Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [dailytech] Comcast to Users: Stop Using the Internet so Much, We Will Cap You
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[dailytech] Comcast to Users: Stop Using the Internet so Much, We Will Cap You - Page 12

post #111 of 202
I read through all the posts and there are flaws in some of the information

Saying Comcast merely provides a gateway to the internet and the cost of providing internet to a customer is negligible is wrong. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure that connects your modem to whatever major artery of the internet they tie in to. Think of connecting every house in a metropolitan area to a single point. That's a lot of material and equipment to pay for and maintain on a daily basis.

A number of years ago, does anyone remember Comcast publicly getting their hand slapped by the FCC for throttling the connection speed of heavy users? I won't say it was right but it made sense. The infrastructure apparently couldn't deliver the advertised speeds if there were too many people continuously downloading from sources that could provide high transfer rates (i.e. torrents). The caps however don't make much sense because they are also supposed to keep certain customers from taking away from the experience of others. One might argue that the data caps could impose a level of frugality in the customer which would in theory keep them from using their internet when they otherwise would.

The truth of the matter though is ISPs generally invest very little of their profit into upgrading their infrastructure. In 2011, Time Warner Cable invested 3% of their profit into improving their infrastructure. That would suggest we're talking about greed but hey, that's the way of the world these days. Why didn't Chevrolet spend an extra $0.60 to fix a faulty ignition switch that takes lives? Yup - same reason but I digress.

We're now in the world of Netflix, Pandora, Hulu, Steam, and a "Cloud" version of everything. This just seems like we're going in the wrong direction.
post #112 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNiceGuy View Post

I read through all the posts and there are flaws in some of the information

Saying Comcast merely provides a gateway to the internet and the cost of providing internet to a customer is negligible is wrong. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure that connects your modem to whatever major artery of the internet they tie in to. Think of connecting every house in a metropolitan area to a single point. That's a lot of material and equipment to pay for and maintain on a daily basis.

A number of years ago, does anyone remember Comcast publicly getting their hand slapped by the FCC for throttling the connection speed of heavy users? I won't say it was right but it made sense. The infrastructure apparently couldn't deliver the advertised speeds if there were too many people continuously downloading from sources that could provide high transfer rates (i.e. torrents). The caps however don't make much sense because they are also supposed to keep certain customers from taking away from the experience of others. One might argue that the data caps could impose a level of frugality in the customer which would in theory keep them from using their internet when they otherwise would.

The truth of the matter though is ISPs generally invest very little of their profit into upgrading their infrastructure. In 2011, Time Warner Cable invested 3% of their profit into improving their infrastructure. That would suggest we're talking about greed but hey, that's the way of the world these days. Why didn't Chevrolet spend an extra $0.60 to fix a faulty ignition switch that takes lives? Yup - same reason but I digress.

We're now in the world of Netflix, Pandora, Hulu, Steam, and a "Cloud" version of everything. This just seems like we're going in the wrong direction.

Your part about infrastructure is wrong. Comcast raises prices to deal with the cost of upgrading the infrastructure. They raise prices if they have to pay more for certain channels. Do you know how many times customers called me to complain because they lost a channel because comcast moved it to a higher tier? Happened all the time.
post #113 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNiceGuy View Post

I read through all the posts and there are flaws in some of the information

Saying Comcast merely provides a gateway to the internet and the cost of providing internet to a customer is negligible is wrong. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure that connects your modem to whatever major artery of the internet they tie in to. Think of connecting every house in a metropolitan area to a single point. That's a lot of material and equipment to pay for and maintain on a daily basis.

A number of years ago, does anyone remember Comcast publicly getting their hand slapped by the FCC for throttling the connection speed of heavy users? I won't say it was right but it made sense. The infrastructure apparently couldn't deliver the advertised speeds if there were too many people continuously downloading from sources that could provide high transfer rates (i.e. torrents). The caps however don't make much sense because they are also supposed to keep certain customers from taking away from the experience of others. One might argue that the data caps could impose a level of frugality in the customer which would in theory keep them from using their internet when they otherwise would.

The truth of the matter though is ISPs generally invest very little of their profit into upgrading their infrastructure. In 2011, Time Warner Cable invested 3% of their profit into improving their infrastructure. That would suggest we're talking about greed but hey, that's the way of the world these days. Why didn't Chevrolet spend an extra $0.60 to fix a faulty ignition switch that takes lives? Yup - same reason but I digress.

We're now in the world of Netflix, Pandora, Hulu, Steam, and a "Cloud" version of everything. This just seems like we're going in the wrong direction.

I was also under the impression that a large part of the laying of fiber was subsidized heavily by the government, and due to the quality and volume of fiber laid, there is no 'upgrading' of those lines to be done. What they are doing is increasing the end usage ability by upgrading and installing more local junctions, but even that cost is negligible for corporations that large against their margins.

