Comcast Says It Isn't Throttling Heavy Internet Users Anymore (cnet.com) 178
Comcast, which has been throttling speeds to slow down heavy internet users since 2008, has had a change of heart. From a report: Comcast has deactivated this "congestion management" system, according to an announcement this week. "As reflected in a June 11, 2018 update to our XFINITY Internet Broadband Disclosures, the congestion management system that was initially deployed in 2008 has been deactivated. As our network technologies and usage of the network continue to evolve, we reserve the right to implement a new congestion management system if necessary in the performance of reasonable network management and in order to maintain a good broadband Internet access service experience for our customers, and will provide updates here as well as other locations if a new system is implemented."
Of course not (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course not (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait, if we want ISPs to be treated like a utility then it's it only fair for them that they meter the connection? How much I pay for electricity changes based on when I use it and how much I use. Don't get me wrong, I despise Comcast and their shenanigans but there is a valid argument for IPSs to charge users who use more bandwidth more for the service. When you criticize Comcast for this then you sound unreasonable while I would rather save the pitchforks for when they start shaking down Netflix again for a "priority" lane.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Of course not (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course not (Score:4, Insightful)
We should be paying per gigabyte and no more than ten times the cost to the ISP.
So that's like.... $0.00001 per gigabyte for the users?
Re: (Score:2)
"We should be paying per gigabyte and no more than ten times the cost to the ISP.
So that's like.... $0.00001 per gigabyte for the users?"
While that act of moving 1GB of data doesn't consume a lot of resources once the infrastructure is in place, building and maintaining that infrastructure has significant costs. If you really believe they are gouging the world and charging 10000 times more than they should, then I recommend you buy Comcast or whoever's stock and reap the profits with them.
Re: (Score:3)
There should be a base price for all the infrastructure, employees, etc. Then a data cost at ten times the ISP cost on top of that.
That could mean a base cost with no data of $10 per month for 25GBps connections, $20 for 50GBps connections, etc.
Re: Of course not (Score:1)
My power utility has a connection fee that I pay regardless of how much gas or electricity I use. Presumably, this at a base cost covers my share of maintenance, etc that the utility needs for infrastructure. Anything above and beyond that is metered.
I would have no problem if Comcast et al treated internet utilities the same way, so long as theyâ(TM)re reasonable about it.
Re: (Score:2)
> once the infrastructure is in place
Not really. I've worked for several ISPs, and you're right the incremental cost for bandwidth is in general cheap (but not as cheap as the $0.00001 per gigabyte you mentioned), but there's always peering points that are overloaded that are very expensive or even impossible to upgrade.
The last peering upgrade I worked with charged $25/month per Mbps. We did that to help customers get to yelp.com.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, we should pay congestion pricing. Internet infrastructure is a fixed cost designed to service a maximum load. Service is great until that load is reach, after which performance falls off a cliff fast. Much in the same way traffic on the freeway goes fast until it all of sudden it doesn't.
The problem with congestion pricing is it's unpredictable, so not user friendly. It surges and subsides. And unlike Uber surge pricing, the ISP can't use higher prices to quickly encourage more capacity, so instea
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with congestion pricing is it's unpredictable, so not user friendly. It surges and subsides. And unlike Uber surge pricing, the ISP can't use higher prices to quickly encourage more capacity, so instead the higher prices would need to discourage use. How would that be communicated to the user? Some kind of window that shows the current price? Awful.
If only there was some system which would allow a standardized internet protocol to allow users to check the price of the traffic they are sending and receiving.
Re: (Score:2)
Electricity isn't metered because it's a utility, it's metered because each KWh produced costs money due to fuel consumed.
ISPs don't have to pay any more for fully utilized connections than they do for idle connections. The only exception is paid transit, but in their volume, it's less than a dollar per Mbps and in many cases they avoid it by peering.
If they were that worried about uplink costs, they would take netflix up on their offer of colocated caching servers.
