Discussion on:

Comcast in the hot seat

OK. If Comcast is using a Deep Packet Inspection, why are they not using it for other forms of malicious code, say Virus Scanning and such?

"If Comcast is using a Deep Packet Inspection, why are they not using it for other forms of malicious code, say Virus Scanning and such?"

Good question. Another question is why don't they just charge the offending high-bandwidth users for the increased traffic? They can tell which users/connections are high traffic, so Comcast's argument has fallen on these deaf ears....

No matter how you feel about this issue, the real problem is the way ComCast has dealt with it. It is clearly stated that you have unlimited access at a specified bandwidth. If they want to change the terms of service, then do so. But don't keep on advertising one thing, then placing measures that do otherwise. If I tell my kids it is ok to raid the cookie jar, I should not punish them when I catch them with a cookie. Same applies here. Don't advertise one thing, then punish those that try to use what you promised.

I am a comcast customer, but I am not a peer to peer application user and I don't like p2p for a variety of reasons including the fact that it promotes stealing.

With that said, I could not agree with you more. I think you hit the nail on the head here. I download files, demo software, watch YouTube and love my fast internet. I am paying around $50 for comcast high speed and if p2p applications reduced to the speed to 3mb, I would switch to DSL for around $20. Because comcast is protecting THEIR network to make sure my speeds are what I want them to be, they have my support.

I think the real issues that we IT people need to be concerned with are security, invasive software, spyware, viruses, and the like. This is a no brainer and in the grand scheme of the real problems facing us this is really silly to waste time complaining or worryinng about. Sounds like a cry baby thing to me.

ever occur to you that light email users and occasional web surfers are tired of paying for *your* big file downloads?

There's plenty of pipe; Comcast is just looking for excuses to charge more for it

Ever occur to you that paying $50 a month for light email and occasional surfing is a little silly? If they're tired of paying for *his* big file downloads, they should switch ISPs.

Personally, I think Comcast has the right to manage their network in whatever manner best suits them. If subscribers (I'm one) don't like it they can vote with their wallet. Or they can keep their opinions tucked away with their vote.

While the idea of vote with your wallet is a sound one its not always feasible. I myself am a Comcast customer however I cant honestly vote with my wallet since DSL, or any other highspeed services, isnt in my area (living in the middle of no where does indeed suck in certain things) so my choices are Comcast or Dial-Up. For me the choice is whatever cause the least headaches and Dial Up normally loses that contest.

If there was some sort of competition in my area then I could think about what Comcast is doing and see if it is something I want to deal with or switch don't know. Honestly even though I do use torrents lightly Ive never really been both one way or another.

you're naive and see the world in black and white instead of the shades of gray it actually exists in .. the big company is always right, can do whatever the hell it wants to do, etc etc. Let me guess: you voted for Bush and will be voting for McCain, right?

Comcast has an obligation to disclose its terms and conditions and, as with the administration of ALL contracts, it has an obligation to act in good faith. Throttling or blocking protocols without telling your customers is not what's called acting in good faith. Comcast told nobody about this; it was up to the watchdogs like EFF to catch them red-handed.

Please, wake up before it's too late.

I will repeat what others have written

There are many people who do not have a choice of ISP when it comes to broadband

What is it with you guys?
Booze, drugs, lack of sleep?

Get real

There's plenty of pipe; Comcast is just looking for excuses to charge more for it

I know when everyone is at home and surfing or downloading, my response's are slower. Care to explain why this is so if there is plenty of pipe in your words?

Comcast is wrong, but your statement is B.S.

dAN

... and Comcast, and the NSA, and the MPAA,
and the RIAA, of all the bogus crap you can
concoct. Sure, just pay me for my time the
prevailing rate for defense attorney fees,
and I'll get right on that.

You ******.

[edit: 7 * just doesn't convey annoyance as
well, IMO]

Considering I wasn't questioning his innocence or guilt. Nor was I questioning anyone else's. Nor am I now.

You can be a total fkn ahole some days Abso.

Dan

You can be a total fkn ahole some days
Abso.

