Comments on: Comcast targets bandwidth hogs in test

After coming under fire for targeting peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic, Comcast is about to try out a new network management approach that slows down traffic for heavy bandwidth users.

[lavern]

instead of just raising prices on high end users why don't they lower the price on light users if they aren't trying to grow revenue and are just trying to manage bandwith?

[Dalkorian]

Hahahaha. Very funny, almost as good as the persistent claim that con-cast was "slowing" BitTorrent traffic when in fact they were TERMINATING it by forging TCP-Reset packets for both ends of the connection (note that con-cast employees can be FIRED for admitting this FACT). This isn't about "managing networks", it's about overselling the network to scrape every single penny possible. It's about not having to invest in the infrastructure to carry the expanded load. It's about scamming their customers into thinking they have lots of bandwidth, then penalizing them for trying to use some of it.

[smokified]

The first comment makes no sense. There is no way either of those suggestions have anything to do with the story, or a viable way to manage network traffic.

The second comment by Dalkorian gets the dipshit award of the day. You apparently know nothing about networking and you read some crap in a blog somewhere and are dumb enough to believe everything you read on the internet.

The reason people found companies is to make money also. IF you don't like it, don't buy it. You can also feel free to keep your mouth shut most of the time.

I have lots of bandwidth and I have never had a problem with comcast. Most of the poeple who smear comcast via internet commentary dont even have comcast. Digital TV and highspeed internet uses an unbelievable amount of bandwidth and in order to try and keep their prices within "reason" they have to try to keep maintenance costs down. Buying more network infrastructure costs more money and leads to more maintenance....who do you think is going to pay for that?

Dont be stupid

[tugolith]

Why does the writer of this article say that "If the network is congested, Comcast will slow down traffic for customers who are using over a certain threshold of bandwidth, regardless the applications they are running." In explaining how it works he says that the user will be charged $1 a GB for every GB beyond the monthly cap. This method doesn't slow down the traffic, it just charges more for heavy users.

[ittesi259]

You are confusing yourself with the article. The throttling is Comcast's plan, and the $1 a gigabyte is Time Warner's....separate plans for separate companies

[McPlot]

Read the articial closer..... It did not say Comcast is charging more for heavy users, it said Time Warner is.

[Killer_KF]

Thats a bunch of BS. There is no such thing as a bandwidth hog. If a customer pays for 768kb down or 10Mb down or whatever, then they should be able to use that bandwidth all day every day if they want. That is what the customer is paying for. If comcast has a problem with that, then they need to either A) upgrade their infrastructure or B) stop offering such fast services. Its not necessarily the p2p guys either. Downloading CS:Source or HL2 off of steam is 1.8Gigs+ each. You may end up paying more for your games than retail price, and it will all go to your ISP!

[jrm125]

I agree. You pay for a service, then you're charged more when you use it effectively as its advertised.

[jeffhesser]

AMEN! if they can't provide the service then don't offer a bait and switch. If they are going to 'throttle' the bandwidth down then they should only be able to advertise the speed they will throttle a person back to. They should not be allowed to profit from lying to people about how much speed they are allowed. And until they can offer a modem that will visually show people how much bandwidth they are using at all times (including a running total) then charging a price based on going 'over a limit' should be considered unfair practices as well. I have to adhere to a minutes total on my cell phone but i can check that balance any time by punching three keys on my num-pad. If this comes to my area I will bounce to whatever provider avoids these 'limits' even if it means losing speed and paying more!

[Lerianis]

I agree totally with Killer_KF and jeffhesser. They are just pulling the old 'bait and switch' with their users, and if I am remembering right..... didn't Dell just get in big trouble in the courts for doing bait and switch things?

[c|net Reader]

I have Comcast. I recall reading that I was to get a certain amount of throughput, depending upon load, but only for restricted usage patterns. That is, Comcast was specifically *not* providing consumers X Mbps throughput 24x7. The idea is that when used in a bursty fashion, as normal web browsing and limited downloading would be, one should expect to get the high rate of transfer. That usage pattern increases the likelihood of interleaving among multiple customers on the same infrastructure, so that Comcast doesn't need to pay for mostly unused capacity. That is, if they provision for all customers having the stated throughput 24x7, they would need a ridiculously greater amount of capacity and would have to charge us more. I've been extremely happy with my throughput, though maybe I don't contend with too many other customers in my area so I get little contention.

[common_mann]

It's like coming to a buffet restaurant, all you can eat steak. Some people take only 1 or 2 8-oz steak, while others could eat 5 pieces. No matter what they eat and who they are (skinny teenager or 350-lbs football player), the charge will always be the same because it will average out OK.

