New Comcast Throttling System = 'A Really Good DSL Experience' Welcome to the new age of broadband "transparency" Thursday Aug 21 2008 10:44 EDT As insiders have informed me, by the end of the year, Comcast is considering implementing a clear 250GB cap, increased DMCA enforcement, and will begin throttling high-consumption users back to " above DSL speeds". Comcast has stated their goal is to make these new network management processes "as transparent as possible," but hasn't specifically said what will trigger the throttling, since they're still testing the system in several markets (Chambersburg, PA, Warrenton, VA, Colorado Springs, CO and East Orange and Lake City, FL). Mitch Bowling, Comcast's senior vice president and general manager of online services, this week did state the throttling will last between 10 and 20 minutes. quote:
In trials, Comcast has found the fair share system to be effective if the slowing lasts for "roughly between, probably, 10 and 20 minutes," Bowling said. The user's Internet speed would then return to normal. "If they continue that, we would have to manage them again," Bowling said. A user being impeded would have Internet speeds equivalent to "a really good DSL experience," Bowling said.
That's a bit better than, say, HughesNet satellite broadband, which throttles customers back to between 7-14kbps if they cross established daily download limits. HughesNet calls their restrictions a "Fair Access Policy," and Comcast will be calling their system "fair share." Bowling did mention usage-based billing, stating "I think everyone's looked at something," but noting "we haven't made any decisions." It will be interesting to see if consumer advocacy groups prefer the new age of Comcast "transparency," which will come with significant, but very clear, connectivity limitations. |
  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2008-Aug-21 10:50 am
Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to6Mbps ? I could live with that.
The problem that I've noticed (been on Cable for a few days from DSL).
DSL = VERY stable. On a 3Mbps DSL line, I will hit max 99% of the time, and latency will not change
Cable = Faster (6Mbps/512kbps), however, speeds will vary, as will latency.
Skypeout actually ran better on 3Mbps DSL than 6Mbps cable. | |
|  |  baineschile2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI |
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back toMaybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone.
Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone | |
| | | | |
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back toWhat about those of us that stream netflix, download linux distros and/or movies from Itunes? We can easily consume as much or more bandwidth than a 'pirate' can, especially in a household. | |
| | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR |
PDXPLT
Member
2008-Aug-21 1:00 pm
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back tosaid by AnonPerson:What about those of us that stream netflix, download linux distros and/or movies from Itunes? We can easily consume as much or more bandwidth than a 'pirate' can, especially in a household. Yea, and why would Comcast want to make that easy for you to do? Then you'll buy less PPV movies, premium mvie channels, etc., from them. This policy makes business sense from Comcasts POV. They provide HSI to compete with DSL, NOT to cannabalize their high-margin TV offerings. So as long as you get an "above DSL" experience, you should be happy, right? This is just like Frontier's cap - obviously, the only "appropriate" use for HSI is browsing, email, etc.: anything that doesn't threaten their other businesses. | |
| | | | |  Cheese
Premium Member
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL |
Cheese
Premium Member
2008-Aug-21 7:37 pm
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back tosaid by PDXPLT:said by AnonPerson:What about those of us that stream netflix, download linux distros and/or movies from Itunes? We can easily consume as much or more bandwidth than a 'pirate' can, especially in a household. Yea, and why would Comcast want to make that easy for you to do? Then you'll buy less PPV movies, premium mvie channels, etc., from them. This policy makes business sense from Comcasts POV. They provide HSI to compete with DSL, NOT to cannabalize their high-margin TV offerings. So as long as you get an "above DSL" experience, you should be happy, right? This is just like Frontier's cap - obviously, the only "appropriate" use for HSI is browsing, email, etc.: anything that doesn't threaten their other businesses. Because none of that is illegal?  | |
| | | | |  ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT
|
to PDXPLT
said by PDXPLT:said by AnonPerson:What about those of us that stream netflix, download linux distros and/or movies from Itunes? We can easily consume as much or more bandwidth than a 'pirate' can, especially in a household. Yea, and why would Comcast want to make that easy for you to do? Then you'll buy less PPV movies, premium mvie channels, etc., from them. This policy makes business sense from Comcasts POV. They provide HSI to compete with DSL, NOT to cannabalize their high-margin TV offerings. So as long as you get an "above DSL" experience, you should be happy, right? This is just like Frontier's cap - obviously, the only "appropriate" use for HSI is browsing, email, etc.: anything that doesn't threaten their other businesses. Are you saying that Comcast is making business decisions on their common carrier internet business to help out their cable business? | |
| | | | | |  MacLeechThe one and only
Premium Member
join:2001-07-14
SoCal |
MacLeech
Premium Member
2008-Aug-23 12:23 pm
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back toThe Supreme Court ruled that cable internet is not a common carrier. | |
| | | | | |  funchordsHello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
1 edit |
to ieolus
said by ieolus:(modified slightly):Are you saying that Comcast is making business decisions on their common carrier internet business to help out their cable business? Yes, that's what he is saying. Note to MacLeech: Sort of. If I'm reading the case right, it was actually the FCC that made cable an "information service" and the Supreme Court recognized that fact in reaching its decision. While that might seem to some like a distinction without a difference, it seems to me that the FCC would be permitted to reclassify it without going to the Supreme Court. (I'm not a lawyer, so there's a good chance I'm wrong.) | |
|
| | | | |
to AnonPerson
Thats why some ISPs want to basically charge twice for the same bandwidth.
