Comcast Claims They'll Stop BitTorrent ThrottlingWill embrace 'protocol agnostic' capacity management technique ( old news - 10:06AM Thursday Mar 27 2008) tags: business · bandwidth · cable · ComcastTipped by funchords  Comcast and BitTorrent this morning jointly announced that by the end of this year, Comcast will migrate "to a capacity management technique that is protocol agnostic." In other words, it appears that after months of public outcry, bad press, hearings and an FCC investigation -- Comcast is ready to abandon its practice of forging TCP packets to throttle upstream P2P traffic on its network. Or are they? "This means that we will have to rapidly reconfigure our network management systems," says Comcast CTO Tony Werner, "but the outcome will be a traffic management technique that is more appropriate for today's emerging Internet trends." By "more appropriate," we assume he means doesn't involve packet forgery and a wholesale assault on one particular protocol. We'll have to wait and see. "We have been discussing this migration and its effects with leaders in the Internet community for the last several months, and we will refine, adjust, and publish the technique based upon feedback and initial trial results," says Werner. We're sure that Broadband Reports users like Robb Topolski, who was the first to identify Comcast's practice of packet forgery in our forums last May, will be keeping a watchful eye. As the EFF noted last November, there were less draconian forms of traffic management that Comcast could have embraced, but the company immediately opted for a solution that slowed P2P traffic for all users, regardless of consumption. While the press release is vague, Comcast will now focus only on throttling the connections of high consumption users. The company already terminates the service of users who consume more than an unspecified monthly amount of bandwidth. Originally, Comcast compounded their problems with months of denials, half truths, and semantics when dealing with the press and public concerning their traffic shaping practices. If the FCC takes action against Comcast, it will likely be for a lack of transparency, not for the method of traffic management used. In other words, they'll still likely be hit with an FCC fine, and could face more problems if new network management practices aren't adequately disclosed. The outcome will be a traffic management technique that is more appropriate for today's emerging Internet trends. -Comcast CTO Tony Werner |
In addition to a new traffic management system that's protocol agnostic, the company reminded users they'll be deploying DOCSIS 3.0 to 20% of their footprint by the end of the year -- and broke the news they'll be offering an upstream bandwidth boost ahead of those deployments. "We plan to more than double the upstream capacity of our residential Internet service in several key markets by year end 2008," says Werner. "We plan to take advantage of multi-carrier technology to further increase upstream capacity for all of our broadband customers in advance of the full DOCSIS 3.0 roll out," he says. So in short, Comcast is claiming they'll start using more reasonable traffic management practices and will increase capacity, something many critics and customers have been asking for throughout the debate. What's left to be seen is whether the company makes these new changes and consumption limits transparent to users who are shopping for a broadband connection, or if they continue to treat network management like national security. Given Comcast's less than forthcoming history on this front, the proof will need to be in the pudding. While nobody expects a cable network to be free of some degree of traffic shaping, Comcast needs to show they're being both reasonable and transparent before anyone dubs this a "victory". We likely won't have more detail until we have a chance to sniff around the reconfigured network later this year. Related:- Comcast Launches DOCSIS 3.0 In New England
- Comcast: The New Broadband King
- Comcast's Faster Speeds Have Many Users....Downgrading?
- Martin, Comcast, Continue Lover's Feud
- Comcast To Offer Bandwidth Use Tracker In January
- Comcast: 50Mbps Now Available In 20% Of Markets
- Comcast Mum On New Bandwidth Tracker
- New Comcast Throttling System 100% Online
|
page: 1 · 2  |
  newview Ex .. Ex .. Exactly Premium join:2001-10-01 Parsonsburg, MD
·Vonage
| Truth as a Comcast concept quote: By "more appropriate," he means doesn't involve packet forgery and a wholesale assault on one particular protocol.
I hope they also embrace the "more appropriate" concept of telling their subscribers the truth in the future. -- Ö¿Ö The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
|  |  TIGERON
join:2008-03-11 Pacifica, CA | Re: Truth as a Comcast concept Facing a class-action lawsuit is the only way this company will be truthful. This is nothing more than a public-relations control. | |
|   gaforces United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
| Don't assume anything It's probably a bad idea to assign meaning to what they say such as "he means doesn't involve forging user TCP packets."
It's more likely that they will whitelist legal BT so as to avoid lawsuits.