Re: (Score:2)
ISPs don't have to pay any more for fully utilized connections than they do for idle connections.
You are perhaps using a narrow definition of ISP. Fixed wireless operators, for example, may service multiple customers on a single wireless link. Each individual customer has the possibility of reaching the full link speed, but only if all other customers on that link are idle. Thus, service can be sold with an "up to X mbps" specification, but if all customers on that link wanted to reach that speed simultaneously then it would certainly cost the ISP more to implement.
It seems that many ISP customers are
Re: (Score:2)
That's a job for fair queueing. They should also probably quit advertising such that they create the impression that each user gets the full bandwidth all the time. You can't blame the customers for falling for the ISP's fib.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike electricity, cost to provide is not closely related to total bits, peak demand, timing of bits, etc. The cost is primarily in the circuit itself, and everything else is largely incidental.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I might agree to pay them per GB at a fair rate if they can agree to give me the broadband speed I paid for. When I pay for X Mb/s, I expect X Mb/s more often than not, instead most days with Comcast you can expect half or less.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you don't believe advertisements or salesmen. I'm sure you're aware that Comcast shares your line with others so your speed depends on how much others are using. I bet you can max that puppy out at 3 in the morning and that would technically fit their definition of "up to xMb/s".
Shenanigans like that are why I use Centrylink at a meager 20 Mb/s instead of Comcast's promised 250 Mb/s. 20 Mb/s is enough to get most things done and I truly get that speed. At least I have options in my area, we almo
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, if we want ISPs to be treated like a utility then it's it only fair for them that they meter the connection? How much I pay for electricity changes based on when I use it and how much I use. Don't get me wrong, I despise Comcast and their shenanigans but there is a valid argument for IPSs to charge users who use more bandwidth more for the service.
I hope that do it. Charge based on traffic and watch what happens when someone sends your IP a flood of unsolicited UDP packets. The ISP will not know that and the traffic will never get past your firewall but they will be happy to charge for it.
It is strange that I never noticed power generating facilities sending me power that I did not want and then charging me for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Charge based on traffic and watch what happens when someone sends your IP a flood of unsolicited UDP packets. The ISP will not know that and the traffic will never get past your firewall but they will be happy to charge for it.
It is strange that I never noticed power generating facilities sending me power that I did not want and then charging me for it.
That's an interesting theory but there are plenty of ISP services now that have data caps and it's not happening. So while it could happen I'm not sure it would as long as those data caps are large enough to cause the sending party so much bandwidth it's not worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Charge based on traffic and watch what happens when someone sends your IP a flood of unsolicited UDP packets. The ISP will not know that and the traffic will never get past your firewall but they will be happy to charge for it.
It is strange that I never noticed power generating facilities sending me power that I did not want and then charging me for it.
That's an interesting theory but there are plenty of ISP services now that have data caps and it's not happening. So while it could happen I'm not sure it would as long as those data caps are large enough to cause the sending party so much bandwidth it's not worth it.
It *has* happened. ISP customers receive unsolicited traffic all the time and ISPs are happy to charge them for it. I have watched it. And it will only get worse in the future as more ISPs meter traffic.
Re: (Score:1)
This is sort of the real key to getting better internet in an open market. On one side you need competition, but on the other side you have to charge for use. If the ISPs get paid more if you use more it becomes in their best interest to make sure you have as much throughput available to you as possible. Other utilities are very interested in making sure you have all the supply you want, the more you take the more they get. It even encourages the ISP to improve throughput in places where there isn't compet
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF! (Score:1)
If you do - dream on!
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Especially Comcast/Xfinity and Verizon.
Not only that, since the last "increase" in Comcast's bandwidth - I'm now at 250Mb/s, up from 200 Mb/s; oddly connections to the Internet from any wifi (sorry, "xFi" now) device is intermittently lousy. It almost seems like throttling but seems to be more application specific.
