Announcement

**Ayano** · 09-04-2008, 04:06 PM

The 'limit' is 250 GB a month. If you need more than that, then stop downloading porn and HD movies. This 'limit' has existed for a long time as some mystical number heavy bit users were hitting; comcast would call them about high bandwidth issues and arguments would arise of their supposed 'unlimited' service. Now they've come up front with this so it should be a boon more than a detriment to bit users.

Note: they haven't officially stated that they're throttling P2P traffic, but they probably will if you get close to the limit. More than fair for a pirate that can't be bothered to show a penny for any kind of software regardless of the effort put into it.

**GuruMeditation** · 09-04-2008, 04:43 PM

Comcast have been arses for a while. A few months ago they amended their T&C's to say that if they damaged your house while performing maintenance they could not be held liable for any damages.

So basically if they burn my house down because of a screwed up wiring job, I can't sue them for damages.

However, despite all these things I'm not changing provider yet for only one reason. Service.

The uptime on our internet since we went to Comcast (15 months ago when we moved) has been 100% except for one time. It lasted a few hours and was resolved by a very helpful and efficient phone helpdesk. They went through the basic operations once. Then when I called back they, without question, performed more extensive checks. And when they asked me to reset my modem and whatnot it actually worked.

Compare this to our previous two ISPs.

Qwest: Downtime of at least 4 hours a month. Lied to us about a service upgrade. Shoddy but not awful phone helpdesk. Poor value.

Earthlink: Cheap and excellent performance while it was up, but wasn't always up. At least one day of downtime a month. Awful helpdesk who would leave you on hold for 40 minutes+ and frequently hang up on you mid call. One time I actually managed to reach the Tier2 and that level of support was brilliant. For the average joe customer though, good luck. Shoddy modem. Support webpage that would lie about areas suffering connection issues.

**Facetious** · 09-04-2008, 06:49 PM

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, known as DMCA, was signed into law by President Clinton in 1998 to provide certain remedies for a copyright holder who has reason to believe that an Internet user is infringing his or her copyrights. This law permits copyright holders, or their representatives, to notify Internet service providers that specific customers have been identified as having files containing infringing material. As an Internet service provider, Cox Communications respects the privacy of our customers but must also meet our legal obligations when a DMCA infringement notice is received.

We have received a notice stating that your computer contains files that infringe copyrights of a third party. Under the DMCA, we have the responsibility to temporarily disable your Internet access, until such time as you take the necessary steps to remove the infringing files and to prevent further distribution of copyrighted material. Please take the following steps immediately in order to address this request and have your Internet access restored:

Step 1. Remove the copyrighted files. the following files must be deleted from your computer:

Title: Generation Kill
Filename:
Filesize:
Title: Generation Kill
Filename:
Filesize:

Step 2. To avoid any future infringement, we highly recommend turning off the sharing feature of your peer-to-peer software, such as KazAa, Morpheus, Grokster, etc. For specific instructions on how to disable the feature for your specific software, consult with the software vendor.

Step 3. After deleting the files and disabling file sharing, you may click here to reactivate your service. Please note that reactivating your connection without cleaning your computer first may result in additional suspensions or permanent termination of your Cox High Speed Internet service

what the fuck

never happened to me on a private tracker before

**Money** · 09-04-2008, 07:06 PM

i use about 250gb a month maybe about 220...all torrenting..since they upgraded our upload speed to 1mb

NOW THEY GONNAA STOP P2P TRAFFIC?KIIIIIIIIIIK WHY RAISE UPLOAD SPEED THEN,,,,,,,,,,

**Jerome Scuggs** · 09-04-2008, 07:13 PM

according to what comcast is saying, they're basically taking the stance that initial unlimited bandwidth offerings are no longer economically feasible - because of the advances in broadband, etc. up until recently the average user was never a strain on the networks but youtube, filesharing and high-speed internet have caused alot of strain on these networks, which is why comcast's service is sub-par.

it's like a buffet. buffet's offer "All-you-can-eat", because they assume that you'll only eat so much. but let's assume for some reason humans can now eat increasingly large amounts of food - three, four, five times as much as the average now. could you seriously expect the buffet to remain unlimited? either prices would rise or they'd get rid of the all-you-can-eat - or you could keep charging the same price for "typical" customers while charging more for the people with ridiculous appetites.