Pirates are still fair game. -- There is no greater sign of a general decay of virtue in a nation, than a want of zeal in its inhabitants for the good of their country. ~ Joseph Addison | |
|  |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02
Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: Don't assume anything quote: It's more likely that they will whitelist legal BT so as to avoid lawsuits.
That's what I was wondering...though the claim here is "protocol agnostic," so they'd be caught in a lie if they went back and started mucking about with even a portion of BT traffic... | |
|  |  |   JPuppy Java Heathen Premium join:2002-11-24 Glassboro, NJ clubs:
| Re: Don't assume anything said by Karl Bode : ...so they'd be caught in a lie if... You make it sound like they try to avoid that type of situation. -- Only through the criticizing of others can we learn to love ourselves. | |
|  |  |  |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02 | Re: Don't assume anything Point made, but if they were still planning to take action against illegal Torrents their PR people would have avoided use of the phrase "protocol agnostic" in the press release. | |
|  |  |  |  |   Sabre Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17 | Re: Don't assume anything Unless they were planning to take action against illegal material of any sort, whether distributed via torrent or otherwise? Wouldn't that still technically be "protocol agnostic"? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02
Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: Don't assume anything True. This announcement could be followed in a year by a push where they attempt to purge all illegal content from the network via deep packet inspection like AT&T says they want to do...
There could also be a future scenario where official, sanctioned "BitTorrent Corp." BitTorrent traffic is considered the only legitimate BitTorrent traffic they recognize because they've struck content deals with Cohen and company.
But both of these scenarios would be PR napalm bombs. Can't really tell until someone can poke at the newly managed network later this year. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Boogeyman Drive it like you stole it Premium join:2002-12-17 Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
| Re: Don't assume anything What about the nodes that dont have "hogs" on them? The top 5% would just be the Granny that had a new grandbaby and got over 2 gigs of email video and pics in one day.
If you absolutely must get rid of "hogs" (instead of upgrading infrastructure), going by the top percent isnt a perfect idea. You'd have to do it as the top x users who consume more than y more than everyone else on the node on a consistant basis. That way at least the people who arent hogs but still use a lot wont get hassled as much. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  TIGERON
join:2008-03-11 Pacifica, CA | Re: Don't assume anything THANK YOU | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Skippy25
join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO
| You are incorrect in your assumptions regardless of legality.
You do NOT purchase bandwidth to use 100% 24/7. You purchase it with them having the expectation that you will be an average user using the average amount of bandwidth. They do understand that there will be those that use more and those that use less than the average. However, those that are using an extreme amount need to be dealt with as it effects everyone (them and the other customers).
I personally would say they need to have tiers with caps above what a 'typical' user would use. As you move into those tiers your connection is throttled more and more. If you need more bandwidth or higher caps you buy it and pay a "surcharge" to be an "avid downloader or uploader". | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   DHRacer Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10 Lake Arrowhead, CA
·Charter Pipeline
·Verizon west (ex G..
edit: March 27th, @02:38PM
| Re: Don't assume anything "You do NOT purchase bandwidth to use 100% 24/7. You purchase it with them having the expectation that you will be an average user using the average amount of bandwidth."
So even though the connection is on, I can't use it? Why not? You don't sign up for speed tiers by "usage" (though maybe they should change the tiers from "speed" to "usage") since everyone seems to think that more speed = more usage.
I'm still wondering where in the TOS is says what an "average user" is, or an how much is an "average amount of bandwidth". I'd hate to be an over achiever.
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Skippy25
join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Don't assume anything More speed is irrelevant to more usage. You can just get what you want quicker. That doesn't mean you have to consume more just because you can. You can continue to try to skew the facts if you choose, but you are 100% wrong and not a single ISP or network manager will tell you otherwise.
The connection is always on and available and you can use it any time you want. However, if you think it is there for you to absorb 100's of GB or even TB of data at your leisure just because you can then you are sadly mistaken and it is clear in every TOS that if you are doing such they have the right to limit you or terminate you.
I would like to advocate limiting you through tiers and throttling as I think that is the most reasonable and consumer friendly approach. It also gives them another revenue stream for true users of that bandwidth to get it for a price if they want it. But the casual morons that try to download the entire internet every month just so they can say they did, wont be willing to part with their cash (or mommy and daddys cash) so quick to continue doing so. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02
Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: Don't assume anything quote: However, if you think it is there for you to absorb 100's of GB or even TB of data at your leisure just because you can then you are sadly mistaken and it is clear in every TOS that if you are doing such they have the right to limit you or terminate you.
