# Comcast ISP - blocking traffic



## thumperr (Feb 10, 2006)

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

By Peter Svensson

Updated: 47 minutes ago
NEW YORK - Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

Looks like the previous threads about concerns that maybe Comcast could block or slow down D* on Demand traffic have a little more support for the argument.

IMO, slowing some traffic is one thing, forcing a TCP connection to close is another.

UPDATED: 20071022
Comcast's response to the AP article. They deny blocking reuests, they only slow them down.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21427075/

UPDATED:20071119
Business week article on responses and FCC complaints
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21886503/

Updated: 20080327
CNN article on Comcast saying it will stop filtering select internet traffic
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/03/27/comcast.bittorrent/index.html


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

Maybe this is the problem I have been having since yesterday. 

I was downloading a good amount of DoD the last few days and started having problems yesterday. Last night it seemed to be working ok but this morning my internet is out. 

When I get home from work if it is still out I am going to call and see what is going on.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

This has been mentioned as a possibility several times, so here's the challenge: 

Be the first DBSTalker who can actually prove that his On Demand Download was stopped due to bandwidth capping, IP address blocking, or something like that. 

The reward: respect and admiration. 

Ready, set, GO! I hope you all fail, it would mean it was an urban legend.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Well...

COMCAST is playing with fire there, if they are actively BLOCKING or slowing down the trafic.


----------



## Mark20 (Dec 25, 2006)

The falsification could put them into a real legal mess.


----------



## Binary (Nov 26, 2006)

Yes, this has been going on for some time now and it's called Sandvine > http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18323368-Comcast-is-using-Sandvine-to-manage-P2P-Connections

It mainly affects your upload (they try to keep it within Comcast). You should be fine during the torrent (or whatever you're using) and notice your peer connections disconnet when completed.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

It will be a moot point anyway. If you actually start pulling down a lot of HD and surpass their "unlimited" service cap (I say cap lightly because it's a moving target) of 300-400GB/mo. they will shut you off anyway. 

In the sonit ring networks that most cable is using, the actions of one downloader CAN effect everyone else on the ring. 

How ironic, it's a D* subscriber pulling down DOD over their CM that is causing the pixilation the neighbor across the street gets. BRILLIANT!


----------



## noneroy (Aug 21, 2006)

It's called 'packet shaping' and it's a reality. They can weight or throttle any port OR traffic type based on the packets themselves (eg, you can't get around them throttling VOIP by changing ports). There are some things you can do (SSH tunnels and other encryption methods) but those work best for Windows/OS X computers where you have more control. I don't think i'd be able to set up a VPN/SSH tunnel with my HR20.

The fact that Comcast does this has been documented on other sites pretty well (cnet, dslreports or broadbandreports or whatever). There are also serveral solutions from Cisco, Juniper, etc that can do deep packet analysis.

This all came about when Comcast and others decided they wanted to play the VOIP game and beat out Vonage. If you degrade the service of Vonage so much that it's unusable, then you can turn around and sell your own product guaranteed to work. If you read the fine print on your Comcastic Contract, i believe you'll see a few clasuses that let you agree to it (i don't have comcast, so this part if from what I remember reading about a few years ago).

Here's an article from Cnet, btw:
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13739_1-9769645-46.html?tag=blog.2

Obviously Comcast denies it....but...i guess if you want to believe them that's up to you. Personally, I'm pretty sure they are doing it, it would make sense from their standpoint.

The best solution is to get DSL or some such thing from someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

wavemaster said:


> How ironic, it's a D* subscriber pulling down DOD over their CM that is causing the pixilation the neighbor across the street gets. BRILLIANT!


:thats: :thats: 
:rotfl: :rotfl:

I've been trying....:evilgrin:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

COMCAST is still dancing with fire, if it can be proven... and that they are doing it.

As it will be a marketting night mare for them.... as if DirecTV decides to target them, in some way....

DirecTV isn't "torrents" and it is a legit/legal usage of the connections...

So.... COMCAST maybe forced to stop selling/advertising their "unlimited" Internet service... as a very limitd service, and COMCAST gets to decide what is limited and what is not.


----------



## ChicagoTC (Sep 14, 2007)

I can almost gurantee Comcast and other ISPs are using products similar to this.

Packetshaper

It's an appliance that can block/throttle traffic at the application layer. Very easy to throttle P2P, streaming, online games, etc to specific IPs at specifics times. There are hundreds of options and customers I consult with use these boxes all the time. A good portion of higher education facilities use these to limit/block P2P applications during business hours.

The days of blocking ports and manual rate limiting are over.


----------



## DanHo (Jun 14, 2007)

wavemaster said:


> It will be a moot point anyway. If you actually start pulling down a lot of HD and surpass their "unlimited" service cap (I say cap lightly because it's a moving target) of 300-400GB/mo. they will shut you off anyway.


Not to stand up for what Comcrap is doing, but no place does Comcrap advertise unlimited, all-you-can-eat bandwidth. They offer you an "always on" connection, but not unlimited consumption.


----------



## noneroy (Aug 21, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> DirecTV isn't "torrents" and it is a legit/legal usage of the connections...


Torrents are not illegal either. I have some very legit uses of bittorrent that I wouldn't want interfered with. It's a heck of a program that happens to also be used by pirates. (I'm not saying that's what you were saying, but i want to be clear on this).

Torrents or directv or anything else is just another port/protocol that can be blocked or shaped at will. Legit has nothing to do with it. Why would comcast want to let you, even though you pay through the nose for their service, download content from someone else when they can do it for you (for a (un)reasonable fee)?

And I don't like the bandwidth argument here. If comcast needs more bandwidth they need to bit the bullet and turn off analog or moved to a switched digital environment. But both of those would cost them a boat load of money. It's easier to dork with people using rival services.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

noneroy said:


> Torrents are not illegal either. I have some very legit uses of bittorrent that I wouldn't want interfered with. It's a heck of a program that happens to also be used by pirates. (I'm not saying that's what you were saying, but i want to be clear on this).


Yes... there are very legal uses of Torrents... the "technology" is not illegal, or the method of the transfer.

It is the content that is being moved, is what is "illegal"... and sadly... for that technolgoy (Which is actually an amazing thing on how it works)... gets the bad rap... because it has been adopted by the "other" side.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Well, well. . . D* - the king of proprietary, (can't use - my signal, my content, must use - my box), claiming foul because someone is exercising their very same rights. (Its my - ISP, my - communication lines). Actually threatening to "target them" - My, my...


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Very true. But one way or another, it's fraudulent to call something unlimited if you're limiting this. I completely agree with Earl that if we (or someone) can prove they are doing this to DIRECTV On Demand, that would be the beginning of a huge storm.


----------



## noneroy (Aug 21, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Very true. But one way or another, it's fraudulent to call something unlimited if you're limiting this. I completely agree with Earl that if we (or someone) can prove they are doing this to DIRECTV On Demand, that would be the beginning of a huge storm.


Show me where it says unlimited on Comcast's site. I was just looking for it to prove the other poster wrong and couldn't. So Comcast has you there. I'm sure their Terms of Service agreement also stipulates a bunch of things like that.

I'm glad I don't have comcast....yet. Insight has been one hell of an ISP. I'm going to be sad when they are taken over by Comcast. They may suck as a TV Content provider, but their broadband is unreal.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

Comcast could easily fight back on DOD by pointing out that Comcast customers are effectively subsidizing DirecTV customers. Hell, they have people who want the BTN believing that they are putting them first by not adding the channel to basic cable.

Unlimited Internet has never existed and never will.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> Well, well. . . D* - the king of proprietary, (can't use - my signal, my content, must use - my box), claiming foul because someone is exercising their very same rights. (Its my - ISP, my - communication lines). Actually threatening to "target them" - My, my...


Very different when you are referring to an INTERNET connection...

We are not talking about COMCAST's DIGITAL Television service... (Which is also propritary, you can't access their content, you must use their box (if you want FULL services, not just limted to what cable-card will offer)... ect...

If you are going to "sell" the connection as UNLIMITED... and not provide a listing of services that are not allowed, or that will be actively "altered".... then that is an issue.

If COMCAST would provide me a list of the services that they will "alter" or flat out block on their network connection... then I wouldn't have an issue (I also wouldn't have them as an internet carrier for much longer either)


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

In some's minds it may be a storm, but the majority of users, (that aren't hogging bandwidth), have every right in the world to want, and expect their service provider to limit the bandwidth of the up-down-load hogs. DirecWay even restricts or limits that with their own satellite internet users. I wonder if they are using/used the exact same means to accomplish it. Hmmmm.


----------



## chopperjc (Oct 2, 2006)

In a lot of cases it is the only game in town. I smell a class action lawsuit. We have enough lawyers on the site this is a potential goldmine for someone. Not that I am very litigious but when it comes to restricting personal freedoms I will make an exception.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> In some's minds it may be a storm, but the majority of users, (that aren't hogging bandwidth), have every right in the world to want, and expect their service provider to limit the bandwidth of the up-down-load hogs. DirecWay even restricts or limits that with their own satellite internet users. I wonder if they are using/used the exact same means to accomplish it. Hmmmm.


To me the big difference with DirecWay...
They INFORM their customers of the limitations, and it is KNOWN by the end user.

COMCAST in no shape way or form, has made it:
1) To monitor your bandwith usage for a given month
2) State any type of services you can not access
3) State any type of services that they are going to actively limit the speed to which it can be accessed.

If you are going to enforce a 200gb CAP on my service...
Then give me the ability to access the data record, that they are using to monitor that "cap"...

COMCAST is well with in their rights, if they want, to limit the speeds on THEIR service.... but they have to either:
a) stop marketting it as "unlimited"
b) see the list above.... (monitor ability, list what can't be access, and list what is being "altered")


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

chopperjc said:


> In a lot of cases it is the only game in town. I smell a class action lawsuit. We have enough lawyers on the site this is a potential goldmine for someone. Not that I am very litigious but when it comes to restricting personal freedoms I will make an exception.


IMHO... the class action lawsuit will win... if COMCAST keeps doing it all in secret.... it will lose, if COMCAST makes it known what the limits are.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Binary said:


> Yes, this has been going on for some time now and it's called Sandvine > http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18323368-Comcast-is-using-Sandvine-to-manage-P2P-Connections
> 
> It mainly affects your upload (they try to keep it within Comcast). You should be fine during the torrent (or whatever you're using) and notice your peer connections disconnet when completed.


Well, so far my upload hasn't been affected. It's been at a relatively consistent rate of around 1.5 megs up, with download speeds of around 12 megs.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> IMHO... the class action lawsuit will win... if COMCAST keeps doing it all in secret.... it will lose, if COMCAST makes it known what the limits are.


its in their contract. If you don't read the contract....

http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp?cookieattempt=1


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> To me the big difference with DirecWay...
> They INFORM their customers of the limitations, and it is KNOWN by the end user.
> 
> COMCAST in no shape way or form, has made it:
> ...


Are you saying that you really believe that when you sign with an ISP that you expect to be able to use "unlimited" bandwidth? Are you serious? What about the other users you are bringing to a crawl? Bandwidth is not unlimited. This issue has been settled long ago.


----------



## DanHo (Jun 14, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> If you are going to "sell" the connection as UNLIMITED... and not provide a listing of services that are not allowed, or that will be actively "altered".... then that is an issue.


Once again, not to back what Comcrap is doing, but please show me anywhere in Comcrap's advertising where it indicates that the connection is unlimited. It does not exist. Please show it to me if you can find it.

Once again - 
COMCAST DOES NOT ADVERTISE AN UNLIMITED, ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT SERVICE.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Right now I have Comcast for everything, phone,Internet and Cable. But this coming saturday I'll have D* installed. Since I will have both Comcast and D* at the same time and assuming that I will have DOD capabilities I will be able to compare DOD downloading before I dump Comcast cable and phone and then after.
This could be interesting.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

Net Neutrality is one of the biggest topics in Tech right now and the FCC is learning a little bit towards the ISP's right now which is something that will ruin the Internet, imho. Canada is a perfect example. Packet shaping is used very liberally there and the users suffer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> Are you saying that you really believe that when you sign with an ISP that you expect to be able to use "unlimited" bandwidth? Are you serious? What about the other users you are bringing to a crawl? Bandwidth is not unlimited. This issue has been settled long ago.


Actually... Yes... I do...

If it was "sold" to me as "unlimited"... and I pay the $60 a month for "unlimited"... I woudl expect to know the "limits" that are being applied to it...

Just like I know it is a "limit" of my account that I can't run public servers on it... I know that when I agreed to the service...

But there were not CAPs... No speed limits... No nothing, with regards to that...

And actually no... this "issue" hasn't been settled long ago... or we would be having this conversation.

This "issue" is not even close to being settled by any stretch of the imagination.

If you are going to tamper with VoIP packets? Video Game Service packets? DirecTV DoD? Music Streaming? ect.... then that is not "unlimited".

If you are going to shut off my service, for me reaching a limit point.... and I have no way to monitor that limit... then that is not "unlimited" either...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

DanHo said:


> Once again -
> COMCAST DOES NOT ADVERTISE AN UNLIMITED, ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT SERVICE.


Umm.. they sure the heck did when I purchased the serviced..

Big gigantic letters: "Unlimited"...

And if that has changed... then I haven't been provided with an updated list of what is now limited.

They may not advertise it today as "unlimited", but they sure sell it as unlimited... with no listings of caps (of any types), and even advertise that you can download "big files" lighting fast...


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

DanHo said:


> Once again, not to back what Comcrap is doing, but please show me anywhere in Comcrap's advertising where it indicates that the connection is unlimited. It does not exist. Please show it to me if you can find it.
> 
> Once again -
> COMCAST DOES NOT ADVERTISE AN UNLIMITED, ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT SERVICE.


Well. . .
Where's it say that?


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Umm.. they sure the heck did when I purchased the serviced..
> 
> Big gigantic letters: "Unlimited"...
> 
> ...


"They may not advertise it today as "unlimited", but they sure sell it as unlimited"

Wow.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Some quick Google Hits... if you think I a making this "unlimited" thing up:

http://techno-scope.blogspot.com/2007/09/comcast-elaborates-slightly-on.html
http://webhosting.devshed.com/c/a/Web-Hosting-News/Comcast-Redefines-Unlimited-Bandwidth/
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17447955

Do a simple search on Google for COMCAST Unlimited

I am sure they don't have that key word left on any of their advertising...
But at least round here in Chicago.... it used to be on the advertising boards that were on the highways...

As they were going after other carriers in the area that did limit broadband connections at the time.


----------



## DanHo (Jun 14, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> They may not advertise it today as "unlimited", but they sure sell it as unlimited... with no listings of caps (of any types), and even advertise that you can download "big files" lighting fast...


Just because they advertise it as being able to download "big files" lightning fast does not indicate that the bandwidth consumed is unlimited to the user.

The avg user does not download "big files" 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. In the AUP it indicates that if you are consuming enough bandwidth to have an effect on other peoples connection you will be warned to cut back, and if not you will be disconnected.

The reason that they do not give a hard number is because it varies by area. They would have to set caps for every place that they offer service and that could vary by neighborhood.

Again, I am not condoning what they are doing. I received one of the dreaded letters and I cut back on what I was downloading - I was downloading between 300 - 400 GB/mo.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> "They may not advertise it today as "unlimited", but they sure sell it as unlimited"
> 
> Wow.


What wow?

Have you read their latest?



"COMCAST WebSite" said:


> Get on the fast track&#8230;fast. With Comcast High-Speed Internet, surf the web at lightning speed - up to 4x faster than 1.5 Mbps DSL, 7x faster than 768K DSL and 100x faster than 56K Dial-up. And now with PowerBoost™, our fast connection gets even faster, with an extra burst of speed up to 12 Mbps when you're downloading large files like videos and games. Plus, stay safe from nasty viruses and spam, and keep your kids safe online with advanced security protection from McAfee®, included free with service. Experience amazing broadband features, like free Video Mail, Rhapsody® Radio PLUS, Disney kids' activities and The Fan™ Video Player- which allows you to click-and-play video clips. You're sure to say "Whoah!" Just select the plan that suits your needs and add it to your cart. Happy shopping!


So where in that list... does it tell you:
1) We will cap you if you downlod too many files
2) We will slow down your speeds, based on the service you are accessing

ect....


----------



## DanHo (Jun 14, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Some quick Google Hits... if you think I a making this "unlimited" thing up:
> 
> http://techno-scope.blogspot.com/2007/09/comcast-elaborates-slightly-on.html
> http://webhosting.devshed.com/c/a/Web-Hosting-News/Comcast-Redefines-Unlimited-Bandwidth/
> ...


All those links show is the current misconception that it was even advertised as unlimited. They offer no proof that the service was sold to them as unlimited.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

DanHo said:


> Just because they advertise it as being able to download "big files" lightning fast does not indicate that the bandwidth consumed is unlimited to the user.
> 
> The avg user does not download "big files" 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. In the AUP it indicates that if you are consuming enough bandwidth to have an effect on other peoples connection you will be warned to cut back, and if not you will be disconnected.
> 
> ...


Sure... it varries by area... but then they should be able to create a webservice... so I can access "MY" account, and compare it to the limit set for "MY" area...

I mean if they are monitoring it for some level... then yes, that information should be made to me... so I can monitor and adjust my usage/services.

Plain and simple..... 
If they have limits... then make then available to their customers...
State the limits... so that the users of their services know what they can and can't do.

That's it.... they provide the list... and the limits...
End of discussion... There would not be much of an argument.


----------



## DanHo (Jun 14, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What wow?
> 
> Have you read their latest?
> 
> ...


Where in that list does it say this service is unlimited consumption, so download away?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

DanHo said:


> All those links show is the current misconception that it was even advertised as unlimited. They offer no proof that the service was sold to them as unlimited.




There is no doubt, and no arguing that "today" they are not advertising it as Unlimited.

But that is not the case 4 years ago, when I signed up for their service.