that's why i'm not too pissed. one - i don't break 100 and it seems pretty reasonable to say alot of people don't ever get near 250 gigs/month. 250 gigs is like 125 hi-def movies, or 60k songs. but more importantly - if this actually does cut back on traffic, then comcast's service will get better. and if traffic doesn't decrease, then the profit comcast makes off of exceeding 250 will contribute to expanding the network. i expect that within a period of time we will be able to see improvement. (though, thanks to government regulations, building new networks is pretty expensive - $1million to lay a down one mile of network cables in Dallas, for example)

i'm confused though - people are all up in arms about this, even though it's obvious comcast's limits are amazingly lax (250 as opposed to what, 60? 90? for competitors with similar plans?) and the purpose is to make service better. but apparently it's not about what comcast is actually doing, it's about the "precedent" that will be set - what the hell? another big issue is the p2p-blocking (if you use ubuntu there's an e-z guide to getting around it btw). once again - what the hell? why?

edit: i guess i'm confused even more by the people who criticize those things while advocating net neutrality - which would set the biggest precedent of them all - government control of the internet. p2p networks are criticized because they contain content the government considers illegal - why would the government try to not block something they outlawed? why not get rid of the bullshit laws that lead businesses like comcast to act like dicks? you won't solve the problem if you don't strike at the source.

edit 2: for the record i just found an article where Time Warner claims that over 55% of their network bandwidth is used by only 5% of their actual customers - which leaves the other 95% of the customers to use a network that runs at 45% total capacity. would anyone seriously think that it would be wrong to charge those 5% extra for their bandwidth usage? time-warner enacted a bandwidth cap and their rate of new subscriptions has dropped dramatically. perhaps comcast saw that 40 gigs a months was not acceptable and so they're testing out a 250 cap. this is called the market process and in the end you and i and even comcast will be happy.

**GuruMeditation** · 09-04-2008, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Jerome Scuggs View Post

edit 2: for the record i just found an article where Time Warner claims that over 55% of their network bandwidth is used by only 5% of their actual customers - which leaves the other 95% of the customers to use a network that runs at 45% total capacity. would anyone seriously think that it would be wrong to charge those 5% extra for their bandwidth usage?

Ah, an argument that crops up in so many economy debates.

**Kolar** · 09-04-2008, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Jerome Scuggs View Post

that's why i'm not too pissed. one - i don't break 100 and it seems pretty reasonable to say alot of people don't ever get near 250 gigs/month. 250 gigs is like 125 hi-def movies, or 60k songs. but more importantly - if this actually does cut back on traffic, then comcast's service will get better. and if traffic doesn't decrease, then the profit comcast makes off of exceeding 250 will contribute to expanding the network. i expect that within a period of time we will be able to see improvement. (though, thanks to government regulations, building new networks is pretty expensive - $1million to lay a down one mile of network cables in Dallas, for example)

i'm confused though - people are all up in arms about this, even though it's obvious comcast's limits are amazingly lax (250 as opposed to what, 60? 90? for competitors with similar plans?) and the purpose is to make service better. but apparently it's not about what comcast is actually doing, it's about the "precedent" that will be set - what the hell? another big issue is the p2p-blocking (if you use ubuntu there's an e-z guide to getting around it btw). once again - what the hell? why?

The goal is not to make the service better. Network capacity is not an issue. The problem they are having is that people are using a lot more upstream bandwidth and it's more costly per gigabyte to the ISPs then to simply use your downstream (I.E. watching youtube, email, download over HTTP/FTP). People are not happy with hard caps on everyone or price packaging because it will eventually lead to a decrease in service because it sets a precedent for the ISPs to charge more for less bandwidth and less service instead of offering better service for a competitive rate, and once that happens it will slowly move towards less and less for more money to increase their profit margins. Solution: Invest in expanding their network and implement solutions to deal with high bandwidth consuming users, caching heavily requested bittorrent data locally is one example. There is no way to circumvent deep packet inspection technology and if there were they would know you're not breaking some world records with email and youtube. The end result is the same.

Comcast is doing what it wants, there's no law making them into assholes or forcing them to treat their clients like 3 year olds. The FCC is skittish to say the least about trying to reign in the ISPs whenever they do violate the letter of the law.

