Vuze, Free Press Respond to ComcastComcast is 'slowing down content when you want it the most' ( old news - 04:26PM Thursday Feb 14 2008) tags: competition · bandwidth · cable · ComcastYesterday Comcast defended their traffic shaping to the FCC, insisting that their forging of TCP packets to throttle upstream p2p traffic for all users falls in line with the FCC's policy statement on network neutrality. Those guidelines allow a carrier to all but block competing content traffic as long as an ISP lawyer can justify the practice as "reasonable network management." Comcast has been trying very hard to convince both the FCC and the public their approach is reasonable, and recently changed their TOS as part of that effort. BitTorrent video delivery provider Vuze, alongside several consumer groups, originally filed a complaint with the FCC asking them to investigate Comcast. Today Vuze, which claims to have an installed base of 20 million users, offered their response (pdf). The company argues to the FCC that Comcast's "overbroad and clandestine attempts to interfere with traffic" are anything but reasonable: Comcast’s actions starkly raise the issue of whether broadband network operators should be permitted the unfettered discretion to restrict or block traffic carried on their networks and to censor legal content or discriminate against applications and services that they may perceive as competing with their offerings. The time is ripe for the Commission to act to foster an open Internet in the face of the growing power of network operators and their seeming willingness to ignore the essential elements of the Commission’s broadband policy and the imperatives of future innovation on the Internet. The Vuze website says the video operator started including encryption code in its software shortly after Comcast's actions were discovered. The Sandvine gear used by Comcast cannot see within the encrypted packets traveling over its network. When some p2p users in Canada began encrypting traffic to get around traffic shaping, one ISP throttled all encrypted traffic, resulting in a game of cat-and-mouse we may soon see in the States. On a conference call with reporters, Vuze General Council Jay Monahan took aim at Comcast's argument that their traffic shaping only occurs at peak usage times, arguing that what Comcast was really saying was that "we are only slowing down content when you want it the most." Like Comcast, Monahan had plenty of metaphors to throw around, suggesting Comcast was akin to a horse-race track owner keeping certain horses from fairly competing. Free Press, who was also part of the original complaint against Comcast, filed their own response (pdf) to Comcast's defense. "Comcast’s discrimination has nothing to do with network capacity problems," the group argued in a statement. "The company is employing anti-competitive tactics to maintain market advantage."
Related:- Comcast Promises WiMax Bundles
- Comcast: The New Broadband King
- Comcast: 50Mbps Now Available In 20% Of Markets
- Verizon Laughs Off DOCSIS 3.0
- Comcast Expands DOCSIS 3.0 In Bay Area
- Comcast: What Recession?
- Still Waiting On Faster AT&T Speeds, Line Bonding
- Comcast 50Mbps To See Price Cut
|
 |  | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Just goes to prove.. Funny thing is that Comcast is starting to use the same ham-fisted, self-serving excuses for "network protection" that AT&T used back in the 70's in an attempt to prevent customers from using customer-owned equipment on "their" lines in competition with that leased by the phone company.
Except this time the equipment is network traffic which competes with Comcast's lucrative add-on program services like video on demand. It is only a matter of time before "reasonable network management" includes throttling outside video streaming to some absurdly low bitrate.
