Comcast throttling Bittorrent traffic

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

His point, that cable company profits are not unreasonable, was proven by your post. Nice work.

There's no such thing as an "unreasonable" profit. You people like, aren't even replying to what I've actually said. I've made two points in this entire thread I stand behind.

#1. Cable companies have misleading advertising practices

Post your SLA and tell me which part you don't understand - err... which part is misleading.

#2. Cable companies make a large profit off their services (600 million is a lot. End of story)

That's literally it. Everything else you folks are arguing against is pure obfuscation. Those two points are incontrovertible.

$600 million is a meaningless number without using some other numbers to put it in perspective. vi_edit tried to do that, but you dismissed it because it did not support your viewpoint.

 

[CasioTech]

Originally posted by: Edgewardb

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: Edgewardb

Originally posted by: CasioTech
isn't bittorrent illegal? Why are you talking about this? All of you should go to jail.

The program isn't illegal... downloading ILLEGAL files are.
I can't believe you don't even know that.

OH my bad. Like torrent doesn't make up for 99.99% of illegal files. Who's name is synonymous with piracy?

What if you just have the program in your hard-drive.

well then why do you all care that they are throttling?

 

[Edgewardb]

Because they are taking away privilege that we should have.

 

[Agentbolt]

Post your SLA and tell me which part you don't understand - err... which part is misleading.

There's no part *I* don't understand. I said their practices are misleading, and I've already given examples. Please read the thread.

$600 million is a meaningless number without using some other numbers to put it in perspective. vi_edit tried to do that, but you dismissed it because it did not support your viewpoint.

No, what vi_edit tried to do was come off like he was intimately aware of Comcast's finances and told us to see how much profit they made "if any at all". I'm not saying 600 million is more or less than anyone else, I'm simply stating it's a profit, period. A 2006 profit of nearly a billion dollars for a Fortune 100 company is a large fucking profit regardless of what you compare it to.

Both of you are trying to discredit two very simple points I've made by pointlessly throwing arbitrary qualifiers at them. Anyone with a remedial knowledge of economics would agree with the two points I've made.

Finances

 

[CasioTech]

Originally posted by: Edgewardb
Because they are taking away privilege that we should have.

the privilege of piracy?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Post your SLA and tell me which part you don't understand - err... which part is misleading.

There's no part *I* don't understand. I said their practices are misleading, and I've already given examples. Please read the thread.

$600 million is a meaningless number without using some other numbers to put it in perspective. vi_edit tried to do that, but you dismissed it because it did not support your viewpoint.

No, what vi_edit tried to do was come off like he was intimately aware of Comcast's finances and told us to see how much profit they made "if any at all". I'm not saying 600 million is more or less than anyone else, I'm simply stating it's a profit, period. A 2006 profit of nearly a billion dollars for a Fortune 100 company is a large fucking profit regardless of what you compare it to.

Both of you are trying to discredit two very simple points I've made by pointlessly throwing arbitrary qualifiers at them. Anyone with a remedial knowledge of economics would agree with the two points I've made.

Finances

Well, you're right about one thing - someone with only a remedial knowledge of economics probably would agree with you.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Post your SLA and tell me which part you don't understand - err... which part is misleading.

There's no part *I* don't understand. I said their practices are misleading, and I've already given examples. Please read the thread.

$600 million is a meaningless number without using some other numbers to put it in perspective. vi_edit tried to do that, but you dismissed it because it did not support your viewpoint.

No, what vi_edit tried to do was come off like he was intimately aware of Comcast's finances and told us to see how much profit they made "if any at all". I'm not saying 600 million is more or less than anyone else, I'm simply stating it's a profit, period. A 2006 profit of nearly a billion dollars for a Fortune 100 company is a large fucking profit regardless of what you compare it to.

Both of you are trying to discredit two very simple points I've made by pointlessly throwing arbitrary qualifiers at them. Anyone with a remedial knowledge of economics would agree with the two points I've made.

Finances

I had Charter's financials in front of (-26%) me when I made that post. I typed in Comcast. Before I made the post I had also looked up the numbers for others linked.