Government arguably already has some control over the Internet but not enough to keep Big Business from decreasing competitiveness in relation to users deciding which web/online applications they prefer, which sites they prefer because if there isn't a leveled playing field for everyone, if Yahoo loads faster then Google because Verizion and Yahoo made a deal in some closed door meeting, without it being public knowledge, Yahoo will surly see a gain in the web search-portal market and Google a decrease. It doesn't matter which offers a better service. These companies by design in North America either have a monopoly or duopoly in their market because broadband infrastructure is limited to cable tv or phones lines in most places. Yet we see companies like Bell Canada trying to eliminate smaller ISPs competing along side it (which shares a portion of their network and offers better rates and caps). The dream of being able to say and do whatever you want on the Internet died long ago. Government agencies can and do police it when they feel it is necessary. So with that in mind they need to get their hands out of the pockets of Comcast, Verizion ect.. and keep the Internet free of discriminatory practices which are a threat to innovation and consumer interests.

P2P protocols are not inherently illegal and the case for them to be blocked for that reason is silly. A lot of people use it for sharing ISO files and such, a majority do use it for pirated content but the case for pirates having any kind of negative effects on content producers is not well presented by the industry. The DMCA is a failed piece of legislation and doesn't balance the rights of copyright holders against the needs and wants of consumers, that's why we're fighting like hell to keep that kind of legislation from being passed up here.

**Jerome Scuggs** · 09-04-2008, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Kolar View Post

People are not happy with hard caps on everyone or price packaging because it will eventually lead to a decrease in service because it sets a precedent for the ISPs to charge more for less bandwidth and less service instead of offering better service for a competitive rate, and once that happens it will slowly move towards less and less for more money to increase their profit margins.

I guess you missed the second edit - your assertion, while true, doesn't take into account the bigger picture. It is true that it would lead to a "more for less" pricing system - but only up to a point, else consumers will react by not purchasing it.

As I stated, Time Warner was the first to try this and implemented a 40-gig cap and their subscriptions plummeted. Others who inevitably had to begin capping took heed and raised theirs - to 60 and 90, as per the posts in this thread. Comcast could not miss the correlation with capping and a loss of business/satisfaction, which probably explains why their caps are relatively so high.

Nothing in the market is permanent. Sure when "capping" began it was shit - but aren't you glad only a small amount of people, relatively, were the ones who were affected? But Comcast looked at the expirement and decided it would try to offer a more desirable offer.

Solution: Invest in expanding their network and implement solutions to deal with high bandwidth consuming users, caching heavily requested bittorrent data locally is one example. There is no way to circumvent deep packet inspection technology and if there were they would know you're not breaking some world records with email and youtube. The end result is the same.

I mean yes, it sounds easy to say "oh, duh, build new network infrastructure!" - and that's probably what Comcast & Co. tried to do, but like I said - it's just not that easy. A combination of things have created a situation where expanding the network is just unfeasible. Charging for users who exceed what Comcast defines as "excessive" bandwidth use would be a small step in creating the funds that could later be used to expand the infrastructure.

Comcast is doing what it wants, there's no law making them into assholes or forcing them to treat their clients like 3 year olds. The FCC is skittish to say the least about trying to reign in the ISPs whenever they do violate the letter of the law.

That's just the thing - it's not like that, the reason the FCC is letting Comcast do this is because the FCC and their close buddies the RIAA/MPAA probably aren't exactly that adamant about protecting privacy and freedom no matter what.

Government arguably already has some control over the Internet but not enough to keep Big Business from decreasing competitiveness in relation to users deciding which web/online applications they prefer, which sites they prefer because if there isn't a leveled playing field for everyone, if Yahoo loads faster then Google because Verizion and Yahoo made a deal in some closed door meeting, without it being public knowledge, Yahoo will surly see a gain in the web search-portal market and Google a decrease.

This is complicated because there's alot of assumptions being made. First - a deal like that even being made... maybe, but would Verizon really risk a loss of traffic/customers for Yahoo? You argue that it's a closed door meeting, but this leads us to another assumption - that Google, or anyone else who was wondering and had networking skills, would somehow not find out. As soon as word got out that Verizon and Yahoo were making back-door deals like that that deliberately inconvenienced consumers in order to profit - I don't think I need to tell you what sort of consequences to expect.

