how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
5262 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
06708 | I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... take this issue to the same level as the "capping" issue.
And, by that ..I mean ...Let's have BBR just continually rip this company to shreds for taking steps to preserve the integrity of their network for those of us who do NOT abuse it.
Heck, why not just post the "solutions" for how people can even get around this and continue on with their ever loving ways of soaking up so much bandwidth that there's simply none left for the rest of us to use and enjoy.
Oh.Wait. That's exactly what this story now does.
Silly me for thinking that is what would come next.
Well, allow me this post to post my opposing view.
As a comcast customer.
Dear Comcast..
Keep right on doing whatever it is you're doing.
We love you for it.
Some of us are of the belief that you give us a tremendous amount of value for our money. And even believe that 300 gigs per month is still a WHOLE lot of data..and those who seek to use their connection more than that really should
a)cough up the money for a business class connection or
b) get a secondary line to split your use between the two services.
Ladies and Gents..Comcast does not owe us the world for 42.95 per month. Nor do they owe the abusers an unlimited license to take whatever it is they want..at whatever cost it is to comcast..in order to satisfy their own demands.
You see...the problem with that..is that SOMEONE is going to pay anyway..and who it will be will be YOU..and I..
those who do use our connections for very reasonable and then some...downloading and uploading.
Comcast is VERY fair when it comes to their limits..
and those limits are in place for the benefit of us all..not the detriment to us all.
Comcast should NOT be engaged in the business of allowing the kinds of copyright stealing abusers who exist out there to seed an entire p2p network. And, for this website..BBR..to post "solutions" and "workarounds" to that is really..just flat out wrong.
And, you elevate yourself to a much LOWER level..IMHO.
Listen. I'm not against people connecting to work..nor even using their connections..a LOT.
And Comcast does allow for that.
I'm always using my connection. It's my right arm...and it's always there to serve me..no problems..no questions asked.
What that tells me is that the people who ARE having problems are by far..exceeding EVERY reasonable boundary there is.
And quite frankly..for BBR to be aiding that kind of behavior..and worse yet..to be presenting Comcast in an unfavorable and negative light because of it..almost non stop these days..
Is really...
Just plain..
Flat out...
Wrong.
Thank you for allowing me my op Ed piece.
~Rick
Satisfied Comcast Customer
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|  | | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... Bravo.
[NG]Owner | |
| | | RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
06708 | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... said by swintec:You didnt tell us to what you think is the acceptable limit. Is it a set number of GB's? Is it only if we use our connections the same way you do? Once you provide us with a number or limit, how did you arrive at that limit? What is it based on? You raise a very important question. And, I'll answer it both in terms of how I see it..and, how I think that comcast see's it. (although i'm certainly not here to speak for them).
Comcast..doesn't..and shouldn't have limits. At least in terms of putting a set number on both the amount of time someone can use the connection, and specifying exactly how much someone can download or upload.
Their TOS clearly defines this issue as being this.
If someone is using..or abusing..as the case may be..the network to such an extent that it starts to cause problems..then they reserve the right to take action.
I honestly don't think they want to have limits. They don't want to constrain we users in not allowing us the occassional large download..or even many of them for that matter. You really do need to consider how much data 300 gigs per month is. That is a WHOLE LOT of data.
And that appears to be the level that some start running into trouble at.
The point is..you have to believe that those people ARE starting to impact their neighbors connections.
Imagine..the guy next door on this shared type of network doing that 24/7. YOU..would be the one on here in the forums complaining how slow YOUR connection was..because of them.
That..IMHO..is what Comcast is out to police. For the benefit of us all who want to reasonably use this network.
And, reasonably doesn't need to involve a set limit.
Reasonably can be..sometimes I might need 20 gigs a month..and other times it might be 100gigs.
That's how reasonable people use a service.
Again..if someone is engaged in activity that has them needing to download 500 gigs of data a month..more power to them. But what they REALLY should then do is realize that this residential service is not here to fully allow for that..and what they need to do is to have either a backup dsl line..or move into a business tier.
This is not about denying anyone anything. It's about keeping the service workable and good for everyone.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | | | | | | RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
06708 | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... I'm not sure why you're so hung up on having some fixed limit.
You say you work for a business. Clearly, that's grounds right there to have a business connection.
As far as residential use goes though, if you're using up to 5 gigs a month at a business..don't you think that when you start to get to 200 to 300 gigs..per month..for a residential connection...is starting to push the bounds of what is reasonable that a service provider should service someone for..for 42.95 per month?
I sure do.
And clearly, those people know who they are..and really should better prepare themselves for that kind of usage.