Agreed. What's annoying to me is that
you're buying Comcast's argument. I don't
see why, and I think all their customers
should expect Comcast to provide the high
bandwidth they promised. If they need to
stop signing up new subscribers to keep
their word to their existing customers, so
be it. I signed an agreement with Comcast,
not with all of Comcast's customers.
They're using weaselly arguments to adopt a
communist distribution of resources, and it
infuriates me that they're getting away
with it so far. You didn't deserve that.

in what they did. I do think there is a bandwidth shortage, but that in no way justifies in the least bit what they did.

Just like when I tell people they are selective in their reading, I think comcast is being selective in its unlimited bandwidth. It's not right in either case.

Dan

Google it, dAN ... it's common knowledge that bandwidth is getting to be a cheaper and cheaper commodity all the time .. there's a ton of dark FO out there; let Comcast light it up .. god knows we pay enough for it ...

do you know anything at all about corporate practices and their relationship to equity markets?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=284

I really dunno about that equity market mumbo-jumbo, but I have read about a LOT of unlit fiber just sitting underground doing nothing, and about what bandwidth is "average" in Japan. You think they put us to shame on gas mileage? Check out their network infrastructure!! We have the same medium in the United States, already buried, but doing nothing. Why?

Provide links..
More Evidence Of US Bandwidth Shortage
http://www.247wallst.com/2007/08/more-evidence-o.html
Here, i'll even help you two out sence your too lazy to back up your claims.
Many fiber-optic lines unused despite rising demand

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/03/21/fiber-shortage.htm
Hmm, 2002. You two doing selective reading again? Dated material?

Cable's Bandwidth Shortage: A Looming Capex Crisis
http://www.lightreading.com/cable/details.asp?sku_id=1564&skuitem_itemid=1009

Telecom Industry Growth Forecast Steady, If Slow
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20080224/tc_pcworld/142771
As late as 2003, many people in the telecom industry were saying they had enough bandwidth to last into the foreseeable future, Gruen added. "Now we are in a situation where, if we don't some significant investment now-- and companies are in fact doing it-- we may be running into bandwidth shortages," he said.

All evidence that I have found on google that there is plenty of bandwidth is dated. I find many more links proviing otherwise. And they are a hell of alot more current then the links about plenty of bandwidht.

So. Put up or shut up.


Dan

hey ... Dan ... wake up; never heard of the "net neutrality" political football? do you know what's been going on at the FCC, in the halls of Congress and in the courts?

The short story is that ISPs want a piece of the action on rich content; nobody wants to give it to them, since they didn't create the content.

So what do the ISPs do? They complain incessantly and cry in their beer that there's a "bandwidth shortage" ... then they "prove it" by throttling selected content or imposing D/L caps ... and then, they hope, they finally get a piece of the action.

As usual, it's all about money, greed and the stock price. You wanna believe there's a bandwidth shortage, be my guest. You wanna believe there's a shortage of crude oil pushing the price to $103/bbl this morning, again, be my guest.

Me, I know better and I don't believe ANY of it.

I was excessive, and you can clearly speak for yourself without my "help."

You did read that didn't you?
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=255635&messageID=2441235
Comcast is wrong, but your statement is B.S.

His comment was there was plenty of bandwidth? I asked him to prove it with links? I personally see slowdown in my network because of congestion. That is a sign there isn't enough bandwidth.

So, abso. Where do you see that I said anything different?

Or is it only selective personal experiences are what count? In other words, only the persons that get throttled count. And the rest of us that have crap bandwidth that do none of the activities that hog bandwidth don't count.

What was your comment right before the edit? Ahole? I think it fits your prejudiced comment perfectly.

Dan

I guess you could phrase that as "not
counting" them, but I don't believe I
should count them.

Or is it only selective personal
experiences are what count?

