 RLH_115
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX | Finally They should have put this out before issueing the CAPs | |
|  | 
NOZIREV
join:2008-07-10
New Bedford, MA
 ·Comcast
| Re: Finally Its not like they didnt have something for you to use while this was being developed, "Currently, the Comcast FAQ tells users to do a web search for bandwidth meters or use the meter included in the McAfee Security Suite the company gives out free to subscribers." please stop the crying...  | |
| | | | | | | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
edit:
December 3rd, @10:40AM
| Re: Finally Where does it say that? | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
UseNewFirmware
 from:
duck9191 
| I doubt it explicitly says it anywhere (I didn't read it), but if it's software running on a computer there's no way it's going to know about all the other traffic passing through a router. That's why the BEST solution for a home user is to get a router that's compatible with a custom firmware that provides traffic monitoring: I use and recommend DD-WRT v24 firmware on a Linksys WRT54GL router, which is targeted at enthusiasts who actually want to install third party firmware. The firmware lets me view my bandwidth usage month-by-month or, if you hover your mouse over each bar, even day-by-day as the attached screenshot shows. | |
| | | | | | jacour
join:2001-12-11
Ypsilanti, MI
·Comcast
| Re: Finally The Comcast cap inspired me to install DD-WRT at long lost, mainly due to concerns about bricking my router (which didn't happen). The graph is a very handy tool and the DD-WRT software is much nicer than the LinkSys supplied firmware. I can strongly recommend it. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| said by c0wzg0m00 :said by NOZIREV :Its not like they didnt have something for you to use while this was being developed, "Currently, the Comcast FAQ tells users to do a web search for bandwidth meters or use the meter included in the McAfee Security Suite the company gives out free to subscribers." please stop the crying... you are aware that this does not tell you about thirdparty devices that are using the internet. devices like xbox360's, wii, ps3, streaming music players, etc. As I understand it, this counts all traffic delivered to your IP address. Basically anything that passes through your cable modem will register, regardless of whether its your PC or Xbox. You are thinking of the applications like DL Meter (I think thats what its called) that only track the data used by the PC its installed on.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
| |
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Fredericksburg, TX | Re: Finally McAfee can only track the data used by the PC it's installed in. How would it measure full network usage? You have to be at the router, modem or ISP level to do that. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Fredericksburg, TX | Re: Finally Correct. I was referencing a post that talked about how Comcast is currently offering McAFee.
It'll be interesting to see how router-based traffic loggers (DD-WRT, Tomato) compare to Comcast's ISP-based logger... | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| Re: Finally said by funchords :said by wifi4milez :Basically anything that passes through your cable modem will register, I hope not, or I hope typical network broadcasts get subtracted out. I've never measured this on Comcast, but one Roadrunner user showed 60 Kbps of sustained traffic of what sounds like ARP or DHCP broadcasts that -- if it continued -- would total 20 GB/mo. I suspect they will omit that traffic then. If I am not mistaken, TWC has a 20G cap in some of their Texas markets. If they were to include that data then every sub would be over their limit before even using the service. That would certainly cause many customer complaints, and would be a huge headache for TWC to deal with.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
| |
| | | | | |
anon123456
@comcast.net
| ARP or DHCP broadcasts would stop at the router and not be forwarded onto the cable modem. So unless you are directly connected to the cable modem with your PC or a switch you would not need to worry about it. And if your router is making the DHCP requests to your cable modem you would not be sending any traffic from your PC's etc at all. | |
| | | | | | | 
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
West Chester, PA
| Re: Finally said by anon123456 :
ARP or DHCP broadcasts would stop at the router and not be forwarded onto the cable modem.
Um, the modem receives the traffic BEFORE the router. The modem is the gateway device..not the router. The traffic would not be forwarded on to your PC's but it is still hitting the modem and your router as well.
No this traffic most likely won't be counted, but the one post about 60Kbps sec in arps is something that is a fluke and typically a "storm" of that size would be killed by other management software in place at the CMTS level if it continued for more than a few minutes.