And lastly, again...I think for Comcast to set fixed limits would be a detriment overall to the many of us who don't abuse this network. What I think comcast is saying is..we don't want to put limits on you.
If you need to use a lot this month..100 gigs even..use it.
And next month..you might not need that.
Again..remember..the ones who are getting the letters and having the problems are those running up to 3x's those numbers.
And I think that any reasonable person would agree that they are using their residential connection for something it simply wasn't intended for.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | | | | | | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... If I work from home 2 or 3 days a week on a residential account, is that violating the spirit of the service even if I don't hit the kind of numbers you are talking about?
--
If it is not recorded, it simply does not exist. | |
| | | | | | RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
06708 | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... said by Dezbend:If I work from home 2 or 3 days a week on a residential account, is that violating the spirit of the service even if I don't hit the kind of numbers you are talking about? I don't think so.
Have you ever had any problems with comcast because of it?
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | | | | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by Dezbend:If I work from home 2 or 3 days a week on a residential account, is that violating the spirit of the service even if I don't hit the kind of numbers you are talking about? According to the TOS, yes.
if "work(ing)" and "residential" are in the same sentence, you should be paying for biz service, not rez service.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | | | | | |  hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
14127
kudos:4 | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... "According to the TOS, yes.
if "work(ing)" and "residential" are in the same sentence, you should be paying for biz service, not rez service."
Care to show me the quotes?
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
| |
|
| | | dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by swintec:said by Rick:Again..if someone is engaged in activity that has them needing to download 500 gigs of data a month..more power to them. But what they REALLY should then do is realize that this residential service is not here to fully allow for that..and what they need to do is to have either a backup dsl line..or move into a business tier. What is the threshold for needing a business account then? Are you saying 500 gigs is grounds for a business acount? 300? 200? Everyone always refers to getting a business account because someone uses a lot of traffic. Where is the published difference between residential and business?...Correct, it is all depending on personal opinion. I work for a business here in town whos total usage on there business RR account is about 2-5 GB's a month. What say you? Is that classified now as residential or business, since the line between the two seem to be drawn by bandwidth used. The only difference between biz and rez service is they RAPE the biz customer on the price.
Ask anyone that has ditched optimum online(OOL) for business optimum online(BOOL) and STILL had their upload capped!
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| |  braynesPremium
join:2005-03-14
Waterville, ME
 ·Great Works Inte..
| Rick
How About this, the ISP says you get 300 gb Not unlimited service
Along come Joe and he uses 450 gb a billing cycle, ISP feels he abused his level.
Joe’s sister lives next door she d/l about 50 gb a billing cycle, she feels she is not getting her money’s worth.
Now the ISP allows 300 so why not let sis give her surplus to her brother, she get her money and the brother does not get shit on by the ISP?
Bruce | |
| | | | RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
06708 | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... said by braynes:Rick How About this, the ISP says you get 300 gb Not unlimited service Along come Joe and he uses 450 gb a billing cycle, ISP feels he abused his level. Joe’s sister lives next door she d/l about 50 gb a billing cycle, she feels she is not getting her money’s worth. Now the ISP allows 300 so why not let sis give her surplus to her brother, she get her money and the brother does not get shit on by the ISP? Bruce Really, that's the way it works anyway.
IF comcast were to set limits..there's no way in he** they could afford to give everyone 300gigs per month at this price.
It's completely unreasonable given the cost of bandwidth.
A network like this operates on the shared principle that some will need more than others in any given month.
This month..you need 100gigs..and I need 5.
That's why it works for everyone.
The problem comes in though that when some..want it all..all the time.
That..is being unreasonable and more so..it affects the overall network and this shared principle of how it works.
People who are crying for caps do not realize that if they were there..they would be NO where near 300 gigs.
They might very well only be 30 to 50.
Because if Comcast..or any isp..had to ALLOCATE that much bandwidth to every subscriber..whether they used it or not..
they simply could never afford to do it for what they charge now.
I have to tell you, that if I was in the camp that needed to download 300 gigs per month..I'd do one of two things.
Either go with a comcast workplace solution...
or have both a residential connection and backup dsl line..assuming it was available.
I think both are the answers to this for that very small minority of people who run into problems.
And, they should realize that if they're asking for so much..then they should cough up a little bit more..and pay for it.