Actually, yes. I think selective personal
experiences are exactly what makes a
customer satisfied or dissatisfied. Early
in commercial, home broadband, with a
company Comcast acquired soon afterward, I
*noticed* variations in my download rates
by time of day. Now, I think I'd have to
take careful measurements, like you've
described. It isn't worth it to me because
my subjective experience of the bandwidth
is "good enough." Yes, I think that's the
point, not comparative usage. Some people
also drive cars with better gas mileage
than mine. That cost doesn't diminish my
decent 30 mpg, or affect it in any way.

In other words, only the persons that
get throttled count. And the rest of us
that have crap bandwidth that do none of
the activities that hog bandwidth don't
count.

Only the persons that get throttled are
being cheated. It's Comcast's job to
provide satisfactory service to each
customer, not pit them against one another.
The reasoning Comcast offers you for the
inconsistent performance you experience is
crappy. How many other companies do you
accept crappy service from with the excuse
that another customer used all they paid
for? I'd really like to see a competitor
use that in a commercial, maybe set at an
all-you-can-eat buffet. Sorry again about
the ****** comment. You're part of the
problem, but just because you're wrong, not
because you're an ******. I am.

His comment was there was plenty of
bandwidth? I asked him to prove it with
links? I personally see slowdown in my
network because of congestion. That is a
sign there isn't enough bandwidth.

The other dude was wrong to even bring
up "plenty of bandwidth." That's part of
Comcast's argument, and isn't valid in the
first place. I was wrong to overlook where
that error started.

dan

why are they selling it?

No matter how many local loops, or how many subscribers per loop, the head end of each local system has a fixed number of up- and down-slots for Internet traffic, with the bulk of the bandwidth alloted to TV content.

Comcast has an obligation to disclose
its terms and conditions and, as with the
administration of ALL contracts, it has an
obligation to act in good faith. Throttling
or blocking protocols without telling your
customers is not what's called acting in
good faith. Comcast told nobody about this;
it was up to the watchdogs like EFF to
catch them red-handed.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=255635&messageID=2441308

Whether Comcast has enough bandwidth now to
provide the bandwidth it has promised to
all its customers is Comcast's problem,
nobody else's. If they're not able to
provide services in the ranges provided for
in their TOS, that doesn't give them the
right to selectively degrade customers'
service. That would simply mean they are in
breach of contract, nothing more or less.

I am a subscriber to Comcast and have experienced their network throttling. Just the other day actually I witnessed my legit torrent for moding Guitar Hero 3 go from 20 minutes to 8 hours. Couldn't get passed 50kbps. I am not sure how I feel about this. Part of me supports bandwidth control because when I want to use the internet, game online, or stream a movie, the badwidth is readily available, but then the other half thinks that Comcast has no right to control the service I pay for every month. If they advertise my package deal being 6MB/s then I would expect to get my moneys worth out my allocated bandwidth. I don't expect to hit 6MB/s just like the dial-up days a 56k modem never hit 56k maybe 52k if you were lucky, but 50kbps on broadband is not what I am paying for. I don't want internet usage to go back to being metered *cough AOL *cough, so I think a middle ground needs to be established somehow, but I also think think that my 6MB/s should be obtainable or at least close to no matter what ports or protocols I am using.

What Comcast is really worried about is that when we can download all the entertainment we need off of the internet, we won't be paying those $120 a month cable bills. And when we all do voice over IP there goes their phone service too. And as soon as Verizon has there FIOS available in my area I'll be switching to their higher speed data services as well! If they want to keep their heads above water they better evolve their product offerings or they'll be one step behind the recording industry on the unemployment line!

Problem with your theory is that Comcast never blocks downloads. They only throttle seeds at certain times of the day.

See explanation here:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1031

Comcast has no chance of me ever being a customer again.

What Comcast is really worried about is
that when we can download all the
entertainment we need off of the internet,
we won't be paying those $120 a month cable
bills.

Buying bandwidth from a content provider is
not a good idea.

BitTorrent equates to nothing more than stealing. Any other argument is moot. Making a purchase and then using the product in the commission of a crime gives the provider the right to control their product. Why isn't the film and music industry rallying behind Comcast? Why aren't the software programmers? I have never been throttled; because, I don't use p2p programs. Now start throttling my Tivo or Unbox downloads and there will be hell to pay.