Charter lost money, a lot of money. Sprint barely broke even. Qwest and Time Warner were both under 10%, as was Comcast. So of the ones I looked at actually posted one was deeply in the red, one barely broke even, and the other two weren't over 10%.

The fact that you don't agree with fundamental numbers doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Post your SLA and tell me which part you don't understand - err... which part is misleading.

There's no part *I* don't understand. I said their practices are misleading, and I've already given examples. Please read the thread.

$600 million is a meaningless number without using some other numbers to put it in perspective. vi_edit tried to do that, but you dismissed it because it did not support your viewpoint.

No, what vi_edit tried to do was come off like he was intimately aware of Comcast's finances and told us to see how much profit they made "if any at all". I'm not saying 600 million is more or less than anyone else, I'm simply stating it's a profit, period. A 2006 profit of nearly a billion dollars for a Fortune 100 company is a large fucking profit regardless of what you compare it to.

Both of you are trying to discredit two very simple points I've made by pointlessly throwing arbitrary qualifiers at them. Anyone with a remedial knowledge of economics would agree with the two points I've made.

Finances

Well, you're right about one thing - someone with only a remedial knowledge of economics probably would agree with you.

Look at his link.

Profits are DOWN. Assets are high.

That is a company spending capital to build. So don't give me that crap about "fix their network".

 

[Agentbolt]

So of the ones I looked at actually posted one was deeply in the red, one barely broke even, and the other two weren't over 10%

Dude, who cares about the percentages? That's not even what we're talking about. COMCAST MADE A PROFIT. "Oh noes, they had a net profit margin of only 10%"

This is what I'm talking about, it's like arguing with a monkey. You're comparing something completely irrelevant. Who GIVES a shit that they didn't make as big a profit as they could have, THEY STILL MADE ONE. You've completely skirted away from your original, flawed argument that cable companies make no money by pointing out ONE company that lost money and trying to claim you were simply inviting people to check the numbers out of curiosity instead of being sure in your head that they were all struggling to break even. A 1 billion profit on 22 billion in revenue is simply not pocket change, no matter how much you want to claim otherwise because it's low net profit margin.

And if you think 500 million profit in a quarter is "insanity," consider that AT&T is spending billions (that is a B) per year upgrading their network. This stuff is not cheap.

AT&T

A) Isn't a cable company. Its a telephone company. They have a much different network they need to upgrade. Apples, meet oranges. Sheesh, come on, work with me here, Jethro.

B) Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if AT&T made a 500 million dollar proft, and spent billions in upgrades, wouldn't that, you know, NOT be a 500 million dollar profit? The profit is figured after those kinds of expenditures. Boo hoo, AT&T only made 500 million instead of 2.5 billion in profit. Guess what McGee, that's not the same as losing money.

I'm not claiming they're not investing some of the profits in infrastructure repair, or that they're as bad as Exxon in terms of racking in huge profits at the expense of the poor working American. I'm saying they're hardly a company struggling to break even or make money. I don't understand why you're taking such a simple, obvious fact so personally and attempting to disprove it with a bunch of tangential arguments that have no relevence, but it's obvious you're incapable of accepting basic truths of finances. Feel free to continue telling yourself poor Comcast is hardly making a dime on their services, I'm not going to continue attempting to teach ya'll Econ 101 to make you understand it's simply not true.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

So of the ones I looked at actually posted one was deeply in the red, one barely broke even, and the other two weren't over 10%

Dude, who cares about the percentages? That's not even what we're talking about. COMCAST MADE A PROFIT. "Oh noes, they had a net profit margin of only 10%"

This is what I'm talking about, it's like arguing with a monkey. You're comparing something completely irrelevant. Who GIVES a shit that they didn't make as big a profit as they could have, THEY STILL MADE ONE. You've completely skirted away from your original, flawed argument that cable companies make no money by pointing out ONE company that lost money and trying to claim you were simply inviting people to check the numbers out of curiosity instead of being sure in your head that they were all struggling to break even. A 1 billion profit on 22 billion in revenue is simply not pocket change, no matter how much you want to claim otherwise because it's low net profit margin.

vi_edit didn't say they don't make any money. If you think "see just how much they actually make...if they make any at all" means "they did not make any at all," then I suggest you buy a dictionary and start reading. Start with "if."

