New Comcast Throttling System = 'A Really Good DSL Experience' - Welcome to the new age of broadband "transparency"
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
New Comcast Throttling System = 'A Really Good DSL Experience'
Welcome to the new age of broadband "transparency"
10:44AM Thursday Aug 21 2008 by Karl Bode
tags: business · bandwidth · networking · caps
As insiders have informed me, by the end of the year, Comcast is considering implementing a clear 250GB cap, increased DMCA enforcement, and will begin throttling high-consumption users back to "above DSL speeds". Comcast has stated their goal is to make these new network management processes "as transparent as possible," but hasn't specifically said what will trigger the throttling, since they're still testing the system in several markets (Chambersburg, PA, Warrenton, VA, Colorado Springs, CO and East Orange and Lake City, FL). Mitch Bowling, Comcast's senior vice president and general manager of online services, this week did state the throttling will last between 10 and 20 minutes.
In trials, Comcast has found the fair share system to be effective if the slowing lasts for "roughly between, probably, 10 and 20 minutes," Bowling said. The user's Internet speed would then return to normal. "If they continue that, we would have to manage them again," Bowling said. A user being impeded would have Internet speeds equivalent to "a really good DSL experience," Bowling said.
That's a bit better than, say, HughesNet satellite broadband, which throttles customers back to between 7-14kbps if they cross established daily download limits. HughesNet calls their restrictions a "Fair Access Policy," and Comcast will be calling their system "fair share." Bowling did mention usage-based billing, stating "I think everyone's looked at something," but noting "we haven't made any decisions." It will be interesting to see if consumer advocacy groups prefer the new age of Comcast "transparency," which will come with significant, but very clear, connectivity limitations.

Related:
  1. Product Spotlight: EV-DO Showdown - Verizon vs. Sprint
  2. Rogers Caps Getting Worse?
  3. Don't Get Too Excited About The FCC's Comcast 'Investigation'
  4. Videotron Unveils 30Mbps, 50Mbps Tiers
  5. NY Attorney General Investigating Comcast
  6. Remember How The Net Neutrality Fight Began
  7. Time Warner Cable To Start Per-Gigabyte Fee Trial On Thursday
  8. Friday Morning Links
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
en102 @ 21st Aug 10:50AM:
Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

6Mbps ? I could live with that.
The problem that I've noticed (been on Cable for a few days from DSL).
DSL = VERY stable. On a 3Mbps DSL line, I will hit max 99% of the time, and latency will not change
Cable = Faster (6Mbps/512kbps), however, speeds will vary, as will latency.

Skypeout actually ran better on 3Mbps DSL than 6Mbps cable.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
morbo @ 21st Aug 10:50AM:
too vague


the potential for regular users to be labeled 'high consumption users' is there and the internet community should be wary. imagine downloading an unbox movie, using your independent voip, and someone in the household surfing/streaming random video clips. would that qualify you as a high consumption user? does throttling back your connection during that one instance occur or does the system identify repeat offenders?

too many questions for me to support this.
reply
wjames @ 21st Aug 10:50AM:
before or after?

Are they throttling before the cap is reached?
reply
iansltx @ 21st Aug 10:55AM:
Re: before or after?

Looks like yes (just during periods of network congestion). If you go over the cap you pay extra money. Guess I need to watch my backup usage, though 250GB isn't horrible...
reply
baineschile @ 21st Aug 10:57AM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone.

Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone
reply
cybercrimes @ 21st Aug 10:57AM:
caps

i can see them loseing customers if the put on caps im with verizon fios with no caps. people with comcast will go elseware for internet with no caps if they can
reply
daslog @ 21st Aug 10:59AM:
Re: caps

said by cybercrimes :

i can see them loseing customers if the put on caps im with verizon fios with no caps. people with comcast will go elseware for internet with no caps if they can
Yep. The high cost customers that they lose money on. Win-Win for both Comcast and the Customer.
reply
baineschile @ 21st Aug 11:00AM:
Re: caps

You would be incorrect. No normal residential person can come up with a 100% legal excuse to use more than 250 gigs/mo
reply
Dogfather @ 21st Aug 11:01AM:
FAP or Cap, why both?

If they're FAPping why the need to cap and vice versa?
reply
aciddrink @ 21st Aug 11:02AM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

What about those of us that stream netflix, download linux distros and/or movies from Itunes? We can easily consume as much or more bandwidth than a 'pirate' can, especially in a household.
reply
hopeflicker @ 21st Aug 11:05AM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by baineschile :

Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone.

Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone
perhaps cable ISPs need to upgrade their network.
Docsis 1 and 2, pffftt!. LOL
--
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people.
reply
Titus Pullo @ 21st Aug 11:05AM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

That's true (DSL vs cable) in my experience as well. But that may vary by market. I'm always get my cap, and latency is good as well as solid.

On the flip side, posts in the forum for my provider are relatively solid with markets experiencing overloaded areas, etc.

I think it really depends on your area. I've been very lucky so far.

As for Comcast's public relations ... do the words 'White House Press Office' have any meaning for you? :D
--
reply
Dogfather @ 21st Aug 11:05AM:
Re: caps

said by baineschile :

You would be incorrect. No normal residential person can come up with a 100% legal excuse to use more than 250 gigs/mo
Guess you've never heard of Carbonite or Slingbox. Between DirecTV VOD, VPN, buying games on EA Link and Steam (or more specially redownloading), AppleTV, Netflix and XBOX 360 rentals, and the biggest, Slingbox streams of MLB all Summer I've done over 250GB in a month on quite a few occasions. Thankfully Cox doesn't enforce their 40GB cap and Verizon FiOS apparently has no consumer network management.
reply
baineschile @ 21st Aug 11:08AM:
Re: too vague

Downloading an unbox movie - 3gigs
VOiP 1 hour chat - 30Mb/hr (approx)
Surfing Clips - 250-500Mb an hour (1024x768 max)

So, if you download 2 movies a day (180 gigs/mo), chat on the phone 2 hours a day (about 4 gigs/mo) and surf for video clips 3 hours a day (about 40 gigs/mo), you are still using less than the cap 224gigs.

But cmon, who does all that?
reply
morbo @ 21st Aug 11:11AM:
Re: too vague

from the article, I don't see where it says 'throttling will occur once the 250gb cap has been met' or similar. so i take it as even normal users could be throttled (without hitting the cap) to make sure other users have access. etc. which is different than only throttling when cap has been reached.
reply
anon @ 21st Aug 11:13AM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 21st Aug 11:16AM:
Extensive discussion of this in Comcast forum here at BBR

Some discussion on this here:

»[Speed] Comcast to throttle individual users; all protocols
reply
jmn1207 @ 21st Aug 11:16AM:
Re: FAP or Cap, why both?

said by Dogfather :

If they're FAPping why the need to cap and vice versa?
$$$$ Just looking for a new way to increase revenue.
reply
viperlmw @ 21st Aug 11:20AM:
Re: caps

You must not peruse the 'Broadband Heavy' forum on this site. For example, this streams live web cams to your pc/mac in the form of a screensaver: »Windows/OS X Screensaver of Axis cameras around the world

It's not a lot, but seems to add 40-50GB monthly to my bandwidth usage.
reply
Indymike @ 21st Aug 11:23AM:
Throttling - why?

Has anyone seen any kind of "real" information that shows that Comcasts network is overloaded to the point that 'throttling' is required?

I'm starting to wonder if they are either refusing to upgrade their network to support the numbers of users they have added OR they are worried about people getting video from the internet instead of the cable video service....
reply
David_ @ 21st Aug 11:28AM:
Re: too vague

said by baineschile :

Downloading an unbox movie - 3gigs
VOiP 1 hour chat - 30Mb/hr (approx)
Surfing Clips - 250-500Mb an hour (1024x768 max)

So, if you download 2 movies a day (180 gigs/mo), chat on the phone 2 hours a day (about 4 gigs/mo) and surf for video clips 3 hours a day (about 40 gigs/mo), you are still using less than the cap 224gigs.

But cmon, who does all that?
A single person , hardly , but a household with 2 adults surfing the net after work, plus 2 or 3 teenagers downloading from itunes, on voip messenger, and streaming from netflix, shoutcast and skype on all day will probably be labeled a heavy user in no time .

Imagine a small lan with wifi in today`s world, and you`ll easily surpass 250gb x month.
reply
zod5000 @ 21st Aug 11:29AM:
Why do they have the throttle when there's a 250gb cap?

I could understand after a user hits the 250gb in a month, to drop them down to 1mbps just do its fast enough to web surf and what not.

But it sounds like if they see you maxing out your connection for an unspecified period of time they'll throttle you back. Which then makes you wonder the benefit of having said fast connection.
reply
Alcohol @ 21st Aug 11:30AM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by baineschile :

Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone.

Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone
How is this going to be rough for everyone?
reply
NbWY1 @ 21st Aug 11:36AM:
FiOS

Between five family members, we run nearly 800GB a month upstream on a 20/20 FiOS line. If VZ yelled at me, I'd certainly cut back, but they just don't seem to care. Our downstream throughput is slightly under 100GB.

Oh, and it returns a ping of 2ms to my first hop :D
reply
McLovin @ 21st Aug 11:36AM:
A Good Idea

Hey, here's a good idea. Rather than spending truckloads of money on these systems to manage this, and PR to back this crap up. Why not take that money and reinvest in the infrastructure? Add more aggregate bandwidth, make the experience more enjoyable for the consumer. That, or at least hire some competant technicians that won't blow up your friggin' house!
--
Remember, passwords are like underwear... the longer the better... don't leave them lying around... keep them hidden... don't share them with your friends... and change yours often!
reply
anon @ 21st Aug 12:48PM:
Re: A Good Idea

If your getting charged for going over the cap why should be throttled?
reply
hottboiinnc @ 21st Aug 11:53AM:
Re: caps

don't cout your chickens before they hatch. the way the CTO of VZ was talking they have plans to do the same

All ISPs will end up doing it. Why not? you don't have to worry about spending money all the time upgrading and you can kick all of the heavy users off your network. A win win for them.
reply
NOZIREV @ 21st Aug 11:57AM:
Re: caps

Its a matter of time before Verizon puts caps on there service i will bet money on it. i called the caps on the cablecos years ago and now there here. bandwidth costs $ and regardless whether cablecos networks are out of date or whatever the case may be everyone will be doing it to save money in the long run. good luck to every one that uses mass quantities of bandwidth.
reply
voipdabbler @ 21st Aug 12:01PM:
More reasonable approach.

I'm normally not a fan of Comcast, but this is a reasonable approach, unlike most of their competitors (baby bells, other telcos, and cable alike). I thought it was interesting that other tech newsletters are beginning to report on Cogent's most recent quarterly data, which shows that bandwidth consumption is falling, not increasing. I really believe those bandwidth providers--who all seem to be competing for additional dollars through content and other online services too--that plan on implementing very low caps as a means of implementing stealthy fee increases that don't need to be run past state or local regulators will suffer a contraction of their consumer base. Their fees are generally high now and with the stealthy increases they're planning on adding, their fees will be very, very unreasonable. Since inflation is likely to keep increasing at steady pace (wholesale numbers released recently don't bode well for consumer price increases as we enter heating season) more people are going to be hard-pressed to keep up spending on non-essential services, like broadband. If you're a broadband exec who's earning a ridiculously high salary and disconnected from the reality of your average customer/consumer, you're about to learn the hard way that your company's services aren't essential and that when you gouge in economic hard times, you'll lose customers.
reply
anon @ 21st Aug 12:06PM:
"A Really Good DSL Experience"

Sooo, about 3000/768? (something I used to pay Verizon $29.95 for)

As opposed to the speeds that you're actually paying for? "Fair share" for... Comcast? How about a $$$ credit for the speeds they aren't providing (that, again, you're paying for)?

I guess "up to" just ain't what it used to be.
reply
NOCMan @ 21st Aug 12:12PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

If caps become commonplace then you can kiss the online backup industry goodbye. A lot of people have digital media collections that exceed 250G.
reply
Alcohol @ 21st Aug 12:17PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

Yes, but how is that rough for everyone? baineschile talks about how this won't affect a lot of people because according to him 250gb is more than substantial for an average user. Read his reply a few posts down.

said by baineschile :

Downloading an unbox movie - 3gigs
VOiP 1 hour chat - 30Mb/hr (approx)
Surfing Clips - 250-500Mb an hour (1024x768 max)

So, if you download 2 movies a day (180 gigs/mo), chat on the phone 2 hours a day (about 4 gigs/mo) and surf for video clips 3 hours a day (about 40 gigs/mo), you are still using less than the cap 224gigs.

But cmon, who does all that?
said by baineschile :

You would be incorrect. No normal residential person can come up with a 100% legal excuse to use more than 250 gigs/mo
I'm a little confused why baineschile thinks this will be rough for everyone when according to him "no normal residential person" will ever trigger it.
reply
nasadude @ 21st Aug 12:21PM:
Re: A Good Idea

investing in infrastructure to expand bandwidth does not let them control all aspects of the network.

this isn't about congestion or "bandwidth hogs" or "pirates" - it's about controlling the network and how it's used.
reply
anon @ 21st Aug 12:25PM:
stop blaming on your customers

maybe they should upgrade their network instead of blaming on their customers. Our "high speed" is a joke when compare to other countries' high speed.
reply
anon @ 21st Aug 01:30PM:
Re: caps

said by baineschile :

You would be incorrect. No normal residential person can come up with a 100% legal excuse to use more than 250 gigs/mo
aHEM... Sorry mate, you'd be incorect. I burn a a possible 10-20GB a day on porno alone. And don't tell me it isn't legal. It's coming down port 80, from various porn websites.
Yeah I said it. FAPFAPFAPFAPFAP. The rest of my traffic in a single day can be in excess of 1GB from the sheer amount of gaming I do. That's 21GB possible in a single day. All legit traffic. We haven't even COUNTED FTP traffic to the website yet. Lets just assume the average 30 day cycle.
30x21 = 630. 630. 630GB of legitimate traffic without a single torrent run. I mean, I haven't even counted in traffic over downloading Linux distros for my local webserver dev box. Nor have I counted my VPN traffic from when I connect to my local network from outside locations, etc. Oh my god, help me if I count traffic from Hulu.

Lucky for me, DD-WRT keeps a track of bandwidth used!
August 8, 2008 (Incoming: 14842 MB / Outgoing: 503 MB)

As Comcast said, The higher amount of bandwidth just helps you reach your cap faster. You find alot of things you can do with 20 Down and 2 Up.

So yeah, please remove your foot from your mouth and excuse yourself at the door. Thank You.
reply
macdude22 @ 21st Aug 12:29PM:
250GB is not all that much in 2008

We've shifted all our video content viewing to the net. Between a couple Roku Netflix Players, Xbox 360 (games and some TV shows), computers, GameTap, lots of HD podcasts, itunes, youtube, Wii, etc... We probably blow through 250 GB in a month with out too much trouble, or anything illegal either. Heck with GameTap alone I'll blow through gigs n gigs n migs n megs trying out different games.
reply
Buttset @ 21st Aug 12:35PM:
Re: More reasonable approach.

Well stated!

"Vote" with your wallet, it's what business understands.
reply
jmn1207 @ 21st Aug 12:37PM:
Re: too vague

said by David_ :

said by baineschile :

Downloading an unbox movie - 3gigs
VOiP 1 hour chat - 30Mb/hr (approx)
Surfing Clips - 250-500Mb an hour (1024x768 max)

So, if you download 2 movies a day (180 gigs/mo), chat on the phone 2 hours a day (about 4 gigs/mo) and surf for video clips 3 hours a day (about 40 gigs/mo), you are still using less than the cap 224gigs.

But cmon, who does all that?
A single person , hardly , but a household with 2 adults surfing the net after work, plus 2 or 3 teenagers downloading from itunes, on voip messenger, and streaming from netflix, shoutcast and skype on all day will probably be labeled a heavy user in no time .

Imagine a small lan with wifi in today`s world, and you`ll easily surpass 250gb x month.
Perhaps 250 GB would be surpassed, but not easily, and historically not too often. It does sound like this scenario would be using the service to the max. Perhaps people with this type of situation can purchase a separate line/modem to accommodate this potentially heavy usage. There has to be some kind of limit with a LAN. 4 heavy video streaming viewers sharing a connection in an apartment might not individually exceed the limits, but together they certainly might. Even still, Comcast states that this scenario is a rare occurrence.

Keep in mind that Comcast is not simply pulling up a random number for their caps/throttling. Most of their users have not exceeded this 250GB cap. It does not matter how it might happen, Comcast only measures total usage. So you might have one user or a family of 10 on a network; regardless, hardly anyone currently exceeds this proposed maximum limit that will be set.
reply
fatmanskinny @ 21st Aug 12:44PM:
The Power of the Consumer Dollar has been forgotten!

We really need to get back to the days of making companies work hard to earn our business and not take it for granted. Poor customer service, poor support, poor whatever should no longer be tolerated.

We have become so conditioned to accept less than what we pay for. Companies are now installing caps but will be charging us the same price??! C'mon people, fight with your dollar (blood).

If you don't want caps or whatever it may be, speak with your dollar. Take your business elsewhere. If your blood levels begin to decrease over time, you will eventually die. That is the same concept with business. Don't inject any additional blood line into the corporate monster.

They must be held accountable at all costs from the top down. Failure to hold them accountable is not an option.

