how-to block ads
|
sortofageek
Premium,Mod
join:2001-08-19
Valhalla Dr
clubs:
 ·Comcast
Host:
Team Helix
Distributed Comput..
Linksys
Comcast HSI
Comcast Cable TV
4 edits | Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here Before posting in this topic, check all the links in the thread to make sure your points have not already been beaten to death. Please see this post before posting.
yt  gives good advice here ---> »Google before you post
(Keep any further discussion in this stickied topic, however. If you believe you need a separate topic, please contact sortofageek privately to explain, before just posting a new topic.)
No exceptions without forum moderator approval. We still are not going to fill the forum with multiple threads.
Refer to this forum FAQ: »Comcast High Speed Internet FAQ »Does Comcast have bandwidth use limits?
Reported warnings/disconnects for exceeding cap
»Warned for exceeding the cap, used 715G last month
»Got the call. We used 610GB on a 50mbit/10mbit d3 connection
»Account cut off at 250G? Correction: 715G
»I got a warning from Comcast
»So, has anyone gone over the cap?
»Anyone got letter from Comcast ...
»I got the call ... 680G last month
»Got the call, 850G this month
»50/10 - Just got banned.
»When do I get the call or will I?
Will Comcast provide a bandwidth meter? jlivingood says "yes." Here ---> »Re: Bandwidth Limits - Meter
December 2, 2008 update: »Comcast To Offer Bandwidth Use Tracker In January
»Exclusive Screens Of Comcast's New Bandwidth Meter
January 2, 2009 update:
»Comcast Mum On New Bandwidth Tracker
July 24, 2009:
»Comcast Usage Meter Still A No Show
»Oct 1, 2009 - 1 Yr. Anniversary of 250G Cap - No Meter Yet
October 30, 2009:
»Comcast Bandwidth Meter Still A No Show
Subtopics about "The Bandwidth Meter":
»Bandwidth Monitor for Computers-Suggestions?
»Cap starts today...Wheres da meter???
»Will we be offered a bandwith monitor?
»I need a bandwidth meter for my mac. Please Help.
»Bandwidth Monitors Again
»Is there an update on the Comcast bandwidth meter?
»Bandwidth Meter???
»Where is the Comcast Bandwidth meter?
»The Bandwidth Meter, is it vaporware?
»Doubtful Comcast will ever release the bandwidth meter
»No meter from Comcast, can I exceed the cap?
»"I don't know what's taking Comcast so long with the meter ..."
»Service is metered, but no meter offered
»The Elusive Meter
»Wish someone would sue Comcast - no meter yet
»Metered billing system, discussed many times
»If metered, What cost would you pay?
»Did they decide not to offer a bandwidth meter?
»bandwidth usage monitor?
»Until there is an official meter, there should not be a cap.
When does the meter start/stop each month?
»Comcast/Sandvine Traffic Managment System Evolves
»When does the bandwidth meter start for the billing period?
»Comcast Montly 250GB up/down limit - when does it reset?
»Meter Stop/Start Time Subtopic #3
»Comcast Monthly CAP Time Rotation
»Does Comcast track by month? By rolling 30-day? What?
»What is a calendar month? (Bandwidth Tracking)
Meter Accuracy
»How do we know the CC tracking/quota system is accurate?
»How do we know the CC meter is accurate?
Metered Billing?
»Metered billing system, discussed many times
»If metered, What cost would you pay?
»Metered billing again
Subtopics about the new Congestion Management System:
»[Speed] Does Comcast Throttle Following Large Download Sessions
Comcast Clarification on Network Management System
»Question about new throttling system
»Comcast does not "throttle" YouTube or Hulu
»[NEWS]Comcast quits throttling bit torrent
»Comcast does not "throttle" Netflix
»Comcast QOS system is not a "throttling" system
»[Resolved] Comcast messing with my torrent?
»Comcast Caps/Throttle
»Bittorrent activity causes disconnects
»[Congestion Mgmt] Comcast checking BT port
»Can exceeding the cap affect your speeds?
»[Connectivity] Throttle on torrent?
»CC's Protocol-Agnostic Congestion Management System Draft
»M-Lab test results
»Blatant Throttling
»Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme
»Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme
»This is how Comcast's congestion management works
»Is Comcast "throttling" torrent downloads in Oakland?
Caps and Business Class:
»Business Class Prices and Bandwidth Limitations
»Comcast business capped ?
»[Business] Comcast Monthly Download/Upload Limits
»I was told business class might get bandwidth limits
»How can Comcast offer no-cap business tier for 20-30 more?
»Comcast Business accounts are limited!
»Comcast business
»Why doesn't the business tier have a 250G cap?
»I can't get business tier, not offered here by sturmvogel
11-06-09 Business Class Accounts not capped per comcastcares
The caps are to protect Comcast TV profits?
»The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~
»Again, opinion cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options
»Bandwidth Management in Relation to CC TV Offerings
»Again, the 250 GB Cap is to prevent competition with CC TV
High Bandwidth Options and the Cap
»Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications
Caps and DOCSIS 3.0:
»What is Comcast word on the 250GB cap for the Docsis 3 tiers
»DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far
»[Speed] is the bandwidth cap applicable on 50/10 plan
Caps and DOCSIS 2.0
»What is the capacity/month of a D2 line?
Caps and CDV
»[CDV] download caps and comcast voice
Netflix and the Cap
»Netflix streaming movies and the cap
»Netflix streaming and the 250 GB cap
»Netflix bandwidth - Is 1GB/hr at HD accurate?
Alternative, if the cap is too low for you
»If the cap is too limited, consider commercial or other svc
»If the cap is too limited, move
»Dial-up has no caps
»Once labeled as abuser, you can't get business tier
Cable Vs. DSL and the cap
»Cable internet may be the dying tehchology
The Crystal Ball or Predicting the Future of Bandwidth Management
»What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years?
»Repeat: What do you think will be needed in bandwidth in 5 years
»11-10-2009 IETF meeting/Internet Society lunch briefing
See also:
»Split from DOCSIS 3.0 thread - more bandwidth limits
»Have any Comcast employees burst through the cap?
»Wouldn't it be cool if they upped the cap
»There Is No Cap
»The Factual Basis of the "Cap"
»Prediction: The 250G Cap Will Increase
»Again, I Am A Heavy User
»So why does Comcast bother saying 250GB? - by IPPlanMan
»I still think there is a cap - by IPPlanMan
»Usage Caps
»Comcast vs. Cablevision caps
»[Speed] Speed tests count against the cap
»Comcast doesn't want you to use your connection, just pay for it
»Off topic cap talk
»[Speed] Download cap for economy Comcast internet?
»Where is the Comcast claim to "unlimited?"
»Speed is no help if the bandwidth cap is low
»How can someone use 250G in a month?
»Same service for years, then CC suddenly imposed the cap
»Comcast Should Invest In Their Network instead of the Meter
»An observation on this thread...
»Is Comcast a monopoly?
»July 3, 2009 topic summary ~by Sofa King~
»Is cable a utility?
»More on monopolies
»If all use their limits at once, how does the cap help?
»Bandwidth Limits - Comcast vs. Verizon FiOS/Cox/ATT
»Bandwidth/Congestion Mgmnt - Back to basics and the future
»Comcast Highspeed 2GO bandwidth cap?
»Arguments FOR the 250G Cap - for IPPlanMan and Werner
»250 GB is meaningless
»The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising
»If you read the TOS, you'll know about the cap
»Higher Speeds Force Some to Download More?
(Keep any further discussion in this stickied topic, however. If you believe you need a separate topic, please contact sortofageek privately to explain, before just posting a new topic.)
--
Join Team Helix * I am praying for these friends . | |
|  | | 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
2 edits | Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by TKJunkMail :Well, it looks like the majority of users feel that a defined 250GB cap is preferable to one that is movable depending on a concept like "harm other users". Let's not kid ourselves -- most Comcast users don't know about the cap. And both you and I seem too passionate to accurately judge either way.
That said, I can't completely hate it, and if Comcast is really determined to have a cap as a judge of abuse, it ought to be (1) disclosed, (2) high, (3) capable of being checked, and (4) increased as consumer demand for bandwidth normally increases. With me, Comcast's cap passes on only the first two of those four points.said by TKJunkMail :The one thing most people want to see is some way to check on how far along you are to reaching the cap as the month goes by. A hard cap isn't very useful if there isn't a way to check what you are using (according to Comcast's database - the database they would use to disconnect you if you go over the cap). I've read most of the responses as well and for those willing to accept the cap, a way to check on their own usage seems to be the number-one request/demand/need/want.
...and back to your first line...
said by TKJunkMail :...preferable to one that is movable depending on a concept like "harm other users". .... Let's remember that's what this was about.
