Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
| Thanks Comcast!
Thank you Comcast for actually taking a stand and removing customers who are consuming 200GB+ every month. Those customers who run torrents 24/7, downloading movies, uploading movies, and in the end, just slowing down my connection. Thank you for not being like AT&T or Cox who apparently could careless how their network and service is degraded as long as the customer pays. Thank you for being on top of it and for removing the less than 1% of the top bandwidth abusers on your network.
And thank you for not making it known what the caps are. That way users aren't abusing it by always coming "close" to the bandwidth limit, but never over.
--
YourIP.US - It's Your IP .. and more!
rr.cx - Personal Site.. coming soon. |
|
mbkowns
Got Bandwidth?
join:2003-07-01
Riverside, CA | ATT has caps also that statement was dumb...
--
- MBK (AIM = IllMBKllI) |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by mbkowns  :ATT has caps also that statement was dumb... ATT has caps? So then the article is wrong when it says "AT&T, who has no caps, says they have some bandwidth hogs, but says "we figure that's why they buy the service."" ? |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | reply to Rob
When have you heard about someone complaining about speed problems due to oversubscription with AT&T?
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
jtorre69
join:2005-12-26
Hollywood, FL
| reply to Rob
It's not that at&t does not care about the state of their network, it's just that with at&t you don't share your network connection with your neighbors. It doesn't matter if your neighbor downloads countless data .That's what makes dsl a better product than cable modem. That's why at&t doesn't have to resort to this. |
|
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by jtorre69 :It's not that at&t does not care about the state of their network, it's just that with at&t you don't share your network connection with your neighbors. It doesn't matter if your neighbor downloads countless data .That's what makes dsl a better product than cable modem. That's why at&t doesn't have to resort to this. Not totally true. You eventually share the bandwidth with them somewhere. Instead of at the node, it's at the CO. So now you're sharing with the whole town instead of just your neighbors. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| reply to jtorre69
said by jtorre69 :It's not that at&t does not care about the state of their network, it's just that with at&t you don't share your network connection with your neighbors. It doesn't matter if your neighbor downloads countless data .That's what makes dsl a better product than cable modem. That's why at&t doesn't have to resort to this. DSL is a shared medium, just like cable. The difference is at which point you begin sharing your connection with your neighbors on a DSL connection is not the same point on cable.
DSL is not a better product than cable modem. Whichever service is available in your area, and reliable, that is which service is a better product. Not to mention that cable tends to yield faster speeds than DSL, constantly. |
|
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| reply to Rob
said by Rob :Thank you Comcast for actually taking a stand and removing customers who are consuming 200GB+ every month. ...snip...
Exactly! Basically Comcast is just kicking a bunch of file pirates off their network so who really cares. I sure don't.
--
Meet Bill and Karolyn at www.theslowskys.com |
|
AtlGuy
join:2000-10-17
Marietta, GA
| reply to Rob
said by Rob :Thank you for not being like AT&T or Cox who apparently could careless how their network and service is degraded as long as the customer pays. I have no knowledge about Cox so I can't comment on that, but AT&Ts network is degraded? That's funny because I ALWAYS get the speed I'm supposed to get. I can't recall ever having to deal with a "degraded" network. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by AtlGuy :said by Rob :Thank you for not being like AT&T or Cox who apparently could careless how their network and service is degraded as long as the customer pays. I have no knowledge about Cox so I can't comment on that, but AT&Ts network is degraded? That's funny because I ALWAYS get the speed I'm supposed to get. I can't recall ever having to deal with a "degraded" network. That's because you've never used a good network  |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Rob
I liked the comment in the article that "if strict limits were disclosed, customers would use as much capacity as possible without tipping the scale, causing the networks to slow to a crawl."
that absolutely correct - if Granny Jones knew what the cap was, she would download all the way up to the limit - that's 100 billion emails and 9 trillion visits to the KnittingForFun web page and forum. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to Rob
said by Rob :Those customers who run torrents 24/7 That would be me, and there's nothing wrong with that. People just have to be reasonable.
Cable-modem P2P users really do need to understand that Cable Internet is a shared service with their whole neighborhood -- and full-speed file transfers really can have an impact!
Part of sharing means sharing the connection. And like someone else correctly said -- sooner or later, we're all sharing some of the same routes.
P2P downloading is a background activity. So, instead of uploading and downloading at maximum speed, set a reasonable maximum speed limit so that everyone who is at their keyboards and screens now can enjoy a fast experience.
This has been a public-service announcement. 
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
jvanbrecht
join:2007-01-08
Bowie, MD
| reply to Rob
said by Rob :DSL is a shared medium, just like cable. The difference is at which point you begin sharing your connection with your neighbors on a DSL connection is not the same point on cable. By your account above, it means every single link is shared across the entire internet from business to residential service.
