Comcast's New Plan

[MORAY37]

However, the slope is very slippery.  So they decide to cut the bandwidth and then all of a sudden a medium use user is a heavy user.  Guess what happens?  I hope the FCC sees through what they are saying.  It is pretty transparent to anyone who works or has worked in that business.

That, Skuzzy, is the exact point that worries me.  If it becomes a "sliding scale", then the whole thing becomes moot.

That's where the users like me, take the business elsewhere.  The consumer has the final word.

[CAP1]

i use crapcast here at the shop. only because it was already installed when i bought the place. i am logged on all day long here, looking up info, sometimes checking here, checking email(as some customers contact me through email), etc.
 the day i get a bill that shows ANY limit whatsoever, will be the day i unplug my crapcast modem, and get verizon dsl in here.

[DES]

Agreed, skuzzy.  In the end, profit margin is what they seek... that is what all businesses seek.


But, again, aren't the heavy users the ones that are slowing me down?  Like I said, when I go buy beer from the market, I don't get shown to the spigot and told to drink all I can.  I don't fundamentally disagree with this approach.... but I am very cautious at where the ideology of this can go, and very quickly.  I am also, admittedly, the low end user that will benefit the most from the removal of the large users from their system.

Do you have netflix? That is what they are trying to stop , the future of video watching without their tv service. Right now 250 gigts is a lot but if you start streaming HD video which is what is coming it won't be enough but don't worry comcast well let you watch the same things with on demand just at a much higher price.

[Vulcan]

The slippery slope is what the cutoff is, as far as utilization.  A company can quickly become over manipulative if this becomes standard.  

This is fairly standard throughout the rest of the world. Bandwidth management is a necessity. The costs to provide enough backbone to give full bandwidth to all users would be astronomical.  So there is no slippery slope, you are being paranoid. You're just catching up with the real world.

Where comcast went wrong was their initial attempt and management was stupid, they used tcp rst's to manage connections (and if you don't know what a tcp rst is then you should not be passing judgement on this subject). There are far better methods for managing traffic from many different vendors, some of these can even enhance your experience in p2p applications (layer 7 routing using an Allot SG + PeerApp combo is one good example).

The fact is simple, with current broadband speeds traffic management MUST occur. If your ISP does not impliment traffic management and prioritisation your gaming experience will most likely be negatively impacted. If I were a gamer in the USA I'd be moving to comcast because you'll most likely find your network experience will improvde vs an ISP who fails to prioritise and manage their traffic properly.

[MORAY37]

This is fairly standard throughout the rest of the world. Bandwidth management is a necessity. The costs to provide enough backbone to give full bandwidth to all users would be astronomical.  So there is no slippery slope, you are being paranoid. You're just catching up with the real world.

Where comcast went wrong was their initial attempt and management was stupid, they used tcp rst's to manage connections (and if you don't know what a tcp rst is then you should not be passing judgement on this subject). There are far better methods for managing traffic from many different vendors, some of these can even enhance your experience in p2p applications (layer 7 routing using an Allot SG + PeerApp combo is one good example).

The fact is simple, with current broadband speeds traffic management MUST occur. If your ISP does not impliment traffic management and prioritisation your gaming experience will most likely be negatively impacted. If I were a gamer in the USA I'd be moving to comcast because you'll most likely find your network experience will improvde vs an ISP who fails to prioritise and manage their traffic properly.

I agree with you, sir.  I was the only one in the thread, so far who did.  Duh. 

[Vulcan]

I agree with you, sir.  I was the only one in the thread, so far who did.  Duh. 

Sorry reply was partly to you, skuzzy, and then the rest

[hlbly]

"If I were a gamer in the USA I'd be moving to comcast because you'll most likely find your network experience will improvde vs an ISP who fails to prioritise and manage their traffic properly." I am not a high bandwidth user . I download very little from the internet . The most bandwidth I use is sending a few pictures to family and friends on occasion . When I had comcast , I had severe problems with variance in my connection . Sometimes well over a second . When I called support for help , after I got thru the script readers. The ones who wanted me to make sure everything was plugged in correctly . I found that they just didn't give a crap about my problems . I used the same company for my cable tv . These people removed channels I watched regularly replaced them with channels I , or most other people could care less about . Then tried to tell me what a great bargain I was getting with the increased number of channels now available to me . They removed all of the premium channels and told me I had to buy their digital package to get them . A 300% increase in cost before I paid for HBO or Starz . These people could care less about being fair . My little brother who was not going to do without HBO decided to go with it . Turns out the equipment on his side of town wouldn't work for digital cable , now he and several hundred other people have been waiting over 2 years for comcast to upgrade . Over 2 years ! I said no way and got DSL and a mini dish . Now my variance is so low I wont even quote it because it will sound like bragging . My available bandwidth is only 1.5 meg dl 1 meg upload . However it is rock solid and steady as you could ever want . When I did have a problem it took less than a day to clear up . I realise there is a need to pay for what you recieve , but you will notice they are not talking about a bill increase if you use too much bandwidth . They are talking about slowing you down . They merely want to weed out people who use heavily and replace them with lighter users .


"(and if you don't know what a tcp rst is then you should not be passing judgement on this subject)" I didn't know what it was until I looked it up . However it doesn't take a technical genius to understand comcast's business practice .

[Skuzzy]

Vulcan, certainly no ISP could or should ever try to match the bandwidth of all its users, that would be irresponsible.

