Daveid
join:2007-06-12
Milpitas, CA
| reply to Drizew
Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme
said by Drizew  :Well at least we both agree that Comcast throttles the speed for Powerboost. They increase the flow of..... I'm guessing you're taking back your previous statement of "By the way, there is absolutely no relation between throttling and powerboost." then?
--
ISP: Comcast - Download: 25.6mbps - Upload: 1580 kbps |
|
Drizew
join:2004-09-17
Los Lunas, NM
 ·Comcast
2 edits | I guess I just didn't construct that sentence as well as I should have. It should have read something like this. "By the way, there is absolutely no relation between Comcast lowering your speeds by throttling and powerboost."
Excuse me, I am trying to multi task. Things slip by me from time to time.
Edit: I would like somebody from Comcast to chime in and maybe give us a better idea of how this all works. The analogy in the pdf was decent, but I would prefer to see some raw data. One tenth of a second is hardly a delay in delivery, but I doubt the system works as intended 100% of the time. |
|
JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | This is how Comcast's congestion management works
said by Drizew :Edit: I would like somebody from Comcast to chime in and maybe give us a better idea of how this all works. The analogy in the pdf was decent, but I would prefer to see some raw data. One tenth of a second is hardly a delay in delivery, but I doubt the system works as intended 100% of the time. The pdf explains the system just fine.
When you are identified as a user that is contributing to congestion on a node (and only if you fall into the "if more than 70 percent of your max bandwidth (downstream or upstream) is used for more than 15 minutes" then your packets will be marked as lower priority for the next 15 minutes. There is no throttling.
Here is a simple metaphor:
You and 10 other people have drain pipes. All 10 drain pipes feed into a single sewer line.
Everyone's pipe can drain 10 gallons per second
The sewer can drain 70 gallons per second.
If all 10 users are draining at 7 gps or less, no problems.
If all 10 users are draining at 7gps, and then you start draining at 8pgs, there is now an extra gallon per second that cannot be drained. water backs up. At first, it backs up equally across all 10 of you, so you get 7.9gps, and everyone else gets 6.9gps. After 15 minutes, your water is made to wait so everyone else's water goes first. You get 7gps, and everyone else does too. If another user drops down to 6gps, you'll get 8gps - your water soaks up EXCESS capacity, but no longer GRABS capacity from other users.
It's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully it helps clarify things.
To recap, you can use 100% of your pipe all day and night (for a few days, anyway, then you'll hit the cap - a whole different ball of wax) as long as the nodes you pass through are not saturated. If they become saturated your packets go to the 'bulk' category - you soak up all the excess capacity of the node, but if someone else needs it, your packets wait.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
Drizew
join:2004-09-17
Los Lunas, NM
·Comcast
| Re: Comcast announces new bandwidth throttling scheme
I understand everything they said in the pdf. I was looking for MORE information. I wanted information/data they have collected since this system has been implemented, not theory or estimates. It would be nice to know how long the systems stay overcrowded once the throttling system is activated. How well has it addressed the problem in the top 5 (bottom 5 technically) overcrowded markets? That is the kind of information I was looking to hear from Comcast. I understand the chances of them releasing any real information is small, but it is worth the effort to ask. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
1 edit | said by Drizew :It would be nice to know how long the systems stay overcrowded once the throttling system is activated. How well has it addressed the problem in the top 5 (bottom 5 technically) overcrowded markets? That is the kind of information I was looking to hear from Comcast. I understand the chances of them releasing any real information is small, but it is worth the effort to ask. Comcast is currently in a period of technical Glasnost (which we love), and they really do like their latest solution for network management. Ask and they very well may provide some kind of answer.
Fixed uneven quote tags. ~sorto'
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ |
|
JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
| reply to Drizew
said by Drizew :It would be nice to know how long the systems stay overcrowded once the throttling system is activated. How well has it addressed the problem in the top 5 (bottom 5 technically) overcrowded markets? The whole point of the method they implemented was that the system now behaves rationally and fairly, so the only people who would notice it at all would be those who were running full out, for long periods of time, and who happen to be on nodes where there were periods of congestion when they were running full out.