Notice the user said it caused his overall speeds to crash when it was happening, it's not a normal occurence | |
| | | | | | | | 
funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Finally said by Qumahlin :Um, the modem receives the traffic BEFORE the router. The modem is the gateway device..not the router. The traffic would not be forwarded on to your PC's but it is still hitting the modem and your router as well. Right.
said by Qumahlin :No this traffic most likely won't be counted, but the one post about 60Kbps sec in arps is something that is a fluke and typically a "storm" of that size would be killed by other management software in place at the CMTS level if it continued for more than a few minutes. Who knows? We're just guessing here. It will be interesting to see how close they get. The screen shots from the news article showed the summer months -- so I've got to wonder whether all this time spent now on something apparently there for a while is about looking at and fixing the accuracy of an existing system.
said by Qumahlin :Notice the user said it caused his overall speeds to crash when it was happening, it's not a normal occurence IIRC, his area was coming back up from some kind of problem. I'm really not worried about ARP alone, or DHCP broadcasts, or munged packets, or any single thing. The combination of problems of monitoring "delivery" in a best-effort system like the Internet may cause some different results in different environments -- a one-size-fits-all system is unlikely to get it right, we'll be talking about this a lot.
Continuing to focus on perfecting metered Internet, we are continuing to underline the fact that broadband with Comcast sometimes involves a choice between expensive, bursty, boosty, laggy, lossy, limited cable ISP service and a cheaper, unlimited, "fast-enough" alternative (with its "we suck even harder" customer service in my Verizon DSL area).
If Comcast's anti-congestion plan that it's rolling out is truly effective, why do we need caps? Why not go back to unlimited?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | | |
anothercomment
@anonymouse.org
| Re: Finally said by funchords :If Comcast's anti-congestion plan that it's rolling out is truly effective, why do we need caps? Why not go back to unlimited? Not sure I am the fish you are looking for, but I do have some ISP experience and will bite on that baited question...
Because congestion management is to manage unexpected congestion in a fair way. Upgrades on the network still happen as per the business plan in an organized way around expected growth. Otherwise you would have to run congested all the time.
Usage management is to manage the situation where this now becomes expected requiring unexpected upgrades to the network outside the business plan. Since the business plan justifies upgrades, new speeds and price points, you want to ensure you distribute the costs in a "fair" way across a user base.
Since studies show that top "unlimited expecting" users will consume all available bandwidth they are given, their cost of carry exceed their revenue provided. Summary: 1 manages unexpected congestion (to keep networks fair) and one managed unexpected growth (to keep costs fair).
The idea is either to find a "good" cap and grow with it, or charge to offset the cost of usage as is done under commercial terms. You don't have to like it, you can continue to argue against it, but there is plenty of Internet history showing this method and it is reality. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
funchords
Robb Topolski
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Finally Thanks for the kind and thoughtful reply
said by anothercomment :
Because congestion management is to manage unexpected congestion in a fair way. Upgrades on the network still happen as per the business plan in an organized way around expected growth. Otherwise you would have to run congested all the time.
Usage management is to manage the situation where this now becomes expected requiring unexpected upgrades to the network outside the business plan. Since the business plan justifies upgrades, new speeds and price points, you want to ensure you distribute the costs in a "fair" way across a user base. It appears that the business plan is to grow available bandwidth slower than typical Internet growth trends. Assuming 250 GB was the right amount for October 2008, we should have a cap of 275 GB now.
But who cares if I use 500 GB if I use them when nobody else is competing for them? If I am successful and avoid transmitting my massive data spew during signs of congestion, then my use of 500 GB is -- by definition -- not only within the business plan but within the existing system.
And if I'm unsuccessful, then Comcast's "sloppy-seconds" bandwidth management takes hold and I can't harm normal users anyway -- under that plan, I am not entitled to any bandwidth and any that I do get is bonus.
As a result, one way or the other, we don't need a cap.