Welcome to my all you can eat buffet! Oh goodness, you're eating too fast! Obviously the food my suppliers send me is too tasty, I'll have to start billing them as well! Despite the fact that without those suppliers my business would have nothing to offer. | |
|
| |  hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greed
Premium Member
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA |
to baineschile
said by baineschile:Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone. Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone perhaps cable ISPs need to upgrade their network. Docsis 1 and 2, pffftt!. LOL | |
| | | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ |
dvd536
Premium Member
2008-Aug-21 7:49 pm
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back tosaid by hopeflicker:said by baineschile:Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone. Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone perhaps cable ISPs need to upgrade their network. Docsis 1 and 2, pffftt!. LOL thats what all the capping/throttling is for, so they won't have to put $$$ in upgrades. only upgrading they want to do is 100ft yacht to 150ft yacht for CxO's and big 50 foot televisions. | |
|
| |  Alcohol
Premium Member
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI |
to baineschile
said by baineschile:Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone. Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone How is this going to be rough for everyone? | |
| | | |  NOCManMadMacHatter
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO |
NOCMan
Premium Member
2008-Aug-21 12:12 pm
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back toIf caps become commonplace then you can kiss the online backup industry goodbye. A lot of people have digital media collections that exceed 250G. | |
| | | | | Alcohol
Premium Member
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI |
Alcohol
Premium Member
2008-Aug-21 12:17 pm
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back toYes, but how is that rough for everyone? baineschile talks about how this won't affect a lot of people because according to him 250gb is more than substantial for an average user. Read his reply a few posts down. said by baineschile:Downloading an unbox movie - 3gigs VOiP 1 hour chat - 30Mb/hr (approx) Surfing Clips - 250-500Mb an hour (1024x768 max) So, if you download 2 movies a day (180 gigs/mo), chat on the phone 2 hours a day (about 4 gigs/mo) and surf for video clips 3 hours a day (about 40 gigs/mo), you are still using less than the cap 224gigs. But cmon, who does all that? said by baineschile:You would be incorrect. No normal residential person can come up with a 100% legal excuse to use more than 250 gigs/mo I'm a little confused why baineschile thinks this will be rough for everyone when according to him "no normal residential person" will ever trigger it. | |
| | | | | | | |
baineschile1
Anon
2008-Aug-21 1:33 pm
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back toI support the whole "all you can eat buffet" style internet, but the problem is the people that spend all day at the buffet, and eat 75 lobster tails. That has driven up the cost of business for EVERYONE, now comcast has to implement technology to govern all of this, which will of course, come with costs. | |
| | | | | | |  AVDRespice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ |
AVD
Premium Member
2008-Aug-21 2:06 pm
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back tosaid by baineschile1 :
I support the whole "all you can eat buffet" style internet, but the problem is the people that spend all day at the buffet, and eat 75 lobster tails. That has driven up the cost of business for EVERYONE, now comcast has to implement technology to govern all of this, which will of course, come with costs.
Sounds good, but its just not true. | |
| | | | | | | | |
to baineschile1
A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed. Comcast should spend more money on upgrading their network instead of their corporate headquarters... it's not like they aren't making plenty of profit off of their customers. | |
| | | | | | | | funchordsHello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA |
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back tosaid by meh37 :
A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed.
Awesome! I hope you don't mind that I stole this. | |
| | | | | | | | |  FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
1 edit |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Aug-21 5:25 pm
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back tosaid by funchords:said by meh37 :
A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed.
