Re: Thanks Comcast! in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19042506 en Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:40:12 EDT Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:40:12 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19045024 Rob :
said by dMarks See Profile :

Can I ask you a question? How 'degraded' has your service been at it's worst? Seriously, I would like to know. I would like to compare your degraded speed to what my top speed is on HughesNet...just to see if you have something to complain about.
The worse my service has been is about 4mbps down and 700kbps up. Now I constantly get my standard 8mb down, and 74x up, and w/ powerboost around 12-15mb down. Thanks to Comcast for keeping their network working.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19045024 Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:10:01 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19044872 dMarks : Can I ask you a question? How 'degraded' has your service been at it's worst? Seriously, I would like to know. I would like to compare your degraded speed to what my top speed is on HughesNet...just to see if you have something to complain about.
--
HN7000S G16 - 970 MHz (currently)|Pro Plan|Windows XP Pro SP2|AMD Athlon 64 FX-57|2GB Dual Channel RAM|2x GeForce 7950 GT 512MB|250GB HDD]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19044872 Mon, 10 Sep 2007 06:34:18 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19042506 mbkowns : I don't need to every provider does if you use enough of their resources and your payment doesn't justify it they will let you know. Since they don't offer the speed to get near some of those numbers its not as likely but it will happen.
--
- MBK (AIM = IllMBKllI)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19042506 Sun, 09 Sep 2007 19:36:38 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19033958 KrK : That's very good news. Awesome network management, really.

I'm very impressed. It's nice to know that if usage gets to 50% capacity the additional capacity is brought online.

It's overkill... in a great way. It's also pretty forward thinking. It suggests AT&T could deploy VDSL in a flash. Or break out more tiers. I guess the only thing that holds it back is the copper.
--
"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!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19033958 Sat, 08 Sep 2007 03:54:10 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19033929 David : I didn't even say anything about the underground vaults. Those are and could be C.O. 's just on their own.

You can still slow down at a node, it's possible but typically your DSL and your Pots to the RT would have problems. We have whats called a "streaming RT" condition where the RT just keeps sending fragmented packets to the C.O. header and you can send no packets back to the RT or they all fail. Typically a switchover can fix it, however every now and then they have to go to the RT and change cards.

Those repairs are typically less than 4 hours. 90% of the time they are replacing a card at the RT while they are there or switch to the backup card and route that way till permanent repairs can be made. If the RT goes down hard they drive and change.

Now the areas they typically don't have a lot of bandwidth would be say small towns with DSL and such. For instance, say ozora, mo. Town of about 5,000 people and maybe say 300-500 live in town. an OC-48 for those customers might be overkill by quite a bit. Most times here they deploy a big dslam there as a "Master controller" and the adtran Dslams as a slave controller or the customer's side. Now they don't keep a lot of bandwidth for DSL here, but then again, how many customers in a small town are you expecting? You are not going to have say 1000-3000 customers like downtown STL on a given part of town. I can see the point here would be if they are not using enough traffic to really peak a OC-12 why give them a 48? At that point it's just overkill.

I remember last year there was a few different small towns in wisconsin that were getting another OC-12 between them and chicago for backhaul. The one and only OC-12 they had was and finally hit 50%. Before the traffic peaked 65% they had another one turned up and divided the traffic in like 1/2. I remember he said he checked his work like 6 months later and the original OC-12 was at like 30% and the other one just cracked 22%. Now how long was it before the 2nd OC12 was even required, it was 2+ years out. Even then he had it on the books to make them both 48's. Even if he did one this year and one next year, he would still have enough bandwidth available. Now that we have at&t's legacy network and SBC's legacy network, it's going to be interesting how they integrate everything. I am watching the changes on this side of the fence and it's just phenomenal.

I just for kicks and grins looked at my local dslam's percentages. Ya know on patch Tuesday it hit 12%? It's average for the month is 7%. Some days like labor day and Christmas it's at like 0%. I have seen a few days with goose eggs on the report. I am sitting here thinking I would take a pic if it ever hit 50%, but then again, I wonder how long I will be waiting? Or if the equipment or me will be retired by the time it happens?
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19033929 Sat, 08 Sep 2007 03:42:39 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19033801 KrK : I don't know how old that is, or how many homes are on a Node.

Perhaps a Comcast employee would care to comment?

Irregardless, however, whether it's 500 or 25, the point still stands.

They are all on one shared coax back to the node. If your neighbors are "hogging" the connection, it can get overloaded and slowed down.

Look this isn't a DSL vs Cable: Which is better bashfest. This is merely a description of the topographical differences of the systems, and lends itself to why there are or aren't caps and why they'd be necessary.

Peace.
--
"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!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19033801 Sat, 08 Sep 2007 02:47:31 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19033774 codee :
said by KrK See Profile :

Now, typical Cable setup. Note the runs of coax from the node with tons of houses all on the same run.



'Nuff said, methinks.


Do you SERIOUSLY think that there are still 2000 homes on a node?? 1000?? I hope you are joking with that picture because that is ridiculous....that is a good example of maybe 1999.

I don't experience any slowdowns no matter what time of day it is.

On a side note, I am totally against any sort of specific limit being stated by Comcast. It would probably be lower then what I sometimes use anyways, I mean look at the limits of the ISPs who DO state what they are - they're pretty low. Some months I may need to use 300+ gigs, and some I may use 50-75 gigs. I haven't ever recieved a letter/warning/bad behavior slip for anything before, and I'm pretty sure the limits wouldn't be as high as 300+ gigs.
I like it the way it is now with no set limit.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19033774 Sat, 08 Sep 2007 02:33:51 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19033666 KrK : THANK YOU.

In other words, AT&T DSL kicks ass. The chances of you experiencing slowdown at the Node level pretty much approach zero.

Now... How about if you raise the speed caps some :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19033666 Sat, 08 Sep 2007 01:48:38 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19033650 David :
said by KrK See Profile :

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.
Well I will put it like this. The alcatel 7300 DSLAM for Central offices at bare minimum for management and program controls only takes an OC-12 (that's just management control). Consumer traffic management now a days to the DSLAMs is as least a OC-48 or better. I forget what the actual is but it was told to us if they activated the test DSLAM in our office and maxed out it's connectivity for the consumer side, it would only be at 1/2 the bandwidth of the connection required to connect to it. That's assuming all useable ports and shelves! They advised in training class you can max one out, but you are not meeting "minimum requirements" if you do.

Remote terminals are given 4 Fiber optic connections 1 Digital POTS + 1 DSL + 2 spares. I believe the connections currently to them are configured for OC-48 currently and with just a flip of a switch can easily be 192's. Hell the RT sends an alarm to the central office if the bandwidth ever hits 50%. The RT's send alarms for all kinds of things including fan problems, cooling problems, and even power problems.

Ironically the big problem for some RT's is they run out of ports for customers to connect to before they run out of bandwidth for one. I have never in my 7 years been here ever seen a bandwidth problem from an RT. I probably never will in my lifetime. The RT's have way more bandwidth than what they have ports for customers for. I mean it's something fierce on what those things have. From what I hear is some of the RT's now (and if you are close enough) will have Uverse capability right next to the DSL customers. Digital T1 customers and others even get provisioned out of there. One RT tech told me one day that he just got done turning up a DS3 connection from an RT. Those things are like lego blocks the possiblities are just endless.

Ironically they are working at the VRAD models to be the same way.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19033650 Sat, 08 Sep 2007 01:43:28 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19032912 KrK :
said by jobias See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19032912 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:20:39 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19032757 jobias :
said by KrK See Profile :

said by djrobx See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19032757 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:48:51 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19032695 KrK : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19032695 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:32:58 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19032497 KrK :
said by djrobx See Profile :

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!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19032497 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:59:43 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19030979 ph03n1x : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19030979 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:40:07 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19030777 Jodokast96 :
said by RARPSL See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19030777 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:04:25 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029839 RARPSL :
said by Jodokast96 See Profile :

said by jtorre69 See Profile :

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).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029839 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:53:03 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029701 n0ym :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029701 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:30:43 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029678 n0ym :
*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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029678 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:25:00 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029649 n0ym :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029649 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:20:08 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029635 Rob :
said by n0ym See Profile :

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029635 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:18:04 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029604 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029604 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:13:38 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029591 n0ym :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029591 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:11:43 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029579 Rob :
said by n0ym See Profile :

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029579 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:09:39 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029567 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029567 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:08:03 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029533 Rob :
said by jsouth See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029533 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:02:18 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029517 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?
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029517 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:00:07 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029506 Rob :
said by n0ym See Profile :

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029506 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:58:40 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029501 Rob :
said by n0ym See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029501 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:57:25 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029485 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029485 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:53:41 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029470 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029470 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:50:23 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029037 ninjatutle :
said by mbkowns See Profile :

ATT has caps also that statement was dumb...
Again, more disinformation spread on this site.

Prove that they have caps.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19029037 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:48:53 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028816 Cod :
said by mbkowns See Profile :

ATT has caps also that statement was dumb...
Says who? Do research before making false statements.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028816 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:20:08 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028769 jvanbrecht : 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)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028769 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:13:23 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028749 djrobx :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028749 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:10:10 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028714 dallash : Rob,

You're my hero.

To hell with all those "something for nothing", bandwidth-abusing bastards.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028714 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:05:35 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028683 Rob :
said by jvanbrecht See Profile :

said by Rob See Profile :

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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028683 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:02:03 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028541 jvanbrecht :
said by Rob See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028541 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:39:13 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028479 funchords :
said by Rob See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028479 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:30:17 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028413 nasadude : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028413 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:22:12 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028358 Rob :
said by AtlGuy See Profile :

said by Rob See Profile :

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 ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028358 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:13:23 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028246 AtlGuy :
said by Rob See Profile :

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028246 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:56:21 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028207 ib50MbSoon :
said by Rob See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028207 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:49:50 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028181 Rob :
said by jtorre69 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028181 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:45:00 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028177 Jodokast96 :
said by jtorre69 See Profile :

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028177 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:43:23 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028095 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028095 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:28:10 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028002 DaSneaky1D : When have you heard about someone complaining about speed problems due to oversubscription with AT&T?
--
:: my trivial ramblings ::]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19028002 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:12:38 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19027969 Rob :
said by mbkowns See Profile :

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."" ?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19027969 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:03:22 EDT Re: Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19027954 mbkowns : ATT has caps also that statement was dumb...
--
- MBK (AIM = IllMBKllI)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19027954 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 09:59:39 EDT Thanks Comcast! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19027915 Rob : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19027915 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 09:52:10 EDT