Since studies show that top "unlimited expecting" users will consume all available bandwidth they are given, Study or not, the notion is wrong on its face. Most users only use 3 GB (we are repeatedly told), despite having much more at their disposal and having the service that was not sold with limits.
(We've never seen such a study. ISPs have quoted this amount without explanation or qualification. My guess is that my idle computers probably consume 3GB/mo.)
their cost of carry exceed their revenue provided. It's silly to look at this in any level other than the aggregate, otherwise you create the situation where the owner of an all-you-can-eat buffet is running a secret per-plate tally and kicking out customers when they exceed his hidden business plan. (That's not a shot at Comcast -- as they have now disclosed that they have done something like this for years. That's not about fairness, that's about fairer dealing.)
Summary: 1 manages unexpected congestion (to keep networks fair) and one managed unexpected growth (to keep costs fair). I hold that the "15+15 and out" plan really does both. Aggregators (Aggregaters?) don't pay by consumption, they pay by the width of the pipe which Comcast controls. Those costs are, by definition, fixed. As the heavy users force it toward full, Comcast deprioritizes their traffic which allows others to remain unimpacted.
There's zero need for a cap.
The idea is either to find a "good" cap and grow with it, A cap that grows at some guaranteed minimum rate with adjustments to match actual Internet growth trends would be very good for users and innovators. Right now, we probably have VC's sitting on the sidelines because who wants to invest in projects that might hit the cap?
or charge to offset the cost of usage as is done under commercial terms. That's another angle. But let's not stop there. What about families of 5 users or more -- why can't they buy a second allocation of 250 GB or 70%-70%-out for their home? (AT&T's and RoadRunner's trials of 150GB/mo and 40GB/mo are actually the best examples of this problem. 250 GB is still a lot of bandwidth.)
You don't have to like it, you can continue to argue against it, but there is plenty of Internet history showing this method and it is reality. This is the first we've brought up history. If you'd like, we can go there. We did struggle with this in the past and how we handled it is very illuminating and useful.
Nice reply, thanks!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | |
u235Sentinel
@xmission.com | And if the numbers don't match the bandwidth consumed is there a resolution short of terminating more Concast customers?
I only ask because I'm sure a Concast shill as yourself would have the answer. | |
| | faaip05
join:2007-09-03
Bangor, PA | One would think, but this is Comcast we are dealing with. | |
| | | 
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·Comcast
·Vonage
·Speakeasy
| Re: Finally Found something interesting in their FAQ
quote:
How does Comcast help customers who have been identified as excessive users?
Comcast's experience shows that some customers identified as excessive users were not aware of the activity that caused the excessive use. For example, after being notified by Comcast some customers identify another person in their household, such as a child or roommate, who uses the service in ways that generate excessive use. In other cases, a customer's personal computer may be compromised by a virus or spyware that uses the computer to send large amounts of spam or perform repeated bulk transfers of large files. Still other customers may have an unsecured wireless router or be using our residential Comcast High-Speed Internet service for a commercial or business purpose and not the intended residential purpose. In each of these situations, and many others, Comcast is able to help the customer identify and address the cause of the excessive use made with his or her account. In fact, most customers identified as excessive users change their usage patterns or make other adjustments and continue to use the service. Only a small fraction of the tiny number of users who are identified as excessive users ever have their service terminated for one year because of continued excessive use.
Ok, so they pull out the "only 1% of Comcast customers are excessive users" and then further go on that it's actually even less because those that were excessive tend to be virus/spam/open wi-fi abuse. So actually, what they are saying is that instead of helping to fix grandmom's virus/trojan infected machine, we will blame the problem on the 1% of the 1% of the 1% that actually use more than 250GB a month of bandwidth instead which out of the many thousands of customers they have, would probably be about 2 or 3 people per state who aren't virus/trojan/open wi-fi users?
Talk about reading between the lines. 