They show you over and over they want you and need you to be a customer. I cannot count how many ridiculous mailers I received from AT&T after I dropped their land line service. They charged way too much for land line service, IMHO, and I let them know that by dropping their service. If you want me to come back, listen to me and let's work on getting a win-win situation for all parties involved or at least something that is mutually agreeable.

In saying that, begin to write letters to these companies and let them know where they are falling short. If they don't clean up their act, take your money elsewhere.

The Power of the Consumer Dollar is still strong because these companies need your money in order to survive. Yes, there will be some casualties in the process but we are looking to win the war, battle by battle.
--
God saved me from myself! Thank you, Lord, in the Name of Jesus!
reply
nutcr0cker @ 21st Aug 12:54PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

I hope they throttle you back to beyond the stone age :) so I can still download all my distros :)
reply
nutcr0cker @ 21st Aug 01:00PM:
sorry to pitch in politics

I appologize for bringing in politics here but "A Really Good DSL Experience'" does sound to me like a page out of the republican excuse book. I do watch fixed news and they always claims that there are no problems with the economy or inflation and any thing bad is in the minds of people. Now compare this to adding caps throttling and poor speeds does that sound any good dsl experiance...if you think it is I have a McCain candidacy to sell to you :)
reply
PDXPLT @ 21st Aug 01:00PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by aciddrink :

What about those of us that stream netflix, download linux distros and/or movies from Itunes? We can easily consume as much or more bandwidth than a 'pirate' can, especially in a household.
Yea, and why would Comcast want to make that easy for you to do? Then you'll buy less PPV movies, premium mvie channels, etc., from them.

This policy makes business sense from Comcasts POV. They provide HSI to compete with DSL, NOT to cannabalize their high-margin TV offerings. So as long as you get an "above DSL" experience, you should be happy, right?

This is just like Frontier's cap - obviously, the only "appropriate" use for HSI is browsing, email, etc.: anything that doesn't threaten their other businesses.
reply
SilverSurfer @ 21st Aug 01:01PM:
Re: The Power of the Consumer Dollar has been forgotten!

said by fatmanskinny :

If you don't want caps or whatever it may be, speak with your dollar. Take your business elsewhere. If your blood levels begin to decrease over time, you will eventually die. That is the same concept with business. Don't inject any additional blood line into the corporate monster.

Yours is a beautiful theory, but even in metro markets like mine, I have exactly 2 BB choices...1 cable ISP and 1 DSL provider. And since most of the country is not considered metro, even the folks not living in bumblefuck have 1 BB choice. Either it's cable or DSL. The alternative -assuming it's available- is to go back to dial up. Not exactly a viable choice if you make your living at home and need connectivity.
reply
openbox9 @ 21st Aug 01:19PM:
Re: Why do they have the throttle when there's a 250gb cap?

The throttling is for bursty traffic while the caps handled ongoing sustained usage.
reply
DJMASACRE @ 21st Aug 01:21PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by baineschile :

Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone.

Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone
You have nobody to blame but yourself.

Everyone uses the internet the same way, whether your downloading " pirated " software, or watching a youtube video. its no better on your traffic consumption .
reply
dentman42 @ 21st Aug 01:22PM:
Re: caps

Please stop feeding the troll. Hell, troll food on this site alone could use up the 250GB! :D
reply
james1 @ 21st Aug 01:26PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

Thats why some ISPs want to basically charge twice for the same bandwidth.

Welcome to my all you can eat buffet! Oh goodness, you're eating too fast! Obviously the food my suppliers send me is too tasty, I'll have to start billing them as well! Despite the fact that without those suppliers my business would have nothing to offer.
reply
DJMASACRE @ 21st Aug 01:26PM:
Re: too vague

said by baineschile :

Downloading an unbox movie - 3gigs
VOiP 1 hour chat - 30Mb/hr (approx)
Surfing Clips - 250-500Mb an hour (1024x768 max)

So, if you download 2 movies a day (180 gigs/mo), chat on the phone 2 hours a day (about 4 gigs/mo) and surf for video clips 3 hours a day (about 40 gigs/mo), you are still using less than the cap 224gigs.

But cmon, who does all that?
Well for people that use the internet much more than just checking hotmail and using stupid facebook, you may have a house sharing 4-5 connection, if each person does that, it will easily go over 250gb. and maybe people arent downloading 2 movies a day, but they could be downloading a FULL BOUGHT DVD which is around 8 GIGS ... maybe 10 at once .. 3x4 times a month ..

multiply by another 4... you get the idea.

either way, it makes no difference.

the limit should be a terabyte of data. just one.

more than 80% may never get there. so thats good and reasonable.

if you go over than they can charge you 100$ there you go .
reply
DJMASACRE @ 21st Aug 01:28PM:
Re: too vague

said by jmn1207 :

said by David_ :

said by baineschile :

Downloading an unbox movie - 3gigs
VOiP 1 hour chat - 30Mb/hr (approx)
Surfing Clips - 250-500Mb an hour (1024x768 max)

So, if you download 2 movies a day (180 gigs/mo), chat on the phone 2 hours a day (about 4 gigs/mo) and surf for video clips 3 hours a day (about 40 gigs/mo), you are still using less than the cap 224gigs.

But cmon, who does all that?
A single person , hardly , but a household with 2 adults surfing the net after work, plus 2 or 3 teenagers downloading from itunes, on voip messenger, and streaming from netflix, shoutcast and skype on all day will probably be labeled a heavy user in no time .

Imagine a small lan with wifi in today`s world, and you`ll easily surpass 250gb x month.
Perhaps 250 GB would be surpassed, but not easily, and historically not too often. It does sound like this scenario would be using the service to the max. Perhaps people with this type of situation can purchase a separate line/modem to accommodate this potentially heavy usage. There has to be some kind of limit with a LAN. 4 heavy video streaming viewers sharing a connection in an apartment might not individually exceed the limits, but together they certainly might. Even still, Comcast states that this scenario is a rare occurrence.

Keep in mind that Comcast is not simply pulling up a random number for their caps/throttling. Most of their users have not exceeded this 250GB cap. It does not matter how it might happen, Comcast only measures total usage. So you might have one user or a family of 10 on a network; regardless, hardly anyone currently exceeds this proposed maximum limit that will be set.
I easily go over 500GB each month .

my speed is what should be limited. to 6MB which is what i am paying for .

period.
reply
DJMASACRE @ 21st Aug 01:30PM:
Re: caps

said by baineschile :

You would be incorrect. No normal residential person can come up with a 100% legal excuse to use more than 250 gigs/mo
just because you have some sorta of trauma or resentment that you cant let go , dont blame "piraters"

it has no effect,

so I cant just download legal copies of software over and over and over just to try and reach 1 Terabyte of transfers a month ? just for fun ?? ..

whats what I pay for isnt it ?

so now im a pirate because i download so much ?

come on .
reply
L00ker @ 21st Aug 01:32PM:
Like PowerBoost but in reverse!

Sweet so when I actually USE my lackluster (at best) comcast connection to download content eventually they will simply degrade (already crap service) my speed!

Awesome idea comcast, just fantastic! Do they actually think that after all the negative press they have been getting and harsh criticism that the answer is to lower the value or incentive to procure their service? I don't know how their shareholders are making dividends if they are so stupendously skilled at pissing off what matters most (volume of customers).
reply
anon @ 21st Aug 01:33PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

I support the whole "all you can eat buffet" style internet, but the problem is the people that spend all day at the buffet, and eat 75 lobster tails. That has driven up the cost of business for EVERYONE, now comcast has to implement technology to govern all of this, which will of course, come with costs.
reply
Dogfather @ 21st Aug 01:43PM:
Re: caps

said by hottboiinnc :

don't cout your chickens before they hatch. the way the CTO of VZ was talking they have plans to do the same
After all, Verizon has PPV VOD revenues to protect as well.
reply
CUBS_FAN @ 21st Aug 01:45PM:
Everything Internet

Technology these days allows you to do just about everything via the internet except pop your popcorn for you. Telephone has gone to the internet by VOIP, going out to the Cineplex Odeon theatre is now easier with a click away, and imagine when everything goes HD. What I'm trying to say is that Dial-up connections(remember that concept) are completely impossible to use with the amount of bandwidth consumed to simply *browse* the internet. Now they want to throttle your consumption? They want to give you more but want you to use it moderately.

Here's an idea. Like driving a car there are alternatives, you can travel via the Expressway or take the local roads. Why not create an "alternate internet" that is low-band and the DNS automatically routes you to the low-band versions of every internet site you want to go to. No Flash Player banners and others that take forever to load.
reply
jmn1207 @ 21st Aug 01:50PM:
Re: too vague

said by DJMASACRE :

said by baineschile :

Downloading an unbox movie - 3gigs
VOiP 1 hour chat - 30Mb/hr (approx)
Surfing Clips - 250-500Mb an hour (1024x768 max)

So, if you download 2 movies a day (180 gigs/mo), chat on the phone 2 hours a day (about 4 gigs/mo) and surf for video clips 3 hours a day (about 40 gigs/mo), you are still using less than the cap 224gigs.

