Comcast throttling Bittorrent traffic

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

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.

You are NOT paying a sustained rate. You are paying a dirt cheap price for a dirt cheap connection. And that's what you're getting.

You are more than welcome to get a connection that is more inline with your needs.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GuideBot

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.

You are NOT paying a sustained rate. You are paying a dirt cheap price for a dirt cheap connection. And that's what you're getting.

You are more than welcome to get a connection that is more inline with your needs.

Where are the television adds stating this? I don't see them advertising dirt cheap prices for dirt cheap connections. All I see are words like ultra high speeds and high reliability.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Where are the television adds stating this? I don't see them advertising dirt cheap prices for dirt cheap connections. All I see are words like ultra high speeds and high reliability.

LOL!

You know better than to listen to sales/marketing people.

 

[jersiq]

Originally posted by: 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.

So they take measures to relieve the constraint on THEIR network, (just using Spideys numbers as a guideline) which only affect 5% of their users, and they are the "Evil Telecom Company?"

Edit: Yeah I did misread, but my argument stands. You would not saturate the link if it were ALL legal usage.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
how about we install some webcams in your come

amusing typo.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Hacp
Where are the television adds stating this? I don't see them advertising dirt cheap prices for dirt cheap connections. All I see are words like ultra high speeds and high reliability.

LOL!

You know better than to listen to sales/marketing people.

Thats the point. When people sign up, they don't sign up for a connection that is limited. They think that they can access all 100% of their bandwidth any time they want. I go to the companies faq pages and information pages, and no where do I see the company saying that you're limited in what you do. I think companies will have a hard time selling limited internet access to anyone, frankly.

Some of these companies make billions of dollars, slack off in infrastructure, and then complain when people are using their internet connections to their fullest extent.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: jersiq

Originally posted by: 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.

So they take measures to relieve the constraint on THEIR network, (just using Spideys numbers as a guideline) which only affect 5% of their users, and they are the "Evil Telecom Company?"

Edit: Yeah I did misread, but my argument stands. You would not saturate the link if it were ALL legal usage.

They're trying to oversubscribe, while not investing in infrastructure. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[child of wonder]

Imagine if you bought a car with a 5 year warranty. You drove the car 50,000 miles a year and at year 3 you take your car in for a checkup at the dealer. The dealer says your warranty is void because you drove your car "too much." The car manufacturer assumes people will drive an average of 12,000 miles per year and most will not need their full warranty. You, on the other hand, drive much more than the average driver and would cost the manufacturer more money in warranty repairs.

So the question is: should the business punish customers who take full advantage of the services offered or should the business make accommodations to support the growing demand of their customer base?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: xeemzor

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.

Yes, let's get rid of all users who use a service they pay for . Your logic is flawed, it's like banning trucking or delivery companies from operating on the roads, because they drive a lot more than other people.

Not flawed at all. Those users are less profitable than the majority, or even unprofitable altogether. It makes all the sense in the world.


What is wrong with a company CHOOSING who they do business with? I choose what companies I do business with. Is there anything wrong with that? Am I wrong for choosing Amazon over Best Buy because Amazon charges less?

 

[jersiq]

Originally posted by: child of wonder
Imagine if you bought a car with a 5 year warranty. You drove the car 50,000 miles a year and at year 3 you take your car in for a checkup at the dealer. The dealer says your warranty is void because you drove your car "too much." The car manufacturer assumes people will drive an average of 12,000 miles per year and most will not need their full warranty. You, on the other hand, drive much more than the average driver and would cost the manufacturer more money in warranty repairs.

So the question is: should the business punish customers who take full advantage of the services offered or should the business make accommodations to support the growing demand of their customer base?

Although I haven't peered over my vehicle warranty lately, I am sure there may be a couple of "fair use" clauses in there.

They're trying to oversubscribe, while not investing in infrastructure. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Now we'll get back into the legality of P2P (boy I sure am arguing in circles tonight) Could someone please tell me what exactly they are legally sharing/downloading that uses the entire 8mbps bandwidth for a sustained period of time? Again this is P2P traffic we are talking about here, not serving apps or the like. If someone could point me to legitimate downloads in this arena, then I will rest my case. (I am not trying to be a smartass here, just genuinely curious)

I guess we would have to agree that we would always disagree on this point. Companies will always cut their losses to an extent. If the shaping caused 5% of the P2P crowd to leave, then what really have they lost? They are in business to make money.