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
| | | | 
jlivingood
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
| Re: Finally said by knightmb :Ok, so they pull out the "only 1% of Comcast customers are excessive users" and then further go on that it's actually even less because those that were excessive tend to be virus/spam/open wi-fi abuse. So actually, what they are saying is that instead of helping to fix grandmom's virus/trojan infected machine, we will blame the problem on the 1% of the 1% of the 1% that actually use more than 250GB a month of bandwidth instead which out of the many thousands of customers they have, would probably be about 2 or 3 people per state who aren't virus/trojan/open wi-fi users? That's not what is intended at all. In fact, its the job of our CSA team to work with customers like that and help them try to remove malware and properly secure their networks, etc.
Jason
--
JL
Comcast | |
| | | | |
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·Comcast
·Vonage
·Speakeasy
| Re: Finally said by jlivingood :That's not what is intended at all. In fact, its the job of our CSA team to work with customers like that and help them try to remove malware and properly secure their networks, etc. Jason Fair enough, my opinion is that those that are upset by the cap will point to this as another reason why they are against it. I think maybe it should be worded a little different so that it doesn't seem to blend in the excessive users and those users that are excessive but didn't know any better because they had a virus/trojan/wi-fi, etc. That's what I took from it when I read it.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
| | | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by jlivingood :That's not what is intended at all. In fact, its the job of our CSA team to work with customers like that and help them try to remove malware and properly secure their networks, etc. Jason No see once watching movies and TV on the internet becomes more common place and higher bitrates are used it's your job to let customers know that if they only got their content from Comcast they wouldn't go over thier cap which in the end is the REAL reason for the cap. Because honestly a straight cap is a VERY VERY retarded way of managing bandwidth. Anyone with even 1/4 of a brain knows that. | |
| | | | | |
Jeremy
@comcast.net
| Re: Finally TRUTH. I'm a great example of big ISP's worst nightmare. I pay out $150/mo to Comcast. I'm now going to drop TV service and go with internet service only. I have a Xbox 360, PS3 and 2 PC's. I have plenty of viewing options on those machines through a combination of pay (Netflix) and free (Hulu) services. Comcast no longer has value to me. In fact, I'm probably going to go over to uverse, drop TV and get either the 10 or 18mbps program for LESS money than a 8mbps pipe @ Comcast. That is ofcourse unless AT&T releases the BS caps they're testing nationwide.
Either way... they see the writing on the wall. Their business model is falling apart in the long run. As it should. People shouldn't have to pay $X for 300 channels when they only watch 4-5 of them on a regular basis. | |
| | 
FicmanS
Premium
join:2005-01-11
Brownsburg, IN
clubs: | Agreed... | |
| bugabuga
join:2004-06-10
Austin, TX
|  I wonder how the count the traffic
I.e. if you turn the modem off while someone keeps sending packets to "your" address, will that still have counter spinning or if the modem needs to be on, and if router manufacturers will start offering a power port to bring the cable modem up/down on demand
--
Странные новости почти каждый день | |
| | 
Matt
You can't fix stupid
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
| Re: I wonder how the count the traffic said by bugabuga :I wonder if they will be counting all inbound traffic that gets delivered, or just passes their border router. I.e. if you turn the modem off while someone keeps sending packets to "your" address, will that still have counter spinning or if the modem needs to be on, and if router manufacturers will start offering a power port to bring the cable modem up/down on demand If you turn your modem off, you no longer have an address. It's assigned to the device behind the modem, not the modem itself. | |
| | | bugabuga
join:2004-06-10
Austin, TX | Re: I wonder how the count the traffic That's not necessarily true. Routing doesn't change. IP address linked to modem's MAC address doesn't change. Traffic may still come down to the node etc
Unlike dial-up, cable modems have quite consistent IP addresses | |
| | | |
Matt
You can't fix stupid
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: I wonder how the count the traffic said by bugabuga :That's not necessarily true. Routing doesn't change. IP address linked to modem's MAC address doesn't change. Traffic may still come down to the node etc Unlike dial-up, cable modems have quite consistent IP addresses If you power your cable modem off, the CMTS will know there is not a link any longer and release the IP. | |
| | | | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: I wonder how the count the traffic I would expect it to be tied into the MAC address of your cable modem. | |
| | | | | |
Matt
You can't fix stupid
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: I wonder how the count the traffic said by en102 :I would expect it to be tied into the MAC address of your cable modem. It is tied to the MAC address of the device attached to the cable modem. | |
| | | | | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: I wonder how the count the traffic They could probably use something as simple as SNMP to read the stats going over the Internet side.
