
Leaked Comcast docs prove 300GB cap has nothing to do with network congestion - OberstKrueger
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/leaked-comcast-docs-prove-300gb-data-cap-nothing-003027574.html
======
deftnerd
Metered goods have a long history of having to have the meters certified by
state bodies.

For instance, grocery store scales, gas pumps, power meter manufacturers, etc.

If we're going to lose the fight with Comcast over metered bandwidth, then
perhaps we need to push for laws regarding inspection and validation of their
metering systems themselves.

If they're limiting consumers to a certain amount of traffic, I want the
definition of traffic to be clearly delineated and for the measurement systems
to be properly inspected and regulated.

For instance, do they measure at the modem? At the local node? At the edge of
the network?

Does local traffic within Comcast's city-wide network count?

If someone sends an IP traffic that their computer never requested and is
filtered out, does it add to the traffic usage?

Does a UDP broadcast in a subnet count towards everyone's bandwidth, even if
the cable modem filters it out?

Does this cover ICMP and UDP?

Does Comcast's own "Are you there?" packets to cable modems count towards
traffic allotments? Does Comcast's cable modem traffic to the registration and
DHCP servers count?

If they're going to screw-over customers, then there needs to be clear rules
they have to follow so they can't just make up numbers. There also needs to be
a way to make sure that DDOS attacks can't attack the bills of customers.

~~~
willglynn
Anecdote: back in 2009, I had a Comcast account in a metered market and didn't
need cable service for a bit, so I tried an experiment.

I plugged my cable modem into a dumb switch. It had a link, but there was
nothing else attached; there was no router to act as a DHCP client, no frames
being sent to the cable modem at all. In six days, my usage meter incremented
by 0.5 GB. Plugging in a protocol analyzer revealed a constant stream of ARP
requests for other subscribers' IPs. These were apparently counted against my
cap, and presumably they were counted against _everyone 's_ caps, making 250
GB/month 1% smaller than advertised.

Comcast sent me to a document describing their metering methodology:

[http://www.netforecast.com/documents/NFR5101_Comcast_Usage_M...](http://www.netforecast.com/documents/NFR5101_Comcast_Usage_Meter_Accuracy.pdf)

Their reps defended the practice of counting Comcast-generated broadcast
traffic against everyone, even though there's no way for subscribers to
prevent it.

~~~
brodie78382
This is a fantastic point that I don't see brought up enough. I have some
anecdotal experience of my own to help illustrate what an issue this really
is.

Our ISP has recently enacted data caps. The first time they threatened to
disable our account for going over, I pointed out to them that:

\- My firewall has logged tens of gigabytes of dropped/rejected traffic.

\- That if I ran a TCPDump on our WAN interface, could see management and
broadcast traffic for neighboring CPEs (modem).

\- That I know for a fact (I used to work for them in a previous iteration)
that their network isn't built in a way that would allow them differentiate
their management and monitoring traffic from individual customer traffic.

\- And finally, that the Layer 2 & 3 statistics of that WAN interface were
nowhere close to their own statistics for the account.

They have yet to respond to that complaint, despite going to the FCC. I really
wonder what would happen if one were to take their ISP to court with the
proper documentation.

------
bbayles
I previously worked in engineering at ISPs. There are two points to make: (1)
Monthly data caps do not help manage congestion, at least not directly.
However, non-engineers have a lot of trouble understanding this. (2) Telling
customer support agents to say "this is not about congestion management" is a
perception-management move. Cable companies are very sensitive to criticism
that they are offering a "shared pipe" and that you're somehow not getting
what you signed up for.

On the first point: Congestion is problem during peak hours, not during the
whole month. You could download a few terabytes over the course of a month and
not cause a problem for anyone else, if you avoided peak hours. Data caps only
work for congestion management if they discourage you from using services
during peak hours.