For their throttling 'hand slap', again... maybe i'm misinformed, but I thought that was because they were throttling suspected torrent users to try and curb what they argued was likely illegal pirate activity. They were basically just taking a leap of faith in the wrong direction and punishing people based on suspicion alone. Problem being, torrenting is no longer solely identifiable by large data usage or bursts of huge activity... 4k streaming, and a plethora of other streaming use tons of data as well.

My take is that the whole idea of throttling and usage caps would have made sense ~6-10 years ago to attempt to combat alleged pirates. Anymore, no... usage alone doesn't single out anyone for anything. Those truly doing something naughty are likely already on an NSA watch list thumb.gif

I'm also using a bit of reading comprehension from the numerous similar threads out there discussing ISP quality and taking in the knowledge of those actually IN the field, and KNOW what they're talking about. Many here are good at 'sounding' smart and using logical reasoning, except is isn't the reality of the situation. PostalTwinkie is my go-to guru for how the industry works, and several others in this thread alone are speaking from the inside on what is ACTUALLY going on. Then people argue against them about what they perceive 'should' be happening, though it's not. I just don't get it. Funny thing, I honestly didn't like PostalTwinkie in the start... then I realized he was right tongue.gif

I think the whole thing is bs and the internet should be open, free, and uncapped/unthrottled. Monitor it? Sure! Protect it? Sure! Those really doing something wrong are easily tracked by those that need to know, so the ISPs should just do their job and maintain the network. My money goes with Google though.. and hopefully my city succeeds in bringing them here.
Malice
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 2500K ASUS P8Z68-V GEN3 Gigabyte 7950 Windforce 3 G Skill Ripjaw X 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Corsair Force Series 3 SSD 240GB Samsung 500gb HDD  Samsung 300gb HDD Seagate 500gb HDD 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate 1TB HDD LG DVD Super-Multi Zalman CNPS9900MAX-B CPU cooler Windows 7 64 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS VH236H 23" HD Saitek Eclipse I Backlit - Blue Cooler Master Silent Pro 800W Gold Cooler Master HAF932 Advanced 
MouseAudio
Roccat Kone+ Razer Carcharias 
  hide details  
Reply
Malice
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 2500K ASUS P8Z68-V GEN3 Gigabyte 7950 Windforce 3 G Skill Ripjaw X 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Corsair Force Series 3 SSD 240GB Samsung 500gb HDD  Samsung 300gb HDD Seagate 500gb HDD 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate 1TB HDD LG DVD Super-Multi Zalman CNPS9900MAX-B CPU cooler Windows 7 64 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS VH236H 23" HD Saitek Eclipse I Backlit - Blue Cooler Master Silent Pro 800W Gold Cooler Master HAF932 Advanced 
MouseAudio
Roccat Kone+ Razer Carcharias 
  hide details  
Reply
post #114 of 202
I really do not want to believe this.
BSOD Machine
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 6300 @ 4.80 GHz Gigabyte 990FXA UD3(Rev 4.1) MSI Gaming R9 270X 2GB @ 1350/1500 16GB of stuff 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Kingston SSD(now) 96GB WD Green 1TB Crucial MX300 750GB LG Electronics 14x Internal BDXL 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Hyper 212+ Push/Pull Windows10 Home Premium 64 Bit ASUS VN289 Azio Large Print Tri-Color Backlit Wired Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA 850 BQ Xclio 320 Black Sentey NEBULUS mouse ASUS Xonar DG 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
BSOD Machine
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 6300 @ 4.80 GHz Gigabyte 990FXA UD3(Rev 4.1) MSI Gaming R9 270X 2GB @ 1350/1500 16GB of stuff 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Kingston SSD(now) 96GB WD Green 1TB Crucial MX300 750GB LG Electronics 14x Internal BDXL 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Hyper 212+ Push/Pull Windows10 Home Premium 64 Bit ASUS VN289 Azio Large Print Tri-Color Backlit Wired Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA 850 BQ Xclio 320 Black Sentey NEBULUS mouse ASUS Xonar DG 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #115 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valor958 View Post


For their throttling 'hand slap', again... maybe i'm misinformed, but I thought that was because they were throttling suspected torrent users to try and curb what they argued was likely illegal pirate activity. They were basically just taking a leap of faith in the wrong direction and punishing people based on suspicion alone. Problem being, torrenting is no longer solely identifiable by large data usage or bursts of huge activity... 4k streaming, and a plethora of other streaming use tons of data as well.

You correct. Comcast got in trouble because they throttled users who were suspected to be doing illegal torrent downloads. From the method Comcast used, they were successfully identifying torrent downloads but whether or not said content was illegal, well, therein lies the problem.

I worked for Comcast during this period and the general consensus was that this was an infrastructure capability thing but you know what they say about opinions.

Why else would they do this when they did though? Certainly the government didn't make them do it otherwise why would the FCC rule against them? Quite to the contrary the FCC maintained that there should be net neutrality so blocking or slowing the connection to a given site was not allowed. Comcast had an easy out at that point. "Hey we WANT to do something but FCC regulation forbids us from making those horrible illegal downloads any different from the legal ones". The very thing that was used against them could have protected them.