Awesome! I hope you don't mind that I stole this. And with that statement you become one of those perverting the whole idea of net neutrality from its original meaning - an ISP discriminating against 3rd party companies to give preference to their own products. Your definition of net neutrality tries to say an ISP has no right to manage its network at all, except by endlessly expanding capacity to satisfy the needs of the most rapacious users. | |
| | | | | | | | | | funchordsHello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
4 edits |
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back tosaid by FFH5:And with that statement you become one of those perverting the whole idea of net neutrality from its original meaning - an ISP discriminating against 3rd party companies to give preference to their own products. If that's true, then I don't care. A lot of people that don't know much about how the Internet was designed have tried to define Network Neutrality based upon their ideas of who might exploit the Internet and how (such as Yoogle paying an ISP to delay or degrade Gahoo's traffic). But the root idea that the network neutrality principles are about is preserving the Internet's history of non-discrimination. said by FFH5:Your definition of net neutrality tries to say an ISP has no right to manage its network at all, except by endlessly expanding capacity to satisfy the needs of the most rapacious users. For God's sake, Comcast has a right to manage its network. It also has a responsibility to follow the standards and practices that have evolved the Internet to this point. Managing the network doesn't mean delaying, degrading, or denying access to people who are acting legally and within the confines of their service agreements. If someone is exceeding their service agreement, then Comcast has a right to manage its network. Shut them off. If Comcast's technology cannot handle so many users, then Comcast has a right to manage its network. Stop selling subscriptions. If Comcast is unwilling to upgrade their network as fast as user demands indicate that they should, then Comcast has a right to manage its network. Create lower tiers. No - what has happened instead is that Comcast has mis-managed its network in order to fudge the perception of the actual bandwidth subscribers have access to in a competition with lower-priced DSL and more-capable FIOS.Comcast, with 14 million HSI subscribers under it, is trying to create an Internet where there is a penalty for people to use or innovate with high-bandwidth applications. And while there's always been a limit to a subscriber's bandwidth, Comcast is trying to create a second limit. And while they're conducting this so-called trial of these non-disclosed thresholds, how can innovators on the other side of the globe be expected to test against them? What kind of trial is this? They haven't disclosed anything useful to people that need to be conducting tests during this trial. The one expectation that they have set -- "it'll be like a very fast DSL line" they can't possibly guarantee based on the prioritization scheme that they've been describing up to this point! They ought to stop this nonsense now. | |
| | | | | | | | | |  SpaethCoDigital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN |
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back tosaid by funchords:No - what has happened instead is that Comcast has mis-managed its network in order to fudge the perception of the actual bandwidth subscribers have access to in a competition with lower-priced DSL and more-capable FIOS. You make it sound like the other providers aren't lying about their capacity. If every subscriber started using 250GB/mo on their $30-$60 FiOS/DSL/BPL/Muni-wifi/DOCSIS/U-verse connection the entire cost model would fail. The entire advertising model for EVERY player in this space is based on BS. To single out a single broadband provider for this practice is simply being disingenuous. | |
| | | | | | | | | | funchordsHello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA |
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back tosaid by SpaethCo:The entire advertising model for EVERY player in this space is based on BS. To single out a single broadband provider for this practice is simply being disingenuous. You're right, except for my motives. I should have said "Cable." I said "Comcast" because that's the current example. And I should say "Cable, generally" because it has to do with the size and number of subscribers in the shared bandwidth pool -- and not every Cable and DSL provider has copied every other one. | |
| | | | | | | | | | SpaethCoDigital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN |
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back tosaid by funchords:You're right, except for my motives. I should have said "Cable." I said "Comcast" because that's the current example. DSL providers are far from immune from this though -- scan the Qwest and Embarq forums. I have a 5mbps DSL line from Embarq that from June until just last week I could only hit peak rates of just 2.5mbps on, and average rates stayed buried below 1mbps and latency was consistently 300+ms to any Internet destination. Compared to ATT and Verizon, Embarq got screwed because Sprint took backbone and wireless services in the split and those are the divisions that usually keep the ship afloat during LEC infrastructure upgrades. Embarq did just upgrade the DSLAM from DS3 to OC3 attachment last week, but they had to upgrade the neighborhood mux from an OC12 to OC48, roll trunks, and do a bunch of other pre-work to get there. In talking with the techs, they have something like 80 subscribers off our remote terminal DSLAM -- and it was previously only fed with 45mbps of capacity. If only 9 of those 80-something subscribers were 5mbps users that liked to push their line to the max, that would have worked to saturate the node for everyone. There are vast areas of network infrastructure among all of the providers that are far from meeting the kind of demand that people want to drive. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:said by funchords:No - what has happened instead is that Comcast has mis-managed its network in order to fudge the perception of the actual bandwidth subscribers have access to in a competition with lower-priced DSL and more-capable FIOS. You make it sound like the other providers aren't lying about their capacity. If every subscriber started using 250GB/mo on their $30-$60 FiOS/DSL/BPL/Muni-wifi/DOCSIS/U-verse connection the entire cost model would fail. The entire advertising model for EVERY player in this space is based on BS. To single out a single broadband provider for this practice is simply being disingenuous. Comcast has been the most aggressive in its misleading marketing, ham fisted approach in punishing its users and total disregard of the Federal Communications Comission trying to find out the facts and enforce the law. Cry me a river if Comcast takes the brunt of the wrath of the user community and the federal government. | |
| | | | | | | | | | funchordsHello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA |
to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:You make it sound like the other providers aren't lying about their capacity. If every subscriber started using 250GB/mo on their $30-$60 FiOS/DSL/BPL/Muni-wifi/DOCSIS/U-verse connection the entire cost model would fail. Lying does not equal reasonable oversubscribing or bandwidth aggregating or statistical multiplexing or whatever they're calling it these days. I think if a provider can, with 95% or percent assurance or so, deliver a particular tier to a customer who subscribes to it -- I'd be hard pressed to call that ISP a liar. (By the way, that's just my perception -- I'm still looking for an industry model or a consumer standard for oversubscription and it doesn't seem to exist.) said by SpaethCo:I have a 5mbps DSL line from Embarq that from June until just last week I could only hit peak rates of just 2.5mbps on, and average rates stayed buried below 1mbps and latency was consistently 300+ms to any Internet destination. That's pretty nasty. said by SpaethCo:In talking with the techs, they have something like 80 subscribers off our remote terminal DSLAM -- and it was previously only fed with 45mbps of capacity. If only 9 of those 80-something subscribers were 5mbps users that liked to push their line to the max, that would have worked to saturate the node for everyone. Yeah, that would be a good example of the same effect on the DSL side. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT |
to funchords
I can't believe I am saying this, but TK Junk Mail is correct.
While what you state regarding Comcast is true, none of that has anything to do with network neutrality. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
BenAthar to funchords
Anon
2008-Aug-23 9:23 am
to funchords
That is the problem with Comcast. They have no intention of slowing down adding new customers, nor upgrading their bandwidth. Mostly due to the money not being there. Budget woes are plaguing Comcast. With all of the tech's out there and the DOCSIS 3.0 coming out, the network cannot handle the usage due to physical limitations for repairing and replacing outside cabling. Also since Comcast is trying (on paper and in the press) about the 5 9's (99.999%) of Quality of Service. It just don't seem to be that way. That is the problem with large companies and shrinking budgets, not to mention techs starting to become unhappy about not getting plant replaced.
I would use another ISP, but since Comcast is the only franchise in this town, I would rather use dial-up or DSL instead.
I don't believe that there should be limits. Isn't this what Cable companies want to do in the first place, to advance the telecommunications industry and all of the players in it? Time Warner and Charter are trying to, but Comcast wants to be a holdout and direct everything else and not adhere to the same standards as everyone else. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
MadMANN3
Premium Member
2008-Aug-23 3:25 pm
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back tosaid by BenAthar :
I would use another ISP, but since Comcast is the only franchise in this town, I would rather use dial-up or DSL instead.
You can get dial-up ANYWHERE you have a phone connection. What you are really saying is "Comcast is the only provider here that fits my needs/wants." If you really meant that statement, you would not be a customer of Comcast. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
meh37 to FFH5
Anon
2008-Aug-22 3:42 pm
to FFH5
There isn't a network engineer in the world worth his/her salt who would describe Comcast's method of forging [p2p] packets on a 24/7 basis as "network management". Network neutrality also means not unilaterally deciding that some protocol is not "acceptable" on your network, a network by the way that is paid for by all of its customers, including those who use p2p for all too legal purposes. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | meh37 |
to funchords
Not at all... at least, until I patent the concept--I think I'll call it "FIFO" (anyone using that term?)  (I think Gertrude Stein's copyright on the "rose" phrase has expired, though I'm not sure, what with copyright law being so screwed up now.) | |
|
| | | | | | Alcohol
Premium Member
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI |
to baineschile1
However don't you think this is a step in the wrong direction? Everyone knows American broadband is no way as advanced as the worlds, and instead of changing that we're putting limits on our outdated technology so we don't have to upgrade.