Well then it's time to tell the marketing department to stop pretending the connection has no limits, impose overage fees, and deal with the public relations consequences instead of constantly whining about and demonizing users who actually use their connection. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  wierdo
join:2001-02-16 Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
·Cox HSI
| Re: Don't assume anything said by Karl Bode : quote: However, if you think it is there for you to absorb 100's of GB or even TB of data at your leisure just because you can then you are sadly mistaken and it is clear in every TOS that if you are doing such they have the right to limit you or terminate you.
Well then it's time to tell the marketing department to stop pretending the connection has no limits, impose overage fees, and deal with the public relations consequences instead of constantly whining about and demonizing users who actually use their connection. Agreed. But maybe that's because I only use significantly more than Cox's almost never enforced cap one month out of ten lately.
When I had DSL, I was constantly downloading, though. Of course, that might have been because it was only 20% of the speed, so it took 5 times as long to download anything. 
If I were the cable companies, I would impose a soft cap and throttle you after you exceeded it. The more you use, the slower it gets until you're down to 1.5Mbps. And I would publicize that as being my policy. None of the normal folks who use the satellite providers find their FAPs to be unreasonable in principle, only in the excessively low number at which they kick in. Unlike the cable companies, however, they are 100% up front about it. -- It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Skippy25
join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO | I agree 100% Karl. However, you and I both know that the corporations are going to walk the line of deceit as much as the govermental agencies there to protect us will let them. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   a333 A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12 Corona, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| Let's hope that doesn't turn the US into another Canada.... I'm OK with the idea, but often times, companies abuse that, and rip customers off. It'd be OK if it was $50/month for 20 Mbps with 350 Gigs included, with $0.50/10 gigs. That's reasonable, in my book. But if it's a Time Warner-style $1/Gb overage, that's just ridiculous. Might as well maintain a DSL connection alongside the cable connection, to take care of big downloads. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  Corydon Cultivant son jardin Premium join:2008-02-18 Denver, CO clubs:
·Comcast
| said by TK Junk Mail :Yes. And they should take actions to stop illegal content. And also to reign in the bandwidth hogs(top 5% of users). Bandwidth hogs I'm cool with. Let Comcast go after them all they want to—as long as it really is just the top 1% or whatever and the limits are publicly defined. The main problem I have with Comcast is how opaque their practices are. They really need to be a lot more open about what they're doing.
On the other hand, I don't think stopping piracy or any other illegal content is any of Comcast's concern. Yes, they should cooperate with warrants and subpoenas, but I don't want my ISP monitoring my traffic at the behest of the **AAs unless someone's got a damn good reason, like solid evidence that I'm a pirate or kiddie porn trader or whatever. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   TZi k1L0
join:2001-07-05 Miami Beach, FL
| Re: Don't assume anything said by Corydon : The main problem I have with Comcast is how opaque their practices are. They really need to be a lot more open about what they're doing. I too believe that Comcast ought to be more upfront about just what constitutes over-use. However when you take into account how diverse the plants that they own are (750Mhz, 850Mhz, 1Ghz?) + (DOCSIS 1.1, DOCSIS 2.0 DOCSIS 3.0) , and even the different nodes within systems (100 subs on node A, 17 subs on NODE B), you can understand why it is somewhat difficult to put in the TOS a black and white definition of overuse. Not to mention the fact that services and subscriber load on a system could change on a weekly or daily basis.
If they defined "overuse" according to the most heavily subscribed node, it would mean a lot of users who could be taking advantage of free bandwidth are being denied unused resources whereas a policy based on the least subscribed node would ultimately result in poor service for all. By addressing the issue of "overuse" on node by node, system by system basis they can ensure that their network resources are most efficiently use.
