
Comcast Internet throttling is up and running - mcantor
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1050238/comcast-internet-throttling-running
======
zain
In addition to the throttling, Comcast still enforces bandwidth caps.

Two months ago, Comcast's fraud department left me a breathless voicemail
asking to call them back urgently regarding an "important matter of security."

When I called back, I was told, "We have a bandwidth limit of 250 gigabytes a
month. Our records show that in August, you used 710 gigabytes." They told me
that if I exceeded 250gb again, they'd cut me off for a year.

Since then, I've started tracking my bandwidth to make sure I don't go over.
If Comcast cuts me off, my only alternative is 5Mbps DSL through AT&T, and I
wouldn't wish that upon anybody. So, Comcast has successfully used their
monopoly position in my area to strong-arm me into lowering my bandwidth
usage.

I really hope Verizon FIOS shakes things up soon. It's somewhat depressing
that FIOS is available in the boonies of Indiana but not in most of the
Silicon Valley.

~~~
shpxnvz
_So, Comcast has successfully used their monopoly position in my area to
strong-arm me into lowering my bandwidth usage._

Look, I hate Comcast as much as the next guy, but they appear to have
competition in your area, even if the competitive product isn't as good. You
have a choice, but refuse to exercise it.

The reason they can get away with this is because, like most other people,
_you won't cancel your service over it._ Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging,
and I would be paying Comcast too if they would let me, but it really doesn't
seem they they are abusing a monopoly in this case.

~~~
devicenull
Dialup is available to just about anyone, so comcast always has competition.

What? You don't think dialup and cable are competing, but dialup and DSL are
(despite the huge speed differences in both cases)?

~~~
shpxnvz
He specifically stated that he has the choice between cable internet and 5mbps
DSL, which, while not equal, are certainly comparable.

Dial-up is not considered broadband by even the lame FCC definition, therefore
I do _not_ consider it competition.

------
yummyfajitas
To be fair, this actually sounds like a reasonable throttling method. If the
article is correct, throttling depends only on the volume profile of the user
and not the content.

Granted, there are issues of whether they are actually delivering the pipe
they promised you (as raised by dcurtis), but at least the network is neutral.

~~~
BearOfNH
Maybe I missed it, but how does somebody know how much data they've
pulled/pushed in a month? And is CC counting just payload bytes, or do they
include packet overhead? What about retransmissions?

------
wmf
Correction: _has been_ up and running since January, when this was actually
news.

------
dcurtis
Why can't I just pay Comcast money and get a set exact pipe size that I can
use?

I didn't pay for 16mbits for 15 minutes. This is false advertising.

~~~
wmf
_Why can't I just pay Comcast money and get a set exact pipe size that I can
use?_

Because the resulting pricing would be crazy high, like 512 kbps for $50/month
and you really want bursty Internet service anyway because your usage is
probably bursty.

~~~
holdenk
Where are you getting this 512kbs for $50 per month from? When I do a quick
back of the envelope calculation using relatively recent wholesale bandwith
costs and backhaul costs I get much more reasonable numbers.

Wholesale bandwidth pricing isn't anywhere near that high, and back haul costs
at most double it.

$10 per mbs per month isn't uncommon for wholesale bandwith pricing from "on-
net" buildings (and now days $2 to $4 isn't unheard of). The back haul cost to
your local C.O. is probably roughly around $10 per mbs as well (admitedly I'm
going of backhaul costs from Toronto to Waterloo up in Canada) and then your
down to the local loop. We will assume the cost of the local loop is allready
covered in the existing price paid, so if the user wanted N dedicated mbbits
it should cost N _[margin]_ [12 to 20 dollars] per month more. Now are most
users may not be willing to pay for this.

A frequent way of dealing with the "bursty" nature for servers is 95th
percentile billing where by you pay for the max of what you use, dropping the
top 5%.

Admittedly these numbers are very back of the envelope, but I think its a bit
more realistic than $50/month for 512kbs.

~~~
wmf
I'm seeing $300-400/month for 1.5 Mbps T1; granted a T1 local loop is more
expensive than cable or DSL.

Or if you start with 7 Mbps for $50 at ~20:1 oversubscription and then divide
by 20 to get down to 1:1 oversubscription you can get some scary numbers.

~~~
holdenk
So the problem with 7mbs at 50 with 20:1 over subscription rate is, your
assuming the local loop is over subscribed (which if its DSL it isn't), and
the last mile is frequently the most expensive component. As far as T1s go,
those are a different beast entirely in terms of local loop costs, the
standard of support, etc.

------
jamesbressi
I do agree with the idea of throttling, but the strict cap enforcement on top
if it is ridiculous. There should be no cap with "throttling". I don't want to
see capping options here in the U.S. at all.

I cannot guarantee that there will never be a month that I don't exceed 250GB.
I used to think that sounded like an insane amount, but it really isn't when
you are dealing with legitimate large downloads and viewing media and that is
just for business purposes.

How about someone with Netflix? If you watch ONE standard definition movie a
night, that is approximately 60GB/mo. of usage (estimate is from here:
<http://www.hackingnetflix.com/2008/09/comcast-to-cap.html>) or about 24% gone
right there.

I've never noticed if Comcast tells you how much bandwidth you use on your
statement... anyone know if Comcast shares bandwidth usage with the customer?

------
mustpax
_The Comcast two-tier traffic throttling system enforces different quality-of-
service levels. Internet packets to and from a specific subscriber are
assigned 'Priority Best Effort' (PBE) queueing by default, and the traffic
rate is throttled by switching packets to lower priority 'Best Effort' (BE)
queueing._

So the throttled queue is called "Best Effort." The sweet irony.

~~~
theBobMcCormick
That's standard network industry terminology for the lowest priority quality
of service queue. See here for example:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_Service#QoS_Priority...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_Service#QoS_Priority_Levels)
Or here:
[http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk757/technologies_tec...](http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk757/technologies_tech_note09186a00800949f2.shtml#dscpandassuredforwardingclasses)

------
mleonhard
They're not throttling. They're deprioritizing the traffic of their heaviest
users. This allows them to provide good service for the majority of their
users. The alternative is to drop some percentage of everyone's packets.

~~~
yellowbkpk
Or they could spend money on bandwidth...

------
dzlobin
i am so glad to live in NYC and have my optimum online boost run at the
advertised 25/5, 20 hours a day