Traffic shaping can be a good thing, but it also can be a bad thing.  It also may not do anything at all except add more overhead.  It really depends on how they implement it.  It does add a certain amount of overhead to a network, and if you are running your network to its limit 80% to 90% of the time, it will not help much at all unless you start dropping TCP connections.

This is not about being paranoid.  If you have watched Comcast over the last year, or so, they are in a move to try and get their profit margins up.  A reasonable thing for a business.  However, they are sacrificing quality of service to do so.  Going to lower cost backbone providers whose networks are also oversaturated as well was their first move.  Then the fiasco with the TCP RST issues which has killed their credibility as a company who knows how to run a network.

They are a company who has mismanaged their network for a long time and are now paying the price for it.

Their traffic shaping solution will impact us in a negative manner, due to the high number of delays and out of sequence packet deliveries.  Why?  We already know they are going to prioritize all the standard WEB ports over other ports.  They consider gamers a detriment to their network.

You seem to assume they will use a traffic based policy to manage the bandwidth.  I would be surprised if that were the case as they are going to be using the same solution they had before, but they look to be dropping the connection resets.  This solution was also a port based policy.  I have seen TCP packets take 1 to 2 minutes to get delivered over their network using that scheme.  It really does screw with us.

Bottomline is, we are speculating.  No one knows exactly how they will implement the new network management scheme, but to say traffic management will solve the problems and is always good is simply not true.  Afterall, they already proven they do not know how to properly implement traffic shaping.

[Hap]

Change provider.  Throw the bums out!

[Elfie]

Comcast sucks beyond suck, I know I have it. It's pathetic for online gaming.
Remember comcast cable was bought by comcast when all they had was cable TV services, they had not clue one what they were doing when they bought into internet cable. If you go to their support page you will see just how clueless they really are.

DSL has always been best for online gaming,.. IMO

I use Comcast Cable and I have no problems with surfing the net or gaming online. Perhaps you are just special? Like Jerry's kids special? 



(j/k on that last part.  )

[Elfie]

We told Comcast to stuff it in their collective ear last week.  Switching over to DSL which is cheaper and faster.

I hope Comcast goes belly up....  wait, no I don't, because then the government will just bail them out.

Comcast Cable is $40 a month for us, DSL connection through Earthlink was $50 a month. Who is your DSL connection through?

[MoeRon]

Here's a copy of whay i got in the mail :

  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Comcast High-Speed Internet Customer,

We appreciate your business and strive to provide you with the best online experience possible. One of the ways we do this is through our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). The AUP outlines acceptable use of our service as well as steps we take to protect our customers from things that can negatively impact their experience online. This policy has been in place for many years and we update it periodically to keep it current with our customers' use of our service.

On October 1, 2008, we will post an updated AUP that will go into effect at that time.

In the updated AUP, we clarify that monthly data (or bandwidth) usage of more than 250 Gigabytes (GB) is the specific threshold that defines excessive use of our service. We have an excessive use policy because a fraction of one percent of our customers use such a disproportionate amount of bandwidth every month that they may degrade the online experience of other customers.

250 GB/month is an extremely large amount of bandwidth and it's very likely that your monthly data usage doesn't even come close to that amount. In fact, the threshold is approximately 100 times greater than the typical or median residential customer usage, which is 2 to 3 GB/month. To put it in perspective, to reach 250 GB of data usage in one month a customer would have to do any one of the following:

* Send more than 50 million plain text emails (at 5 KB/email);
* Download 62,500 songs (at 4 MB/song); or
* Download 125 standard definition movies (at 2 GB/movie).

And online gamers should know that even the heaviest multi- or single-player gaming activity would not typically come close to this threshold over the course of a month.

In addition to modifying the excessive use policy, the updated AUP contains other clarifications of terms concerning reporting violations, newsgroups, and network management. To read some helpful FAQs, please visit http://help.comcast.net/content/faq/Frequently-Asked-Questions-about-Excessive-Use.

Thank you again for choosing Comcast as your high-speed Internet provider.
 

[crockett]

I thought it was around 250 gigs a month.

[hlbly]

I just pulled this off of comcast faq page .

"If a customer who has been contacted by Comcast’s CSA team is contacted again for excessive use within six months of the first contact that customer’s service will be subject to termination for one year. We know from experience that most customers curb their usage after our first call. If a customer’s account is terminated, after the one year period expires the customer may resume service by subscribing to a service plan appropriate to his or her needs."


So it is not about paying for what you receive it's about comcast trying to get rid of people that use heavily to replace them with those that don't .


"If I were a gamer in the USA I'd be moving to comcast because you'll most likely find your network experience will improvde vs an ISP who fails to prioritise and manage their traffic properly."

My dsl service says they will simply not sell more than they can handle , isn't that the best way to manage traffic ?

[sluggish]

That's where the users like me, take the business elsewhere.  The consumer has the final word.

The problem is that in most communities, the local gubment has made deals with service providers to allow them to have a monoploy.  In my area, Charter is the only show in town.  I know for a fact that they are selling their bandwidth responsibly (they won't hook me up because the trunk is tapped out), but they have not upgraded the system in over five years.

Which is worse: Overselling the bandwidth and then limiting use, or turning customers away due to bandwidth limitations (both scenarios caused by a company's refusal to invest in its own infrastructure)?

Competition is truly the fix to this problem but when service providers have local politicians in their back pocket and the vast majority of people are too ignorant to even know what's going on, nothing will ever change.