Way to go Comcast. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
DMMJ
Anon
2008-Aug-22 4:25 pm
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back tosaid by Alcohol:However don't you think this is a step in the wrong direction? Everyone knows American broadband is no way as advanced as the worlds, and instead of changing that we're putting limits on our outdated technology so we don't have to upgrade. Way to go Comcast. Correct. China, for example, has a 25Gig/day limit. If ComCast set those kinds of limits, I'd be happy! | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | SpaethCoDigital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN |
to NOCMan
said by NOCMan:If caps become commonplace then you can kiss the online backup industry goodbye. A lot of people have digital media collections that exceed 250G. This can be addressed by having a sane backup strategy -- like a full backup to a USB drive kept offsite followed up with automated daily incremental backups to an on-line backup provider. | |
| | | | | |
•••
| | | | |
to baineschile
I hope they throttle you back to beyond the stone age  so I can still download all my distros | |
| | | | |
to baineschile
said by baineschile:Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone. Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone You have nobody to blame but yourself. Everyone uses the internet the same way, whether your downloading " pirated " software, or watching a youtube video. its no better on your traffic consumption . | |
| | | | |
to baineschile
said by en102:DSL = VERY stable. On a 3Mbps DSL line, I will hit max 99% of the time, and latency will not change Cable = Faster (6Mbps/512kbps), however, speeds will vary, as will latency. I think the main point here is that phone companies don't oversell their bandwidth, which is why they are stable and Cable is not. | |
| | | |  cdruGo Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN |
cdru
MVM
2008-Aug-21 5:56 pm
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back toAll ISPs oversell bandwidth. Period. It's just to what degree they oversell it that it ends up affecting the end user. | |
|
| | cdru
1 edit |
to baineschile
said by baineschile:Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone Well, since you aren't pirating you aren't exceeding 250GB/month, so the whole throtting issue isn't an issue for you. But if you do exceed 250GB/month and you aren't pirating music, then your logic fails and it's not just pirate's fault. Or if you do exceed 250GB/month and you are pirating, well, your criticizing thanking yourself apparently. | |
| | | | | | | | |  StreetSpiritThis spot reserved for Xenu.
Premium Member
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY
2 edits |
to baineschile
said by baineschile:Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone. Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone You're giving credit to the wrong group of cretins. Thank a) The Bozo's in Wishington for not having anything resembling a national broadband policy. Thank b) The appointed Bozo heading up the FCC, for letting ISPs do this sort of thing without even a challenge. Than c) The Wize Guys, aka the Management Team. You can bet they'll all get six to seven figure bonuses for pushing through THROTTLING and OVERAGE at the same time! Imagine the money they'll save by fapping, and the money they'll earn by overaging. And they get to dump their most expensive users onto their competitors (ha! what competitors.. co-conspirators...) and lastly, and most importantly, you forgot to thank yourself, for if people didn't buy stock lock and barrel the propaganda put out by biased sources for charging people more and more for less and less (those darn pyrates again, aaaaargh!) and questioned their corporate bosses a little more often, we'd all be better off. I used to tease Aussie friends on IRC about their metered Internet. Soon they might be laughing at me - however I am hoping that my ISP, already once capped and saw the futility of it, will keep it's independence from the Comcasts of the world. I'd rather pay money to the Dolans than to "Prepare to be assimilated". | |
| | | | | | | |
to baineschile
said by baineschile:Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone. Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone i agree, in the sense that we're starting to be given a lot more power on the internet bandwidth-wise... we have the power to do more and more illegal activities on the internet, in which i dont think our economy will be blind to (or anyone else in the world)... however, it will be more and more important to eventually be able to distinguish between the attempt to dissuade this piracy and the idea of the ISP's and software companies' breach of the individual's freedom and privacy... i do not see anything wrong with a reasonable limit, as long as you get a warning and that this limit is, in fact, reasonable... and maybe if the user passed the limit but didn't do anything illegal, could give proof (for example, what if 10 people lived in the house, or the user has a subscription to an online movie service and watches a lot of movies)... besides, you get a warning at first, and i do believe that 250 GB is reasonable, even for minor pirates... which i blame no one for being prone to some sort of malice in one form or another, as long as its intents was not to profit off other people or depend on it... forgive me if the writing sounds despotic, this is just an opinion and i dont believe this is the "right way," but i would prefer it | |
|
|  TitusMr Gradenko
join:2004-06-26 |
to en102
That's true (DSL vs cable) in my experience as well. But that may vary by market. I'm always get my cap, and latency is good as well as solid. On the flip side, posts in the forum for my provider are relatively solid with markets experiencing overloaded areas, etc. I think it really depends on your area. I've been very lucky so far. As for Comcast's public relations ... do the words 'White House Press Office' have any meaning for you?  -- | |
| | | | FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
FFH5 to en102
Premium Member
2008-Aug-21 11:16 am
to en102
| |
| | Cheese
Premium Member
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL |
to en102
said by en102:6Mbps ? I could live with that. The problem that I've noticed (been on Cable for a few days from DSL). DSL = VERY stable. On a 3Mbps DSL line, I will hit max 99% of the time, and latency will not change Cable = Faster (6Mbps/512kbps), however, speeds will vary, as will latency. Skypeout actually ran better on 3Mbps DSL than 6Mbps cable. Should be 6/1 now. | |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 |
morbo
Member
2008-Aug-21 10:50 am
too vague
the potential for regular users to be labeled 'high consumption users' is there and the internet community should be wary. imagine downloading an unbox movie, using your independent voip, and someone in the household surfing/streaming random video clips. would that qualify you as a high consumption user? does throttling back your connection during that one instance occur or does the system identify repeat offenders?