Comcast first started this across-the-board threatening and disconnection of higher-bandwidth users 5 years ago, based on their TOS provision against someone using the service in a way that negatively impacted it. The trouble is, they were using the bandwidth amount without ever showing a negative impact -- they simply rationalized that someone who was using over (some undisclosed number) that they simply must be causing an undue impact. That undisclosed number became known as the "invisible cap" because it was a "defacto" cap and remained absolutely undisclosed except through making the same hard-to-read inference to that "impact" part of Comcast's TOS.
Now, 5 years later, we have a number. Good? No, that wasn't the problem! If that's what they wanted to solve, then they just made their service worse. They're still not proving that the users that they are kicking off the service have caused any negative impact. Instead, they've disclosed a number used in executing this lazy (or economical) method. By doing so, they have now limited a previously unlimited service. But in a very Comcastic way, they also talk out of the other side of their mouth and say that nothing has changed. They won't warn anyone or cut them off unless they're exceeding 250 GB and are one of the "top users" (a threshold that they don't define). If one had a suspicious mind, one might wonder if this is to disarm any claim of bait-and-switch by both being able to disclose a limit yet also be able to claim that there isn't a limit since they're really grading on a curve.
That's not as eye-rolling as "we don't throttle," but it's close.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | 
netcool
@comcast.net
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by funchords :Comcast first started this across-the-board threatening and disconnection of higher-bandwidth users 5 years ago, based on their TOS provision against someone using the service in a way that negatively impacted it. The trouble is, they were using the bandwidth amount without ever showing a negative impact -- they simply rationalized that someone who was using over (some undisclosed number) that they simply must be causing an undue impact. That undisclosed number became known as the "invisible cap" because it was a "defacto" cap and remained absolutely undisclosed except through making the same hard-to-read inference to that "impact" part of Comcast's TOS. That sounds like you are making a few leaps of faith there. Abuse is handled on a case by case basis from what I've seen. If many users start complaining about slow speeds off a certain node it is passed over to abuse for investigation. Or conversely if the market engineers notice that a node with only 50 subscribers is routinely running hot on their capacity reports it is passed over to abuse.
I don't think the top .01% are kicked off every year for abuse or even get "the call." If that were the case I would imagine we would see quite a few more posts here complaining about it. It seems to me that it would be a waste of resources to investigate every sub who went over 250gb UNLESS they were actually causing an issue. | |
| | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by netcool :
That sounds like you are making a few leaps of faith there. Abuse is handled on a case by case basis from what I've seen. That was my sense a few years ago, but lately it seems more like "status quo." How confident are you that it's still been running case-by-case?said by netcool :
I don't think the top .01% are kicked off every year for abuse or even get "the call." If that were the case I would imagine we would see quite a few more posts here complaining about it. It seems to me that it would be a waste of resources to investigate every sub who went over 250gb UNLESS they were actually causing an issue.
I think the number is low-ball. As someone said previously, it really is a very useful number for someone who has just received "the call."
If it turns out that your sense on this is right, My God! What an overreaction this all has been!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | |
netcool
@comcast.net
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by funchords : How confident are you that it's still been running case-by-case? Fairly confident.
said by funchords :If it turns out that your sense on this is right, My God! What an overreaction this all has been! An overreaction on who's part? The small faction of people who made a stink about getting kicked off or Comcast itself?
Lawsuits like this:
»jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jac···y38.html
Probably encouraged Comcast to publicly state a cap. Not to mention all the scrutiny the FCC investigation drummed up. The FCC wanted Comcast to be as transparent as they could about their network management policies so I think the cap is partly a result of that. | |
| | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by netcool :said by funchords :If it turns out that your sense on this is right, My God! What an overreaction this all has been! An overreaction on who's part? The small faction of people who made a stink about getting kicked off or Comcast itself? YES! If you're right, then everyone is overreacting.
Think about it. If warnings and disconnections really only happen 0.01% of the time (1 per 10,000 customers), then Comcast has shot itself in the foot and got a lot of people excited over nothing. If true, then it doesn't have a 250 GB cap!
If the only people that get a call are people who Comcast can demonstrate are operating their Internet connection in a way that unduly impacts others, then there is no bandwidth cap. The bandwidth measure is just an "early indicator" not unlike possible other indicators of accounts with atypical patterns that would tell an investigator who might be a likely source for user-to-user interference.
I don't think you're pulling my leg, but I do think that you've got the wrong impression about what has been going on -- especially recently.
Big case in point: Dave Winer ... this is the guy who, without exaggeration, is deserving of the most credit for everything we now call "Web 2.0." He's not some kiddie with a BitTorrent fetish. I find it unlikely that he was doing something nefarious. It is most likely that he rang the invisible bell simply by transferring podcasts from one server to another.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by funchords :YES! If you're right, then everyone is overreacting. Think about it. If warnings and disconnections really only happen 0.01% of the time (1 per 10,000 customers), then Comcast has shot itself in the foot and got a lot of people excited over nothing. If true, then it doesn't have a 250 GB cap! Wait -- there's a lot of things you can blame on Comcast, but the mass panic has been incited by the media like your friends at Free Press and a certain news reporter here on this forum. You've taken a handful of cases, given them a nationwide megaphone, allowed them to make wild claims, and are surprised there's been a reaction? When people get caught by exception, they get angry about it -- and that's the message you're pushing forward. When was the last time you heard someone talk about getting a speeding ticket where they didn't talk about how they were unfairly picked out by the cop? Most of us don't take responsibility or blame very well, so when you have an out like Comcast having some questionable practices, it's going to be in our nature to shine as much of the spotlight on that as possible.
Writing articles about how the infrastructure actually works is boring. Nobody wants to hear that your local cable/DSL/FTTH segment can't move an unlimited number of bits every month, and due to the shared nature of it all every bit you use on the wire is a bit that your neighbors can't use. You get more press coverage if you talk about how big bad Comcast is screwing the average little user. The only problem here is, the users you're holding up as examples aren't average users.
said by funchords :Big case in point: Dave Winer ... this is the guy who, without exaggeration, is deserving of the most credit for everything we now call "Web 2.0." Exactly. Nobody represents the average broadband user more than Dave. | |
| | | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by espaeth :Wait -- there's a lot of things you can blame on Comcast, but the mass panic has been incited by the media like your friends at Free Press and a certain news reporter here on this forum. Free Press had nothing to do with this. They got phone calls in response to this story. It looks like this story was a response to the Florida AG, who apparently was working on this in a cave somewhere.
said by espaeth :When people get caught by exception, they get angry about it -- and that's the message you're pushing forward. When was the last time you heard someone talk about getting a speeding ticket where they didn't talk about how they were unfairly picked out by the cop? That's not the same. In this case, the cop is giving out SUSPENSIONS for running cars off the road based soley on the output of a radar gun.
said by espaeth :the users you're holding up as examples aren't average users. No, they aren't average users. They are exceptional users of bandwidth, and I've only held up two specific users as examples -- one is Dave Winer, and the other one's story is still being written and -- like Dave -- he was using his bandwidth in a completely non-nefarious way.
(The disclosure of the invisible cap actually is a better thing for users like these, because now they can know something before making a purchase decision. No cap would be best, however.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | fezz7834673
Premium
join:2008-08-31
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here I still fail to see the actual cost of sending bits over a copper wire (or any wire for that matter).
They bought the equipment. The lines are going to be "live" no matter what. No matter if you use it or not.
The only real cost comes in use of electricity, paying your employees to mismanage the traffic, pay their "rent" to their service providers (after all, their customer traffic will need to connect to the internet backbones, right? Who owns that?) and any state/federal taxes.
And for the argument of pay-per-use, I don't think they'll ever truly charge by how much you use. Rather, it'll start at a flat rate up to a certain amount of traffic, then anything over would be designated as pay-per-use. Like hell they'll have millions of subscribers have a $7.50 monthly bill. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
1 edit | Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by fezz7834673 :I still fail to see the actual cost of sending bits over a copper wire (or any wire for that matter). They bought the equipment. The lines are going to be "live" no matter what. No matter if you use it or not. The cost isn't in moving bits. The network involves more than just routers, CMTS head-ends, and nodes; there's a ton of people that go into keeping things functional. Those people get a paycheck whether you use 0bytes or 250,000,000bytes.
The costs are largely based on the percentage of infrastructure you use. When you're on a shared 38mbps cable segment, when you are using your connection at 8mbps that capacity is not available to everyone else on the segment. As long as there is idle capacity there isn't a problem, but when enough people start to use the network heavily enough the impact is typically felt by all users on the node. (the new QoS implementation helps address some of that)
Everyone pays roughly the same amount for Internet access, but the usage is greatly varied. This leads to a Tragedy of the Commons situation.