But cmon, who does all that?
Well for people that use the internet much more than just checking hotmail and using stupid facebook, you may have a house sharing 4-5 connection, if each person does that, it will easily go over 250gb. and maybe people arent downloading 2 movies a day, but they could be downloading a FULL BOUGHT DVD which is around 8 GIGS ... maybe 10 at once .. 3x4 times a month ..

multiply by another 4... you get the idea.

either way, it makes no difference.

the limit should be a terabyte of data. just one.

more than 80% may never get there. so thats good and reasonable.

if you go over than they can charge you 100$ there you go .
Comcast would have us believe that less than 2% of its users are currently exceeding the proposed 250GB limit. Why set the number to cater to your particular needs? It sounds as if you are one of the customers that Comcast does not want on their system. It makes it impossible for them to accurately build up and maintain their infrastructure when only a handful of users can skew the results. Should Comcast spend millions to upgrade an area supporting 500 customers or throttle/limit 4 users that are causing the congestion?

Edit: »arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···html?rel

Douglas was careful to emphasize that bandwidth abusers are a very small minority of Comcast's customers, reiterating that the issue is confined to less than 0.01 percent of the company's subscribers. "In fact, 95 percent of our users could increase their bandwidth usage a hundred-fold and still be in compliance," he said.

reply
Syncognition @ 21st Aug 01:55PM:
So...

Does that mean my Embarq 10M service is like a really good cable experience, as Comcast in most of my state only offers up to 8Mb/s? =P
reply
swhitney2003 @ 21st Aug 02:01PM:
Re: caps

said by baineschile :

You would be incorrect. No normal residential person can come up with a 100% legal excuse to use more than 250 gigs/mo
Maybe not one person, but a family of 5 might be able to.
reply
smcallah @ 21st Aug 02:05PM:
Re: too vague

But then what is the 250GB cap for then?

If they apparently say they don't have plans for usage based billing, then reaching the 250GB cap must cause something to happen, and it would be logical to assume that throttling would occur. Since I doubt they would just cut the user completely off until the next billing cycle starts.
reply
avd706 @ 21st Aug 02:06PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by baineschile1 :

I support the whole "all you can eat buffet" style internet, but the problem is the people that spend all day at the buffet, and eat 75 lobster tails. That has driven up the cost of business for EVERYONE, now comcast has to implement technology to govern all of this, which will of course, come with costs.
Sounds good, but its just not true.
reply
anon @ 21st Aug 02:14PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed. Comcast should spend more money on upgrading their network instead of their corporate headquarters... it's not like they aren't making plenty of profit off of their customers.
reply
Netbum @ 21st Aug 02:22PM:
Re: caps

said by Dogfather :

said by baineschile :

You would be incorrect. No normal residential person can come up with a 100% legal excuse to use more than 250 gigs/mo
Guess you've never heard of Carbonite or Slingbox. Between DirecTV VOD, VPN, buying games on EA Link and Steam (or more specially redownloading), AppleTV, Netflix and XBOX 360 rentals, and the biggest, Slingbox streams of MLB all Summer I've done over 250GB in a month on quite a few occasions. Thankfully Cox doesn't enforce their 40GB cap and Verizon FiOS apparently has no consumer network management.
That's right,I just hooked up my N- Routers to my Network for DirecTV/Home Theatre On demand.
Hmmm,the $ I'm paying for Comcast?
Great,here we go again...
These guys remind of the folks who say "what have you got to hide,if you're not doing anything illegal,why do you care if the government snoops on you?" ;)
reply
Alcohol @ 21st Aug 02:23PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

However don't you think this is a step in the wrong direction? Everyone knows American broadband is no way as advanced as the worlds, and instead of changing that we're putting limits on our outdated technology so we don't have to upgrade.

Way to go Comcast.
reply
PDXPLT @ 21st Aug 02:23PM:
Re: caps

It'll take longer for Verizon to do that. Unlike Comcast, selting video isn't Verizon's core business (yet). So downloading big movie files isn't as much of a threat. VZ will want to keep FIOS positioned as a "no holds barred" ultimate HSI service.

For those lucky few of their subscribers that they're actually deploying FIOS to, that is. Those of us who've been told we're never getting FIOS (and probably never DSL, either) are SOL.
reply
anon @ 21st Aug 02:24PM:
Re: caps

You should consider taking one of the How To Use The Internet More Effectively continuing education classes at your local elementary school. You'll obviously be surprised at how many 100% legal reasons there are for even only one person to use many hundreds of GB of bandwidth per month, let alone a family of 2 or more.
reply
EPS @ 21st Aug 02:27PM:
Re: So...

So I suppose if those 8Mb/s users become "bandwidth hogs" in your areas, their speeds will be "throttled" upward to provide the equivalent of your areas' really good DSL?
reply
anon @ 21st Aug 02:27PM:
Ummm...

Well...I don't believe that they shouldn't have the right to manage their own network. However I must say that if they can't handle the traffic or "don't wish to" handle the traffic they should either upgrade (yes invest) in new hardware or stop taking new customers. Now that doesn't mean they shouldn't take normal low usage customers but how do you know what a subscriber is going to use their connection for an how they are telling the truth? That could be a major problem.
reply
sousademiami @ 21st Aug 02:38PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by en102 :

DSL = VERY stable. On a 3Mbps DSL line, I will hit max 99% of the time, and latency will not change
Cable = Faster (6Mbps/512kbps), however, speeds will vary, as will latency.
I think the main point here is that phone companies don't oversell their bandwidth, which is why they are stable and Cable is not.
--
OASAASLLS
reply
espaeth @ 21st Aug 02:51PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by NOCMan :

If caps become commonplace then you can kiss the online backup industry goodbye. A lot of people have digital media collections that exceed 250G.
This can be addressed by having a sane backup strategy -- like a full backup to a USB drive kept offsite followed up with automated daily incremental backups to an on-line backup provider.
reply
espaeth @ 21st Aug 02:57PM:
Re: More reasonable approach.

said by voipdabbler :

I thought it was interesting that other tech newsletters are beginning to report on Cogent's most recent quarterly data, which shows that bandwidth consumption is falling, not increasing.
Cogent also had a fair number of customers elect to not renew their contracts largely due to the recent Cogent/Telia depeering incident.

They took a similar hit when they depeered with Level(3) a few years back.
reply
Mr Matt @ 21st Aug 03:11PM:
If C punishes me I will punish them.

:D I wonder how C determines if I am exceeding their volume limits. Will I be chastised if I download a Windows Service Pack? If I am chastised I will punish them. I will move my entertainment budget to DBS and my Broadband Budget to DSL then C can go to Hell.
reply
voipdabbler @ 21st Aug 03:15PM:
Re: More reasonable approach.

said by espaeth :

said by voipdabbler :

I thought it was interesting that other tech newsletters are beginning to report on Cogent's most recent quarterly data, which shows that bandwidth consumption is falling, not increasing.
Cogent also had a fair number of customers elect to not renew their contracts largely due to the recent Cogent/Telia depeering incident.
They took a similar hit when they depeered with Level(3) a few years back.
Actually, I believe that the depeering incident with Level 3, three years ago, began with Level 3 depeering Cogent first. Then Cogent fired back. They were both forced to make nice or else in the fall of 2005.

Cogent has met resistance with it's efforts to enter the European market--European carriers depeered when Cogent bought in to the market, which has complicated their efforts since they have to route traffic back to the US and then back to Europe.
reply
Millenniumle @ 21st Aug 03:25PM:
Re: too vague

Maybe not a person, but for a family of 4 or 5 it maybe an easy cap to break.

I suppose ISPs would like to take the position that the connection is only for one person to use and a family of 5 should have 5 separate accounts or pay five times as much, but I'll pass.

While everyone will have there own preferences in an internet connection, I'm happy with an uncapped slower dsl line. It's fast enough. I don't need 50Mbps, caps, and overage fees. At least I don't need 50Mbps yet.


reply
badtrip @ 21st Aug 03:42PM:
I eagerly await...

the outcome of the first lawsuit (class-action or otherwise) that gets filed against Comcast for all this. I am very interested in seeing what happens in the market with this huge paradigm shift coming.

My own secret dream is Comcast gets sued into oblivion and becomes insolvent. The vacuum left by Comcast's collapse then will be filled by a myriad of ISPs competing for my business--offering decent speeds at fair prices which would in turn require me to choose between providers.
reply
Syncognition @ 21st Aug 03:47PM:
Re: So...

I guess that was the joke I was trying to make. =P
reply
wentlanc @ 21st Aug 03:55PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

How long of a cable do you use to connect to your offsite disk? That's the whole point of online backup. You NEVER have your backup media on the site!