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

I'm just happy I have FiOS. Comcast needs to suck it up and upgrade their bandwidth if they need to pull these stunts. And as Earl said, if it is found that Comcast is shutting down people's DTV DoD service, their going to have some big time explaining to do to their customers because people are paying for Comcast for a reason.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Sure... it varries by area... but then they should be able to create a webservice... so I can access "MY" account, and compare it to the limit set for "MY" area...
> 
> I mean if they are monitoring it for some level... then yes, that information should be made to me... so I can monitor and adjust my usage/services.
> 
> ...


My ten year old son knows that bandwidth is not unlimited.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

DanHo said:


> Where in that list does it say this service is unlimited consumption, so download away?


Where does it say it isn't?
Where does it say that I have limits? And Caps?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

DanHo said:


> All those links show is the current misconception that it was even advertised as unlimited. They offer no proof that the service was sold to them as unlimited.


It doesn't matter anyway, the first paragraph of their use policy allows Comcast to change the terms.

Important Note: Comcast may revise this Acceptable Use Policy (the "Policy") from time to time without notice by posting a new version of this document on the Comcast Web site at http://www.comcast.net (or any successor URL(s)).....

http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp?cookieattempt=1


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

I just returned from my local Comcast office to swap a modem.


I need a shower.:lol: 

If only there was an option....


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

DanHo said:


> Once again, not to back what Comcrap is doing, but please show me anywhere in Comcrap's advertising where it indicates that the connection is unlimited. It does not exist. Please show it to me if you can find it.
> 
> Once again -
> COMCAST DOES NOT ADVERTISE AN UNLIMITED, ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT SERVICE.


THEY DID WHEN I SIGNED UP!

It was listed as unlimited downloads.

In their fine print that has been amended many many times it now states they have the right to terminate service for any action that causes degradation of their service.

Well ANY connection will cause degradation. There is a finite amount of connections, bandwidth etc.

Verizon changed their text on their "Unlimited Broadband" as well to the same.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

The ISP service that I used to work for advertised "unmetered" service. That meant that there was no "per-hour" charge. We didn't use the word "unlimited" because of the legal implications. 

If the Comcast advertising states or gives the impression of "unlimited" service for legal uses, and yet caps or limitations are placed on the service, then they may be setting themselves up for a possible false advertising lawsuit.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> My ten year old son knows that bandwidth is not unlimited.


You have one smart 10 year old then...

And I am not pleading ignorance here... as I full understand that there are technological limits...

But I am arguing that COMCAST (and any other provider), that is going to forcable place limits on that connection... need to make that informatin public.

We here at work... we have a 10mb limit on email message... and it is known, stated to our employees... that no message bigger then 10mb can be sent or received.

We also have a 100mb limit on their server mailbox... we make that known to them as well.

That is all that I am asking from COMCAST... if they are going to inforce limits... state them... make them available to me... so that I know, what the limit they are enforcing is.

If it is no longer "unlimited" as it was sold to me 4 years ago... then state to me, and give me the ability to monitor... "the limits".

That's it.... They do that... there is not much more of an argument.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

If you ask them, they say itsunlimited ACCESS, not unlimited BANDWIDTH. Yeah, its a cheesy dodge.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

wavemaster said:


> Verizon changed their text on their "Unlimited Broadband" as well to the same.


Exactly... and I have received the same "update" from Version for my wife's EVDO card.... we know were the limit is (and we are not even in the ballpark of comming close)... be we know what it is...

And that is all that I ask of COMCAST... publicly state the limit...
That's it.... publicly state the exact services that will be packet limited, and the limits on the bandwith...


----------



## jdk (Sep 29, 2005)

Read Comcast's AUP yourself:

http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp

They might have advertised "unlimited" years ago, but that was also dropped years ago. What they advertised when you signed up doesn't matter. It is NOT an unlimited account today.

The AUP also takes care of this - they're allowed to change these terms at will, and you're responsible for learning about them, and/or you're free to leave at any time.

I don't agree with Comcast's policies, but the immediate calls of "lawsuit" and false assumption of rights will just lead to lawyers getting richer. (BTW, you also have an arbitration agreement in the TOS/AUP leaving you responsible for costs if you loose).

The best courses of action:

1. Vote with your wallet - leave if you don't like it
2. Media outrage can have an effect
3. Lobby your congressman and FCC regarding net neutrality

Edit: Here's the specific stuff of interest in the AUP:

.. You shall ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or degrade any other user's use of the Service, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an overly large burden on the network. 
...

You further agree to comply with all Comcast network, bandwidth, and data storage and usage limitations. You shall ensure that your bandwidth consumption using the Service does not exceed the limitations that are now in effect or may be established in the future. If your use of the Service results in the consumption of bandwidth in excess of the applicable limitations, that is a violation of this Policy. In such cases, Comcast may, in its sole discretion, terminate or suspend your Service account or request that you subscribe to a version of the Service with higher bandwidth usage limitations if you wish to continue to use the Service at higher bandwidth consumption levels.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

tuff bob said:


> If you ask them, they say itsunlimited ACCESS, not unlimited BANDWIDTH. Yeah, its a cheesy dodge.


That is TODAY... not what it was when the services were sold and activated 4 years ago (in my case)... it was a blanked "Unlimited Internet Service"

Not one specific aspect of it.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

What could be an issue is if Comcast practices discriminatory capping. That is will Comcast limit downloading from D* but not from other competing or non-competing sites.
If Comcast does this then I think a class action suit might be appropriate..ie:unfair trade practices/Monopoly or some other illegal category.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jdk said:


> Read Comcast's AUP yourself:
> 
> http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
> 
> ...


Again... If they have changed their TOS... fine..
But until they state EXACTLY what the limits are... then it is at their "descretion"...

That would be similar to the Cell Phone company... charging you by the minute, on an unlimited weekend... because you managed to talk for the full 48 hours during the weekend... each weekend... because they "felt" like you abused the unlimited weekend...

If they state the limits... the argument is done.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I see a lot of language there. What specific part are you pointing to? It's ok to excerpt a sentence or two, just not the whole thing.


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

So can anyone tell me what Comcast's cap limit is?


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

dependent on your node....I've heard anywhere from 100GB - 300GB.

It really depends on how loaded your node is.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I see a lot of language there. What specific part are you pointing to? It's ok to excerpt a sentence or two, just not the whole thing.





tiger2005 said:


> So can anyone tell me what Comcast's cap limit is?


This one clause:



"COMCAST AUP" said:


> You further agree to comply with all Comcast network, bandwidth, and data storage and usage limitations. You shall ensure that your bandwidth consumption using the Service does not exceed the limitations that are now in effect or may be established in the future. If your use of the Service results in the consumption of bandwidth in excess of the applicable limitations, that is a violation of this Policy. In such cases, Comcast may, in its sole discretion, terminate or suspend your Service account or request that you subscribe to a version of the Service with higher bandwidth usage limitations if you wish to continue to use the Service at higher bandwidth consumption levels.


To tiger2005 point....

Show me a link, a site, an official COMCAST tool... that clearly states EXACTLY what those limitations are..... What is defined a "applicable limitations" of bandwith usage.

How can I know what service plan to sign up for... do to bandwith usage if:
a) I have no method to accurate determin my bandwith usage
b) I have no information to what the bandwith usage limits are for the different accounts

...

Also I noted a clause in that AUP..
By definition... anyone using a SLINGBOX on piece of COMCAST equipment, is violation of the AUP... "Clause that you cannot provide access to COMCAST equipment via the connection"


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And that is all that I ask of COMCAST... publicly state the limit...
> That's it.... publicly state the exact services that will be packet limited, and the limits on the bandwith...


Amen Earl.

I wish we had a choice. In our town comcast is up for renewal, I happen to know the town manager and sent him a few links this morning and he said he would be sure that the town's legal council made sure there was specific text in regards to filtering any content and connections. After they sign the franchise agreements the town is stuck again for the term of the deal. Fortunately there are 3 companies fighting for it, so the town has some leeway in negotiations, that and the town manager hates comcast will keep the town from simply rolling over and saying uncle.

So it will be comcast's option to either not filter in order to get the contract, or not get the contract. Bandwidth is another issue altogether and there isn't much they can do about that.

If every town manager/city council would school up on this stuff more they could nip this filtering issue at the contract level.


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> This one clause:
> 
> To tiger2005 point....
> 
> ...


That was my point to everyone defending Comcast's policies that they've never said that its unlimited. Show me the limit's. The problem is that nobody can because they don't identify how much because its arbitrary, which is the entire problem right there. Define the limit!!


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

We all know going in that bandwidth is not limited, right? Plain Physics. Can we stipulate that?


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Does any think that Directv or Limelight networks has observed this from the
testing of the DOD downloads? I'd be interested to see what they had to say...

I have Comcast, and noticed some speed issues, that are not related to my home network or connection. I may be paranoid, but I've been following this since DOD went beta.


----------



## MIMOTech (Sep 11, 2006)

Those that use Verizon FIOS, are any of you having this problem? I switched to Verizon FIOS data a few years ago. Had Comcast and was having problems with Vonage cutting off. Now with Verizon, that never happens. QOS for Comcast was always in a range of 50 to 60 % with Verizon it is normally 95 to 100%. So the comments on this forum about Comcast and problems with D* don't surprise me.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> We all know going in that bandwidth is not limited, right? Plain Physics. Can we stipulate that?


I don't think anyone is arguing the technological limits of the internet/ISP pipes.


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

MIMOTech said:


> Those that use Verizon FIOS, are any of you having this problem? I switched to Verizon FIOS data a few years ago. Had Comcast and was having problems with Vonage cutting off. Now with Verizon, that never happens. QOS for Comcast was always in a range of 50 to 60 % with Verizon it is normally 95 to 100%. So the comments on this forum about Comcast and problems with D* don't surprise me.


I have FiOS and I've never had any issues. I don't have Vonage, but I regularly download from DTV's DoD, the Playstation Network, Xbox Live, etc. and I've never noticed any issues from the ISP side. The problem with Comcast is that their infrastructure is strained and this is one of their ways to manage it.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl,

These are quotes directly from their customer agreements. Reads very similar to the language in the DirecTV agreement with the exception that they don't hit you with an early cancellation fee when they change the agreement the way DirecTV does.

I've been posting about net neutrality for a while. I strongly believe that we should have a law guaranteeing net neutrality, but there's too much money to be made by allowing the sale of preferred use for it to happen. It'll get worse too...imagine typing in www.direcTV.com and getting directed to www.comcast.com...there's nothing to stop that from happening now.

Under the current rules though...DirecTV can go and pay Comcast and other ISPs for preferential treatment for their customers.

CHANGES TO SERVICES
Subject to applicable law, we have the right to change our Services, Comcast Equipment
and rates or charges, at any time with or without notice. We also may rearrange, delete,
add to or otherwise change programming or features or offerings contained in the Services,
including but not limited to, content, functionality, hours of availability, customer equipment
requirements, speed and upstream and downstream rate limitations. If we do give you
notice, it may be provided on your monthly bill, as a bill insert, in a newspaper or other
communication permitted under applicable law. If you find a change in the Service(s)
unacceptable, you have the right to cancel your Service(s). However, if you continue to
receive Service(s) after the change, this will constitute your acceptance of the change. Please
take the time to read any notices of changes to the Service(s). We are not liable for failure to
deliver any programming, services, features or offerings except as provided in Section 11(e).

This is from their Acceptable Use Policy:
Network, Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other Limitations

Comcast may provide versions of the Service with different speeds and bandwidth usage limitations, among other characteristics, subject to applicable Service plans. You shall ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or degrade any other user's use of the Service, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an overly large burden on the network. In addition, you shall ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, disrupt, degrade, or impede Comcast's ability to deliver and provide the Service and monitor the Service, backbone, network nodes, and/or other network services.

You further agree to comply with all Comcast network, bandwidth, and data storage and usage limitations. You shall ensure that your bandwidth consumption using the Service does not exceed the limitations that are now in effect or may be established in the future. If your use of the Service results in the consumption of bandwidth in excess of the applicable limitations, that is a violation of this Policy. In such cases, Comcast may, in its sole discretion, terminate or suspend your Service account or request that you subscribe to a version of the Service with higher bandwidth usage limitations if you wish to continue to use the Service at higher bandwidth consumption levels.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

jjohns said:


> We all know going in that bandwidth is not *un*limited, right? Plain Physics. Can we stipulate that?


Understood. The problem is that they prioritize which streams they shape/block/throttle, without giving the me that information.

Additionally, they control costs (maximize profits) by limiting their capital costs by the means of restricting services to the consumer.

Edit: On top of that, they are the only choice for me.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

There is a secondary issue. At what point does an ISP have an obligation to shut someone down if their excessive use of a service is harming the ability of other customers to use that same service.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I am lucky enough to have an independent ISP who resells Verizon DSL. I have never had any problems that couldn't be solved with a phone call, they have consistently let me know when new products were available and grandfathered my rate in. I frequently get BETTER than advertised speeds during off-peak times and have never failed to get less than 2.7Mbps over my 3Mbps connection when I test. I have downloaded and uploaded humongous files - the CE video was something like 4GB - with no problem.

If you're in the Inland Empire of Southern California, check out www.keyway.net. I'm not a paid endorser, this is not an ad, I'm just a super-happy customer.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing the technological limits of the internet/ISP pipes.


Ok. That being stipulated - means you know that there is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth, just like there is no tooth fairy. So why should they advertise "unlimited bandwidth" when there is no such thing? And it certainly wouldn't fool the tech-savy person.

Yet you present that you bought this internet access with the understanding that it was "unlimited access"? What happened, did they fool you?


----------



## superunlikely (Oct 20, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Well, so far my upload hasn't been affected. It's been at a relatively consistent rate of around 1.5 megs up, with download speeds of around 12 megs.


Try seeding a torrent unencrypted and see what happens.

I have Charter and they started shaping me a couple months ago. I am able to get around it by forcing encryption, but if Comcast is using Sandvine then it might not work for you.


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

jjohns said:


> Ok. That being stipulated - means you know that there is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth, just like there is no tooth fairy. So why should they advertise "unlimited bandwidth" when there is no such thing? And it certainly wouldn't fool the tech-savy person.
> 
> Yet you present that you bought this internet access with the understanding that it was "unlimited access"? What happened, did they fool you?


Earl said when he signed up they DID advertise it as unlimited.

Even now, show me what the limit is? If its not unlimited as you claim, what's the limit then?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

tiger2005 said:


> That was my point to everyone defending Comcast's policies that they've never said that its unlimited. Show me the limit's. The problem is that nobody can because they don't identify how much because its arbitrary, which is the entire problem right there. Define the limit!!


It is arbitrary, but when you continue to use the service, you are agreeing to an arbitrary limit.

Do I think that is good business - no. But if you don't like arbitrary limits, change providers because I don't think Comcast is going to give anyone hard and fast limits (sounds eerily like what the pro-DLB crowd gets told all the time).


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I don't think anyone is saying he was fooled by an ad. Still, companies should be held accountable for false claims, and especially so when they (hypothetically) limit the ability of one of their competitors to compete. That is quite illegal. 

I think the gist of what's being said is, that singling out DIRECTV On Demand traffic would be an unwise move on Comcast's part. If they are consistently limiting traffic but doing it fairly and justly that is quite different. If they do that, then they will get a very bad reputation and the market will take that into account and legal action won't be necessary.


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Also I noted a clause in that AUP..
> By definition... anyone using a SLINGBOX on piece of COMCAST equipment, is violation of the AUP... "Clause that you cannot provide access to COMCAST equipment via the connection"


This might be the biggest point in this entire thread. Basically Comcast can yank you if you have a Slingbox connected to their box and use their broadband service. How many people know about that??? I'd bet not many.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> Ok. That being stipulated - means you know that there is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth, just like there is no tooth fairy. So why should they advertise "unlimited bandwidth" when there is no such thing? And it certainly wouldn't fool the tech-savy person.
> 
> Yet you present that you bought this internet access with the understanding that it was "unlimited access"? What happened, did they fool you?


We are having a MAJOR disconnect here...

I know there is a "limit" on bandwith... technological limits on it. A given specific period of time, there is only so much bandwith available... yes...

But how does that translate to a "total" usage over a given period of time... that would be "access limited"... as the bandwith is still there... or did it all get used up and doesn't return till the first of the month?

But what the argument is... COMCAST not stating their arbitrary limits they are imposing on my connection.... If I have maxed out my "pipe" fine... I know that... but if they shut-off my service because I have hit some "magic" level, that I don't know...

Then that is where "unlimited" which was there marketting term, becomes limited.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I don't think anyone is saying he was fooled by an ad. Still, companies should be held accountable for false claims, and especially so when they (hypothetically) limit the ability of one of their competitors to compete. That is quite illegal.
> 
> I think the gist of what's being said is, that singling out DIRECTV On Demand traffic would be an unwise move on Comcast's part. If they are consistently limiting traffic but doing it fairly and justly that is quite different. If they do that, then they will get a very bad reputation and the market will take that into account and legal action won't be necessary.


By the "bad reputation" or "targeting them" means that the ISP will take the worst of it, I tend to disagree. There are those here that feel strongly that no one should be "limited" or "controlled", but those in relationship to those who aren't downloading huge files, movies etc; I would say they are in a small minority. Most users simply don't do that.

So in the midst of this publicity stunt I would think the ISP would take the postion of "We are protecting the little guys who aren't hogging bandwidth. And big bad DirecTV wants all the bandwidth at your expense while your internet creeps." I don't think it would be a slam dunk that the ISP would come out on the bottom. A shrewd marketing stategist playing on some of the bad press DirecTV already has had (rightly or wrongly) could certainly hold his own if DirecTV decided to play hardball.


----------



## superunlikely (Oct 20, 2006)

BTW if you want to get in on the fight: http://savetheinternet.com/ .


----------



## ChicagoTC (Sep 14, 2007)

There is no possible way for Comcast to effectively post their limit. The limit is dependent on local users and conditions. If they set they a limit of 300GB there are some areas where they would have plenty of "room" left and other nodes where performance is affected. 

