Comcast throttling Bittorrent traffic

[Nik]

Originally posted by: jersiq

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: spidey07
:thumbsup:

Smart move. They are eliminating the small percentage of people that use 90% of the networks capacity. This will enable better service to all customers.

Very smart.

Proof of the bolded comment?

I'm not allowed to release information. But in general on broadband residential services 5% of the users use 90% of the capacity and it's almost always P2P.

So? They're paying for a level of service, why can't they use it.

That's like charging someone for the use of a water hose, saying that the hose is 1" in diameter and always turned on --and then cutting them off for leaving the hose on all the time. Who cares if they use it or not? Why penalize someone for using the level of service that you've offered them in the first place?

Maybe because the other, larger percentage should also be allowed to use 90 % of that capacity also? They are paying customers also, are they not?

What's to say they can't use it? They're allocated, as an example, 8mbps, why can't they use 8mbps? If other people's bandwidth usage is directly responsible for lowering someone else's speed, I think that's false advertising. If you're selling a certain bandwidth, then you should make sure that you're capable of providing that much bandwidth, sustained, to the whole of your customer base all at once.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
Of course no company is sane enough to use BT to distribute updates or installation files... There's no real need for BT, you are all pirates!

Linux distros?

world of warcraft uses their own BT on patch day. i got my conn severed at a hotel for the game updating one time in floriduh. pissed me off more that they didnt notice it until 38mb had already downloaded and i only had 2.2mb left.

 

[0roo0roo]

moronic isps. there should be a law against this kind of thing. basically they are outraged you have the temerity to actually use what you paid for

 

[jersiq]

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
The ISPs oversell just like a hosting company will do. They truly should not oversell if they cannot provide the required bandwidth.

Then we would have a proliferation of topics like:

ZOMG, Comcast just bumped me down to a 3mbps service, because too many people are using P2P. WTH Comcast, build out your network!!!!!111oneoneone

Again, you agree to an ISP terms and standards which they can modify as they please. If you truly don't like their practices, exercise your right to use another ISP on the free marketplace.

 

[apac]

Originally posted by: jersiq

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
The ISPs oversell just like a hosting company will do. They truly should not oversell if they cannot provide the required bandwidth.

Then we would have a proliferation of topics like:

ZOMG, Comcast just bumped me down to a 3mbps service, because too many people are using P2P. WTH Comcast, build out your network!!!!!111oneoneone

Again, you agree to an ISP terms and standards which they can modify as they please. If you truly don't like their practices, exercise your right to use another ISP on the free marketplace.

The problem is that they hold a virtual monopoly in many places. They buy out their smaller cable competitors until the only option is 384Kbps Qwest DSL.

 

[bigdog1218]

I can't believe nerds bitch and moan because someone is limiting the amount of illegal downloads they can make.

 

[jersiq]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: jersiq

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: spidey07
:thumbsup:

Smart move. They are eliminating the small percentage of people that use 90% of the networks capacity. This will enable better service to all customers.

Very smart.

Proof of the bolded comment?

I'm not allowed to release information. But in general on broadband residential services 5% of the users use 90% of the capacity and it's almost always P2P.

So? They're paying for a level of service, why can't they use it.

That's like charging someone for the use of a water hose, saying that the hose is 1" in diameter and always turned on --and then cutting them off for leaving the hose on all the time. Who cares if they use it or not? Why penalize someone for using the level of service that you've offered them in the first place?

Maybe because the other, larger percentage should also be allowed to use 90 % of that capacity also? They are paying customers also, are they not?

What's to say they can't use it? They're allocated, as an example, 8mbps, why can't they use 8mbps? If other people's bandwidth usage is directly responsible for lowering someone else's speed, I think that's false advertising. If you're selling a certain bandwidth, then you should make sure that you're capable of providing that much bandwidth, sustained, to the whole of your customer base all at once.

Let's pretend we are attached to an ISP, just you and me
Why do you get to use the majority of the resources although we both pay the same price?
Now I noticed a lot of toungue in cheek responses about the distribution of legal software, which I don't take exception to. However, to make the claim that all P2P traffic is legitimate is very daft at the least.