And are ISPs counting their own data backup services in the caps?

:huh:

cw
reply
anon @ 21st Aug 04:00PM:
250GB is a bit low

First off I have not downloaded anything even remotely illegal. I checked my bandwidth usage on my linksys router for the past week and it was around 20GB. This includes games I download from xbox live arcade whether it be trials or complete games, gaming usage, and normal Internet surfing with VERY FEW downloads. On a more heavy week I guess I am doing 30GB a week. This is about 120GB a month. Yeah, it is half, however NOBODY else uses the connection. On a home with a shared connection if we assume someone does roughly the same then we would get 480GB a month for a 4 person home. This accounts no linux distros, no heavy downloading( I downloaded some .rar and .zip files and no videos, and completely legit traffic. The fact is users now use their Internet connections for many things. Let's say the family I am talking about also watches online shows(many legit methods again as many networks like Fox, NBC, and CWTV host videos of their shows). I am assuming the traffic will easily keep going over that 250GB. Back in 2000 that might be a fair cap but as more uses come up for broadband and more people now use it. I think the cap is on the low side.
reply
EPS @ 21st Aug 04:13PM:
Re: caps

I doubt their VOD is making much money, I've never really found anything worthwhile on it... then again, I didn't use VOD much on Comcast either, but they seem to be making a bundle.
reply
anon @ 21st Aug 04:16PM:
Re: Like PowerBoost but in reverse!

said by L00ker :

Sweet so when I actually USE my lackluster (at best) comcast connection to download content eventually they will simply degrade (already crap service) my speed!

Awesome idea comcast, just fantastic! Do they actually think that after all the negative press they have been getting and harsh criticism that the answer is to lower the value or incentive to procure their service? I don't know how their shareholders are making dividends if they are so stupendously skilled at pissing off what matters most (volume of customers).
Because over 90% of markets are either serviced by a monopoly or duopoly. I live in Chicago, IL(a big city by almost everyone's standards). You get either ATT DSL or Cable. In some locations, even in the city, you can only get one or the other.

THIS IS IN A CITY. Try something like a more rural area and dang, what a competitive market.(sarcasm)

Let us not ignore also that:

!) Our speeds are a joke compared to most developed countries. Sure, we get faster speeds than Africa but we certainly do not get better speeds than France, Japan, South Korea, etc. We used to be a leader in the market years and years ago.

2) We somehow need caps as soon as anyone starts using their Internet for anything other than e-mail and some occasional browsing. Many ISPs do not like that you are getting videos out there for TV, games, etc.
reply
Jovi @ 21st Aug 04:25PM:
Re: 250GB is a bit low

TBH, 250 is a lot more generous than other ISP's. I can live with the cap AS LONG AS THEY PROVIDE ONLINE USAGE METERS OR A DOWN LOADABLE ONE. If a node is being hammered by a slew of people at one time, do they throttle everyone at the same time?
--
"Where's my coffee? Oh. I guess it's my turn to make it." :(
reply
hurfy @ 21st Aug 04:39PM:
Re: too vague

Applying logic to the cable companies is not logical, try again please ;)

If they meant 'when users reach their cap' they could have simply said that...they didn't. I'll go with a daily/hourly/at-the-moment definition and that they will come up with a revenue enhancing solution for reaching a cap :(
reply
anon @ 21st Aug 04:46PM:
Re: 250GB is a bit low

said by Jovi :

TBH, 250 is a lot more generous than other ISP's. I can live with the cap AS LONG AS THEY PROVIDE ONLINE USAGE METERS OR A DOWN LOADABLE ONE. If a node is being hammered by a slew of people at one time, do they throttle everyone at the same time?
Just because it is more generous does not mean squat. It should be one that truly is fair to 99% of its users. Those exceeding Terabytes a month should be capped after they exceed 1TB. However, the example I just suggested DOES NOT EVEN INCLUDE VIDEO USE of the Internet. The traffic I accumulate is sorely based on web browsing, gaming, and maybe 5-1GB of .rar and .zip files a week. Now if I started watching some of my favorite shows online, started using the new Netflix feature to come with the xbox 360 dashboard for movies and bam, I will be doing 50GB WEEKLY with a single user which is the equivalent of 200GB with a shared connection and a family of four. These do not include downloading illegal songs or movies or uploading them. Those that do those things would surely be using more traffic then.

I am giving you an example of how easily this could be exceeded in a family of 4. Am I now a crazy bandwidth hog that needs to be capped? I am using the connection for 100% legit means via 100% legit uses. This does not include usage of VOIP as well with the Internet. If I was a heavy phone user then traffic would go up. Last week with the bandwidth number included less than 1 hr of phone. Families that have teenagers using the phone often and more people in the household will consume more. This is why this cap is already too low.

So how exactly is it that nobody is exceeding 250GB? That is a a BUNCH OF BS. I can do 100GB monthly easily without sharing the connection at all. Now families with more people will use more. Maybe not 120-150GB each like me but I am sure it will exceed the bandwidth of 250GB.

I am doing 100GB with NO VIDEO, and no MP3s, and no downloading of games via steam or anything and 1hr of phone or less a week. I am sure people out there use

-their phone more than 1 hr a week if they have the Comcast phone service which is through their Internet connection.

-Watch TV shows online

-Who use services to download movies

-Download music

-Download games via Steam or other options

-Who download some Linux distros or big files once in a while like Microsoft service packs

Keep in mind my usage is based on nothing but gaming bandwidth, a few xbla games, and SURFING. If we even include some of the other possible things that can increase bandwidth consumption then it would be much much higher.
reply
quintin3265 @ 21st Aug 04:46PM:
Why the complaints?

I don't see why everyone is complaining about this. Compared to Comcast's current unethical policy, this is a huge improvement.

They already do this, but do it underhandedly and only to select users they don't like. I don't have any problem as long as I know what I'm getting.
reply
espaeth @ 21st Aug 04:47PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by wentlanc :

How long of a cable do you use to connect to your offsite disk? That's the whole point of online backup. You NEVER have your backup media on the site!
The problem with doing your whole system is that online backups come with real limitations when it comes to time. With 6/1 cable service, assuming you upload at the full 1mbps constantly, it would take you almost 23 days of uploading 24x7 to push 250GB to your upstream backup provider. Heck, even if you had a FiOS 20/20 connection and you could push 20mbps constantly it would take you 27 hours.

Most incidents of data loss aren't of the "my house burned down" variety. Most of the time it's things like accidental deletion, hard drive failure, or other equipment failure that leads to drive corruption. Having some repository of the data locally helps you expedite restores in that event.

You don't need a long cable, you just need 2 USB drives. You keep one drive in an offsite location (ie, I keep mine in my desk drawer at work). Keep the other drive hooked up to your computer for backups. Start off by doing a full backup using a program like TrueImage so that you can do a bare-metal restore to a full functioning system image. Once that backup is complete, take the drive to your off-site location and copy all of the backup files over.

Then take the backup drive home again, and setup backup software to do incremental file-level backups on a daily basis to the same USB drive. Configure your computer to archive just the incremental files to your on-line data backup provider.

If you have a local failure (ie, hard drive failure), you can restore directly from the USB drive very rapidly because you can move data at 10-20MB/sec (80-160mbps). Then in the rare case if you have a full catastrophic failure, you can go to your offsite location to grab the full backup, and proceed with downloading all of the incremental updates you had online. Overall you could probably still be up and running again within a day.

I use a system similar to this for my personal backups -- on average I only make a full backup about twice a year and rely on incremental backups for the duration in between.
reply
Jovi @ 21st Aug 04:55PM:
Re: 250GB is a bit low

I have 4 machines that are used quite heavily by a 14,7 year old kids and wife and I. I game pretty hard most nights and watch movies, videos, surf and download music. I use the net more than anyone here in my household, and I have yet reach 50 gigs combine dl/ul in one month from my machine alone since I have had Comcast(about 3 years now). 250 gb is much better than 5-10 gb others have to endure. I can live with it if they keep there paws off what I pay for(no forging, or resets). Comcast needs to button it up, and just be a dump pipe to the net.
--
"Where's my coffee? Oh. I guess it's my turn to make it." :(
reply
funchords @ 21st Aug 05:09PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by meh37 :

A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed.
Awesome! I hope you don't mind that I stole this.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

reply
TK Junk Mail @ 21st Aug 05:25PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by funchords :

said by meh37 :

A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed.
Awesome! I hope you don't mind that I stole this.
And with that statement you become one of those perverting the whole idea of net neutrality from its original meaning - an ISP discriminating against 3rd party companies to give preference to their own products.

