Slashdot Mirror

I actually found Comcasts extensive Q&A's on this subject very informative - and its surprising how much you sound like a Level 3 shill...

http://blog.comcast.com/2010/12/20-qs---with-accurate-as---about-level-3s-peering-dispute.html

http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/10-facts-about-peering-comcast-and-level-3.html

I don't know if Comcast's website is the same for every region, but, at least for me, the usage meter is on the "Users and Settings" page of their "Customer Central" website.

Nope. You've got the gist of it.
Comcast and Level3 had a settlement free peering agreement based on a roughly 1:1 traffic exchange. Level3 now wants to send 5:1 more traffic to Comcast, meaning their settlement free peering agreement is no longer valid. Comcast is just trying to negotiate a new peering agreement

None of this passes the smell test. Just by public statements most of it is factually incorrect.

"Until Level 3 fomented this dispute, Comcast and Level 3 exchanged Internet traffic as part of a commercial interconnection agreement"

"Although the parties exchanged traffic at a ratio of about 2:1, with Comcast terminating more of Level 3's traffic, this was well within the industry's established bounds for "roughly balanced" traffic"

The source for these statements is comcasts own web site:
http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcasts-letter-to-fcc-on-level-3.html

Comcast does *NOT* have an SFI with L3, it is a COMMERCIAL agreement Comcast is a transit customer of L3. The "balance" admitted by Comcast is 2:1 .. "roughly balanced" ... It is clear the term balanced does not mean equally balanced. The 1:1 ratio is not being asserted by either side.

There is no last mile ISPs on earth whos users do not download a heck of a lot more traffic than they upload. It is common knowledge the "balance" is not an even ratio of bits but rather a **COST BASED** estimate of equal value of those bits.

The SFI peering language on comcasts own web site makes it clear the relationship is cost driven:

"Applicant must maintain a traffic scale between its network and Comcast that enables a general balance of inbound versus outbound traffic. The end-to-end costs of carrying traffic between networks shall be similar to justify SFI"
http://www.comcast.com/peering

An equal amount of *value* determines the balance which informs the actual ratio of rx to tx.

This begs the question what is a fair price L3 should have to pay for the honor of giving comcasts own customers the bits they requested and incidently PAY comcast to provide them?

This seems to me about as absurd as asking UPS to pay you for the honor of delivering packages to your doorstep.

And to bring up Cogent vs L3 as if they are the same thing just shows that you don't get it. Comcast is a last mile ISP, most of the bits going to it are consumed directly by Comcast subscribers. Cogent and L3 are both Tier-1 providers those bits are mostly intermediate TRANSIT.

Nope. You've got the gist of it.
Comcast and Level3 had a settlement free peering agreement based on a roughly 1:1 traffic exchange. Level3 now wants to send 5:1 more traffic to Comcast, meaning their settlement free peering agreement is no longer valid. Comcast is just trying to negotiate a new peering agreement

None of this passes the smell test. Just by public statements most of it is factually incorrect.

"Until Level 3 fomented this dispute, Comcast and Level 3 exchanged Internet traffic as part of a commercial interconnection agreement"

"Although the parties exchanged traffic at a ratio of about 2:1, with Comcast terminating more of Level 3's traffic, this was well within the industry's established bounds for "roughly balanced" traffic"

The source for these statements is comcasts own web site:
http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcasts-letter-to-fcc-on-level-3.html

Comcast does *NOT* have an SFI with L3, it is a COMMERCIAL agreement Comcast is a transit customer of L3. The "balance" admitted by Comcast is 2:1 .. "roughly balanced" ... It is clear the term balanced does not mean equally balanced. The 1:1 ratio is not being asserted by either side.

There is no last mile ISPs on earth whos users do not download a heck of a lot more traffic than they upload. It is common knowledge the "balance" is not an even ratio of bits but rather a **COST BASED** estimate of equal value of those bits.

The SFI peering language on comcasts own web site makes it clear the relationship is cost driven:

"Applicant must maintain a traffic scale between its network and Comcast that enables a general balance of inbound versus outbound traffic. The end-to-end costs of carrying traffic between networks shall be similar to justify SFI"
http://www.comcast.com/peering

An equal amount of *value* determines the balance which informs the actual ratio of rx to tx.

