n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD
| reply to dallash
Re: Thanks Comcast!
To hell with all those "something for nothing", bandwidth-abusing bastards. Damn right. It's not as though they're paying for a service that a large number of customers seem to believe is unlimited (wonder where they got that idea?) or anything. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
| said by n0ym  :To hell with all those "something for nothing", bandwidth-abusing bastards. Damn right. It's not as though they're paying for a service that a large number of customers seem to believe is unlimited (wonder where they got that idea?) or anything. I don't have no clue where they got the idea it is unlimited. But I know they didn't get it from Comcast, since Comcast does not advertise their service as unlimited. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| reply to n0ym
said by n0ym :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. I could careless if you take me seriously or not. |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| reply to Rob
The thank you for not making the caps known is dumb. Comcast should make the caps known. If Comcast says the caps are 50gigs a month and people stay under them, wouldn't that also stop bandwidth abusers?
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by jsouth :The thank you for not making the caps known is dumb. Comcast should make the caps known. If Comcast says the caps are 50gigs a month and people stay under them, wouldn't that also stop bandwidth abusers? Then it's an inconvenience to the other 99% of their customers that aren't consuming 200GB/mo.
So again, THANK YOU Comcast. |
|
n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD
| reply to Rob
I could careless if you take me seriously or not.
It seems obvious you care very little about other people, based on your original comments. Of course, one would think that you'd care at least somewhat what your readers think, since you bother to post.
And if not that, one might hope you'd at least care about intellectual honesty.
But by all means, don't back up your assertions. In which case, it's patently obvious where you stand on both counts. And when this policy (or one like it) bites you, I truly hope others return the favors you dish out. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by n0ym :I could careless if you take me seriously or not. It seems obvious you care very little about other people, based on your original comments. Of course, one would think that you'd care at least somewhat what your readers think, since you bother to post. And if not that, one might hope you'd at least care about intellectual honesty. But by all means, don't back up your assertions. In which case, it's patently obvious where you stand on both counts. And when this policy (or one like it) bites you, I truly hope others return the favors you dish out. I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood what you were saying, let me rephrase.
I could careless if you take me seriously or not. Does that make more sense? |
|
n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD
| reply to Rob
Then it's an inconvenience to the other 99% of their customers that aren't consuming 200GB/mo.
So again, THANK YOU Comcast. With that level of certainty, it should be easy for you to back up your assertions that stated caps would encourage additional bandwidth usage over the current situation, in which many (most?) people seem to think the bandwidth is unlimited.
Please feel free to do so. And if you can't, we'll know where things stand. |
|
n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD
| reply to Rob
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood what you were saying, let me rephrase.
I could careless if you take me seriously or not. Does that make more sense? See, here's the thing, though: if you can't back up what you're saying, I'll bet I'm not the only one who will realize you're talking nonsense.
That's two posts you've wasted thus far on irrelevancies, when you could have been backing up your statements. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by n0ym :I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood what you were saying, let me rephrase.
I could careless if you take me seriously or not. Does that make more sense? See, here's the thing, though: if you can't back up what you're saying, I'll bet I'm not the only one who will realize you're talking nonsense. That's two posts you've wasted thus far on irrelevancies, when you could have been backing up your statements. *sigh*. Again, I was thanking Comcast for what they are doing. If you don't like it, tough luck. Again, no where did I say it's "statistically" proven. It's all opinion based, something you just can't grasp.
Further, I don't need to justify anything to you. Who are you? You're just an anonymous person, who could be one of those 1% of the abusers who were kicked off Comcast's network. I don't know, and I don't care.
How about you show me proof that by making the caps KNOWN, that the 1% of the abusers still wouldn't abuse it, or come close to each month so they don't go over? |
|
n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD
| reply to jsouth
The thank you for not making the caps known is dumb. Yeah, it is.
The simple fact is, it's quite likely those who will use high-bandwidth applications will use them, and those who have no interest in them are not likely to discover such interest when caps are stated.
By stating caps, Comcast could 1) decrease bad publicity and 2) decrease excessive usage. But by doing so, they'd dispel the myth (which, of course, they had no part in starting), that their service is unlimited.