Do you know how many completely legit downloads occur via bit torrent? Everything from software updates, to free television broadcasts, to open source software.
Go read a book dude, get off that "I dont steal so I am better than everyone" horse, because it doesn't apply here.

Stealing is when you take something away so that the original owner no longer has it. Copyright Violation is when you violate your countries copyright laws by making an unauthorized ( by their definition ) copy of something.

With that cleared up, you might want to know that World of Warcraft uses Bittorrent to distribute game patches. Linux distributions, and many other types of legally shareable content are distributed in this way. I share out my comical video productions ( starring me, usually ) using bittorrent so that my fans can get them without killing my Internet connection. My piano performances will also soon be distributed the same way.

Are there copyright violations going on? Sure, but they didn't start with bittorrent and are not linked to it in any way. IRC DCC sends, FTP, SFTP, FTPS, HTTP, HTTPS, etc are all used to perform activity that may be illegal in a specified country ( but perhaps legal in another! ).

Oh, and I have also distributed my software via bittorrent, so no, Software Developers are not behind Comcast or you.

It starts with bit torrent, then what else are they "allowed" to throttle due to some that abuse the system. It will be on-line gamers and XBoxy thingys next I'm sure, then ANY downloads, then ANY thing else they want.
Tell them NO, I don't want MY internet throttled.

being in possession of a weapon or sharp object would make a person a murderer, having blank CD's or DVD's would make a person a pirate, and every person with fertilizer is making a bomb.

Do you see where I'm going with this? If not I'll just get to the point.

There is NOTHING ILLEGAL about BitTorrent. Most free open source software is distributed using BitTorrent as well as some legally purchased software is delivered to customers via BitTorrent.

Your view of the situation makes it clear that you are not only out of touch with the situation but you also think something is bad only if it adversely affects you directly (which is a very selfish way to look at things). Everyone would be better off if your uninformed and ridiculously slanted views were not shared in a professional discussion.

FCC hearings: Comcast versus Vuze
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1031

In the interest of full-disclosure the author should have included what the notes about sending email, VoIP and Wideband VoIP over VPN said (represented by the *'s next to them on the graph). I think the issue Comcast is trying to get out in front of it the fact that as high bandwidth usage increases across their (and others) subscribers their current network capacity isn't going to be sufficent to sustain it all. Downstream traffic is going to be much more responsible for this than upstream. And right now BitTorrent traffic likely accounts for the majority of users inscreased bandwidth consumption, both upstream and down. So really Comcast is trying to hold off, slow the increase in bandwidth consumption by its customers. Seeing how Comcast is the largest consumer ISP in the US, they're likely seeing the effects much more than others.

Just my 2 cents.

Part of me thinks, what if my phone company listened to my calls and decided to decrease the quality of them if they didn't like the things I was saying or listening to...or who I was calling...or when I was calling or for any other reason? It's simply not right. Now with telephone service, it's much easier to switch carriers if one company decided that it was a good idea to implement that type of regulation. As far as the broadband industry goes, not everyone has the options of switching to DSL or getting Fiber so some people are stuck with Comcast. Is it fair for Comcast to define what amounts to a usage policy? No. If the decision is made to allow them to monitor and control usage based on the protocols, source and destination...what protocols, sources and destinations are they restricted from monitoring/controlling? I agree that tiered pricing is not the best...I love unlimited and fyi, I'm not a P2P person either, but if the alternative to tiered pricing is my CONNECTION PROVIDER monitoring my usage, then I'm ready to pay for what I'm going to use. Diving further into that, Comcast will have some problems with tiered customers that are not tech savy and don't realize they have a virus or that software on their computer is auto connecting. I think the best result for the consumer and Comcast is to monitor bandwidth usage, not protocol usage, and when a user greatly exceeds the average bandwidth on a consistent basis over several billing periods, then they either get the consent of the user to inspect the traffic (it may be a virus!) or if the user refuses, they force a tiered pricing plan. I think that is more than fair.

