View Full Version : Comcast ISP - blocking traffic
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.
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
10-24-07, 11:34 AM
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?
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. :rolleyes:
Mike
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.
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. :rolleyes:
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.
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 $$$$ through toll roads they haven't built yet. I think that's a very bad solution for the rest of those poor packets who will be stuck in monstrous traffic jams. In the meantime, more and more people are going to be pissed off.
I agree with Ken that the residential broadband infrastructure isn't capable of handling the massive amounts of video that DirecTV, Netflix, movie studios, and others have started to push through the still-too-narrow pipes. Obviously, these providers are responding to perceived demand. But they must know that the pipes are too small. What the telecom industry wants is to speed those video packets to us for more $$$$ 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?
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!
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
10-24-07, 01:31 PM
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.
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.
regulating <> disconnecting
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
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
10-24-07, 02:28 PM
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.....
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.....
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 (http://gigaom.com/2007/10/23/chat-randall-stephenson/) - 1 HD stream...pair bonding next year?
: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-moments-in-public-relations/comcast-calls-ap-story-web-gossip-314212.php
tiger2005
10-25-07, 10:50 AM
Comcast may now have to deal with Congress on this issue.
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13739_1-9804158-46.html
As always, make sure you know who wrote the article.
Senators request hearing (http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/10/26/senators-call-for-net-neutrality-hearing)
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
10-26-07, 02:12 PM
As always, make sure you know who wrote the article.
Yeah, good call on your part. :rolleyes:
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."
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" :mad:
Robert L
10-27-07, 10:40 AM
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
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
10-27-07, 10:57 AM
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
10-28-07, 08:33 AM
Comcast, here is your ghost of deals past.
http://consumerist.com/consumer/insiders/leaks-comcast-contracts-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/leaks/comcasts-we-dont-throttle-bittorrent-internal-talking-points-memo-315791.php
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
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
11-01-07, 11:22 AM
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
11-01-07, 12:32 PM
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.
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.
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
11-01-07, 01:52 PM
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.
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]
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
11-02-07, 10:03 AM
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". :mad:
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..............
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
11-02-07, 10:09 AM
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
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
11-02-07, 11:05 AM
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". :mad:
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. :)
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
11-02-07, 11:29 AM
I need to move to the Galatic Empire...:grin:
Indeed. (http://www.starwars.stopklatka.pl/sounds/joinus.wav)
ChicagoTC
11-02-07, 12:05 PM
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". :mad:
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
11-15-07, 08:42 AM
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
11-15-07, 08:44 AM
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
11-19-07, 07:45 AM
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
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
11-19-07, 02:09 PM
Business week article on responses and FCC complaints
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21886503/
thumperr
03-27-08, 03:07 PM
Comcast is going to behave better...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/03/27/comcast.bittorrent/index.html
ibglowin
03-28-08, 10:36 AM
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.
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
03-28-08, 05:12 PM
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
03-28-08, 05:39 PM
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.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.