This begs the question what is a fair price L3 should have to pay for the honor of giving comcasts own customers the bits they requested and incidently PAY comcast to provide them?

This seems to me about as absurd as asking UPS to pay you for the honor of delivering packages to your doorstep.

And to bring up Cogent vs L3 as if they are the same thing just shows that you don't get it. Comcast is a last mile ISP, most of the bits going to it are consumed directly by Comcast subscribers. Cogent and L3 are both Tier-1 providers those bits are mostly intermediate TRANSIT.

No, Netflix does not pay Comcast. They used to, in a sort of indirect way. Netflix used to pay Akamai, a content delivery network, to deliver streaming video to customers. Akamai does this by having data centers all over the place that can serve up content faster than anything centralized. And Akamai pays to link their data centers to Comcast so they can do this.

Well, here comes Level 3. Traditionally a backbone provider, they go to Netflix with a sweetheart deal on delivering content. Netflix dumps Akamai for them, and Level 3 realizes they lack the bandwidth to Comcast needed to deliver Netflix's streaming video. So they want additional links to Comcast, like Akamai had, only they don't want to pay for them. And why? Because they're a backbone provider, peer links should be free.

So Level 3, not wanting to pay Comcast (probably because those costs were not factored into what they charged Netflix), is playing the Network Neutrality card to provide CDN services under the guise of a backbone provider. But in reality Comcast isn't saying they are going to degrade Netflix traffic. But that they won't provide additional bandwidth for one service for free.

At the end of the day the customer is going to pay Comcast to deliver that content one way or another. Whether it is directly in the form of higher internet prices, or indirectly through Netflix in the form of higher subscription fees; I see very little difference.

Anyway, Comcast's letter to the FCC is worth reading.

Level 3 is sending 5 times more traffic to Comcast that Comcast is sending back. The peering agreement has failed and Comcast is asking for compensation because of the traffic disparity. Level 3 would ask for the same thing if some business just wanted to dump 5 times the amount of traffic on their network.

http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-comments-on-level-3.html

http://www.comcast.com/peering/

"Applicant must maintain a traffic scale between its network and Comcast that enables a general balance of inbound versus outbound traffic."

Do you check your email over WiFi? Have you configured your email to check over a secured connection (hint: very, very few ISPs actually support this!)?

http://customer.comcast.com/Pages/FAQViewer.aspx?Guid=b454828c-37a6-459a-9191-2a1b0f2bb20e http://www22.verizon.com/ResidentialHelp/FiOSInternet/Email/Setup%20And%20Use/QuestionsOne/85515
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19960885-northeast-Verizon-FIOS-and-Outlook-2003-Setup -- note the quote "Server Requires Authentication should not be checked."

There are a surprising number of services that do not use SSL (POP/SMTP for email, Instant Messenger, plain old FTP, etc), and even those that do sometimes only protect the actual login process.

I don't mean to sound paranoid, but you may be revealing more of your "secret" data than you think. Security is not accomplished using a single layer of protection. Particularly not when the single layer is woefully incomplete.

I hear one of the Kings of Prussia just got cable!

ISPs realize that enforcing their TOS is a bad business decision when a large enough group of people are using diaspora

Which is why the ISPs would feel need to nip Diaspora in the bud before the TOS violation that would undermine ISPs' market segmentation becomes widespread.

and freedom boxes

ISPs' response: "If you want to use your FreedomBox, feel free to upgrade to business-class service." Even if you're talking about a different FreedomBox, ISPs won't know nor care about the difference.

This is doubly so in areas where there is competition between residential ISPs.

ISPs' response: "Of course there's competition. Our service is just two orders of magnitude faster than the 0.05 Mbps that our dial-up competitors provide."

Well here you go... I go with the cheapest 12/2 plan, but I rarely drop below the 22/5 level.

Yes, this is a 'Business' account, but all that means is that you pay an extra $20 a month for 24/7 tech support, and they don't filter any ports.

You can still get analog cable through your coax. The cable box is generally only for [...] digital cable

To free up the cable system's bandwidth for Internet access, Comcast has moved the "expanded basic" channels to the "digital starter" tier, which costs the same as expanded basic. Limited basic is probably next.