Also there is no way to predict when that 300GBs is used. If everyone uses it the first week of the month the "pipe" would be wide open the rest of the month.

The only way Comcast could do an "unlimited" plan would be to limit speeds. Of course this would be suicide but it would remove the needs to have monthly caps.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ChicagoTC said:


> There is no possible way for Comcast to effectively post their limit. The limit is dependent on local users and conditions. If they set they a limit of 300GB there are some areas where they would have plenty of "room" left and other nodes where performance is affected.
> 
> Also there is no way to predict when that 300GBs is used. If everyone uses it the first week of the month the "pipe" would be wide open the rest of the month.
> 
> The only way Comcast could do an "unlimited" plan would be to limit speeds. Of course this would be suicide but it would remove the needs to have monthly caps.


Then how are they monitoring the totals?
If they know how much the node an support... then why not a database query, that goes against my account (based on IP)... to my node... what my usage is and what the limit they are expecting me to stay under for the node...


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> because you managed to talk for the full 48 hours during the weekend... each weekend... because they "felt" like you abused the unlimited weekend...


that has happened, and in the case of sprint, seems to be a way to cancel without paying an ETF.


----------



## limit22 (May 9, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Again... If they have changed their TOS... fine..
> But until they state EXACTLY what the limits are... then it is at their "descretion"...
> 
> That would be similar to the Cell Phone company... charging you by the minute, on an unlimited weekend... because you managed to talk for the full 48 hours during the weekend... each weekend... because they "felt" like you abused the unlimited weekend...
> ...


I am in the same boat as Earl here. When I signed up for Comcast in 2003 it was advertised as a completely unlimited internet connection(specifically mentioning unlimited downloads). Beginning in 2004 they began to change their advertising to remove the unlimited tag lines which ironically coincided with Acceptance Use letters going out.

It is concerning to me that after all this time Comcast still has not come out officially with what the formula is for determining Acceptable Use. They just fall back with "if it is negatively affecting our network we have a responsibility to the rest of our customers to act."

I don't see this affecting DoD as I am sure D* has had some contact with the big service providers. It wouldn't make sense to roll out a product that relies on other companies for success and not reviewing it with them first.

Just my 2cents


----------



## ChicagoTC (Sep 14, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Then how are they monitoring the totals?
> If they know how much the node an support... then why not a database query, that goes against my account (based on IP)... to my node... what my usage is and what the limit they are expecting me to stay under for the node...


They can easily monitor, what they can't do is predict what the user totals will be in any given month. When user activity varies greatly and node saturation varies greatly how can they post a number with any accuracy?

What if they say in your node in Tinley Park it's 300Gb per user. During that month they add 10 customers, all of a sudden there is no way they can gurantee the speeds if every user can access 300GB

Conversely, if in your same node they lose 10 users all of a sudden there is enough room for each user to take 400GB. At that point they aren't providing the most bandwidth you could get.

Again, the only true way to do this would be limit speeds which would be marketing suicide.


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

I think we're getting a little off topic based on what the article said. This discussion isn't about Comcast and their arbitrary assignment on download limits, but more about them cutting a connection to certain 'large volume' sites regardless if you've used 200GB for the month or 12MB.

Based on that, I don't see how this won't translate at some point to Comcast altering the speeds at which subscribers are able to download DTV DoD shows.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

ChicagoTC said:


> The only way Comcast could do an "unlimited" plan would be to limit speeds. Of course this would be suicide but it would remove the needs to have monthly caps.


Right. So...screw the customer instead of their profits.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

limit22 said:


> I don't see this affecting DoD as I am sure D* has had some contact with the big service providers. It wouldn't make sense to roll out a product that relies on other companies for success and not reviewing it with them first.


It looks like they're using a content delivery network, which do direct deals with big ISPs. (http://www.limelightnetworks.com/)


----------



## ChicagoTC (Sep 14, 2007)

limit22 said:


> It is concerning to me that after all this time Comcast still has not come out officially with what the formula is for determining Acceptable Use. They just fall back with "if it is negatively affecting our network we have a responsibility to the rest of our customers to act."


This is the most resposible thing to do and honestly probably benefits the consumer the most. Either they set a low cap to gurantee everyone the throughput they paid for or set a highcap and have a few users affect neighbors performance.

Edit: I'm not a comcast supporter and I haven't had any cable service in 10 yrs. I'm on slow but always reliable DSL.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ChicagoTC said:


> They can easily monitor, what they can't do is predict what the user totals will be in any given month. When user activity varies greatly and node saturation varies greatly how can they post a number with any accuracy?
> 
> What if they say in your node in Tinley Park it's 300Gb per user. During that month they add 10 customers, all of a sudden there is no way they can gurantee the speeds if every user can access 300GB
> 
> Conversely, if in your same node they lose 10 users all of a sudden there is enough room for each user to take 400GB. At that point they aren't providing the most bandwidth you could get.


But then how am I as a customer going to know I am hitting their limits, and could have my service shut off? Or unkowningly limitted?

They have my email address... they can inform me that my limits have changed... Or maybe a summary on my bill how much I have used, vs the limit for that month.

If they can moitor it, then they can provide the same monitoring aspects to me as a consumer



ChicagoTC said:


> Again, the only true way to do this would be limit speeds which would be marketing suicide.


*BINGO!* and this is the real reason why they don't.
They want you to think you can do what ever you want, as much as you want...


----------



## ChicagoTC (Sep 14, 2007)

MikeR said:


> Right. So...screw the customer instead of their profits.


I would argue that if I'm not getting the 4mb speeds I paid for because my neighbors are downloading 20GB/day on their 7MB line I'm getting screwed. The pipe is only so big and they have to restrict data flows somehow.

Back on topic. It's very easy to limit specific application traffic down to the end user IP level. This I feel would be VERY unfair if it's not specifically stated and not buried in some AUP.


----------



## ChicagoTC (Sep 14, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But then how am I as a customer going to know I am hitting their limits, and could have my service shut off? Or unkowningly limitted?
> 
> They have my email address... they can inform me that my limits have changed... Or maybe a summary on my bill how much I have used, vs the limit for that month.
> 
> If they can moitor it, then they can provide the same monitoring aspects to me as a consumer


Maybe I'm not being clear in my points. They could easily do what you ask but then you as a consumer run the risk of not getting all the available bandwidth for your node. If they set a static limit and apply it across their entire customer base there are many areas that would be WELL under the pipe limits.

The only way your idea would work would be a daily updates specific to every node in their network. Your limit would be a moving target changing every day.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But then how am I as a customer going to know I am hitting their limits, and could have my service shut off? Or unkowningly limitted?


my guess is that the limit is somewhat flexible depending on how much the infrastructure is loaded, so it probably varies a lot. Comcast is probably betting that more people are happy with this, than known and enforced caps. They only need to cap the real hogs, and everyone else is happy with their "unlimited" internet.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But then how am I as a customer going to know I am hitting their limits, and could have my service shut off? Or unkowningly limitted?
> 
> They have my email address... they can inform me that my limits have changed... Or maybe a summary on my bill how much I have used, vs the limit for that month.
> 
> ...


"and this is the real reason why they don't.
They want you to think you can do what ever you want, as much as you want..."

And how is this any different than the way DirecTV advertises? Or any other company's clever advertising?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ChicagoTC said:


> Maybe I'm not being clear in my points. They could easily do what you ask but then you as a consumer run the risk of not getting all the available bandwidth for your node. If they set a static limit and apply it across their entire customer base there are many areas that would be WELL under the pipe limits.
> 
> The only way your idea would work would be a daily updates specific to every node in their network. Your limit would be a moving target changing every day.


But to me... that is fine..
So long as I know my "limit"... so I know if I have to upgrade to their bigger package, change my service to a different provider, or change the way I utilitize the connection..

IMHO... Broadband access is gettin very close to being a "utility"

All I want to know is the limits that are on me...
As not just DoD... but VoIP I use... Work... not just for me but my wife.
Video games systems. Music downloads... General email...

The Internet connection in our home is 10 more valuable then our phone connection...


----------



## limit22 (May 9, 2007)

ChicagoTC said:


> I would argue that if I'm not getting the 4mb speeds I paid for because my neighbors are downloading 20GB/day on their 7MB line I'm getting screwed. The pipe is only so big and they have to restrict data flows somehow.
> 
> Back on topic. It's very easy to limit specific application traffic down to the end user IP level. This I feel would be VERY unfair if it's not specifically stated and not buried in some AUP.


I honestly think that we will start to see QOS restrictions put in place by alot of the big providers allowing them to drop P2P networks etc to a very low priority on the overall network. Until their backbone and local networks can support the ever growing bandwidth demand they might not have a choice.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Hey Earl,

They don't have to state a limit...it is what they want it to be. 

BTW, earlier I saw someone state that Comcast's agreement doesn't allow Slingbox. Well, neither does DirecTV's agreement.

(h) Private Viewing. We provide Service only for your private non-commercial use, enjoyment, and home viewing. The programming may not be viewed in areas open to the public or in commercial establishments. You may not rebroadcast, transmit, or perform the programming, charge admission for its viewing, or transmit or distribute running accounts of it. You may not use any of our trademarks. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9, we or any programming provider may prosecute violations of the foregoing against you and other responsible parties in any court of competent jurisdiction, under the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, and other applicable laws.
---

Another question? What's private viewing? How many people? Can I have 50 people over to watch the games every Sunday? 300?
------------
The customer agreements that are basically thrust down people's throats are incredibly one-sided and generally allow the corporation to change it any way they want when they want.


----------



## ChicagoTC (Sep 14, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But to me... that is fine..
> So long as I know my "limit"... so I know if I have to upgrade to their bigger package, change my service to a different provider, or change the way I utilitize the connection..
> 
> IMHO... Broadband access is gettin very close to being a "utility"
> ...


Fair enough but I think from a business standpoint it makes more sense to really keep this buried deep in AUPs. 99% of the users will be happy and have no idea there really is a cap. I'm not defending Comcast or the policy but the technology is what it is and there has to be limits.

I aslo noticed in quickly reading the AUP that they don't allow routers to share the connection. I'm sure this is in most ISPs AUPs. Lucky for the consumer they don't enforce this one. I believe I'm approaching 15 nodes on my home network


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Hey Earl,
> 
> They don't have to state a limit...it is what they want it to be.
> 
> ...


"The customer agreements that are basically thrust down people's throats are incredibly one-sided and generally allow the corporation to change it any way they want when they want."

Not unlike most corporations.


----------



## limit22 (May 9, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Another question? What's private viewing? How many people? Can I have 50 people over to watch the games every Sunday? 300?
> ------------


Technically having people over to watch a sporting event (or anything really) is not legitimate use. There is a lawsuit in the UK right now for something similar with a Car shop where one of the mechanics had a radio being played and everyone in the shop could hear and is currently being sued for copyright infringement.

Didn't Directv win a lawsuit against a Bar owner in NY that had a Football game on in his restaurant?

Here is the link to the people over to watch a game  
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070201/140812.shtml


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Hey Earl,
> 
> They don't have to state a limit...it is what they want it to be.
> 
> ...


Exactly.... there are so many clauses in these things... they can really do what ever they want... and cancel your service really at any time.

It will be a terrible day... when we see an article...
"Woman dies... because they couldn't call 911 since VoIP was disabled by COMCAST"


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> The customer agreements that are basically thrust down people's throats are incredibly one-sided and generally allow the corporation to change it any way they want when they want.


Which is why so much of common law contracts law is inapplicable to a modern consumer society where the party with greater bargaining power drafts one-sided unalterable contracts and presents them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Traditional contracts law envisions parties with roughly equal bargaining power negotiating contract terms. Unfortunately, the same corporations who impose their contract terms on us also have the money to water down and emasculate consumer protection legislation.

And let's not forget their advertising and marketing muscle. They're so damned good about it that lots of people on this forum leap to DirecTV's defense and demand to pay more for its services.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

You could argue that DirecTV provides an unlimited television service, but does not let you exercise it


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

tuff bob said:


> You could argue that DirecTV provides an unlimited television service, but does not let you exercise it


Its called DLB.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

tiger2005 said:


> Its called DLB.


:lol:

the point being DirecTV says they have X channels, but does not let you have enough receivers that you can watch them all at the same time :lol:


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

noneroy said:


> I don't think i'd be able to set up a VPN/SSH tunnel with my HR20.


Theres actually ONE way to do it.
You have to setup the VPN on your computer, then share the connection (set it up as a DHCP server in a seperate range as your router [like, if you're router is broadcasting 192.168.*.*, I would set it up as 172.16.*.*]), then set your HR20 with a static address in the range you've set on your machine, then your HR20 will tunnel through your computer, which is tunneling through the VPN


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

limit22 said:


> Technically having people over to watch a sporting event (or anything really) is not legitimate use. There is a lawsuit in the UK right now for something similar with a Car shop where one of the mechanics had a radio being played and everyone in the shop could hear and is currently being sued for copyright infringement.
> 
> Didn't Directv win a lawsuit against a Bar owner in NY that had a Football game on in his restaurant?
> 
> ...


limit,

A bit off topic, but that case revolves around the difference between a private and public performance. Those kind of cases have been around for years. Put a radio on your phone's "On Hold" system and eventually you'll get a call from a licensing agency.
I was talking about a "private" performance...but was mostly just tossing an analogy out there to show that DirecTV engages in the same type of vague contract language.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> Which is why so much of common law contracts law is inapplicable to a modern consumer society where the party with greater bargaining power drafts one-sided unalterable contracts and presents them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Traditional contracts law envisions parties with roughly equal bargaining power negotiating contract terms. Unfortunately, the same corporations who impose their contract terms on us also have the money to water down and emasculate consumer protection legislation.
> 
> And let's not forget their advertising and marketing muscle. They're so damned good about it that lots of people on this forum leap to DirecTV's defense and demand to pay more for its services.


oakwcj,

It's worse...because when you do catch them in breach they'll immediately settle for big bucks but demand non-disclosure agreements. They figure it's cheaper to pay off the few that complain loud enough while collecting from the rest that don't.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Exactly.... there are so many clauses in these things... they can really do what ever they want... and cancel your service really at any time.
> 
> It will be a terrible day... when we see an article...
> "Woman dies... because they couldn't call 911 since VoIP was disabled by COMCAST"


Man. . .you've really got it bad.
Even shouting Comcast.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

Limited, unlimited, at the point of connection that is all BS. You pay for a pipe with "X" amount of pipe 1,4,6,10mb/sec. That is the limit. 

A 1mb/sec connection is about 250GB/mo. So they can sell me a 1mb/sec connection UNLIMITED and the pipe would dictate what the actual limit would be. 

So the provider ABSOLUTELY CAN provide you unlimited bandwidth based on the connection you have. So this "there is no such thing", "it's physics" etc. is all BS. They can provide unlimited service based on the speed you contract for. 

That is my rub on all this. I PAY for a 6MB connection, is it to much to ask for that to be delivered?

I run a web hosting company and collectively between our facilities we have a 300mb/sec. contract billed at the 95th percentile. All on fiber pipes and we pay accordingly. It's not 300 on Monday, or the second week of the month, it's 300 up and down 24/7. We average 220-260mb/sec during the non-holiday months and will burst well beyond 600/sec for the holiday shopping season. With a yearly average of 290mb/sec. That is about 70-80 TB's/mo. Thank God they don't play this throttling game in the business world or we would be out of business.


----------



## jutley (Oct 11, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Sure... it varries by area... but then they should be able to create a webservice... so I can access "MY" account, and compare it to the limit set for "MY" area...
> 
> I mean if they are monitoring it for some level... then yes, that information should be made to me... so I can monitor and adjust my usage/services.
> 
> ...


The best I can do for an ISP in my area is a wireless connection. The ISP I have been with for 2 years was just bought out. The new company is changing the ToS and doing just as you describe. They advertise that their 5 mb/s connection is restricted to 12GB per month. Yeah, you heard it right, 12GB. When I called to get clarification or find out if I could pay for a higher cap they explained the rule. They allow 350MB per day at the 5 mb/s speed and then they throttle you back to 2.5 mb/s when you hit 350MB during a 24 hour period. They allow the customer access to their monitoring so you can see in almost real time where you are for the day. I don't like it, but at least they are honest about what they are doing.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> Man. . .you've really got it bad.
> Even shouting Comcast.


Umm...

COMCAST's branding, is their name in a single case...
Like DirecTV used the last two letter's in caps.

So while it wouldn't be "proper" to put... comcast
Generally you se it referred to as: COMCAST

To keep the same case

So it isn't shouting... it is referring to them by their branding style.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jutley said:


> The best I can do for an ISP in my area is a wireless connection. The ISP I have been with for 2 years was just bought out. The new company is changing the ToS and doing just as you describe. They advertise that their 5 mb/s connection is restricted to 12GB per month. Yeah, you heard it right, 12GB. When I called to get clarification or find out if I could pay for a higher cap they explained the rule. They allow 350MB per day at the 5 mb/s speed and then they throttle you back to 2.5 mb/s when you hit 350MB during a 24 hour period. They allow the customer access to their monitoring so you can see in almost real time where you are for the day. I don't like it, but at least they are honest about what they are doing.


12GB ?

wow... I would surpass that in the first week... with just normal usage.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

wavemaster said:


> That is my rub on all this. I PAY for a 6MB connection, is it to much to ask for that to be delivered?
> 
> I run a web hosting company and collectively between our facilities we have a 300mb/sec. contract billed at the 95th percentile. All on fiber pipes and we pay accordingly.


let me ask you this ... is your bandwidth bill more than 50x your comcast connection (300/6)? ... thats why there are other limits.


----------



## jutley (Oct 11, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> 12GB ?
> 
> wow... I would surpass that in the first week... with just normal usage.