If they started to limit the bandwidth and charge more for those who use more than the threshold, should people who use less be given credit for bandwidth allocation that they don't use? It is only fair to do it this way. Maybe they are lazy to invest the profit for infrastructure improvement and try to follow the trend to get more money out by stripping standard feature and charge more if they want the once-used-to-be standard feature (remember AA with $15 first baggage check-in fee).

[NWLB]

Meaning anybody that is out on the cutting edge of using the net, intensively using all the bells and whistles, needs to pay the way for the bulk who are typically behind the curve.

As soon as they find a way to make higher prices stick for the high-end users, they'll hike the prices for the low-end users, and find a means to offer less for more.

Its just a stunt to make faster speeds, that they could have been providing, seem like a bigger deal, and charge more for them.

[Renegade Knight]

Good anogoly. I'd make one tweak. They all have to suck it up through the same straw. More power to the guy who eats 100lb of steak through the straw he was given.

[Renegade Knight]

Good anogoly. I'd make one tweak. They all have to suck it up through the same straw. More power to the guy who eats 100lb of steak through the straw he was given.

[c|net Reader]

There is value in charging based upon usage. I don't see the problem with charging extra for bandwidth hogs *if* that is part of the agreement when the customer signed up for service. As for low bandwidth users, it would be nice if Comcast gave them a rebate for using less, but the customer agreed to the current plan, so Comcast is under absolutely no obligation of any kind to do so. After all, Comcast devised a business plan that tried to set a reasonable average price. They're learning that there are two classes of customers, so they're trying to determine how best to charge more of those using more capacity. What's wrong with that? (If they do charge more across the board, I'll be frustrated as we're not among their high usage customers.)

[thelemurking]

How about taking all that excess money they rape the customer for and actually upgrade equipment.

It's no secret that most cable providers wait until head ends have oversold capacity before they make small upgrades that will last a year or two until that capacity has been exceeded. How about actually upgrading equipment.

For the world's only super power, we have pretty pathetic broadband compared to the rest of the world. So attacking those who download or play games is not the way to solve the problem. Google for a comparison for countries on broadband to see just how slow we are.

[Lerianis]

Well, the 'industry' says that part of that is because those countries are smaller than the United States, and that is why they are faster and have bigger bandwidth limits.
I really don't believe that however. Most of those countries are smaller than us, but have comparatively smaller amounts of money to spend on this stuff, yet they are getting more for their buck.

[c|net Reader]

Would you prefer that they charge you an extra $25 per month so they can give you that wonderful upgrade? My experience with Comcast has been great for the past seven years. I'd prefer not to pay any more.

[tevil]

I am personally on cablevision of CT and i worked for the company at one point so yes i to know that most cable providers hold on tight to their income before they upgrade, and that is usually only after another company has already sent out the new product and it has worked.

the fact is if cable companies start metering bandwidth people will find way to proxy, share and get around it like everything else. Not to mention the burst of people who will fight saying others are wirelessly tapping into their network. this is a moronic approach to a made up problem. as if gas and food wasnt already enough now utilities and the meager luxuries are raping us too.

this needs to end, people need to hippy up and start rallying liek the 70's. this is just a lrge company trying to pull one over on the little person hidden in the midst of a larger global issue. people please just start throwing rocks through their windows.

[Lerianis]

I have to agree. It is about time that we started protesting against these companies and telling them what we think of their 'limitations' on a service that we are paying 60 dollars a month for.

[Some Techie]

I get it, so now that they have driven all the competition out of business with promises they could not deliver on long term, they are changing the rules.

The promise of big bandwidth and unlimited downloads they used to gut the competition has now come full circle and the reality is they cannot deliver on the promise.

Every industry has its abusers, most put limitations on their promises. Most buffets have an asterisk that indicates you cannot eat more than a reasonable amount, you cannot sit and wait for dinner after having eaten lunch. I always thought it fool hardy to promise unlimited downloads at 8Mbps and turns out it is. Rather they should have competed fairly as it seems TWC has chosen to do. Clear guidelines of what is acceptable. Download more than 40GB and you get charged for usage. The concept of rate limiting after an unspecified threshold is an unfair practice. It does not allow the consumer to make an intelligent decision on what service they should select. It is arbitrary and confusing.

What about the customers that have paid extra to have a higher level of service? will they too now receive the standard transfer rate or worse because they were actually using the service? This seems absurd, I pay more for a better transfer rate, but as soon as I use it you will degrade it?

Give me a break. The ISP industry is so rife these days with unfair anti-competitive business practices. The consumer is taking it in the shorts.

[Lerianis]

You miss the point, Some Techie. Frankly, with the 55 dollars that TWC is asking for 40GB (which is EXTREMELY FREAKING LOW), you should be unlimited in the amount of GB's per month you can use, or at least have 5-6 times that amount.