There are two ways to use Comcast digital cable; set top box and CableCard http://customer.comcast.com/Pages/FAQViewer.aspx?seoid=What-is-a-CableCARD

Yeah about that... Actually it's completely what's advertised, and what's more it isn't even in any fine print: it's in the FAQ: ...customers' accounts must exceed a certain percentage of their upstream or downstream (both currently set at 70%) bandwidth for longer than a certain period of time, currently set at fifteen minutes.

Emphasis mine.

No, you didn't. Here is Comcast's Internet signup page: High-Speed Internet.

I challenge you to locate exactly where it says 'unlimited.'

Here is the high-tier 'Blast' plan description:

Blast!®
Downloads up to 20Mbps, uploads up to 4Mbps with PowerBoost®.

• Super fast speeds so you can download music, movies and games and upload photos in a flash.
• Norton(TM) Security Suite -- superior protection, fastest performance (a $160 value) included at no additional charge.
• SmartZone® Communications Center with 7 e-mail accounts, each with 10GB of storage.
• ESPN3.com on Comcast.net.

And the terms:

Not all services available in all areas. High-Speed Internet service limited to a single outlet. Service subject to Comcast standard terms and conditions. Prices shown do not include equipment and installation charges or taxes. PowerBoost provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 20 MB and 10 MB of a file, respectively. Many factors affect speed. Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed. Cable modem required. Norton comparisons based on Antivirus, Internet Security and Total Security Performance Benchmarking, Edition 4, by PassMark Software Pty., Ltd. (March 2009). Pricing, services and features subject to change. Please call your local Comcast office for restrictions and complete details about service, prices and equipment. Comcast ©2010. All rights reserved. Norton is a trademark of Symantec Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Now you're going to reply that Comcast changed their webpage. Then prove that by citing archive.org. FWIW, in my 10 years of being a Comcast customer, I don't recall ever seeing 'unlimited' service offers.

Even if unlimited service was advertised at one point -- speculation itself -- this would have meant nothing. Comcast would have noted otherwise in their ToS and fine print. If it weren't for that, Comcast likely would have been sued multiple times. Probably by someone unreasonable like yourself.

Yes. It's here: https://customer.comcast.com/Secure/UsageMeterDetail.aspx

If you use Comcast (at least directly), you have a meter:
https://customer.comcast.com/Secure/UsageMeterDetail.aspx
Not sure if EL allows that though.

According to this, the number of homes in the US with Verizon FIOS availability was 12.7 million. Top-tier speeds on FIOS are 30/15, 35/35 and 50/20 depending on your locale. Comcast offers a 50/10 "Extreme" service that I'm guessing comes with a free BMX bike (or maybe a snowboard). In July of last year Comcast claimed that this new faster tier service was available for about 25 million homes. While I'm sure that many of these homes are the same as the ones that Verizon FIOS is available for, and realizing that I'm not spending the time to check the others (AT&T, Time Warner, et al), I think it's safe to say at least 50 million homes have something 25/10 or higher available. Averaging 2.5 people per household, that's more than a third of the country. Not the majority, but still a significant, and somewhat representative sample of the U.S. at large.

Are there any home use providers in the US that would give you anything approaching speeds where even G couldn't keep up?

The two major residential broadband providers in my area:

Comcast and Qwest

Qwest apparently "only" pushes 20mbps downstream with less than 1mbps upstream (that upstream cap is on on all tiers, how odd), whereas Comcast offers 50mbps down and 10mbps up, which could exceed the 54mbps limit of Wireless G. Note that all figures are labelled with asterisks, including 802.11g, that link to a disclaimer saying that all speeds are "theoretical maximums". In a typical usage scenario, you can flood out a Wireless G router's *actual and available* bandwidth with less than 30mbps.

There is a third provider in my area, called Utopia, but they were just in the local paper because it looks like they're about to fold. Apparently, if they sold off all their assets, they would still be over one hundred million dollars in the hole... and they still owe service to nearly a dozen (bond-holding) cities. I walked in the front door about a year ago, and inquired as to how I could get their inexpensive fiber-to-the-premises service, and they brushed me off as if they didn't have time to deal with such a small-potatoes project (interesting point, here: I am the "computer guy" for about a half-dozen households and businesses who treat my word as law when it comes to anything with flashing lights on the front or wires coming out the back; so by blowing me off, they ditched at least 6 new customers, never mind any word-of-mouth advertising they may have gotten from those new clients - several of whom work with or in local and state government - good job, folks!). It's really too bad their in-person customer service is so bad, or they might be able to hit those magical subscriber-base numbers they need so desperately. Until I read that article, I assumed they were doing fine... since they obviously couldn't be bothered lifting a finger to get *my* business...