They don't really cap you at the 12GB, they just throttle you back to 1/2 of the normal bandwidth. Either way, yeah it sucks to be so limited. No Comcast, no Qwest DSL...nothing. I'm currently working with some others in my community to get the city council to be a part of a private fiber connection so a few years down the road we can have some options in our city, but I digress.


----------



## SeattleSteve (Oct 5, 2007)

> That is my rub on all this. I PAY for a 6MB connection, is it to much to ask for that to be delivered?


I think if you check again you'll see the magic two words "up to" before that 6MB connection. I've never seen it left out. That means you are never guaranteed a 6MB connection. The only thing the really are guaranteeing is they won't allow you to have more than that.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

tuff bob said:


> let me ask you this ... is your bandwidth bill more than 50x your comcast connection (300/6)? ... thats why there are other limits.


Let me answer you this, We pay the amount we contracted for. We ONLY expect the service we contract for.

Comcast is supposed to provide 6 Mb/down and 1.5 up. Not sometimes, not most of the time and they have NEVER said at which times.

First off I have NEVER got 6Mb/sec. off the CM about 3.02 is the highest I have ever seen. Second, never over 900 up.

I have never been contacted by the fiber providers threating to turn off our connections (They are kind of like the Lays potato chip company - "don't worry we'll make more").

Regardless, we should ALL get what we pay for.

<kidding> It would be cool of comcast said we we really don't provide what you contracted for but for an extra fee we would actually provide what you pay for...... </kidding>


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> oakwcj,
> 
> It's worse...because when you do catch them in breach they'll immediately settle for big bucks but demand non-disclosure agreements. They figure it's cheaper to pay off the few that complain loud enough while collecting from the rest that don't.


DirecTV is a California corporation, so the very good provisions of the unfair competition statutes [California Business & Professions Code sections 17000 et seq.] are applicable to it. They provide for quite severe penalties on a class basis, as well as for attorney's fees under a private attorney general framework. DirecTV has been involved in some litigation under these statues -- for example, the HD-Lite case -- but nothing directly relevant to this thread, AFAIK. But the very existence of these statutes probably keeps them from trying to enforce some of the early termination provisions.

Your basic point is correct, but the right case with the right attorney would probably not settle with an NDA. I don't consider the HD-Lite case to be anywhere near the right one. I think non-disclosure agreements in consumer protection cases are generally against public policy and that judges should almost never approve them.


----------



## DarkAudit (Sep 10, 2007)

They're throttling your connection based on the content of the data stream now. Bittorrent is used for perfectly legal uses, but Comcast will still block connections.

Blizzard uses torrents to distribute their World of Warcraft patches. Sounds like Comcast may be guilty of restraint of trade there.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

This is totally legal. Check out:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/06/tech/main3240101.shtml

Everyone should write their congress reps about it, and visit:
http://savetheinternet.com/


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

In an attempt to get this somewhat back on track regarding the original post regarding P2P "managing" by Comcast, specifically using the Sandvine product(s)......

I'm at a loss to understand how this would impact DOD. Of course, not knowing the specific technologies being used, this is an exercise in guesswork - but I'll indulge nonetheless.

Some key points:
- the P2P management is targeted at uploads from your IP
- the P2P management is looking for specific types of upload packets/messages - from certain P2P applications

DOD is initiated either through remote booking, or by selecting something from the Guide/menu of available titles. Once 'verified', a *download* of some type takes place from a DirecTV host to your "client" (the HR2x DVR). This could be in the form of an ftp file transfer. Or it could be a custom application/download file manager.

It would be surprising if D* were using some form of P2P client - since they want the content to come strictly from their servers (a means of verifying that you have proper authorization for the content being received).

In short, for these reasons, it is unlikely that Sandvine is impacting DOD at this time. It interferes with the upload/sharing aspect of P2P apps, and since DOD isn't doing uploading, it's probably not having any effect.

Could this change? Does Sandvine have the ability to inspect and 'block' or otherwise interfere with DOD ?? Good question - and I can't answer that. Maybe someone will read this who has experience with the product and can comment.

The 'invisi-caps' that Comcast uses is a completely different, although certainly relevant, conversation in the context of DOD.

For those with Comcast service, in the short term my recommendation would be to limit your DOD downloads to "off-hours" periods (after midnight to 7 AM).
To facilitate this, D* may want to consider adding some 'filter' criteria to the DOD and Remote Booking products - allowing the user to specify a download start time, and a download rate (high, medium, low). Armed with such tools (and provided they would use the tools!) users could probably avoid most limits that many ISPs are starting to place on their service. (Visit the Broadband Reports Road Runner Forum for a months long thread regarding packet shaping. ).

For better or worse, the TOS of most ISPs is similar to Comcast's - they reserve the right to change it at any time for any reason, and as long as it is posted on their website, and you have free access to that site and the content, they're in the clear. It really doesn't matter how they advertised the service when you signed up.


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

dbmaven said:


> Could this change? Does Sandvine have the ability to inspect and 'block' or otherwise interfere with DOD ?? Good question - and I can't answer that. Maybe someone will read this who has experience with the product and can comment.


I think this is the whole point. What's to stop Comcast from adding DTV's DoD service as an application to throttle or cut-off? Technically, the DoD service is different, but the end result of using a substantial amount of bandwidth isn't. Which is the reason I'd be worried if I had Comcast and intended to use the DoD service a lot.


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

I think I offered some suggestions in the rest of the post.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

dbmaven said:


> I think I offered some suggestions in the rest of the post.


Unfortunately, those are not very consumer friendly.

I also wonder if they will begin to "packet shape" DOD downloads, irregardless if you are near your invsi-cap...


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

tiger2005 said:


> What's to stop Comcast from adding DTV's DoD service as an application to throttle or cut-off?


the threat of losing valuable customers to other providers that don't do it?


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

SaltyDawg said:


> This is totally legal. Check out:
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/06/tech/main3240101.shtml
> 
> Everyone should write their congress reps about it, and visit:
> http://savetheinternet.com/


This is the only way to get these companies in trouble is to complain to your congressman because if the FTC, FCC, or Congress does not do something about Comcast or any other ISP. They can do any packet shaping they want right now and you'll you can do is whine or switch services(for those few with the luxury in their area). We need to make a big stink about it or the companies will get their way without a fight.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

EFF did a nice report on Comcast earlier 9/13/07


> On Wednesday, we spoke with Comcast to try to find out what was going on in this case. Comcast assured us that, while it does do some kinds of network management on its residential network, it isn't deliberately blocking, degrading, interfering with, or discriminating against particular protocols or kinds of traffic. (This is consistent with what Comcast told the press in August when these allegations were widely raised.) The company said that it isn't using network management techniques that are designed to disrupt anyone's use of BitTorrent (or any other application).


http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/09/comcast-and-bittorrent

First denial of everything, then tacit acknowlegement to.....???
Hopefully this will be a PR catastrophe for Comcast. But doubtful it will change anything.

followup by EFF


----------



## dpfaunts (Oct 17, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Exactly.... there are so many clauses in these things... they can really do what ever they want... and cancel your service really at any time.
> 
> It will be a terrible day... when we see an article...
> "Woman dies... because they couldn't call 911 since VoIP was disabled by COMCAST"


Close, but not quite

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21379720/

Woman fined for hammering Comcast office
Her fury with cable company led to attacks on keyboard, monitor, phone


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

No sane jury in the world would convict this grandma. While I generally do not condone it, jury nullification would be the way I'd go if I were on her jury!


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

MikeR said:


> EFF did a nice report on Comcast earlier 9/13/07
> 
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/09/comcast-and-bittorrent
> 
> ...


One thing we can all do protect our rights on the internet is to make a donation to EFF [Electronic Frontier Foundation]. They've sued AT&T for turning over our confidential phone records to the CIA and FBI in violation of FISA and have also done great work in showing how easily paperless voting machines manufactured by Diebold and others can be manipulated through their proprietary, closed-source, software.


----------



## Marvin (Sep 14, 2003)

I have Sprint Mobile Broadband (EVDO rev A) and at least for now its unlimited (whereas Verizon's EVDO is capped at 5 GB a month). The only downsides are its only 1.3 mbps and its $70 a month with taxes. But there is no other broadband solution available here and dialup is usually around 14.4. Im kicking myself for not signing up sooner when they put the stupid cell tower up down the street. Hopefully sprint doesn't kill off their Wimax technology (XOHM) which would be close to 3x the speed at supposedly up to half the cost of EVDO, but with the changes in leadership and the fact that they're talking about putting 500 million into it to only cover 1/2 of the area that their EVDO covers, I have my doubts.


----------



## mridan (Nov 15, 2006)

Link to Yahoo Article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019...crimination;_ylt=Ag4LImCh6TyYfVFpRsxwKncDW7oF


----------



## Mark20 (Dec 25, 2006)

Several local organizations I belong to have trouble delivering e-mail to Comcast customers. Deep in their system, their domains are flagged as spammers and unless you can get a hold of their more knowledgable IT tech's is impossible to get fixed. 

Yes, it is their pipe into your house and they probably have certain rights to control it but they are also becoming the phone line for many people. If they have systems in place that interfere with Vonage while letting thier VOIP through, then woo to them when someone's 911 call doesn't go through.


----------



## cowart (Aug 27, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> If it was "sold" to me as "unlimited"... and I pay the $60 a month for "unlimited"...


Their website seems to indicate that this is not the case... from http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp



> You shall ensure that your bandwidth consumption using the Service does not exceed the limitations that are now in effect or may be established in the future. If your use of the Service results in the consumption of bandwidth in excess of the applicable limitations, that is a violation of this Policy. In such cases, Comcast may, in its sole discretion, terminate or suspend your Service account or request that you subscribe to a version of the Service with higher bandwidth usage limitations if you wish to continue to use the Service at higher bandwidth consumption levels.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

There's a good article about Comcast's nefarious activity on Salon:

http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/10/19/comcast/index.html


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

If this can be proved true, sounds like a class action lawsuit against Comcast is next...


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Nice quote for Earl from the Salon piece:

Moreover, in their marketing copy, Comcast and other broadband companies play up the "unlimited" nature of their plans. They don't really want to tell people that, actually, they're managing their networks so that you can't do all you want with it (though in the fine print that subscribers never read, they all reserve the right to do so). 

The upshot, then: Comcast wants to manage its traffic. It just doesn't want people to know that it does.


----------



## Binary (Nov 26, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> DirecTV isn't "torrents" and it is a legit/legal usage of the connections...


Um, DUH? I said Sandvine mainly affect upload w/ p2p apps, which has nothing to do with VOD.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Okay, but here's the issue that Comcast will bring up that no one wants to deal with.

There is a limit to how much bandwidth they can bring a neighborhood (at least at a cost that consumers will pay). 

If 5% of those consumers start downloading gigabytes and gigabytes and this infringes on other's enjoyment of the service what should the ISP do?


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Okay, but here's the issue that Comcast will bring up that no one wants to deal with.
> 
> There is a limit to how much bandwidth they can bring a neighborhood (at least at a cost that consumers will pay).
> 
> If 5% of those consumers start downloading gigabytes and gigabytes and this infringes on other's enjoyment of the service what should the ISP do?


They should either raise their prices and/or increase their bandwidth to that area.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Okay, but here's the issue that Comcast will bring up that no one wants to deal with.
> 
> There is a limit to how much bandwidth they can bring a neighborhood (at least at a cost that consumers will pay).
> 
> If 5% of those consumers start downloading gigabytes and gigabytes and this infringes on other's enjoyment of the service what should the ISP do?


Simple, just provide what the client is paying for.

The long answer is stop selling the bandwidth at an 1/80 saturation level.


----------



## DarkAudit (Sep 10, 2007)

Binary said:


> Um, DUH? I said Sandvine mainly affect upload w/ p2p apps, which has nothing to do with VOD.


If Blizzard's implementation of patch distribution for World of Warcraft et. al. is affected, then it's restraint of trade.

If it's done by spoofing or imitating the other party, then it's fraud.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

wavemaster said:


> Simple, just provide what the client is paying for.
> 
> The long answer is stop selling the bandwidth at an 1/80 saturation level.


So then everyone ends up paying $150 - $200 a month for internet service because a few want to download 30GB a day?

Perhaps it's time to go to tiered service levels.


----------



## PANCHITO (Apr 8, 2006)

raott said:


> It doesn't matter anyway, the first paragraph of their use policy allows Comcast to change the terms.
> 
> Important Note: Comcast may revise this Acceptable Use Policy (the "Policy") from time to time without notice by posting a new version of this document on the Comcast Web site at http://www.comcast.net (or any successor URL(s)).....
> 
> http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp?cookieattempt=1


This mean GOOD BYE directv VOD.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Okay, but here's the issue that Comcast will bring up that no one wants to deal with.
> 
> There is a limit to how much bandwidth they can bring a neighborhood (at least at a cost that consumers will pay).
> 
> If 5% of those consumers start downloading gigabytes and gigabytes and this infringes on other's enjoyment of the service what should the ISP do?





wavemaster said:


> Simple, just provide what the client is paying for.
> 
> The long answer is stop selling the bandwidth at an 1/80 saturation level.


Stop advertising 6Mb/s, 8Mb/s, and 16Mb/s plans if you can't provide such.

Seriously....for the last month I only see 6Mb/s between midnight -7am.


----------



## trekologer (Jun 30, 2007)

jjohns said:


> Well, well. . . D* - the king of proprietary, (can't use - my signal, my content, must use - my box), claiming foul because someone is exercising their very same rights. (Its my - ISP, my - communication lines). Actually threatening to "target them" - My, my...





tuff bob said:


> Comcast could easily fight back on DOD by pointing out that Comcast customers are effectively subsidizing DirecTV customers. Hell, they have people who want the BTN believing that they are putting them first by not adding the channel to basic cable.


The "my pipes" argument is rediculous. Comcast or whatever ISP it is doesn't give away internet access. The end user pays the ISP to provide the connection to them. Its not Comcast's pipes, its the user who pays Comcast for it.

On the other hand, DirecTV pays their ISP for internet access. Their ISP has peering agreements with backbone providers which eventually gets to the user on the Comcast network. Comcast has been paid at least once (definately by the end user maybe via their peering agreement with their upstream provider(s)) to deliver the data. Just deliver the damn data.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I would hate to see something like this come to the point that a lawsuit or worse, a new law, was required.


----------



## trekologer (Jun 30, 2007)

noneroy said:


> This all came about when Comcast and others decided they wanted to play the VOIP game and beat out Vonage. If you degrade the service of Vonage so much that it's unusable, then you can turn around and sell your own product guaranteed to work. If you read the fine print on your Comcastic Contract, i believe you'll see a few clasuses that let you agree to it (i don't have comcast, so this part if from what I remember reading about a few years ago).


Comcast (and the other cable companies) like to say that their phone service is better than VoIP services (such as Vonage) because the data travels over their private network. While that's true, the vast majority of issues that cause degredation in quality are issues at the node level which, incidentally, will cause the same problems with cable company phone as VoIP.

Technologically speaking, the differences between cable company phone and true VoIP are very few. Except for the signalling protocol (PacketCable verses SIP), the payload (audio) is identical. The issues that cause loss of quality are packet loss, latency, and jitter, all of which will affect both cable company phone and VoIP. Incidentally, folks who have quality problems with VoIP due to excess packet loss, latency, or jitter typically will either see their internet connection quality suddently clear up when signing up for cable company phone or see the same exact quality problems.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I would hate to see something like this come to the point that a lawsuit or worse, a new law, was required.


What would be worse is NOT getting the law to protect net neutrality that manifestly IS desperately required.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

n3ntj said:


> If this can be proved true, sounds like a class action lawsuit against Comcast is next...


Good luck with that. There are enough CYA's in every ISP's TOS/AUP to shield them. I've been in the I.T. game for over 18 years & have read many a TOS/AUP. ISP's can and usually do whatever they want. They also can and will revise their TOS. Only thing they've actually promised to do is provide you with internet service...on THEIR terms.

Believe me when I say I'll stand up & cheer if one of them (especially Comcast) overlooks adding a CYA to their TOS and gets nailed in court.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> What would be worse is NOT getting the law to protect net neutrality that manifestly IS desperately required.


I strongly disagree. "Net Neutrality" protects the current business models - but what is so great that they deserve protection? The Internet hasn't needed net neutrality for 20 years and it sure doesn't need it now.

My major concern is that NN means the internet would be buried by P2P and spam email. NN is the Internet version of bundled channels.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

tuff bob said:


> I strongly disagree. "Net Neutrality" protects the current business models - but what is so great that they deserve protection? The Internet hasn't needed net neutrality for 20 years and it sure doesn't need it now.
> 
> My major concern is that NN means the internet would be buried by P2P and spam email. NN is the Internet version of bundled channels.


tuff bob,

The problem is who gets to decide? Spam is a huge business...there's no guarantee that they won't be able to buy prime access while quality not-as-profitable services are pushed into oblivion.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Spam is a huge business...there's no guarantee that they won't be able to buy prime access while quality not-as-profitable services are pushed into oblivion.


With NN, your ISP would not be able to discriminate between spam and "quality not-as-profitable" service. The NN law would make them "equal". So let's say your ISP email server "throttles" known spam mailservers over "quality" email - that's potentially illegal under NN laws.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

tuff bob said:


> With NN, your ISP would not be able to discriminate between spam and "quality not-as-profitable" service. The NN law would make them "equal". So let's say your ISP email server "throttles" known spam mailservers over "quality" email - that's potentially illegal under NN laws.


Very nice red herring, Mr. Bob. Spam is already illegal. ISPs can damn well discriminate against spammers already. The problem is, as you know, that people respond to spam, making it very profitable, and giving spammers plenty of incentive to look for new methods of overcoming defenses against spam. If you want to make an argument against network neutrality, make a real one.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

tuff bob said:


> With NN, your ISP would not be able to discriminate between spam and "quality not-as-profitable" service. The NN law would make them "equal". So let's say your ISP email server "throttles" known spam mailservers over "quality" email - that's potentially illegal under NN laws.