Edit:
Again people are not looking at the big picture, but I think what Spidey was hinting towards is the Core network of the ISP, not the "last mile" (not totally applicable but it will suffice)
He has a lot more experience than I, working with ISP's (I've only worked for one)
If you think it is "cheap" to have a network to handle loads for all users at all times, price yourself out some equipment, then we'll talk. Nearly every company that provides a service oversells. Your cell phone company does it. They only engineer their system for "Average Peak Loads", not for the total amount of calls that a site could handle. Would you rather have a company that goes broke catering to 5% of their user base? Or have a company that caters to 95% of their user base?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: jersiq

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: jersiq

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: spidey07
:thumbsup:

Smart move. They are eliminating the small percentage of people that use 90% of the networks capacity. This will enable better service to all customers.

Very smart.

Proof of the bolded comment?

I'm not allowed to release information. But in general on broadband residential services 5% of the users use 90% of the capacity and it's almost always P2P.

So? They're paying for a level of service, why can't they use it.

That's like charging someone for the use of a water hose, saying that the hose is 1" in diameter and always turned on --and then cutting them off for leaving the hose on all the time. Who cares if they use it or not? Why penalize someone for using the level of service that you've offered them in the first place?

Maybe because the other, larger percentage should also be allowed to use 90 % of that capacity also? They are paying customers also, are they not?

What's to say they can't use it? They're allocated, as an example, 8mbps, why can't they use 8mbps? If other people's bandwidth usage is directly responsible for lowering someone else's speed, I think that's false advertising. If you're selling a certain bandwidth, then you should make sure that you're capable of providing that much bandwidth, sustained, to the whole of your customer base all at once.

Let's pretend we are attached to an ISP, just you and me
Why do you get to use the majority of the resources although we both pay the same price?
Now I noticed a lot of toungue in cheek responses about the distribution of legal software, which I don't take exception to. However, to make the claim that all P2P traffic is legitimate is very daft at the least.

Edit:
Again people are not looking at the big picture, but I think what Spidey was hinting towards is the Core network of the ISP, not the "last mile" (not totally applicable but it will suffice)
He has a lot more experience than I, working with ISP's (I've only worked for one)
If you think it is "cheap" to have a network to handle loads for all users at all times, price yourself out some equipment, then we'll talk. Nearly every company that provides a service oversells. Your cell phone company does it. They only engineer their system for "Average Peak Loads", not for the total amount of calls that a site could handle. Would you rather have a company that goes broke catering to 5% of their user base? Or have a company that caters to 95% of their user base?

I'd want one that doesn't pull the old bait and switch.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
I can't believe nerds bitch and moan because someone is limiting the amount of illegal downloads they can make.

Easily the most ignorant statement in this thread. By far.

 

[jdoggg12]

To those with qualms about 5% using 90%... what if everything that 5% was doing is legit/legal? Is it still unfair to the other 95%? They're both paying for the same service, some just choose to more fully use it.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: GuideBot
What's to say they can't use it? They're allocated, as an example, 8mbps, why can't they use 8mbps? If other people's bandwidth usage is directly responsible for lowering someone else's speed, I think that's false advertising. If you're selling a certain bandwidth, then you should make sure that you're capable of providing that much bandwidth, sustained, to the whole of your customer base all at once.

Your broadband connection would cost 10,000 dollars if not more a month if that were the case.

They are not selling a sustained service. That's why it's so cheap.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: jersiq
Let's pretend we are attached to an ISP, just you and me
Why do you get to use the majority of the resources although we both pay the same price?
Now I noticed a lot of toungue in cheek responses about the distribution of legal software, which I don't take exception to. However, to make the claim that all P2P traffic is legitimate is very daft at the least.

Edit:
Again people are not looking at the big picture, but I think what Spidey was hinting towards is the Core network of the ISP, not the "last mile" (not totally applicable but it will suffice)
He has a lot more experience than I, working with ISP's (I've only worked for one)
If you think it is "cheap" to have a network to handle loads for all users at all times, price yourself out some equipment, then we'll talk. Nearly every company that provides a service oversells. Your cell phone company does it. They only engineer their system for "Average Peak Loads", not for the total amount of calls that a site could handle. Would you rather have a company that goes broke catering to 5% of their user base? Or have a company that caters to 95% of their user base?