too many questions for me to support this.
| |
| |
•••••••••••• |  wjames
join:2006-11-30
Atlanta, GA |
wjames
Member
2008-Aug-21 10:50 am
before or after?Are they throttling before the cap is reached? | |
| | | |
iansltx
Member
2008-Aug-21 10:55 am
Re: before or after?Looks like yes (just during periods of network congestion). If you go over the cap you pay extra money. Guess I need to watch my backup usage, though 250GB isn't horrible... | |
|
| |
capsi can see them loseing customers if the put on caps im with verizon fios with no caps. people with comcast will go elseware for internet with no caps if they can | |
| |
•••••••••••••••• |  Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA |
Dogfather
Premium Member
2008-Aug-21 11:01 am
FAP or Cap, why both?If they're FAPping why the need to cap and vice versa? | |
| |  jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2008-Aug-21 11:16 am
Re: FAP or Cap, why both?said by Dogfather:If they're FAPping why the need to cap and vice versa? $$$$ Just looking for a new way to increase revenue. | |
|
| |
Throttling - why?Has anyone seen any kind of "real" information that shows that Comcasts network is overloaded to the point that 'throttling' is required?
I'm starting to wonder if they are either refusing to upgrade their network to support the numbers of users they have added OR they are worried about people getting video from the internet instead of the cable video service.... | |
| | | |
compton
Member
2008-Aug-21 10:29 pm
Re: Throttling - why?said by Indymike8:I'm starting to wonder if they are either refusing to upgrade their network to support the numbers of users they have added OR they are worried about people getting video from the internet instead of the cable video service.... I would bet it's both. | |
|
 ·TELUS
 ·Shaw
1 edit |
zod5000
Member
2008-Aug-21 11:29 am
Why do they have the throttle when there's a 250gb cap?I could understand after a user hits the 250gb in a month, to drop them down to 1mbps just do its fast enough to web surf and what not.
But it sounds like if they see you maxing out your connection for an unspecified period of time they'll throttle you back. Which then makes you wonder the benefit of having said fast connection. | |
| | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2008-Aug-21 1:19 pm
Re: Why do they have the throttle when there's a 250gb cap?The throttling is for bursty traffic while the caps handled ongoing sustained usage. | |
|
NbWY1
join:2003-05-23
Columbia, MD
1 edit |
NbWY1
Member
2008-Aug-21 11:36 am
FiOSBetween five family members, we run nearly 800GB a month upstream on a 20/20 FiOS line. If VZ yelled at me, I'd certainly cut back, but they just don't seem to care. Our downstream throughput is slightly under 100GB. Oh, and it returns a ping of 2ms to my first hop | |
|  McLovinChicka chicka yeah
Premium Member
join:2005-06-12
Fairbanks, AK |
McLovin
Premium Member
2008-Aug-21 11:36 am
A Good IdeaHey, here's a good idea. Rather than spending truckloads of money on these systems to manage this, and PR to back this crap up. Why not take that money and reinvest in the infrastructure? Add more aggregate bandwidth, make the experience more enjoyable for the consumer. That, or at least hire some competant technicians that won't blow up your friggin' house! | |
| | | |
Re: A Good Ideainvesting in infrastructure to expand bandwidth does not let them control all aspects of the network.
this isn't about congestion or "bandwidth hogs" or "pirates" - it's about controlling the network and how it's used. | |
| | | |
itscomastic to McLovin
Anon
2008-Aug-21 12:48 pm
to McLovin
If your getting charged for going over the cap why should be throttled? | |
|
| |
More reasonable approach.I'm normally not a fan of Comcast, but this is a reasonable approach, unlike most of their competitors (baby bells, other telcos, and cable alike). I thought it was interesting that other tech newsletters are beginning to report on Cogent's most recent quarterly data, which shows that bandwidth consumption is falling, not increasing. I really believe those bandwidth providers--who all seem to be competing for additional dollars through content and other online services too--that plan on implementing very low caps as a means of implementing stealthy fee increases that don't need to be run past state or local regulators will suffer a contraction of their consumer base. Their fees are generally high now and with the stealthy increases they're planning on adding, their fees will be very, very unreasonable. Since inflation is likely to keep increasing at steady pace (wholesale numbers released recently don't bode well for consumer price increases as we enter heating season) more people are going to be hard-pressed to keep up spending on non-essential services, like broadband. If you're a broadband exec who's earning a ridiculously high salary and disconnected from the reality of your average customer/consumer, you're about to learn the hard way that your company's services aren't essential and that when you gouge in economic hard times, you'll lose customers. | |
| |
••• | | |
meh37
Anon
2008-Aug-21 12:06 pm
"A Really Good DSL Experience"Sooo, about 3000/768? (something I used to pay Verizon $29.95 for)
As opposed to the speeds that you're actually paying for? "Fair share" for... Comcast? How about a $$$ credit for the speeds they aren't providing (that, again, you're paying for)?
I guess "up to" just ain't what it used to be. | |
| | |
asdfsadfsaf
Anon
2008-Aug-21 12:25 pm
stop blaming on your customersmaybe they should upgrade their network instead of blaming on their customers. Our "high speed" is a joke when compare to other countries' high speed. | |
| | |
250GB is not all that much in 2008We've shifted all our video content viewing to the net. Between a couple Roku Netflix Players, Xbox 360 (games and some TV shows), computers, GameTap, lots of HD podcasts, itunes, youtube, Wii, etc... We probably blow through 250 GB in a month with out too much trouble, or anything illegal either. Heck with GameTap alone I'll blow through gigs n gigs n migs n megs trying out different games. | |
|  ·magicJack
·Vonage
|
The Power of the Consumer Dollar has been forgotten!We really need to get back to the days of making companies work hard to earn our business and not take it for granted. Poor customer service, poor support, poor whatever should no longer be tolerated.
We have become so conditioned to accept less than what we pay for. Companies are now installing caps but will be charging us the same price??! C'mon people, fight with your dollar (blood).
If you don't want caps or whatever it may be, speak with your dollar. Take your business elsewhere. If your blood levels begin to decrease over time, you will eventually die. That is the same concept with business. Don't inject any additional blood line into the corporate monster.
They must be held accountable at all costs from the top down. Failure to hold them accountable is not an option.
They show you over and over they want you and need you to be a customer. I cannot count how many ridiculous mailers I received from AT&T after I dropped their land line service. They charged way too much for land line service, IMHO, and I let them know that by dropping their service. If you want me to come back, listen to me and let's work on getting a win-win situation for all parties involved or at least something that is mutually agreeable.
In saying that, begin to write letters to these companies and let them know where they are falling short. If they don't clean up their act, take your money elsewhere.
The Power of the Consumer Dollar is still strong because these companies need your money in order to survive. Yes, there will be some casualties in the process but we are looking to win the war, battle by battle. | |
| | | |
Re: The Power of the Consumer Dollar has been forgotten!said by fatmanskinny:If you don't want caps or whatever it may be, speak with your dollar. Take your business elsewhere. If your blood levels begin to decrease over time, you will eventually die. That is the same concept with business. Don't inject any additional blood line into the corporate monster. Yours is a beautiful theory, but even in metro markets like mine, I have exactly 2 BB choices...1 cable ISP and 1 DSL provider. And since most of the country is not considered metro, even the folks not living in bumblefuck have 1 BB choice. Either it's cable or DSL. The alternative -assuming it's available- is to go back to dial up. Not exactly a viable choice if you make your living at home and need connectivity. | |
| | | ·magicJack
·Vonage
|
Re: The Power of the Consumer Dollar has been forgotten!It's not a theory. It's a reality that some people don't want to face.
You HAVE the power as a consumer to withhold your dollar. I never said it was going to be easy BUT if enough people send a strong, clear message that your business practices won't be tolerated, then change will happen. Until then, companies will continue charging more and decreasing the quality of products and services. | |
|
| |
sorry to pitch in politicsI appologize for bringing in politics here but "A Really Good DSL Experience'" does sound to me like a page out of the republican excuse book. I do watch fixed news and they always claims that there are no problems with the economy or inflation and any thing bad is in the minds of people. Now compare this to adding caps throttling and poor speeds does that sound any good dsl experiance...if you think it is I have a McCain candidacy to sell to you | |
| | | |
Re: sorry to pitch in politicssaid by nutcr0cker:I appologize for bringing in politics here but "A Really Good DSL Experience'" does sound to me like a page out of the republican excuse book. I do watch fixed news and they always claims that there are no problems with the economy or inflation and any thing bad is in the minds of people. Now compare this to adding caps throttling and poor speeds does that sound any good dsl experiance...if you think it is I have a McCain candidacy to sell to you Odd, we must hear different things from the same people. If you are referring to the interview on the Olympics with Pres. Bush, he was referring to our nation in the grand scheme of things. He has acknowledged problems in the economy caused by the bursting of the housing bubble often. As soon as I saw that interview I knew there would be people spinning that. Politics has nothing to do with this. But, at least I can give an opinion without it being "above my pay grade"......... | |
|
| |
L00ker
Member
2008-Aug-21 1:32 pm
Like PowerBoost but in reverse!Sweet so when I actually USE my lackluster (at best) comcast connection to download content eventually they will simply degrade (already crap service) my speed!
