sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
1 edit | reply to Rob
Re: WOW! Comcast cut off Dave Winer ... again
said by Rob  :said by funchords :Rob, How many people have Verizon cut off for hitting their invisible cap? How much does Verizon throttle its users? Answer: zero. It's on the record. You're right, all ISPs oversell their bandwidth -- statistical multiplexing, I've heard it called. The difference is that Verizon somehow manages their network in a way that reasonably delivers it. Verizon DSL or Verizon FiOS? I'm assuming you're referring to the latter (If you're referring to the DSL service, well, it's no match for Comcast  ). In that case, FiOS is still too new and Verizon wouldn't dare to make any drastic changes that would upset investors - the last thing investors would want to see if Verizon kicking people off! Comcast was the first to offer powerboost, and other MSO's followed. Comcast is the first to really kick off the .01% of the highest bandwidth consumers, and other's will follow. When? Who knows. All I know is that I approve of Comcast's methods. My approval has nothing to do with my relationship with Comcast. I like the fact that they have invisible caps (set to somewhere around 300-600GB, depending on the market). My concern is that if they make the caps known, they would reduce them drastically (albeit Comcast saying that they'd might make them 250GB, which is still "ok", but I'd rather have invisible caps of 300-600GB). I just want to clarify although I approve of their bandwidth management practices, I do not approve of them using Sandvine and issuing forged packets. I know a lot of folks on this website see a connection between the two (i.e. bandwidth abusers are the only ones using P2P), but I don't. We're discussing two, completely different issues. 600 GB "invisible" cap ? While at it, make it 6000 GB, really. There are consistent reports of users, including me, over 400 GB getting kicked off. Yeah, maybe 99.99 % nodes have the 300 GB cap while there is a node 200 feet from Comcast HQ having the 600 GB cap, so let's say that line.
Some customers may be profitable for Comcast, some not, that is why they choose to service an area and charge a FLAT fee for the service. If 0.01 % are not and the rest are and if Comcast is all about the "experience" maybe they should not bump those users off.
If a "regular user" uses 5 GB or less a month, maybe Comcast should leave the small percentage of heavy users alone. Those guys praising Comcast would do a lot better in PR and future customers than the negative feedback they get now. |
|
netcool
@comcast.net
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :Fast forward to present day. Download speeds are doubled. Upload speeds have tripled. The technology beyond the modem is largely the same (probably what was a node in 2002 has been split once or more times), especially on the upload side which has always been the most constrained. Yet between 2002 and 2008, we've had the Web 2.0 boom -- which you've largely helped create -- thank you very much. People use the Internet in a more symmetrical way, but we still have the same Y2K infrastructure that provides for a teenie-tiny upload pipe when compared to the download one. No you don't have the same pipe now that you did back in 2002. Back in 2002 most of Comcast's upstreams were modulated at QPSK. Now nearly all of the network is using 16QAM and some markets have begun to roll out DOCSIS 2.0
Not only that but load balancing over the upstream and downstream (virtual node splits) has become increasingly popular. Now nodes can have multiple downstreams and upstreams at their disposal.
The technology is still evolving and there are also physical node splits that occur routinely on congested nodes. I believe you said roughly 8% of their nodes are split a year (which is quite a few numerically.)
Cable systems require a lot of upkeep to keep them properly balanced. Nodes are constantly being shifted around on the CMTS' downstream ports to better balance them. Comcast probably performs in execess of 3,000 node moves a year (some DHCP affecting or moving to another CMTS, and some non-DHCP affecting or moving within the same CMTS to a different downstream port.)
To say the cable companies do nothing but take more money and let their networks sit idle without upgrades is silly.
Bandwidth hogs are nothing new, they've been a thorn in the side of the cable industry since the @Home days. And people were kicked off then as they are now for excessive use. Though today we have a lot more people blogging about it so I'm not sure if it's happening more or it's just more widely publicized. Ultimately only the cable operators know how many people they are disconnecting each year. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
3 edits | reply to sturmvogel
said by sturmvogel :said by Rob :said by funchords :Rob, How many people have Verizon cut off for hitting their invisible cap? How much does Verizon throttle its users? Answer: zero. It's on the record. You're right, all ISPs oversell their bandwidth -- statistical multiplexing, I've heard it called. The difference is that Verizon somehow manages their network in a way that reasonably delivers it. Verizon DSL or Verizon FiOS? I'm assuming you're referring to the latter (If you're referring to the DSL service, well, it's no match for Comcast ). In that case, FiOS is still too new and Verizon wouldn't dare to make any drastic changes that would upset investors - the last thing investors would want to see if Verizon kicking people off! Comcast was the first to offer powerboost, and other MSO's followed. Comcast is the first to really kick off the .01% of the highest bandwidth consumers, and other's will follow. When? Who knows. All I know is that I approve of Comcast's methods. My approval has nothing to do with my relationship with Comcast. I like the fact that they have invisible caps (set to somewhere around 300-600GB, depending on the market). My concern is that if they make the caps known, they would reduce them drastically (albeit Comcast saying that they'd might make them 250GB, which is still "ok", but I'd rather have invisible caps of 300-600GB). I just want to clarify although I approve of their bandwidth management practices, I do not approve of them using Sandvine and issuing forged packets. I know a lot of folks on this website see a connection between the two (i.e. bandwidth abusers are the only ones using P2P), but I don't. We're discussing two, completely different issues. 600 GB "invisible" cap ? While at it, make it 6000 GB, really. There are consistent reports of users, including me, over 400 GB getting kicked off. Yeah, maybe 99.99 % nodes have the 300 GB cap while there is a node 200 feet from Comcast HQ having the 600 GB cap, so let's say that line. Some customers may be profitable for Comcast, some not, that is why they choose to service an area and charge a FLAT fee for the service. If 0.01 % are not and the rest are and if Comcast is all about the "experience" maybe they should not bump those users off. If a "regular user" uses 5 GB or less a month, maybe Comcast should leave the small percentage of heavy users alone. Those guys praising Comcast would do a lot better in PR and future customers than the negative feedback they get now. Ahh another poster with this weird idea that Comcast owes you something or that you have some type of right to use their services. I got news for you: neither is true.