The Tragedy of the Commons is the title of an influential article written by Garrett Hardin, first published in the journal Science in 1968.[1] The article describes a dilemma in which multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared resource even where it is clear that it is not in anyone's long term interest for this to happen.
Central to Hardin's article is a metaphor of herders sharing a common parcel of land (the commons) on which they are all entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin's view it is in each herder’s interest to put as many cows as possible onto the land even if the commons is damaged as a result. The herder receives all the benefits from the additional cows but the damage to the commons is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational decision, however, the commons is destroyed and all herders suffer. Source: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons Original credit pfsmith in post »Re: Just Like the Electric Company!
There are real limits on how much capacity the infrastructure can support today. It's been 2 years since the DOCSIS 3.0 standard was ratified, and we still only have a single CMTS vendor that is fully supported with both upstream and downstream channel bonding. In the meantime, upgrades are expensive, and there is no financial backing to implement them because under flat rate pricing they get the same income whether they invest $0 or invest millions in their backbone. (provided they can keep the performance high enough that most subscriber don't defect)
Broadband access is like public transportation. It's engineered for cost, and it's impossible for it to ever be everything to everyone. It is possible, however, for it to be good enough for the overwhelming majority. | |
| | | | | | | | | | fezz7834673
Premium
join:2008-08-31
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by espaeth :said by fezz7834673 :I still fail to see the actual cost of sending bits over a copper wire (or any wire for that matter). They bought the equipment. The lines are going to be "live" no matter what. No matter if you use it or not. The cost isn't in moving bits. The network involves more than just routers, CMTS head-ends, and nodes; there's a ton of people that go into keeping things functional. Those people get a paycheck whether you use 0bytes or 250,000,000bytes. The costs are largely based on the percentage of infrastructure you use. When you're on a shared 38mbps cable segment, when you are using your connection at 8mbps that capacity is not available to everyone else on the segment. As long as there is idle capacity there isn't a problem, but when enough people start to use the network heavily enough the impact is typically felt by all users on the node. (the new QoS implementation helps address some of that) Everyone pays roughly the same amount for Internet access, but the usage is greatly varied. This leads to a Tragedy of the Commons situation. The Tragedy of the Commons is the title of an influential article written by Garrett Hardin, first published in the journal Science in 1968.[1] The article describes a dilemma in which multiple individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared resource even where it is clear that it is not in anyone's long term interest for this to happen.
Central to Hardin's article is a metaphor of herders sharing a common parcel of land (the commons) on which they are all entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin's view it is in each herder’s interest to put as many cows as possible onto the land even if the commons is damaged as a result. The herder receives all the benefits from the additional cows but the damage to the commons is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational decision, however, the commons is destroyed and all herders suffer. Source: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons Original credit pfsmith in post »Re: Just Like the Electric Company!There are real limits on how much capacity the infrastructure can support today. It's been 2 years since the DOCSIS 3.0 standard was ratified, and we still only have a single CMTS vendor that is fully supported with both upstream and downstream channel bonding. In the meantime, upgrades are expensive, and there is no financial backing to implement them because under flat rate pricing they get the same income whether they invest $0 or invest millions in their backbone. (provided they can keep the performance high enough that most subscriber don't defect) Broadband access is like public transportation. It's engineered for cost, and it's impossible for it to ever be everything to everyone. It is possible, however, for it to be good enough for the overwhelming majority. With respect to that, then, why is it such a big deal for Comcast to tell a user that takes full advantage of that line when nobody else in their node cares to? If the impact isn't felt and no complaints are being made, does Comcast still have the arguing point? I don't think so. If they have to lie about it actually causing problems, I wouldn't be inclined to change my usage habit. But on the other hand if they were truthful and provided clear information that others are in fact being impacted because of my use, I would then be better inclined to care what was happening. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by espaeth :Face it, the only way we're going back to no caps is if there is usage based billing, or we have speed downgrades. Every broadband ISP that advertises 'unlimited' service is lying. It has become a game of "chicken" to see how far they dare stretch the truth before it breaks -- and maybe this is it and some correction has to happen. That said, I'm not ready to say that the business of bandwidth aggregation has broken down. And any speed "downgrades" we might get will, in actuality, be speed we never had in the first place. This 250 GB cap may be a substitute (a speed tier is just a "per second" bandwidth cap).
We need not set the goal that they "deliver 100% use to every subscriber simultaneously." That's unreasonable. However, they must be reasonably able to deliver the service levels that they are selling based on usage patterns and network upgrades -- and that's the part of this issue that is falling down right now.
At the end of the day, this is what's happening: Even if they don't know it, people are buying into one share in two pools of bandwidth. Before they do, they ought to know how many subscribers are in the upload pool and what bandwidth is available in it, how many subscribers are in the download pool and and what bandwidth is available in it, what the community's usage patterns are.
Now -- one way to proceed for ANYISP is that it can sell shares of that, if it wants to. But it has to update the buyers as to what they're buying every month. If they've done that, then the deal is fair. The ISP can't really underperform when it does that. It just makes the connections and sits back. If my neighbor and I were sharing a T1, it's probably the arrangement we would make between us.
If ANYISP wants to relieve the buyer of the burden of understanding all of that, then they can sell a "tier" and package certain expectations together -- that's useful. However, it breaks down if the ISP acts unethically and sells tiers that it can't responsibly expect to deliver. If it underdelivers, then the ISP should incur a cost -- either in bearing the additional expense to deliver what it overpromised, or by rebating the difference back to the customers. Selling tiers is what the ISPs have been doing, and it works, and has worked, for many many years.
I maintain that people haven't changed all that much. There is nothing new here. We've always had extreme users of bandwidth and we've always had light users of bandwidth. And the trend is not increasing, it is slowing down. With those facts, I can't rationalize that the years of "unlimited" are over.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | | | |
Djones
@comcast.net
thumbs down from:
TKJunkMail
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here If comcast customers only use 3 or 4 gigs a month. and only about 1 percent of customers use 250 gigs or more then again somebody is lying. This isn't possible for the following reasons. comcast being the 2nd largest isp in america is saying there giving a 250gig cap to all their customers every month to be fair, but only 1% of these custoemrs will be effected by it. that's about 1million people.
If this is true and only 1percent of comcast customers come anywhere close to this cap, then it's truly unfair to band customers for a year who break it. because these 1 million or so customers aren't truly effecting other customers. lets do the math. their offically claiming that there network can support over 3.5 billion gigs of bandwidth a month.
3.5 billion a month. i'm taking 14millions customers times 250 gigs. buy all standards that's alot of bandwidth. here's the twist. comcast claims 99% of them don't use anywhere near that much. so again lets do some math. take 13 millions times 20gigs a month. 260 million gigs a month.
that still leaves you with over 3.4billions gigs left over.
Comcast is claiming that 1% of their customers will use 250gigs or more. so lets alittle more math shall we. take 1 million times 250 gigs. 25 million gigs.
now comcast claims on average 4 or 5 gigs are used by there customers, i gave them them 20 gigs a month. now lets add shall we
260 million plus 25 million 285 million gigs a month is the average amounth of bandwidth comcast is planning to see. So if there claiming their networks can handle 3.5 billions gigs a month and there only planning to use 385 millions gigs. then honestly speaking their lying about their networks, and their lying and the need to have such low caps. or their lying about how much bandwidth the average customers uses. or their lying about the reason why they have these caps.
comcast is taking advantage us of, And i believe i just proved it. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Pingmeister
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here I need to ignore marketing and think about what I am getting for my money. Essentially, I have a shared connection on which I can transfer ~200GB /month at inbound burst speeds up to ~16Mbit/sec (8MBit/sec sustained), and ~2MBit/sec outbound . Even when my neighbors are beating up on their part of our shared connection, I am never more than 50MS from my first hop, and reasonable bandwidth is available to me. That is, unless a truck takes a telephone pole out, which has only happened once, and they fixed that quickly. I pay $67/month for this. My other internet option is dialup. A T1 or fractional would be expensive for my location. Frontier may someday make DSL available to me, but at 5GB/month, I wouldn't last a week. I believe that residential internet customers are of no value to Frontier. Until Verizon eats Frontier and sets me up with FIOS, Comcast is my only choice for anything better than dialup. So far, they have been reliable for me. I prefer network management (protocol agnostic throttling) to hard caps, but I prefer a hard transfer limitation to an invisible one.
Of course, if I could get and afford an OC-48, I would have one.  | |
| | | | | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by Pingmeister :
I need to ignore marketing and think about what I am getting for my money. Essentially, I have a shared connection on which I can transfer ~200GB /month at inbound burst speeds up to ~16Mbit/sec (8MBit/sec sustained), and ~2MBit/sec outbound . Even when my neighbors are beating up on their part of our shared connection, I am never more than 50MS from my first hop, and reasonable bandwidth is available to me.