Your definition of net neutrality tries to say an ISP has no right to manage its network at all, except by endlessly expanding capacity to satisfy the needs of the most rapacious users.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?
reply
raptor1418 @ 21st Aug 05:33PM:
Re: too vague

Keep in mind things you can use your internet connection for are increasing. So if they took your approach the 2% might become 10% with in 6 months than another year down the road 20% and so on and so on. Grant I am pulling those numbers out of thin area but it is more to the point that none of us can really predict what services might just take off all of a sudden.

I sure as hell won't cap 250GB right now as I usually pull off 100GB but I am only 1 person in a house. And if 2% of occupancy on local area infrastructure can drag it down I really think their over subscription rate is way to high.

All in all I think ISP's just need to stop and think further out than just what is in front of their face now. But than again they are about gouging their customers and protecting their other cash cows.
reply
cdru @ 21st Aug 05:56PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

All ISPs oversell bandwidth. Period. It's just to what degree they oversell it that it ends up affecting the end user.
reply
cdru @ 21st Aug 06:01PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by baineschile :

Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone
Well, since you aren't pirating you aren't exceeding 250GB/month, so the whole throtting issue isn't an issue for you.

But if you do exceed 250GB/month and you aren't pirating music, then your logic fails and it's not just pirate's fault.

Or if you do exceed 250GB/month and you are pirating, well, your criticizing thanking yourself apparently.
reply
hottboiinnc @ 21st Aug 06:23PM:
Re: caps

its not who has video as their business. it's who wants to pay for the extra bandwidth that users are using up. even well in the TBs per month.

I'm sure VZ won't be paying for that either.

But also- Remember who owns a good share of TV networks. It's not VZ so remember Comcast controls your cable bill and what channels you get each month on FiOS.
reply
guitarzan @ 21st Aug 06:39PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by wentlanc :

You NEVER have your backup media on the site!

And are ISPs counting their own data backup services in the caps?

:huh:

cw
From the article below. This question is answered. Is this lawful or an anti consumer lawsuit waiting to be exposed? I have no idea.

Frontier Plans To Enforce 5GB Cap In 'December Or January'
Technician hints that Frontier's own services won't count against cap....

»Frontier Plans To Enforce 5GB Cap In 'December Or January'

quote:
we are not currently enforcing this policy and we have been informed that, at the present, the plan is to start the enforcement part of the policy in December or January. . . I do know that we have been made aware that certain activities such as carbonite backup and other services we offer can be excluded from the bandwidth usage.In other words, bandwidth used by Frontier's online storage services won't count against your cap, but similar competing services will

--
It's easier to manipulate non-religious people, Ever hear of Communism?
With out religion your are more suceptable to manipulation. Look at china, they banned religion. It's much easier to manipulate people who don't have any religious convictions.
reply
fonzbear2000 @ 21st Aug 06:46PM:
At least......

Comcast didn't get any ideas from Roadrunner who has much lower caps. Also, I wonder if "throttling high-consumption users back to "above DSL speeds"" means that if you go over the cap, you'll just be throttled and won't pay an extra amount per gigabyte.
--
»Celestia-this is a REALLY COOL program!!!
reply
funchords @ 21st Aug 06:59PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by TK Junk Mail :

And with that statement you become one of those perverting the whole idea of net neutrality from its original meaning - an ISP discriminating against 3rd party companies to give preference to their own products.
If that's true, then I don't care.

A lot of people that don't know much about how the Internet was designed have tried to define Network Neutrality based upon their ideas of who might exploit the Internet and how (such as Yoogle paying an ISP to delay or degrade Gahoo's traffic).

But the root idea that the network neutrality principles are about is preserving the Internet's history of non-discrimination.

said by TK Junk Mail :

Your definition of net neutrality tries to say an ISP has no right to manage its network at all, except by endlessly expanding capacity to satisfy the needs of the most rapacious users.
For God's sake, Comcast has a right to manage its network. It also has a responsibility to follow the standards and practices that have evolved the Internet to this point.

Managing the network doesn't mean delaying, degrading, or denying access to people who are acting legally and within the confines of their service agreements.

If someone is exceeding their service agreement, then Comcast has a right to manage its network. Shut them off.

If Comcast's technology cannot handle so many users, then Comcast has a right to manage its network. Stop selling subscriptions.

If Comcast is unwilling to upgrade their network as fast as user demands indicate that they should, then Comcast has a right to manage its network. Create lower tiers.

No - what has happened instead is that Comcast has mis-managed its network in order to fudge the perception of the actual bandwidth subscribers have access to in a competition with lower-priced DSL and more-capable FIOS.

Comcast, with 14 million HSI subscribers under it, is trying to create an Internet where there is a penalty for people to use or innovate with high-bandwidth applications. And while there's always been a limit to a subscriber's bandwidth, Comcast is trying to create a second limit.

And while they're conducting this so-called trial of these non-disclosed thresholds, how can innovators on the other side of the globe be expected to test against them?

What kind of trial is this? They haven't disclosed anything useful to people that need to be conducting tests during this trial. The one expectation that they have set -- "it'll be like a very fast DSL line" they can't possibly guarantee based on the prioritization scheme that they've been describing up to this point!

They ought to stop this nonsense now.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

reply
Cheese @ 21st Aug 07:36PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by en102 :

6Mbps ? I could live with that.
The problem that I've noticed (been on Cable for a few days from DSL).
DSL = VERY stable. On a 3Mbps DSL line, I will hit max 99% of the time, and latency will not change
Cable = Faster (6Mbps/512kbps), however, speeds will vary, as will latency.

Skypeout actually ran better on 3Mbps DSL than 6Mbps cable.
Should be 6/1 now.
reply
Cheese @ 21st Aug 07:37PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by PDXPLT :

said by aciddrink :

What about those of us that stream netflix, download linux distros and/or movies from Itunes? We can easily consume as much or more bandwidth than a 'pirate' can, especially in a household.
Yea, and why would Comcast want to make that easy for you to do? Then you'll buy less PPV movies, premium mvie channels, etc., from them.

This policy makes business sense from Comcasts POV. They provide HSI to compete with DSL, NOT to cannabalize their high-margin TV offerings. So as long as you get an "above DSL" experience, you should be happy, right?

This is just like Frontier's cap - obviously, the only "appropriate" use for HSI is browsing, email, etc.: anything that doesn't threaten their other businesses.
Because none of that is illegal? :uhh:
reply
MrSpock29 @ 21st Aug 07:39PM:
Re: too vague

said by baineschile :

Downloading an unbox movie - 3gigs
VOiP 1 hour chat - 30Mb/hr (approx)
Surfing Clips - 250-500Mb an hour (1024x768 max)

So, if you download 2 movies a day (180 gigs/mo), chat on the phone 2 hours a day (about 4 gigs/mo) and surf for video clips 3 hours a day (about 40 gigs/mo), you are still using less than the cap 224gigs.

But cmon, who does all that?
a lot of people, maybe just not you. Just because YOU don't use that much, it doesn't mean you are the standard for everyone else. How about a large family on a home network?
Multiply that number by 4.

BTW, I used much more than 224 one month, ALL OF IT legal. I think I am just tired of hearing how everyone who uses more than XYZ per month is a criminal.
reply
cob_ @ 21st Aug 07:40PM:
Does it ever end?

Comcast - The McDonalds of Broadband.

Soooo glad they're not in this area.
reply
MrSpock29 @ 21st Aug 07:44PM:
Re: sorry to pitch in politics

said by nutcr0cker :

I appologize for bringing in politics here but "A Really Good DSL Experience'" does sound to me like a page out of the republican excuse book. I do watch fixed news and they always claims that there are no problems with the economy or inflation and any thing bad is in the minds of people. Now compare this to adding caps throttling and poor speeds does that sound any good dsl experiance...if you think it is I have a McCain candidacy to sell to you :)
Odd, we must hear different things from the same people. If you are referring to the interview on the Olympics with Pres. Bush, he was referring to our nation in the grand scheme of things. He has acknowledged problems in the economy caused by the bursting of the housing bubble often. As soon as I saw that interview I knew there would be people spinning that. Politics has nothing to do with this.
But, at least I can give an opinion without it being "above my pay grade".........
reply
dvd536 @ 21st Aug 07:49PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by hopeflicker :

said by baineschile :

Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone.

Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone
perhaps cable ISPs need to upgrade their network.
Docsis 1 and 2, pffftt!. LOL
thats what all the capping/throttling is for, so they won't have to put $$$ in upgrades. only upgrading they want to do is 100ft yacht to 150ft yacht for CxO's and big 50 foot televisions.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee
reply
anon @ 21st Aug 11:30PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

How about Joost ......
reply
anon @ 21st Aug 08:34PM:
Re: Why the complaints?

