs. I do watch TV using Joost and stream CD quality uncompressed music from time to time, but there is no way that I am a bandwidth abuser. I would not mind if the system flagged abusers and booted them off but what is happening is that all BT traffic is being affected regardless of how much bandwidth that user consumes.
DoubleK
Doublek
join:2003-03-04
Beloit, WI

DoubleK to Rick5

Member

to Rick5
There are quite a few holes in your logic Comcast Rick.

First when they designed their business model everyone subsidizing everyone else was the goal. You seen it with tv and hence why stations like mtv even exist. Sure they are popular among subscribers today but 20 years ago it was crammed down our throats in a package. They are simply trying to carry over their antiquated business model much like the riaa and mpaa attempt to do today.

Secondly, how can you sit there and say that the only way to use up that much bandwidth is by pirating? Possibly in your limited world of computing. In my own and many others that I know we chew up a fair amount ourselves when it comes to gaming. Watching youtube for the latest greatest cheats and their consequences. Have you ever played Americas Army? Did you know that their is an anticheat consortium if you will where just about anyone can peruse a game servers screenshots looking for cheaters? Trust me, if you are dedicated this can chew up alot of bandwidth. It is very enjoyable getting shitties banned

Lastly, how do I even begin to explain how much bandwidth my three websites chew up if you cannot comprehend my first two examples? My websites are strictly non-commercial. Gaming Websites and a family photo site. I know I should have to purchase a commercial account for my extravagant hobbies right? I would be more than willing to pay more if I could get anything at home faster on the upload side.

Rick, if anything else I hope this helps awaken your mind to other possibilities besides pirating.
gpp6
join:2001-12-15
Elmhurst, IL

gpp6 to Rick5

Member

to Rick5
Where do you come up with this stuff, Rick - the Al Gore School of Debate? You say in your post "Folks..i've never had a problem with my comcast connection.", yet you can barely contain your anger at people who use their connections differently than you. How can you say "their use hurts the rest of us" and "i've never had a problem with my comcast connection" in the same breath? Earth to Al...

These people "know no limits" because Comcast won't say what they are. A few years ago, I visited my parents at their retirement community in Arizona. I hated to go at time, because one of the sites I belong to was torrenting all of the Grateful Dead shows from 1970, and their acoustic stuff from spring of that year was some of their best work ever. When I got out there, I found they had cable internet, so I was able to dl a ton of stuff and upload more than that by a factor of three. Wrote it all to dvd and took it home with me. I was jealous. What would be the limit in a community like that, with nothing but geezers for miles around (sorry 'bout that dad...) puttering around in their golf carts and occasionally checking their AOL mail for pictures of the grandkids? Would it be the same as the limit in a community where they have people like you, who 'use it heavily'? No one knows. And you won't find out until you give them your money.

I don't just dl music. I have a u60 here running Solaris 10 8/07 to run my web/mail/ftp servers. I've also been checking out Sun's new (free) compiler which they've been making progress on and one day might even be able to cleanly compile and run the boost libraries. That was a lot of bits to download from Sun. I have Fedora 7 on my wife's computer. Got that from BitTorrent, and unlike most people, I upped as much as I downloaded. Nobody made a profit from any of those downloads.

I don't have a problem with caps. I just want to know what they are so I can make an informed decision. I'm able to live within the parameters of my DSL connection, which I keep pegged about 60% of the time.

Comcast is out to get customers. And in their rush to do so, they seem to be willing to prevaricate. To misdirect, to play up the benefits and remain silent about the rest. And that is a fundamentally dishonest way to do business.

Where is the line between "use it heavily" and ABUSE? It all depends on where you live and who your neighbors are. Give up your corporate toady ways and smell the coffee, man. You could be the next ABUSER.

Anonymous88
Premium Member
join:2004-06-01
IA

1 edit

Anonymous88

Premium Member

Not blocking just throttling

What about people asking if they are throttling BT traffic?
That memo is completely useless.

koam
Pink Pecker
Premium Member
join:2000-08-16
East Puddle
·Shoreham Telephone

1 recommendation

koam

Premium Member

huh?

Snarky, cynical reportage without foundation.

Talking points are necessary in order to have an army of customer support reps (with varying levels of understanding of technical and policy issues) reliably and consistently state the company's policy.

If, in fact, the talking points are true, then that is a very good way to ensure that all customers receive the same message, thus reducing confusion.

I see nothing wrong with such clearly written policy answers to potential customer concerns.

••••
Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium Member
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH

1 recommendation

Done_Posting

Premium Member

Interesting

I've been outspoken here at DSLR for a long time about why I agree with traffic shaping, and I fully back Comcast's right to do so on their network. Where I begin to disagree is when they start forging packets in order to perpetrate a man-in-the-middle attack against their own customers. Throttling torrents is one thing, completely breaking them is another.

