Slashdot Mirror
Comcast's New Throttling Plan Uses Trigger Conditions, Not Silent Blocking
clang_jangle writes with this excerpt from The Inquirer outlining Comcast's new traffic-throttling scheme, based on information from Comcast's latest FCC filing. "Its network throttling implements a two-tier packet queueing system at the routers, driven by two trigger conditions. Comcast's first traffic throttling trigger is tripped by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes. Its second traffic throttling trigger is tripped when the Cable Modem Termination System you're hooked-up to – along with up to 15,000 other Comcast subscribers – gets congested, and your traffic is somehow identified as being responsible. Tripping either of Comcast's high bandwidth usage rate triggers results in throttling for at least 15 minutes, or until your average bandwidth utilisation rate drops below 50 per cent for 15 minutes."
Comcast's first traffic throttling trigger is tripped by using more than 70 per cent of your maximum downstream or upstream bandwidth for more than 15 minutes.
Eh? In scandinavia countries new laws will state that "the speed of the line must be atleast 75% of the said one during 24 hour measurement period". And you get throttled with comcast if you're actually using more 70% of what you should have? Why do you put up with this shit?
How can they advertise xx mbps when you can only use said speed for 15 minutes? Shouldn't it be advertised as a burst speed with a real speed of 70% of burst speed.
Falsely advertising. Isn't that what this really comes down to? It seems like Comcast is allowed to do what they want with the service they provide. But they need to advertise it correctly.
Not sure about the monopoly bits though.
ISP's should be legally obliged to advertise only what they actually offer. If you can only use half, then they can only advertise half with any burst capability added as a possible extra.
Even since cable/dsl was introduced it was made clear you didn't buy 24/7 full throughput, you bought burst speeds that were subject to the traffic of others on your aggregation point. So yes, you are getting to use exactly what you paid for.
The alternative if you wanted guaranteed 100% throughput 24/7 was and still is a dedicated line like a T1. There is a technological limitation to providing those burst speeds in a guaranteed way 24/7 to every subscriber on the network. They let power users get by when they aren't single-handedly affecting the performance of all of their neighbors, but you get throttled if it turns out you are.
If cable/dsl are forced to require 100% guaranteed speeds like a dedicated line, you will see the cost go way up, or the speeds go way down.
This I don't like, but I understand. If this happens often Comcast should be upping capacity, but as a short-term solution the principle seems reasonable and fair (putting aside the filtering looking a bit extreme).
This however appears to be a solution without requiring there to be a problem. Being penalised regardless of whether there is congestion or not, simply for utilising three-quarters of what you paid for. The description in TFA does seem to imply that if there is no congestion the actual bandwidth won't change too much, but I guess it would significantly impact gaming lag (particularly if you're hosting).
It sounds reasonable to me. If it doesn't, you may need to accept the fact that you're not at all guaranteed that you can get your full 6Mb download bandwidth 24/7. If you thought you did, sorry; you misunderstood, possibly because of shady (but probably not illegal) advertising, in which case I don't blame you for being angry. But a reliably 6Mb connection is vastly more expensive than the $50/month you're paying, so your anger is akin to being disappointed that the 120 MPH car you bought isn't guaranteed to make your 10 mile commute in 5 minutes during rush hour.
the delusion of choice and reality of choice are different things.
I have no choice of a provider that is competitive to comcast in my area, for example. So yes, I do have a choice, but it's not a competitive one, even at the 50% speed.
It also means that effectively, you may as well call the connection 50% of it's total speed. Thus, with a 22mb plan, I'm getting 11mb, effectively unless I throttle my own connection to 69%.
If Comcast can afford NBC, they can afford the bandwidth being used by its subscribers. This is just a way to increase profits at the cost of service.
Any broadband provider that fails to understand that bandwidth usage ALWAYS increases... might as well start selling tomatoes.
Where in the world did you get that info? And define 'good'. Like VHS quality? Or YoTube video quality? Also, some of use (like those with large families) can easily go through double-digit hours of Netflix streaming daily (especially in the Winter when going outside is not really an option). It's not the 1960's anymore....whole families don't gather to all watch the same show at the same time.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
The linked PDF says what is required, though in reading the FCC filing, the summary is a bit incorrect.
Basically Comcast has 2 levels in the tier (called PBE and BE)
Everyone starts out as PBE level.
To get moved from PBE to BE, all of the following have to occur
- That particular network segment needs to be 'nearing congestion' defined as 70% upstream limits or 80% downstream limits for 15 minutes.
- A particular user has to be 'significantly contributing' defined as 70% upstream or downstream limits for 15 minutes.
Being placed in BE means that if there is congestion (meaning priorities have to be determined) any delays will affect BE traffic before PBE traffic.
To be removed from BE status you have to drop below 50% for 15 minutes
I think it is good that these are coming out in the open and being shared, and I think it is a step in the right direction since they state they will no longer use a protocol based management method. If there is congestion on a network, someone has to suffer, and it seems reasonable that those placing the highest load should be the ones to feel the effects first.
I do think, however, they need to mention more explicitly that the speeds they market are theoretical maximum allotments, and to give a average attainable bandwidth if everyone in their (block, building, etc) were to maximize usage.
Six People in my house. Four Adults, Two Kids.
Everyone has a slightly different schedule.
We use more than twenty hours of internet a day between us, much of which is video.
Yes, some people do actually use that bandwidth.
Your "math" is full of unwarranted assumptions. Chief amongst them the mother's-basement-dwelling single nerd's view-point. Lets try this with a family of 4 using Hulu/Netflix/iTunes/what-not combo to watch TV, movies, sports, buy music, get Anime etc. That's slightly over 2 hours a day per person. Not so "unreasonable" anymore, is it now? And 2 hours a day for kids/teenagers is somewhat a conservative estimation (and am I not master of understatement or what?).
Comcast is a monopoly in my area (Twin Cities). How exactly do I vote with my dollar?
Stop overselling like its the 1990s
O.o
Residential ISPs provide connections that are designed for households where relatively short bursts of high activity alternate with longer periods of very low activity. It is correctly designed for that sort of application. Although more infrastructure would sure be good to increase the average speed everybody's getting, too much of it would just make the service too expensive for people who are not benefitting from the extra throughput.
If what you expect of residential ISP service is a guaranteed bandwidth level that you will saturate 24/7, you have bought the wrong service. You can buy something that provides that sort of service--but you're going to pay more.
Are you adequate?