Comcast throttling Bittorrent traffic

[Eos]

If the 99.9% aren't using their bandwidth (let's be honest; the issue is about bandwidth, not content) except for a very small amount (read the article posted above), then how do the users who consume small bandwidth amounts know they aren't getting high speeds?

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: 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?

Your logic is flawed. They choose not to upgrade their network in lieu of half a billion dollars in profit for a single quarter. Sure it takes time, effort, and money to upgrade the network, but instead of fixing the root of the problem, they simply leave the network the way it is and penalize those who are using the service the way it's advsertised.

Don't give me garbage about the fine print specifying burst speed; they clearly make an effort to deceive the customer by saying loud and slow "8Mbps down, 512kbps (or whatever) up" and smiling and grinning and waving around all the Catch-22 features that lure customers in and then, at the end of the commercial (or in ridiculously small fine print) they whisper a bunch of details faster than most human brains can comprehend -and even if they were less-slimeball-like about it, the entire concept of a burst connection versus a sustained connection is lost on a non-geek anyway and they make no effort to explain the idea.

Regardless of what's in the fine print or what's said in the speed-talking at the end of the radio advert, they're deliberately fooling their advertising target into thinking that it's as simple as "cut check... click download" and that's exactly why I expect what I expect and refuse to accept any alternative.

Don't give me garbage about pricing out a sustained connection, either. T1's and T3's and OC lines cost thousands per month not because they're sustained, but because of their reliability. You're paying for the reliability and guarantee of a technician knocking at your door within 2 hours of reporting a problem. You're paying for the peace-of-mind that the domain controller you have locked up in the server room will virtually always have a connection to the internet so that you can serve your customer base and breathe a little easier knowing your e-services won't be unavailable.

 

[Agentbolt]

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

No one's disagreeing with you. Ignoring illegal downloads (All ISPs have seperate clauses forbidding anyone using their connection for copyright infringement) even if that 5% of people is using P2P for legit purposes, they're still causing a problem for the other 95%. No argument there. And something needs to be done.

However, what you're conveniently glossing over constantly is that 5% of users is using the product as advertised. Comcast pitches their product as am 8mbps connection. They don't say "Your connection speed can get up to 8mbps but if you consistently use that much bandwidth we're not going to be able to handle it and you're going to screw things up for everyone"

So while something needs to be done, it's not bitch slapping P2P users for using too much bandwidth (again, legalities are a different issue). It's not advertising your network in a way it can't possibly actually work. Problem friggin' solved.

Part of the problem is that you guys are lumping me in with Guidebot and I don't agree with a lot of what he's saying. Sure, Comcast pocketed that 500 million instead of spending every penny of it upgrading their stuff. Big deal, that's their right in a free market. They could jack their prices up to 100 bucks a month and limit everyone to 100 kbps if they want. I don't think their profits the past few years have been somehow "too big". All I did was point out that Comcast made a tidy profit last year (despite a few people's puling objections to the contrary) and that they should probably stop advertising their HSI network like everyone can feel free to use all 8mbps of their service till they're blue in the face without causing a problem.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

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

No one's disagreeing with you. Ignoring illegal downloads (All ISPs have seperate clauses forbidding anyone using their connection for copyright infringement) even if that 5% of people is using P2P for legit purposes, they're still causing a problem for the other 95%. No argument there. And something needs to be done.

However, what you're conveniently glossing over constantly is that 5% of users is using the product as advertised. Comcast pitches their product as am 8mbps connection. They don't say "Your connection speed can get up to 8mbps but if you consistently use that much bandwidth we're not going to be able to handle it and you're going to screw things up for everyone"

So while something needs to be done, it's not bitch slapping P2P users for using too much bandwidth (again, legalities are a different issue). It's not advertising your network in a way it can't possibly actually work. Problem friggin' solved.

Part of the problem is that you guys are lumping me in with Guidebot and I don't agree with a lot of what he's saying. Sure, Comcast pocketed that 500 million instead of spending every penny of it upgrading their stuff. Big deal, that's their right in a free market. They could jack their prices up to 100 bucks a month and limit everyone to 100 kbps if they want. I don't think their profits the past few years have been somehow "too big". All I did was point out that Comcast made a tidy profit last year (despite a few people's puling objections to the contrary) and that they should probably stop advertising their HSI network like everyone can feel free to use all 8mbps of their service till they're blue in the face without causing a problem.