Side note: the 7gbps wireless connection described in the article is pretty much short-range, line-of-sight only - it would be more likely to be a bluetooth replacement, usable only for local connections, probably limited to devices in the same room with the access point. As others have pointed out, 60Ghz is too short a wavelength to have much penetration at all, and would be blocked by anything more substantial than ambient air at a range of about 10 feet or so. Local devices would probably be the target market here; printers, input devices, storage devices, that sort of thing.

- kick off users for exceeding undefined GB download limits

Undefined?

- sell 25 Mbit/s lines that are actually only 5 Mbit/s - no better than DSL but twice as costly.

My advertised-as-6-Mbit circuit is more like 8-10 and costs about the same as Qwest's advertised 7-Mbit service, which I wouldn't be able to get anyway due to loop length.

Worst.
Company.
Ever.

Really? Worse than De Beers? Worse than Chevron? Worse than the RDA Corporation? Worse than Weyland-Yutani?

I received a notice that I either switches to digital cable (i.e. one free DTV box, plus $5 per month for each additional box), or I will lose all channels above 15.

You get up to 3 free DTAs, and I believe that they are $3/mo beyond that.

http://digitalnow.comcast.com/About_Digital_Update.aspx

My facts are correct. It's just that I don't share your opinion. And that makes you mad. :-)

Well, you're wrong about the DTAs.

What part of "monopoly" did you not understand? There's noplace to "flee" to.

Antenna? DSL? Satellite? Wireless broadband?

In my area there are two satellite providers, Comcast, and over-the-air for TV.

There is a WiSP, DSL (Qwest) and Comcast for Internet, plus various WWAN providers.

Obviously this isn't as competitive as I would like it to be. But Comcast is almost certainly not your only option.

Good thing Comcast doesn't operate across state lines!

But seriously, broadband access is already "lightly regulated" by the FCC. All they need to do is go to congress and get that changed to "heavily regulated" and then they can continue with their net-neutrality laws, despite what the Constitution says.

Because: http://business.comcast.com/internet/plans.aspx

As a resident in a Comcast-only area, my option is to pay more for the same speed ($60 for internet only vs $53). It's $100/mo for 22/5. Not all of us get the same pricing options.

hahahaha

You're not paying for the same speed. That home package gives you UP TO xxxx megs, they don't have to give you hardly any portion of that speed. Especially during peak hours. And if you try to sue them they can say "Well the average speed including non-peak times is still 80% of what we said was the potential max speed for your home connection. We never guaranteed you'd get it all the time or at specific times of day, so suck on it!!!"

And that's not even considering the SLA. Having some intermittent issues with the connection? Well if you're a home user you can wait for the next available tech to show up 3 weeks from now in a timeslot between 8am and 3pm, and oh yes if the tech's running late well too bad, guess you'll have to reschedule. Business users get to see a tech usually the same business day.

There's a lot of other benefits to a business account as well. You know how they like to call "high-bandwidth users" names like "pigs" or "hogs" or "selfish" for actually utilizing their connection to the max? You don't get that under a business account, period. Businesses are expected to consume their bandwidth 100%, 24/7/365. And if they don't, well that's no problem either, the sales people just figure they've suckered you into buying a bigger package than your business needs to have.

The best part of all is that businesses almost always operate under an actual contract, not just some half-assed "subscriber agreement" and often businesses can negotiate for things like uptime guarantees, damages if services aren't delivered, etc. The only downside is the contracts are usually a couple years long, so if bandwidth prices drop drastically then towards the end you'll be over-paying until you're up for renewal. The upside to that, however, is if the service isn't being delivered as promised you can usually get them to either break your contract, or boost your package or drop your rates.

Because: http://business.comcast.com/internet/plans.aspx

As a resident in a Comcast-only area, my option is to pay more for the same speed ($60 for internet only vs $53). It's $100/mo for 22/5. Not all of us get the same pricing options.

