Heavy Internet users unplugged by US cable company

Originally posted by scientist


"there is a good chance it's porn.
i am talking about all of the people on all of the net..."

i still stand by that too.
does not change the fact that there are many legit and legal reasons.

both are possible you know.

maybe we should take an ATS poll

not a big deal

That does seem extreme in some cases but here in Australia and New Zealand, you have to get plans that are severely capped from 2Gig to 90Gig a month and you pay from $80 to $180 per month for the privilege. And the speeds are not even close to what other countries offer. I travel throughout Europe and the US and I'm always in heaven to be able to download what I want at great speeds for $30 per month...

I guess with anything else, there are always the few that screw it up for everyone!!

North America along with most of the world are lagging behind Asia when it comes to internet access. I guess we will have to move to Asia to get our fast internet.

www.internetworldstats.com...

Originally posted by scientist
im not disagreeing with you on this.

expensive? yes.
complex? yes.
overkill (more than necessary)? yes.
was it promised anyways, despite these point already being brought up before the plan was announced? yes. to the tune of $200 billion or so.

Now when we talk about expensive, that sounds about accurate. The problem is, we were scammed. Now it will be on the back of the consumers to develop the networks (by paying more for less).

Again, are we really disagreeing on anything? I agree it's not the best plan, and expensive - but that is not my point!

I got your point about 5 posts ago and addressed it. I addressed it again in every post. I have given you reasons why you will never see fibre in your home. What you were promised at the height of the dot com boom is unlikely to hapen these day's. There just isn't the money.

The firm I work for is one of the largest in the world and we only made around $300 million pre-tax profits globally.

EDIT: Also, I am dubious about this claim of $200 BILLION dollars given to Telco's by the US Government. With that money, you could fibre the world twice over....



[edit on 12/9/07 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
I am dubious about this claim of $200 BILLION dollars given to Telco's by the US Government. With that money, you could fibre the world twice over....

that number is quite valid, in fact here is an article from PBS from Monday that I just found! Also, I never said they were "given" $200 billion. That's not how it works, stop adding little words here and there, it may be helpful to use direct quotes, as you seem to be mixing things up with your paraphrasing.

www.pbs.org...

I got your point about 5 posts ago and addressed it. I addressed it again in every post. I have given you reasons why you will never see fibre in your home.

I still haven't said I'm expecting fibre to homes. If I did, please refer me to that post and I will admit I was mistaken. I already looked, and I'm positive that I never said that - mainly because I don't believe it either. Thanks for emphasizing this point. It would have been just as useful to "convince" me that using a hybrid of gold and cans on strings would not work.

What I said from the very beginning was a hybrid system.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by scientist]

[edit on 12-9-2007 by scientist]

Originally posted by scientist
I still haven't said I'm expecting fibre to homes. If I did, please refer me to that post and I will admit I was mistaken. I already looked, and I'm positive that I never said that - mainly because I don't believe it either. Thanks for emphasizing this point. It would have been just as useful to "convince" me that using a hybrid of gold and cans on strings would not work.

What I said from the very beginning was a hybrid system.

Which is what we have and have had since the 1990's....

yes, the problem is it hasn't been improved by 200 billion worth. Not even close to that.

Originally posted by scientist
yes, the problem is it hasn't been improved by 200 billion worth. Not even close to that.

Networks have been massively improved since the 90's, not sure what makes you think otherwise.

Admittedly, I doubt 200 billion was spent, but remember, the bubble burst and mnost telco's either went bankrupt or had to merge to survive.

[edit on 12/9/07 by stumason]

FINALLY, Something I'm an expert in!!!!

O.k., Cable companies use a standard called D.O.C.S.I.S. This standard basically says how cable modems work on a hybrid fiber-coaz network. This standard also has caps on them. That being said DOCSIS also dictates that there has to be caps on the modem.

When a cable modem first comes online, it goes through whats called DHCP. Basically this is a handshaking process where the modem broadcasts out, saying I'm over here. The server responds saying, yea, what do you want. Modem says I want online, server says o.k., let me check billing, o.k. that checks out, heres a config file, modem says o.k. thanks.