I really wish ISP's would just come clean about throttling; anyone who is capable of looking at the situation rationally would agree that it's not feasible to have small groups of customers maxing out their entire node's resources 24/7. All this back alley, hush-hush crap is generating negative public opinion that for the most part is not deserved. I feel that all it would take to make things right is to clearly post the parameters of what is blocked and what is slowed down in the ISP's FAQ area on its website. Informed customers = happy customers.

Stop sneaking around, and for the love of God, stop forging packets!

- Tate
lordofwhee
join:2007-10-21
Everett, WA

lordofwhee

Member

Just one more nail in Comcast's coffin...

This is actually kind of funny.

I called Comcast a few days ago, but of course the support rep knew nothing about it (or so he said). I managed to get said rep's "supervisor" on the line, and I got exactly what was outlined in this memo, except for one line.

I had said, after he denied Comcast even uses traffic shaping, "So, you're saying that both the NY Times and the AP are lying?" (at this point, I didn't know just how many various sources had actually reported on this). He said, "No, I'm saying that those articles, along with any other articles that state we block BitTorrent traffic, are in error."

While not specifically deviating from the memo, it isn't exactly following those guidelines, either.

BaldBeagle
@cogentco.com

BaldBeagle

Anon

Re: Just one more nail in Comcast's coffin...

Comcast supervisors are rarely technical people, they're usually ex floor agents. Supervisor is a very glorified title anyway. Who you're usually takling to is a "senior" floor agent put into a mentor position. Above them would be actual supervisors who are more managers than anything else.

The sad fact is... those 3 tiers of people know nothing of what is going on behind the scenes. You'd have to talk to someone in a real decision making position in their Philly headquarters or a network engineer. Both of whom are impossible to get to, EVEN FOR THE MANAGERS.

You'd be better off calling the corporate #s listed @ comcast.com than trying to get anything from someone @ 1-800-COMCAST.

AtomicZero
join:2004-11-24
West Palm Beach, FL

AtomicZero to lordofwhee

Member

to lordofwhee
Yeah.... honestly, calling up some tech-sup and his supervisor to discuss throttling is kinda useless. And that guy was probably not a real supervisor.

bokamba
Premium Member
join:2002-04-05
Arlington, VA

1 edit

1 recommendation

bokamba

Premium Member

Stupid business buzzwords

At the end of the memo, he writes, "If you have any questions about this issue, please reach out to Brian Becker, Gene Bridges or myself."

Ugh, I can't stand people who talk like that! Stupid business buzzwords and bad grammar.

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

Shudder

I shudder to think that there is even a remote possibility of Comcast taking over Cablevision. Now that the Dolan buyout has failed it has been rumored (again) that the cable assets could be sold to either Time Warner or Comcast with the Dolan's keeping the sports and programming assets. Neither provider is appealing but I think at this point, if I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I would go with TW.

Scatcatpdx
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR

Scatcatpdx

Member

Irresponsible and slander

I find this reporting irresponsible if not slanderous. There is NO and again I say NO proof that Comcast is throttling bit torrent traffic. I wish they would. This letter proves nothing execpt the customer support are to give the same message. Traffic shaping is part of running any network. Without it you only create bottlenecks or degrade use of the network. Do we need to put email traffic on the same level as streaming video?
It is time all concern put away the black helicopters and act like rational adults.

••••••
macguy1
join:2007-08-18
Bloomfield, NJ

macguy1

Member

Just a comment to Rick

I hadn't used bit torrent for more than 6 months when I noticed my self being throttled, and when I did use it, I wasn't that heavy of a user.

Plain and simple, either you're lucky, or sandivine hasn't gotten to your area yet.

Also, comcast needs to frigging come out and admit the practice and stop being so frigging hush hush, it's just causing more talk around it by keeping it all hush hush.

••••••••••

viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium Member
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL

viperpa33s

Premium Member

We cannot confirm or deny

Comcast is basically using the same statement the military uses,"We cannot not confirm or deny". Comcast is not confirming or denying they are doing it but we all know differently. Unofficially, I would say that Comcast is doing it. No matter how much they try to deny it, people aren't dumb.

BaldBeagle
@cogentco.com

BaldBeagle

Anon

Re: We cannot confirm or deny

Dont forget sandvine already posted on thier website that comcast is a customer.

»www.sandvine.com/news/ar ··· _id=1177

screwover
@verizon.net

screwover

Anon

screw you, profit first!

methods to screw over subscribers using p2p services/applications that inevitably lead to illegal file trading which can cost considerable bandwidth and resources dealing with legal issues from, so.. let's devise ways to screw over the subscriber in a way that the isp (comcast) can't get in trouble and be a more profitable isp, and if these methods snag a few bandwidth hogs who for lack of a better reason fall through the cracks of bandwidth limiting, shaping and restriction.. oh well.. too bad for them, as many of you have NO CHOICE OF COMPETITIVE SERVICE.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

20/20 for sixty dollars.

Shape that CATV. I can hear the head banging from every corporate CATV office in NJ,NY and Connecticut. Well not South East Connecticut as CATV farts in the general direction of U-Vers.

LondonFog
@anonymouse.org

LondonFog

Anon

Talking points for today.