BitTorrent is today's sparkly thing they're using to distract from where the real discussion should be occurring.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by Anonymister :
This just goes to prove that their network is over-sold... So me an residental ISP who's network isn't over-sold and I'll show you an ISP that will soon be going out of business. All ISPs over-sell their network. It's when they don't manage the over-selling and it becomes too over-sold that it becomes a problem. | |
| | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: I think it's interesting... An independent third-party p2p video delivery system is the same thing as a zombie botnet? | |
| | | 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: I think it's interesting... If you look at nothing but the 10,000ft view of the TCP flows and traffic profile, yes, P2P and Botnets look identical. | |
| | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: I think it's interesting... Slight difference in that botnets are filled with unwilling participants who were conned into participating, and the collective effort is generally geared toward illegal activity. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 
IPingUPing
N4BFR
Premium
join:2002-08-30
Smyrna, GA
clubs:
| Re: I think it's interesting... said by espaeth  : If Vuze is so concerned about the performance of people downloading their content, they should stand up more seed servers on their dime. Or, even better, Vuze buy actual servers and bandwidth and become a real CDN instead of being leech-ware. | |
| | | | | | | macaholic
Premium
join:2003-08-31
Jackson Heights, NY
| Re: I think it's interesting... spoken like Comcrap shill.... no matter how many servers Vuze uses the bottom line is Comcrap is throttling the traffic. A gazilion servers could be on one end of the pipe and the traffic is still being throttled...
--
"You don't subject minority rights to a referendum." Justice Minister Irwin Cotler of Canada | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| Comcast CEO Brian Roberts explaining Comcast's traffic-shaping, "We are committed to providing all customers with an always on connection. People that require heavy bandwidth due to file-sharing and other activities, mostly illegal from our research, do have such applications shaped by our system to provide a positive experience for all customers. If such customers need heavy bandwidth, they can always get a Comcast business account. We do not traffic shape legitimate uses of our system such as VOIP providers, YouTube, for example, and other applications that require bandwidth."
Comcast tech explains it, "If you download illegal stuff, we throttle your connection to those apps. Simple, isn't it? We don't block porn either. I should know since I watch a ton of it everyday."
ROFLMAO!
But, I think Comcast traffic shaping illegal traffic is okay since it makes for a good experience for all. Bandwidth hogs, get a biz acct. Too cheap? Tough!
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
| | | | ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| Re: I think it's interesting... So Linux is an illegal app? It must be, since it is available via BT. And it's seeded by the Linux vendors themselves! IT MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!
I have a suggestion for Comcast. If they can't support their customers, then they should stop overselling their network. They like to say that BT content is somehow evil. Yes, much of it is illegal, but not all of it is. What's happened is that bandwidth demand is outstripping supply, so, instead of growing their network, Comcast is throttling.
But hey, I don't use that much bandwidth. I don't run BT very much at all. So, Comcast, where is my reward for not tying up your network? If you're going to punish those you would describe as bandwidth hogs, then where's my reward for not using a lot of bandwidth? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| Re: I think it's interesting... said by espaeth :If they can support the speeds they advertise for all but one application, is reducing the level of service for everyone still the best option? That makes no sense. Speed is speed. For example, 6/768 is 6/768 no matter what app is using it. Either you support a speed or you don't. To use an analogy, roads have posted speed limits. They'll say "55 miles per hour", not "55 miles per hour as long as you're riding a bicycle".
I've worked Internet tech support and also sold access, and the dirty little secret with ISP's, especially in the dialup days, was that bandwidth was oversold. You could take 56k of downstream bandwidth and run at least seven simultaneous modem connections off it without anyone noticing. Why? Because Web surfing is not bandwidth-intensive. Sure, a user could conceivably pull close to 56k, but they only did it in short bursts after clicking a link or entering a URL, as the requested page was coming in. Then they'd likely sit there for several minutes reading the page before they clicked a link to request more data. As long as the users connected to those modems weren't clicking links at the same time, no one was likely to notice. The only time this scheme started to fall apart was when users did things that used lots of data, like downloading files or accessing streaming media. This could be a problem, but most users didn't do these things too much.
However, that model has changed, at least as far as users are concerned. They want to use the Internet for more than viewing static Web pages, and the ISP's have encouraged this by advertising blazing fast speeds. Well, if you advertise an information autobahn, then you have to expect that users will want to use all that speed for bandwidth-intensive apps, and BT just so happens to be one of them. And the ISP's can't act as if they're innocent, since they've been pushing faster and faster speeds. What did they think people were going to do with all that speed? Surf the Web at 6mbps?