Obviously you are a disgruntled customer ex-customer - no pleasing you. |
|
EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
| reply to BigBizSavant
said by BigBizSavant :
Wanna give Comcast a good phuckin? Good, here's what you do.
Get a telco DS3 installed to your garage. Take a wireless access point and duct tape it up in a tree. Hook the two together. Now comes the easy part. Print up some flyers that offer 15/15Mb symmetrical all-you-can-eat, p2p , 24/7/365 internet access. Seek out as many p2p addicts as you can.
Since Comcast's prices are way too high, sell your service for a fair $30 dollars a month. You should be able to squeeze 3 p2p users on your T3 so when you sign up your 4th torrent enthusiast, you'll need to get your second DS3 installed. Obviously you'll lose a little money on each subscriber but don't worry, like the old saying goes, you'll make it up in volume.
Whatever you do, don't oversubscribe. You have far too much integrity for that crooked business model. Give your subscribers their full 15/15Mb share of the connection.
Remember, the best revenge is living well. Go get 'em, tiger!
And on the whole, exactly how much of a detrimental impact do you think that would actually have in such an extremely limited local area ??  |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
 ·Embarq
1 edit | said by EG :And on the whole, exactly how much of a detrimental impact do you think that would actually have in such an extremely limited local area ?? Huge! .. because he would be stealing Comcast's most profitable customers, of course. |
|
EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
2 edits | said by espaeth :Huge! .. because he would be stealing Comcast's most profitable customers, of course. Of course ! But this would need to be done by individual subscribers throughout a great portion of their market areas to have any significant effectiveness. |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| reply to Rob
said by Rob :Ahh another poster with this weird idea that Comcast owes you something or that you have some type of right to use their services. I got news for you: neither is true. Obviously you are a disgruntled customer ex-customer - no pleasing you. Yeah, I guess paying for their services I should have no expectation to actually have a right to use them. You and them obviously share the same mindset. Cool, I like conformity. |
|
CleanGene
Premium,MVM
join:2008-04-09
Manassas, VA
| said by sturmvogel :Yeah, I guess paying for their services I should have no expectation to actually have a right to use them. This is akin to complaining that you're not being allowed to "use" your car because you expect to be able to drive through the park and mow down picnickers. "Use" does not mean "do whatever I please, whenever I please, without regard to others". |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
1 edit | said by CleanGene :said by sturmvogel :Yeah, I guess paying for their services I should have no expectation to actually have a right to use them. This is akin to complaining that you're not being allowed to "use" your car because you expect to be able to drive through the park and mow down picnickers. "Use" does not mean "do whatever I please, whenever I please, without regard to others". Quite off. I have regard for others and I was not affecting anybody. If my usage was overloading the node, the first that would have noticed would have been me, since I would have also been affected by flakey network performance.
Also, the vehicle I drive would not be considered a car by any means and I do not have any desires to drive through a park.
--
Treason is a matter of dates |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| reply to CleanGene
said by CleanGene :said by sturmvogel :Yeah, I guess paying for their services I should have no expectation to actually have a right to use them. This is akin to complaining that you're not being allowed to "use" your car because you expect to be able to drive through the park and mow down picnickers. "Use" does not mean "do whatever I please, whenever I please, without regard to others". Since I have a liking for vehicles, I believe a comparison of my network traffic would have been driving at the posted speed limit a large percentage of the time a large vehicle compared to regular cars going back and forth with their usual activities. Not running stop lights or harassing others. Hardly what would have been something abusive. My "abuse" was approx 500 GB vs what is being "toyed" with 250 GB, so twice the data traffic allowed. Would you have a problem with somebody that drives twice the amount you would consider acceptable ? Not faster, just using the road twice more than expected.
Your comparison with the park seems a bit outlandish now, no ?