Exactly right.
While the bandwidth cap does have some problems with it, that you can now go through the above process is useful to consumers.
While your version is a far cry from the current marketing used by all of the ISPs (not just Comcast), ISPs should take a look at your version and see that the truth doesn't really read so badly and that customers deserve to know what they're really offering.
Robb
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | | MrSpock29
join:2008-02-09
Hammonton, NJ
| said by espaeth :said by funchords :YES! If you're right, then everyone is overreacting. Think about it. If warnings and disconnections really only happen 0.01% of the time (1 per 10,000 customers), then Comcast has shot itself in the foot and got a lot of people excited over nothing. If true, then it doesn't have a 250 GB cap! Wait -- there's a lot of things you can blame on Comcast, but the mass panic has been incited by the media like your friends at Free Press and a certain news reporter here on this forum. You've taken a handful of cases, given them a nationwide megaphone, allowed them to make wild claims, and are surprised there's been a reaction? When people get caught by exception, they get angry about it -- and that's the message you're pushing forward. When was the last time you heard someone talk about getting a speeding ticket where they didn't talk about how they were unfairly picked out by the cop? Most of us don't take responsibility or blame very well, so when you have an out like Comcast having some questionable practices, it's going to be in our nature to shine as much of the spotlight on that as possible. Writing articles about how the infrastructure actually works is boring. Nobody wants to hear that your local cable/DSL/FTTH segment can't move an unlimited number of bits every month, and due to the shared nature of it all every bit you use on the wire is a bit that your neighbors can't use. You get more press coverage if you talk about how big bad Comcast is screwing the average little user. The only problem here is, the users you're holding up as examples aren't average users. said by funchords :Big case in point: Dave Winer ... this is the guy who, without exaggeration, is deserving of the most credit for everything we now call "Web 2.0." Exactly. Nobody represents the average broadband user more than Dave. Comcast gets the reaction they do because of their actions, it is not fair to blame that on everyone else. If they were so concerned about that, they should have thought of that before they handled things as poorly as they have. Lying about throttling when they had been caught is just one example.
I don't consider it a handful of cases, it's been going on for years and has been a cumulative situation. 1+1 only equals 2, but do it long enough, and eventually the numbers get pretty big.
Think about how different things MIGHT have been had they admitted to throttling when caught, and come up with a better defense, reaction, and solution. Same thing with the caps. Telling people there are none and then saying there are but we can't tell you because it changes every month doesn't fly. Yes, that's what was said to me, in the span of 2 different questions. | |
| | | | | | | | |
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by MrSpock29 :Comcast gets the reaction they do because of their actions, it is not fair to blame that on everyone else. If they were so concerned about that, they should have thought of that before they handled things as poorly as they have. Lying about throttling when they had been caught is just one example. I don't disagree that the marketing department (what I think of as the "front side of the house") has done a miserable job.
said by MrSpock29 :I don't consider it a handful of cases, it's been going on for years and has been a cumulative situation. 1+1 only equals 2, but do it long enough, and eventually the numbers get pretty big. The claim is 14,000 people per month. Can you find just 100 posting on the Internet from unique users out of that group of users? You can go back over the last year on that search if you want. With the numbers people are throwing out, Comcast should have disconnected 168,000 subscribers in the last 12 months, so finding 0.05% of them shouldn't be all that difficult. (they are heavy Internet users, afterall) | |
| | | | | | | | | | MrSpock29
join:2008-02-09
Hammonton, NJ
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by espaeth :said by MrSpock29 :Comcast gets the reaction they do because of their actions, it is not fair to blame that on everyone else. If they were so concerned about that, they should have thought of that before they handled things as poorly as they have. Lying about throttling when they had been caught is just one example. I don't disagree that the marketing department (what I think of as the "front side of the house") has done a miserable job. said by MrSpock29 :I don't consider it a handful of cases, it's been going on for years and has been a cumulative situation. 1+1 only equals 2, but do it long enough, and eventually the numbers get pretty big. The claim is 14,000 people per month. Can you find just 100 posting on the Internet from unique users out of that group of users? You can go back over the last year on that search if you want. With the numbers people are throwing out, Comcast should have disconnected 168,000 subscribers in the last 12 months, so finding 0.05% of them shouldn't be all that difficult. (they are heavy Internet users, afterall) I have never counted numbers, but have searched enough and have seen posts and blogs on this going back at least a few years. 100 would be quite easy I believe, but that doesn't really matter. I have a few bookmarked, I only did to the more interesting ones. | |
| | | | MrSpock29
join:2008-02-09
Hammonton, NJ
| said by netcool :said by funchords :Comcast first started this across-the-board threatening and disconnection of higher-bandwidth users 5 years ago, based on their TOS provision against someone using the service in a way that negatively impacted it. The trouble is, they were using the bandwidth amount without ever showing a negative impact -- they simply rationalized that someone who was using over (some undisclosed number) that they simply must be causing an undue impact. That undisclosed number became known as the "invisible cap" because it was a "defacto" cap and remained absolutely undisclosed except through making the same hard-to-read inference to that "impact" part of Comcast's TOS. That sounds like you are making a few leaps of faith there. Abuse is handled on a case by case basis from what I've seen. If many users start complaining about slow speeds off a certain node it is passed over to abuse for investigation. Or conversely if the market engineers notice that a node with only 50 subscribers is routinely running hot on their capacity reports it is passed over to abuse. I don't think the top .01% are kicked off every year for abuse or even get "the call." If that were the case I would imagine we would see quite a few more posts here complaining about it. It seems to me that it would be a waste of resources to investigate every sub who went over 250gb UNLESS they were actually causing an issue. I don't agree at all. I got the call (and part of the reason was their fault-service didn't work properly) and after thorough investigation, I was told that no one complained, and that I was NOT negatively impacting my node. As one guy from "Quality Assurance" (what a misleading name) told me, "you made the list". He said it was his job to call, not allow me to speak to anyone else, and not to give his name. If I didn't like it, then I should sue them. He said some other things too. I had Comcast triple play, switched it all, and what happened to me got others to switch just for the point of how they acted. I will never go back to them, even though I am back to 3 MBPS DSL. I don't care.
You should do internet searches and just see how many people get the call.
Comcast wouldn't have so many people complaining to the FCC, FTC, etc, if they were honest about things, so remember that also. It isn't up to others either to judge how much is ok and how much isn't. Unfortunately, the ignorant point of view is that "If you use xyz amount you are doing illegal things". And yes, Comcast took this view with me, until I informed him that I showed EVERYTHING I was downloading to the tech when he came out to fix my service problem. After all, we had to test it to make sure he fixed it. Funny how he also did not take me up on my offer to have them come over any time they wanted without warning, and I'd give them full access to the computer to see what was done. They did a lot of ASSUMING, and you know what they say about that. | |
| | | | |
netcool
@comcast.net
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here How much did you download?
I'm not denying that people get kicked off, again I just don't think 14,000 people are getting "the call" each year. Most of the evidence we have is anecdotal and comes from a very vocal minority.
Logically why would you want to waste resources on non-issues (i.e people using lots of bandwidth but NOT adversely affecting the system?) To get bad PR, make sure you hire extra people to handle all the abuse calls? I suppose it could be true but I have to think Comcast is just trying to protect its bottom line. | |
| | | | | | MrSpock29
join:2008-02-09
Hammonton, NJ
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by netcool :
How much did you download?
I'm not denying that people get kicked off, again I just don't think 14,000 people are getting "the call" each year. Most of the evidence we have is anecdotal and comes from a very vocal minority.
Logically why would you want to waste resources on non-issues (i.e people using lots of bandwidth but NOT adversely affecting the system?) To get bad PR, make sure you hire extra people to handle all the abuse calls? I suppose it could be true but I have to think Comcast is just trying to protect its bottom line.
It's 14,000 per MONTH. They told me the lists and calls are monthly, at the percentages quoted often. Comcast is trying to avoid getting their infrastructure into the 21st Century, and they don't want people streaming movies and everything else that would hurt their own business. My total was a little north of 250. In the AUP it says they can do this if you are harming your neighbors (paraphrasing). They admitted I was not and they had zero complaints. | |
| | | | | | | 
deblin
Dark Side of the Moon
Premium,MVM
join:2001-09-01
Middletown, DE
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by pandora :I think it's pretty clear that 250 GB is the magic number for Comcast residential customers. If I expect to use more than 250 GB per month, or get notice from Comcast that I am, it's time to go to a business account. Has Comcast confirmed that business accounts are exempt?