It is not up to me and others to subsidize their excessive usage.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | | | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... said by Rick:People who are crying for caps do not realize that if they were there..they would be NO where near 300 gigs. They might very well only be 30 to 50. Because if Comcast..or any isp..had to ALLOCATE that much bandwidth to every subscriber..whether they used it or not.. That's why it's better to break it down. The base price should include a certain amount of bandwidth, x amount of hard bandwidth every month without extra charge, and y amount of soft bandwidth measured every month for a six month window which shouldn't exceed a certain amount without going to the next level (where y monthly is more than x). Then, without violating any TOS, you can go up from there to the next tier; I think two or three tiers is the most that's really needed: a tier for those who exceed the soft limit, so therefore are putting themselves into a bigger broadband user category, and charge a reasonable cost-based profitable amount for that bandwidth, not gouge the customer, up to some higher limit level to which that cost has repaid their use and then the next tier would be lower price because at a certain point economies of scale kick in, perhaps one more tier after that.
Then there would have to be bandwidth management settings control pages, most likely on the web, which allowed you not only to see your current use trends but set soft and hard limits of your own so you can impose your own throttling or a hard phone call or letter be sent to you (at cost -- perhaps you pay 50cents for a postcard to be mailed to you), so you know you're getting to or past some limit so you don't blow your budget, and another hard limit higher up for the same reason. The bandwidth management pages would be accessible regardless of hard limits; perhaps you'd have to call in at that point to a bandwidth management voicemail system?
This can be done above-board no sneaking around no griping no Ricks supporting covert undefined actions of monopoly/duopoly utilities, but so far most ISPs resist doing this. The few that do it tend to overcharge, as if it's supposed to be some sort of penalty, or if it's not overcharge they never break down why it costs so much. | |
| | | | | | hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
14127
kudos:4 | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... "That's why it's better to break it down. The base price should include a certain amount of bandwidth, x amount of hard bandwidth every month without extra charge, and y amount of soft bandwidth measured every month for a six month window which shouldn't exceed a certain amount without going to the next level (where y monthly is more than x). Then, without violating any TOS, you can go up from there to the next tier; I think two or three tiers is the most that's really needed: a tier for those who exceed the soft limit, so therefore are putting themselves into a bigger broadband user category, and charge a reasonable cost-based profitable amount for that bandwidth, not gouge the customer, up to some higher limit level to which that cost has repaid their use and then the next tier would be lower price because at a certain point economies of scale kick in, perhaps one more tier after that."
Sounds like an administrative nightmare to accommodate a tiny percentage of the customer base.
Never happen.....
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
| |
| | | | | | |
approval from:
koitsu 
| Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... said by hobgoblin:"Sounds like an administrative nightmare to accommodate a tiny percentage of the customer base. Until I moved out of Verizon territory, I had two choices for broadband. My telco doesn't do DSL to me yet, so now I have Comcast. I know plenty of people who didn't go with Comcast because of that reason only. DSL may not offer the peak speeds that Comcast does, but when you have to watch what you do that carefully, some value is lost. Speed is nice, but I throttle mine back, monitor data in/out, and run QoS now to stay safe.
I am a tiny percentage of the customer base who would much rather rely at traffic shaping at the ISP to keep my usage within limitations that no one will define to me. What's wrong with traffic shaping?
I gladly pay for the top tier of residential service, and I have very good value. I have no complaints about the reliability and the performance of my Comcast service. This month I transferred 34GB in and out, and I am pretty sure that I am not the guy who is "abusing" the network.
If Comcast had no idea how much data transfer a particular account was using, how would they know who to kick? This is not an administrative nightmare; every ISP audits usage.
As much as I enjoy my Comcast connection, and as reliable as it is, every day I watch the amount of data that goes in and out of that thing. If one of the kids decides that this is the month to watch a lot of streaming video, and You Tube catches on, I need to have an idea of when to cut them off. DSL may have been a bit slower, but I didn't need to watch my connection that closely.
Because I am running QoS, and throttled back to the point that I have no visible effect on latency (measured during peak throughput), I assume that I am not causing issue to anyone else. I'm not convinced that this will do me much good if I'm trying to stay within a data transfer limit that no one will define or declare.
How am I supposed to know if I'm going to be flagged for excessive usage? | |
| | | | | | | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
02675
kudos:5
2 edits | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... said by AnotherGuy :
How am I supposed to know if I'm going to be flagged for excessive usage?
From what I've read over the years, I think this might be how it works:
- It starts with a complaint by a customer (one of your neighbors) about poor performance. (Comcast does not go out looking for uploaders without a service complaint.)
- They look at the usage at the node and try to determine the cause -- it's a Pareto chart analysis. If there is an exceptional few users that are causing the majority of the problem, those are the ones that are warned.
- They also consider whether the usage is actually too high, or if the node needs to be split (whether it can be split it is also a factor)
They never say a number -- there may or may not actually be one.