Comcast launched a similar service years ago. I think I tried it once.

http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail.ashx?PRID=228

I agree. Comcast has a blog site - blog.comcast.com. I commented on a recent post responding to the FCC latest comments (specifically: http://blog.comcast.com/2010/01/comcast-the-fcc-and-open-internet-rules-where-we-stand.html), and I was shocked that mine was the only comment. I was even more shocked when I got a response to my comments - not posted on the board, but via email. It's nice to vent on a Comcast employee.

"Minimum term agreement required. Early termination fee applies."

http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/legal/TriplePlay_Offer.html

I agree that everyone doing a thing doesn't make a thing right. My only point is that WA shouldn't go after DirecTV exclusively. Like the comment I replied to initially said, it's going to harm their customers.. who are already being harmed. What's the point? It's not like they're going to change their ways and become a "nice" company to do business with. There's no such thing.

Then I suggest you look at their Business Class Connection offers: http://business.comcast.com/ You know, if it's that important for your work. I suggest you talk to them about guaranteed bandwidth and get it in writing. That's probably one way, but that's just me.

I recently received an email from Comcast that states that they are changing their so-called "Privacy Policy" to include data gathering from all of their internet service customers.

The problem (besides the obvious)?

The "opt-out" option doesn't work.

A couple of the 3rd party partners flat out refuse to allow opting out, and the rest ALL require you to keep a "blank cookie" on your machine to opt-out. The problem is that the vast majority of sites you visit don't work unless you allow a new cookie (including slashdot, it appears).

Here da links..Yeah, you have to dig a little as the obfuscation is pretty heavy-handed.

"Comcast may work with Comcast affiliates and trusted partners to provide tailored content and advertising based on non-personally identifiable information, but you may choose to opt-out of tailored advertising as described more fully in the Privacy Policy and FAQs."

http://customer.comcast.com/Pages/FAQViewer.aspx?Guid=dfcbf43e-91b2-4444-a04d-8d7c68fcb356

The list:
http://www.comcast.net/privacy/2009-10/#partners

Comcast is NOT in the business of providing Internet service, they are in the business of piping advertising to target demographics as well as defining those demographics.

One of the scariest parts of this is that Yahoo is on the list, which means MICROSOFT is on the list...joy.

Thanks.

Interestingly, if I try to just browse to http://208.68.139.38/, it redirects me to http://search2.comcast.com/?cat=dnsr&con=ds&url=208.68.139.38. (I'm not on Comcast; that looks like how to get to their search engine from the outside.)

I'm seeing the same thing from my connection.

Doing a wget comcastisashittyisp.com returns a proper NXDOMAIN response, however wget www.comcastisashiityisp.com returns http://search2.comcast.com/?cat=dnsr&con=ds&url=www.comcastisashittyisp.com.

Also, this statement from Comcast's blog is blatantly false:

Despite the fact that web addresses are easier to remember than their IP address counterparts, sometimes you mistype an address. Let's say you type in http://www.comtcas.com/ (instead of http://www.comcast.com./ Normally you then sit and wait for the Web browser to time out, then you receive an error message that the site does not exist, and then you have to retype the correct address.

Normally you would *never* "sit and wait for the Web browser to time out" (well, these *are* Comcast's DNS servers after all, so in this specific case it might be true). Normally, your browser would get a DNS resolution failure and show you a built-in error page instantaneously. Now, on the other hand, you have to wait until your browser goes off and loads a page of Comcast ads.

Domain Helper my a$$!

You'll be careful to note that in these endless commercials about high speed internet from any company they're careful to never put any number in it except the phone number to call. So it's not so much that they're lying -- it's really more that they're speaking sweet nothings, which is perfectly legal (and disingenuous).

I have a big problem with ComCast's ads and junk mail. One thing that bothers me is their ads saying they're faster than DSL. Sure theoretically cable can be faster, but on a shared line, if a bunch of people are using net access at the same tyme it will slow down. DSL though is a dedicated line. Now if cable cos were to upgrade to DOCSIS 3 they would have faster speeds.

Comcast delivers an acceptable experience to a certain class of internet users and has crafted their service accordingly. The problem is that this service isn't tiered or can be adapted to serve several different markets. There is only one service, one market, and if you don't like it--you may not have any other options.

No, ComCast offers different business class access plans.