But this leads me to another assumption you make - that the internet is a level playing-field. It's not. Comcast and other ISP's actively scan the packets running through their tubes to search for malicious code, spam, etc. It seems no-one has a problem when it's not level for them. I, for one, am completely fine with an un-level playing field.

Conversely - most ISP's routinely prioritize all VoIP traffic before any other data. If you were to assert a level-playing field, VoIP would lose alot of business. Network integrity is one of the driving forces behind the entire industry. Preventing ISP's from prioritizing data would cause significant harm to the VoIP industry.

The dream of being able to say and do whatever you want on the Internet died long ago. Government agencies can and do police it when they feel it is necessary. So with that in mind they need to get their hands out of the pockets of Comcast, Verizion ect.. and keep the Internet free of discriminatory practices which are a threat to innovation and consumer interests.

Here we reach a moot point - "discriminatory practices", "consumer interests". All businesses must engage in at least one form of discrimination or another when dealing with customers. It's not wrong, it's a part of human nature and a natural process of life. We as humans discriminate almost every given second (there's a reason you are at your computer right now reading this instead of somewhere else). Many of these discriminatory practices - such as banks not lending money to untrustworthy people - are, in fact, vital for the existence of an economy. But this doesn't mean you give carte blanche to businesses to discriminate - they usually do it for good reason, and when they don't they tend to suffer economic consequences.

By discriminating in different ways towards VoIP and spam, ISP's have actually satisfied consumer interests. Taking it further, Time Warner and Comcast chose to discriminate differently - by setting a clear definition of what each considered "excessive" bandwidth use to be. The market has spoken with Time Warner, and in time we will see if Comcast manages to satisfy consumers. As far as I'm concerned, my Comcast bill will be the exact same and I'll see no reason to switch - whereas being on Time Warner would have led to excessive charges. In the case of Jerome Scuggs, Comcast's practices satisfied my interests and demands. And Comcast, if successful, will send a signal - consumers want more gigs. It's a signal Time Warner and everyone else might consider and implement, meaning even those consumers will eventually be affected by Comcast's decision - as well as be better off because of it.

P2P protocols are not inherently illegal and the case for them to be blocked for that reason is silly. A lot of people use it for sharing ISO files and such, a majority do use it for pirated content but the case for pirates having any kind of negative effects on content producers is not well presented by the industry. The DMCA is a failed piece of legislation and doesn't balance the rights of copyright holders against the needs and wants of consumers, that's why we're fighting like hell to keep that kind of legislation from being passed up here.

This brings me to my last point: the futility of final law. The entire debate is a debate over many different interests - consumers, producers, politicians, etc etc. There is always argument over what the "consumer interest" is, and surely Comcast and a Comcast subscriber will differ on what exactly that is, as well as lawyers, politicians, me, you... yeah.

The entire justification of law is that it would provide an all-encompassing, clear framework for guiding human interaction. If I were to budge just a little bit on my anarchism, I would argue in favor of a constitution that followed this concept, the "Rule of Law" - a constitution allowing only the most basic of governments.

Why I would advocate that is seen right here: Because when the government does not respect the concept of unalienable human rights and property rights, they try to become the judge of what is or isn't right, or what is or isn't fair, or what is or isn't "reasonable", so on so forth.

This is why the Comcast/FCC thing is so muddled - because the government is trying to define and morph rights but this inevitably leads to contradictions. This is because these laws, far from being decided by "the people", are made by, at best, a few hundred. As a result, the definition of "fair" or "unfair" then becomes whatever those people considered fair or unfair. When laws are changed or re-interpreted, it's merely another group of people trying to redefine "fair" as whatever they believe it is.

In effect, current laws are much like the market - constantly undergoing constant revision and re-interpretation as peoples' ideas and tastes change. Except laws affect much more than the people who decided on those laws - they affect everyone.

We might never know what exactly "fair" is. But life seems to go on in the meantime - why? Because every second of every day, millions of people decide for themselves what is "fair" and "not fair". It will be the consumers, not the FCC, who will be the ultimate judge of Comcast's decisions. If it's not fair, consumers will react and Comcast will react and while the market will never satisfy every single individual - it will satisfy the most people with the least inconvenience. In the end, "fairness" will ultimately be the decision of the people - perhaps in that sense, capitalism is truly collective.

**Kolar** · 09-04-2008, 11:04 PM