[c|net Reader]

I agree that rate limiting is wrong. Capacity tiers seem reasonable, however.

[fgsdfgdsfgdsfg]

one word..... FIOS

[Mikeg626]

What are they thinking? Is it their business plan to force everyone to a different provider? Do they think that slower Internet is the future?

http://injoke.org/2008/06/04/comcast-slower-internet-is-the-future/

[askermana271275]

This is dum. This just gives me another reason to switch to Verizon high speed internet.

[zeroplane]

Comcast!

It's Craptastic!

Seriously, come this fall I am dumping Cable for good. I plan to get FIOS and watch TV and movies via NetFlix (http://www.netflix.com/BrowseSelection?sgid=gev) not to mention the many online directories with free content (http://wwitv.com/portal.htm) and of course you can watch episodes on many major network's websites too.

I am lucky because I already have a cheap (under $200) PC I made connected to my entertainment system. So I can watch streaming media, surf the web, and play video games from the comfort of my living room. Add to that a PS3 with Blu-ray and upscaled DVDs and I will be set.

Forget playing $160/mth for cable/internet/VOIP with Comcrap I will use FIOS with maybe Vonage or similar service for only $65/mth.

[cbaisa]

god do i hate comcast. my roommates have had comcast since they were little kids. so when it came time for us to pick who we were going to get our tv from they of course said comcast. this isn't because comcast is more competitive than other services but because since they were kids they've been brainwashed by the anti-satellite commercials shown on comcast's service. Reason, me and my research, were voted out and comcast came into our home. now i have to deal with the crappy third world DVR they gave us and the slow unreliable internet that my roommates "trusted." maybe if the united states wasn't 14th in the world internet speed rankings maybe this wouldn't be a problem! maybe i should move to portugal, italy, or NEW ZEALAND where the internet is faster! superpower my a**.

[joriz17]

I don't like comcast but like many of you, I'm stuck with it just bec they are the only ones who offer such service in our area...I just wish other players AT&T / Verizon FIOS will be fast enough to reach every area where comcast is. I hope there's no legal impediment to that...

If comcast is running out of bandwidth, upgrade all your network to 10G. You promised us this. You never mentioned anything like this when we subscribed to you....you suck comcast..

[brandonh33]

All this talk of rape... it scares me! And that "Comcast, its Craptastic!", that was good haha. On a more serious note though comcast was not providing me anywhere close to the internet I was paying for with max speeds of 100KBPS. They gave me the old "its not us, its the server the info is on" excuse, as if every server in the world cant put out download past 100KBPS at 2 in the morning. This issue went on for 2 years (comcast is my only choice for internet). When they finally fixed my issue I called up to say thank you and they angrily denied that anything was ever their fault. Its wierd, but i think in order to get a job with comcast you have to be a huge fanboy.

[tekwiz4u]

God....when is the f**&^ penny pinching going to stop? I somehow knew this day would come, but this is REALLY pushing it. I'm certainly NOT going to pay for metered service, knowing that there are spyware and bots out there, and its certainly NOT fair to the non-computer savvy user that HAS spyware/malware/bots installed and is contantly shooting out stuff that they dont know about. Imagine the surprise getting the bill knowing you get chard for overages you dont know about. TW...what about people who use music/video streaming services? Don't you think you'll destroy companies that users cant afford signing up to Netflix to watch streaming movies? The internet is FREE. Stick with the FLAT unlimited rate that people are accustomed to and stop this pathetic greed !!!!

[Ushiikun]

I can already see the Anticompetitive Lawsuits. XBox Live Marketplace, NetFlix, PS3 Home Network, etc. that offer movies for download will try to stop the metering. Who is going to download\stream a movie\tv show, when the customer is going to have to not only pay for the media, but the "excessive" bandwidth that they use? Since TW and Comcast are cable companies as well, the lawsuits may actually have a chance (I'm not a lawyer, but it makes sense to me).

[mpitogo]

craptastic is right! I pay for RoadRunner Extreme 20Mbps down and 1Mbps up. It costs about $70/mo but I need that both for work and for my media. I download a HD movies and other content form iTunes. Putting in a cap would hurt.

[dxterra]

I agree that there are some users that are using way too much bandwidth. They are usually up to no good. Charging them more might make more sense.
However, why aren't ISPs looking at increasing capacity? The internet is not getting smaller.

[GrandpaN1947]

Apparently Comcast won't upgrade their systems to keep up with growing demand and now must find a way to keep up. I saw this happen with the satalite tv , satalite pc, and now cable pc. This isn't food or water, move to a provider that doesn't throttle back your usage. Send Comcast a message now.

[aamirshah1]

""What are they thinking? Is it their business plan to force everyone to a different provider? Do they think that slower Internet is the future?""
Yes man i guess you are write.
http://www.searchnani.com