I think there are a number of vocal people here who either work for Comcast or enjoy other people's problems, and simply won't acknowledge that explicitly stating caps and limitations on service (instead of vague legalese buried in terms and conditions) is a fair business practice. |
|
n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD
| reply to Rob
*sigh*. Again, I was thanking Comcast for what they are doing. If you don't like it, tough luck. Again, no where did I say it's "statistically" proven. It's all opinion based, something you just can't grasp. You made a bald assertion (not stated an opinion) in a post that basically attacked those who have been on the receiving end of Comcast's actions. I asked you to back it up. That's not exactly a ridiculous request.
Comcast has made the same claim as an excuse to avoid stating caps. They've also failed to back up that assertion.
How about you show me proof that by making the caps KNOWN, that the 1% of the abusers still wouldn't abuse it, or come close to each month so they don't go over? I didn't assert that to you. I believe that by stating caps, those who will use bandwidth intensive applications will limit that useage, whereas those who don't have any interest in such applications are unlikely to suddenly discover such interest due to stated caps.
I don't know this is the case, nor would I claim it to be other than my opinion without evidence to back it up. |
|
n0ym
join:2004-12-21
Rockville, MD
| reply to Rob
I don't have no clue where they got the idea it is unlimited. But I know they didn't get it from Comcast, since Comcast does not advertise their service as unlimited. I believe the simple fact that they refuse to put numbers on their caps (instead, dancing around them, when it's perfectly clear they DO have them) is itself the promotion of a myth of unlimited availability. In fact, they're so invested in promoting that myth they're willing to take the negative PR hit from occasional bad stories of people being cut off. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to Jodokast96
said by Jodokast96 :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. This is true but you need to look at the whole picture. With Cable you are sharing your available "last mile" bandwidth with your neighbors and thus a hog as a neighbor affects you. With DSL, you have 24/7 dedicated last mile bandwidth (you to the CO). At the CO, your traffic is commingled with all of the other users of that CO and since there is, hopefully, enough bandwidth to support the CO's user's average needs there is less impact from the hogs (you have more people and thus there are more "less than average" users in the mix). |
|
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by RARPSL :This is true but you need to look at the whole picture. With Cable you are sharing your available "last mile" bandwidth with your neighbors and thus a hog as a neighbor affects you. With DSL, you have 24/7 dedicated last mile bandwidth (you to the CO). At the CO, your traffic is commingled with all of the other users of that CO and since there is, hopefully, enough bandwidth to support the CO's user's average needs there is less impact from the hogs (you have more people and thus there are more "less than average" users in the mix). It doesn't really matter. Either way there should be enough bandwidth to whatever point the sharing is occurs. For example, at the node level, you're saying 1 person can affect the whole thing. Ok just to use arbitrary numbers, let's say there are 100 people on every node. That's one person affecting another 99. Say there are 100 nodes in a given town, and that each node sees this problem. Each node receives 1% of X amount of bandwidth.
Now if you base it on a DSL model using the same numbers and bandwidth (X), but without the nodes, you've now got 100 people pulling the same amount of data from the same amount of bandwidth and affecting the other 9,900 just the same, except now it's spread out over a larger area. Either way it's not enough bandwidth to handle the demand. DSL may give you a fast sync speed over that last mile, but the use of it still ends up being the same. Slow.
One method is really no better than the other. It all depends on the makeup and usage of individuals in a given area. In a node system, if all 100 of the hogs are off of one node, then the rest of the nodes won't be affected, because they are all fighting over 1% of X. But in a DSL system, it doesn't matter if they are all in a single area or not, because they now have direct access to X, so the other 9,900 are affected. |
|
ph03n1x
join:2003-02-15
Sanford, FL
| reply to Rob
While I agree that there are people that are abusing the service, I think there is a greater problem. Yes, certainly, right now those that use 200+ gigs of traffic per month could likely be pirates and those that are should be penalized for excessive usage.
However, I see a bigger problem developing. The Internet in general is shifting focus from pure information delivery to content delivery more and more. Video and audio downloads and streaming are becoming more popular and more mainstream. Online gaming is extremely popular.
At my apartment, there are 5 people constantly online. Since I setup the network, I know there is no pirated content being downloaded. Every file is legit and even so, we manage to use about 30-35 gigs per month.
