approval from:
Linklist 
| reply to Alcohol
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to I support the whole "all you can eat buffet" style internet, but the problem is the people that spend all day at the buffet, and eat 75 lobster tails. That has driven up the cost of business for EVERYONE, now comcast has to implement technology to govern all of this, which will of course, come with costs. |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by baineschile1 :
I support the whole "all you can eat buffet" style internet, but the problem is the people that spend all day at the buffet, and eat 75 lobster tails. That has driven up the cost of business for EVERYONE, now comcast has to implement technology to govern all of this, which will of course, come with costs.
Sounds good, but its just not true. |
|
thumbs down from:
Linklist
| reply to baineschile1
A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed. Comcast should spend more money on upgrading their network instead of their corporate headquarters... it's not like they aren't making plenty of profit off of their customers. |
|
 AlcoholPremium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| reply to baineschile1
However don't you think this is a step in the wrong direction? Everyone knows American broadband is no way as advanced as the worlds, and instead of changing that we're putting limits on our outdated technology so we don't have to upgrade.
Way to go Comcast. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to meh37
said by meh37 :
A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed.
Awesome! I hope you don't mind that I stole this.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | said by funchords:said by meh37 :
A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed.
Awesome! I hope you don't mind that I stole this. And with that statement you become one of those perverting the whole idea of net neutrality from its original meaning - an ISP discriminating against 3rd party companies to give preference to their own products.
Your definition of net neutrality tries to say an ISP has no right to manage its network at all, except by endlessly expanding capacity to satisfy the needs of the most rapacious users.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
4 edits | said by Linklist:And with that statement you become one of those perverting the whole idea of net neutrality from its original meaning - an ISP discriminating against 3rd party companies to give preference to their own products. If that's true, then I don't care.
A lot of people that don't know much about how the Internet was designed have tried to define Network Neutrality based upon their ideas of who might exploit the Internet and how (such as Yoogle paying an ISP to delay or degrade Gahoo's traffic).
But the root idea that the network neutrality principles are about is preserving the Internet's history of non-discrimination.
said by Linklist:Your definition of net neutrality tries to say an ISP has no right to manage its network at all, except by endlessly expanding capacity to satisfy the needs of the most rapacious users. For God's sake, Comcast has a right to manage its network. It also has a responsibility to follow the standards and practices that have evolved the Internet to this point.
Managing the network doesn't mean delaying, degrading, or denying access to people who are acting legally and within the confines of their service agreements.
If someone is exceeding their service agreement, then Comcast has a right to manage its network. Shut them off.
If Comcast's technology cannot handle so many users, then Comcast has a right to manage its network. Stop selling subscriptions.
If Comcast is unwilling to upgrade their network as fast as user demands indicate that they should, then Comcast has a right to manage its network. Create lower tiers.
No - what has happened instead is that Comcast has mis-managed its network in order to fudge the perception of the actual bandwidth subscribers have access to in a competition with lower-priced DSL and more-capable FIOS.
Comcast, with 14 million HSI subscribers under it, is trying to create an Internet where there is a penalty for people to use or innovate with high-bandwidth applications. And while there's always been a limit to a subscriber's bandwidth, Comcast is trying to create a second limit.
And while they're conducting this so-called trial of these non-disclosed thresholds, how can innovators on the other side of the globe be expected to test against them?
What kind of trial is this? They haven't disclosed anything useful to people that need to be conducting tests during this trial. The one expectation that they have set -- "it'll be like a very fast DSL line" they can't possibly guarantee based on the prioritization scheme that they've been describing up to this point!
They ought to stop this nonsense now.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
|
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| said by funchords:No - what has happened instead is that Comcast has mis-managed its network in order to fudge the perception of the actual bandwidth subscribers have access to in a competition with lower-priced DSL and more-capable FIOS. You make it sound like the other providers aren't lying about their capacity. If every subscriber started using 250GB/mo on their $30-$60 FiOS/DSL/BPL/Muni-wifi/DOCSIS/U-verse connection the entire cost model would fail.
The entire advertising model for EVERY player in this space is based on BS. To single out a single broadband provider for this practice is simply being disingenuous. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | said by espaeth:The entire advertising model for EVERY player in this space is based on BS. To single out a single broadband provider for this practice is simply being disingenuous. You're right, except for my motives. I should have said "Cable." I said "Comcast" because that's the current example.
And I should say "Cable, generally" because it has to do with the size and number of subscribers in the shared bandwidth pool -- and not every Cable and DSL provider has copied every other one.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
 ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to funchords
I can't believe I am saying this, but TK Junk Mail is correct.
While what you state regarding Comcast is true, none of that has anything to do with network neutrality.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by funchords:No - what has happened instead is that Comcast has mis-managed its network in order to fudge the perception of the actual bandwidth subscribers have access to in a competition with lower-priced DSL and more-capable FIOS. You make it sound like the other providers aren't lying about their capacity. If every subscriber started using 250GB/mo on their $30-$60 FiOS/DSL/BPL/Muni-wifi/DOCSIS/U-verse connection the entire cost model would fail. The entire advertising model for EVERY player in this space is based on BS. To single out a single broadband provider for this practice is simply being disingenuous. Comcast has been the most aggressive in its misleading marketing, ham fisted approach in punishing its users and total disregard of the Federal Communications Comission trying to find out the facts and enforce the law. Cry me a river if Comcast takes the brunt of the wrath of the user community and the federal government.
