[Macworld]

Post your comments for New Comcast traffic management targets users, not protocols here

[Photonerd]

They better be careful. It's one thing to limit constant p2p users but Comcast customers usually pay around $60/month which is by far the most expensive mainstream provider price for cable/DSL AFAIK. The premium has always been worth it for some because of the speed. Take the speed away or limit it and goodbye Comcast.

[JScott]

I think this sounds like a reasonable solution. I wonder what the cap is before you're considered a “disproportionate” bandwidth consumer?

[Dalkorian]

"Comcast, however, says it doesn’t actively block any P2P protocol, and it merely “delays” P2P uploads during times of heavy congestion."
Right. Anyone who knows anything about networks understands that TCP-RST packets don't terminate communication, but only delays it for a time. What I don't understand is if con-cast is this stupid or if they think their customers are. I guess the hint is the fact that if any con-cast employees ADMITS to them sending TCP-RST packets they immediately get fired for doing so.
http://arstechnica.c...-you-fired.html

[Dalkorian]

JScott says:
Wed Jun 04 16:42:09 PDT 2008
I think this sounds like a reasonable solution. I wonder what the cap is before you're considered a “disproportionate” bandwidth consumer?
-------------------------------------------------------
Knowing con-cast, I'd guess anyone who's "caught seeding" any torrents will be "disproportionate" bandwidth consumers, along with anyone who spends more time watching videos online than watching their crappy cable broadcasts.
Con-cast is proof positive that we can't trust the gatekeepers anymore. We need net neutrality!

[JScott]

So what is your point, that Comcast fires employees who talk about how they administer their network? I can understand companies having a policy about not disclosing internal processes. Do you think Comcast is the only company that has restrictions like this?

[JScott]

I think your tin foil hat is on a bit too tight.

[wardoggie]

I agree. It seems reasonable, as long as terms are disclosed before people sign up (and that current customers are allowed to leave without a termination fee if they don't like the new limits). I think there should also be a way for customers to monitor their usage so they know when to expect a performance hit.

[spegis]

This is not reasonable by any standard. What of the paying customer person who likes to watch videos on netflix's Watch now? or rents often from the itunes store, or another paid for service? The issue here should be preventing those from doing illegal downloads, whatever that may be defined as, and not throttling the legitimate ones instead. Why has no one mentioned here that the Bells should be throttled for not honoring the bandwidth they have been promising and failing to deliver for the past several years? Which 1st world country has the most expensive service related to bandwidth provided? Am I way of base with this rant.

[wardoggie]

"The issue here should be
preventing those from doing illegal downloads, whatever that may be
defined as, and not throttling the legitimate ones instead."



That is a separate issue. Lots of legitimate content is distributed via P2P technology. I am not a heavy Bit Torrent user, but over the past three years, I'd guess that I've downloaded 20 GB -- all of it legitimate. SXSW music, the America's Army video game, music from bands that allow taping and sharing live performances... all of that would be hampered under Comcast's anti-P2P traffic management practices. But any questionable content I've downloaded in the past has been via the Web and YouTube and its ilk. Should ISPs block HTTP traffic to police intellectual property distributed via that protocol? I think not.



Of course, the question now is the definition of "a 'disproportionate' amount of bandwidth". For all we know, Comcast may set the bar reasonably high to accommodate frequent movie viewer and renters. But they may not, since the more people watch content from other sources, the less they'll pay for pay-per-view from Comcast. That's why net neutrality is essential. It's the only thing that would prevent ISPs from levying tariffs on "foreign" content, such as the Netflix and iTunes content of which you speak.



Here's how it could work. My Web hosting service has charged me for the bandwidth my site uses each month. I get a certain monthly allotment. If I exceed it, I get charged extra. If I know I want more, I can pay more each month. Like Comcast, they oversubscribe because they know not every Web site they host is going to use its full bandwidth allotment each month. But since I've been using them, their monthly allotments have gone up, while my fees have remained the same.



Comcast could apply this practice to regular subscribers. They may even modify it and put hourly caps, too. Who knows? It's too soon to tell. But I think it's a step in the right direction after many steps in the wrong direction. The key is open competition. If people know what they're getting when they sign up, the free market can do its thing. I'm not sure how to handle areas that are only served by one provider, though. Perhaps cable networks could be opened up the way telco networks have, allowing other companies to compete for those customers.

[JScott]

Not totally off base but I think you assume a lot in your rant. We don't know how Comcast will determine when a user gets throttled but I bet it will take a lot more than occasionally downloading a video from Netflix of iTunes. They are going to hit the guys who's connections are running 24/7. I bet the average user won't even be effected by this.

[wardoggie]

JScott said:

I bet the average user won't even be effected by this.

True, but I think they need to set the bar high enough that even above-average users like spegls' heavy netfllix or iTunes user would be happy. I think you're right about throttling users whose connections are active and using a lot of bandwidth all the time. They would be the first to feel the squeeze.[~87343]

[JScott]

I think Wardoggie would fall under the typical user category. He's downloaded 20GB over THREE YEARS. Comcast is going to target the guys who are doing 20GB (or more) a WEEK.

[sandbag1]

If I use iChat to video chat with my family across the country, will I be violating their terms?