I don't think they intentionally try to make the definition of overuse a secret, it's just that it's based on so many dynamic factors it's almost impossible to put in black-and-white, but I'm sure it is easy for them to identify in the network management software which can dynamically evaluate all those factors. -- 128kbps too much, 100GBps never enough! | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Corydon Cultivant son jardin Premium join:2008-02-18 Denver, CO clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Don't assume anything said by TZi :I too believe that Comcast ought to be more upfront about just what constitutes over-use. However when you take into account how diverse the plants that they own are (750Mhz, 850Mhz, 1Ghz?) + (DOCSIS 1.1, DOCSIS 2.0 DOCSIS 3.0) , and even the different nodes within systems (100 subs on node A, 17 subs on NODE B), you can understand why it is somewhat difficult to put in the TOS a black and white definition of overuse. Not to mention the fact that services and subscriber load on a system could change on a weekly or daily basis. That's a good point, but Cox somehow manages to do it, and I'm sure they suffer from exactly the same issues that Comcast does.
A diverse plant actually is one of the areas where infrastructure upgrades does make sense. I have no doubt whatsoever that MSOs have network surveillance that monitor nodes for oversubscription, identify good candidates for upgrades, etc. I'm sure they do node splits and similar upgrades all the time as their business grows.
What I would like to see is a high cap on how much you can use the service in a month, one that would pretty much never catch 95% of their users (The MSOs routinely claim that only about 1% of users violate the invisible caps). Give people a way of tracking their usage on their website. Then selectively enforce the cap on those nodes where the heavy users are actually impacting others, while letting heavy users on other nodes that don't have the same impact skate by until they do. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02
Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
edit: March 27th, @12:56PM
| Re: Don't assume anything quote: That's a good point, but Cox somehow manages to do it, and I'm sure they suffer from exactly the same issues that Comcast does.
As an aside, Cox also uses the exact same packet forgery approach to throttle eDonkey traffic, but people generally ignored that when we pointed it out last year. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  wierdo
join:2001-02-16 Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
·Cox HSI
edit: March 27th, @01:56PM
| Re: Don't assume anything said by Karl Bode : quote: That's a good point, but Cox somehow manages to do it, and I'm sure they suffer from exactly the same issues that Comcast does.
As an aside, Cox also uses the exact same packet forgery approach to throttle eDonkey traffic, but people generally ignored that when we pointed it out last year. Oh, they do it to BitTorrent in some markets (or at least were a couple of months ago)
Edited to add: As of a few minutes ago, they're not blocking outright anymore, they're just throttling the crap out of it. I have a server connected over GigE to Cox San Diego (among other ISPs) with an all Cox path to my cable modem in Tulsa. Using BitTorrent, the server can seed a given file to me in Tulsa at a mere 25.6KBps. Over HTTP, I can download the same file at my full cap.
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   funchords Robb Topolski Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| said by Karl Bode : quote: That's a good point, but Cox somehow manages to do it, and I'm sure they suffer from exactly the same issues that Comcast does.
As an aside, Cox also uses the exact same packet forgery approach to throttle eDonkey traffic, but people generally ignored that when we pointed it out last year. I'm 100% sure the same was happening with BitTorrent. My Cox partner in testing was having too many wireshark problems for me to be able to prove it, however. So the only evidence I had was anecdotal.
My confidence is based simply on the fact that Cox is using Sandvine and ED2K is an "also ran" as far as P2P protocols go. A USA cable MSO is not going to use Sandvine P2P policy enforcement without going after BitTorrent. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon "We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   TZi k1L0
join:2001-07-05 Miami Beach, FL
| said by Corydon :What I would like to see is a high cap on how much you can use the service in a month, one that would pretty much never catch 95% of their users (The MSOs routinely claim that only about 1% of users violate the invisible caps). The reason these caps are "invisible" is because it would ultimately mean issuing a cap on a node-by-node basis which would be ridiculous considering most users don't even know what a bandwidth cap is. I don't even really think that Comcast even has a number that constitutes abuse, they simply identify users on a node which are consuming resources to the point that it is causing performance degradation and dealing with them accordingly.
If they told you don't transfer over XYZ amount a month then 100 subscribers signed on next month, that number would no longer be relevant or effective. So too, if 100 users cancelled next month and you were forced to adhere to XYZ that would mean loads of network capacity go unused which could be used to satisfy you as a subscriber.
I don't think comcast intends to hide the "invisible" cap from us, it's just that the number is ultimately dynamic.