--
Treason is a matter of dates |
|
CleanGene
Premium,MVM
join:2008-04-09
Manassas, VA
| reply to sturmvogel
said by sturmvogel :If my usage was overloading the node, the first that would have noticed would have been me, since I would have also been affected by flakey network performance. That's not quite how it works. If you eat three whole pizzas by yourself, and then the other 20 people at the party have to split the fourth, then of course you don't notice a problem. That doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. |
|
EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
| reply to sturmvogel
said by sturmvogel : If my usage was overloading the node, the first that would have noticed would have been me, since I would have also been affected by flakey network performance. Uhhh.. I don't think that it works that way.. |
|
justin
Australian
join:1999-05-28
Brooklyn, NY
Host:
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Home/Office setup ..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :Looks like he was backing up his podcasts. Dave's the perfect example of a bleeding-edge customer -- an expert innovator trapped by lazily implemented "for the good of the majority" policies. I find this attitude kind of remarkable. If you know an ISP has a policy to do with maximum usage, then you as a customer only have yourself to blame if you knowingly hit ENTER on a command that will drag down (or up) 100gb of data as fast as possible.
Of course Comcast should create a meter that shows up to the minute usage and a warning system when it is exceeded however in this poisonous atmosphere of "unlimited for everyone" I kind of understand why they haven't raced ahead with this because they would lose customers to any competitors that _claim_ to be unlimited (but actually are not).
Nevertheless someone who runs a blog, looks at their traffic report, probably pays a web hosting company monthly, should be in BETTER position than average to not get caught high in that long tail of the bell curve of usage than a family with a clueless 14 year old kid who grabs the entire production output of a sub-genre of anime. |
|
EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ | reply to EG
Didn't see your post CleanGene, but my post will stand as uneeded reinforcement  |
|
CleanGene
Premium,MVM
join:2008-04-09
Manassas, VA
| reply to sturmvogel
said by sturmvogel :My "abuse" was approx 500 GB vs what is being "toyed" with 250 GB, so twice the data traffic allowed. Would you have a problem with somebody that drives twice the amount you would consider acceptable ? Not faster, just using the road twice more than expected. One may certainly question the reasonableness or appropriateness of the limitations placed upon you. The notion that there should be no limits, or even that you can have a situation with no limits in the first place, is inherently unreasonable.
There is no such thing as a non-shared network. At some point, no matter what the network topology, protocol, or organization, there will always be a way for your use to adversely affect the usage by others, and hence there will always be limits. Whether those limits are imposed by the physical limitations of the network itself, or by someone stepping in and stopping you from reaching that point, there will always be limits. |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
1 edit | reply to CleanGene
said by CleanGene :said by sturmvogel :If my usage was overloading the node, the first that would have noticed would have been me, since I would have also been affected by flakey network performance. That's not quite how it works. If you eat three whole pizzas by yourself, and then the other 20 people at the party have to split the fourth, then of course you don't notice a problem. That doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. I see. I believe what you are trying to say is that we should all share the food equally. I agree, but pray tell, how could I know how much the other node users were each using so I could adjust my consumption ? What is no one was using the service at all ? could I then use it or, since I would be the only user I would also abuse it ? Could I download FTP 24/7 at all ? 100k/sec ? 30k/sec ?
What if someone else was also heavily using the node ? Could I adjust my speed to match them ?
Should we have daily meetings in the neighborhood, run stats and decide what to do ?
The most important item: how comes that for years Time Warner did not have an issue and within 2 months Comcast did ?
--
Treason is a matter of dates |
|
BigBizSavant
@comcast.net
| reply to EG
said by EG :Of course ! But this would need to be done by individual subscribers throughout a great portion of their market areas to have any significant effectiveness. A 45Mb DS3 from the phone company is thousands of dollars per month. Even a 1.5Mb T1 is $350 and up. The entire post was meant to illustrate what a bargain Comcast home/residential service is. |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| said by BigBizSavant :said by EG :Of course ! But this would need to be done by individual subscribers throughout a great portion of their market areas to have any significant effectiveness. A 45Mb DS3 from the phone company is thousands of dollars per month. Even a 1.5Mb T1 is $350 and up. The entire post was meant to illustrate what a bargain Comcast home/residential service is. Yes, as long as you do not try to actually use beyond web/email and an occasional video trailer, it is.
--
Treason is a matter of dates |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by sturmvogel :Yes, as long as you do not try to actually use beyond web/email and an occasional video trailer, it is. That's the low-end extreme. Real average use is somewhere about 1/4th of the way between that and 500GB. |
|
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| said by espaeth :said by sturmvogel :Yes, as long as you do not try to actually use beyond web/email and an occasional video trailer, it is. That's the low-end extreme. Real average use is somewhere about 1/4th of the way between that and 500GB. That is why I asked the "abuse" rep how much I could download/month to avoid creating a problem. And he said (drumroll corporate line script) "you have to drastically alter your download habits". See a number there ? No ? So I did try, very little the next month and supposedly 460 GB the one after when they cut me off. Yeah, 600 GB cap, sure.
--
Treason is a matter of dates |
|