In the time I've been monitoring this forum I have seen may people posting complaining about throttling who were in fact experiencing connection issues, or problems upstream. I've yet to see one instance where anyone actually saw deprioritisation of their packets (which is the only "throttling" you'll ever see.)
Based on the algorithm and the general overcapacity of the comcast infrastructure, I'd bet that fewer then 1 in 100 would ever see it.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
1 edit | reply to funchords
Re: 250 GB is meaningless
said by funchords :Why is it irrational to expect unlimited? Certainly many ISPs cap but many do not. Are Verizon customers irrational for enjoying unlimited service? Not sure if this is a recent update to Verizon's DSL page, but see this...
»https://www22.verizon.com/Residential/Hi···able.htm
Clearly, Verizon customers are not irrational to expect this... The company even says that they aren't.
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army |
|
K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| That's a wonderful ad.
Here's the applicable portion of the contract:
"Restrictions on Use. The Service is a consumer grade service and is not designed for or intended to be used for any commercial purpose. You may not resell the Service, use it for high volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute such use (commercial or non-commercial). If you subscribe to a Broadband Service, you may connect multiple computers/devices within a single home to your modem and/or router to access the Service, but only through a single Verizon-issued IP address. You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service."
Do you really think that they, or anyone for that matter, is going to offer unlimited use for free?
If you do, I've got a bridge to sell you. |
|
IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
2 edits | Is it an ad if it's on the website?
Comcast Residential is a consumer-grade service too, and not intended to be used for a commercial purpose. It's not supposed to be resold either.
Maybe I'm in a bubble... Has anyone been kicked off Verizon DSL for bandwidth reasons alone?
Gosh... this reminds me of when Comcast said "Unlimited" in their ads... and now they don't anymore. Maybe Comcast should put the 250GB monthly usage cap on their advertising. 
What do you mean "for free"? People pay for it.
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by IPPlanMan :Is it an ad if it's on the website? To be fair, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of ads that promise to make your body bigger or smaller if you take a handful of pills, give you 6 pack abs with just 5 minutes a day of using a $30 exercise device, and companies that can make your debt disappear for pennies on the dollar.
The common thread at the bottom of those ads is tiny print that says "results not typical"
Some people can indeed use their broadband connection in a manner that they feel is unlimited without running into problems; that doesn't mean everyone can. If you apply a little bit of logic as to the cost of infrastructure, it's clear why that is. |
|
JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
| said by espaeth :If you apply a little bit of logic as to the cost of infrastructure, it's clear why that is. Yep, this is the place where we run into the brick wall.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
1 edit | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :Some people can indeed use their broadband connection in a manner that they feel is unlimited without running into problems; that doesn't mean everyone can. If you apply a little bit of logic as to the cost of infrastructure, it's clear why that is. "Feel"? What do you mean by "feel"? If you mean that the cap, if one exists, is high enough so it's not noticed by the customer or ISP unless he/she streams for 1 month flat out 24/7... is that "feel"?
How are Verizon's costs different? Things cost them money too. If you want to raise that as an issue, I'll say that DSL is a proven, time-tested, cost-amortized, technology. This is not Fios requiring a build-out. Not sure why else it's relevant, because neither of them have a cap affecting users in any way... and now you've got Verizon's DSL vs. Cable comparison page pointing out that cable is capped.
Unlimited usage
Verizon High Speed Internet:
We don’t charge extra or otherwise limit your Internet usage.
Cable:
Since cable can have a shared connections, some cable providers charge extra or restrict usage if limits are exceeded.