Besides, throttling BT is only today's problem as far as speed is concerned. What happens if Netflix begins to offer set-top boxes for movie downloads? What happens if someone develops a box to stream live TV channels over the Internet to subs' televisions? I'll bet that being able to watch channels that aren't widely available on cable or satellite will be popular with segments of the population. Or maybe video calling will become popular. The point is, these things will eat up lots of bandwidth. What will companies like Comcast do? Throttle all of them? Whether they want to admit it or not, the days of the Internet being used just for e-mail, IM, and Web surfing are ending. We may not be there just yet, but give it another five years, maybe less, and we'll see that day come. | |
| | | | | | |
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: I think it's interesting... said by ISurfTooMuch :said by espaeth :If they can support the speeds they advertise for all but one application, is reducing the level of service for everyone still the best option? That makes no sense. Speed is speed. For example, 6/768 is 6/768 no matter what app is using it. Either you support a speed or you don't. To use an analogy, roads have posted speed limits. In order for statistical multiplexing to work, you can't be having apps use the connection 24x7. Name another legitimate app that has the same traffic profile as P2P?
said by ISurfTooMuch :Besides, throttling BT is only today's problem as far as speed is concerned. What happens if Netflix begins to offer set-top boxes for movie downloads? What happens if someone develops a box to stream live TV channels over the Internet to subs' televisions? I'll bet that being able to watch channels that aren't widely available on cable or satellite will be popular with segments of the population. Or maybe video calling will become popular. The point is, these things will eat up lots of bandwidth. What will companies like Comcast do? Throttle all of them? They don't need to throttle them all. For downstream only traffic like watching movies those transfers have a fixed duration. You download while you watch the movie or cache the movie, and then you're done. Same thing with video calls, unless you plan on having some kind of strange 24x7 video call going with someone.
Again, the issue is infinite duration transfers with P2P, where the app will keep generating traffic indefinitely as long as it is running. | |
| | | | | | | | ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| Re: I think it's interesting... Although movie downloads have a definite end, they have usage patterns that create problems in that usage will not be spread out evenly during the day. Many people will want to watch during the evening hours, so usage will spike during that time.
And streaming of live television and radio does not have a definite end. People will often leave a TV on for the better part of a day, even if they aren't watching it. They might even leave the set-top box on when they turn the TV off for the night, so data will still be coming in.
And I didn't even mention uses like audio/video surveillance, such as setting up cameras and mics to keep tabs on children and elderly family members. Once people figure out that an Internet connection can be used in that way, it will take off like gangbusters. And that kind of usage is almost all upstream data. Just wait and see the reaction when a company like Comcast tries to clamp down on that. It'll be a PR nightmare. | |
| | | | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| said by espaeth :Name another legitimate app that has the same traffic profile as P2P? Internet radio. Streaming video. Both of which are in direct competition with Comcast's own high-profit services.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: I think it's interesting... said by espaeth :1) The traffic is all downstream where capacity is greater (45mbps vs 9mbps) 2) The traffic is all in a single TCP session. Internet radio is 128-192kbps. *yawn* and unicast Internet video in its current form will never be able to scale large enough to matter. (There's not enough capacity at the content source for it to deliver anything other than niche content to a subset of standard TV viewers) High definition video (HD-DVD / BluRay) did ~$250 million in sales last year. Next gen HD discs only comprise about 0.5% of the disc rental market, with DVD being the other 99.5%. Internet video did ~$134 million. It's not a big enough chunk of users to worry about; the content providers will have scaling issues far before it becomes a problem for ISPs. You are assuming that everyone runs BitTorrent full-on. That's nice for your argument, as it is the most egregious p2p offender and the main talking point of your industry's assault on non-captive media, but does not address streaming media's continuous usage profile (both up and down, by the way, since it's not confined to just Shoutcast and many folks originate). I still assert that this is just a test and if Comcast can get their current "network management" procedures past the regulators it will be a very short walk to interference with other, less shady services. Like Netflix, Amazon and now Apple iTunes video downloading and streaming.