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: Edgewardb
Because they are taking away privilege that we should have.

the privilege of piracy?

It has nothing to do with the legality of what's being downloaded. Linux distros. Video game updates. Software installers. Tons of it is legal. Stop waiving the illegal flag because it's completely irrelevant.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

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?

because that hose being open wide all the time makes all the neighbors around him get 12psi less pressure in their house. why should his neighbors suffer lower quality service just so he can leave his hose on(download hentai pr0n or steal movies)?

Because he paid for it. It is not his fault for using what he paid for. He does not have to care about any of his neighbors. Each should worry about themselves. The direct blame is the company for offering a set service that they cannot deliver on or to everybody.

the better analogy is the 300 lb person riding coach on an airplane.

anyone that flows over the coach seats should be required to purchase a business or first class ticket.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: Edgewardb
Because they are taking away privilege that we should have.

the privilege of piracy?

It has nothing to do with the legality of what's being downloaded. Linux distros. Video game updates. Software installers. Tons of it is legal. Stop waiving the illegal flag because it's completely irrelevant.

Unfortunately the majority of the bittorrent traffic is illegal and most of the legal items can be found outside bittorrent to begin with.

 

[Agentbolt]

If you think "see just how much they actually make...if they make any at all" means "they did not make any at all,"

No, I think it means "I don't think Comcast makes very much money, if any at all" If you're arguing otherwise, be my guest. No one else is buying the ignorance angle all of a sudden once I pulled the financial data to disprove what he was saying. You two are more than welcome to dance around saying "woe is Comcast" if you want, but you're wrong.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

If you think "see just how much they actually make...if they make any at all" means "they did not make any at all,"

No, I think it means "I don't think Comcast makes very much money, if any at all" If you're arguing otherwise, be my guest. No one else is buying the ignorance angle all of a sudden once I pulled the financial data to disprove what he was saying. You two are more than welcome to dance around saying "woe is Comcast" if you want, but you're wrong.

So if you can understand what he's saying there, why are you arguing that all that matters is that they made a profit, not whether it's a big profit? You didn't disprove anything. Guidebot made a post that mentioned cable companies' "insanity profits," [sic], vi_edit showed that they don't make "insanity profits." They don't. Their profits are quite reasonable.

 

[Feldenak]

I'm not a huge fan of this traffic shaping but one comment did make a very valid point:

P2P applications can cripple a network, they?re like leaches. Just because you pay 49.99 for a 1.5-3.0mbps connection doesn?t mean your entitled to use whatever protocols you wish on your ISP?s network without them provisioning it to make the network experience good for all users involved.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: Edgewardb
Because they are taking away privilege that we should have.

the privilege of piracy?

It has nothing to do with the legality of what's being downloaded. Linux distros. Video game updates. Software installers. Tons of it is legal. Stop waiving the illegal flag because it's completely irrelevant.

Unfortunately the majority of the bittorrent traffic is illegal and most of the legal items can be found outside bittorrent to begin with.

Link to support your claim?

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: manowar821
Then the ISP should FIX THEIR GOD DAMNED NETOWRKS.

Stop punishing the people who actually USE the service they're offered. "Unlimited internet" amirite?

Fuck, this is stupid.

Sounds great.

Your service is now 850 dollars per month.

It's a hopeless argument spidey. Until these guys have been the ones negotiating contracts and approving the invoices for true dedicated bandwith, they'll never understand.

Address the European and Asian situation please?

Population density. The US population is much more spread out and makes it more difficult to supply those types of services to the potential consumers.

For example:

For example, while the U.S. ranks 3rd in population and Japan ranks 9th, the population density for Japan (318/km2) is more than 10 times that of the U.S. (29/km2).

From here

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: Edgewardb
Because they are taking away privilege that we should have.

the privilege of piracy?

It has nothing to do with the legality of what's being downloaded. Linux distros. Video game updates. Software installers. Tons of it is legal. Stop waiving the illegal flag because it's completely irrelevant.

Unfortunately the majority of the bittorrent traffic is illegal and most of the legal items can be found outside bittorrent to begin with.