I'm hope I'm not conveying the idea that Comcast is making too much in profit. I'm sorry if that's the case. I'm just saying that they make BANK and instead of spending that money to fix the root of the problem, exactly like you're saying, they pocket it (which is their right) but then wrongly cause problems for users who don't deserve the grief.

I agree with Agentbolt 100%.

 

[vi edit]

I'm hope I'm not conveying the idea that Comcast is making too much in profit. I'm sorry if that's the case. I'm just saying that they make BANK and instead of spending that money to fix the root of the problem, exactly like you're saying, they pocket it (which is their right) but then wrongly cause problems for users who don't deserve the grief.

Do you ever save up cash before spending it on something big? Companies can't put down half a billion in new lines on a credit card with 0% introductory interest rates.

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

I'm hope I'm not conveying the idea that Comcast is making too much in profit. I'm sorry if that's the case. I'm just saying that they make BANK and instead of spending that money to fix the root of the problem, exactly like you're saying, they pocket it (which is their right) but then wrongly cause problems for users who don't deserve the grief.

Do you ever save up cash before spending it on something big? Companies can't put down half a billion in new lines on a credit card with 0% introductory interest rates.

Based on Comcasts' actions and the article posted, you think they are 'saving up for the big spend'?

Welcome to delusionaland...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eos

Based on Comcasts' actions and the article posted, you think they are 'saving up for the big spend'?

Welcome to delusionaland...

Absolutely they are. All the cable companies are making deals with manufacturers for docsis 3.0 gear to offer 100+ megabit services to the home. They have to to compete with the telcos.

ondemand HD video, fast internet speed, advanced IP telephony options. It's going to be fantastic! viva la competition!

 

[Torghn]

Ok, I'm a little late to this thread and I apologize if this has already been said. An ISP has every right to limit bandwidth, both total used and max speed. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is advertise it as unlimited then tell you that you are using too much. Espeically when they won't tell you how much is too much.

They can either sell an unlimited connection or they can tell you what the caps are, they can't (or at least shouldn't be allowed to) have it both ways.

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos

Based on Comcasts' actions and the article posted, you think they are 'saving up for the big spend'?

Welcome to delusionaland...

Absolutely they are. All the cable companies are making deals with manufacturers for docsis 3.0 gear to offer 100+ megabit services to the home. They have to to compete with the telcos.

ondemand HD video, fast internet speed, advanced IP telephony options. It's going to be fantastic! viva la competition!

Since you have stated this to be true, I will wait for the upgrade notices.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos

Based on Comcasts' actions and the article posted, you think they are 'saving up for the big spend'?

Welcome to delusionaland...

Absolutely they are. All the cable companies are making deals with manufacturers for docsis 3.0 gear to offer 100+ megabit services to the home. They have to to compete with the telcos.

ondemand HD video, fast internet speed, advanced IP telephony options. It's going to be fantastic! viva la competition!

From Agentbolts own link:
http://news.com.com/Comcast+ne...00-1038_3-6199095.html

"The CableCard was mandated by the Federal Communications Commission to make it easier for consumers to more easily change cable providers. The drive by Comcast saw a 52 percent rise in capital expenditure during the quarter."

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos

Based on Comcasts' actions and the article posted, you think they are 'saving up for the big spend'?

Welcome to delusionaland...

Absolutely they are. All the cable companies are making deals with manufacturers for docsis 3.0 gear to offer 100+ megabit services to the home. They have to to compete with the telcos.

ondemand HD video, fast internet speed, advanced IP telephony options. It's going to be fantastic! viva la competition!

From Agentbolts own link:
http://news.com.com/Comcast+ne...00-1038_3-6199095.html

"The CableCard was mandated by the Federal Communications Commission to make it easier for consumers to more easily change cable providers. The drive by Comcast saw a 52 percent rise in capital expenditure during the quarter."

...and they still made half a BILLION dollars in profit.

Cry me a freaking river.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos

Based on Comcasts' actions and the article posted, you think they are 'saving up for the big spend'?

Welcome to delusionaland...

Absolutely they are. All the cable companies are making deals with manufacturers for docsis 3.0 gear to offer 100+ megabit services to the home. They have to to compete with the telcos.

ondemand HD video, fast internet speed, advanced IP telephony options. It's going to be fantastic! viva la competition!