As many others have pointed out, there are much less draconian measures available for limiting BitTorrent upload bandwidth, as Cablevision has shown, but that does not really get the anti-competitive field plowed for future high-profit, captive crops. The best way to defeat your competitors is to prevent them from getting to your customers. That's where this is heading.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | | | | | wingman99
join:2003-12-18
Bettendorf, IA
·Qwest.net
| said by espaeth :said by ISurfTooMuch :said by espaeth :If they can support the speeds they advertise for all but one application, is reducing the level of service for everyone still the best option? That makes no sense. Speed is speed. For example, 6/768 is 6/768 no matter what app is using it. Either you support a speed or you don't. To use an analogy, roads have posted speed limits. In order for statistical multiplexing to work, you can't be having apps use the connection 24x7. Name another legitimate app that has the same traffic profile as P2P? said by ISurfTooMuch :Besides, throttling BT is only today's problem as far as speed is concerned. What happens if Netflix begins to offer set-top boxes for movie downloads? What happens if someone develops a box to stream live TV channels over the Internet to subs' televisions? I'll bet that being able to watch channels that aren't widely available on cable or satellite will be popular with segments of the population. Or maybe video calling will become popular. The point is, these things will eat up lots of bandwidth. What will companies like Comcast do? Throttle all of them? They don't need to throttle them all. For downstream only traffic like watching movies those transfers have a fixed duration. You download while you watch the movie or cache the movie, and then you're done. Same thing with video calls, unless you plan on having some kind of strange 24x7 video call going with someone. Again, the issue is infinite duration transfers with P2P, where the app will keep generating traffic indefinitely as long as it is running. that's not the issue it's peak hours when all people are using there pc on the net | |
| | | | | | | otis_sh
join:2007-05-04
Ann Arbor, MI
2 edits | There's something called the Pareto effect aka the 80:20 rule. 20% of your customers buy 80% of your product. It happens with beer, for instance - approx 20% of the population (aka beer lovers) drink approx 80% of the beer. (Not exactly, but just approximately). I believe it's actually less than 20% drink more than 80%, IIRC.
Bandwidth hogs are essentially "internet fans" -- they love the internet like beer lovers love beer. Anyone who's been to business school knows (or should at least remember) what the Pareto effect is.
So it does make you wonder, doesn't it? Maybe this has nothing to do with _illegal_ bit torrents? Maybe this really is a clandestine effort to prevent legit "on demand" via BT?
BT certainly shows much promise, and Vuse may very well be on to something, and others may very well follow. Could it be true? Is the reason for the RST's actually to corner the on-demand market?
Anyone who knows anything about running ISPs knows that the bandwidth use is not proportional -- a small number of folks using a large percentage of the bandwidth -- how can you NOT know that? It's the Pareto effect, and it's everywhere. Almost all industry sectors have their "fans". Wine lovers, video game enthusiasts, baseball card collectors, amateur astronomers who purchase telescopes for hobby purposes... the list goes on and on -- health clubs, golf courses, frequent fliers... it's very often going to be a minority of customers generating the most "business", while other people only occasionally fly, and the vast majority never set foot in a health club.
What makes it such a big deal that broadband internet has its own enthusiast base? It's perfectly normal!
Vuse might very well be on to something here. This could totally be an anti-competitive thing going on, and the whole piracy thing just an excuse, just a front.
It may not even be the fear of "building out" the network. I mean, building out the network would pave the way for more expensive tiers - certainly a company that grows to the size that Comcast has grown to isn't afraid of investing in its own future!
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's something more going on here than meets the eye.