MRTG, Cricket, etc. could all do the function fairly easily.
The longest part would be implementing (documenting, NOC, process, etc.) | |
| | | | | | | | |
Matt
You can't fix stupid
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: I wonder how the count the traffic said by koolkid1563 :If they were to monitor only the 69.144.x.x IP, that should eliminate any local chatter from the modem to the CMTS and vice versa. That is what I was referring to. If a public IP isn't assigned to SOME device attached to the cable modem, you can't send traffic anyway. | |
| | 
DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC
clubs: | What about all the broadcast traffic that hits the cable modem? Notice how the recieve light consintly flashes? If you were to count all that traffic, it would add up. | |
| | |
Matt
You can't fix stupid
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: I wonder how the count the traffic said by DaMaGeINC :What about all the broadcast traffic that hits the cable modem? Notice how the recieve light consintly flashes? If you were to count all that traffic, it would add up. That is the ARP traffic the other posters are referring to. If they measure your public IP traffic at the egress router, none of that matters. | |
| Ytsejamer1
join:2008-01-18
Somersworth, NH
| I worry about Netlfix usage I worry what this cap is going to do when I really have some time to kill with the holidays and watch a few movies from Netflix' streaming.
I'm glad Comcast has a higher cap than most who have implemented one, but it just seems like they want to limit your choice of viewable tv to their service (newsflash, I know).
But I'm glad there will be a meter available...it'll let me keep an eye on it. | |
| |
See 11 replies to this post | |
AVonGauss
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | First Thought... I think I am reading too many boards, my first thought was is this the result of a leaky faucet at Comcast or is Comcast getting a bit more savvy in dealing with the community? | |
| b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA | The latest DD-WRT has a bandwidth monitor I looked at it a couple times, seems to work quite well counts everything going through your router in both directions. But of course you need to have a compatible router to use DD-WRT. | |
| | raptor1418
Premium
join:2002-12-03
Denver, CO
·magicjack.com
·Mesa Networks
·Comcast
| Re: The latest DD-WRT has a bandwidth monitor Tomato Firmware also has a bandwidth monitor that breaks down to Real-Time, Last 24 hours, Last 7 days and monthly.
The real-time and last 24 hours use a graph chart to show usage. The Last 7 days and monthly just give total up, total down and combined total.
With my setup the router is attached right to the modem so that should be my true inbound/outbound and leaves all the modem to edge router talk out. So if my numbers are a hell of a lot lower than their bandwidth usage numbers I will be bitching.
Comcast has pissed me off over the last 3 months with service problems I feel that they caused and resulted in me having to spend money. And on top of it all I just got a notice that they are jacking my rate up for HSI according to a notice I received last week.
Comcast why don't you true improving your network with some of the profit you already get. Can't wait till some new ISP comes in that has FTTH. I would drop comcast in a millisecond for an ISP with FTTH. | |
| brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | well At least this is a good way to know if someone is stealing your internet service. lol | |
| | 
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: well said by brianiscool :At least this is a good way to know if someone is stealing your internet service. lol With these prices, the thief is selling you the internet service. | |
| | |
Trauma
@comcast.net
| Re: well said by jmn1207 :said by brianiscool :At least this is a good way to know if someone is stealing your internet service. lol With these prices, the thief is selling you the internet service. Care to start your own ISP? I'll be the first to sign up for the $9.95 per month all you can eat fiber to the modem deal everyone thinks is so cheap to provide. Some people need to get out and actually run a business before they tell someone else how to run theirs. (And yes, I do run a business so I have some idea of the costs of doing so.) | |
| | | | | |
|
|
Exclusive Screens Of Comcast's New Bandwidth Meter