Maybe Comcast wanted to just do a good deed? Sure...maybe.

I wasn't buying it then and I'm not buying it now. I maintain that at the time torrents were the king grand daddy of bandwidth hogs and they were causing trouble. Get too many of those evil downloaders clustered in an area and suddenly little Johnny is having a hard time getting decent load times on PBSkids. If Comcast truly was just trying to do the right thing then why throttle the connection and not just block it outright? So they were saying was really "High-speed downloading of protected material is NOT ok. Slow downloading of protected material we can live with."
post #116 of 202
Needs to be a true meta space. Every device needs to be a repeater, a hotspot. All devices need to have super NFC's. Need to quit worrying about usage caps/bandwidth, need to move product/content or its all useless.
post #117 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNiceGuy View Post

You correct. Comcast got in trouble because they throttled users who were suspected to be doing illegal torrent downloads. From the method Comcast used, they were successfully identifying torrent downloads but whether or not said content was illegal, well, therein lies the problem.

I worked for Comcast during this period and the general consensus was that this was an infrastructure capability thing but you know what they say about opinions.

Why else would they do this when they did though? Certainly the government didn't make them do it otherwise why would the FCC rule against them? Quite to the contrary the FCC maintained that there should be net neutrality so blocking or slowing the connection to a given site was not allowed. Comcast had an easy out at that point. "Hey we WANT to do something but FCC regulation forbids us from making those horrible illegal downloads any different from the legal ones". The very thing that was used against them could have protected them.

Maybe Comcast wanted to just do a good deed? Sure...maybe.

I wasn't buying it then and I'm not buying it now. I maintain that at the time torrents were the king grand daddy of bandwidth hogs and they were causing trouble. Get too many of those evil downloaders clustered in an area and suddenly little Johnny is having a hard time getting decent load times on PBSkids. If Comcast truly was just trying to do the right thing then why throttle the connection and not just block it outright? So they were saying was really "High-speed downloading of protected material is NOT ok. Slow downloading of protected material we can live with."

From all the hype related to that I read on here and tons of other places, I thought they were only doing that due to pressure from the music industry and other random acronym people in the entertainment industry lobbying against them. They were protecting their bottom line. Think of it.. music and film decide that the open internet is too big a risk with all those 'evil pirates' out there, so they restrict their content in ways that only physical media is viable... again (think VHS era). Ok, then that basically kills all streaming platforms, which bring tons of money into these ISPs through licensing and what all else. The only good deed Comcast does is for their shareholders in trying to maximize profits at all costs to the layman. That's what big business does.

I'm sincerely praying that Google is unique in that aspect and holds true to their values. Google Fiber and all Google tech is looking to be the holy grail of what we want big tech to be in the commercial market.
Malice
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 2500K ASUS P8Z68-V GEN3 Gigabyte 7950 Windforce 3 G Skill Ripjaw X 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Corsair Force Series 3 SSD 240GB Samsung 500gb HDD  Samsung 300gb HDD Seagate 500gb HDD 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate 1TB HDD LG DVD Super-Multi Zalman CNPS9900MAX-B CPU cooler Windows 7 64 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS VH236H 23" HD Saitek Eclipse I Backlit - Blue Cooler Master Silent Pro 800W Gold Cooler Master HAF932 Advanced 
MouseAudio
Roccat Kone+ Razer Carcharias 
  hide details  
Reply
Malice
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 2500K ASUS P8Z68-V GEN3 Gigabyte 7950 Windforce 3 G Skill Ripjaw X 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Corsair Force Series 3 SSD 240GB Samsung 500gb HDD  Samsung 300gb HDD Seagate 500gb HDD 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate 1TB HDD LG DVD Super-Multi Zalman CNPS9900MAX-B CPU cooler Windows 7 64 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS VH236H 23" HD Saitek Eclipse I Backlit - Blue Cooler Master Silent Pro 800W Gold Cooler Master HAF932 Advanced 
MouseAudio
Roccat Kone+ Razer Carcharias 
  hide details  
Reply
post #118 of 202
At the end of the day boys and girls..

$$$

Rules everything...
post #119 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by xentrox View Post

At the end of the day boys and girls..

$$$

Rules everything...

Pretty much and this thread should read after reading the article "We have tested caps and they were a success, now we will enforce them everywhere regardless of your usage because we can."
post #120 of 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jawswing View Post

However that said, as I mentioned before companies over here do this, in a similar way. And instead if you are a heavy user, they will throttle your speed during peak hours. I'd take that over usage caps.
I just chose a provider without a fair usage policy though.

My ISP is doing the opposite. I get the speed I'm paying for in peak hours, thats from 6pm till midnight and 50% boost at the remaining time.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [dailytech] Comcast to Users: Stop Using the Internet so Much, We Will Cap You