You could even argue that the entire asymmetrical nature of residential broadband is another instance of the Pareto effect (most people download, only a few upload). It's a little low for the older technologies, but for the newer FTT* technologies, for instance, 1/6 is .167, as is 5/30. Both of them fairly close to 20%. | |
| | | | | 
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | With so many people claiming to be downloading Linux distros, you would think they would have more than an asterisk for desktop market share LOL. | |
| | | | | | ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| Re: I think it's interesting... said by Dogfather :With so many people claiming to be downloading Linux distros, you would think they would have more than an asterisk for desktop market share LOL. First, many people download to try. They may or may not keep a given distro. When a new version of Ubuntu comes out, I'm sure a fair number of Mandriva users download an image to see what's going on on the other side of the fence. People want to know if they're missing out on something their distro isn't offering.
Also, some folks are on the verge of making the leap to Linux, but they may be waiting for just the right distro to come along.
Finally, many downloads are done by people upgrading to the latest version. They may do this because they want a clean install rather than upgrading an old version.
And although Linux on the desktop isn't widespread, many servers run it, and server admins are just as likely to get it via BT as are home users. | |
| | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by supergirl :.... But, I think Comcast traffic shaping illegal traffic is okay ... Q: how do they know it's illegal?
A: they don't
Someone did a P2P test using the bible (a public domain work), it was blocked by comcast. Comcast is not blocking illegal traffic, they are blocking P2P traffic | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
1 edit | said by nasadude :said by supergirl :.... But, I think Comcast traffic shaping illegal traffic is okay ... Q: how do they know it's illegal? A: they don't Someone did a P2P test using the bible (a public domain work), it was blocked by comcast. Comcast is not blocking illegal traffic, they are blocking P2P traffic Well within the terms of their TOS:
»www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
said by Comcast TOS :
Prohibited Uses and Activities
Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment to:
...
xiv. run programs, equipment, or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN (Local Area Network), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;
So it seems that Comcast is just enforcing its TOS by limiting P2P uploading.... | |
| | | | | | macaholic
Premium
join:2003-08-31
Jackson Heights, NY
| Re: I think it's interesting... pssst they changed the TOS regarding p2p yesterday or today.... to coincide with the their "legal" bullshit. Just because its in a TOS does not make it good business or even FCC approved/legal.
--
"You don't subject minority rights to a referendum." Justice Minister Irwin Cotler of Canada | |
| | | | | | |
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
| Re: I think it's interesting... said by macaholic :pssst they changed the TOS regarding p2p yesterday or today.... to coincide with the their "legal" bullshit. Just because its in a TOS does not make it good business or even FCC approved/legal. I haven't ever seen a cable ISP that didn't prohibit SERVERS in their TOS.
Comcast may have clarified it recently, but I'm sure it's been there for years.
...and don't try to even say that a P2P program seeding is not a server. | |
| | | | | | | | macaholic
Premium
join:2003-08-31
Jackson Heights, NY
| Re: I think it's interesting... said by MacLeech :said by macaholic :pssst they changed the TOS regarding p2p yesterday or today.... to coincide with the their "legal" bullshit. Just because its in a TOS does not make it good business or even FCC approved/legal. I haven't ever seen a cable ISP that didn't prohibit SERVERS in their TOS. Earthlink, Roadrunner....
--
"You don't subject minority rights to a referendum." Justice Minister Irwin Cotler of Canada | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | 
Anonymister
@verizon.net | The problem with the business account is that the same invisible bandwidth cap limitations are in place. So why pay and arm and a leg for the same pathetic, troubled, and oversold network? Its a rip-ff. | |
| | | | 
pkarlos_76
join:2004-08-24
Edmonton, AB
1 edit | Hey Dude let me name a few legal services that use bittorrrent; Blizzard Software (World of Warcraft), Joust, and Vuze (see below for more legal uses). Hmm now lets see throttling encrypted traffic affects ALL SSL sites inluding your banking sites. Yep your computer is slow cause the browser pages load slowly, of course you'll BLAME Microsoft for it. I don't appreciate being called and treated like a criminal because your choose to forgo your constituional right to be innocent until proven guilty. So take your Anti pirate rant and stuff it till you do some research.