The only reason spam is illegal is because the large ISP thought it was costing them money and got laws passed. If they believed they could make money from it there would be no such laws.

Oh, wait...I forgot the large ISPs are all in it for the common good...I forgot.


----------



## Mark20 (Dec 25, 2006)

FWIW this just hit my local paper today.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

Mark20 said:


> FWIW this just hit my local paper today.


? A little more info or a link?


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

oakwcj said:


> Very nice red herring, Mr. Bob. Spam is already illegal. ISPs can damn well discriminate against spammers already. The problem is, as you know, that people respond to spam, making it very profitable, and giving spammers plenty of incentive to look for new methods of overcoming defenses against spam. If you want to make an argument against network neutrality, make a real one.


Yeah, it's illegal alright...but why are we still being slammed with it? How many spammers have been caught/prosecuted under the can-spam act? Not many, AFAIK.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> Very nice red herring, Mr. Bob. Spam is already illegal. ISPs can damn well discriminate against spammers already.


so them you shouldn't have a problem with comcast's fake TCP resets - since we all realize - much like the majority of email, the majority of P2P is also illegal.

In a NN world, how do you suggest a major ISP is able to "remain legal" if they use discrimination to try and weed out spam and illegal P2P? As soon as they get it wrong, they're going to get punished.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Yeah, it's illegal alright...but why are we still being slammed with it? How many spammers have been caught/prosecuted under the can-spam act? Not many, AFAIK.


The last figure I heard is 95% of all email is spam.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

Ken S said:


> If they believed they could make money from it there would be no such laws.


they already make money from spam. I can't tell you I've spent the amount of time I've spent on the phones with major ISPs to try and whitelist my companies email servers (everyone has to opt in to get our emails). And believe it or not, to get on the whitelist costs quite a bit of money.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

tuff bob said:


> The last figure I heard is 95% of all email is spam.


That is probably a right in there number for most.

I run a hosting company and we pull a lot of bandwidth. Of the about 1.6 mil messages/day that go through the mailservers I would say at least 90% is spam (pre-filtering) we offer many filters for our users but they can also run without.

So we send legitimate money to Sprint, Verizon, Level3, Pnap etc. To send and receive spam. We're talking about thousands of dollars a month and we are tiny by big host standards.

So why won't spam stop?

1. Because Sprint and all the backbone providers make millions a month of legitimate money from people like us paying for the pipe to get this crap we never wanted to begin with.

2. The hundreds of millions made by all the spam fighting programs and services that are "fighting the good fight". Why would any of these guys want it to stop?

In reality, for every $100 the spammers make, the industry makes over $1000.00.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Let's say my friendly telecom decided it needed to "protect" me from receiving "bad" political phone calls from commie outfits like the ACLU. I might say that this "protection" violates the First Amendment, but the friendly telecom would say if we're prohibited from blocking calls based on content, how can we protect you from telemarketers. The difference between the do not call list, which has worked reasonably well, and the anti-spam laws, which haven't, is that one is much easier to enforce. That has nothing whatever to do with letting a public utility decide that it's free to block content for whatever noble or base reason it might have. And, no, anti-spam laws weren't passed just because the spam is a pain in the ass for the telecom industry. Everyone hates spam. Yes, some laws are hard to enforce. That doesn't mean it isn't worth trying. Some spammers are, in fact, serving time.

Let me remind you that these friendly telecom companies are the very same people who have turned over private phone records to the government without warrants, in express violation of FISA, and who are now demanding -- and almost certain to receive -- retroactive immunity for their unlawful actions, even after a federal judge has made a finding that no reasonable phone company could have had a good faith belief that what they were doing was legal.


----------



## DarkAudit (Sep 10, 2007)

tuff bob said:


> so them you shouldn't have a problem with comcast's fake TCP resets - since we all realize - much like the majority of email, the majority of P2P is also illegal.


Blizzard uses torrents to ease the burden on users when they send out WoW patches. That is a legitimate commercial use. Blocking that on a whim is restraint of trade.

Comcast's spoofing is fraud. It doesn't matter what the traffic is, it's still fraud on Comcast's part. You cannot defend their actions if what Comcast is doing is a crime in and of itself. Two wrongs do not make a right.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

wavemaster said:


> In reality, for every $100 the spammers make, the industry makes over $1000.00.


Perhaps, but if the spammers weren't making money, there wouldn't be any spam. If you're old enough to remember the Pogo comic strip: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Anyway, Mr. Bob's original "argument" was that NN would make it impossible for the noble ISPs to fight spam. What you and others are saying is that they have a financial interest in abetting spam. To the extent that is true, the original "argument" appears even more bogus.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> Perhaps, but if the spammers weren't making money, there wouldn't be any spam. If you're old enough to remember the Pogo comic strip: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
> 
> Anyway, Mr. Bob's original "argument" was that NN would make it impossible for the noble ISPs to fight spam. What you and others are saying is that they have a financial interest in abetting spam. To the extent that is true, the original "argument" appears even more bogus.


Add to that that the only filtering we do is "user optional". You can get it all of you choose as well as stop 90% of it.


----------



## SteveEJ (May 30, 2007)

I currently have HughesNet which was formerly known as DirecWay. I knew nothing about FAP until I was hit by it.. All for getting updates on a XP system I just built. Their FAP is another story..

Where I see the issue is the altering of packet data. Think about it.. Anything *Could* be altered. Now a RST but what later? Throttling back a connection is one thing, creating *FALSE* packets brings about a whole new legal challenge! ie: 'Your honor, we can prove that the internet DATA packet MAY HAVE been altered by my clients ISP'..

JMHO..

SteveEJ



Earl Bonovich said:


> To me the big difference with DirecWay...
> They INFORM their customers of the limitations, and it is KNOWN by the end user.
> 
> COMCAST in no shape way or form, has made it:
> ...


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

> I currently have HughesNet which was formerly known as DirecWay. I knew nothing about FAP until I was hit by it.. All for getting updates on a XP system I just built. Their FAP is another story..


That is shocking, I had Direcway when I first moved (11/03) and never bumped into the FAP limits. It sounds like it has gotten real bad, I guess I'm glad I switched to WiMax a year later...

Regarding spam, here is a one day snapshot from a filtering appliance, this day is not in any way exceptional:


----------



## Mark20 (Dec 25, 2006)

Here's a link to the article. (Its from the AP newswire not a local investigation.)

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/95-10192007-1426369.html


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Earl Bonovich said:


> COMCAST is still dancing with fire, if it can be proven... and that they are doing it.
> 
> As it will be a marketting night mare for them.... as if DirecTV decides to target them, in some way....
> 
> ...


Comcast wants your VOD $$$$$$$$$S


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

DarkAudit said:


> Comcast's spoofing is fraud. It doesn't matter what the traffic is, it's still fraud on Comcast's part. You cannot defend their actions if what Comcast is doing is a crime in and of itself. Two wrongs do not make a right.


if its fraud, charge them with fraud. simple. don't start making up another law to make something that's illegal, illegal.


----------



## aramus8 (Nov 21, 2006)

It just baffles me that internet providers don't have a way to access your usage figures. I remember Prodigy kept a running total you could easily view anytime as far back as 1995 and I checked it all the time. I would think the software to do that would have been improved upon by now. Since Prodigy was swallowed up by Southwest Bell several years ago, does anybody with Southwest Bell still have access to their usage figures? I'm thinking maybe Prodigy had some kind of patent since I haven't had an ISP that let you access usage since I left them.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

aramus8 said:


> It just baffles me that internet providers don't have a way to access your usage figures. I remember Prodigy kept a running total you could easily view anytime as far back as 1995 and I checked it all the time. I would think the software to do that would have been improved upon by now. Since Prodigy was swallowed up by Southwest Bell several years ago, does anybody with Southwest Bell still have access to their usage figures? I'm thinking maybe Prodigy had some kind of patent since I haven't had an ISP that let you access usage since I left them.


They all have it and/or can do it if they want. They've got logs on every site you go to and every file you download. That's all really basic stuff. Why they don't make it available? Probably a variety of reasons including not that many people care.


----------



## K4SMX (May 19, 2007)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071020/BUSINESS/110200027


----------



## orinth (Aug 5, 2007)

K4SMX said:


> http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071020/BUSINESS/110200027


I really wish I could get something other than comcast for my internet, but the only other option is Qwest DSL @ 1.5mbit which won't do .


----------



## K4SMX (May 19, 2007)

When the story moves from specialized websites to the AP newswires, you have now "made the news," *big time*. There will be a lot of "splainin' " to do tomorrow....


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

I suspect the majority of users are glad the ISP's are regulating upload and download use. When the ISP's (not just Comcast I might add) are given the opportunity to begin publicly explaining that it is necessary because a minority of heavy users are causing normal users' access to crawl, most reasonable thinking persons will understand. It is not a complex concept.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Spoken like a true Comcast employee.

On a separate note, Comcast had expanded their filtering to Lotus Notes

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/10/comcast_is_bloc.html

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/comcast-also-jamming-gnutella-and-lotus-notes



> Technologies like BitTorrent and Joost, {and add Directv DOD}, which are used to distribute licensed movies and are in direct competition with Comcast's cable TV services, will be at Comcast's mercy.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

MikeR said:


> Spoken like a true Comcast employee.
> 
> On a separate note, Comcast had expanded their filtering to Lotus Notes
> 
> ...


I know, I know. If you happen to disagree you are either a Tivo fan or a cable fan. That's deep.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

jjohns said:


> I suspect the majority of users are glad the ISP's are regulating upload and download use. *When the ISP's (not just Comcast I might add) are given the opportunity to begin publicly explaining that it is necessary *because a minority of heavy users are causing normal users' access to crawl, most reasonable thinking persons will understand. It is not a complex concept.


When will this begin?


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

MikeR said:


> When will this begin?


To quote the poster I was responding to, "When the story moves from specialized websites to the AP newswires, you have now "made the news," big time.", 
I guess..


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

I say Comcast goes after everyone that watches YouTube, or downloads Directv VOD.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070619-the-youtube-effect-http-traffic-now-eclipses-p2p.html


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

MikeR said:


> I say Comcast goes after everyone that watches YouTube, or downloads Directv VOD.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070619-the-youtube-effect-http-traffic-now-eclipses-p2p.html


Well, I have dial-up access. I won't be doing either.


----------



## argonaut (Dec 16, 2006)

One thing I'm unclear about is whether DirecTV on Demand actually use the BitTorrent communications protocol?


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

thumperr said:


> Looks like the previous threads about concerns that maybe Comcast could block or slow down D* on Demand traffic have a little more support for the argument.


Can you blame them??? It isn't like you need a DirecTV connection to use their VOD solution. Why should we have to use their cable internet system for DOD? This is why DOD is not that big on my radar screen. It's implementation takes much to be desired if the deal is you must download via your cable provider.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

jjohns said:


> When the ISP's (not just Comcast I might add) are given the opportunity to begin publicly explaining that it is necessary because a minority of heavy users are causing normal users' access to crawl, most reasonable thinking persons will understand. It is not a complex concept.





jjohns said:


> I know, I know. If you happen to disagree you are either a Tivo fan or a cable fan. That's deep.


Just sounded earily similar to the Comcast Interactive Div. prez... 


> There is the hyperbole and the reality of what we call excessive use," Banse said. While 99.9% of Comcast customers get access to the Internet without interference, the 0.1% that fit into the category of excessive use have to be managed. "In the (course) of our management of that excessive use, we call the customers and offer them the commercial service," she said.


http://isen.com/blog/2007/10/comcasts-president-interactive-division.html

See previous post for actual statistics...


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

argonaut said:


> One thing I'm unclear about is whether DirecTV on Demand actually use the BitTorrent communications protocol?


It's directly from a server.

Bit Torrent strategy wouldn't work unless the user was willing to wait for the entire download to complete before watching. With a BT download chunks of the file will be downloaded but not necessarily in order of first to last.


----------



## thumperr (Feb 10, 2006)

gcisko said:


> Can you blame them??? It isn't like you need a DirecTV connection to use their VOD solution. Why should we have to use their cable internet system for DOD? This is why DOD is not that big on my radar screen. It's implementation takes much to be desired if the deal is you must download via your cable provider.


Yes, I can blame comcast if they do this. I pay for 6Mb of download speed and unlimited service, so I should be able to access that speed 24/7, not when comcast thinks I should. I have an issue with this, and this is why I believe that Net Neutrality needs supported.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

thumperr said:


> Yes, I can blame comcast if they do this. I pay for 6Mb of download speed and unlimited service, so I should be able to access that speed 24/7, not when comcast thinks I should. I have an issue with this, and this is why I believe that Net Neutrality needs supported.


Net neutrality should be supported.

But...there also has to be a method to prevent a few bandwidth hogs from causing us all to pay higher prices. There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth...if Comcast brings more bandwidth to areas the price is going to go up...who should pay?


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Next they'll block Internet Explorer and Firefox lol


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Net neutrality should be supported.
> 
> But...there also has to be a method to prevent a few bandwidth hogs from causing us all to pay higher prices. There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth...if Comcast brings more bandwidth to areas the price is going to go up...who should pay?


The bandwidth hogs should pay. The ISPs need to be honest about what the limits are. When I first started using dial-up in 1995, usage limits were measured in hours. There are services now that offer tiered services based on bandwidth. Instead of saying it's unlimited, define the limits and the charges for usage above the limits. But don't impose hidden limits by sending forged headers. And don't discriminate based on protocols, content, or source.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> The bandwidth hogs should pay. The ISPs need to be honest about what the limits are. When I first started using dial-up in 1995, usage limits were measured in hours. There are services now that offer tiered services based on bandwidth. Instead of saying it's unlimited, define the limits and the charges for usage above the limits. But don't impose hidden limits by sending forged headers. And don't discriminate based on protocols, content, or source.


I don't disagree with you. I think the way Comcast is handling this is quite poor. I also know that the American consumer does not like metered service. They hated the old per minute fees for services like AOL or CompuServe. They hated the fees for a certain amount of hours and they won't be happy with a usage cap (or overage fee)...especially the day someone clicks a selectino on a DoD menu, downloading an HD movie which might cost them $25 in excess bandwidth fees.


----------



## tooloud10 (Sep 23, 2007)

gcisko said:


> Can you blame them??? It isn't like you need a DirecTV connection to use their VOD solution. Why should we have to use their cable internet system for DOD? This is why DOD is not that big on my radar screen. It's implementation takes much to be desired if the deal is you must download via your cable provider.


Uh, you don't have to use their cable Internet system for DOD--you can use whatever broadband Internet provider you like to access it. If that happens to be Comcast, how is that D*'s fault?

For the record, this is the first time I've ever been glad that I'm with Mediacon.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

tooloud10 said:


> Uh, you don't have to use their cable Internet system for DOD--you can use whatever broadband Internet provider you like to access it. If that happens to be Comcast, how is that D*'s fault?
> 
> For the record, this is the first time I've ever been glad that I'm with Mediacon.


In a great many areas there is little choice of broadband ISPs. Most people are fortunate if they have two Cable and DSL...and in many cases the DSL speeds are just not fast enough to make DoD really feasible


----------



## thumperr (Feb 10, 2006)

I added this to the original post. But Comcast has responded to the allegation that they block traffic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21427075/

I actually have no problem with Comcast 'shaping' traffic and slowing users that use excessive bandwidth, but they really should publish what the standards are and allow the users to see what their usage is.


----------



## trekologer (Jun 30, 2007)

gcisko said:


> Can you blame them??? It isn't like you need a DirecTV connection to use their VOD solution. Why should we have to use their cable internet system for DOD? This is why DOD is not that big on my radar screen. It's implementation takes much to be desired if the deal is you must download via your cable provider.


You're missing the point. Its not as if you're accessing the internet for free. Its your internet connection that you've paid for. Why should Comcast or whatever provider you have tell you how and what you use the connection for?


----------



## orinth (Aug 5, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> The bandwidth hogs should pay. The ISPs need to be honest about what the limits are. When I first started using dial-up in 1995, usage limits were measured in hours. There are services now that offer tiered services based on bandwidth. Instead of saying it's unlimited, define the limits and the charges for usage above the limits. But don't impose hidden limits by sending forged headers. And don't discriminate based on protocols, content, or source.


I agree. I pay an extra $10/month for comcast 8mbit service. I think that should be "unlimited" since I'm paying extra over a regular customer.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

orinth said:


> I agree. I pay an extra $10/month for comcast 8mbit service. I think that should be "unlimited" since I'm paying extra over a regular customer.


orinth,

Let them know that and see what they say. I bet they offer you a commercial account that's a bit more than $10 extra per month.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

More double talk from Comcast

IMO, Comcast has decided that spending money on "management software" and PR personnel can yield a greater gain for the shareholders than actually providing the best service.

Comcast.....we haven't finished milking this cow yet.


----------



## kfcrosby (Dec 17, 2006)

According to Comcast, they're not blocking BitTorrent traffic,they're just delaying it (one might say the difference is negligible) not that there aren't several ways to circumvent BitTorrent throttling.

http://torrentfreak.com/how-to-bypass-comcast-bittorrent-throttling-071021/


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Long ago one needed to be versed in ftp commands and Unix just to find their way around, and the internet was a black screen with absolutely zero advertisements. There was plenty of bandwidth for everyone. Now big companies and huge corporations not only take an enormous bite of the bandwidth with their applications but also eat up more bandwidth with simply their ads. 

Now one mega deep-pocket corporation complains that another mega deep-pocket corporation might not grant its way more-than-its-fair-share of bandwidth. Masquerading its greed as a "Net Neutrality" issue, insults the internet users that really do care about net neutrality.


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

jjohns said:


> Masquerading its greed as a "Net Neutrality" issue, insults the internet users that really do care about net neutrality.


I couldn't agree with that statement more.


----------



## mchaney (Aug 17, 2006)

gcisko said:


> Can you blame them??? It isn't like you need a DirecTV connection to use their VOD solution. Why should we have to use their cable internet system for DOD? This is why DOD is not that big on my radar screen. It's implementation takes much to be desired if the deal is you must download via your cable provider.