Any business in the same position and market(s) as Comcast would be doing the exact same thing, because Comcast doesn't exist to bring internet to the masses

As a corporation with limited liability ComCast is supposed to serve the common or public good, that is the only reason businesses were given limited liability by incorporating. See this post of mine for more.

And the reason why service is shit in so many parts of this country isn't because of Evil BigCorp and their profiteering ways, but rather;

a) Infrastructure costs are a very high barrier to entry into the market.

It's expensive for landlines not for wireless. The expense with wireless is the licensing.

b) Municipalities create a byzantine and very expensive approval process that takes a very, very long time to get through.... Comcast has already laid out all of these funds -- and it had to deliver crappy service to pay for the tariffs imposed by an exceptionally long line of government agents who all wanted their say and their pound of flesh.

Companies like ComCast and ATT were given natural monopolies, exclusive rights to the use of right of ways, by those governments. And even now those corporations are trying to stop competition.

c) And last, frankly, who gives a crap about infrastructure in this country anyway. Don't we have bigger problems, like unemployment, roads that are falling apart, bridges falling down, a health care crisis brought on by the poor spending habits and planning of an entire generation, and paying how much to bomb how many countries with unpronouncable names again? Please -- internet is a low priority for our government, and it's constituent population.

An improved infrastructure can help the economy, whether it's bridges, broadband, or roads. And the "health care crisis", if there is one, is because there is not a free market in health care. As for attacking other countries, many of us were against the attacks. Other's fell for the lies told to sell war. The Taliban asked to see evidence bin Laden had anything to do with 911 but was told to get lost. And Iraq was invaded because Saddam was supposed to have WMDs. Well I've been waiting to see them, but haven't yet.

Now I'm not saying nothing should have been done about either the Taliban or Saddam, something should have been done. Such as not having supported the Taliban and Saddam to begin with. Yes the US supported both throughout the 1980s. The US supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion there. Once the Soviet left US

Apparently proofreading has gone out of style with the Slashdot editors, since they let the summary get the pricing and details all wrong. The prices Comcast gives in TFA are for WiMAX + Comcast HSI, not just the WiMAX service. Furthermore they're the introductory prices, not the final prices. I'm just going to rip off the DSL Reports piece on this, since they get it right.

Comcast today gave their rebranded version of Clearwire Mobile WiMax service a new name: "Comcast High-Speed 2Go." According to a Comcast press release, the new service launches tomorrow in Portland. The "up to 4Mbps" service will launch everywhere Clearwire deploys Mobile WiMax -- a plan that should see nine cities live by the end fo this year. According to Comcast, the company is offering two different wireless data plans:

• Comcast High-Speed 2go Metro service costs $49.99 for twelve months ($72.95 thereafter) and comes with 12Mbps Comcast home broadband service and a Wi-Fi router. The service uses a Mobile WiMax data card that will obviously only work in areas where there's Comcast/Clearwire Mobile WiMax.

• Comcast High-Speed 2go Nationwide service costs $69.99 ($92.95 thereafter) and also comes with Comcast 12Mbps home broadband service and a home Wi-Fi router. The service uses a dual-mode data card that allows users to float between Clearwire's Mobile WiMax network and Sprint's 3G EVDO network.

You can of course compare this to standalone Clearwire pricing. Comcast tells us existing double and triple play customers will be able to add Mobile WiMax service on to their current bundles for $30 more a month. Comcast invested roughly a billion dollars into the Sprint and Clearwire joint venture -- and is buying bandwidth wholesale from the new operator.

Comcast's wireless service won't involve voice product initially, though the carrier suggests that may change. As for caps, Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas tells us that Comcast is "deferring to Clearwire's TOS on usage" while customers are connected to the Clearwire network. Clearwire's service comes with 200MB, 2GB and unlimited flavors, so we'll have to wait and see which "deferment" Comcast chooses. When connected to the Sprint EVDO network, customers are restricted to just 5 gigabytes of usage per month.

Once you factor out the first-year incentives, what Comcast is doing is reselling WiMAX for $30 a month on top of your current bill, and they are reselling WiMAX + Sprint's 3G service for $50 a month on top of your current bill.

The 3G service comes with the standard 5GB cap (making it slightly cheaper than regular plans since pro-rated it's $20, while stand-alone plans usually start at $30), while the WiMAX service is undefined. Clear has a $30 tier, but it's only 200MB. Presumably Comcast is getting a better deal here and reselling the $40 package that comes with a 2GB plan, but someone is going to have to find out the finer details on that since Comcast isn't spilling the beans on the matter.