I've read stories from a user who swear he monitored and did not exceed 50GB. But most of the reports from users who were warned or terminated estimate their usage was somewhere over 200GB, a number which others report they exceed regularly without receiving any warning.
Comcast has also made statements that avoid giving a number, but their examples round out to somewhere between 150 GB and 300 GB.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. | |
| | | | | | | | | hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
14127
kudos:4 | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... "I've read stories from a user who swear he monitored and did not exceed 50GB."
The Check is in the post.
I am on the Pill.
I have heard ppl swear that too
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
| |
|
| | | | |  koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14
1 edit | said by Ulmo:That's why it's better to break it down. The base price should include a certain amount of bandwidth, x amount of hard bandwidth every month without extra charge, and y amount of soft bandwidth measured every month for a six month window which shouldn't exceed a certain amount without going to the next level (where y monthly is more than x). Then, without violating any TOS, you can go up from there to the next tier ... And this is exactly how co-location providers work. I'll explain it for those not familiar. Just assume for the moment that you've signed up for a 512kbit 95th-percentile plan (you'll soon learn what that means).
You're given a 100mbit or 1000mbit Ethernet port -- meaning, maximum bandwidth is whatever the speed of the port is. There is no rate-limiting/throttling.
You're billed off of a 95th-percentile scheme. What this means is that the ISP polls their switch/network device every X seconds (usually 300, or 5 minutes), and takes a snapshot of how much bandwidth you've used between the previous poll and now. At the end of the month, the top 5% of all of the snapshots (sorted by usage, largest to smallest) are dropped/ignored. The reason this is done is to ignore "bursts" of heavy network traffic.
If any of the remaining samples are above 512kbit, the ISP adds up the difference per sample (e.g. sample-512kbit), totals it up, and you're billed for it, usually at pretty outrageous (sometimes hundreds of dollars per megabyte). So, 95th percentile billing can really screw you unless you keep a close eye on your usage. 
You can *always* upgrade the bandwidth plan you're on (e.g. from 512kbit to 1mbit), which costs more per month, but you *cannot* downgrade your plan during duration of your contract (usually 1 or 2 years).
Also: in the case of most co-lo providers, you're only billed for *outbound* network traffic (that is to say, network traffic your servers are sending out onto the Internet). You can download to your hearts content.
Ideally, I think if consumer ISPs embraced this method of billing and gave customers a fair amount of default bandwidth (1mbit 95th has my vote; that comes to ~316GBytes/month), heavy-usage customers would be more willing to upgrade their plans after that first uber-gargantuan bill showed up. People would then start to pay much more close attention to their usage.
I'm not sure how effective this would be, however, since in the case of the consumer, downloading is more common than uploading.
I'd gladly embrace the above on both uploading and downloading (1mbit 95th up, 1mbit 95th down) assuming the ISP didn't rate-limit me. I want *symmetrical* speed, not asymmetrical.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. | |
|
| | | | | | How is it then, that a hosting provider like dreamhost.com can provide 1.4TB PER MONTH of bandwidth, for $7.95. THAT is a reasonable cost for BANDWITH.
You say the money goes to pay for infrastructure? Well, if that's the case, then the 'infrastructure' part is $60.00 of the $65.00 bill, and the 1.4 TB OF DATA you are allowed to use is the $5.00, which is the REAL number.
I don't see the hosting providers going out of business, providing well over a TB/month of traffic, so how in the hell do you explain comcast turning off people for using 7% of the bandwidth, at 10 TIMES the price?
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| | | | | | koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14
1 edit | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... said by karlmarx:How is it then, that a hosting provider like dreamhost.com can provide 1.4TB PER MONTH of bandwidth, for $7.95. THAT is a reasonable cost for BANDWITH. That's quite easy to explain -- dreamhost.com's business model is risky. It's based on quantity assumptions (tons of customers). If their customer base got cut in half, I guarantee you'd see their per-month rates triple. If dreamhost.com has people on contract terms (e.g. that $7.95, regardless of situation, lasts 2 years) and the above happened, they'd go out of business.
I can tell you from doing actual co-location (as a customer) that most of the costs associated pay for 1) power (amps), and 2) rack space. Power is either absurdly expensive (multiple hundreds for an additional 10A) or reasonably priced ($50-75 for an additonal 10A), depending on the provider. Rack space is almost always outrageously priced. You also pay more if you want a cabinet (1/4th (14U) to full (48U)), and *even more* if you want a secure/dedicated cabinet (not shared with other customers).