Talking points for today.

Terry Crouse

Director, National Support Center

Comcast Cable, Inc.

1500 Market Street

West Tower, 28th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Office: 215-***-****

Mobile: 610-***-****

*****@cable.comcast.com

_____________________________________________
From: Talking Points Dist Ctr
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 1:45 PM
To: [CHQ -- Customer Service Talking Points]; [EAS - EasternDiv Talking Points]
Subject: Special Bulletin--HSI Customer Access to BitTorrent
Importance: High

Friday, October 19, 2007

ONLINE INFORMATION

Comcast High-Speed Internet Customer Access to BitTorrent

An in-depth AP story suggests Comcast is hindering its customers? ability to use BitTorrent, a peer to peer file sharing application. Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent.

We respect our customers? privacy and we don?t monitor specific customer activities on the Internet or track individual online behavior, such as which websites they visit. Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTorrent or any other site.

Customers may call in to inquire about limited or blocked access to such applications. Please use the attached updated talking points to address these questions.

>

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Caryn Williams

Customer Care Communications Specialist

National Customer Service

Comcast Cable Communications

1500 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19102

215.***.**** office

SOURCE Publishers Guidelines

Document Status
NEW Posting UPDATE/ REPLACE existing content on this topic

Customization
YES NO
Rationale: Announcement applies to entire Comcast footprint, so no customization is necessary.

Impacted Audience
Customer Technical Operations
CAE/ Call Center Other:

Date Issued
10/19/07

Date to be Posted
10/19/07

Author
Caryn Williams (*****@cable.comcast.com)

Date to Archive
Local Publisher to Determine

Type of Communication
New Product Promotions/Campaigns Good News
Crisis/ Alerts Changes to Processes

Compliance or Regulated information
YES NO

Suggested Key Word Search
BitTorrent, AP, block, peer to peer, file sharing, Comcast, HSI, High-Speed Internet

CAE Talking Points
[BitTorrent]

Headline
Comcast High-Speed Internet Customer Access to BitTorrent

Summary/ Overview [of Topic]

An in-depth AP story suggests Comcast is hindering its customers’ ability to use BitTorrent, a peer to peer file sharing application.

Specifics

Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent.

We respect our customers’ privacy and we don’t monitor specific customer activities on the Internet or track individual online behavior, such as which websites they visit. Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTorrent or any other site.

We have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good experience online and we use the latest technologies to manage our network. This is standard practice for ISPs and network operators all over the world.

We rarely disclose our vendors or our processes for operating our network both for competitive reasons and to protect against network abuse.

Impact to Comcast
Due to this article, customers may call in to inquire about limited or blocked access to BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer applications.

Customer Q&A
Listed below are some anticipated Customer Questions with suggested responses. Use Verbatim Use as Guidance

IF Customers asks...
THEN respond...
I read that Comcast is limiting customer access to BitTorrent. Is this true?
No. We do not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent. We also respect our customers’ privacy and don’t monitor specific customer activities on the Internet or track individual online behavior, such as which websites they visit. Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTorrent or any other site.

We have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good experience online and we use the latest technologies to manage our network. This is standard practice for ISPs and network operators all over the world.

Are you working with Sandvine as these reports claim?
We rarely disclose our vendors or our processes for operating our network both for competitive reasons and to protect against network abuse.

scooterr50
join:2007-08-08

scooterr50

Member

re: OP

maybe a law suit is required to gain the precise cap limits?
i've got money and time.

•••••••

Nailbag
join:2001-10-16
London, ON

Nailbag

Member

this says it best

»www.news.com/File-sharin ··· =newsmap
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
united state

b10010011

Member

we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTo

"we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTorrent or any other site."

So they do not block access to »www.bittorrent.com.

But they mess with the Bit Torrent protocol.

I guess that is the truth.

Mr enigma
@bu.edu

Mr enigma

Anon

"speed tests"

another comment i will make is the fact that i have personally witnessed two seperate comcast customers in the gaming clan i am in dfbutclan.com one in NH and the other in south FL taking speed tests and getting their advertised rate (or well above it) but yet when they use FTP or a HTTP webserver to upload a file to someplace or to someone they get 70kb/sec for the first 30-60 seconds then it drops to exactly 44kb/sec and will NOT exceed that number (CLEARLY indicating some kind of capping) and apparently it is not "selective capping" it is reproducable. and these people only "occasionally" (once or twice a month) use anything like bittorrent - i know. i've been in their computers... now i'll probably get people telling me that they should get a business class connection because webservers shouldnt be allowed but that is just B$. it's not like these people are hosting microsofts servers from their home.

XoLiMiT
join:2001-10-04
Englishtown, NJ

XoLiMiT

Member

DNS

Well my friend who has comcast was having this problem. What i did was i changed his DNS servers from comcast one's to does of opendns.org a file that was downloading really slow on comcasts dns download really fast with the other dns. Anyone want to test this to verify the results? i didn't have much time to play with it.
page: 1 · 2 · next