I'm the end user (and have worked for many ISP's, so I've seen both sides). As an end user, I don't care about what it costs to run the service and I shouldn't have to care. You say I can use X-mbps, fine. If I use it, so what. That's what I'm paying for. I don't care if the guy next to me is paying the same price getting a lesser quality of service because it's not my problem.

My quality of service shouldn't affect my neighbor's quality of service. If it does, then the network is fucked up. Shit, I used to have HOME equipment that will throttle bandwidth, no matter how much is available. My roommate got exactly half the bandwidth and I was allocated exactly the other half. No matter how much was available, neither one of us would affect the other unless the total bandwidth available was less than half. When that was the case, we didn't bitch at each other or say "okay you can no longer download porn" or some other ridiculous finger pointing because it was the ISP's fault.

In that same way, if the ISP is going to charge you for 8mbps, they shouldn't slap you around for actually using it. If your using your 8mbps actually affects your neighbor's quality of service, then the ISP's network is fucked up and they need to fix it instead of punishing those who actually use what they pay for.

It's the easy way out, really. Instead of upgrading network hardware to actually PROVIDE what they SAY they'll provide -you know, giving the customer what they paid for- it's easier to just slap customers around and take away that which the customer is paying for --WHILE CONTINUING TO CHARGE THEM FOR HAVING IT.

It's wrong. It's theft.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GuideBot
What's to say they can't use it? They're allocated, as an example, 8mbps, why can't they use 8mbps? If other people's bandwidth usage is directly responsible for lowering someone else's speed, I think that's false advertising. If you're selling a certain bandwidth, then you should make sure that you're capable of providing that much bandwidth, sustained, to the whole of your customer base all at once.

Your broadband connection would cost 10,000 dollars if not more a month if that were the case.

They are not selling a sustained service. That's why it's so cheap.

Japan.

Voila, your argument is invalid.

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
I can't believe nerds bitch and moan because someone is limiting the amount of illegal downloads they can make.

Way to assume, sparky.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GuideBot
What's to say they can't use it? They're allocated, as an example, 8mbps, why can't they use 8mbps? If other people's bandwidth usage is directly responsible for lowering someone else's speed, I think that's false advertising. If you're selling a certain bandwidth, then you should make sure that you're capable of providing that much bandwidth, sustained, to the whole of your customer base all at once.

Your broadband connection would cost 10,000 dollars if not more a month if that were the case.

They are not selling a sustained service. That's why it's so cheap.

Japan.

Voila, your argument is invalid.

ummm, that still can not operate all access ports at full speed, the optics alone on 10G and 40G links run over 50,000. That cost has to go somewhere. Every network that ever existed is oversubscribed to some point.

Notice this article lets you do whatever you like as long as you stay on comcast (and that makes perfect sense since they own the gear/network/cable). It's when you leave.

That's the choke points - the actual links to The Internet. These are the ones that have the most usage and where you see P2P users abusing.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GuideBot
What's to say they can't use it? They're allocated, as an example, 8mbps, why can't they use 8mbps? If other people's bandwidth usage is directly responsible for lowering someone else's speed, I think that's false advertising. If you're selling a certain bandwidth, then you should make sure that you're capable of providing that much bandwidth, sustained, to the whole of your customer base all at once.

Your broadband connection would cost 10,000 dollars if not more a month if that were the case.

They are not selling a sustained service. That's why it's so cheap.

Japan.

Voila, your argument is invalid.

ummm, that still can not operate all access ports at full speed, the optics alone on 10G and 40G links run over 50,000. That cost has to go somewhere. Every network that ever existed is oversubscribed to some point.

Notice this article lets you do whatever you like as long as you stay on comcast (and that makes perfect sense since they own the gear/network/cable). It's when you leave.

That's the choke points - the actual links to The Internet. These are the ones that have the most usage and where you see P2P users abusing.

So you can use all the bandwidth you want, provided you don't view any websites beyond comcast.***?

It's an ISP. An Internet Service Provider. It's not an our-own-network provider, it's an internet service provider.

 

[spidey07]

Don't comare bursty 'normal' traffic patterns like web to the constant drag of P2P.

If you realized that you were going to have to raise prices to your customers significantly if you didn't do something about abuse, what would you do? Raise prices or fix the abuse?

 

[Nik]

That's the problem, spidey07. Nobody's abusing anything.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: GuideBot
That's the problem, spidey07. Nobody's abusing anything.