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by IPPlanMan :"Feel"? What do you mean by "feel"? If you mean that the cap, if one exists, is high enough so it's not noticed by the customer or ISP unless he/she streams for 1 month flat out 24/7... is that "feel"? I mean the overwhelming majority of folks use their broadband connections to meet their needs without any concern about how much bandwidth they're using and yet don't come anywhere close to cap contention. As you've pointed out there are an infinite array of possibilities in which people could possibly go over a 250GB cap .... and yet most don't. This isn't just me saying this, click around through »www.dtc.umn.edu/mints/home.php or look at recent reports like Cisco traffic study: »Cisco: Average Connection Consumes 11.4 GB Per Month
You can argue about methodology all you want, but seriously at this point there are dozens of studies that all say about the same thing.
said by IPPlanMan :How are Verizon's costs different? Things cost them money too. You're comparing marketing materials -- that's like the adult equivalent of "My dad can beat up your dad." Just look at how the page you reference points out that cable is shared and glosses over that DSL is also shared and oversubscribed, just at a different point in the infrastructure.
Also, if you look at the ToS that K Patterson posted just a couple posts up, the actual legal print doesn't paint the same "unlimited" picture, and in fact points out that bandwidth restrictions could apply.
It is the job of marketing departments to sell product, not to be concerned about being 100% forward and showing the full truth. |
|
JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
| said by espaeth :It is the job of marketing departments to sell product, not to be concerned about being 100% forward and showing the full truth. Especially when trying to take away market share from the established, dominant player 
I use the living crap out of my 12/2 business class connection. My average usage is between 120 and 150GB/month: »www.schettino.us/monitor/schetti···and.html
Sure, you can use more. But you're a very very very small minority of the overall subscriber base. We've been round this pole before
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
good one
@comcast.net
| said by JohnInSJ :We've been round this pole before No kidding. Round many, many times ad nauseam, despite the best efforts of the moderator. |
|
WernerSchutz
join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
1 edit | reply to JohnInSJ
The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising
said by JohnInSJ :said by espaeth :It is the job of marketing departments to sell product, not to be concerned about being 100% forward and showing the full truth. Especially when trying to take away market share from the established, dominant player I use the living crap out of my 12/2 business class connection. My average usage is between 120 and 150GB/month: » www.schettino.us/monitor/schetti···and.html Sure, you can use more. But you're a very very very small minority of the overall subscriber base. We've been round this pole before Using "the living crap" is a subjective appraisal. I believe if there is a cap, it should be clearly stated, as in the speed, in all advertsisements regarding such connection. What is is for, averages, and all that smoke screen is just marketing to compete against a superior product, as FiOS is.
Until the FTC (not FCC) comes down against this misleading advertising, nothing will happen. |
|
JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
2 edits | If you read the TOS, you'll know about the cap
said by WernerSchutz :Using "the living crap" is a subjective appraisal. I use it without regard for any caps (mine are much higher then the non-business class caps, but even so I would not come close to a 250gb cap with extensive use by multiple users) and I am in no way a "typical" home comcast user.
I believe if there is a cap, it should be clearly stated, as in the speed, in all advertsisements regarding such connection. What is is for, averages, and all that smoke screen is just marketing to compete against a superior product, as FiOS is.
It is clearly stated.
Just like all the other TOS are clearly stated. They're right there in the contract you get before you sign up. You do read all that, right?
Show me where, in marketing materials, McDonalds says you'll get fat from eating Big Macs. They show you the nutrition (if you could call it that) numbers, but they market taste, cost, and convenience. It's up to you (the consumer) to decide if the product you are buying is suitable to the task you have in mind.
The FTC has to come down on all the broadband folks with caps - AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Comcast, Etc. for their capped plans.
You clearly know about the cap.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
WernerSchutz
join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
1 edit | Re: The cap should be clearly stated in the advertising
The reason nutrition info is displayed was because that was mandated to prevent glossing over or omitting such important harmful data.
That needs to be done regarding to the advertising and the cap. The fact that I and other informed users know is not the issue, but the fact that the vast majority of users DO NOT.
If it is not such a big deal, why not include the information ?
Would it be ok for a cell phone company with a limited data plan/minutes to omit such important limitations ?
Talking 3000 minutes a month is quite a bit. Would omitting in the advertisements that $50 gets you 3000 minutes be important or not ? Would it mater if the limit would be 100 minutes or 1000 or 2000 ? |
|