--
Treason is a matter of dates |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:You're right, except for my motives. I should have said "Cable." I said "Comcast" because that's the current example. DSL providers are far from immune from this though -- scan the Qwest and Embarq forums. I have a 5mbps DSL line from Embarq that from June until just last week I could only hit peak rates of just 2.5mbps on, and average rates stayed buried below 1mbps and latency was consistently 300+ms to any Internet destination. Compared to ATT and Verizon, Embarq got screwed because Sprint took backbone and wireless services in the split and those are the divisions that usually keep the ship afloat during LEC infrastructure upgrades.
Embarq did just upgrade the DSLAM from DS3 to OC3 attachment last week, but they had to upgrade the neighborhood mux from an OC12 to OC48, roll trunks, and do a bunch of other pre-work to get there. In talking with the techs, they have something like 80 subscribers off our remote terminal DSLAM -- and it was previously only fed with 45mbps of capacity. If only 9 of those 80-something subscribers were 5mbps users that liked to push their line to the max, that would have worked to saturate the node for everyone.
There are vast areas of network infrastructure among all of the providers that are far from meeting the kind of demand that people want to drive. |
|
| reply to Alcohol
said by Alcohol:However don't you think this is a step in the wrong direction? Everyone knows American broadband is no way as advanced as the worlds, and instead of changing that we're putting limits on our outdated technology so we don't have to upgrade. Way to go Comcast. Correct. China, for example, has a 25Gig/day limit. If ComCast set those kinds of limits, I'd be happy! |
|
approval from:
StreetSpirit
| reply to funchords
Not at all... at least, until I patent the concept--I think I'll call it "FIFO" (anyone using that term?) 
(I think Gertrude Stein's copyright on the "rose" phrase has expired, though I'm not sure, what with copyright law being so screwed up now.) |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:You make it sound like the other providers aren't lying about their capacity. If every subscriber started using 250GB/mo on their $30-$60 FiOS/DSL/BPL/Muni-wifi/DOCSIS/U-verse connection the entire cost model would fail. Lying does not equal reasonable oversubscribing or bandwidth aggregating or statistical multiplexing or whatever they're calling it these days.
I think if a provider can, with 95% or percent assurance or so, deliver a particular tier to a customer who subscribes to it -- I'd be hard pressed to call that ISP a liar. (By the way, that's just my perception -- I'm still looking for an industry model or a consumer standard for oversubscription and it doesn't seem to exist.)
said by espaeth:I have a 5mbps DSL line from Embarq that from June until just last week I could only hit peak rates of just 2.5mbps on, and average rates stayed buried below 1mbps and latency was consistently 300+ms to any Internet destination. That's pretty nasty.
said by espaeth:In talking with the techs, they have something like 80 subscribers off our remote terminal DSLAM -- and it was previously only fed with 45mbps of capacity. If only 9 of those 80-something subscribers were 5mbps users that liked to push their line to the max, that would have worked to saturate the node for everyone. Yeah, that would be a good example of the same effect on the DSL side.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
| reply to Linklist
There isn't a network engineer in the world worth his/her salt who would describe Comcast's method of forging [p2p] packets on a 24/7 basis as "network management". Network neutrality also means not unilaterally deciding that some protocol is not "acceptable" on your network, a network by the way that is paid for by all of its customers, including those who use p2p for all too legal purposes. |
|
approval from:
StreetSpirit
| reply to funchords
That is the problem with Comcast. They have no intention of slowing down adding new customers, nor upgrading their bandwidth. Mostly due to the money not being there. Budget woes are plaguing Comcast. With all of the tech's out there and the DOCSIS 3.0 coming out, the network cannot handle the usage due to physical limitations for repairing and replacing outside cabling. Also since Comcast is trying (on paper and in the press) about the 5 9's (99.999%) of Quality of Service. It just don't seem to be that way. That is the problem with large companies and shrinking budgets, not to mention techs starting to become unhappy about not getting plant replaced.
I would use another ISP, but since Comcast is the only franchise in this town, I would rather use dial-up or DSL instead.
I don't believe that there should be limits. Isn't this what Cable companies want to do in the first place, to advance the telecommunications industry and all of the players in it? Time Warner and Charter are trying to, but Comcast wants to be a holdout and direct everything else and not adhere to the same standards as everyone else. |
|
 MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | said by BenAthar :
I would use another ISP, but since Comcast is the only franchise in this town, I would rather use dial-up or DSL instead.
You can get dial-up ANYWHERE you have a phone connection. What you are really saying is "Comcast is the only provider here that fits my needs/wants." If you really meant that statement, you would not be a customer of Comcast. |
|
| reply to baineschile1
haha thats an awesome analogy |
|