--
He who is not contented with what he has, would not be contented with what he would like to have. -Socrates | |
| | | | | | | 
stinger
join:2001-03-22
Florissant, MO
clubs:
| Bandwidth limits are not just a "Step backward." They are the first of many soon to come responses to recent FCC rulings. By February 2009, the true impact of these changes will be painfully clear.
Many consumers use the internet for streaming media such as news, video, audio and voip. The ramifications of ISP's imposing usage caps on their subscribers for sites (JOOST, HULU, YOUTUBE etc.) that serve up streaming media could be disastrous. Can you say, "Nice idea while it lasted MagicJack, Skype and the rest of you broadband dependent pioneers?"
In order to build their infrastructures these ISP's drank greedily from the well of "public tax dollars" then used their muscle to drive the small local ISP's out of the market. Many of the same big ISP's still receive tax breaks today, even as more promises are broken and the public trust betrayed.
The people are always going to be fleeced by government and big business, just don't insult our intelligence by trying to convice us that it's in our best interest.
Truth is, by 2010 everyone in America could have 20-meg unlimited internet service at an affordable price. However, many areas lack access because the "big-boys" are too busy fighting over who will control the information superhighway.
I look forward to the day when forward-thinking developers include Wireless Cloud Networks their plans for those sprawling new subdivisions that are popping up all over America.
| |
| | |
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
1 edit | Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by stinger :Bandwidth limits are not just a "Step backward." They are the first of many soon to come responses to recent FCC rulings. By February 2009, the true impact of these changes will be painfully clear. Will it be like Y2k? Should we start buying bottled water and canned goods now?
The limits of the infrastructure that are the driver behind identifying the cap have always existed; the only difference is that now providers are deciding to stop pretending that they don't exist.
said by stinger :Many consumers use the internet for streaming media such as news, video, audio and voip. The ramifications of ISP's imposing usage caps on their subscribers for sites (JOOST, HULU, YOUTUBE etc.) that serve up streaming media could be disastrous. Disasterous?
Let's put some perspective on this. According to the New York Times there are about 237 million Internet users in North America.
In a report published by Comscore in July, the statistics show that in May 2008:
* 74 percent of the total U.S. Internet audience viewed online video.
* The average online video viewer watched 228 minutes of video.
* 82.2 million viewers watched 4.1 billion videos on YouTube.com (50.4 videos per viewer).
* 54.8 million viewers watched 703 million videos on MySpace.com (12.8 videos per viewer).
* 6.8 million viewers watched 88 million videos on Hulu.com (13.0 videos per viewer).
* The duration of the average online video was 2.7 minutes.
So yes, lots of people on the Internet are watching video. The vast majority of it is short MySpace or YouTube videos (as noted by the average duration of 2.7 minutes of each video).
The average viewer is watching just under 4 hours of online video per month, in contrast to 5 hours of traditional TV per viewer per day according to Nielson Media.
As for "many" viewers of services like Hulu. They've only had 6.8 million viewers, and there's about 237 North American Internet users. So even if you assume it was just North American viewers surfing Hulu, that's just under 3% of the US/Canada Internet community making it over there to watch videos. Considering Hulu is accessible to the world, the US/Can numbers are actually even lower.
I'm not saying this to minimize the importance of online video, but rather to put your assessment of the impact on society as a whole in perspective. If you stopped random people on the street, the overwhelming majority couldn't tell you what service Hulu offers.
said by stinger :Can you say, "Nice idea while it lasted MagicJack, Skype and the rest of you broadband dependent pioneers?" VoIP providers like MagicJack and Skype will do just fine. A G711 RTP stream with overhead is only 80kbps, so if you called someone stayed connected 24x7 for an entire 30 days you'd only have racked up just under 52GB of total transfer if you factor in upstream and downstream audio.
said by stinger :In order to build their infrastructures these ISP's drank greedily from the well of "public tax dollars" then used their muscle to drive the small local ISP's out of the market. What subsidies did the cable companies get to roll infrastructure to deliver cable TV? How about for the HFC plant? Sources?
said by stinger :The people are always going to be fleeced by government and big business, just don't insult our intelligence by trying to convice us that it's in our best interest. I don't think anyone is naive enough to suggest their isn't a non-trivial corruption component to any large business. That said, not every action taken by business is corrupt.
said by stinger :Truth is, by 2010 everyone in America could have 20-meg unlimited internet service at an affordable price. Using what access technology? | |
| | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by espaeth :said by stinger :In order to build their infrastructures these ISP's drank greedily from the well of "public tax dollars" then used their muscle to drive the small local ISP's out of the market. What subsidies did the cable companies get to roll infrastructure to deliver cable TV? How about for the HFC plant? Sources? I'm not sure this qualifies, but in my hometown, they were given access to the utility easements and an exclusive franchise, but it wasn't a total handout as they also gave free cable to some public buildings and created some public access channels. They've now stopped giving free cable to public buildings and stopped their support for public access channels, but they're still in the easements and they're still the only game in town.
I'm not saying that it was a mistake, it did get the system in and we've had quite a few upgrades. But it does cross significant private and public property.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here WRT the easements, around here, they were already provided to electric and telephone. It isn't like Comcast is getting a free ride. PG&E owns the poles, and was given the primary easement access. I am reasonably certain that PG&E collects from AT&T (telephone) and Comcast for hanging their wires from the PG&E poles. The electric utility easement was there, anyway, and I still don't fully understand how access to that easement is a "subsidy".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here Yeah, I'm not sure it is either.
I can't remember who my cable provider was in SoCal, but when the Orange County Tax authority started charging them property tax for the public land that they crossed, they just turned around and added it to our bills as a line item. And while they were trying to embarass the county Assessor, they reminded me that they are essentially getting a free ride across significant property for their "private" company.
But that's how we do things -- we like these public-private partnerships. But when we do them, it creates mutual interests, making the results neither completely public nor completely private.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here Aerial utilities in this neighborhood mostly cross private property. A lot of neighborhoods built between 1955 and 1975, or so, have all overhead utilities mostly crossing private property. I believe this was a government requirement to reduce the "ugly" in utility poles alongside of streets.
Subsequent to 1975, or so, the governments required buried utilities, which puts them back in the public rights of way (under the streets). But buried utilities are costlier to install, and taxing the utilities on top of forcing them to use a more expensive installation method...I suspect that the utilities get a quid-pro-quo from the government agencies: "We'll bury the lines, if you don't tax us".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | 
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
3 edits | said by NormanS :WRT the easements, around here, they were already provided to electric and telephone. It isn't like Comcast is getting a free ride. PG&E owns the poles, and was given the primary easement access. I am reasonably certain that PG&E collects from AT&T (telephone) and Comcast for hanging their wires from the PG&E poles. The electric utility easement was there, anyway, and I still don't fully understand how access to that easement is a "subsidy". None of the utilities behave the way Comcast does, in my opinion. For the utilities, you have a meter where you could see your usage and as long as you are paying your bill, the utility will not if you "use too much" start delivering 90V instead of 110V or 40 Hz instead of 60 Hz power. Neither will your natural gas contain 30% nitrogen or air or the water suddenly 50% air bubbles while you are charged the same fee.
The utilities behave reasonably because they must answer to the PUC and the government. They do get advantages and they behave reasonably toward their customers, including those that like to have 1000 lights and water their lawn 5 times a day when it rains.
I have never heard of a utility calling good paying customers and threatening them with disconnection, either. Nor would the city take a friendly look at any utility that would disconnect paying customers for a year because they "were using too much" of the utility's services.
Yes, I've been told that I have been "stretching" my comparisons by those that are quick to compare CC to an utility when it comes to the advantages but does not get any of the obligations that come with those advantages, in my opinion.
--
Treason is a matter of dates | |
| | | | | | | 
joetaxpayer
I'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by sturmvogel :None of the utilities behave the way Comcast does, in my opinion. Well, my local water company has tiered rates that start at $3/1000 gallons, but as you go over 60,000 gallons in a six months period, the cost rises to $16/1000 gallons.
And when it's hottest out, and grass needs watering the most, they have a water ban.
OTOH, you would think that 99% of users would be happy to see that the 1% who use more than the bottom 80% are getting slowed down. If your neighbor opened the main to refill his pool every morning just as you tried to shower...... | |
| | | | | | | |
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
1 edit | Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by joetaxpayer :said by sturmvogel :None of the utilities behave the way Comcast does, in my opinion. Well, my local water company has tiered rates that start at $3/1000 gallons, but as you go over 60,000 gallons in a six months period, the cost rises to $16/1000 gallons. And when it's hottest out, and grass needs watering the most, they have a water ban. OTOH, you would think that 99% of users would be happy to see that the 1% who use more than the bottom 80% are getting slowed down. If your neighbor opened the main to refill his pool every morning just as you tried to shower...... And still they do not cut off people without telling them how much they could use, they do offer higher usage people a plan to pay for their consumption and the watering ban is usually justified by hot conditions outside that are OBSERVABLE by others, they do not just say "take our word for it, there is a water shortage". Neither are you expected to have weekly neighborhood meetings to discuss who could take how many showers at what time nor if Bill the neighbor is a bad person because he fills his pool twice a week. If he can afford it, it is his service.