I have big problems with this and as soon as Fios is here bye bye comcast. Trust me I have it all from Comcast but when you throttle the net I'm gone. So they will be loosing more just like me. What you don't seem to understand is that the higher bandwidth will bring new applications and ways of communicating. Sure you could be using 14.4 still but.......
GET IT think about driving on the roads BEFORE they built the expressways..... Look at all of the business growth that has come about with that?????
reply
espaeth @ 21st Aug 09:01PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by funchords :

No - what has happened instead is that Comcast has mis-managed its network in order to fudge the perception of the actual bandwidth subscribers have access to in a competition with lower-priced DSL and more-capable FIOS.
You make it sound like the other providers aren't lying about their capacity. If every subscriber started using 250GB/mo on their $30-$60 FiOS/DSL/BPL/Muni-wifi/DOCSIS/U-verse connection the entire cost model would fail.

The entire advertising model for EVERY player in this space is based on BS. To single out a single broadband provider for this practice is simply being disingenuous.
reply
fatmanskinny @ 21st Aug 09:33PM:
Re: The Power of the Consumer Dollar has been forgotten!

It's not a theory. It's a reality that some people don't want to face.

You HAVE the power as a consumer to withhold your dollar. I never said it was going to be easy BUT if enough people send a strong, clear message that your business practices won't be tolerated, then change will happen. Until then, companies will continue charging more and decreasing the quality of products and services.
--
God saved me from myself! Thank you, Lord, in the Name of Jesus!
reply
compton @ 21st Aug 10:29PM:
Re: Throttling - why?

said by Indymike :

I'm starting to wonder if they are either refusing to upgrade their network to support the numbers of users they have added OR they are worried about people getting video from the internet instead of the cable video service....
I would bet it's both.
reply
superchuckle @ 21st Aug 11:52PM:
comcasts fat wallets

comcast advertises about how their speed is so much faster than dsl...... & when you try to use it as advertised, guess what...... you end up getting capped to dsl.... .isn't that like false advertisement or something? managing a network is one thing, but crying fair use because they don't want to upgrade their backbone is a bunch of "we wanna put the money in our already fat as hell pockets, not reinvest it" bull. really, comcast has to be right up there with big oil for profits here....
reply
funchords @ 22nd Aug 12:53AM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by espaeth :

The entire advertising model for EVERY player in this space is based on BS. To single out a single broadband provider for this practice is simply being disingenuous.
You're right, except for my motives. I should have said "Cable." I said "Comcast" because that's the current example.

And I should say "Cable, generally" because it has to do with the size and number of subscribers in the shared bandwidth pool -- and not every Cable and DSL provider has copied every other one.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

reply
ieolus @ 22nd Aug 03:59AM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by PDXPLT :

said by aciddrink :

What about those of us that stream netflix, download linux distros and/or movies from Itunes? We can easily consume as much or more bandwidth than a 'pirate' can, especially in a household.
Yea, and why would Comcast want to make that easy for you to do? Then you'll buy less PPV movies, premium mvie channels, etc., from them.

This policy makes business sense from Comcasts POV. They provide HSI to compete with DSL, NOT to cannabalize their high-margin TV offerings. So as long as you get an "above DSL" experience, you should be happy, right?

This is just like Frontier's cap - obviously, the only "appropriate" use for HSI is browsing, email, etc.: anything that doesn't threaten their other businesses.
Are you saying that Comcast is making business decisions on their common carrier internet business to help out their cable business?
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp
reply
ieolus @ 22nd Aug 04:08AM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

I can't believe I am saying this, but TK Junk Mail is correct.

While what you state regarding Comcast is true, none of that has anything to do with network neutrality.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp
reply
sturmvogel @ 22nd Aug 08:34AM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by espaeth :

said by funchords :

No - what has happened instead is that Comcast has mis-managed its network in order to fudge the perception of the actual bandwidth subscribers have access to in a competition with lower-priced DSL and more-capable FIOS.
You make it sound like the other providers aren't lying about their capacity. If every subscriber started using 250GB/mo on their $30-$60 FiOS/DSL/BPL/Muni-wifi/DOCSIS/U-verse connection the entire cost model would fail.

The entire advertising model for EVERY player in this space is based on BS. To single out a single broadband provider for this practice is simply being disingenuous.
Comcast has been the most aggressive in its misleading marketing, ham fisted approach in punishing its users and total disregard of the Federal Communications Comission trying to find out the facts and enforce the law. Cry me a river if Comcast takes the brunt of the wrath of the user community and the federal government.
--
Treason is a matter of dates
reply
espaeth @ 22nd Aug 09:08AM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by funchords :

You're right, except for my motives. I should have said "Cable." I said "Comcast" because that's the current example.
DSL providers are far from immune from this though -- scan the Qwest and Embarq forums. I have a 5mbps DSL line from Embarq that from June until just last week I could only hit peak rates of just 2.5mbps on, and average rates stayed buried below 1mbps and latency was consistently 300+ms to any Internet destination. Compared to ATT and Verizon, Embarq got screwed because Sprint took backbone and wireless services in the split and those are the divisions that usually keep the ship afloat during LEC infrastructure upgrades.

Embarq did just upgrade the DSLAM from DS3 to OC3 attachment last week, but they had to upgrade the neighborhood mux from an OC12 to OC48, roll trunks, and do a bunch of other pre-work to get there. In talking with the techs, they have something like 80 subscribers off our remote terminal DSLAM -- and it was previously only fed with 45mbps of capacity. If only 9 of those 80-something subscribers were 5mbps users that liked to push their line to the max, that would have worked to saturate the node for everyone.

There are vast areas of network infrastructure among all of the providers that are far from meeting the kind of demand that people want to drive.
reply
bbscript @ 22nd Aug 11:36AM:
re: comcast fat wallets

time for FCC to slap em again for false advertising speeds cant be delivered with new throttling system. advertising something u cant utilize is selling a fake product. degrading services for consumers cause they choose to utilize what they pay for should be illegal in my book. slap slap slap bad boy comcast lawsuit i smell on this new play u thought up.guilty on 3 counts of wrongful misconduct. 1.false advertising 2.throttling =not allowed 3.degrading services breach of contracts.

looks like the first time they throttle me its gonna be an escape clause for me to get out of a contract cause they ceased to deliver what i call quality services. degrading my speeds from 16mbit to say 6mbit is illegal and breach of contract on what you are paying for. they gonna lose mad loot on this i see it coming.
reply
SlackerX @ 22nd Aug 12:58PM:
hrmm

I wonder if this will affect the 6Mbps tier. I mean, good DSL here is 6Mbps. If we got throttled to above a good DSL connection it'd be an upgrade.

Also makes me think, why not also do the opposite? If they are nowhere near being congested, why not give users more than their tier speed? They're still paying for their bandwidth whether it's getting used or not...
reply
TomClancy @ 22nd Aug 01:46PM:
yay...

This is like the cops stopping some guy because he doing 150m/h on the autobahn.

"Sir, I'll have to install a speed limiter in your Porsche, because well, the other shitty cars just can't keep up with you, so we're gonna have to slow you down!"
--
Freedom isn't free!
reply
anon @ 22nd Aug 02:54PM:
What I pay for...

But lets see,

If I am paying out $70 a month for 16 mbps I should get 16 mbps. Always. Thats what the deal is, we pay for the service, we should get the quality we pay for. We don't pay for everyone to get equal speeds, we pay for our speed. If comcast can't keep up with their end of the bargain we should all move off of them and find another solution.
reply
anon @ 22nd Aug 04:25PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by Alcohol :

However don't you think this is a step in the wrong direction? Everyone knows American broadband is no way as advanced as the worlds, and instead of changing that we're putting limits on our outdated technology so we don't have to upgrade.

Way to go Comcast.
Correct. China, for example, has a 25Gig/day limit. If ComCast set those kinds of limits, I'd be happy!
reply
anon @ 22nd Aug 03:19PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

Not at all... at least, until I patent the concept--I think I'll call it "FIFO" (anyone using that term?) ;)

(I think Gertrude Stein's copyright on the "rose" phrase has expired, though I'm not sure, what with copyright law being so screwed up now.)
reply
anon @ 22nd Aug 03:30PM:
Re: yay...

Well, it's a marginal improvement over their current methodology, where they stop you, tell you to go back to the place where you got on the autobahn, then won't let you on at all in your Porsche ('cause they had it towed away while you weren't looking). :D
reply
funchords @ 22nd Aug 03:33PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by espaeth :

You make it sound like the other providers aren't lying about their capacity. If every subscriber started using 250GB/mo on their $30-$60 FiOS/DSL/BPL/Muni-wifi/DOCSIS/U-verse connection the entire cost model would fail.
Lying does not equal reasonable oversubscribing or bandwidth aggregating or statistical multiplexing or whatever they're calling it these days.