Here's an excerpt fromt he Bittorrent Wiki:
"Film, video and music
* BitTorrent Inc. has amassed a number of licenses from Hollywood studios for distributing popular content at the company's website.
* Sub Pop Records releases tracks and videos via BitTorrent Inc.[6] to distribute its 1000+ albums. The band Ween uses the website Browntracker.net[7] to distribute free audio and video recordings of live shows. Furthermore, Babyshambles and The Libertines (both bands associated with Pete Doherty) have extensively used torrents to distribute hundreds of demos and live videos.
* The creator of the BitTorrent protocol, Bram Cohen, at one time worked for Valve Software. Valve uses the BitTorrent protocol in their Steam media streaming frontend.[citation needed]
* Podcasting software is starting to integrate BitTorrent to help podcasters deal with the download demands of their MP3 "radio" programs. Specifically, Juice and Miro (formerly known as Democracy Player) support automatic processing of .torrent files from RSS feeds. Similarly, some BitTorrent clients, such as µTorrent, are able to process web feeds and automatically download content found within them.
[edit] Personal material
* The Amazon S3 "Simple Storage Service" is a scalable Internet-based storage service with a simple web service interface, equipped with built-in BitTorrent support.
* Blog Torrent offers a simplified BitTorrent tracker to enable bloggers and non-technical users to host a tracker on their site. Blog Torrent also allows visitors to download a "stub" loader, which acts as a BitTorrent client to download the desired file, allowing users without BitTorrent software to use the protocol.[8] This is similar to the concept of a self-extracting archive.
[edit] Software
* Many major open source and free software projects encourage BitTorrent as well as conventional downloads of their products to increase availability and reduce load on their own servers.
[edit] Games
* Blizzard's World of Warcraft video game utilizes the BitTorrent protocol to send game updates to clients.
* The game GunZ The Duel has a built-in BitTorrent client.
" | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| Vuze works without direct intervention, but you still have to goto their website and get the app.
Zombie/Botnet are installed without user knowledge for the purpose of causing harm.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | kcblack
Premium
join:2000-09-11
Chicago, IL | So I wonder what you think of my directv dvr that uses my broadband connection to download VOD...should Comcast be able to throttle them also?
Kevin | |
| | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: I think it's interesting... quote:
So I wonder what you think of my directv dvr that uses my broadband connection to download VOD
Virus! | |
| | | | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Vuze should just strike a deal with Comcast ...instead of wrapping themselves in the flag of "network neutrality" and making legalistic arguments in front of the government. I find this hypocritical.
They are a business. They should make a business arrangement with Comcast. How hard would it be to figure out a way to identify their packets so that they don't get shaped?
Comcast's business model is not "let a thousand always-on P2P uploaders bloom". That's why their TOS is what it is. It is within their rights as a business to specify what capabilities its users get for the money they pay.
Vuze seems to think that they should be able to run to the government and FORCE THOSE EVIL PIPE OWNERS to support their P2P at full throttle, thus putting money in THEIR pockets and taking it out of Comcast's. | |
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | Re: Vuze should just strike a deal with Comcast comcast's business model IS providing a pipe to their customers.
comcast WANTS their business model to be differentiated service based on whether someone pays them not to interfere with traffic requested by a comcast customer | |
| | | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | Re: Vuze should just strike a deal with Comcast said by nasadude :comcast's business model IS providing a pipe to their customers. comcast WANTS their business model to be differentiated service based on whether someone pays them not to interfere with traffic requested by a comcast customer I almost agree with you.
I think what's going on is that Comcast's business model started as providing a pipe, but they made certain assumptions about the shared use of that pipe, which would allow them to "oversell" capacity, similarly to what the airlines do... oversell seats because they know, based on past experience, that a certain percentage of customers won't show up.
Now, with BitTorrent coming in and dramatically ramping up shared use of the pipe, they are discovering their assumptions don't hold any more.
So, now they are trying to change their business model to accomodate this change in usage patterns. Fundamentally, they are trying to shut down BitTorrent users when they start interfering with their "old model" customers.