Between 3 adults who all have different taste in video podcasts & music. Songs are pulled from iTunes or Yahoo Music. Two of us play World of Warcraft actively. The third adult is an active eBay power seller and is constantly uploading pictures of items which can use a surprising amount of bandwidth. Of course, there's also the seeming addiction to YouTube and other similar sites.
The point I'm driving at is that the amount of traffic that can be generated just by legitimate use is already pretty high in a multi-user home and is just going to get higher as time goes by. The policies and caps that ISPs are currently using do not line up with the increasing amount of bandwidth usage, and I have no doubt that they will continue to fail to do so. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to djrobx
said by djrobx :Oops, but wait, lots of AT&T DSL customers are serviced from a neighborhood RT where they share fiber back to the CO. Yeah, but it would take an AWFUL LOT of bandwidth heavy users I think to reach the capacity of the RT's Fiber connection.
Anyone from AT&T care to comment on approx. how much bandwidth an RT has? Because if you figure the TOP speed a user can get is around 8mbps down/1kup (and most much lower then that) then even if the connections were maxxed it would take a quite a few of them to overload the RT, me thinks.
--
"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!) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to dallash
I'm new to using a bit-torrent client. Even so tho, it's easy to configure a reasonable cap on it. Course I'm not running mine very much, so, meh. But even so, just set a reasonable cap and you'll be good, methinks. |
|
jobias
join:2006-01-18
Knoxville, TN
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :said by djrobx :Oops, but wait, lots of AT&T DSL customers are serviced from a neighborhood RT where they share fiber back to the CO. Yeah, but it would take an AWFUL LOT of bandwidth heavy users I think to reach the capacity of the RT's Fiber connection. Anyone from AT&T care to comment on approx. how much bandwidth an RT has? Because if you figure the TOP speed a user can get is around 8mbps down/1kup (and most much lower then that) then even if the connections were maxxed it would take a quite a few of them to overload the RT, me thinks. This is a silly argument.
Seriously, what do you think cable nodes use to connect to the headend? Coax? Really? Cause you'd be wrong.
Cable nodes and DSL RT's both use a fiber link to talk to their respective Headend/CO. (lookup HFC: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_fibre-coaxial)
The primary difference is that RT's offer individual lines to the home, while Nodes run shared coax to the house.
As djrobx points out, the bandwidth usage becomes an issue in the same place. If an RT is significantly over-subscribed (I say significantly, because they are, just as with cable nodes, cell phones, and even normal phone service, slightly oversubscribed by design) you'll see the same exact issues occur in DSL as when a hog pops up on a cable network. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
2 edits | said by jobias :This is a silly argument. Seriously, what do you think cable nodes use to connect to the headend? Coax? Really? Cause you'd be wrong. No, it's not silly. Each DSL user is connected directly back to the RT or CO. (Often called dedicated run). At that point, the connections of all the DSL users on the RT is combined and goes over fiber back to the "Cloud" if you will.
That means to experience slowdown, the *entire RT* has to be overloaded to the point the fiber connection from the RT's capacity is exceeded.
Now, with Cable TV, it's different. YES, Fiber comes to the Node... But then the node goes out on Coax and connects many homes.... 500... I'm not really sure. To experience slowdown, if people on your Coax run are overloading it, you will slowdown. The bandwidth capacity of Coax is a lot less then fiber, and if you have dozens of homes on one run, it's a lot easier to overload the connection **BEFORE** it gets back to the Node which is where the fiber is.
Basically, yes, it's possible for an RT to be oversubscribed.... and everyone on that RT to experience slowdown.... *but* it's a *lot* more likely that a cable run with many users on it will experience slowdowns because simply put, there's a ton of people sharing one coax connection run back to the Node. So with DSL, all the users combined on an RT have to overload it's *fiber* connection, whereas with cable, all the users on that one run have to overload it's *Coax* connection.
I can't really explain it any clearer then this.
Cool, here's an image that shows it well:
Typical DSL setup. Note the direct connections to the RT's and CO's.
Now, typical Cable setup. Note the runs of coax from the node with tons of houses all on the same run.
'Nuff said, methinks. |
|