There's not a grand conspiracy by the cable or mobile companies about this,
though - it's mostly a failure to understand this concept, or an unwillingness
to go back to peak load pricing (e.g. different night/weekend rates like phone
plans have/had).

~~~
pyvpx
peak load pricing? in an age where physics and manufacturing processes have
given us native 100GE signals at shockingly low cost per bit?

it used to be backhauling access traffic was expensive (think T1s to cell
phone towers). well, those days are long behind us. a little less profit
taking and a little more infrastructure investment would solve bandwidth
problems in duopolist markets.

~~~
rhino369
It's not the backhaul that is the chokepoint. It's local nodes near your
house. The one you share with 50-100 homes or more.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
A Netflix "ultra HD" stream requires 25Mbps. Even if all 100 homes are
simultaneously streaming ultra HD, that's 2.5Gbps in total. Coax can handle
that easily with modern equipment.

Obviously they could be using very old equipment that can't, but whose fault
is that?

~~~
rhino369
Cable companies can't replace network hardware every three years. It's just
not profitable. Cable systems were upgraded to broadband 2000-2005. 10-15 year
replacement is short in the telecom industry. It's not surprising that new
entrants into the market can give much higher speed. If you demand upgrades
every 5 years that is going to increase costs considerably.

Also a large amount of coax spectrum is for video tv service.

The real curiousity is why Verizon fios can't deliver near 1gbps. It's already
has a fiberoptic network. I'm guessing it's the hardware at the nodes.

------
drbawb
>Now Comcast claims that 98% of its subscriber base won’t even come close to
going over the 300GB cap.

I am the 2% !!!

    
    
        Date       Download       Upload       Total
        2015-10      419.63 GB     50.89 GB      470.52 GB
        2015-09      601.49 GB    129.11 GB      730.60 GB
        2015-08    1,011.83 GB    196.79 GB    1,208.62 GB
        2015-07      504.28 GB     56.33 GB      560.61 GB
        2015-06      398.04 GB     43.94 GB      441.98 GB
        2015-05      305.05 GB     42.20 GB      347.25 GB
        2015-04      375.06 GB     81.83 GB      456.89 GB
        2015-03      215.10 GB     65.89 GB      280.99 GB
        2015-02      316.11 GB    180.48 GB      496.59 GB
        2015-01      413.11 GB    135.68 GB      548.78 GB
        2014-12      457.10 GB     56.55 GB      513.65 GB
        2014-11      270.25 GB     76.81 GB      347.05 GB
        2014-10      311.27 GB     86.75 GB      398.03 GB
        2014-09      381.53 GB    119.21 GB      500.74 GB
        2014-08      237.63 GB    271.40 GB      509.03 GB
        2014-07      277.23 GB    388.38 GB      665.61 GB
        2014-06      213.32 GB    162.85 GB      376.17 GB
        2014-05      223.88 GB     67.49 GB      291.37 GB
        2014-04      258.21 GB    124.38 GB      382.60 GB
        2014-03      205.78 GB     77.03 GB      282.81 GB
        2014-02      315.23 GB    448.78 GB      764.01 GB
        2014-01      342.07 GB    279.32 GB      621.38 GB
        2013-12      128.54 GB    114.93 GB      243.47 GB

~~~
paublyrne
What kind of things do you do that push you over a terabyte? I don't get
anywhere near that. I'm just curious, and not in any way saying there is
anything wrong with that.

~~~
nitrogen
Reinstalling a Steam library could do it, restoring system backups, having a
large household of frequent Netflix users, etc.

~~~
drbawb
I think you're right; my housemate built a new PC this summer. That download
peak coincides with reformatting his old drive.

------
NelsonMinar
This link is to a Yahoo News republication of a BGR rewrite of a Consumerist
story that was a rewrite of a DSLReports scoop.