I don't see the hosting providers going out of business, providing well over a TB/month of traffic, so how in the hell do you explain comcast turning off people for using 7% of the bandwidth, at 10 TIMES the price?
Comcast's doing two things, I think: 1) making an absolute killing off of customers in regions like mine (northern California Bay Area) where they can charge 1.5x higher than the national average just because it's the Bay, and 2) getting absolutely ripped off by whoever provides them transit (read: fibre, OC3s, whatever).
Comcast could save a lot of money if they invested in dark fibre rather than relying on third-party transit peers like Level 3 (who is outrageously expensive compared to AT&T, MCI, Abovenet, or Internap). As I'm sure you may have read in the past 3-4 years, Google has been doing exactly that (which lead people to think they were going to become an ISP -- ha). Dark fibre is cheap compared to overall transit and loop costs. | |
| | | | | | | hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
14127
kudos:4 | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... "Comcast could save a lot of money if they invested in dark fibre rather than relying on third-party transit peers like Level 3 "
I am sure they have a clue.
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
| |
|
| |
1 edit | To Rick. I, unfortunately, am a Comcast customer. Thanks to the monopoly (which I thought was illegal) I have no choice but to use their services (but that is another argument). Let me see if I understand.... You determine reasonable usage as 20 to 100 gigs or so a month (a loose quote),and people who may, occasionally, need to check in with their workplace or p2p users are lowlifes eating up your bandwidth. Well, I am homemaker and not employed outside the home but I am a p2p user. I have never downloaded any copy righted material contrary to the popular belief of any using the evil p2p. Also, in the 5 (five) years I have been using my p2p client, I only have 128 gigs (i just checked) of download/uploads. That works out to roughly 2.14 gigs a month in comparison to your reasonable usage. So, how do you figure that I am abusing your or anyone elses bandwidth. Now, thanks to Comcast, uploads are not just restricted or slow they are being completely stopped. So, please explain to me with your wisdom, how this does not constitute denial of service and illegal activities on the part of Comcast. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| ok you don't like it feel free to cancel your account here.
I use the connection to vpn into multiple servers at work. Does that make me a hog ? after all it is 30 gigs a month I use.
I do feel they owe me something and it's not the world. They owe me the service I pay for. Just like I owe them for the services they provide.
They refuse to spend money upgrading while making record profits. That to me is the bastion of greed. You know what, broadband is getting more intensive every day, site sizes are growing peoples need for bandwidth is growing. These are things that comcast has to fix. Because they squeeze people for cash and some don't use their cable more then dial up doesn't mean the rest of us should do the same.
If comcast wants those of us who use our connections to leave then just flat out say it. Don't pull this traffic shaping shit.
They are making record profits and don't want to pour money into the system because they are feeding the greed of investors. Well get down from the ivory tower there buddy and realize as a customer we deserve decent service for what we pay. This isn't the middle east where they run an entire isp off a t-1.
The problem with a monopoly is they are free to abuse people and when they do some people take it as gospel. Which shows how closed minded people are.
They are running out of bandwidth at the node. If this happens in a business network I work on , we are ordered to find the cause and expand where we have to so it never happens again. Not start telling users they can't use certain applications because they use to much bandwidth. We don't forge traffic. That is borderline criminal. And they get by on "We own the network so we can do what we please." Sure go start pumping out porn on it then.
Take other measures , spam , botnets , trojan spewing website hosts , and app pumping warez bots. Do some real work on the issue not just listen to what the salesman tells you.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... wouldn't forging packets be a violation of the ECPA?
Essentially you are interfering with communication and thats a no-no if I understand the act correctly since they are not law-enforcement? (or the government)
--
"Because we’ve invested over $4 billion in building our MegaBand network so you can enjoy the internet the way it was intended to be – fast and uncapped." (RCN marketing Promo) | |
| | RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
06708 | said by BosstonesOwn:ok you don't like it feel free to cancel your account here. I use the connection to vpn into multiple servers at work. Does that make me a hog ? after all it is 30 gigs a month I use. I do feel they owe me something and it's not the world. They owe me the service I pay for. Just like I owe them for the services they provide. And, assuming you're not having problems with your connection..I think they are giving you the service you pay for..and then some.
I don't believe for a minute that what they're doing is seeking to impact what YOU are using YOUR connection for and nowhere have I ever seen anyone having problems on this service for just 30 gigs per month.
And, your statement that they refuse to spend money upgrading their network is absolutely ludicrous.
In January..with adelphia..I was getting about 4000k/440 speeds.
Today..I get 20,000/1500k speeds.
For exactly the same price even.
