Oh Comcast is this why you constantly need raise your rates

[MustISO]

http://www.techspot.com/news/2...-halt-p2p-traffic.html

But with "peer-to-peer" technology, users exchange files with each other, and one person's upload is another's download. That means Comcast's blocking of certain uploads has repercussions in the global network of file sharers.

Comcast's technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one BitTorrent user attempts to share a complete file with another user.

Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer ? it comes from Comcast. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: "Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye."

 

[EKKC]

regional oligopoly FTL

how this can exist in a "capitalistic economy" is beyond me

 

[LS20]

is this suppsoed to come into effect now?
isnt there already measures by comcast to reduce/eliminate p2p? i know ive been doing tons of bittorent, and though *sometimes* the upload slows me to a crawl, if i limit it to about 15kb or so i still get great downloads

(even though bandwidth test shows 15/3 throughput capabilities)

 

[Jules]

I was having this problem ever since i got the new modem for digital voice from comcast. My internet would Crawl. Did this for about 2-3 weeks. I finally been able to download stuff though utorrent these past couple of days. Not sure why all of a sudden.

 

[nova2]

edit: nevermind, i see that story, links to msnbc, heh, whatever.

---
here's the msnbc story

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21376597/

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: EKKC
regional oligopoly FTL

how this can exist in a "capitalistic economy" is beyond me

Who's their competition?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: EKKC
regional oligopoly FTL

how this can exist in a "capitalistic economy" is beyond me

Who's their competition?

Isn't that the point?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: EKKC
regional oligopoly FTL

how this can exist in a "capitalistic economy" is beyond me

Who's their competition?

Isn't that the point?

I may be wrong here, but I think Regs may be wondering why EKKC called them an oligopoly instead of a monopoly... in which case, their competition is phone companies for Internet access and satellite companies for TV (with phone companies quickly becoming a competitor there too).

Still not a lot of competition, especially considering that certain factors may prevent a person from using one of their competitors (despite living in NJ, I can't get FIOS becasue Embarq is my local phone company, not Verizon; my parents can't get DSL because they live beyond 18 kft from the CO; I can't get satellite TV because I have large trees in my yard blocking the LOS to the satellite, etc).

 

[Xavier434]

This is dumb...I understand why they are doing it, but the right way to fix this problem is for them to be capable of providing enough bandwidth so that all of their users are capable of getting the speeds they pay for during peak hours. I pay for the bandwidth so I should be able to use it how I wish provided that what I am doing is legal. Even if others are downloading illegally and that is "clogging the tubes" it doesn't matter. They are not law enforcement. They are opening a door in the business world that shouldn't be opened.

 

[Zee]

comcast makes all the cablecompanies look bad. seriously. Timewarner and cablevision should tell them to quit.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I pay for the bandwidth so I should be able to use it how I wish provided that what I am doing is legal.

Not according to the Corporate supporters in here.

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This is dumb...I understand why they are doing it, but the right way to fix this problem is for them to be capable of providing enough bandwidth so that all of their users are capable of getting the speeds they pay for during peak hours. I pay for the bandwidth so I should be able to use it how I wish provided that what I am doing is legal. Even if others are downloading illegally and that is "clogging the tubes" it doesn't matter. They are not law enforcement. They are opening a door in the business world that shouldn't be opened.

That is not true. You are only paying for shared line with "up to" speeds. If you were actually paying for the guaranteed bandwidth, you'd be paying $500-$2000 a month if you are a heavy user.

When monthly caps were were used, people bitched. I think it was actually a good idea though as it would keep heavy users under control. I think a 30 Gig Cap per month for download and 15 gig per month upload would solve the issue, but to extreme users, that is a terrible idea.

They are instead attacking the P2P users which are probably responsible for 75% of bandwidth yet represent about 10% of their customers.

What bugs me about the internet companies though, is they somewhat false advertise what they offer. They make many people think they have unlimited access while offering higher and higher potential download speeds. Their money is falling under the crux of competitive marketing and little goes into improving infrastructure.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I pay for the bandwidth so I should be able to use it how I wish provided that what I am doing is legal.

Not according to the Corporate supporters in here.

Originally posted by: Dean

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This is dumb...I understand why they are doing it, but the right way to fix this problem is for them to be capable of providing enough bandwidth so that all of their users are capable of getting the speeds they pay for during peak hours. I pay for the bandwidth so I should be able to use it how I wish provided that what I am doing is legal. Even if others are downloading illegally and that is "clogging the tubes" it doesn't matter. They are not law enforcement. They are opening a door in the business world that shouldn't be opened.

That is not true. You are only paying for shared line with "up to" speeds. If you were actually paying for the guaranteed bandwidth, you'd be paying $500-$2000 a month if you are a heavy user.

When monthly caps were were used, people bitched. I think it was actually a good idea though as it would keep heavy users under control. I think a 30 Gig Cap per month for download and 15 gig per month upload would solve the issue, but to extreme users, that is a terrible idea.

They are instead attacking the P2P users which are probably responsible for 75% of bandwidth yet represent about 10% of their customers.

What bugs me about the internet companies though, is they somewhat false advertise what they offer. They make many people think they have unlimited access while offering higher and higher potential download speeds. Their money is falling under the crux of competitive marketing and little goes into improving infrastructure.

See, big corporate supporter in right on que.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Dean

That is not true. You are only paying for shared line with "up to" speeds. If you were actually paying for the guaranteed bandwidth, you'd be paying $500-$2000 a month if you are a heavy user.

It must be a miracle of god that everyone else in the world gets 100 meg for $14 month. :roll:

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Dean

That is not true. You are only paying for shared line with "up to" speeds. If you were actually paying for the guaranteed bandwidth, you'd be paying $500-$2000 a month if you are a heavy user.

It must be a miracle of god that everyone else in the world gets 100 meg for $14 month. :roll:

Yup. US broadband is very slow and ruled by corporate politics.

 

[MegaVovaN]

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Dean

That is not true. You are only paying for shared line with "up to" speeds. If you were actually paying for the guaranteed bandwidth, you'd be paying $500-$2000 a month if you are a heavy user.

It must be a miracle of god that everyone else in the world gets 100 meg for $14 month. :roll:

Yup. US broadband is very slow and ruled by corporate politics.

Don't cry. In RUSSIA we still use dial-up.

 

[Yreka]

Originally posted by: MegaVovaN

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Dean

That is not true. You are only paying for shared line with "up to" speeds. If you were actually paying for the guaranteed bandwidth, you'd be paying $500-$2000 a month if you are a heavy user.

It must be a miracle of god that everyone else in the world gets 100 meg for $14 month. :roll:

Yup. US broadband is very slow and ruled by corporate politics.

Don't cry. In RUSSIA we still use dial-up.

In Soviet Russia, Internet dials you ?

 

[her209]

BT with SSL?

 

[MegaVovaN]

In Soviet Russia there was no Internet, but in 2007 Russia there is uber expensive dial-up (not only it is way more expensive than in the US, but people get paid a lot less!)
measured by minutes.

couple days in the net with dial-up would cost more than my bill for a month of unlimited, untimed, unmetered broadband here. So STFU you spoiled crybabes - just because in Japan they have 1337 connection does not mean you deserve one.

 

[Sphexi]

Up here in Canadia they just cap us, on the plan I'm on I think I have an 80GB cap, that includes both up/down. I download a lot of stuff, play a lot of online games, never hit it ever. At the same time Shaw never throttles me or prevents me from using torrents.

 

[jw0ollard]

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Up here in Canadia they just cap us, on the plan I'm on I think I have an 80GB cap, that includes both up/down. I download a lot of stuff, play a lot of online games, never hit it ever. At the same time Shaw never throttles me or prevents me from using torrents.

80GB a month? I don't think most can hit that.

How about 250MB/day? I used to live in this apt. that had "broadband" internet included in the rent. Well, the awful company that supplied it put a 250MB/day cap on everyone's internet so that once it was surpassed, you'd become "low network priority" which resulted in LESS THAN dial-up speeds. Regardless, the internet was only fast in the summer when everyone was gone.. and once everyone came back for school, it'd be constant dial-up speeds regardless of if you'd passed the 250MB/day or not.

So even if I couldn't afford it, I broke down and got REAL broadband internet. OH, and then that company decided to randomly accuse me of sending out spam email, which obviously never happened. So after that, they'd start cutting out my internet several times a day just to piss me off, and send a technician there to tell me my "connections weren't wrench tight." WeverTF that means. So, it continued cutting out, and I stopped paying. End of story.

My only positive experience with broadband internet was when I first got it. Comcast had just taken over AT&T or whoever provided TV where I lived, and once they offered broadband we got it. We were the first people in town to have broadband internet, and it was blissful. Also, I guess it was something they hadn't figured out yet, but they had to take the "filter" off our cable to give us broadband. Meaning we got HBO and a lot of other channels for free! They eventually came back to take away our free cable, but it was fun while it lasted. I <3'd Comcast.

I'm sure they're not the same company now as they were then, though. I don't think there are any decent broadband companies left.

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

Glad I dumped them due to a plethora of other problems before they got even worse and started pulling this sh*t.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: EKKC
regional oligopoly FTL

how this can exist in a "capitalistic economy" is beyond me

Who's their competition?

Isn't that the point?

it's called the telecommunications act of 1996, and it say there's nothing stopping you, me or anyone else from offering telecom service to the masses. feel free to spend billions of dollars and run your network however you see fit.

 

[thomsbrain]

haven't had this issue with bittorrent on Comcast... yet.

even so, give me the good ol' days of @Home cable internet, rocking 10 Mbps, and no one else on the node because it was 1998 and people were still trying to figure out their AOL email. Nearly ten years later, those lines have been bought out multiple times, and the internet is significantly slower for most people. Way to go, giant corporations!

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
haven't had this issue with bittorrent on Comcast... yet.

even so, give me the good ol' days of @Home cable internet, rocking 10 Mbps, and no one else on the node because it was 1998 and people were still trying to figure out their AOL email. Nearly ten years later, those lines have been bought out multiple times, and the internet is significantly slower for most people. Way to go, giant corporations!

It's a pity really. I had @home in 1997 and it was blazing fast. I remember when I had < 20 people on my node and I had the best upload and download speeds. Then Comcast purchased them and it's gone to hell. Such a shame.