The whole question is, are they within their rights to do this. Are they like a regulated monopoly utility who, in return for their monopoly status, must operate under a set of restrictive rules? Or, are they in a competitive business, where they are free to react and change based on competition, demand, and changing business conditions?
"Network Neutrality" is heading towards the "regulated monopoly" model. The carriers clearly want to go the other way.
What frosts my chops, as I said in the original post, is that the pro-network-neutrality companies are so hypocritical. It's a business matter. Yet, they wrap themselves in this ideological flag and wave it bravely for all to see. The fact that they WANT to own the dynamic, expanding part of this market, and RELEGATE their rivals to just being "dumb pipes", is lost. They just want the government to do their work for them. | |
| | kcblack
Premium
join:2000-09-11
Chicago, IL
·RCN CABLE
| Its an easy way to distribute data that doesn't require big pipes. As far as I'm concerned, what I PAY for is what I get and if I want to download/upload LEGAL data all day, then Comcast better be bending over and providing the service that I pay for.
In my opinion, the moment they "forged" packets designed to interrupt the flow of LEGITIMATE traffic, they became felons. Even more when they didn't own up to what they were doing, they engaged in a conspiracy to commit fraud and cover up that crime.
In my perfect world they would have actually put in the infrastructure that they were supposed to when they were supposed to in order to get the concessions that they got from the government (actual two way symmetric service) instead of this god awful up/down nonsense.
Kevin
--
"Because we’ve invested over $4 billion in building our MegaBand network so you can enjoy the internet the way it was intended to be – fast and uncapped." (RCN marketing Promo) | |
| | DarkSyde
join:2006-06-07
Akron, OH
| Where does it end? Should they then also be paid by Blizzard for distributing ALL of their patches and content updates for WoW through a BitTorrent client? Certainly they (Blizzard) use far more of their (Comcast) bandwidth. We then end up in a situation where the 'ISP' is no longer an ISP and is allowed to more or less extort any company that utilizes P2P to distribute content, and from there you can kiss neutrality goodbye. | |
| 
Swingerhead
Premium
join:2004-04-06
Richmond, VA | and is Netflix a competing service? because I cant watch jack on Netflix anymore without a HUGE delay. | |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: and is Netflix a competing service? said by Swingerhead :because I cant watch jack on Netflix anymore without a HUGE delay. There could be any number of reasons for this. Since, AFAIK, NetFlix is a server-based offering, the first thing I'd suspect is their servers. The second thing I'd suspect is time of day, in other words, are a lot of users trying to download stuff at the same time and flooding the net?
If I were you, I'd be posting on some forum where NetFlix users gather, and see if others are having similar issues, and see if you can narrow down the cause.
There's no indication that I've seen that Comcast or any other carrier is specifically limiting video downloads from NetFlix. So I'd be really surprised if it's some specific action of Comcast that's causing this. | |
| | | DemonChicken
join:2006-10-15
Boon, MI | Hey comcast! If I move to an area, and you and one other service are the only service, I will choose them, if their speeds are above 512k and pings & reliability are good.
Hows that? | |
|
anonymony
@comcast.net
| Comcast does not deserve the name of ISP This crap with comcast reminds me of when all the potato chip companies were fighting with pringles because they claimed pringles were potato chips but they were not real potato chips! Finally the potato chip companies won and pringles has to put on their label that they use dried potato things or whatever, well to the point i think comcast should have a big logo on it saying that they are not an ISP because they do not provide u bandwidth when u want it because it is shared between so many users they should only deserve the ISP logo if they can provide each individual with the bandwidth they promise no matter what time of day no matter how many users are on the node, except when an issue is on the user's end of course. | |
| |
anonymony
@comcast.net | Re: Comcast does not deserve the name of ISP meant to add that it took all the potato chip companies years to fight pringles over the fact that they were not real potato chips | |
| | | |
|
|
from:
