homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.228.154
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

    
Comcast Corp Explains to Regulators How it Will Manage Web Traffic
engine




msg:3749676
 5:12 pm on Sep 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

Comcast Corp Explains to Regulators How it Will [reuters.com] Manage Web Traffic
Comcast Corp has provided U.S. regulators details of how it plans to change the way it manages Web traffic over its high speed Internet network without blocking any applications or content.

Comcast said on Friday that under the plan designed to give all users their "fair share" of bandwidth it would focus on managing the traffic of customers who are using most bandwidth when the network is congested.

It said it will use software on its network to determine if particular subscribers have been the source of high volume of traffic and will temporarily give traffic from those subscribers a lower priority status.

It said that when a subscriber's traffic is assigned a lower priority status its traffic could be delayed if the network is congested but would not be delayed if there is no congestion.


 

Lord Majestic




msg:3749685
 5:34 pm on Sep 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

So that's traffic limit and throttling. That sure beats having to invest into DOCSIS 3 etc. :(

reprint




msg:3749688
 5:39 pm on Sep 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

and i assume that the "offenders" will not be notified that they are being affected. Bascially leaves an accidental infringer in the dark?

IanKelley




msg:3749762
 7:30 pm on Sep 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

My sympathies to everyone who doesn't have a reasonable alternative to Comcast.

weeks




msg:3749801
 8:12 pm on Sep 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

Yeah, they just lost my biz. I'm heading to PIOs as soon as practical. (Man, you know what a pain that is.)

chicagohh




msg:3749833
 8:38 pm on Sep 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

They advertise their 16Mbps service all over Chicago, but you never see anything about the limits...

incrediBILL




msg:3749940
 10:21 pm on Sep 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

Guess none of you ever ran a hosting company or an ISP so you have no clue what's involved. I once had a customer getting bombarded with spam and it was eating almost 20MB of inbound bandwidth and he refused to adjust his account so we just throttled it down to 300k for inbound mail and left it that way.

What Comcast is proposing won't impact 99.99% of their online population and I'm a pretty heavy bandwidth user and it won't impact me.

It you're that .01% warez downloader, oh WAH!

[edited by: incrediBILL at 10:22 pm (utc) on Sep. 22, 2008]

carguy84




msg:3750009
 12:14 am on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

^ agreed.

a 250GB monthly cap is 30 hours of downloading at 20Megabits/second. I suspect very few are doing that kind of bandwidth.

hutcheson




msg:3750072
 1:54 am on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

It's a preemptive strike for Comcast, to keep from ever having to provide better service. Right this minute (as as been pointed out) nobody can use that kind of bandwidth at home anyway.

But as soon as anyone starts providing HDTV movies for download, things will look very different. You could drop your cable service, and instead download several movies a week--just as much content, of your own choice, for the same money.

Let 10% of the customers start doing that, and Comcast gets hit twice -- once on the networks, and once in the pocketbook. Well, they wouldn't give two gnat's breaths out of a hurricane for bad customer service (that's their business model after all), but they would panic if someone else was providing legal movie downloads: after all, customer choice counts as unfair competition for those moguls.

So if they can set up barriers now, so that their customers wouldn't be able to use any future legal movie-distribution service--then they'd have cable customers locked in. And they'll probably introduce their own movie-downloads service, at more than twice the price, and who cares how bad a download hurts the neighbors' normal internet usage, if it's money in Comcast pockets?

IanKelley




msg:3750079
 2:08 am on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

And they'll probably introduce their own movie-downloads service

They recently did. And at bitrates that do in fact put the 250 gig cap within reach. A year from now 250 gigs will look like nothing.

What I don't understand is why they need throttling on top of this.

incrediBILL




msg:3750094
 2:38 am on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

But as soon as anyone starts providing HDTV movies for download

That ship has sailed...

[microsoft.com...]

OK, just so you know what's in the works, here's a glimpse at Comcast's BIG PICTURE which is Project Infinity:

[comcast.com...]

I hate to spoil the surprise for people that don't know but other articles I'm too lazy to look up at the moment discuss Comcast's objective of "Four-Minute HD Movie Download Service" at speed of around 100MB, that they're calling "WideBand" to differentiate from the current slower broadband services, with well over 1,000 titles to choose from.

No clue where these are being tested or when it will roll out wider, if ever, but that was the stated goal which would mean the current caps and throttles may be moot in the near future and simply a stop gap measure to appease existing customers that experience problems with P2P bandwidth hogs.

Needless to say Sony's BluRay may be a blip on the radar and Netflix may be toast on the coast if Comcast gets it up and running. Not to mention all those poor satellite TV companies that simply can't compete with massive high speed VOD.