Viva la competition my ass. Judging from my current experience with Comcast, they'll probably lock down the network access so tight that the only thing you're be able to use the full high speed for is downloading HD pay per view movies and porn off their set top box at $8 a pop. Everything else will be throttled down to DSL level speeds unless FIOS is already a major player in town.

 

[Eos]

No need to slam DSL. Lots of people get 5mb/s or more....

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos

Based on Comcasts' actions and the article posted, you think they are 'saving up for the big spend'?

Welcome to delusionaland...

Absolutely they are. All the cable companies are making deals with manufacturers for docsis 3.0 gear to offer 100+ megabit services to the home. They have to to compete with the telcos.

ondemand HD video, fast internet speed, advanced IP telephony options. It's going to be fantastic! viva la competition!

Viva la competition my ass.

Judging from my current experience with Comcast, they'll probably lock down the network access so tight that the only thing you're be able to use the full high speed for is downloading HD pay per view movies and porn off their set top box at $8 a pop.

You guys are bringing tears to my eyes :thumbsup:

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: GuideBot
...and they still made half a BILLION dollars in profit.

Cry me a freaking river.

With normal profit margins, AND still invest in the infrastructure.

That is just perfect and sound (and smart) business right there.

They have to operate like this with such tight margins to keep up with the competition from the telcos.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GuideBot
...and they still made half a BILLION dollars in profit.

Cry me a freaking river.

With normal profit margins, AND still invest in the infrastructure.

That is just perfect and sound (and smart) business right there.

They have to operate like this with such tight margins to keep up with the competition from the telcos.

Guess they shouldn't have waited so long to rebuild their network the correct way, hmm?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Guess they shouldn't have waited so long to rebuild their network the correct way, hmm?

I still don't think you quite get it yet. This stuff is VERY expensive. Plus it changes VERY quickly. So what you invest in today has to last 10 years. They can't just go upgrade the whole thing willy-nilly every 3-4 years.

Sometimes it's better to wait fo the technology to get fully baked before they go put it in.

As far as the 'correct' way that way is one that gives you a profit and builds your customer base.

 

[ultimatebob]

I think that I've figured out the problem... The Cable companies give their network consultants too much free time to surf on message boards!

Get back to work! Daddy needs more cheap bandwidth!

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Guess they shouldn't have waited so long to rebuild their network the correct way, hmm?

I still don't think you quite get it yet. This stuff is VERY expensive. Plus it changes VERY quickly. So what you invest in today has to last 10 years. They can't just go upgrade the whole thing willy-nilly every 3-4 years.

Sometimes it's better to wait fo the technology to get fully baked before they go put it in.

As far as the 'correct' way that way is one that gives you a profit and builds your customer base.

I get it. I just don't have any sympathy I don't give a crap how expensive it is when they post earnings such as they do.

 

[spidey07]

Good article on what comcast is doing regarding docsis 3.0

http://www.lightreading.com/do...doc_id=123046&site=cdn

Guess where it's going first? Places where fiber to the home is.

Go-go-gadget competition!

 

[Yongsta]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well I can see why wiring the whole country with very high speed can be costly but I don't see why big cities w/ high population density like new york city for example can't be wired and be offered such high speeds as well.

 

[ultimatebob]

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!"

Right. The population density argument also doesn't work in places like NYC, LA, and Chicago.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Guess they shouldn't have waited so long to rebuild their network the correct way, hmm?

I still don't think you quite get it yet.

This stuff is VERY expensive. Plus it changes VERY quickly.

So what you invest in today has to last 10 years.

They can't just go upgrade the whole thing willy-nilly every 3-4 years.

Sometimes it's better to wait fo the technology to get fully baked before they go put it in.

As far as the 'correct' way that way is one that gives you a profit and builds your customer base.

Busted again.

I worked on the Broadcom cable chipset back in 1996.

You trying to say they haven't deployed that yet? Then they certainly have no business being in business when the rest of the planet has no problem deploying.

 

[SoulAssassin]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

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.

Seriously....we're geeks...not nerds.

 

[her209]

FCC Probes How Carriers Handle P2P Network Traffic, E-mail

The FCC asked Comcast to respond to complaints that it blocked or slowed certains kinds of traffic. It also asked for public comment on wireless carriers' handling of text messages.

Uh oh....