Having worked in network planning and architecture for many years, I can tell you w/ complete confidence it's Comcast's own fault. Two things:

1) In the past when you built a network, you determined your backhaul requirements on a 10 or 12 to 1 ratio. That means if you have enough end userrs off any 'node' that were promised in total about 100Mbs, you need to have a dedicated backhaul of at least 10Mbs. This was under the assumption your internet usage would be mild and sporadic so they could get away with this. It also drove down their costs. Times have changed. The new networks I've been part of creating now use a 1 to 1 or at most 3 to 1 ratio for precisely this reason (just completed drawings for a WiMAX network that will be 1 to 1, meaning no need to throttle anyone). As more and more applications come online, users are going to demand more and more from their bandwidth. Comcast needs to quit being cheap and upgrade their backhaul and peering capability or they'll always have this problem. Instead they play games w/ throttling existing facilities, avoid expensive improvements and thereby protect their revenue and margins. DSL is in the same predicament.

2) You should get what you're promised and what you pay for. If you are given high speed (always on) access, you have the right to always be on it. ISPs shouldn't interfere w/ your usage or locations unless what you are doing is deemed illegal. So it's not the applications' or the users' problem...it's the ISP's. The new ones coming on line won't throttle anyone...so Comcast can either upgrade or get left in the dust. There's too much unused bandwidth out there for this to be an ongoing issue. Also, bandwidth has gotten considerably cheaper over the last few years for carriers.

You buy their service for a set price and they should give you the whole package not just part of it. That's just illegal. They are just too cheap to upgrade. The problem they are having with Bittorrent is that users can use a program to open up their ports so they can download faster.

BAM!!!! no other replys needed, somebody gets it!!

way to go!!!

what business is it of Coke, how much and when of a 20oz soda I use that I paid for, same for Comcast, if you don't want to support 6meg speed per customer, don't advertise it, and certanly don't charge for it, if you are going to lower my usage, regardless of what I do with it(legally), then give me a lower price, and at the least tell me, so I can make to decicion at to whether or not to switch to another isp.

Its about time! Ever since my home network service has been switched from Insight to Comcast over the last 30 to 45 days I've seen a huge degradation of Internet bandwidth capability. In addition, my Vonage VoIP service requries a reboot of the Vonage router daily to be able to address VoIP problems. I NEVER HAD THESE PROBELEMS WITH INSIGHT. Comcast in their reprovisioning of Insight Home Internet servics are trying to steer things like VoIP Service away from third party vendors like Vonage and AT&T and instead direct you to their VoIP Packaged Switched services where in my area it comes as a repackaged AT&T POTS service, just encapsulated within VoIP and sold like its Vonage at $20 per month more cost.

I hope Comcast take a HUGE hit here from the FCC for facilitating a background environment that causes users to have to use their services.

Internet service should be open and public as far as VoIP goes and if Comcast can offer a better VoIP service at a competitive cost then I'll buy it, but don't force me into a lower quality, higher cost service by secretly reprovising services to make Vonage service perform less than optimal on a Comcast internet connection.

Customers pay for a service. Comcast mislead customer with advertisement with better bandwidth than other competitor. Comcast don't have a right to reduce use of bandwidth by customers. I lost allots of connection when I play online games with Comcast. My solution is to switch service provider. I haven't have problem with my game enjoyment online now.

I was there at the FCC meeting in the Ames Court Room; this should have been held in a MUCH larger venue as they were turning people away for over crowding. David Cohen, 5th speaker, didn't really come out saying that Comcast blocks, but attempts to throttle, and only during peak usage times to give a balanced load share to all users. Tom Tauke, Verizon's V.P., followed with his apology for the NAPAL "incident". Then there was a bit of insight into the usage of "short-code". all in all by the end of the day all that was truly derived from this hearing was their needs to be a "Bill of Rights" for the internet, and a way of penalizing those who break away from net-neutrality, and that a huge up grade in the service throughout the U. S. as we are dreadfully trailing behind the other high tech countries. This point was driven in by Professor Christopher Yoo, with a bulleted power point slide.