Here's the link to the original reporting:
[http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Leaked-Comcast-Talking-
Po...](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Leaked-Comcast-Talking-Points-Admit-
Caps-Not-About-Congestion-135577)

------
twoodfin
Eh. This is lawyer-speak, probably more than a little bit influenced by all
the trouble AT&T has had with the FCC over their grandfathered "unlimited"
plans.

If corporate documents are instructing reps to tell customers it's about
congestion when there is no congestion, that doesn't look good at all when the
government starts asking about these plans and policies.

It's also probably not a good idea to be telling customers that the network
you spend hundreds of millions of dollars marketing as super modern and
awesome just can't handle their traffic.

I'm not a fan of caps, either, but aggregate home bandwidth usage is going to
go up and up, while more and more customers are going to have everything they
need from IP services and thus want to cancel traditional TV. Should you
charge an IP customer who uses 4TB/month streaming 4K the same as one who uses
200GB? How else do you discriminate?

~~~
ju-st
There is no reason to discriminate as the TB's are basically free. The only
problem is the shared medium on cable (Docsis)/GPON internet. And the evil
ISPs who want to make more money because nobody wants their uncompetitive TV
products anymore.

~~~
sliverstorm
The TB's are basically free- until you have to upgrade the equipment.

~~~
Retric
Not really. It costs a lot to build _and maintain_ a fiber network, the tech
you put on endpoints is just not that expensive in comparison.

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/fiber-its-not-
all...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/fiber-its-not-all-created-
equal/)

------
mindslight
Enjoy your 1Mbps connection, Comcast suckers. My DSL connection has ten times
the bandwidth!

Seriously if you still have a local DSL provider, patronize them before it's
too late. National policy is explicitly based around competition between DSL
and cable, so when you ignore DSL because cable advertises fraudulent peak-
rate speeds, you're saying that competition does not matter to you.

Telco infrastructure is even still regulated such that smaller companies can
be ISPs, leading to great customer service and even pro-privacy attitudes such
as these: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/06/22/ceo-
of-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/06/22/ceo-of-internet-
provider-sonic-net-we-delete-user-logs-after-two-weeks-your-internet-provider-
should-too/)

~~~
selectodude
Unfortunately, my DSL provider can deliver me 6Mb/s. Comcast promises 75Mbit
and actually delivers me 90Mbit.

Granted, I live in Chicago which actually has something resembling competition
(AT&T is rolling out GigaPower and as far as I know we're a test market for
DOCSIS 3.1) so the Internet metering on the Comcast website just straight up
doesn't work and throws up an error.

~~~
mindslight
Well sure, if you don't have this 1Mbit/sec usage cap then Comcast's
instantaneous line speed is pretty great.

Hopefully your competitive market continues.

------
maerF0x0
IMO a big part of the issue is the consumer. Consumers know very little about
internet other than "buy the one with the biggest number". So internet is
advertised like flow rate (L per minute) and restricted like water (Cubic M).

I think they should goto a connection + volume model. $10 a month just to be
connected, maybe 500MB free download or whatever. And then you pay per GB,
variable rates based on time of day. $1 per GB at 7pm, $0.01 at 3am. Like how
industrial electricity rates work (if i understand correctly).

Pricing models will screw consumers over until the pricing model matches the
economics of the situation. If I were a startup this is the issue I'd fix;
Pricing models that do not match the economics.

~~~
nitrogen
$1 per gigabyte is an exorbitant price even if everyone on the planet was
using the network at the same time.

------
username223
I can't help but chuckle and shake my head in amazement at the script their
flacks came up with to say "we're starting to charge people an extra $30 to
use more than 300GB":

Current policy: Don't say "unlimited data," say "250 GB data, but not
enforced."

New policy: Don't say "300 GB data," say "we gave you 50 GB more data for
free!"

------
CyberDildonics
Of course it doesn't.

Cable companies know that they can sell you data twice unless you convert your
internet data to be your TV.

They don't want to give their customers the means to free themselves from half
of their monthly bill.

They have every incentive to make their internet service not work for video.