Link?

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Population density. The US population is much more spread out and makes it more difficult to supply those types of services to the potential consumers.

For example:

For example, while the U.S. ranks 3rd in population and Japan ranks 9th, the population density for Japan (318/km2) is more than 10 times that of the U.S. (29/km2).

From here

I don't care how difficult it is. That's the ISP's responsibility. If they're not doing it, it's their problem.

"Oh, it's too difficult for you to set up your network to actually supply what you're claiming that you can offer? Awwwwwwww poor baby Okay, I'll keep paying my price and you can just sit back and keep cashing my check and I'll have to just suffer with sub-standard service! It's okay! I'm okay with that!"

 

[spidey07]

How is the service sub-standard, the price is extremely cheap? You effectively get what you pay for.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Population density. The US population is much more spread out and makes it more difficult to supply those types of services to the potential consumers.

For example:

For example, while the U.S. ranks 3rd in population and Japan ranks 9th, the population density for Japan (318/km2) is more than 10 times that of the U.S. (29/km2).

From here

I don't care how difficult it is. That's the ISP's responsibility. If they're not doing it, it's their problem.

"Oh, it's too difficult for you to set up your network to actually supply what you're claiming that you can offer? Awwwwwwww poor baby Okay, I'll keep paying my price and you can just sit back and keep cashing my check and I'll have to just suffer with sub-standard service! It's okay! I'm okay with that!"

You asked why the network penetration and speed is lower in the US compared with other countries, I gave you a reason. ISPs can just run down to Walmart, pick up a router, and expand their network. The kind of equipment is expensive and must be budgeted. You may be anti-profit but that's not the company's fault. For someone who claimed to work for an ISP (that was you, right?) you sure seem clueless on the difference between business class contracts and residential services. You want high-speed, sustained service? Fine, then get a business class line.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
You asked why the network penetration and speed is lower in the US compared with other countries, I gave you a reason. ISPs can just run down to Walmart, pick up a router, and expand their network. The kind of equipment is expensive and must be budgeted. You may be anti-profit but that's not the company's fault. For someone who claimed to work for an ISP (that was you, right?) you sure seem clueless on the difference between business class contracts and residential services. You want high-speed, sustained service? Fine, then get a business class line.

I'm not clueless; I get it. I simply don't accept the "burst-excuse" as a reason for them slapping customers around for using the levels of service that are offered.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: Feldenak
You asked why the network penetration and speed is lower in the US compared with other countries, I gave you a reason. ISPs can just run down to Walmart, pick up a router, and expand their network. The kind of equipment is expensive and must be budgeted. You may be anti-profit but that's not the company's fault. For someone who claimed to work for an ISP (that was you, right?) you sure seem clueless on the difference between business class contracts and residential services. You want high-speed, sustained service? Fine, then get a business class line.

I'm not clueless; I get it. I simply don't accept the "burst-excuse" as a reason for them slapping customers around for using the levels of service that are offered.

It's because you aren't the only person on their network. They have to supply reasonable service to all customers and if 5% of their userbase is causing problems for the remaining 95% then something has to be done. You want them to spend piles of cash to upgrade their entire network for 5% of their users? That's absurd. Where's the benefit in that?

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: CasioTech

Originally posted by: Edgewardb
Because they are taking away privilege that we should have.

the privilege of piracy?

It has nothing to do with the legality of what's being downloaded. Linux distros. Video game updates. Software installers. Tons of it is legal. Stop waiving the illegal flag because it's completely irrelevant.

Unfortunately the majority of the bittorrent traffic is illegal and most of the legal items can be found outside bittorrent to begin with.

Link?

It's impossible to put a number on it. How do you differ the difference between legal, illegal, and gray area? You can't. All you can do is take a show of hands or a basic survey and hope that people respond accurately or truthfully.

You take a simple survey of BT users and ask them what % of the BT use is for downloading Linux ISO's, patches, updates, whatever and what % is for downloading movies, music, and shows that are copywrited and see what the answer is.

I'm putting dollars to donuts that sites like Loki, The Pirate Bay, Suprnova weren't being used for primarily for Linux distros.