Study: Cox, Comcast Internet subscribers blocked

[LarryFlowers]

See the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24646677

[EXTACAMO]

Yep, that's the one chink in cable's armor. It's a shared connection. The cable co's are just trying to regulate traffic. The alternative would be to increase bandwith. But will it ever be enough? And at what cost to the consumer? I'm waiting for the GRID to come online. I hope I see it in my life time.

[smiddy]

I think throttling back specific users is wrong. I say let the flood gates roll!

[EXTACAMO]

Here is an article from FOX on the GRID.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347212,00.html

[HIPAR]

Here's sort of a case history why they need to do this from their business perspective. My brother was using Comcast for internet paying $42 per month. He's a simple user no video on demand, huge downloads, torrents; just modest web browsing and email. His service became so bad that the browser would time out waiting for a connection .. either too many users, bandwidth hogs or combination thereof.

He dumped them and they lost over $400 a year. Multiply that by a thousand dissatisfied customers driven away by a few bandwidth hogs and there's big money lost.

Now I'm going to hear the same old drumbeat about them getting what they deserve for not upgrading infrastructure, placing the stock holders above the costumers .. bla .. bla. But, this is what it is, business.

Anyone who wants the Government to regulate this as a utility should look closely at their phone bill and note the taxes and fees allowed by the associated tariffs. My POTS line is six dollars a month with taxes and fees exceeding eight dollars a month.

--- CHAS

[tcusta00]

Here is an article from FOX on the GRID.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347212,00.html

Wow, now that's cool stuff... I love reading about these emerging technologies that aren't vaporware and are emminent - Cern doesn't mess around.

[smiddy]

Here is an article from FOX on the GRID.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347212,00.html

Thanks good stuff, let's hope it gets there.

Here's sort of a case history why they need to do this from their business perspective. My brother was using Comcast for internet paying $42 per month. He's a simple user no video on demand, huge downloads, torrents; just modest web browsing and email. His service became so bad that the browser would time out waiting for a connection .. either too many users, bandwidth hogs or combination thereof.

He dumped them and they lost over $400 a year. Multiply that by a thousand dissatisfied customers driven away by a few bandwidth hogs and there's big money lost.

Now I'm going to hear the same old drumbeat about them getting what they deserve for not upgrading infrastructure, placing the stock holders above the costumers .. bla .. bla. But, this is what it is, business.

Anyone who wants the Government to regulate this as a utility should look closely at their phone bill and note the taxes and fees allowed by the associated tariffs. My POTS line is six dollars a month with taxes and fees exceeding eight dollars a month.

--- CHAS

No way, your points are valid. There are always more than one side to an issue. I agree, government regulation will bog it down too, but to sure internally each company does throttling to suite their interests first. I can't find it now, but I recall the initial idea behind the internet was to allow unobstructed access. Now, your points show the very opposite, their own customers were obstructed do to their own volume. Perhaps the Grid is the answer? I think something has to be done though, we're colliding too easily and people are going to get annoyed.

[phat78boy]

IMHO they need to better clarify their internet subscriptions. If they advertise that I can use their service to do anything I want on the internet, they shouldn't be blocking me from doing just that.

I know in the fine print of contracts their are several provisions for them to do what they are doing, but then why advertise like its no problem? Every commercial or print I see talks about how you can download with superfast speeds or watch internet video with no gilitches.

I honestly feel they should spend the money to upgrade the communities that are "bogged" down by heavy users, not throttle them back. More often then not, it has nothing to do with their pipe to the internet, its the local CO thats not up to snuff and they don't want to upgrade it. Yet, they'll happily add more users knowing they are well past maximum. They shoot themselves in the foot and blame us for their injuries. I just hope FIOS comes to my area sometime soon.

[Slip Jigs]

Yep, that's the one chink in cable's armor. It's a shared connection. The cable co's are just trying to regulate traffic. The alternative would be to increase bandwith. But will it ever be enough? And at what cost to the consumer? I'm waiting for the GRID to come online. I hope I see it in my life time.

IS that what the article is saying tho? I took it to mean that Cox was spefically blocking users from a certain file sharing site, not limiting bandwidth because they are unsing a file sharing service and this, perhaps using up more bandwidth than others.

[EXTACAMO]

No, That was just my interpretation. Because cable bandwith is shared among all users. The cable internet providers are simply trying to regulate traffic to make sure all users get a reasonable slice of the ever shrinking bandwith pie.

[HIPAR]

IMHO they need to better clarify their internet subscriptions. If they advertise that I can use their service to do anything I want on the internet, they shouldn't be blocking me from doing just that ....


I 100% agree with that. Let them clearly and concisely explain the ground rules for using their service. A free for all internet (Grid?) is a Utopian idea that might work if we didn't need to pay someone with business interests and finite resources to bring it to us.

In all cases, let's demand truth in advertising and eliminate the fine print. That would be fair.

--- CHAS

[JM Anthony]

It would be interesting to see how much of their capacity is used by broadband users vs. TV and VOD. Equally interesting to see how they manage their Internet traffic.

John

[ccr1958]

when direcway launched their 2way satellite capable systems
i jumped all over that from dial-up(no cable avail.yet)....thay had a FAP(fair access policy)
& if you exceeded 175MB?? in a certain amount of hours(can't remeber all
the details) they would throttle you back to 56k.. i never got into that
situation but didn't have DoD or watching a movie online via netflix etc.back then
either.....i am spoiled now....16Mb down is nice for that kind of stuff ...
but i reckon i would relunctently deal with it if they were my only isp choice....

[djlong]

This is why I'm SO glad I have (what used to be called) Fios. I'm not sharing my connection with ANYONE in the neighborhood. It's basically my channel all the way back to the central office - THEN I have to share :)

[Drew2k]

I didn't know Fios was renamed ... what's it called now?

[smiddy]

I 100% agree with that. Let them clearly and concisely explain the ground rules for using their service. A free for all internet (Grid?) is a Utopian idea that might work if we didn't need to pay someone with business interests and finite resources to bring it to us.

In all cases, let's demand truth in advertising and eliminate the fine print. That would be fair.

--- CHAS

I'm thinking the fine print will always be there...which solidifys your point in your first paragraph. :(

Nothing is fair for everyone, there is always winners and losers...sad but true.