The DVR is nothing more than a computer. How is DirecTV's VOD any different than when you sign up for a paid online video service like some of the online TV services or even a premium YouTube account. If you pay for internet service, you should be getting what you paid for.

Mike


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

mchaney said:


> The DVR is nothing more than a computer. How is DirecTV's VOD any different than when you sign up for a paid online video service like some of the online TV services or even a premium YouTube account. If you pay for internet service, you should be getting what you paid for.
> 
> Mike


The problem is that you don't know what you paid for, because of all the calculated ambiguities and loopholes in the user agreements that are imposed on you.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

oakwcj said:


> The problem is that you don't know what you paid for, because of all the calculated ambiguities and loopholes in the user agreements that are imposed on you.


 True.

Bottom line is that I do not believe Comcast will do anything to improve their services without additional competition. I also do not believe it will be limited to P2P or uploads. They will continue to add subscribers, raise rates, and "manage thier network" with minimal capital investment on the internet side.

Look at the HD rollout.....did you see Comcast taking a market leadership role?

Not unless Directv or other competitor starts taking customers ($$$$$) from them. Right now as a comparison, the investments in their network go in any area that has Fios (and only if Fios is available).

Netflix to join in the internet downloading of movies.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

trekologer said:


> You're missing the point. Its not as if you're accessing the internet for free. Its your internet connection that you've paid for. Why should Comcast or whatever provider you have tell you how and what you use the connection for?


Because they use their own cable system for their own Video On Demand service. It is kind of offensive that anyone would try to use someone elses cable system solution for their Video On Demand solution. How much is D* charging to use VOD on someone elses internet service?


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

mchaney said:


> The DVR is nothing more than a computer. How is DirecTV's VOD any different than when you sign up for a paid online video service like some of the online TV services or even a premium YouTube account. If you pay for internet service, you should be getting what you paid for.
> 
> Mike


Does comcast offer Vodeo On Demand? Why yes it does. Does D* offer it? Why yes it does. However you must use your internet connection. So if comcast offers a service why should they allow someone to offer the same service on their lines for free?


----------



## orinth (Aug 5, 2007)

kfcrosby said:


> According to Comcast, they're not blocking BitTorrent traffic,they're just delaying it (one might say the difference is negligible) not that there aren't several ways to circumvent BitTorrent throttling.
> 
> http://torrentfreak.com/how-to-bypass-comcast-bittorrent-throttling-071021/


god that webpage hurts my eyes


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

gcisko said:


> Because they use their own cable system for their own Video On Demand service. It is kind of offensive that anyone would try to use someone elses cable system solution for their Video On Demand solution. How much is D* charging to use VOD on someone elses internet service?


Is it similarly "offensive" for me to use Skype on an AT&T DSL service? This is precisely why we need net neutrality. Comcast is a so-called "natural" or regulated monopoly. There's only one cable system in each area. It's dangerous in the extreme to allow it to block content that is in competition with one or more of its many services or to treat that usage differently from any other. That's what's really offensive.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

gcisko said:


> Does comcast offer Vodeo On Demand? Why yes it does. Does D* offer it? Why yes it does. However you must use your internet connection. So if comcast offers a service why should they allow someone to offer the same service on their lines for free?


Free? I pay for my internet line....


----------



## mchaney (Aug 17, 2006)

gcisko said:


> Does comcast offer Vodeo On Demand? Why yes it does. Does D* offer it? Why yes it does. However you must use your internet connection. So if comcast offers a service why should they allow someone to offer the same service on their lines for free?


It's not free. It's part of your internet service that YOU pay for! If DirecTV offered a way to watch streaming movies off their web site and you used your computer to access their web site and watch movies from your computer, you'd have no problem with that, right? Now replace your computer with the HR20. No difference! For you to be right, Comcast would have to have a stipulation in their contract that says you could be cut off or bandwidth limited for watching streaming video or downloading videos off the internet, because that's all the HR20 is doing. In this case, the HR20 is nothing more than a media server.

Mike


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> Is it similarly "offensive" for me to use Skype on an AT&T DSL service? This is precisely why we need net neutrality. Comcast is a so-called "natural" or regulated monopoly. There's only one cable system in each area. It's dangerous in the extreme to allow it to block content that is in competition with one or more of its many services or to treat that usage differently from any other. That's what's really offensive.


I haven't read anything about them "blocking" content. Just regulating it.


----------



## mchaney (Aug 17, 2006)

jjohns said:


> I haven't read anything about them "blocking" content. Just regulating it.


Depends on how you define "blocking". If you paid for a 10 Mbps pipe and Comcast is limiting you to 5 Mbps, technically they are "blocking" half your bandwidth.

Mike


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

jjohns said:


> I haven't read anything about them "blocking" content. Just regulating it.


They're forging packets, which terminates transfers. That's blocking.
Read:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18323368-Comcast-is-using-Sandvine-to-manage-P2P-Connections

Additionally, if you happen to live in a "busy" area, and you exceed some mystical/magical/unspecified limit (reputed to be between 200 and 300 GB in some further undefined time period) of download activity, your service may be completely shut off. That's more than regulating - in fact, it may be the ultimate form of blocking.
Comcast Account Suspended: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,7970996


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

mchaney said:


> Depends on how you define "blocking". If you paid for a 10 Mbps pipe and Comcast is limiting you to 5 Mbps, technically they are "blocking" half your bandwidth.
> 
> Mike


"It's dangerous in the extreme to allow it to block content that is in competition with one or more of its many services or to treat that usage differently from any other."

I thought in this use of "block content" it was being implied that Comcast was not allowing content that was in competition with it. My bad.


----------



## mchaney (Aug 17, 2006)

This is all really very simple. With D* VOD, you are using a computer to download videos off the internet. Where in the Comcast contract does it say you are not allowed to download videos off the internet? Or that they'll limit your bandwidth to something less than what you paid for if they "sniff" you and discover that you are downloading too many videos off the internet? Or that you cannot access an internet site owned by DirecTV for this purpose? Or use a computer built by a company named "DirecTV" to do it?

Mike


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

houskamp said:


> Free? I pay for my internet line....


Yes but if you used Comcast Video On Demand you would be paying extra on top of your internet connection. The money D* gets for VOD should go to the media provider if the content is gotten via broadband D* does not provide. You obviously have to understand this. So I am not sure what to make of your argument.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

oakwcj said:


> Is it similarly "offensive" for me to use Skype on an AT&T DSL service? This is precisely why we need net neutrality. Comcast is a so-called "natural" or regulated monopoly. There's only one cable system in each area. It's dangerous in the extreme to allow it to block content that is in competition with one or more of its many services or to treat that usage differently from any other. That's what's really offensive.


OK you have a point with Skype. I guess I need to rethink this. But I guess my issue is that Comcast offers VOD. So I can see where they wouldnot someone else using their cable system to offer another VOD for television viewing. Perhaps I am looking at it more of a television service than an internet service.


----------



## mchaney (Aug 17, 2006)

gcisko said:


> Yes but if you used Comcast Video On Demand you would be paying extra on top of your internet connection. The money D* gets for VOD should go to the media provider if the content is gotten via broadband D* does not provide. You obviously have to understand this. So I am not sure what to make of your argument.


This logic simply makes no sense whatsoever. You already paid for the internet service once, *to do whatever you wish with your connection*, anything that is legal anyway. Now you want people to pay double because you are able to download videos off the internet and Comcast also offers videos? What's next? Comcast revokes your service because they find out you are using Vonage and they also offer VOIP? Or maybe they'll block the "watch full episodes" links on the network sites: why let you watch full episodes of shows from NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. when Comcast also offers the same shows? Should they be allowed to tell you exactly what you can do and where you can go on the internet? I don't think so!

Mike


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

gcisko said:


> Yes but if you used Comcast Video On Demand you would be paying extra on top of your internet connection. The money D* gets for VOD should go to the media provider if the content is gotten via broadband D* does not provide. You obviously have to understand this. So I am not sure what to make of your argument.


I understand your point - but disagree with it.

Cable TV "signals" are in a completely different frequency range from Internet service provided by the same company. To the best of my knowledge (and I'll be more than happy to be corrected if wrong) - cable provider VOD content uses the 'cable TV' frequencies/bandwidth. And it's different - because it is truly "on-demand" - you're not downloading anything - merely telling a remote device to start streaming the content to you.

Internet connections are like a "pipe within a pipe" on cable infrastructure. What happens within the ISP pipe, since it is a different frequency band than TV, does not have any impact - and vice-versa.

I could choose to go to any number of places to get my "broadband video content" - including streaming video - and frankly it's none of the ISPs business where that comes from or who's providing it.

Having said all that - I have no particular issue with some form(s) of traffic shaping - provided that they are publicly acknowledged, and specifically stated. Keeping the pipe 'unclogged' so that everyone gets some bandwidth seems reasonable to me - and if that means rate limiting people who are "hogging" tons of bandwidth during peak hours - then so be it - _provided that they are above board and publicly state that this is what they're doing._

Comcast is blocking certain types of traffic (see links provided earlier) including BitTorrent, and now it's impacting applications like Lotus Notes, and their limits are not publicly stated (for the 'big downloaders').

I've specifically recommended that D* add "scheduling" to their DOD service - so that people can queue up a download for off-peak hours (2 AM - 6AM local time) - when there's less issue of lots of people trying to use that shared pipe - and I still think it would be a good idea for those who live in constrained areas.


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

Seems like its only a matter of time before this gets filed in court.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/23/1314222


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

gcisko said:


> OK you have a point with Skype. I guess I need to rethink this. But I guess my issue is that Comcast offers VOD. So I can see where they wouldnot someone else using their cable system to offer another VOD for television viewing. Perhaps I am looking at it more of a television service than an internet service.


The point is that Comcast ISP is acting as a common carrier. It should have no more right to decide what packets it carries than the phone company should have to determine what calls you can make or receive. When the internet was first established --by the government, I should point out -- the decision was made that "a packet is a packet is a packet." It's a good rule. Otherwise, why can't Comcast just block everything coming from or going to DirecTV's website? I know that's an extreme hypothetical, but it's critical for understanding that an ISP is acting as a common carrier. It can establish user agreements with usage caps or higher rates for usage in excess of a published ceiling. But it must not be allowed into the business of deciding that some packets are more equal than others.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

tiger2005 said:


> Seems like its only a matter of time before this gets filed in court.
> 
> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/23/1314222


That won't help anyone but the lawyers. If Comcast puts some sort of hard limits on everyone who gets helped? If they have to set uniform hard limits do you think they're going to set them low or high? Low, of course.

I think the way they've gone about this is stupid and wrong...but they may actually be trying to achieve something more fair than hard limits on everyone.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> The point is that Comcast ISP is acting as a common carrier. It should have no more right to decide what packets it carries than the phone company should have to determine what calls you can make or receive. When the internet was first established --by the government, I should point out -- the decision was made that "a packet is a packet is a packet." It's a good rule. Otherwise, why can't Comcast just block everything coming from or going to DirecTV's website? I know that's an extreme hypothetical, but it's critical for understanding that an ISP is acting as a common carrier. It can establish user agreements with usage caps or higher rates for usage in excess of a published ceiling. But it must not be allowed into the business of deciding that some packets are more equal than others.


oak,

I agree...unfortunately the Justice Department has asked the FCC to allow companies to do just that. The believe that net neutrality will stifle innovation and investment.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> That won't help anyone but the lawyers. If Comcast puts some sort of hard limits on everyone who gets helped? If they have to set uniform hard limits do you think they're going to set them low or high? Low, of course.
> 
> I think the way they've gone about this is stupid and wrong...but they may actually be trying to achieve something more fair than hard limits on everyone.


What, you don't think the invisible hand of the market is enough to keep prices in line?


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> oak,
> 
> I agree...unfortunately the Justice Department has asked the FCC to allow companies to do just that. The believe that net neutrality will stifle innovation and investment.


That's the current position of the Acting Attorney General. I don't think the Justice Department believes anything of the sort. The Justice Department is broken.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Again...manage to the point that you don't need to block. Semantics.



> There have been many news reports speculating about how Comcast manages it network. It is important for us to provide you with the facts.
> 
> First, and most importantly, our customers have unfettered access to all the content, services, and applications on the Web. They use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites, VOIP applications like Vonage, and thousands of other applications online.
> 
> ...


----------



## tooloud10 (Sep 23, 2007)

Ken S said:


> In a great many areas there is little choice of broadband ISPs. Most people are fortunate if they have two Cable and DSL...and in many cases the DSL speeds are just not fast enough to make DoD really feasible


I understand that, and that's not D*'s fault either. The interesting thing about broadband Internet service is that you're not paying for channels or dial tones--you're paying to transfer packets to and from your home. For the most part, whatever those packets contain is the subscriber's business.

I'll say it again: one's broadband Internet provider should have no bearing on using DOD. Some people look at it as "I'm using my cable television line to get satellite television service." I look at it as "I'm using my broadband cable Internet line to download a file that just happens to go to my DVR."


----------



## tooloud10 (Sep 23, 2007)

gcisko said:


> Because they use their own cable system for their own Video On Demand service. It is kind of offensive that anyone would try to use someone elses cable system solution for their Video On Demand solution. How much is D* charging to use VOD on someone elses internet service?


You're not using "someone else's cable system solution" to get DOD. You're using your Internet connection. In my house, that happens to be owned by the local cable television company. If Comcast offers broadband Internet service, surely they understand that some of their bandwidth could be used to communicate with their various competitors.

Using your logic, it wouldn't be ethical for Comcast to send me an e-mail over my Direcway satellite Internet connection.


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

MikeR said:


> Again...manage to the point that you don't need to block. Semantics.


Mike - source/link to that material?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> That's the current position of the Acting Attorney General. I don't think the Justice Department believes anything of the sort. The Justice Department is broken.


amen


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> What, you don't think the invisible hand of the market is enough to keep prices in line?


Of course I do...it certainly has worked in similar markets with very limited if any competition..say...oh...cable/satellite TV


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

thumperr said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21376597/
> 
> By Peter Svensson
> 
> ...


I hope Verizon FiOS comes to my neighborhood I will get my high speed internet with them. I'm too far away from the Verizon office to get DSL. I have Comcast for internet only now.


----------



## trekologer (Jun 30, 2007)

gcisko said:


> Yes but if you used Comcast Video On Demand you would be paying extra on top of your internet connection. The money D* gets for VOD should go to the media provider if the content is gotten via broadband D* does not provide. You obviously have to understand this. So I am not sure what to make of your argument.


Why should DirecTV (or whatever content provider) pay Comcast (or whatever ISP) extra to deliver data over my internet connection that I already paid for?

DirecTV has an internet provider that they pay. I have an internet proivder that I pay. DirectTV's internet provider pay's my internet provider to exchange data (a peering agreement -- standard practice of internet providers). This is how the internet works -- and its how it always worked -- networks connected to networks. End users pay providers access to the network and those providers connect to each other.

Let me ask you this. Let's say that your phone company is AT&T and my phone company is Verizon. You pay your phone company to complete the calls you place. Your phone company pays my phone company to termine your calls to my phone. What if my phone company told you that they wouldn't deliver your phone call to me unless you paid them more, even though AT&T already paid them to deliver the call and I paid Verizon to receive calls. Would you pay Verizon extra so that they would deliver your call?

The internet is exactly the same.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

trekologer said:


> Why should DirecTV (or whatever content provider) pay Comcast (or whatever ISP) extra to deliver data over my internet connection that I already paid for?
> 
> DirecTV has an internet provider that they pay. I have an internet proivder that I pay. DirectTV's internet provider pay's my internet provider to exchange data (a peering agreement -- standard practice of internet providers). This is how the internet works -- and its how it always worked -- networks connected to networks. End users pay providers access to the network and those providers connect to each other.
> 
> ...


No, it's not the same there are laws in place that require the phone companies to work together in that regard...both federal and state. There are no such laws requiring internet providers to do so. Big difference...because without the laws on phone service there would be fees like that. Remember roaming fees on cell service?


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

dbmaven said:


> Mike - source/link to that material?


Comcast's forum link - posted directly on the forum by the admins/moderators.

http://forums.comcast.net/comcastsupport/board/message?board.id=5&thread.id=96824

I am frustrated as I pay for 6Mbps +a surcharge, and for the last 2 months (since I've been tracking - in particular because of DOD), I have <500kbps between 5pm and midnight.

Comcast business practices leave much to be desired.


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

Thanks Mike.

Unfortunately, that seems to be a 'subscriber only' site - requiring userid/password to get in.
No problem - MSNBC had the full text on one of their news stories.

I feel for you - and anyone else in Comcast land, and am most grateful that I don't have to deal with them.

Good luck!


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

Kind of ironic that Direct TV might be concerned about Comcast strong-arming their potential customers of DoD. Where is the outcry when Direct TV strong-arms their own customers into accepting unfavorable terms, conditions, and packages? Ahh ... the sounds of silence


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxRiQSVfgK4sLbVRE_X4MOlM9q0A


----------



## mchaney (Aug 17, 2006)

MikeR said:


> From Comcast...There have been many news reports speculating about how Comcast manages it network. It is important for us to provide you with the facts...snip


Interesting statement by Comcast. I can sum their entire statement up in a single sentence to their customers.

"We're sorry but we are unable to provide you with the internet access you paid for if too many other people are using their internet connections at the same time, so we may have to limit your access if you happen to be using your connection at times of high traffic."

This is no different than electric companies having to perform rolling blackouts when it is extremely hot/cold because their infrastructure wasn't designed to operate at maximum load. To me, that means they need to update their infrastructure so they can provide what they promise.

Also, there are better ways to throttle people back (to slow down their access speed) rather than forging packets to break connections.