"Good Gravy I can't express myself properly tonight" Edit
What I had meant to say in my last point is that if they lose 5% of their customer base (already being the largest provider I believe) what have they lost? Their egress links (which probably cost more than 5% of their lost subscribers) are less congested now.

 

[pstylesss]

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.

I would rather have a constant 3meg, unmoderated connection than a limited, moderated 8meg.

 

[lyssword]

Hey, I did vote Comcast as one of the most evil companies, so there I'm a comcast user tho..

 

[SSP]

Had Rogers before so I know full well what traffic shaping does. However, I would have stayed with them if they did what Comcast was doing. Rogers made it impossible to download or upload torrents, so I had to switch to an unlimited DSL provider, which has been pretty sweet so far.

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: jersiq

Although I haven't peered over my vehicle warranty lately, I am sure there may be a couple of "fair use" clauses in there.

You're right. Bad example. We could instead call it a lifetime warranty.

Originally posted by: jersiq

Now we'll get back into the legality of P2P (boy I sure am arguing in circles tonight) Could someone please tell me what exactly they are legally sharing/downloading that uses the entire 8mbps bandwidth for a sustained period of time? Again this is P2P traffic we are talking about here, not serving apps or the like. If someone could point me to legitimate downloads in this arena, then I will rest my case. (I am not trying to be a smartass here, just genuinely curious)

I recently downloaded Ubuntu 7.04, RHEL4, CentOS 5, and Debian 4.0 and left them seeding for days.

I've also downloaded and shared independent, unpublished movies and music.

These are all 100% legal.

 

[xeemzor]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: xeemzor

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.

Yes, let's get rid of all users who use a service they pay for . Your logic is flawed, it's like banning trucking or delivery companies from operating on the roads, because they drive a lot more than other people.

Not flawed at all. Those users are less profitable than the majority, or even unprofitable altogether. It makes all the sense in the world.


What is wrong with a company CHOOSING who they do business with? I choose what companies I do business with. Is there anything wrong with that? Am I wrong for choosing Amazon over Best Buy because Amazon charges less?

As stated earlier, due to the nature of ISPs and how they often have a monopoly status, it's not easy or feasible a lot of the time to switch to a different provider. Because of this, ISPs should not have a choice about who they allow to sign up to their service. I would have no problem with ISPs choosing who they sign up when there is really true competition and alternatives.

 

[pstylesss]

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.

Yes... the old "Actual speeds may very", but to throttle your usage because they don't like that you're using so much, even though its within the advertised speed is wrong.

Companies in EU can do it, why can't the US?

 

[pstylesss]

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.

Comasts advertisements, at least for businesses is "8mb/s with bursts up to 12mb/s." If they can't deliver 8mb/s then they shouldn't advertise it, and they shouldn't throttle me because I am using the service I pay for.

Edit:

Originally posted by: Comcast Disclaimer
Comcast High-Speed Internet: Equipment fees not included in monthly service charge. Prices do not include applicable taxes, installation or franchise fees. Pricing, content, and features may change and may vary by area. Call your local Comcast office for restrictions and complete details about service, prices, and equipment in your area. Pricing and service offerings displayed on this site are for residential Comcast customers only. Commercial and business pricing and service offerings differ. Prices are subject to change. Speed comparisons are for downloads only and are compared to 768Kbps DSL and 56Kbps dial-up. Maximum download speed of 4Mbps (or 6 Mbps) and upload speeds of 384Kbps (or 768Kbps) depending on the product that is selected. Increased speeds not yet available in all areas. Actual speeds may vary and are not guaranteed. Many factors affect download speed.

Cliffs:
We can do whatever the hell we want
when we want and how we want
no lube required
enjoy

Either way, I would like to know how they interpret "Many Factors" does that include them throttled speed? Probably.... so they couldn't really get into much trouble because of it, since comcast users did agree to it, however wrong it might be.

 

[Indolent]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

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 Iay 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.

what you don't seem to understand is that if the isp did upgrade their network so everyone could get their 8mbps all the time, you'd be paying 10 times what you're paying now...

At your current price, would you rather be able to get 8mbps some of the time, or be throttled to .5mbps so they have enough bandwidth for everyone to get their .5mbps all the time?