Do you have a meter that you could read ? Of course.
While there are constraints,in my opinion none are in such a one sided manner as I have observed with the provider in question.
--
Treason is a matter of dates | |
| | | | | | | |
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
1 edit | said by joetaxpayer :said by sturmvogel :None of the utilities behave the way Comcast does, in my opinion. Well, my local water company has tiered rates that start at $3/1000 gallons, but as you go over 60,000 gallons in a six months period, the cost rises to $16/1000 gallons. And when it's hottest out, and grass needs watering the most, they have a water ban. OTOH, you would think that 99% of users would be happy to see that the 1% who use more than the bottom 80% are getting slowed down. If your neighbor opened the main to refill his pool every morning just as you tried to shower...... The neighbor could not open the MAIN, just his own faucet(s). Opening the main would be akin to uncapping a modem.
The neighbor would use his own PROVISIONED 2-3 inch water line, as is a 8 Mbit modem.
So if he opened the faucet while you were showering, no detectable pressure loss should be seen by you, unless the water system was very poorly designed.
But is does sound like a familiar argument.
--
Treason is a matter of dates | |
| | | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
2 edits | said by joetaxpayer :OTOH, you would think that 99% of users would be happy to see that the 1% who use more than the bottom 80% are getting slowed down. If your neighbor opened the main to refill his pool every morning just as you tried to shower...... This situation works out just fine in the networking world...
In most cases, all users quickly reach the maximum their modem will allow -- whether their use be short bursts (fetching a web page, sending an IM, playing a game) or steady (uploading). If the network segment is at maximum when you try to surf to a new page, packets are going to be dropped. Probability is nearly certain that someone whose got a steady upload going is going to have a packet dropped, since his packets are always in the queue. If you're not already transmitting at maximum speed, your speed will increase, and the above process will repeat -- the faster modem slowing and the slower modem increasing speed -- until
1. you're both transmitting as fast as your modems will allow,
2. you're both transmitting equally fast but can't go faster because the segment is over capacity with other traffic not involving either of you, or
3. either one of you completes transmitting
This works, has worked, and will continue to work and doesn't need any new throttling scheme.
I used two users as an example, but generally it scales and repeats until equilibrium is reached.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by sturmvogel :None of the utilities behave the way Comcast does, in my opinion. For the utilities, you have a meter where you could see your usage and as long as you are paying your bill, the utility will not if you "use too much" start delivering 90V instead of 110V or 40 Hz instead of 60 Hz power. Neither will your natural gas contain 30% nitrogen or air or the water suddenly 50% air bubbles while you are charged the same fee. No meter on the telephone line. Voice (POTS) can be "metered", if you choose the right plan; similar to some Internet providers, 10 calls for a flat monthly rate, then hellacious high "per-cal" rate added to the bill on the eleventh, and higher.
Telephone, itself, can be limited to outgoing 911 for non payment.
I've already alluded to an unlikely event; every customer on the water line opening all of their spigots at once.
PG&E has cut off customers, albeit, for non-payment of a bill.
WRT PG&E, or even water, it is pretty hard to "use too much" because you really can't use more than the infrastructure is designed to deliver. The utilities were designed that way.
WRT Internet service, there are "Last Mile" constraints. Both for cable, and DSL. With DSL, however, you really have to work hard to "use too much"; slower speeds move lower volumes of data.
Can Comcast deliver more than current "Last Mile" HFC technology? I believe that DOCSIS 3.0 is supposed to address some of that. But only one provider is really addressing the "Last Mile" capacity issue in a logical manner: Verizon. Their FiOS product is delivered over FTTH/FTTP. And the expense is limiting the rate of rollout. Cable is betting on DOCSIS 3.0, and AT&T is betting on FTTN.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | |
stinger
join:2001-03-22
Florissant, MO
clubs:
| Simply dismissing the Feb. 2009 digital television transition without consideration of the almost certain potential of increased demand for online streaming media services is laughable.
To focus on, then attempt to form a convincing rebuttal based on lesser examples (HULU) does a grave disservice and insults the sensibilities.
Or, maybe NetFlix, BlockBuster and a host of others have it all wrong by moving into online streaming services.
Who got the deals?
Public documents reveal committments and assurances between the FCC, Cable providers and the Bells, in exchange for favorable tax treatments, public funding and easements. To date, those committments either haven't been kept or simply vanished while no one was looking.
20 meg access?
Canada had high-speed broadband while Americans were still experiencing the "silly-giggles" over 28.8 dial-up.
On my next trip to Japan (I go twice a month on business) I'll be certain to let them know that their "20meg everywhere-you-perch" access really isn't possible.
On one point we can agree..."Not every action taken by business is corrupt in intent."
However, to dismiss blatant greed, archaic and arbitrary constraints along with betrayal of the public trust as a being little more than a part of doing business is the nothing more than the product of corporate proponent spin. | |
| | | | |
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
1 edit | Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by stinger :Simply dismissing the Feb. 2009 digital television transition without consideration of the almost certain potential of increased demand for online streaming media services is laughable. Forgive me for being dense, but the DTV transition will primarily affect people that are using older televisions that only have analog tuning capabilities. Furthermore, it doesn't impact those using cable or satellite TV services -- just those folks still watching local broadcast TV using a regular antenna.
Are you saying people still using rabbit ears on old TVs as their only source of television represents a significant market for online video?
said by stinger :To focus on, then attempt to form a convincing rebuttal based on lesser examples (HULU) does a grave disservice and insults the sensibilities. Or, maybe NetFlix, BlockBuster and a host of others have it all wrong by moving into online streaming services. NetFlix, BlockBuster, Apple, Vongo, and others are carving their way into a just a portion of the video market: the video rental industry. I'm not saying there isn't money to be made in online video delivery; I'm simply stating it's not as ubiquitous as people posting here would make it out to be.
VoIP gained wide popularity because the user interface didn't change. Instead of plugging your phone into a wall jack, you plug your phone into a telephone adapter and things work normally. You still get dialtone, you can still call all your normal phone numbers, your phone still rings when people call your number. All people see is they plug in this device and their bills get cheaper.
Online video delivery has a long way to go before it is going to supplant broadcast video. You need to have a box that is cheap, easy to hook up to the TV, and has a user interface that allows people to do things they are accustomed to doing with their current TV: channel surf, tune local stations to watch local sports teams and local news, and it needs to do all of that while being cheaper than existing video solutions. (otherwise what's the point?)
said by stinger :20 meg access? Canada had high-speed broadband while Americans were still experiencing the "silly-giggles" over 28.8 dial-up. That's not universally true. I had 1.5mbps cable service in 1997 in Andover, MN of all places (outer-ring suburb of Minneapolis). Granted it was still 1-way and required modem return, but I would still say parts of the US and parts of Canada got broadband access at around the same time.
said by stinger :On my next trip to Japan (I go twice a month on business) I'll be certain to let them know that their "20meg everywhere-you-perch" access really isn't possible. The Japanese market is not 100% fiber, and it's not 20mbps everywhere.
»www.itif.org/files/Ebihara_Japan···band.pdf | |
| | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by stinger :In order to build their infrastructures these ISP's drank greedily from the well of "public tax dollars"... I am not aware that any tax dollars were handed out to any companies.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here Especially the parts where the VP from Comcast says that monitoring tools will be available from Comcast by Oct 1. I just hope those tools are based on query of centralized data collection and not some quick & dirty PC app provided by Comcast that will collect and display the data at the customers PCs.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | tomntmj
join:2008-11-30
Wheeling, IL
| There is a great usage meter (costs about 10 bucks) from www.rackeys.com. Not only is the product good, but the support is excellent. When I first downloaded it, I didn't realize it did not yet support Vista. After an email to support, I got a promise of an update they were working on. Two weeks later It's running. I might also add that the company in located in India, not far from where all the "terror" has been happening. I had some nice personal exchanges, and passed along my prayers. I think there is also a 30 day free trial.
Tom | |
| | | | | | | | |
See 100 replies to this post | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by from a locked thread :
The new AUP seems FAIRLY clear. It's nice to see clear caps established instead of the "cut your service by half" B.S. That's actually a good point that I've not seen anyone else make. The number is most helpful to someone who just "got the call." | |
|
MADBOOM
@comcast.net
thumbs down from:
TKJunkMail
| My 2 cents.....