This company is spending a FORTUNE to do this..and give us these kinds of speeds.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
91355 | I agree.. I use VPN / SSH Tunnels for everything work related. While I don't expect the world, I do NOT expect blind caps or traffic shaping because I use VPN unless they explicitly state it in the ToS/AUP.
If I have my VPN tunnel 'reset', I'd cancel service and find another ISP. Likewise, if I have my VoIP service degraded because my ISP wants me to use theirs (at 2x the cost), I'll find another ISP.
30 GB/month is probably normal. Remote Desktop sharing, video conferencing, VoIP, ftp (400MB to 2.5GB ISO's).
Since I have a 3Mbps connection, I don't think DSL-Ex minds my volume too much.
I do think that some p2p networks can generate excessive traffic.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
14127
kudos:4 | "If this happens in a business network I work on , we are ordered to find the cause and expand where we have to so it never happens again. Not start telling users they can't use certain applications because they use to much bandwidth. We don't forge traffic. That is borderline criminal. And they get by on "We own the network so we can do what we please.""
So if you had a couple of users on your network that were downloading 24/7 365 you would not control their activities? You would just expand the network...and when they suck up all that bandwidth you would do it again?
"we are ordered to find the cause"
So you are not the man that calls the shots eh?
Sorry...can you ask your boss the answer?
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
| |
| | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... I brought up this topic to my customers. I consider them my boss.
They say the same thing. workers are more productive when they get a little time to do what they want. They don't mind them downloading stuff from work.
That being said these guys understand that the faster a transfer occurs the faster they get their worker back to work and the happier the workers are. How weird is that ? A couple of bosses who think spending the extra $350 a month gets them more work done.. BRILLIANT !!!!
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | If all customers thought like you, they would surely abuse the hell out of the customers.
--
F@H | |
| |  NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... said by Vathral:If all customers thought like you, they would surely abuse the hell out of the customers. Ify...Doggy...Bunny
Thats "Ify I had a doggy I could catch a bunny".
The point is all customers don't think like that. | |
| | | | | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... said by Nightfall:said by Vathral:If all customers thought like you, they would surely abuse the hell out of the customers. Ify...Doggy...Bunny Thats "Ify I had a doggy I could catch a bunny". The point is all customers don't think like that. Yeah. And not all customers are criminals either
--
F@H | |
| | | | | | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... we arent talking criminality here. we are talking about abuse and i guarantee anyone continuously downloading 400 or 500 gigs a month is abusing the system and should be removed. comcast couldnt care less if someone was downloading 50 gigs of warez or mp3s a month, its the ones that cost them more money than there residential account is worth that they get rid of. | |
| | | | NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| said by Vathral:said by Nightfall:said by Vathral:If all customers thought like you, they would surely abuse the hell out of the customers. Ify...Doggy...Bunny Thats "Ify I had a doggy I could catch a bunny". The point is all customers don't think like that. Yeah. And not all customers are criminals either You said that, I didn't. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by Rick:take this issue to the same level as the "capping" issue. ... this doesn't appear to be in the same category as "capping". when they cap, they are giving you a limit (even though the service is supposed to be "unlimited" and they refuse to tell what the limit is). nobody says they don't have a right to cap.
in the case of bittorrent, they are interfering with the proper operation of a legal and legitimate application. they would probably just outright ban the use of bittorrent, but that would probably cause too big of a stink and would give the supporters of network neutrality bullets to shoot them with. so, they do it cleverly and slyly, hoping no one notices or at least the main stream media doesn't notice.
furthermore, since comcast already kicks people off when they download too much, they could always do so with people using bittorrent that exceed the (unofficial) limit. this indicates that people using bittorrent aren't necessarily downloading too much as you imply, comcast is just throttling ALL uses of bittorrent. | |
| koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14 | Rick, I respect what you have to say, and I acknowledge your point fully. It's a legitimate statement, and I sincerely do understand it.
Now I ask you to understand my point, which is (I believe) the point most of technically-savvy Comcast customers, and probably the majority of DSLR/BBR users are making:
Comcast is completely violating (that is, destroying) the legitimacy of the TCP protocol.
In English: Comcast is screwing up TCP packets with their equipment.
I completely understand Comcast's need to try and "tune" their network based on bandwidth concerns or heavy users. I respect that. But I CANNOT respect a company who fucks with stateful TCP sessions by injecting TCP RST into the stream prematurely using ANY piece of equipment (Sandvine or otherwise).
What they are doing violates core pieces of how IP (e.g. TCP/IP) works in general. They're playing a risky game by doing this. It's getting a lot of attention in the networking community, and the attention is not positive.