Mike


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

I have not read anything anywhere where anyone has denied that excessive bandwidth use, like file sharing applications use, slows down others' internet use. (excessive) The electric company analogy is a good one. So the electric company should allow a few users to run a small city within their residences while the majority of others cant see in the middle of the night. And to use Earl's little old lady analogy - While Tom and Joe light their in- house baseball diamond, poor little old Miss Jones dies because she cant use her dialysis machine.


----------



## mchaney (Aug 17, 2006)

jjohns said:


> So the electric company should allow a few users to run a small city within their residences while the majority of others cant see in the middle of the night.


Wrong analogy! The electric company installs 250 amp service at your house: you ought to be able to use 250 amps and their grid ought to be able to handle it! Otherwise don't install 250 amp service.

Now, obviously there's some leeway in that the power company most likely can't support the maximum 250 amp service 24/7 at every house simultaneously and I'm sure they figure a certain percentage. BUT... if they have to perform rolling blackouts just because it's too hot and people need their air conditioners, obviously they've undercut it and haven't properly factored the service needs into their grid.

Mike


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Mike,

So, you're stating that Comcast (and all ISPs) should build out their network so that it can handle every user using the service at full capacity 24x7x365? I assume you would also require that of electric companies, phone companies and mobile phone companies?
Hey, wait...any company that offers telephone customer service shouldn't be allowed to have me on hold they should have enough reps available so that every call is taken on the first ring.

Do you think that might be a pretty expensive model to build? Who would pay for it?

As for ISP service you can get that. Call your local telco/ISP and get a T-1 or better, T-3 connected. It might cost a bit more but you'll have that fast net access all to yourself. What's a bit more? I think you can get a T-1 for about $500/month. T-3's are a bit more pricey.

In order for people to have fast access at a reasonable price we need to learn to share. Unfortunately, some people don't believe that's necessary and will take advantage of the low price of the shared service and try to use it at such levels that its detrimental to other users.

Once again, I don't think Comcast has done a good job of stating whats going on or what they're attempting to do...but the people downloading huge amounts of data constantly aren't doing anyone a favor either.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

The electricity analogies are silly because electrical usage is metered. If you're an electricity hog, not only are you contributing to the energy crisis and global warming, but you're going to pay for it. If you're using Azureus all day, you're not paying extra. Something's got to give and that something should be the illusion of "unlimited" broadband. It shouldn't be an ISP deciding to block traffic while hiding what it's doing. I just don't buy the idea that Americans won't accept metered service. We're all used to electricity and gas meters. And almost everyone has water meters.


----------



## mchaney (Aug 17, 2006)

Ken S said:


> So, you're stating that Comcast (and all ISPs) should build out their network so that it can handle every user using the service at full capacity 24x7x365? I assume you would also require that of electric companies, phone companies and mobile phone companies?


Nope. But don't you think they should be designed so they can handle a few people doing BitTorrents and/or video streaming? Look at any group of 1000 random cable modems and look at what they are doing. I guarantee you that 80% are sitting idle at any given time. So they can't handle 10% of the population doing some web browsing or email and 10% or less of the population doing BitTorrents or video downloading/streaming? The sad fact of the matter is that Comcast has skimped on their infrastructure and it shows! It's the same thing that happens when a power company underestimates usage or the phone company underestimates usage. Glad you mentioned phones. Do you think you should be cut off on a phone call because too many of your neighbors are talking on the phone?

Mike


----------



## Renard (Jun 21, 2007)

mchaney said:


> Interesting statement by Comcast. I can sum their entire statement up in a single sentence to their customers.
> 
> "We're sorry but we are unable to provide you with the internet access you paid for if too many other people are using their internet connections at the same time, so we may have to limit your access if you happen to be using your connection at times of high traffic."
> 
> ...


I wonder if Comcast doesn''t use the bandwidth problem as an excuse to get more $$$$ from customers and companies. By doing so, they can attack "Net Neutrality, and we lose more and more of our freedom  
Sorry dear Comcast's customers , not enough bandwidth we have to use traffic shaping, and slow you down, but if you want to have a faster connection, then you customers and then you companies have to pay us more. The result by doing this is simple BIG $$$$$$$$$$


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Renard said:


> I wonder if Comcast doesn''t use the bandwidth problem as an excuse to get more $$$$ from customers and companies. By doing so, they can attack "Net Neutrality, and we lose more and more of our freedom
> Sorry dear Comcast's customers , not enough bandwidth we have to use traffic shaping, and slow you down, but if you want to have a faster connection, then you customers and then you companies have to pay us more. The result by doing this is simple BIG $$$$$$$$$$


Kind of like what DirecTV does if you want to see more content?
Welcome to Capitalism.


----------



## mchaney (Aug 17, 2006)

Renard said:


> I wonder if Comcast doesn''t use the bandwidth problem as an excuse to get more $$$$ from customers and companies. By doing so, they can attack "Net Neutrality, and we lose more and more of our freedom
> Sorry dear Comcast's customers , not enough bandwidth we have to use traffic shaping, and slow you down, but if you want to have a faster connection, then you customers and then you companies have to pay us more. The result by doing this is simple BIG $$$$$$$$$$


You may be right, but believe it or not, I'd be OK with that if they were up front about it and you could actually pay to get better service. I just think that having a certain percentage of people downloading/streaming video in this day and age is not an unreasonable expectation and that your ISP's infrastructure ought to account for that. Now, if they are worried that DirecTV's VOD might cause the downloading/streaming ratio to go up, I can understand that and something may need to be done to prevent that from choking other people. Fact is, technology changes and so does the web and seeing an increase in video downloading and streaming is pretty normal over time. For what Comcast charges for their service, they ought to be working on finding ways to keep up with the changing needs of those who connect to the internet rather than sitting on the grassy knoll with sniper rifles ready to stifle those who talk too much. 

Mike


----------



## Renard (Jun 21, 2007)

I think in their ad, they should say, SOMEDAY Comcast will cut your connection, SOMEDAY we will use traffic shaping, SOMEDAY you will have to pay us more. SOMEDAY .... Yep right SOMEDAY


----------



## ChicagoTC (Sep 14, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Mike,
> 
> So, you're stating that Comcast (and all ISPs) should build out their network so that it can handle every user using the service at full capacity 24x7x365? I assume you would also require that of electric companies, phone companies and mobile phone companies?
> Hey, wait...any company that offers telephone customer service shouldn't be allowed to have me on hold they should have enough reps available so that every call is taken on the first ring.
> ...


:biggthump


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

mchaney said:


> Nope. But don't you think they should be designed so they can handle a few people doing BitTorrents and/or video streaming? Look at any group of 1000 random cable modems and look at what they are doing. I guarantee you that 80% are sitting idle at any given time. So they can't handle 10% of the population doing some web browsing or email and 10% or less of the population doing BitTorrents or video downloading/streaming? The sad fact of the matter is that Comcast has skimped on their infrastructure and it shows! It's the same thing that happens when a power company underestimates usage or the phone company underestimates usage. Glad you mentioned phones. Do you think you should be cut off on a phone call because too many of your neighbors are talking on the phone?
> 
> Mike


Mike,

Yes, in days past the phone company would cut off calls and/or fail to complete them if the lines were too busy ("All circuits are busy. Your call cannot be completed. Please try again later"). Used to be a regular occurrence on Mother's Day.
It happens all the time on mobile phones.

Yes, I think people should be able to use bit torrent clients. Don't you think there are plenty of people that will abuse anything? If a dish says Free - Take One...there will always be people that stuff their pockets. So, the question is do you bill everyone for those hogs?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> The electricity analogies are silly because electrical usage is metered. If you're an electricity hog, not only are you contributing to the energy crisis and global warming, but you're going to pay for it. If you're using Azureus all day, you're not paying extra. Something's got to give and that something should be the illusion of "unlimited" broadband. It shouldn't be an ISP deciding to block traffic while hiding what it's doing. I just don't buy the idea that Americans won't accept metered service. We're all used to electricity and gas meters. And almost everyone has water meters.


oakwcj,

I used to work for a very, very, very large ISP that started out by charging per minute for connect time. People absolutely hated that. It wasn't until the industry dropped billing per minute and/or offered huge numbers of hours of use at low cost that online use skyrocketed.

Billing based on bandwidth would be even worse...because once again people won't always know how much something is going to cost them (HD movie downloads for instance.

I do think that a two-tiered system such as many utilities use may work.

For instance any month you're under 100GB of use $42.95
if you're between 101GB - 500GB 74.95
over 500GB 149.95

But...there's a problem with that..in cable ISP installations there's only so much bandwidth available at any given time for a group of customers (ring). So, even if someone is paying more it doesn't help the other person that is experiencing slower service.

At some point in time hopefully we'll all have direct Fiber connects to our home...or ultra-high speed wireless access.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> oakwcj,
> 
> I used to work for a very, very, very large ISP that started out by charging per minute for connect time. People absolutely hated that. It wasn't until the industry dropped billing per minute and/or offered huge numbers of hours of use at low cost that online use skyrocketed.
> 
> ...


The reason everyone hated caps on early dial-up services is that download speeds were so damned slow that you couldn't do anything meaningful except maybe pick up your email. When I was a kid, long distance calls were very expensive. When my parents made the rare family call, we were constantly staring at the second hand of the clock. The conversations were brutish, short, and lousy. Now, if you're still being metered, it's a few cents a minute. As long as the service is fast and the cost is [relatively] low, I think metered bandwidth is something that people will learn to live with, if they want to download video. A somewhat similar phenomenon occurred with binary newsgroup downloads a few years ago. People who wanted to download video paid more for access to metered news servers. Broadband connectivity has become, as Earl noted, as important to lots of people as other utilities. For those people, it will be worth it to pay some sort of additional fee for heavy use.


----------



## mchaney (Aug 17, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Mike,
> 
> Yes, in days past the phone company would cut off calls and/or fail to complete them if the lines were too busy ("All circuits are busy. Your call cannot be completed. Please try again later"). Used to be a regular occurrence on Mother's Day.
> It happens all the time on mobile phones.
> ...


Good question, but I think the answer is to do what the phone companies did. Upgrade your infrastructure so that a few abusers *can't* spoil it for the rest of us. Then the only time the system breaks down is when you need it the most, like during a major crisis where everyone needs to contact everyone else. 

Mike


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> The reason everyone hated caps on early dial-up services is that download speeds were so damned slow that you couldn't do anything meaningful except maybe pick up your email. When I was a kid, long distance calls were very expensive. When my parents made the rare family call, we were constantly staring at the second hand of the clock. The conversations were brutish, short, and lousy. Now, if you're still being metered, it's a few cents a minute. As long as the service is fast and the cost is [relatively] low, I think metered bandwidth is something that people will learn to live with, if they want to download video. A somewhat similar phenomenon occurred with binary newsgroup downloads a few years ago. People who wanted to download video paid more for access to metered news servers. Broadband connectivity has become, as Earl noted, as important to lots of people as other utilities. For those people, it will be worth it to pay some sort of additional fee for heavy use.


Well, actually it had nothing to do with downloads because there was little if anything to download...and what content you did download was very small. The vast majority of people were in chat areas, message boards or in email...and as soon as we hit 1200 bps it was fast enough to out-run the speed that most people could read.

But, let's forget about that stuff...here's the issue.

Power shortages/brown outs are caused by the utility having a lack of capacity to generate the necessary energy. With Cable ISP slowdowns it's not a generation issue, but a bandwidth issue generally at the neighborhood level. The size of the pipe is too small to handle the data needs at certain points in time. So, charging someone more isn't going to make for more bandwidth it may only cause them to use less.

Now, here's where it gets worse. Power use in American households is relatively stable and predictable. Yes, it has gone up over the years, but technology has also created far more efficient devices as well. In the world of net usage...the bandwidth requirements are exploding.

Ten years ago someone having 1.5mbps access was more than sufficient. People were just starting to try things like net video and downloads over 100mb were very rare.

This week DirecTV is releasing a product (DoD) which could cause people to want to download 25+ GB a day in addition to their other uses.

The appetite for bandwidth is growing much faster than the technology and/or infrastructure to meet those needs. The applications we're seeing VoIP, IPTV, and so on are going to make it almost mandatory to have 10+Mbps access.

Verizon and AT&T are currently spending billions to lay fiber to at least the neighborhood level (to the home in Verizon's case). We're at the beginning of WiMax deployment. It will take years to complete these kinds of roll-outs.

So...what do we do in the meantime? I guess we're going to see some ISPs terminate the accounts of big users forcing them to get very expensive dedicated lines.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

mchaney said:


> Good question, but I think the answer is to do what the phone companies did. Upgrade your infrastructure so that a few abusers *can't* spoil it for the rest of us. Then the only time the system breaks down is when you need it the most, like during a major crisis where everyone needs to contact everyone else.
> 
> Mike


The landline phone companies also got a break when mobile phone service became widespread (of course they controlled most of that too). That took a fair amount of load off the older systems.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

I agree with Ken that the residential broadband infrastructure isn't capable of handling the massive amounts of video that DirecTV, Netflix, movie studios, and others have started to push through the still-too-narrow pipes. Obviously, these providers are responding to perceived demand. But they must know that the pipes are too small. What the telecom industry wants is to speed those video packets to us for more $$$$ through toll roads they haven't built yet. I think that's a very bad solution for the rest of those poor packets who will be stuck in monstrous traffic jams. In the meantime, more and more people are going to be pissed off.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> I agree with Ken that the residential broadband infrastructure isn't capable of handling the massive amounts of video that DirecTV, Netflix, movie studios, and others have started to push through the still-too-narrow pipes. Obviously, these providers are responding to perceived demand. But they must know that the pipes are too small. What the telecom industry wants is to speed those video packets to us for more $$$$ through toll roads they haven't built yet. I think that's a very bad solution for the rest of those poor packets who will be stuck in monstrous traffic jams. In the meantime, more and more people are going to be pissed off.


Is AT&T still offering their U-Verse TV?


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

jjohns said:


> Is AT&T still offering their U-Verse TV?


AFAIK. It hasn't made it to my neighborhood yet, but it's going to be FTTN [fiber to the node], rather than FTTP [fiber to the premises]. Which means that it's restricted to ONE HD stream at a time!


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> AFAIK. It hasn't made it to my neighborhood yet, but it's going to be FTTN [fiber to the node], rather than FTTP [fiber to the premises]. Which means that it's restricted to ONE HD stream at a time!


That's a little misleading. I imagine these get more than one HD channel.

More Than 100,000 Customers Choose AT&T U-verse Over Cable
New Interactive Features To Roll Out Beginning This Month
San Antonio, Texas, September 5, 2007

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=24309


----------



## tooloud10 (Sep 23, 2007)

For all the people claiming that everyone should know that "unlimited" doesn't actually mean "unlimited":

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/24/verizon-pays-up-for-disconnecting-heavy-users-of-unlimited-data/

The short version: Verizon has to pay because the service they advertised as "unlimited" actually wasn't.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

tooloud10 said:


> For all the people claiming that everyone should know that "unlimited" doesn't actually mean "unlimited":
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/24/verizon-pays-up-for-disconnecting-heavy-users-of-unlimited-data/
> 
> The short version: Verizon has to pay because the service they advertised as "unlimited" actually wasn't.


I don't think many are claiming that. Comcast does not call their service unlimited any more.

In the Verizon case where they were advertising unlimited the terminated account holders will get the money they spent on the Verizon WAN card back. Verizon paid a small penalty but they were not ordered to provide unlimited service.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

regulating <> disconnecting


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

jjohns said:


> That's a little misleading. I imagine these get more than one HD channel.
> 
> More Than 100,000 Customers Choose AT&T U-verse Over Cable
> New Interactive Features To Roll Out Beginning This Month
> ...


My information is from the AT&T rep at a U-verse kiosk in my neighborhood. Why would he tell me there was only one HD feed if it weren't true? Especially when I told him I could get four from my DirecTV dish?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

oakwcj said:


> My information is from the AT&T rep at a U-verse kiosk in my neighborhood. Why would he tell me there was only one HD feed if it weren't true? Especially when I told him I could get four from my DirecTV dish?


IIRC:

The 1 HD channel... is because limits of the implementation.

There is more then 1 HD channel offered on the service...
But do to the limitations of the bandwith... you can only have 1 HD going into the house at a time.... and I think there is a limit on the SD as well (something close to 4 or so streams)

Many people that have tested and tried the U-Verse have confirmed the 1 single HD feed to the house at once.....


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> IIRC:
> 
> The 1 HD channel... is because limits of the implementation.
> 
> ...


Correct. I haven't checked in a month or so, but AT&T was limiting everyone to the lowest common denominator. Although their FTTH is capable of more right now, and speeds are faster, they are limiting those homes to the FTTN standards (1 HD channel per house.

Similar (national) approach as Fios TV, although the baselines are much different

Edit: Link - 1 HD stream...pair bonding next year?


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

:lol: 
CSR dept. must have been handed a sheet to read, but never updated to read the latest statement.....Web Gossip!:nono2:

http://valleywag.com/tech/great-mom.../comcast-calls-ap-story-web-gossip-314212.php


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

Comcast may now have to deal with Congress on this issue.

http://www.cnet.com/8301-13739_1-9804158-46.html


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

As always, make sure you know who wrote the article.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Senators request hearing


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Yep, and the FCC and DoJ are against it. Get ready for some huffing and puffing and nothing getting done...because when it comes down to it. Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and others will get the right lobbyist with either a fat wallet or short skirt (or both) and get their way.


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

jjohns said:


> As always, make sure you know who wrote the article.


Yeah, good call on your part.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Yep, and the FCC and DoJ are against it. Get ready for some huffing and puffing and nothing getting done...because when it comes down to it. Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and others will get the right lobbyist with either a fat wallet or short skirt (or both) and get their way.


Larry Craig's not influenced by short skirts. 
Yes, nothing will happen now. But, if the telecoms get heavy-handed enough [and they always do], and enough people get pissed off, then, in the immortal word of Joaquin Andujar, "youneverknow."