TFA says it affected SD customers only, but didn't mention if it was limited to only digital or only analog customers. However, looking at their Tuscon channel lineups, it appears that the porn is only offered on their digital packages nowdays. I don't know much about the innards of a cable system, but it seems like that would make it difficult for a regular analog-tier customer to "accidentally" recieve porn.

http://www.comcast.com/

"Comcast Digital Voice uses Internet Protocol and not the Internet. Comcast Digital
Voice calls travel on our private, managed network -- not over the public Internet. That makes
it superior to other 'Best Effort' services delivering phone traffic over the public Internet."

Source (emphasis mine): http://www.comcast.com/MediaLibrary/1/1/About/PressRoom/Documents/ProductsAndServices/digital_voice.pdf

Boycott Cisco

I use a Netgear router, but Cisco products may be upstream of my home. I know of two residential Internet service providers in Fort Wayne, Indiana: Verizon and Comcast. Verizon has been seen palling around with Cisco, and so has Comcast. So how do I boycott Cisco without boycotting the whole Internet?

"Everyone knows that the biggest users of bandwidth are a few people that are constantly downloading things like movies, all day long."

Actually, we don't know that. We have the words of the people who have a vested interest in that. The day that Comcast opens up their records to let the public see that information is the day I believe.

Let's really start with what everyone knows:

The ISPs are looking to increase rates and charge content providers to traverse their networks (http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/06/technology/phones_internet/index.htm). Download limits are the first obvious step in making that happen. I suspect many people don't realize this because their notion of the internet is one of getting email and browsing websites. This is a 10 year old notion of what happens on the web.

Furthermore, there is a general notion that ISPs connect to each other through quaint notions of T-1's and DS-3, and that peering happens in special rooms at various parts of the internet. This is something that was true about 10-13 years ago, but in fact, the major ISPs within the US peer at many many points and effectively have unlimited bandwidth to trade packets.

Further, let's take comcast's 2007 annual report: http://www.comcast.com/2007annualreview/index.htm. They had revenues last year of $31 BILLION dollars with net income of $2.6 BILLION dollars. 21% of that revenue came from Internet access. So something doesn't add up here. If they had such tremendous revenue and really great revenue and revenue growth, what's the complaint? That they have to spend some money to upgrade their capacity?

The fact that people accept all of Comcast's BS without doing research that's readily available on the Internet, and we get self-proclaimed experts ("Bandwidth is limited! Comcast is doing this for our own good!") makes me fear for the human condition. The facts are laid out. We just need to use our noggins a little bit to ignore the Public Relations BS.

Business Class is not available to all end users

My Google-fu is failing me today. Do you have a reference for this? Is availability based on city zoning ordinances? Or is Business Class service not available at all in some markets where Comcast provides residential High Speed Internet?

In fact, you just proved you are smarter than all of these guys.

Oh, sorry, that wasn't much of a compliment, was it?

http://www.comcast.com/customers/faq/FaqDetails.ashx?ID=2651&fss=cablecard

There ya go! Just use Comcast's search feature to look for cablecard. Takes about a minute.

I understand everybody wants things now, in this day and age of on demand service. Unfortuneatly the cable industry is large and large orginzations take a while to get things through committees. At least they are taking the intitiative this time instead of being forced into it by the government as in cablecard.

I don't know, but several large isp's have beeen trying to convince their customers that slowing their data will speed up the internet for everyone. However, the customers don't seem to agree.

PS I should have mentioned that the comcast URL I linked likely has a cookie associated with it, as there was a previous page that asked for your address. If you want to verify the info you'll probably have to use this URL.

Comcast has been known to deliberately reset the connection of torrenters who upload more than they download, in effect temporarily interrupting all of their connections; The claims have been brought to the attention of the FCC. They specifically target the .torrent protocol; you can bypass the resets with encryption. Of course, encryption reduces the total number of downloaders available to connect with, and Comcast's objective is to slow the downloads, not stop them entirely, so it is often more efficient (as a downloader, anyway) to not encrypt.