Awesome idea comcast, just fantastic! Do they actually think that after all the negative press they have been getting and harsh criticism that the answer is to lower the value or incentive to procure their service? I don't know how their shareholders are making dividends if they are so stupendously skilled at pissing off what matters most (volume of customers). | |
| | | |
person300
Anon
2008-Aug-21 4:16 pm
Re: Like PowerBoost but in reverse!said by L00ker:Sweet so when I actually USE my lackluster (at best) comcast connection to download content eventually they will simply degrade (already crap service) my speed! Awesome idea comcast, just fantastic! Do they actually think that after all the negative press they have been getting and harsh criticism that the answer is to lower the value or incentive to procure their service? I don't know how their shareholders are making dividends if they are so stupendously skilled at pissing off what matters most (volume of customers). Because over 90% of markets are either serviced by a monopoly or duopoly. I live in Chicago, IL(a big city by almost everyone's standards). You get either ATT DSL or Cable. In some locations, even in the city, you can only get one or the other. THIS IS IN A CITY. Try something like a more rural area and dang, what a competitive market.(sarcasm) Let us not ignore also that: !) Our speeds are a joke compared to most developed countries. Sure, we get faster speeds than Africa but we certainly do not get better speeds than France, Japan, South Korea, etc. We used to be a leader in the market years and years ago. 2) We somehow need caps as soon as anyone starts using their Internet for anything other than e-mail and some occasional browsing. Many ISPs do not like that you are getting videos out there for TV, games, etc. | |
|
 CUBS_FAN2016 World Series Champs
join:2005-04-28
Chicago, IL |
Everything InternetTechnology these days allows you to do just about everything via the internet except pop your popcorn for you. Telephone has gone to the internet by VOIP, going out to the Cineplex Odeon theatre is now easier with a click away, and imagine when everything goes HD. What I'm trying to say is that Dial-up connections(remember that concept) are completely impossible to use with the amount of bandwidth consumed to simply *browse* the internet. Now they want to throttle your consumption? They want to give you more but want you to use it moderately.
Here's an idea. Like driving a car there are alternatives, you can travel via the Expressway or take the local roads. Why not create an "alternate internet" that is low-band and the DNS automatically routes you to the low-band versions of every internet site you want to go to. No Flash Player banners and others that take forever to load. | |
| | |
So...Does that mean my Embarq 10M service is like a really good cable experience, as Comcast in most of my state only offers up to 8Mb/s? =P | |
| | EPS4
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA |
EPS4
Member
2008-Aug-21 2:27 pm
Re: So...So I suppose if those 8Mb/s users become "bandwidth hogs" in your areas, their speeds will be "throttled" upward to provide the equivalent of your areas' really good DSL? | |
| | | | |
Re: So...I guess that was the joke I was trying to make. =P | |
|
| |
Comcastic
Anon
2008-Aug-21 2:27 pm
Ummm...Well...I don't believe that they shouldn't have the right to manage their own network. However I must say that if they can't handle the traffic or "don't wish to" handle the traffic they should either upgrade (yes invest) in new hardware or stop taking new customers. Now that doesn't mean they shouldn't take normal low usage customers but how do you know what a subscriber is going to use their connection for an how they are telling the truth? That could be a major problem. | |
| | |
If C punishes me I will punish them. I wonder how C determines if I am exceeding their volume limits. Will I be chastised if I download a Windows Service Pack? If I am chastised I will punish them. I will move my entertainment budget to DBS and my Broadband Budget to DSL then C can go to Hell. | |
| | | |
ATT Vet
Member
2008-Aug-23 11:01 pm
Re: If C punishes me I will punish them.I agree. Why would anyone put up with that nonsense. The horror stories I hear about Comcast are unreal. | |
|
| |
|
|
so I can still download all my distros 
·
·
·