By shared, they mean segment, not the entire company, Cable segments are a shared medium, DSL is not as its a point to point connection via a local loop from your house to the ISP (bypassing the switching equipment in the CO since DSL is not a switched medium) Yes, on the ISP side it becomes shared when it hits the ISPs backbone as well as its connections and peering points to tier 1 backbones. BTW, ATT is a tier 1 backbone, where as comcast is just a customers of a tier 1 provider. If the ISP does not have the accumulated backbone bandwidth to provide all their customers with sufficient service, that is not the users fault, regardless of how much they download. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by jvanbrecht :said by Rob :DSL is a shared medium, just like cable. The difference is at which point you begin sharing your connection with your neighbors on a DSL connection is not the same point on cable. By your account above, it means every single link is shared across the entire internet from business to residential service. By shared, they mean segment, not the entire company, Cable segments are a shared medium, DSL is not as its a point to point connection via a local loop from your house to the ISP (bypassing the switching equipment in the CO since DSL is not a switched medium) Yes, on the ISP side it becomes shared when it hits the ISPs backbone as well as its connections and peering points to tier 1 backbones. BTW, ATT is a tier 1 backbone, where as comcast is just a customers of a tier 1 provider. If the ISP does not have the accumulated backbone bandwidth to provide all their customers with sufficient service, that is not the users fault, regardless of how much they download. AT&T may be a Tier 1, whereas Comcast isn't (though they have their CRAN Network), yet Comcast provides much faster speeds than AT&T does. Obviously Comcast is doing something right if they are usign AT&T's network, yet bringing faster speeds than the Tier 1 provider is! |
|
dallash
Premium
join:2001-08-17
Little Rock, AR
clubs: | reply to Rob
Rob,
You're my hero.
To hell with all those "something for nothing", bandwidth-abusing bastards. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | reply to jvanbrecht
quote:
Yes, on the ISP side it becomes shared when it hits the ISPs backbone as well as its connections and peering points to tier 1 backbones
Oops, but wait, lots of AT&T DSL customers are serviced from a neighborhood RT where they share fiber back to the CO. And now AT&T is moving to a FTTN architecture where the "nodes" are placed almost exactly like cable nodes!
You also seem to overlook that the "Tier 1" internet connections don't generally start until your service is done riding an ATM network from your CO to a POP somewhere. There isn't a direct conneciton to Tier 1 going to each CO.
Bottom line the "not shared with your neighbors" argument is really dumb and always has been. Sharing happens on even the best technology out there (FTTH). "Never shared" made for a cute advertising campaign for Pacific Bell back in the day but AT&T has long since stopped because they know it no longer applies.
What matters is how well and how fast a company works towards keeping their network mantained. |
|
jvanbrecht
join:2007-01-08
Bowie, MD
| reply to Rob
Thats a limitation on DSL, which is heavily reliant on line quality and distance. That is one advantage that cable has over DSL. I do not live in an ATT service area, so I am not sure what they are providing with their fiber service that they are deploying. Also, as I stated in another post further down, yes they are a customer of a tier 1 provider, and odds are they use either ATT or Verizon (used to be uunet, then mci) as their provider, and I suspect they are probably running OC3's or OC12's to provide the bandwidth they need. But thats not the problem with cable. The problem is in fact that cable is a shared medium (all users on a particular segment share the bandwidth available on that particular segment), and yes, a single user can very easily saturate that segment, but that is not the users fault, that is the fault of the operator offering services it cannot support to stay in the game and compete against others who are offering faster services.
I am not being anti comcast.. well actually I am, but my beef with comcast has less to do with their bandwidth problems, and more to do with their billing practices, but that is off topic. I also equally hate ATT and Verizon.. so I consider myself unbiased on this fact. Also consider my background, I have worked for UUNET (before they were murdered by MCI and then Verizon), RCN, AOL Time Warner and Roadrunner (also owned by AOL/TW). I understand the technology and its limitations.
The issue at hand here however is not the technology, well it kind of is, but not completely, the issue here is Comcasts policy, which in my opinion is lame. A police officer cannot give you a speeding ticket, and then not tell you what the speed limit is that you broke (assuming all the speed limit signs were removed from the road) |
|
Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| reply to mbkowns
said by mbkowns :ATT has caps also that statement was dumb... Says who? Do research before making false statements. |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to mbkowns
said by mbkowns :ATT has caps also that statement was dumb... Again, more disinformation spread on this site.
Prove that they have caps. |
|
n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD
| reply to Rob
And thank you for not making it known what the caps are. That way users aren't abusing it by always coming "close" to the bandwidth limit, but never over. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this would be the case, as compared with the current situation? If so, you should state it. If not, you really should stop claiming something that is both counter-intuitive and utterly unsupported--at least, if you want to be taken seriously. |
|