In any case, what Comcast advertises is download and upload speeds -- they do not advertise a bandwidth cap. Here is some nice drivel from their website, http://www.comcast.com/Shop/Buyflow/Default.ashx

"Get on the fast track...fast! With Comcast High-Speed Internet, you'll enjoy the most amazing online experience. Powered by Comcast's advanced fiber-optic network, you'll love the thrill of blazing-fast speeds. Speeds way faster than DSL from the phone company! * And with Comcast's innovative PowerBoost® technology, activities like downloading videos, movies, music and games or uploading photos go even faster.

Plus, you'll enjoy over $300 of valuable features included with your subscription at no additional charge. Like the highly-acclaimed McAfee® Security Suite ($120 value) and the Comcast Toolbar, a comprehensive set of security tools to help protect your family when online. You'll also get the Universal Address Book powered by Plaxo®, Rhapsody Radio PLUS®, Photoshow Deluxe 4.0 and much more!

So just select the plan that suits your needs, add it to your cart, and start enjoying the best Internet experience available. Happy shopping!

Current Cable TV Customer Special 19.99 for 6 months: Stop crawling the web and start burning rubber with scorching speeds up to 4 times faster than 1.5 Mbps DSL, up to 7 times faster than 768 Kbps DSL, and up to 100 times faster than 56 Kbps dial-up! You'll get free tools like McAfee® security software to keep all your info and computer safe. And with Comcast.net, you'll get amazing free content and features like The Fan(TM), your one-stop source for the best online video.

Promotional Rate is $19.99/month for 6 month(s), ongoing price is $42.95/month"

Now, this page links directly to a "shopping cart." Nothing has been mentioned about a bandwidth cap. Way, way, WAYYYY at the bottom of the page, there is some fine print:

"Comcast High-Speed Internet: Equipment fees not included in monthly service charge. Prices do not include applicable taxes, installation or franchise fees. Pricing, content and features may change and may vary by area. Call your local Comcast office for restrictions and complete details about service, prices, and equipment in your area. Pricing and service offerings displayed on this site are for residential Comcast customers only. Commercial and business pricing and service offerings differ. Speed comparisons are dependent on Comcast High-Speed Internet service tier selected (6 Mbps, 8 Mbps or 16 Mbps) and are based on download speeds vs. standard 1.5 Mbps DSL service. Not all service tiers are available in all areas. Many factors affect speed. Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed. Maximum upload speeds range between 384 Kbps and 2 Mbps depending on the service tier selected and can be even faster with PowerBoost®."

Emphasis mine. Now, that is the ONLY THING that might remotely imply a bandwidth cap that I've seen in this whole sales pitch -- they are basically telling me that, if there is a cap, I have to call them and ask about it. Now, I haven't gotten around to that part yet, but don't you already see how t

http://www.comcast.com/customers/faq/FaqCategory.ashx?CatId=377

This explains everything about PowerBoost. In short, they do not advertise the maximum speed at which the connection will operate during the burst. They explain clearly that your connection will run at your provisioned speed after the burst is over.

From Comcast's FAQ

Do you block access to peer-to-peer applications like BitTorrent?

No. We do not block access to any Web site or applications, including BitTorrent. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites, VOIP applications like Vonage, and thousands of other applications online.

download music faster!

download movies faster!

play games faster!
 
this was the mantra that cable-tv-turned-isp has been chanting to the public for years!

now they want to change the billing model because some youngblood-hotshot-harvard-kellogg-MBA didn't realize that preaching faster downloads equates to higher bandwidth usage... or they intentionally planned to entice end users to switch to their network with the express intent of pulling a bait-and-switch on the billing model once the general public has swallowed whole, hook-line-sinker. either way it's stupid or underhanded...

here's a comcast press release specifically tauting faster mp3 download speeds

here's an RCN press release claiming speedier download speeds for videos, music, games, etc.

interestingly enough, aol/time-warner/roadrunner have been more discreet regarding claims of faster music and video downloading, perhaps because of their pre-existing media interests.

Yeah, I heard that Congress was concerned the FCC wasn't corrupt enough.

Or perhaps this is just a remedial course on how to milk your cash cows.

Every so often congress has to look like it's investigating something when a source of income is threatened. Is anything ever done about it? Not really.

But magically, without fail, the citizen is screwed in the end. Congress just wants to make sure some of that money ends up back at the top.