As for a webpage that details your total transfer, there are several programs for windows (in fact windows itself) and some routers that can keep track of your total usage. While it is easy for satellite providers who have one central NOC to provide such usage statistics, it would be a nightmare for comcast who is constantly acquiring older systems, migrating recently acquired systems and building out new systems to aggregate all this data onto a webpage. -- 128kbps too much, 100GBps never enough! | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   funchords Robb Topolski Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| Re: Don't assume anything Our uplinks are too small to blame any one or any few users on a performance degradation. It's like trying to blame a particular rainstorm or a particular sunny day on El Nino or Global Warming.
That said, in the past, I think they have acted reactively -- in just the way that you described. They either looked at nodes with high utilization or looked at nodes with a high number of complaints. Then they made "the warning call."
But within the past year or so, there has been a stronger campaign and it seems to me that they may have made "the warning call" to certain users proactively -- perhaps where they were about to add a 16Mbps tier or where they were about to launch Comcast Digital Voice.
said by TZi :As for a webpage that details your total transfer, there are several programs for windows (in fact windows itself) and some routers that can keep track of your total usage. While it is easy for satellite providers who have one central NOC to provide such usage statistics, it would be a nightmare for comcast who is constantly acquiring older systems, migrating recently acquired systems and building out new systems to aggregate all this data onto a webpage. Assuming that you are right, then fair enough. However after "the warning call," the user should be able to get some periodic self-monitoring feedback from the provider. Perhaps someone can manually grab the data each week and send it via e-mail to those under "the warning." This way, a user at risk can understand whether the high usage is something nefarious (like a virus or a leeching neighborhood) or accidental (a lousy remote-backup configuration, or someone watching an HD-quality video stream 24/7 and merely turning off the monitor before going to school).
Currently, the only feedback they get is whether or not you have Internet service 30 days after that warning call. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon "We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Matt You can't fix stupid Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC moderated: March 28th, @08:35AM
| Re: Don't assume anything FiOS (BPON and GPON ) is shared. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  djtr4in
join:2008-03-27 Frederick, MD | Re: Don't assume anything direct opti line to my house...same speed through out the day compared to comcast which slows at peak hours..6pm-9pm due to everyone in the area home from work and relaxing and browsing the net. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06 Felton, DE
| Re: Don't assume anything said by djtr4in :direct opti line to my house...same speed through out the day compared to comcast which slows at peak hours..6pm-9pm due to everyone in the area home from work and relaxing and browsing the net. Is that standard throughout the country or an experience that you or someone you know had?
Fios is a shared medium also. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Samwoo
join:2002-02-15 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA | Re: Don't assume anything Don't forget to mention... The INTERNET as a whole is a shared medium. Who shares what nodes on the other hand is a difficult question. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by TK Junk Mail :Yes. And they should take actions to stop illegal content. And also to reign in the bandwidth hogs(top 5% of users). How about some of that illegal spam bot action that seems to come from Comcast subscribers whose machines are infected?  | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Don't assume anything said by moonpuppy :said by TK Junk Mail :Yes. And they should take actions to stop illegal content. And also to reign in the bandwidth hogs(top 5% of users). How about some of that illegal spam bot action that seems to come from Comcast subscribers whose machines are infected? Good point. They should take them offline until they get their machines cleaned. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Matt You can't fix stupid Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: Don't assume anything said by TK Junk Mail :said by moonpuppy :said by TK Junk Mail :Yes. And they should take actions to stop illegal content. And also to reign in the bandwidth hogs(top 5% of users). How about some of that illegal spam bot action that seems to come from Comcast subscribers whose machines are infected? Good point. They should take them offline until they get their machines cleaned. On this we're in 100% agreement. Get them offline ASAP. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   pokesph It Is Almost Fast
join:2001-06-25 Sacramento, CA clubs:
·Comcast
edit: March 27th, @09:55AM
| We'll see.. While it 'sounds' good on paper, we will have to wait and see what really happens here..
At least Comcast is bowing to pressure and doing something. Let also hope that these upload boosts get around to their whole footprint long before DOCSIS 3 does..
waiting. -- Webmaster - Steve - - - - - - - - - - - - »www.1-gb.net »www.ppnstudio.com | |
|   BabyBear Keep wise ...with Night-Owl
join:2007-01-11
| Hazah! Score one for the consumer!
quote: Originally, Comcast compounded their problems with months of denials, half truths, and semantics when dealing with the press and public concerning their traffic shaping practices.
So with all that, we should be cautiously optimistic on Comcast's ability to follow through with what they are saying today. |
|
|
|