----------



## apexmi (Jul 8, 2006)

every time I use the DOD and then use my computers I get error upon error "Connection to the server was reset while the page was loading"


----------



## Robert L (Dec 13, 2005)

Well, there is no way I'll post defending Comcast myself, but I don't work for them or any other Corporation. Well ok, not likely I'd defend any corporation. Anyway the USA is already rather far behind a few countries in Internet speeds, not to mention these caps they've started.

It does appear Verizon isn't doing that, especially with the 20/20 Symmetrical plan they recently offered in a few states. I read one of actual press release and they made a point of saying, download all you want 24/7. But I haven't heard anyone on Fios saying they ever had a problem.

This isn't the press release I read but it does have a quote. I hope they do go ahead and offer it to other states, which is one thing that bothers me about Verizon. The way they pick certain area's for specific plans.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Unveils-Symmetrical-20Mbps-FiOS-88723


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Robert L said:


> Well, there is no way I'll post defending Comcast myself, but I don't work for them or any other Corporation. Well ok, not likely I'd defend any corporation. Anyway the USA is already rather far behind a few countries in Internet speeds, not to mention these caps they've started.


The U.S. is behind more than just a FEW countries. We're 15th:

In June 2004 George Bush declared that "what we are interested in is to make sure broadband technology is available in every corner of America by the year 2007."

"On a per capita basis, America ranks tenth amongst the industrialized world. That's not good enough. We don't like to be ranked tenth in anything. The goal is to be ranked first when it comes to per capita use of broadband technology. It is in our nation's interest. It's good for our economy. The spread of broadband will only help industry. It will help the quality of life of our citizens."

Since that point, however, the U.S. has continued to fall further behind. It is now ranked 15th. Indeed, the entire tenure of George Bush has been marked by a steady decline in the U.S.'s relative standing. In 2001, the U.S. was fourth. In 2004, 10th. In 2007, 15th.

From "How the World Works" in Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/10/25/america_s_broadband_shame/index.html


----------



## tealcomp (Sep 7, 2007)

Ken S said:


> No, it's not the same there are laws in place that require the phone companies to work together in that regard...both federal and state. There are no such laws requiring internet providers to do so. Big difference...because without the laws on phone service there would be fees like that. Remember roaming fees on cell service?


This unfortunately is a situation where the technology has out paced the laws. Frankly, anyone that provides internet access should be charged the same, meaning if it's Comcast, AT&T, Qwest, or whomever, they all are delivering zeros and ones, how they do it should really be irrelevant to the argument.

All goes back to the issue of net neutrality. Comcast should likely tread carefully here; these ISP's want their cake while they are eating it too. They need to just deal with the fact that just because I use them for my ISP, does not mean I will use them for my video entertainment; further, if they start blocking certain places I can go or otherwise deliberately interfere with my service, they are risking no longer being called an "Internet" provider. They are using technology like Sandvine because it is cheaper than upgrading their infrastructure. This will come back to haunt them at some point.

-Dan


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Comcast, here is your ghost of deals past.

http://consumerist.com/consumer/ins...-bittorrent-throttling-to-sandvine-315802.php
http://consumerist.com/consumer/bittorrent/damning-proof-comcast-contracted-to-sandvine-315921.php
http://www.sandvine.com/news/article_detail.asp?art_id=1177 (archived as Sandvine Incorporated.zip)

Of course, Comcast has a official "talking points-use or be terminated memo".

http://consumerist.com/consumer/lea...rrent-internal-talking-points-memo-315791.php


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

tealcomp said:


> This unfortunately is a situation where the technology has out paced the laws. Frankly, anyone that provides internet access should be charged the same, meaning if it's Comcast, AT&T, Qwest, or whomever, they all are delivering zeros and ones, how they do it should really be irrelevant to the argument.
> 
> All goes back to the issue of net neutrality. Comcast should likely tread carefully here; these ISP's want their cake while they are eating it too. They need to just deal with the fact that just because I use them for my ISP, does not mean I will use them for my video entertainment; further, if they start blocking certain places I can go or otherwise deliberately interfere with my service, they are risking no longer being called an "Internet" provider. They are using technology like Sandvine because it is cheaper than upgrading their infrastructure. This will come back to haunt them at some point.
> 
> -Dan


Great way to increase their profits without changing a thing...charge by the byte and by the content.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/comcasts-internet-throt_b_70191.html


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Better remove these links Comcast:
Do you discriminate against particular types of online content?
http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=Hot118988
Do you block access to peer-to-peer applications like BitTorrent?
http://www.comcast.net/help/faq/index.jsp?faq=Hot118985

It appears that this will be the ISPs first step in developing tiered services...to artifically improve services by charging more to those that actually use their bandwidth.

http://telephonyonline.com/broadband/technology/deep_packet_inspection_102907/


----------



## vansmack (Aug 14, 2006)

*Consumer groups ask FCC to fine Comcast, stop it from hindering file sharing*
NEW YORK (AP) - A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars on Thursday formally asked the Federal Communications Commission to stop Comcast Corp. from interfering with file sharing by its Internet subscribers.

Two of the groups are also asking the FCC to fine Comcast $195,000 for every affected subscriber.

More here:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003987651_webcomcastdata31.html


----------



## ChicagoTC (Sep 14, 2007)

So would all this throttling talk sway anyone here from moving to Comcast for their ISP? I've been on DSL for 6yrs and it's basically free ($17.99) month. The issue is with my distance from the CO I can't get any better then their 1.5mb plan. My best speed tests typically cap at 1.2mb.

It looks like Comcast internet only would run me $60/mo. I'm not sure I can justify that cost and possible service limitations for better speeds.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

ChicagoTC said:


> So would all this throttling talk sway anyone here from moving to Comcast for their ISP? I've been on DSL for 6yrs and it's basically free ($17.99) month. The issue is with my distance from the CO I can't get any better then their 1.5mb plan. My best speed tests typically cap at 1.2mb.
> 
> It looks like Comcast internet only would run me $60/mo. I'm not sure I can justify that cost and possible service limitations for better speeds.


The BellSouth/AT&T service here is far slower, more expensive and they do things like blocking port 25 so you have to send all email through their server. I'm also a bit tired of every time there's an outage caused by one of their problems having the initial reps blame it on our inside wiring. I know that's the phone company mantra...but you would think somewhere in their records they would keep the fact that they have tested that same wiring now a dozen times int he past year and found it to be fine (it's all new).

So...the answer is that Comcast may not be the worst of the ISPs despite their problems.


----------



## jtn (Oct 18, 2007)

Ken S said:


> The BellSouth/AT&T service here is far slower, more expensive and they do things like blocking port 25 so you have to send all email through their server. I'm also a bit tired of every time there's an outage caused by one of their problems having the initial reps blame it on our inside wiring. I know that's the phone company mantra...but you would think somewhere in their records they would keep the fact that they have tested that same wiring now a dozen times int he past year and found it to be fine (it's all new).
> 
> So...the answer is that Comcast may not be the worst of the ISPs despite their problems.


AT&T wants all email to go through their servers because of the agreement they have with NSA and the FBI carnivore program so they can keep America safe from attack plots. They need to be able to place suspected terrorist emails to the appropriate agency that being likely homeland security before an act happens.


----------



## ChicagoTC (Sep 14, 2007)

Ken S said:


> The BellSouth/AT&T service here is far slower, more expensive and they do things like blocking port 25 so you have to send all email through their server. I'm also a bit tired of every time there's an outage caused by one of their problems having the initial reps blame it on our inside wiring. I know that's the phone company mantra...but you would think somewhere in their records they would keep the fact that they have tested that same wiring now a dozen times int he past year and found it to be fine (it's all new).
> 
> So...the answer is that Comcast may not be the worst of the ISPs despite their problems.


I agree with your last statement and it's the only other option available to me. Any current Comcast internet only customers? It seems they want to ding me $49 for installation. All I want is for them to light up my line. Their self service is only available to existing Comcast customers. Looking at my house my current cable line from the pole isn't even going into the house. It's in a tied up on my back. In Chicago brick houses nearly all cabling was ran outside the house. I have no problem running that run along my d* cable and into my office where the modem would go.

I just don't need to waste a day waiting for a comcast guy to come to my house and see my rack of switches, firewalls, and multiple computers.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

ChicagoTC said:


> Any current Comcast internet only customers? It seems they want to ding me $49 for installation. All I want is for them to light up my line. Their self service is only available to existing Comcast customers.


You are lucky to be paying $49. That same install would cost me $99, and only current customers receive the free install. Another way for them to gain the TV business. Fortunately, my install was under Adelphia before the transition (free install). Next step is for you to call them to waive the install fee. I happen to be paying $33 for the 6Mbps (basically my wife called Adelphia, got the price reduced and Comcast never changed my billing.:grin: )

I wish I had a choice in (high speed) providers. 
Hopefully, you are not on this node!



> 3 505 ms 529 ms 438 ms ge-1-37-ur01.chicago201.il.chicago.comcast.net [
> 68.86.115.21]


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

jtn said:


> AT&T wants all email to go through their servers because of the agreement they have with NSA and the FBI carnivore program so they can keep America safe from attack plots. They need to be able to place suspected terrorist emails to the appropriate agency that being likely homeland security before an act happens.


AT&T doesn't need email to go through its server to track it. The port 25 blocking was started a while back to supposedly slow spam. It's a pretty useless control and has been dropped by most intelligent IT folks as being ineffective (except at annoying customers).

When BellSouth started doing this a couple of years back I called them and asked if they would unblock port 25 for me. They said they would if I paid $100/month for the service. I asked why I would pay more to use MY mail server (hosting company) rather than their's. Never got that answer.


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

I have been paying Comcrap $61.97 a month for the last 4 years. Switching back to DSL. For the last month or so not only is my Torrent downloads taking forever but I can't even do an iChat with any family members anymore. Everytime I speak I freeze up (upload) to those on the other end making the conversation impossible to have as I have to repeat everything 5 times before they semi-understand what I said.

My Comcrap speed is running around 3.8 down and 380k up. My DSL is supposed to be "up to" 7Mb down and 1Mb up so even if I only get 75% of advertised it should be an improvement. I don't do a whole lot of bittorrent stuff mostly missed TV shows and I could live with it taking longer but I absolutely will not stand for the compression/throttleing of upload speeds that is killing my ability to talk with my friends and family around the country. Especially when I am paying over $60 a month for this "privledge". 

I forgot to mention I spent 40 minutes with tech support. They did the usual blame all the problems on your home network. Unpluged everything and plugged my laptop directly into the cable modem and he had me start an iChat with my dad. It took less than 20 seconds for him to say "you frooze up" loud enough for the tech to hear it!:lol: He then set up an appointment for another tech to come out and look at the line. You guessed it, no problems with the line either..............



ChicagoTC said:


> So would all this throttling talk sway anyone here from moving to Comcast for their ISP? I've been on DSL for 6yrs and it's basically free ($17.99) month. The issue is with my distance from the CO I can't get any better then their 1.5mb plan. My best speed tests typically cap at 1.2mb.
> 
> It looks like Comcast internet only would run me $60/mo. I'm not sure I can justify that cost and possible service limitations for better speeds.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

vansmack said:


> *Consumer groups ask FCC to fine Comcast, stop it from hindering file sharing*
> NEW YORK (AP) - A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars on Thursday formally asked the Federal Communications Commission to stop Comcast Corp. from interfering with file sharing by its Internet subscribers.
> 
> Two of the groups are also asking the FCC to fine Comcast $195,000 for every affected subscriber.
> ...


Unfortunately, Congress has not given the FCC the power to deal with this yet. The FCC has no regulatory ability to stop or fine this type of activity. Only passage of the Net Neutrality Act will give them this ability. Until then all they can do is "advise".


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

ibglowin said:


> I have been paying Comcrap $61.97 a month for the last 4 years. Switching back to DSL. For the last month or so not only is my Torrent downloads taking forever but I can't even do an iChat with any family members anymore. Everytime I speak I freeze up (upload) to those on the other end making the conversation impossible to have as I have to repeat everything 5 times before they semi-understand what I said.
> 
> My Comcrap speed is running around 3.8 down and 380k up. My DSL is supposed to be "up to" 7Mb down and 1Mb up so even if I only get 75% of advertised it should be an improvement. I don't do a whole lot of bittorrent stuff mostly missed TV shows and I could live with it taking longer but I absolutely will not stand for the compression/throttleing of upload speeds that is killing my ability to talk with my friends and family around the country. Especially when I am paying over $60 a month for this "privledge".
> 
> I forgot to mention I spent 40 minutes with tech support. They did the usual blame all the problems on your home network. Unpluged everything and plugged my laptop directly into the cable modem and he had me start an iChat with my dad. It took less than 20 seconds for him to say "you frooze up" loud enough for the tech to hear it!:lol: He then set up an appointment for another tech to come out and look at the line. You guessed it, no problems with the line either..............


I'd love to switch just on principle. Even though I'm no fan of Comcrap, I *DO* consistently get speeds of 12 megs down and 1.4 megs up, which is critical for my Vonage VoIP service. I don't have Comcrap cable or digital voice, so my monthly Internet cost is "supposed" to be $52.95; however, I call and complain and they lower it to $29.99/mo. That'll work.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> I *DO* consistently get speeds of 12 megs down and 1.4 megs up...


I need to move to the Galatic Empire...:grin:

"Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise," David L. Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast, said in a statement. "We engage in reasonable network management to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience, and we do so consistently with FCC policy."

The FCC's Internet policy acknowledges that the Web is subject to reasonable network management, Cohen said. "The commission clearly recognized that network management is necessary by ISPs for the good of all customers."

http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/FCC-05-151A1.pdf
Policy
The Federal Communications Commission today adopted a policy statement that outlines four principles to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of public Internet: (1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. Although the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard, it will incorporate these principles into its ongoing policymaking activities. All of these principles are subject to reasonable network management."


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

MikeR said:


> I need to move to the Galatic Empire...:grin:


*Indeed.*


----------



## ChicagoTC (Sep 14, 2007)

ibglowin said:


> I have been paying Comcrap $61.97 a month for the last 4 years. Switching back to DSL. For the last month or so not only is my Torrent downloads taking forever but I can't even do an iChat with any family members anymore. Everytime I speak I freeze up (upload) to those on the other end making the conversation impossible to have as I have to repeat everything 5 times before they semi-understand what I said.
> 
> My Comcrap speed is running around 3.8 down and 380k up. My DSL is supposed to be "up to" 7Mb down and 1Mb up so even if I only get 75% of advertised it should be an improvement. I don't do a whole lot of bittorrent stuff mostly missed TV shows and I could live with it taking longer but I absolutely will not stand for the compression/throttleing of upload speeds that is killing my ability to talk with my friends and family around the country. Especially when I am paying over $60 a month for this "privledge".
> 
> I forgot to mention I spent 40 minutes with tech support. They did the usual blame all the problems on your home network. Unpluged everything and plugged my laptop directly into the cable modem and he had me start an iChat with my dad. It took less than 20 seconds for him to say "you frooze up" loud enough for the tech to hear it!:lol: He then set up an appointment for another tech to come out and look at the line. You guessed it, no problems with the line either..............


After thinking about it I think I'm going to stay with DSL for the time being. My house is on the market and we're moving as soon as it sells. I could wind up right next to a CO and getting 6MB speeds for $34/mo.

I just don't want to deal with having to have a tech come out, paying $60/mo and any throttling issues right now.

The only reason I was considering switching was for DoD. The 1.5mbps is fine for my normal internet needs.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071115/ap_on_hi_te/comcast_data_discrimination_5
Comcast sued over Web interference


> By JORDAN ROBERTSON, AP Technology Writer Thu Nov 15, 5:58 AM ET
> 
> SAN JOSE, Calif. - A San Francisco Bay area subscriber to Comcast Corp.'s high-speed Internet service has sued the company, alleging it engages in unfair business practices by interfering with subscribers' file sharing.
> 
> Subscriber Jon Hart based his claims on the results of an investigation by the Associated Press published last month that showed Philadelphia-based Comcast actively interferes with attempts some high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online.


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

machavez00 said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071115/ap_on_hi_te/comcast_data_discrimination_5
> Comcast sued over Web interference


Add your 2 cents to the discussion on the front page of BroadBand Reports - Comcast actually seems to track the discussions there...

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Sued-For-Traffic-Shaping-89461


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602545.html?hpid=topnews



> To trigger a disconnection warning, customers would be downloading the equivalent of 1,000 songs or *four full-length movies every day*. Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas declined to reveal specific bandwidth limits.


A typical DoD day

A warning letter:http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/408131~574eb5cc0e6372b56cb455fc5c6ee4ee/aup.jpg


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

machavez00 said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602545.html?hpid=topnews
> 
> A typical DoD day
> 
> A warning letter:http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/408131~574eb5cc0e6372b56cb455fc5c6ee4ee/aup.jpg


When those comments first came out, it coincided with the launch of DoD...I tried to get some clarification from Comcast, but was met with generalizations, and "you won't really download that much". Sorry to say but I do.


----------



## thumperr (Feb 10, 2006)

Business week article on responses and FCC complaints
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21886503/


----------



## thumperr (Feb 10, 2006)

Comcast is going to behave better...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/03/27/comcast.bittorrent/index.html


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

Too late.

I dropped them when they started this nonsense and I couldn't even have an iChat with my Dad anymore. I switched to Qwest Platinum DSL. Its actually faster than what my Comcrap cable was AND I am paying $24 less each month.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

I am sorry but i have 1 quick question. I have comcrap internet and something very strange happened a wile ago. could some tell me what this is? Azureus is this a bit tourrent and could it be used to attract Hackers?


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

Quick Google search.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Azureus&btnG=Google+Search

You may want to post over in the OT (Off Topic) Forum. Your question may start veering off course from the thread topic.


----------



## BlackDynamite (Jun 5, 2007)

gfrang said:


> I am sorry but i have 1 quick question. I have comcrap internet and something very strange happened a wile ago. could some tell me what this is? Azureus is this a bit tourrent and could it be used to attract Hackers?


Yes and yes.


----------