An ISP's job is to provide me transit -- as far as throttling what's important vs. what isn't, that's for me to decide, not for them.
And for those considering the "So pick another ISP" rebuttal: we have no other choices in the Bay Area. It's AT&T/SBC who offers DSL only (max. 6mbit, and CO distance plays a HUGE ROLE -- in my case, I cannot even get 1.5mbit due to my CO distance being over 12000 electrical feet). Wireless IS NOT considered broadband around here.
So please understand where I'm coming from. I want an ISP that provides me transit, and does not (pardon my language) fuck with packets. It's not their job to fuck with packets. It's their job to provide me unaltered service.
Clear?
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. | |
| |
See 14 replies to this post | |
| | said by Rick:take this issue to the same level as the "capping" issue. And, by that ..I mean ...Let's have BBR just continually rip this company to shreds for taking steps to preserve the integrity of their network for those of us who do NOT abuse it. Heck, why not just post the "solutions" for how people can even get around this and continue on with their ever loving ways of soaking up so much bandwidth that there's simply none left for the rest of us to use and enjoy. Oh.Wait. That's exactly what this story now does. Silly me for thinking that is what would come next. ~Rick Satisfied Comcast Customer I agree.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
02675
kudos:5 | Hi Rick,
Thanks for a very good post. Let me make a couple of comments...
said by Rick:Dear Comcast.. Keep right on doing whatever it is you're doing. We love you for it. Some of us are of the belief that you give us a tremendous amount of value for our money. And even believe that 300 gigs per month is still a WHOLE lot of data..and those who seek to use their connection more than that really should a)cough up the money for a business class connection or b) get a secondary line to split your use between the two services. If you have a bandwidth-hungry neighbor that is keeping your connection slow, and they get a business account or a second non-business account to make up for the disparity, your connection will not get faster. A neighborhood node is still the same shared 38 Mbps. Until DOCSIS 3 (I think) is deployed, we're stuck.
Some (myself included) believe it's okay to prioritize VoIP, online gaming, video watching, and web surfing ahead of background peer-to-peer file transfers. Others believe that it's an ISP's job to "ship the bits" and they have no business deciding which ones are more or less important. Regardless of customers' opinions on that particular front, Comcast has an interest in keeping us all happy.
In your last paragraph, you have done what Comcast has never done -- offered an expected level of service, and a solution for users whose demands are higher than most. That Comcast cannot do such a simple thing is frustrating!
said by Rick:What that tells me is that the people who ARE having problems are by far..exceeding EVERY reasonable boundary there is. This is simply not true.
When I first looked into this issue in the spring, it was because I noticed that very unique (and legal) files that I was offering for upload via the Gnutella protocol. I was certain I had configured something wrong -- or my router or some network bug was to blame. Turns out, it wasn't.
When you're uploading 0 bytes at a rate of 0 kB/s, you cannot have crossed the threshold of abuse.
Comcast refuses to support (or even officially acknowledge) their management of P2P connections. So, for users who are having problems, what option do they have EXCEPT to try to find ways to work around their issues?
My personal opinion is that the Internet is a shared service. I'm fine with Comcast taking reasonable measures -- including the use of traffic shaping and managment -- to keep it under control and satisfactory to to their spectrum of users. My only issue is that it is that there are some definite problems with it and there is no way to get them investigated and fixed!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. | |
| | | | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... said by funchords:When I first looked into this issue in the spring, it was because I noticed that very unique (and legal) files that I was offering for upload via the Gnutella protocol. I was certain I had configured something wrong -- or my router or some network bug was to blame. Right there, you have violated the TOS by acting as a server. Comcast has every right to dump you any time they want. And every P2P user is breaking the TOS "no server" rule every time they use P2P software.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... said by fAcEtIOUs:Right there, you have violated the TOS by acting as a server. Comcast has every right to dump you any time they want. And every P2P user is breaking the TOS "no server" rule every time they use P2P software. What's BS is how these corporations want you to be their slave-sumer and they want you only to CONSUME services and PAY through the nose for it.
Lord forbid you might want to actually do something *useful* with your internet connection. Nope. Not allowed. Banned by TOS.... unless of course, you agree to pay through the nose. I'd use the word extortion, but unfortunately it's legal.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
02675
kudos:5 | Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... said by KrK:said by fAcEtIOUs:Right there, you have violated the TOS by acting as a server. Comcast has every right to dump you any time they want. And every P2P user is breaking the TOS "no server" rule every time they use P2P software. Lord forbid you might want to actually do something *useful* with your internet connection. Nope. Not allowed. Banned by TOS.... Being a peer node on a P2P network is, and always has, been permitted by the Subscriber Agreement (TOS) and the AUP. None of the examples used by Comcast in the TOS/AUP can reasonably be stretched, even by "letter-of-the-law," to include P2P.