That config file is known as a TFTP file. It has the parameters dictacted by billing as to what speeds the modem needs to have, and what server it needs to go to to have the client get an ip. Client being your computer(router).

Now then. Back in the day, there was a big stink about comcast rolling out servers that monitored bandwidth. Can't remember the name of it, but Adelphia also started to secretly roll it out. THankfully, Adelphia Techs didn't know how to configure it properly, so they backed off it. Basically, it wound up doing so much monitoring, that it slowed the people that it was monitoring so bad, that they took it out.

As far as FTTH goes(Fiber To The Home) This is a VERY feasible thing for the telephone companies to do in the cities of the U.S. That being said, Cable companies are not going to do it. DOCSIS is rolling out a new standard DOCSIS 3, which Significantly changes how the way that the frequency spectrum is broken up, basically pushing through more data tighter frequencies. This in turn will allow them to provide larger bandwidth between the home and the CMTS(where it turns into fiber).

This being said, if your paying for 8 meg, and your only getting 1meg, check your signal levels on the modem. 192.168.100.1..., most modems have an internal page that tells you what the signals are. Docsis states that they should be:
upstream - 8 to 58 ---looks good at around 45
downstream - 0 +- 15 ---- closer to 0 the better
Downstream SNR - 27 - 35.

I would type more but my wife wants me off this to go grocery shopping.

Regards,

Camain

I'm out in the sticks, and am lucky enough to be in an area where I can (finally) get my hands on Sprints EVDO service.

I'm not running servers (externally available) on it, but in my profession I do tend to transfer in the neighborhood of 15G-20G a month.

Thus far *knocks on wood* I haven't had any problems at all.

I was tempted by Verizon's network (I really hate Sprint), but while their plan says unlimited, in the "fine print" it says 5G/mo max.

Kind of reminds me of those "web hosts" that "promise" you a ton of space and bandwidth a month. Yeah, OK. Use it and you're kicked off for some reason they come up with from their TOS.

This sounds no different than what Comcast is doing. That being that they're playing the percentages. "Most" users (70% or so) won't use much bandwidth, maybe 25% will use a bit more, and then the rest will be "dealt with".

It sucks, but that "business" these days. Promise the moon, until a user actually wants it.

Note, if a small business tried half the tactics these corporate mongers did, they'd be out of business and with a quickness.

reply to post by Beachcoma



I work for an ISP in Moses Lake, WA. We provide internet over our local fiber network as well as wireless broadband. We state very clearly there is a 15gig transfer limit monthly. That is an enormous amount of bandwidth. 99% of our users do not even come close. I see that everyone is talking about Comcast. Does it state ANYWHERE in the fine print about bandwidth usage? I use Qwest DSL at my house and I think they even state a limit if you read deep enough.

Brian J. Preston
Moses Lake, WA

Originally posted by malganis
Have you ever actually used BitTorrent for yourself? Trust me, you can use it to download movies/music/software illegally for free, as thousands of people do. It is a P2P file sharing client.

You can use FTP to download illegal content as well. Telnet can be used for that as well, as can HTTP! Hell I've even heard some people are now using GMail accounts to distribute their warez. Just because one protocol at the time is the most popular, doesn't give people the right to automatically assume that since I use BT then I MUST be breaking the law. That's like Banning 5.8 GHz phones because a terrorist has figured out how to turn it into a medium range detonator.

i don't have comcast but i believe they are about to take over the tiny isp company that is here. i've heard nothing but bad reports about comcast since they took over here. like making you pay for the preview guide??? this even tops that. my network is up 24/7 3 computers, ps2 online, psp (updates, game demos, movie clips.) ps3(also frequent updates, movie clips, game demos, not to mention online gaming. we don't have HD here so i wait till it's availabe legally after the show airs. then dl the HD version. there is huge amounts of data coming and going from my house. i only get 3MB of bandwidth. the speed is terrible but they havn't shut anyone off. as it's been said (UNLIMITED ACCESS). this has got to stop. these people need to get those jack***es to court. just to get an idea of how much bandwidth HD uses. a one hour show which is about 45 minutes -commercials at 720p is about 2GB. 1080p is almost twice that.

Originally posted by camain
As far as FTTH goes(Fiber To The Home) This is a VERY feasible thing for the telephone companies to do in the cities of the U.S. That being said, Cable companies are not going to do it. DOCSIS is rolling out a new standard DOCSIS 3, which Significantly changes how the way that the frequency spectrum is broken up, basically pushing through more data tighter frequencies. This in turn will allow them to provide larger bandwidth between the home and the CMTS(where it turns into fiber).

Admittedly, I know little about software side of things, but on the flip side, I question your networking knowledge.

I've read up on DOCSIS and it would appear to be specifically relating to the use of wavelengths when using the same cable network that broadcasts TV as well as broadband internet access from the head end. The actual core networks, regardless what is being pumped over it, are set up the same.

Albeit, you Yanks have to be different and where the rest of the world uses SDH architecture, the US uses a slightly different standard called SONET. Same thing, just slightly different way's of working. Your basic unit is 1.54 Mb/s whereas in europe, it is 2.048 Mb/s. The higher order transmission packages are just multiples of these units.

Fibre into homes is unnecessary and expensive. Utilising existing coaxial connections into homes (assuming you have a cable connection), one can squeeze alot more down it. Electrical connections can support up too 140 Mb/s. Also, at least in the UK, the networks are fibred from the DP (street cabinet) where there will be a multiplexor to transmit data up and down in STM-1's for broadcast to the head end where larger mux's will package it up for the core network.

Assuming you had fibre into home, not only would you need new equipment at home that could turn optical signals into electrical, but you would also need to replace all the corresponding electrical terminating equipment at exchange sites into optical. A huge, expensive logistical task that, in all honesty, will not happen in the near to medium future.

As far as the CORE network goes, yes, all cable companies use fiber optics. DOCSIS standards only apply to the equipment that is digitized going through the headend. Be it, the HDTV, Digital channels, Phone service, Security, or Phone. All of it has to adere to DOCSIS in that regard. As far as the standard cable goes, it doesn't. Thats usually the reason why you can have fuzzy channels on these, vs Digital, which basically is either there or not not. As far as how this is applied at the cable side of things. I admit, as far as networking goes, I am not an expert. I do know though that the ISP's that I used to work for, did use Sonet alot, as well as BGP, and OSPF. In Europe, last I saw, there was a EuroDOCSIS which had slightly different configs then the U.S. DOCSIS.

As far as FTTH, I still say that you will see this in the large cities. A cable company puts $1000 in a customers house for equipment, Cable modem- $100, Digital recorder- $400, standard digital box, $150. These numbers quickly add up. Because the cable companies are now starting to compete(in the U.S.) with the phone companies, the phone companies are starting to loose a light profit from this. Notice, I say a little, Only because all of the Cable companies use the phone companies as back end support. (they just make there money a little differently). Regardless, because of this, the phone companies want it all to be on there network. Meaning, Phone, TV, and internet, and they want it through one pipe. This is why several phone companies have rolled this service out. You won't see it in the sticks, only in the cities, and only in the most affluent neighborhoods.

As far as The RIAA and the MPA goes, you don't get introuble from downloading. You get in trouble from sharing copyrighted material. This is how is works. Both companies use outsourced 3rd parties to prowl around and look for there content they control. Lets take edonkey as an example. The go on there, do a search for a file(Star Wars 3) and start downloading it. Well, as there downloading it, from you, who happen to be a star wars junkie, as the data that is being transferred is being transferred via TCP/IP ( another protocol). The Protocol, basically states that every packet has an id tagged to it, and that theres a return address on it(which is your IP address.) Anyone that is on the internet has an IP address. These IP's are handed out to you from the ISP. Now then. They do whats called packet sniffing, on there network, basically ripping the data that your transferring to them apart, and get your IP address.

On a cable network, This IP address is bound to a specific device, through your MAC address. Every device that gets on the internet has one. This is basically something similar to a serial number of the device, be it dial up modem, network card, router, etc.

This being said, they turn your IP over the MPAA, which in turn lodges a complaint with the ISP stating that IP 24.24.24.24(ex) was sharing (blah) on such and such day. We want that person. The ISP looks on the CMTS for the ip, which correlates back to the machine address of your NIC. The NIC mac address ties back to your cable modem, the Cable modem goes back to your account, and WHAM, you just go fingered.

This being said Of the 3 cable ISP's that I worked for, only one had the capability to go back, look at the IP, and see who had it on a specific date, VS currently having it. The other 2 ISPs, which I won't name, if I was being sued by the RIAA or MPAA, I would fight them tooth and nail. the 1 that coule track, could only track back a month, so if the supena came after that mark, then they would be just as unreliable.

This is the reason why I use newsgroups vs filesharing. While you do have added expense with most decent newsgroups, You either A) settling with these pricks, or B) Fighting them, costs alot more. They have enough money to keep you in court for a VERY long time, and loosing your case could cost

If it was profitable in America to put in these high speed networks, those foreign firms would be doing it.

Americas average of like 1.6 mbps vs like 56 mbps about made me fall off my chair. I didnt know it was that far out.

In any case, there is really nothing pushing our American Industry for faster speeds as of yet.

On another not, I read that the rule of thumb by Comcast is 1000 songs and 4 full lenth Movie downloads before you get warned, and then its 1 month of warning for you to stop it.

While I dont find this a bad policy, I guess we could go back to node regulated speed in which everyone has a max speed limited to say 2 megs instead of 6 and just slow everyone down.

Thoughts?

peace

[edit on 21-9-2007 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 21-9-2007 by HIFIGUY]

...and the control of the land of the free starts by limiting their internet usage.

Lucky buggers.
I have to put up with a high latency satellite connection, as the only other alternative is dialup through a cell tower. 1.5Mb down and 256k up, 17 gig limit per month and at a cost of $80 per and $400 for equipment and install.
Have a fiber trunk 1.5 miles away, but SBC (or whoever they are today) has no intention of running fiber into town. We had a guy providing wireless @ 1.5 off of a couple T1 lines, but as he was a business idiot, went out of business. I can see no reason why the telco can't just put up a small shed by the trunk and provide a 54Mb wireless connection that around 3000 people would take advantage of. I have installed and setup several wireless systems here, for both business and home use, so I know how simple it is, even off a cisco and T1. Even with a few thousand people spread out over 25 miles or so, a small parabolic antenna, or cannon is all that is needed for reception, and the server antenna is cheap in comparison to a wired system.
With 4 computers, 2 psp's a ps2 and a ps3 on my home network, 17 gigs can go in a hurry----music, pictures, TV, gaming, podcasts, surfing by several people eat it up rapidly.
I would glady pay $100 per for a 5 Mb connection that I didn't have to wait a second to 1.5 seconds for the signal to go up to the satellite and back down, as currently, fast action gaming, webcams, and voip just doesn't work.

Originally posted by Beachcoma


I have a real problem with these sort of actions. I'm not sure how it is in the US, but in Malaysia, the largest ISP, TM Net, has promised "unlimited access" and bandwidth that is determined by how much we pay monthly.

yep, i actually brought up the Com-Cast situation in a post reply on another thread Yesterday....

but here's the Rrrrub!
the ISP is providing 'Unlimited Access'... (as they promised)
Access is not to be confused with useage & bandwidth...

litigation is the ultimate solution,

being the CT guy i am,
i sincerely believe that my ISP purposely constricts my freeflow of
HTTP, but that they don't selective punish me....
they have what they may term a 'denial-of-service' episode.
(funny how these consistantly happen around 9 AM daily)

and play the 'What Me' card, as hundreds or even thousands on-line
have to slog through the knee-deep muck of s-l-o-w or even dopped
connections.

they have the CYA routine Down Pat!
without selective censorship (as it were)

It is ALWAYS something! Ironically the only people that get really upset that ISPs throttle the bandwidth in most cases are people that use it the most. These people are also the same people that complain that they are paying for 5 Mbps and only getting 3 Mbps. "I am paying for it, so I should get it!" ... "Well sir, should we piss off your neighbor by throttling his bandwidth so you can get the speeds your paying for?" Two sides of this coin people. So maybe you should pick one side or the other because you will never be able to choose both.