I think if a provider can, with 95% or percent assurance or so, deliver a particular tier to a customer who subscribes to it -- I'd be hard pressed to call that ISP a liar. (By the way, that's just my perception -- I'm still looking for an industry model or a consumer standard for oversubscription and it doesn't seem to exist.)

said by espaeth :

I have a 5mbps DSL line from Embarq that from June until just last week I could only hit peak rates of just 2.5mbps on, and average rates stayed buried below 1mbps and latency was consistently 300+ms to any Internet destination.
That's pretty nasty.

said by espaeth :

In talking with the techs, they have something like 80 subscribers off our remote terminal DSLAM -- and it was previously only fed with 45mbps of capacity. If only 9 of those 80-something subscribers were 5mbps users that liked to push their line to the max, that would have worked to saturate the node for everyone.
Yeah, that would be a good example of the same effect on the DSL side.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

reply
anon @ 22nd Aug 03:42PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

There isn't a network engineer in the world worth his/her salt who would describe Comcast's method of forging [p2p] packets on a 24/7 basis as "network management". Network neutrality also means not unilaterally deciding that some protocol is not "acceptable" on your network, a network by the way that is paid for by all of its customers, including those who use p2p for all too legal purposes.
reply
anon @ 22nd Aug 04:53PM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
TomClancy @ 22nd Aug 09:44PM:
Re: What I pay for...

The instant my area gets FiOS I am gone from Comcast. And if VZ starts capping I guess I'll just have start stealing wireless connections. HEHE
--
Freedom isn't free!
reply
anon @ 23rd Aug 09:23AM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

That is the problem with Comcast. They have no intention of slowing down adding new customers, nor upgrading their bandwidth. Mostly due to the money not being there. Budget woes are plaguing Comcast. With all of the tech's out there and the DOCSIS 3.0 coming out, the network cannot handle the usage due to physical limitations for repairing and replacing outside cabling. Also since Comcast is trying (on paper and in the press) about the 5 9's (99.999%) of Quality of Service. It just don't seem to be that way. That is the problem with large companies and shrinking budgets, not to mention techs starting to become unhappy about not getting plant replaced.
I would use another ISP, but since Comcast is the only franchise in this town, I would rather use dial-up or DSL instead.
I don't believe that there should be limits. Isn't this what Cable companies want to do in the first place, to advance the telecommunications industry and all of the players in it? Time Warner and Charter are trying to, but Comcast wants to be a holdout and direct everything else and not adhere to the same standards as everyone else.
reply
MacLeech @ 23rd Aug 12:23PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

The Supreme Court ruled that cable internet is not a common carrier.
reply
MadMANN @ 23rd Aug 03:25PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by BenAthar :

I would use another ISP, but since Comcast is the only franchise in this town, I would rather use dial-up or DSL instead.

You can get dial-up ANYWHERE you have a phone connection. What you are really saying is "Comcast is the only provider here that fits my needs/wants." If you really meant that statement, you would not be a customer of Comcast.
reply
funchords @ 23rd Aug 03:28PM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by ieolus (modified slightly):

Are you saying that Comcast is making business decisions on their common carrier internet business to help out their cable business?
Yes, that's what he is saying.

Note to MacLeech: Sort of. If I'm reading the case right, it was actually the FCC that made cable an "information service" and the Supreme Court recognized that fact in reaching its decision. While that might seem to some like a distinction without a difference, it seems to me that the FCC would be permitted to reclassify it without going to the Supreme Court. (I'm not a lawyer, so there's a good chance I'm wrong.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

reply
ATT Vet @ 23rd Aug 11:01PM:
Re: If C punishes me I will punish them.

I agree. Why would anyone put up with that nonsense. The horror stories I hear about Comcast are unreal.
reply
anon @ 24th Aug 04:43PM:
What company will Comcast use for Fair Share

Does anyone know what company comcast will use for Fair Share?
reply
anon @ 24th Aug 07:15PM:
Where is the FIBER?

Te real truth is WE the American people who pay taxes have payed for a FIBER systems years ago that never was completed. Search for that one and then complain about the 250gb limit.
reply
StreetSpirit @ 25th Aug 01:46AM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by baineschile :

Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone.

Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone
You're giving credit to the wrong group of cretins. Thank a) The Bozo's in Wishington for not having anything resembling a national broadband policy. Thank b) The appointed Bozo heading up the FCC, for letting ISPs do this sort of thing without even a challenge. Than c) The Wize Guys, aka the Management Team. You can bet they'll all get six to seven figure bonuses for pushing through THROTTLING and OVERAGE at the same time! Imagine the money they'll save by fapping, and the money they'll earn by overaging. And they get to dump their most expensive users onto their competitors (ha! what competitors.. co-conspirators...) and lastly, and most importantly, you forgot to thank yourself, for if people didn't buy stock lock and barrel the propaganda put out by biased sources for charging people more and more for less and less (those darn pyrates again, aaaaargh!) and questioned their corporate bosses a little more often, we'd all be better off.

I used to tease Aussie friends on IRC about their metered Internet. Soon they might be laughing at me - however I am hoping that my ISP, already once capped and saw the futility of it, will keep it's independence from the Comcasts of the world. I'd rather pay money to the Dolans than to "Prepare to be assimilated". :)
reply
anon @ 25th Aug 04:23AM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

said by baineschile :

Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone.

Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone
i agree, in the sense that we're starting to be given a lot more power on the internet bandwidth-wise... we have the power to do more and more illegal activities on the internet, in which i dont think our economy will be blind to (or anyone else in the world)...
however, it will be more and more important to eventually be able to distinguish between the attempt to dissuade this piracy and the idea of the ISP's and software companies' breach of the individual's freedom and privacy...
i do not see anything wrong with a reasonable limit, as long as you get a warning and that this limit is, in fact, reasonable... and maybe if the user passed the limit but didn't do anything illegal, could give proof (for example, what if 10 people lived in the house, or the user has a subscription to an online movie service and watches a lot of movies)... besides, you get a warning at first, and i do believe that 250 GB is reasonable, even for minor pirates... which i blame no one for being prone to some sort of malice in one form or another, as long as its intents was not to profit off other people or depend on it...
forgive me if the writing sounds despotic, this is just an opinion and i dont believe this is the "right way," but i would prefer it
reply
anon @ 25th Aug 04:23AM:
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to

haha thats an awesome analogy
reply
anon @ 25th Aug 02:54AM:
msg deleted

deleted by a moderator
reply
Ricky11465 @ 25th Aug 06:59PM:
So my first day with a cap?

So after returning from my family's house over the weekend. I find my service i would assume capped? Of course there might be an outage, or Comcast having an issue. But i must admit if they placed their throttling today in Michigan. Why me, i stream netflix and youtube as well as vonage.

I decided to do a little tracert if anyone can bear it. I like the 4294967264 ms ping portion. Also keep in mind i use opendns, however i have troubleshooted the issue to my best. Switching DNS servers, resetting modem, as well as router, and network connection. So i can safely say its not me, but somewhere on comcasts line. My upstream is 1 meg, from its ussual 2. And my Downstream 192kb or less. From the lovely powerboost performance of 12-16 megs. So i must ask, i am not in thier test area, but why is it i wake up to slow then read news that they started throttling while i slept?

Tracing route to google.com [64.233.187.99]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 192.168.1.1
2 64 ms * 8 ms c-3-0-ubr01.monroe.mi.michigan.comcast.net [73.3
7.108.1]
3 74 ms 8 ms 8 ms ge-2-1-ur02.monroe.mi.michigan.comcast.net [68.8
6.120.157]
4 63 ms 63 ms 4294967264 ms te-0-4-0-5-ar01.taylor.mi.michigan.comcast
.net [68.87.190.169]
5 * * 72 ms pos-0-7-0-0-cr01.cleveland.oh.ibone.comcast.net
[68.86.85.49]
6 84 ms * 84 ms pos-0-6-0-0-cr01.chicago.il.ibone.comcast.net [6
8.86.85.50]
7 73 ms * 74 ms xe-10-1-0.edge1.Chicago2.Level3.net [4.71.248.17
]
8 22 ms 73 ms 74 ms vlan52.ebr2.Chicago2.Level3.net [4.69.138.190]
9 113 ms 106 ms 87 ms ae-2.ebr2.Washington1.Level3.net [4.69.132.70]
10 104 ms 103 ms 88 ms ae-62-62.csw1.Washington1.Level3.net [4.69.134.1
46]
11 36 ms 35 ms 4294967279 ms ae-1-69.edge1.Washington1.Level3.net [4.68
.17.16]
12 88 ms 95 ms 94 ms GOOGLE-INC.edge1.Washington1.Level3.net [4.79.23
1.6]
13 107 ms * 101 ms 66.249.95.149
14 50 ms 109 ms 115 ms 72.14.236.175
15 118 ms 105 ms 105 ms 216.239.49.226
16 * 48 ms * jc-in-f99.google.com [64.233.187.99]
17 59 ms 103 ms 51 ms jc-in-f99.google.com [64.233.187.99]

Trace complete.

Interesting aint it.
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2008 silver matrix LLC