I'm not defending the cable companies here. I hate them as much as the next guy. I'm just saying this is a baseless argument.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: Indolent

Originally posted by: GuideBot

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 Iay 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.

what you don't seem to understand is that if the isp did upgrade their network so everyone could get their 8mbps all the time, you'd be paying 10 times what you're paying now...

At your current price, would you rather be able to get 8mbps some of the time, or be throttled to .5mbps so they have enough bandwidth for everyone to get their .5mbps all the time?

I'm not defending the cable companies here. I hate them as much as the next guy. I'm just saying this is a baseless argument.

If they advertise 8 and deliver 1, then my bill should be prorated.

 

[Raduque]

don't mind me, I'm stupid.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

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.

Comasts advertisements, at least for businesses is "8mb/s with bursts up to 12mb/s." If they can't deliver 8mb/s then they shouldn't advertise it, and they shouldn't throttle me because I am using the service I pay for.

Edit:

Originally posted by: Comcast Disclaimer
Comcast High-Speed Internet: Equipment fees not included in monthly service charge. Prices do not include applicable taxes, installation or franchise fees. Pricing, content, and features may change and may vary by area. Call your local Comcast office for restrictions and complete details about service, prices, and equipment in your area. Pricing and service offerings displayed on this site are for residential Comcast customers only. Commercial and business pricing and service offerings differ. Prices are subject to change. Speed comparisons are for downloads only and are compared to 768Kbps DSL and 56Kbps dial-up. Maximum download speed of 4Mbps (or 6 Mbps) and upload speeds of 384Kbps (or 768Kbps) depending on the product that is selected. Increased speeds not yet available in all areas. Actual speeds may vary and are not guaranteed. Many factors affect download speed.

Cliffs:
We can do whatever the hell we want
when we want and how we want
no lube required
enjoy

Either way, I would like to know how they interpret "Many Factors" does that include them throttled speed? Probably.... so they couldn't really get into much trouble because of it, since comcast users did agree to it, however wrong it might be.

That agreement is normal. Allows them to do whatever necessary to be profitable and provide the best service to all customers at an extremely low price. You generally get what you pay for.

However, this kind of agreement is not the norm for business services or other 'offical' bandwidth agreements or agreements between providers, where nobody in their right mind would allow this kind of language.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

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.

QFMFGDT.

RR is doing packet shaping.
I'm encrypting my packets.
Fuck you, Roadrunner.

Originally posted by: Indolent

what you don't seem to understand is that if the isp did upgrade their network so everyone could get their 8mbps all the time, you'd be paying 10 times what you're paying now...

At your current price, would you rather be able to get 8mbps some of the time, or be throttled to .5mbps so they have enough bandwidth for everyone to get their .5mbps all the time?

I'm not defending the cable companies here. I hate them as much as the next guy. I'm just saying this is a baseless argument.

Bullshit. The up-top guys just wouldn't be swimming in giant silos of cash anymore, and the revenue would be funneled where it belongs: back into the infrastructure, rather then the suits' wallets.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Raduque
Bullshit. The up-top guys just wouldn't be swimming in giant silos of cash anymore, and the revenue would be funneled where it belongs: back into the infrastructure, rather then the suits' wallets.

Do you have any idea about operating or owning a network? Do you have any idea the amount of competition? Or are you just dancing a "corporations are bad!" You can always tell when somebody is ignorant or just plain doesn't know what they are talking about - they blame management, simply out of ignorance or not understanding.

you are free to build your own network. This is not rocket science anymore, there is a well known business model that operates it.

Margins are slim on communications and it's one of the most competitive markets out there. Your 40 buck a month multi-megabit service is proof of this.

 

[DrPizza]

1. "McDonalds shouldn't put ketchup out where the customers can get it if they want to limit how much we can use. It isn't my fault that Joe paid the same amount for his french fries as I did, but he only uses a little ketchup. If they're going to put the ketchup out, it's my right to use a gallon of it on my french fries. I don't see how that's abusing the system. It's McDonald's fault for putting it out. I do what I want. Me me me me me me me."

2. You know what? If the ISP's would simply catch the people illegally downloading content, and boot them off once and for all, they would be able to offer much greater speeds for the rest of us. Boot off those 5% of users, raise prices 5% to compensate and offer even faster service to the rest of us. That would be wonderful. Heck, they wouldn't even need to raise rates 5% - the lower bandwidth useage would save some bucks too!

 

[tranceport]

$1000 a month for 100mbit. GO GO COGENT!