Some people don't bother to read, and some that do read what they want to see rather than what's plainly there. | |
|
| | | | Oh, and what about when my Adobe and Microsoft programs phone home and "uploads" information to confirm that my Adobe and Microsoft programs are legitimate?
According to you, I am in violation of the Comcast TOS agreement because at that time when my programs phone home and uploads information I am acting as a server.
Oh and one more thing, in BitTorrent there are no true servers. All packets are sent and received simultaneously, thus the PC acts as both peer and server.
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| I'm thinking Comcast definitely needs to protect their network from for you.
First, let's cut off all NNTP (After all newgroups are used for piracy.)
Already throttling Torrents, how about we add FTP to that list. I mean hey, we're just protecting the network for you. Oh, and since so many ppl look at porn online, let's block images unless they come from Trusted(tm) sites.
OH, and, we'd better manage email, too. After all we need to protect the network for you....
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... said by KrK:I'm thinking Comcast definitely needs to protect their network from for you. First, let's cut off all NNTP (After all newgroups are used for piracy.) Already throttling Torrents, how about we add FTP to that list. I mean hey, we're just protecting the network for you. Oh, and since so many ppl look at porn online, let's block images unless they come from Trusted(tm) sites. OH, and, we'd better manage email, too. After all we need to protect the network for you.... Thats it! Lets take what he said and jump off the deep end. That always proves a point. :P | |
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: I think it's safe to say that we can now officially.... said by Nightfall:Thats it! Lets take what he said and jump off the deep end. That always proves a point. :P Well, it highlights the fact his point is off the deep-end, and maybe he's just not thinking about it rationally. Sometimes the sarcasm helps. Sometimes it doesn't.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Rick:And, by that ..I mean ...Let's have BBR just continually rip this company to shreds for taking steps to preserve the integrity of their network for those of us who do NOT abuse it. Perhaps what you meant to say was to have certain BBR posters continually rip these posters and threads to shreds in their efforts to shill for various industry interests and defend these companies every time their reprehensible activities are exposed. Isn't that what you really meant?
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | I only use bittorrent to download Linux distros and some of my commercial software uses bittorrent too. I have never used it to download illegitimate software, music, or movies. I also use it with Democracy TV which some of the shows are torrents. They are legal to download. If we are not allowed to seed a torrent that is legit there is a problem. They need to come up with a better way of determining which ones are legal and which are illegal. To just say that people using P2P are using it for illegal purposes is wrong. There are a lot of legal torrents out there. To give you an example, Nero Rom CD burning software is distributed by torrent. It gives you the demo version and all you have to do is enter the key that was provided to you by Nero. A lot of Linux distros us torrents. If you aren't familiar with Linux, it is a "FREE" operating system. So for BBR to provide us with a work around is helping the legit users of Bittorrent, the sad part is that it also helps those who would use it for illegal purposes. The cable companies assume that all torrent traffic is bad. It isn't. It is a way to distribute the bandwith. Most Bittorrent clients can be set up so they use very little upload bandwith. As a matter of fact, Microsoft was considering using Bittorrent to distribute the betas of Windows Vista. One of the reasons they didn't was for the fact of the throttling by ISP's. You need to back off and look around at the legit uses for Bittorrent, Instead of criticising BBR.
That is my two cents worth.
Spartus4 | |
| | | Apologists SUCK. It is the right (DUTY) of any and all paying customers to speak up when they feel they're being slighted.
Support those that make the company work hard to provide what the customers want or find yourself robbed of services YOU like to use.
Make your dollar work harder. | |
| | | said by Rick:continue on with their ever loving ways of soaking up so much bandwidth that there's simply none left for the rest of us to use and enjoy. there is plenty of bandwidth to go around... | |
| | | said by Rick:And, you elevate yourself to a much LOWER level..IMHO. Elevate to a lower level?That makes as much sense as the rest of the post.
I've never had a problem with the cap cause I've never downloaded that much.I do have a problem with my "unlimited" account being limited. | |
| | | I pay quite abit more than 50$ a month.I pay extra for my speed up and down.Nowhere did anything say I couldent use the speed I Payed for for bit torrent.if it had been clearly stated that the speed I PAY for wasent to be used for bit torrent I would still be on their baseline plan.They mislead us into buying a service we are not aloud to use. | |
|
| |
|
·