All ethernet connections are fine, and wifi to wifi looks good, but with Wifi to Internet, something is broken. Reboots of the Xfinity/Netgear cable modem/router/AP have not addressed th
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's worse! $10 a month. I did plan on replacing it after all the original installation issues were ironed out, which they are.
This Netgear router is just abysmal as far as responsiveness and feature set goes.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast, fat chance.</p></quote>
How about M$oft?
Re: (Score:1)
I guess all my appliances are corrupted since they're plugged-in 24/7.
I don't understand why we put up with this (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the heck don't we just elect the kinds of politicians who will force Comcast to do what we want them to do? We never do. Every year we go to the polls and elect the same batch of anti-consumer clowns. At a certain point we're being complicit in the whole thing.
Re:I don't understand why we put up with this (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have a good solution, I'll subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
And by law, in the USA, politicians don't have to do what you want them to do.
Some of them do (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the answer is pretty clear: Because politicians don't do what we want them to do.
Why would they? Politicians do not represent voters.
Re:I don't understand why we put up with this (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the heck don't we just elect the kinds of politicians who will force Comcast to do what we want them to do?
Because someone like that would never run for election. And if they did the reigning political forces would crucify him by any means necessary. You can see it right now. Trump isn't technically a Democrat OR a Republican and he's certainly no politician. Both parties have been doing everything in their power to either oust him or bring him under their control. The reason it hasn't worked is he doesn't care about his political clout only about getting what he wants. Who wants to put themselves and their family through that kind of heartache?
Lots of them do (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
show up to your primary.
Primaries are partisan. I don't belong to a party and more and more people are leaving both the major political parties.
They keep losing in the big primaries because folks vote for the pro-corporate establishment candidate.
So you answered your own question. People keep voting for the same insanity over and over!
I think the answer is pretty clear: Because politicians don't do what we want them to do.
Bernie Sanders does. Liz Warren Does. Al Franklin (sp) did until the Dems kicked him to the curb over a minor scandal (mostly so that Kamala Harris could clear him from the 2020 presidential field, thanks Kamala).
NO! None of these people even remotely stand for anything a sane person would want. I would hate to see any of these people in office as they are certifiable idiots. And you proved my entire point by pointing out what happened to Franken. He was ousted by something he did over a decade ago! You didn't
That's only because very few people show up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump isn't technically a Democrat OR a Republican
Huh? He absolutely is a Republican. And the rank and file of the party agrees - to the tune of a 90% approval rating among people who identify as Republicans [gallup.com].
Re: (Score:1)
There are some, just not many. https://www.briannawu2018.com/ [briannawu2018.com]
I think as times goes on we'll see more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Force Comcast to do what you want them to do?
Fucking slavers. Seriously. You think government is some fucking hammer you can use to bludgeon your enemies and reward your friends.
You don't deserve to live in freedom because you hate everyone who gets in your way. You don't want to pay your fair share, you want someone else to do it for you. You don't want to do the hard work necessary for a free society, you want the nanny state to take care of you cradle to grave no matter how much they abuse someone els
Re: (Score:3)
We know they've got plenty of bandwidth since they'll cheerfully sell it to you for a premium.
It looks to me like the Mercedes dealerships have plenty of cars, too, does that mean they should give them away?
I don't want to defend Comcast, but you're making a bad argument. Just because there is more of good available at a higher price doesn't mean they need to increase the quantity they provide at a lower price.
I don't know if there was much if any "need" for Comcast's congestion management system. I have seen many businesses pay for top tier Comcast Business speeds and simply not be able to move b
Bandwidth != cars (Score:2)
If I have to put a sound bite to it though: We didn't pay Mercedes billions in cash subsidies and tax breaks to give cars away. If we did I'd be pretty pissed I couldn't walk into a dealership and get my free car.