Someone who ran a local ISP said that bandwidth is becoming basically free.
People can only consume so much. Even with a fast connection no one is going
to be using it all the time.

------
rayiner
The most sane pricing would probably be per bit with surge pricing during
congestion periods. But customers would flip out at that.

~~~
binarymax
I disagree, even if customers would not flip out. Charging per bit is an
incorrect alignment to consumption of a finite resource (such as water, gas,
or even electric). Data is not a finite resource, as receiving data does not
deplete the source providing the data. The only sane way to charge for
connectivity is to charge for operations and support, with a profit
percentage.

~~~
harryh
Any given network can transmit only so many bits per second. That bandwidth
is, in fact, a finite resource.

~~~
wtallis
But if you're operating below that limit, the marginal cost is zero.

~~~
harryh
Of course. That's exactly the justification for charging more during
congestion periods. That's when you're operating close to the limit.

~~~
nitrogen
Don't charge more, just provide less. Provide a proportional share of the
bandwidth that is available.

~~~
crazy1van
The point of charging more during peak times is to discourage usage during
those times, which leads to a greater proportion of available bandwidth per
user at that time.

------
Friedduck
There've been a lot of reports locally of Comcast reporting an overage where
none existed. Neighbors saying that nothing in their use suggested they were
anywhere close to that kind of use and yet being charged.

There were enough anecdotal reports that if I had Comcast I'd put my own
router in front of theirs to have an independent measure.

Unrelated: my experience with Comcast business over the last few months has
been the worst customer service I've experienced in the last decade.
Completely unreliable.

------
darkr
I suspect that the 300GB figure comes as a result of (poorly) capacity
planning for 1Mb/month @95th percentile per customer. If they can encourage
people to stay within that limit, they can say: we have 1000 customers
originating from PoP X, so we need to provision 1Gb bandwidth to cover that.

------
nathanvanfleet
When I worked at a University I constantly overheard that the bandwidth was
doubling every year because the costs were coming down so rapidly.

So it's really no question that any cap that doesn't double at least every few
years is a business case and has nothing to do with technological constraints.

~~~
late2part
I ran a $150 million Internet P&L for several years. The general trend is that
customer use of data doubles every year and actual cost of goods sold halve
every year. This trend has gone on for much longer than most people thought
reasonable.

------
msoad
If you have to get Comcast, sign up for their business plans. The speed is
precisely what they advertise for. The regular plans have a spike in speed
when you start downloading something and slow down afterwards.

I'm using their base plan (15Mbps) and can stream HD movies with no problem

~~~
e28eta
I looked into a business plan, but wasn't willing to sign a 2 year contract.
It's been longer than 2 years and I still have Comcast, but I would drop them
so fast if there was any other option that provided reasonable service.

~~~
msoad
I have it month to month

------
late2part
Salient and relevant:

[http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/paris.metro.minimal.pdf](http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/paris.metro.minimal.pdf)

------
joesmo
So it's just about charging $30-35 more for the same "unlimited" service. I
don't understand how that's not false advertising when taking into account the
real definition of "unlimited" and the fact that you have to read some obscure
FAQ / TOS to find out that "unlimited" is not "unlimited."

------
marak830
We dont have caps here in Japan. There is a lot more people in a lot smaller
area, and i dont have issues with my connection.

I also get 2gb/s. Pretty happy im not being gouged by those conpabies over
there.

------
late2part
It may or may not have anything to do with congestion. No Internet provider
wants to advertise issues about congestion to their customers.

------
awqrre
Comcast is trying to get that cable money from somewhere else...

------
dudul
"When that happens, it’ll be interesting to see what type of excuse Comcast
trots out to defend its seemingly arbitrary data cap."

Why would they even have to come up with an excuse? They are in a position of
monopoly almost everywhere, what do they care? "If you're not happy you can go
to another internet company. Oh wait, there is none! Now suck my d*ck and pay
up!"