This is the beginning of the end of the free and open Internet as we know it. They will take an inch at a time until we are paying by the Gb. | |
| |
netcool
@comcast.net
 from:
TKJunkMail
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by MADBOOM :
My 2 cents.....
This is the beginning of the end of the free and open Internet as we know it. They will take an inch at a time until we are paying by the Gb.
The sky isn't falling. There was an invisible cap before, now there is a stated cap. This is what many people were asking for here. As funchords noted I think the cap is somewhat lowball as well; the invisi-caps seemed to be a bit higher.
When people look at the cap I think they should be asking themselves if it's reasonable. At this time I do believe 250gb is reasonable. It would be a good idea for Comcast to state how they plan on keeping the cap fair (i.e re-evaluating it every so often etc.) | |
| | | 
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by netcool :
.........As funchords noted I think the cap is somewhat lowball as well; the invisi-caps seemed to be a bit higher.
When people look at the cap I think they should be asking themselves if it's reasonable. At this time I do believe 250gb is reasonable. It would be a good idea for Comcast to state how they plan on keeping the cap fair (i.e re-evaluating it every so often etc.)
Of course it's a lowball/lowest common denominator. by having to state a national number they had to determine the highest number that the least capable/most crowded node in the country could sustain. Most can probably handle more.
and that number/capablity may even be higher then the current stated cap, they may have left some cushion in the number (they won't get compliants if they later raise it, but having to drop an overinflated cap would be a PR diaster)
The way I see the cap is they may not cut you off/warn you just for exceeding it IF your activity does not impact others, but once you pass 250GB, you are in the danger zone.
That is not just your activity, but if your node/CMTS gets stressed by the aggregete useage, THEN they'll start working their way down the 250+ list.
I'm sure the system is still evolving, even having tested it in a few markets they'll still need to evaluate the results of a nationwide roll out.
It will take a few months to weed out those who intend to push the limit.
I don't think the system is greatly changed from what existed before, it's just a little more transparent/public.
We are still talking about a very, very small percentage of subs being effected/capped, but maybe a very large group of subs whose service will improve/be more consistant/be less likely to be effected by an overloaded system. | |
| | Timt49
join:2004-01-19
Racine, WI | said by MADBOOM :
My 2 cents.....
They will take an inch at a time until we are paying by the Gb.
and you don't think this has been the plan all along??:) | |
|
reasonable
@comcast.net
thumbs down from:
TKJunkMail
| with HD coming in to use more they should increase their ability to provide more bandwidth available, not go backwards and put a cap, that is Stupid.The more content we use and look at in HD the more bandwidth we need, Come ON! it's not enough bandwidth.And thats not being greedy but it's a FACT because of the Media we now use. | |
| | fezz7834673
Premium
join:2008-08-31
Portland, OR
·Comcast
| More and more people will be using HD VOD services, especially now that boxes such as Xbox360 and Playstation 3 have this functionality. Don't forget download-able content for games and multi-user families.
250GB may seem like more than enough overhead for some folks, but really how does that break down per day? Per hour and minute?
Comcast sells me a line that is 8MB / 1MB, and for the most part, it's pretty close to that. But they also include their "Speedbooster" technology that supposedly provides a subscriber with a quick burst of download speed up to (12MB?) though I have never felt that.
If what I calculate is pretty close, a "subscriber" (multi-family, anyone?) would constantly need to saturate their line just over 5MB ~ 6MB every minute to hit that cap in a given month.
Does that mean Comcast is over-selling their network? Not necessarily. They are selling you a line that is "able to" move that fast "whenever" you want, and I understand that. For the longest time, that "able to" and "whenever" has pretty much lend itself to be experienced as "all the time" and "anytime", and this is why some of us are now upset because it hasn't been a problem for ANYONE, at least, no one in our neighborhood (or Comcast for that matter) has complained about excessive usage and/or service quality.
Personally, I don't appreciate the fact that Comcast's arguing points usually amount to "protecting quality of service for your entire neighborhood" when nobody has ever complained at all. (Yes, I sternly requested they tell me if they had calls for service issues in my area and the representative finally confessed that no one had. It may have been a lie just to appease my repeated request but it was said.) Basically I don't appreciate it when they label my usage as abuse when it hasn't caused any problem at all.
Then the rep suggested I order a business class account, which offers faster speeds. Why on earth would I do that when
1) I do not run a business
2) I can not afford a business class account
3) How can increasing my download rate save me from a usage limit?
You may label me and my family as "internet hogs" but in our defense we are simply utilizing what we pay for and that is not wrong. | |
| |
See 22 replies to this post | |
| |
tomntmj
@comcast.net
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here Thanks for the link to the FCC. But even though the form says you can email it, or submit it on the WEB, there is no option to "Submit" and you can't save the form to use as an attachment. All you can do is Fax it in, or mail it in. Makes the whole process a little useless.
Tom | |
|
Shawnie
@comcast.net
| I feel that the 'gold/premium' tier subscribers should be omitted from this.
I pay EXTRA every month so I can have faster internet,now with this,what is the point?
Apparently,this will include online gaming?Well I sometimes run open severs for games,and I know that eats up the bandwidth.(this is why I PAY EXTRA for my internet)
Not to mention I am an online dj,and I have to stream my show to a server.I do this on an average of 48 hours a week!!No question that eats up bandwidth.This is my JOB here we are talking about.
Of course,I have NO idea what so ever how much bandwidth I use over the course of a month.
I just found out about this,and soon as I can,I am calling to complain (like that will do any good) | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| | | | 
dolphins
Miami Dolphins
Premium
join:2001-08-22
Westville, NJ
·Comcast
| Forgive me if this has been asked already, I just don't have time to read all the threads on this subject at this moment.
My son has Playstation-3 and plays online every day plus we have 2 computers. Of course all 3 are routed from a single modem (IP address). I'm not sure how much bandwidth the 2 computers use (normal usage) but I imagine the PS3 uses quite a bit.
Does this setup sound like it would go over the cap?
--
Prevent Malware | |
| |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by dolphins :Forgive me if this has been asked already, I just don't have time to read all the threads on this subject at this moment. My son has Playstation-3 and plays online every day plus we have 2 computers. Of course all 3 are routed from a single modem (IP address). I'm not sure how much bandwidth the 2 computers use (normal usage) but I imagine the PS3 uses quite a bit. Does this setup sound like it would go over the cap? I would be very surprised if it got close.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|
joetaxpayer
I'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA | Has Comcast specifically stated they won't provide a meter? Seems that when most users see they've used 4GB by mid month, the anxiety and anger will quickly pass.
Joe | |
| | AVonGauss
Premium,MVM
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by joetaxpayer :Has Comcast specifically stated they won't provide a meter? Seems that when most users see they've used 4GB by mid month, the anxiety and anger will quickly pass. Joe No, they have not stated they won't provide a utility or access to the measurement from their system. I haven't seen anything official, but most informal communications I have seen state Comcast has received the feedback and are considering options.
Personally, I don't think a customer side utility is really all that helpful unless it is in the router itself that is directly attached to the modem. Even in that case, the customer really needs access to the numbers on the Comcast system in my opinion. Not that they are charging you per amount used, but the number that really matters is the number measured by the ISP equipment. It's obviously there, customers just need a way to access it - such as through the account management page that already exists. | |
| |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by joetaxpayer :Has Comcast specifically stated they won't provide a meter? Seems that when most users see they've used 4GB by mid month, the anxiety and anger will quickly pass. Joe This is what they've said:
http://help.comcast.net/content/faq/Frequently-Asked-Questions-about-Excessive-Use#tracking
How does Comcast help its customers track their usage so they can avoide exceeding the limit?
There are many online tools customers can download and use to measure their consumption. Customers can find such tools by simply doing a Web search - for example, a search for "bandwidth meter" will provide some options. Customers using multiple PCs should just be aware that they will need to measure and combine their total monthly usage in order to identify the data usage for their entire account. --
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| 
midranger4
Stupid Is No longer in Vogue
Premium
join:2002-01-18
Levittown, PA
| In the past I was very vocal about specific Comcast practices, policies, and customer support deficiencies.
By far the most controversial of these topics was/is the Comcast "invisible" caps. These caps while not defined to the customer were used by Comcast in arbitrary fashion to warn and/or boot "bandwidth abusers" from the CHSI network.
While many see the hard cap as nothing more than a money grab by Comcast (and in certain respects I agree) I find myself supporting Comcast in moving in this direction IF the customer is given access to month to date and cumulative bandwidth statistics associated with their account(s).