Re: (Score:2)
We didn't pay Comcast billions in subsidies and tax breaks to give away free internet. We paid them to expand broadband to more smaller towns, and expand fiber in cities. Be mad at them for not doing that -- and be mad at your government for not supporting competition -- but don't be mad at Comcast for charging market rates for internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Except bandwidth is closer to roads than cars. The incremental cost to a packet is (almost) zero, but the infrastructure is very expensive. On the other hand, the total infrastructure costs per car made are quite low compared to other costs.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe because we don't believe in a dictatorship. Or, most of us, anyway. Apparently you do. Disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably, they are going to listen to polls and feedback from focus groups. Otherwise, it'd take more than sweet words to make them support policies opposed by 2/3 of the country. The study in question didn't find that that the rich have a somewhat disproportionate influence in politics. It found that if you aren't in the top 10%, your opinion has NO correlation with public policy.
Plus, you are assuming competence on the part of both lobbyists and politicians.
The real story (Score:2)
this is why net neutrality does not matter (Score:5, Insightful)
What is needed is to get competition going. Remove the monopoly. Likewise, allow Google and others easy access to public ways.
Finally, at a federal level, require that all local govs be allowed to put in communications utilities if the local citizens vote it in. IOW, state gov can not override the local gov choices to have this.
As long as we have gov sponsored monopolies,and esp without proper regulations on performance AND pricing, then we will always be screwed. So, allow competition to take hold and considering the importance of communication between citizens and gov, I would suggest that local gov have a real need to install the fiber, esp last mile, and then allow competition for managing it along with providing services over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have competition (Score:2)
Anyone who tries to compete with Comcast will get shoot down when Comcast drops their pants. We
Re: (Score:2)
Getting the trains to run on time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Recently after the Removing Net Neutrality decision was made (Before it went into law) Spectrum bumped its speed from 60mbs to 100mbs. And now after the law went into effect Comcast is stopping its throttling.
I feel like these companies realize how much we are afraid of ending Net Neutrality, so they are compensating (at the moment) to show how much better life is with out it. ( like how an authoritarian dictator after getting in power, can use his power to force the trains to run on time, to show the public how much life is better with him in power ). Making the public more comfortable about the process only to turn the screws on them slowly later on, when their power has been solidified.
They're not compensating (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
During NN I have been receiving regular speed boosts, and I have been tracking my bandwidth over the past 20 years of me buying internet. And for the most part the speed/price has trended equally threw Clinton/Bush/Obama.
The jump from 60 to 100 mbs was a big jump, and I expect it to stick there for a while.
Translation (Score:1)
Net Neutrality is gone bitches!
We're turning off the old throttling shit because that wasn't making us money.
Just wait until you see the NEW throttling system.
I guarantee you that every shareholder will absolutely love it.
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks to the lack of Net Neutrality, we're encouraging everyone to use the Internet a bunch right now. Keep using Netflix/AmazonPrime, and strengthen our bargaining position with them. And don't worry about us, internet usage that doesn't strengthen our bargaining position (e.g. peer-to-peer networks or torrents) are about to go away entirely.
They just charge instead (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have 6 kids. Between them, my wife, and myself I average 400 GB of internet.
Cool story.
Tell me more about your Internet use once you have 8 people streaming 4k video.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast Says It Isn't.... but I doubt it. (Score:1)
Let's fix the headline.
Comcast Says It Isn't Throttling Heavy Internet Users Anymore
to
Comcast Will Throttle All Users Now
Because what stops them? Nothing.
RIP net neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the net neutrality laws expired, the only piece of this to pay attention to is "...we reserve the right to implement a new congestion management system..."
Who will the new data-hogs be? Netflix? Youtube?
Re: (Score:3)
Windows 10 updates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think p2p is going to survive this, you're sorely mistaken.
How strange (Score:2)
You know their subscriber base has done nothing but increased in the past decade, yet they no longer need to throttle folks.