Sure you are. You're using a burstable connection like a sustained one.

You can get a nice fat link to the intarweb at whatever speed you like. You can fill it all day long and run it to full capacity, all day, everyday.

But you'll have to pay for it.

What you're likely to see in the future is a 'power user' connection at a significantly higher price to help pay for the network.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
To those with qualms about 5% using 90%... what if everything that 5% was doing is legit/legal? Is it still unfair to the other 95%? They're both paying for the same service, some just choose to more fully use it.

Still waiting on an answer to this...

 

[jersiq]

Originally posted by: GuideBot
That's the problem, spidey07. Nobody's abusing anything.

I am just quoting you, but not "calling you out" rather your argument.
If you can honestly tell me that ALL P2P traffic is legit, then I think there is a strong leg to stand on. I have used P2P in the past, I know what the majority of users are using it for.
My argument as an end user is this:
If you want to download that distro/freeware/etc feel free. That will NOT take up the majority of the capacity used. I pay for a service also, and would like to download a new map for Wolf:ET. I shouldn't have to fight for 'net usage beyond Comcast with people who could be using P2P for nefarious reasons.

Again you don't saturate a link with legal usage.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: bigdog1218
I can't believe nerds bitch and moan because someone is limiting the amount of illegal downloads they can make.

i guess you are for restrictive drm, you don't have a problem with that because you aren't doing anything illegal right?

how about we install some webcams in your come and broadcast them live...you have nothing to worry about if you aren't doing anything illegal right?

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GuideBot
That's the problem, spidey07. Nobody's abusing anything.

Sure you are. You're using a burstable connection like a sustained one.

You can get a nice fat link to the intarweb at whatever speed you like. You can fill it all day long and run it to full capacity, all day, everyday.

But you'll have to pay for it.

What you're likely to see in the future is a 'power user' connection at a significantly higher price to help pay for the network.

Comcast tells me that I can have 8mbps for 60/month. I pay 60 per month and use 8mbps. I don't see what the problem is and I absolutely refuse to acknowledge otherwise. Yes, I know there's reasons behind it that are technical and I understand them all. I don't agree with it. I'm paying for a level of service that they don't want me to use but they want to charge me for it anyway.

If they don't want to offer a sustained service, I shouldn't be paying a sustained rate. Break out how much I'm paying per month into what I would be paying per-bit and charge me according to my usage, then? Hell no, comcast would lose money!

They want to charge me a sustained rate, then they're going to honor my sustained usage.

Period.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: jersiq

Originally posted by: GuideBot
That's the problem, spidey07. Nobody's abusing anything.

I am just quoting you, but not "calling you out" rather your argument.
If you can honestly tell me that ALL P2P traffic is legit, then I think there is a strong leg to stand on. I have used P2P in the past, I know what the majority of users are using it for.
My argument as an end user is this:
If you want to download that distro/freeware/etc feel free. That will NOT take up the majority of the capacity used. I pay for a service also, and would like to download a new map for Wolf:ET. I shouldn't have to fight for 'net usage beyond Comcast with people who could be using P2P for nefarious reasons.

Again you don't saturate a link with legal usage.

It doesn't matter whether it's legit or not. Legality of the subject matter being downloaded has no bearing. I can download legal things with P2P and I can download illegal things using means other than P2P, all through the same ISP.

However, the ISP is choosing to target P2P.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: jersiq

Originally posted by: GuideBot
That's the problem, spidey07. Nobody's abusing anything.

I am just quoting you, but not "calling you out" rather your argument.
If you can honestly tell me that ALL P2P traffic is legit, then I think there is a strong leg to stand on. I have used P2P in the past, I know what the majority of users are using it for.
My argument as an end user is this:
If you want to download that distro/freeware/etc feel free. That will NOT take up the majority of the capacity used. I pay for a service also, and would like to download a new map for Wolf:ET. I shouldn't have to fight for 'net usage beyond Comcast with people who could be using P2P for nefarious reasons.

Again you don't saturate a link with legal usage.

I think someone misunderstood what GuideBot said? He's saying that no one's abusing anything by using all the bandwidth the company advertises as often as possible. I'm sure he isn't saying that all p2p is legit, it is not all legit.