If you have stock in the above mentioned technologies, sorry, you lose ;)

[edited by: incrediBILL at 2:55 am (utc) on Sep. 23, 2008]

Lord Majestic




msg:3750266
 9:13 am on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

What I don't understand is why they need throttling on top of this.

They don't want to invest (probably waiting out for prices to drop) into their network to provide support even for their pathetic 250 GB cap. Can't believe this 3rd world kind of stuff is happening in USA. :(

There are legitimate uses for bandwidth and people who pay money for it are entitled to use it as they see fit . They are setting precedent - if this is allowed to stand then next traffic tiers will be even worse - 50 GB per month or less.

incrediBILL




msg:3750624
 5:58 pm on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

They don't want to invest

The part of my above post about their announcement of Project Infinity refutes your last statement.

[edited by: lawman at 10:20 pm (utc) on Sep. 23, 2008]

Lord Majestic




msg:3750655
 6:40 pm on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

I differentiate between desire to invest and selective investment in areas where they have strong competition (like one from Verizon).

If Comcast was investing properly to expand their network they would not have to introduce limits as they do now - period. Comcast's actions speak on how well they invest in their infrastructure.

[edited by: lawman at 10:23 pm (utc) on Sep. 23, 2008]

Lord Majestic




msg:3750668
 7:00 pm on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

Let's just see what this "Project Infinity" is about. Is it about investing into DOCSIS 3 to give better capacity to the network? Better uploads? Better downloads? No.

"Project Infinity" is about offering 1000 HD movies by the end of 2008 - how brilliant this is, this so perfectly "completely refutes" my statement. Well, those HD movies would be just perfect - 5-6 movies streamed (50 GB each) and you run out of your monthly allocation! I bet you will get throttled first though so you won't be able to see them at all.

[edited by: jatar_k at 6:17 pm (utc) on Sep. 24, 2008]

incrediBILL




msg:3750739
 8:26 pm on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

Is it about investing into DOCSIS 3 to give better capacity to the network?

Yes:

[blog.wired.com...]

Docsis 3.0, the channel-bonding tech that makes such speeds possible, will already be available in certain markets by the end of the year.

[edited by: lawman at 10:25 pm (utc) on Sep. 23, 2008]

scottg




msg:3750823
 10:11 pm on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

Just did some quick math.

~730 hours/month.
~43800 minutes/month.
average mp3 about 3 minutes long.
if I pay $15/mo for one of those monthly subscription services... to listen to at least 730 hours of music...
~14600 mp3s.
~43,800mb or ~42.8 gigs of music downloaded.

Now, assuming I'm picky or have multiple people in my household, maybe I download 3-4 times that much music... 171.2 gigs. Of course that is before World of Warcraft patches, Youtube videos, and other bits and pieces. So pretty difficult to reach today with how most average users happen to use the web, but VOD over the web and other factors getting more popular, it could be reached at some point.

We're not quite at the point of always on, web connected appliances. If we were, we'd surely hit this cap. But that probably is not lifetimes away. So as the earlier poster was alluding... it's concerning if we become more and more connected and the technology/bandwidth caps don't adjust with realistic top end/first adopter use.

Lord Majestic




msg:3750840
 10:35 pm on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

incrediBILL - your example mentioned "Project Infinity" - it has no relevancy to "refuting" my statement, it's totally unrelated "project" that only proves the point - streaming full HD video (~50 GB files) on Comcast is not practical as you'd run out of your quota after 5 movies.

Of course Comcast is making limited investment into DOCSIS 3 installs - they are not however investing into upgrading full network as demand requires - otherwise they would not be applying those ridiculous limits - what's good in 100 Mbits connection if you can only use 250 GB per month of less than 10 GB per day which would only let you watch 20 mins of HD movie?

incrediBILL




msg:3750847
 10:56 pm on Sep 23, 2008 (gmt 0)

Comcast is making limited investment into DOCSIS 3 installs

Comcast always does limited installs and testing before they roll it out wide as I've lived through several of their network upgrades, been here at ground zero. As a matter of fact I've worked with a few telcos in my day and they did it the same exact way, you do a few installs in a few markets, test it, run customer trials, perfect it, then roll it wide when you get the kinks out.

Comcast made initially limited ON DEMAND tests when they started that process as well, then rolled it out wide to everyone when it was ready to go.

Comcast also made initially limited upgrades to get the high speeds we have now, then rolled it out wide over time which took a couple of years to fully upgrade the SF Bay Area.

There is no magic wand they're going to wave and upgrade a nationwide network, it will simply take time.

what's good in 100 Mbits connection if you can only use 250 GB per month

Basing assumptions on the future network capabilities based on the current network limitations is just pure speculation, we'll need to wait and see.