This can only mean one of two things:
1) They didn't need to throttle back then either, regardless of the excuse they used.
or
2) They've spent the money to upgrade their network to handle the increased traffic ( LOL )
Re: (Score:2)
2) They've spent the money to upgrade their network to handle the increased traffic ( LOL )
While it's very clever to say that ISPs never spend money, do you seriously believe that they've absorbed the massive changes to bandwidth consumption over the last ten years (including the rise of streaming video) without serious upgrades to their network? I can't find a good source for historical per-user average bandwidth usage, but I have no doubt that it has skyrocketed.
How their statement is created (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like every other large company.
Obviously, It's not as profitable (Score:2)
Now that Net Neutrality is no more, why bother to throttle the many many customers directly, when they can first extort money from the major sources of the data, and have those companies up their rates of your service. That way Comcasts great PR machine can indirectly extract more money from your wallet while simultaneously putting the blame on the data-service provider, not themselves. The customer will have no idea why they are paying more for the same services, and no recourse for getting that fee lower
Re: (Score:2)
What they didn't say... (Score:2)
Of course what Comcast didn't say was "Well, we're not throttling them any LESS either".
Data Caps + Throttling Heavy users = same thing (Score:1)
How is this functionally different from throttling people at a consistent basis depending on content they're transferring?
They're basically impeding user services, just in different ways, but still there's tangible impact.
Fuming right now. (Score:2)
Sat down after a couple beers to play World of Warships [worldofwarships.com]. Comcast's fucking router/switch/whatever (69.241.116.206) on their border to Level 3 to the WoWs game server has 70% packet loss right now rendering it unplayable.
Their support is completely utterly useless as always. I've played this game every day for over a year and never had this issue. I find it highly suspicious this happens 3 days after a NN repeal goes in to effect... Like many games, they use torrents to distribute patches, I'm wondering if t
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and I forgot to mention, Comcast and others can SAY they're not going to throttle but it doesn't fucking matter because they know there's nothing you can fucking do anyway since in many areas they're they only choice.
Oh, so that's something else they lied to me about (Score:2)
At least I don't have them anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Previously called a "heavy internet user," the data hog now becomes a "blessed cash cow" as the services that stream large amounts of data will soon be tapped to pay users' data bills.
"We reserve the right to implement a new congestion management system" -- a system that charges those who provide interesting data streams to users -- a system already developed in expectation of the termination of net neutrality regulations.
With a flick of the switch...
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, they've already done this. 1TB/mo cap on my data in a US city with >750k population. I get charged $X/GB every time I go over the limit. They don't want to throttle users at high levels of usage because that reduces how much money they'll fuck you for. Holy shit I hate Comcast. Good thing they're the only provider in my area (aside from the providers leasing Comcast's lines, naturally).
Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... (Score:1)
Email will be an extra add on service- just wait.
Re: (Score:2)
In this age of Google mail (or any other online mail), not offering email accounts to Internet subscribers would lower the number of email-related calls to the tech support phone lines of the ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Farming out email to a 3rd party (or not offering email at all) won't reduce your email-related support calls.
You're an ISP, people expect to phone up for assistance with intenet problems even if you're not the provider of the actual service in question - and if you can't assist them they're likely to take their entire business elsewhere.
As an ISP in the 1990s we made a lot of business offering email support for people who weren't our customers and won over a lot of dial-in accounts as a result.
Of course ev
Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... (Score:2)
If you're running email over TLS, they can't tell it's email. If you're not running over TLS, then you've got more pressing issues. These types of assessments are plain FUD.
Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... (Score:5, Informative)
You actually think your grandma's bill would go DOWN?
Oh you sweet summer child.
Re: (Score:2)
You STILL live with your grandma?
Re: ..waiting for the other shoe... (Score:2)
You think her bill is about to go down? If so, I have a great ICO to tell you about...
Re: (Score:3)
Comcast does have a $5 monthly discount available for people who use less then 5 GB of data per month.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really worth an hour of your time to fight to get it though?
Re: (Score:3)