Without such functionality available to the customer however I would not support the hard cap because in essence all Comcast would be doing is defining a ceiling without the ability for the customer to monitor their own usage patterns and adjust accordingly when they are approaching the monthly cap.
Comcast may resist such a tool as it would give the savvy user the ability to monitor usage then as the end of the billing cycle approaches and he/she has let's say 100GB left they may decide to use their remaining bandwidth in non-stop fashion (which as the new TOS states they are entitled to use)before the billing cycle ends and the monthly bandwidth meter is reset to zero.
I suspect what comes next are new package offerings from Comcast that not only include speed upgrades but monthly upload/download cap increases as well. If Comcast takes this route it will result in the heavy bandwidth users being forced into more expensive packages that better fit their usage demands or pay the overage fees on a monthly basis.
Another option as I see it is for Comcast to implement a policy that notifies the customer when they open their browser and/or email that they have exceed the monthly download cap and subsequently their throughput speeds have been reduced to dial up speeds until the end of the current billing cycle. This method would be more fair but would eliminate the additional revenues that Comcast is likely counting on when users intentionally or unintentionally exceed the cap.
Such a policy would protect the non technical customer from receiving an outrageous bill for overages that were caused by a minor child and/or unsecure wireless router that the neighbor has hijacked to avoid the cap issue altogether.
The currently advertised change in TOS however seems to indicate that customers will pay any/all overages regardless of their technical ability to monitor their own usage and/or wireless network. It would be the same type scam the cell phone industry is just now starting to get away from after years of stating they could not place a cap on a phone or phones that would restrict usage after x minutes in any given month was reached by the device.
I've never had a need to use the myriad of unsecured wireless routers available to my laptop at any time but Comcast is sure giving me reason to check if these unsecure networks are using MAC filters if I have a need to download large amounts of data for any given reason.
--
Democracy is the illusion of Freedom | |
| | | 
Johkal
Cool Cat
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-13
Happy Valley
clubs:
·Comcast Digital Vo..
·Comcast
·Vonage
1 edit | Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by chronoss2008 :on 3rd page a guy said somehting about TXT masaging instead a internet use LOL. If you are referring to me, wow, did you mis-quote that one.
What do I do with my internet access:
Pay bills through my bank
Buy items from retailers
E-mail
Surf
Help on BBR
What would I do if I didn't have internet access:
Write checks to pay bills
Go to the retailer's stores
Use a phone to call the people, write letters, TXT MSG
Read a book, take a walk, swim, visit more friends, etc
As for helping with BBR; oh well, you're on your own
--
Write me up a 125.......I Can't Drive 55 »redrocker.com/ »cabowabo.com/ | |
| | | |
sortofageek
Premium,Mod
join:2001-08-19
Valhalla Dr
clubs: | Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here chronoss2008 , to whom are you speaking? | |
| | | 
GotNoRice
Internet Cynic
join:2001-12-04
Pleasant Hill, CA
| Is it ever specified anywhere whether the 250g limit applies to Comcast business internet accounts also?
Could a residential subscriber possibly upgrade their service for ~$40 more a month to business class service and be okay downloading more? | |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | Users: AT&T Comcast needs to change broadband business policies
Bob Brewin
»www.computerworld.com/action/art···Id=66850
(related DSLR thread at »Monthly Download rate limits as well)
December 20, 2001 (Computerworld) Unless AT&T Broadband and Comcast Corp. change their policies toward business broadband users, the merger of the two companies will result in the creation of an even larger entity typified by a user-hostile approach to remote workers and small businesses, according to analysts and users.
While AT&T Comcast Corp. is being hyped as a competitive alternative to local telephone companies for high-speed data services, Mark Kersey, an analyst at ARS Inc. in La Jolla, Calif., said the companies' policies will force users to choose "between the lesser of two evils [for broadband] -- the phone company or the cable company. You get to decide which is less evil."
AT&T Corp. agreed to merge its cable television and broadband unit with Comcast Corp. in a $72 billion deal, creating a new company called AT&T Comcast Corp. (see story).
Philadelphia-based Comcast has a policy in place that forbids the use of virtual private network (VPN) clients over a residential connection, while AT&T this month instituted a 1.5M bit/sec. cap on download speeds when it shifted users to its own network from the bankrupt At Home Corp. VPNs provide remote workers with a protected tunnel to corporate servers through the Internet, guarding data against penetration by hackers.
Sarah Eder, a spokeswoman for Englewood Cliffs, Colo.-based AT&T Broadband, said the company eventually intends to introduce tiered packages that will provide higher speeds at higher prices, though she declined to disclose the pricing.
Eder added that the company intends to sharply limit the amount of data a user can download in a month without paying a higher fee. "We're in the a la carte business now," Eder said, adding that AT&T Broadband can no longer support At Home's "all you can eat" policies that led to abuse of the system. "One percent of our users in places like Silicon Valley account for 30% of our traffic," Eder said.
Comcast offers a telecommuter service that supports VPNs but charges $95 a month, compared with $39.95 a month for residential service. The company's Business Communications subsidiary also offers a range of corporate broadband services priced from $150 to $695 a month depending on the length of the contact and speeds, with a 2M bit/sec. connection downstream and 512K bit/sec. upstream service commanding the top price.
"Those prices will have to come down" if the new AT&T Comcast wants to make inroads in the corporate broadband market, Kersey said.
Peter Gnas, network administrator at Wixon Fontarome Inc., a St. Francis, Wis.-based bread-mix maker that recently switched its field sales force from dial-up to broadband to support bandwidth-hungry XML applications, views the VPN ban as equivalent to "charging people extra for speaking another language on the telephone. I'm disturbed they charge extra for services like VPN."
Microsoft Corp. will own 115 million shares of the new AT&T Comcast through conversion of AT&T shares into new stock, and Gnas finds the existing Comcast VPN ban puzzling, since Microsoft "has built VPN support into Windows XP." Kersey suggested that Microsoft's holdings in AT&T Comcast and its desire to penetrate homes with broadband to support new Microsoft-driven appliances could lead to a re-evaluation of the VPN policy. "It would seem to me that Bill Gates would like to see the lowest-priced broadband possible," Kersey said.
Gnas added that if cable companies want to charge extra for "business class services" then they should follow up with business class service to the customer, including quality-of-service guarantees and "real support, rather than the usual less-than-quality support."
Eric Hoyt, a structural engineer at Weidlinger Associates Inc., an engineering firm in New York, said the cable companies have targeted the wrong people with their restrictions on business users. Stress on a cable broadband network doesn't come from business users but from people who are "downloading music and movies." In Hoyt's view, charging extra for VPN service "is like charging you more for gasoline depending on what kind of car you drive."
Jack Nilles, president of JALA International Inc., a management consulting firm in Los Angeles that specializes in telecommuting, doesn't have much hope of AT&T Comcast providing better service for business users based on his recent experience with AT&T Broadband over VPN support. Due to lack of commitment to customer support, Nilles said he advised a large client to opt for telco Digital Subscriber Line service rather than cable. "Cable companies have always had user-hostile policies," Nilles said.
--
Robb Topolski (robb@funchords.com)
Hillsboro, Oregon USA
»www.funchords.com/
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|
prisazu
@verizon.net
| I am in 100% agreement that it's Comcasts way to stick it to P2P when the FCC said no. Also look at the true comment regarding Video over IP. Look at the latest fiber provider and their video services. Can you imagine what would happen when they start to offer video subscriptions over the Cable company's coax? With the QAM technology used by cable and currently used by the fiber provider, there are limits. The fiber provider is already using IP for some of it's video. They will go 100% at some point. The cable companies must do something. Like gasp for air. | |
| | 
axelrose
Ban Tornadoes
join:2005-05-25
Chattanooga, TN
·Comcast
| Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here said by prisazu :
...Can you imagine what would happen when they start to offer video subscriptions over the Cable company's coax? With the QAM technology used by cable and currently used by the fiber provider, there are limits. The fiber provider is already using IP for some of it's video. They will go 100% at some point. The cable companies must do something. Like gasp for air.
I just viewed a 9 minute youtube video, I know it's terrible quality, but it was about 20MB of transfer..How and when did we suddenly think we're privileged? to get blue-ray quality movies on demand via our cable connections? I thought this was why blockbuster was invented. I can also drive to and from my blockbuster faster than I could download the same movie on p2p.
Aren't we really talking about the ability to download movies, programs and songs that we never paid for in the first place?
Again, I am just asking some questions of the group.
--
I have been very charitable while poor and kind to people even while undergoing enormous personal pain.
My only weakness is that I at times have placed trust in deceitful people.
I know that GOD will be my ONLY judge in this life or the next. | |
| | | |
|
Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here
Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here