[edited by: incrediBILL at 11:16 pm (utc) on Sep. 23, 2008]

Lord Majestic




msg:3750880
 12:10 am on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

we'll need to wait and see

The matter of fact is that Comcast is now offically limiting traffic to 250 GB per month and OP idicates that they will also use throttling - that is NOT a sign of a network that has got capacity to handle traffic because if they did have it then they would not use those limits.

Comcast (as any monopoly) would try to avoid investing money if they can get away with it - most certainly they will be making upgrades FIRST in the areas where they actually have competition - they know perfectly well that in other areas people can't leave them because they have a monopoly on broadband in those areas.

It is this attitude that makes me condemn their actions - you might defend them as much as you want, but the reality is that if they did have network capacity they would not be implementing those limits.

I am NOT using Comcast - my network access is NOT limited but I certainly root for people who are getting limited right now because I know if one ISP gets away with this stuff then others might follow. Everyone should decide for themselves which side they take.

IanKelley




msg:3750928
 1:53 am on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

Just for contrast, Charter cable offers the same connection speeds that Comcast does (5, 10 and 16 megs) without any cap or throttling.

At the rate which internet connection speeds (and bandwidth use) have been increasing over the last few years a 250 gig cap makes a very strong statement.

Especially when it comes immediately before the explosion of HD content on the net, which Comcast is clearly aware of as they're attempting to compete in that market.

And we're just talking about ultra compressed pseudo HD that is currently being marketed as "HD" on the net. Another bitrate increase will follow shortly after to something closer to true HD.

scottg




msg:3751560
 9:02 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

Could there possibly be a uncapped plan or tiered bandwidth plan coming with the HD on the net?

incrediBILL




msg:3751566
 9:14 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

Here's a scoop...

The Comcast cable guy is at my house RIGHT NOW and the DOCSIS upgrade in our neighborhood is underway, may actually be done but they don't have all the software ready to go yet.

We just got a big software upgrade downloaded into our DVR the other night, the COMCAST messages in the cable box have a list of other things about to happen in the next few days.

At the moment we're getting some new equipment because some of our cable gear (we have a lot) appears to be old enough that all the new features probably won't work well, if at all, with the old gear.

So Comcast is actively upgrading the network, this thing is in full swing.

I'm ready for 4 minute movie downloads that appear to be happening any minute now.

[edited by: incrediBILL at 10:02 pm (utc) on Sep. 24, 2008]

incrediBILL




msg:3751580
 9:47 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

Here's more DOCSIS rollout data:

Supposedly it's initially 20% of Comcast being upgraded to DOCSIS this year.

South Florida is part of the update:

[businesswire.com...]

Comcast/South Florida is also making modifications to its network to prepare for the roll out DOCSIS 3.0 in 2009. DOCSIS 3.0 is a revolutionary new broadband system allowing for up to 100 Mbps (megabits per second) download speeds. Today, Comcast offers the fastest download speeds in the South Florida market at 8 Mbps (with PowerBoost™, download speeds can reach 20 Mbps).

There's data on several other areas also being upgraded as well.

Looks like some of us we're on the fast track ;)

thecoalman




msg:3751671
 3:32 am on Sep 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

Is this going to be for the internet or the comcast services? I don't see this as benefit to the consumer if for example Comcast allows unlimited bandwidth for their own services.

For example according to this NYT article I posted in a previous thread the bandwidth cap is not applied to Comcasts own VOIP service.

[nytimes.com...]
Critics have charged that Internet providers are trying to protect their cable TV and telephone businesses by stifling Internet access. Comcast says Fancast, its online video Web site, will count against the 250 gigabyte limit, but its digital voice service will not.

Any third party VOIP services are at a disadvantage especially if they are providing video. If they are going to be offering HD on demand with no limit its basically an end around to stifle competition which the consumer is not going to be able to access because of the caps.

incrediBILL




msg:3751677
 4:34 am on Sep 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

Is this going to be for the internet or the comcast services

Best I can tell it's both, the 100mb bandwidth will be for internet.

What the cable guy told us, and I've read online as well, initially we'll get the most benefit from the download channels, internet and cable TV, they'll be smok'n fast but the upload channels will be upgraded later. Makes sense considering most big consumer transfers are download only.

However, I'll restate what I said before, until they get the network completely upgraded we'll never know what their new network policy will really be and you can't make those assumptions now, it's way too early.

telephone businesses

I've never lost regular telephone service except during an earthquake but I've often lost cable service (internet, TV, etc.) so people relying on cable for telephone or any critical services are rolling the dice, it's crazy IMO.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved