Comcast Outlines New Broadband Policy 350
Slatterz writes "US cable provider Comcast has presented its long-term solution for managing broadband traffic. The new system is set at putting to bed a minor scandal that erupted around the company when it was found that Comcast deliberately limited traffic for certain applications. The company said that under its new system, traffic will be analyzed every fifteen minutes. Users who are found to be occupying large amounts of bandwidth will be placed at a lower priority for network access behind users with less bandwidth-intensive traffic. The new system will not replace or be related to the company's earlier installment of bandwidth caps, which limited a user's data intake to 250GB per month."
Re:Backwards? (Score:3, Interesting)
But doesn't streaming video or audio fit the high-yield/bulk-transfer pattern as well?
I'm just wondering what method they're using to separate high and low priority.
Just got Netflix.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dang... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think what they're doing is averaging your traffic over 15 minute periods.
At least that was the impression that I got from reading about it (not from TFA, but from the article on Ars a few days ago).
Re:Dang... (Score:5, Interesting)
So are the people using IPTV screwed? They will be queued worse due to their high bandwidth usage again and again if they watch a long IPTV show. What about households with multiple Youtube users streaming and watching different videos at the same time? Both are completely legal, but seems to something that occupies high bandwidth.
Re:Dang... (Score:4, Interesting)
Strange. My Skype calls only take about 19-30kbps, even with five people on the line. I have a 4.5mbps line. Is there something wrong with your Skype?
Re:Dang... (Score:4, Interesting)
"Too much bandwidth" is defined as a sustained download of more than 4Mbps or a sustained upload of more than 700kbps, over a period of 15 minutes. That works out to ten simultaneous VoIP calls; I don't know how many video chat streams you'd need to reach it.
On the download side of things, that corresponds to downloading one CD image every 20 minutes.
Re:What...? (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you fucking work for Comcast? That's exactly what they'll tell him. "Oh, off site backups are considered a business function. You'll have to upgrade to our business service to eliminate the interruptions."
It has nothing to do with what "function" off site backups are. It has to do with raw bandwidth and resource usage.
And forget whether its called 'home' or 'business' that's just marketing and branding. Think of home as 'small' and 'business' as medium and 'enterprise' as large if it makes you feel better. If you are moving 100's of GB per month then you aren't 'small' anymore, get over it.
So they should be able to slow my traffic down because I'm trying to actually use their advertised bandwidth? How is me wanting what I was sold unreasonable?
Just another reason.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Dang... (Score:3, Interesting)
One user running Skype isn't that much of a problem -- as you point out, it's not that bandwidth-intensive -- but keep in mind that it's up to ~30kbps per user. (And the usage can go up by 40kbps beyond that if one of the users is a supernode, although admittedly only one user per IP address should do that.) It can pile up to a significant amount if you have a bunch of people using it at the same time.
But really I was just using Skype as an example of an application that's particularly aggressive about using bandwidth, and doesn't give the user much of a say -- it grabs whatever it can, whenever it can. I'm not sure that's a great design, just fundamentally. But in reality, most of the problems with Skype and Comcast will be related to the overall amount of transfer it creates versus the 250GB limit; I don't think it'll really create that much of an issue with the bandwidth-based throttling. Video services are of a much greater concern. (Also, doesn't Skype do video? I bet that requires a lot more bandwidth.)
Re:Dang... (Score:4, Interesting)
The only thing Comcast are trying to do with that policy is implement a masquerade behind which they can throttle a range of customers who refuse to pay extra for premium services. Network analysis which find the most intensive data traffic users (likely already has) and they will specifically be targeted, pay extra or have all your traffic shut down to a trickle every fifteen minutes for what, 2 minutes to start with and, then they will continually up that until, the customer leaves or pays the premium bandwidth fee, pays extra for the actual bandwidth, that Comcast B$ marketing claims to be selling.
They are going to use that age old pathetic and immature excuse, don't blame us for the time outs, the computer did it. It is all just one B$ marketing campaign after another, all so they can claim to sell something they have no intention of providing all buried behind a maze of contract conditions, limitations, and lobbyists working to protect their ability to basically lie in their marketing.
Re:Dang... (Score:3, Interesting)
but I think real-time streaming (like Youtube) ought to have priority over bulk downloads (like BitTorrent).
Surely that is not the issue ... if you choose to watch YouTube all day, that is your right, and it is my same right to download the new distro of Redhat or even the latest cracked game from a P2P service.
For once I think Comcast got something right ... if they have a problem with throughput, then the user who hogs the bandwidth the most gets penalised first - REGARDLESS of what they are using the bits for.
You want to justify your excessive bandwidth usage by comparing apples and oranges i.e. legal vs "possibly" illegal in this case - but bear in mind NOT EVERYONE who uses P2P is automatically downloading warez / copyrighted stuff / pr0n ...
Selfish person :-(