PDA

View Full Version : Comcast screwing my speed on usenet



kombi187@gmail.com
02-18-09, 02:30 PM
I also have comcast. One bay I went from 8mbs download on giganews to
728k. I have tried different ports everything. Well I guess the
downloading of the past is over. Big brother is now going to watch
every bit the you get.

Bill M.
02-18-09, 02:50 PM
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:30:08 -0800 (PST), kombi187@gmail.com wrote:

>I also have comcast. One bay I went from 8mbs download on giganews to
>728k. I have tried different ports everything. Well I guess the
>downloading of the past is over. Big brother is now going to watch
>every bit the you get.

I'm also on Comcast and I get 20-30 Mbps on a regular basis. For me,
the key is to open multiple concurrent connections.

--
Bill

f/fgeorge
02-18-09, 04:35 PM
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:30:08 -0800 (PST), kombi187@gmail.com wrote:

>I also have comcast. One bay I went from 8mbs download on giganews to
>728k. I have tried different ports everything. Well I guess the
>downloading of the past is over. Big brother is now going to watch
>every bit the you get.

Sounds like you have come close to the limit of 250 gig per month.

Bill M.
02-18-09, 05:29 PM
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:35:33 GMT, f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:30:08 -0800 (PST), kombi187@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>I also have comcast. One bay I went from 8mbs download on giganews to
>>728k. I have tried different ports everything. Well I guess the
>>downloading of the past is over. Big brother is now going to watch
>>every bit the you get.
>
>Sounds like you have come close to the limit of 250 gig per month.

I don't follow. Slower speeds are not a symptom of approaching the 250
GB soft cap.

--
Bill

f/fgeorge
02-22-09, 03:00 AM
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:29:24 -0600, Bill M. <wbillups@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:35:33 GMT, f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:30:08 -0800 (PST), kombi187@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>I also have comcast. One bay I went from 8mbs download on giganews to
>>>728k. I have tried different ports everything. Well I guess the
>>>downloading of the past is over. Big brother is now going to watch
>>>every bit the you get.
>>
>>Sounds like you have come close to the limit of 250 gig per month.
>
>I don't follow. Slower speeds are not a symptom of approaching the 250
>GB soft cap.

Per Comcast that is exactly what they will do, they will slow you down
the closer you get to their cap and then at the cap stop you. This is
to help people see that they are approaching the cap. I would call
Comcast and ask what is going on, all they can do is refuse to tell
you.

Bill M.
02-22-09, 02:57 PM
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:00:08 GMT, f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:29:24 -0600, Bill M. <wbillups@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:35:33 GMT, f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:30:08 -0800 (PST), kombi187@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>I also have comcast. One bay I went from 8mbs download on giganews to
>>>>728k. I have tried different ports everything. Well I guess the
>>>>downloading of the past is over. Big brother is now going to watch
>>>>every bit the you get.
>>>
>>>Sounds like you have come close to the limit of 250 gig per month.
>>
>>I don't follow. Slower speeds are not a symptom of approaching the 250
>>GB soft cap.
>
>Per Comcast that is exactly what they will do, they will slow you down
>the closer you get to their cap and then at the cap stop you. This is
>to help people see that they are approaching the cap. I would call
>Comcast and ask what is going on, all they can do is refuse to tell
>you.

Somewhere along the line, I think you misread or misunderstood
something, unless you can produce a link to an explanation?
According to numerous articles on dslreports, extensive discussions in
the Comcast forums, and other 3rd party analyses, Comcast will
throttle traffic when a node is congested, and they will start with
the modem that's causing the congestion. There are other, finer,
points to it, but absolutely nothing to indicate that the 250 GB
monthly soft cap has any bearing on it.

--
Bill

f/fgeorge
02-22-09, 04:21 PM
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:57:08 -0600, Bill M. <wbillups@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:00:08 GMT, f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:29:24 -0600, Bill M. <wbillups@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:35:33 GMT, f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:30:08 -0800 (PST), kombi187@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I also have comcast. One bay I went from 8mbs download on giganews to
>>>>>728k. I have tried different ports everything. Well I guess the
>>>>>downloading of the past is over. Big brother is now going to watch
>>>>>every bit the you get.
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like you have come close to the limit of 250 gig per month.
>>>
>>>I don't follow. Slower speeds are not a symptom of approaching the 250
>>>GB soft cap.
>>
>>Per Comcast that is exactly what they will do, they will slow you down
>>the closer you get to their cap and then at the cap stop you. This is
>>to help people see that they are approaching the cap. I would call
>>Comcast and ask what is going on, all they can do is refuse to tell
>>you.
>
>Somewhere along the line, I think you misread or misunderstood
>something, unless you can produce a link to an explanation?
>According to numerous articles on dslreports, extensive discussions in
>the Comcast forums, and other 3rd party analyses, Comcast will
>throttle traffic when a node is congested, and they will start with
>the modem that's causing the congestion. There are other, finer,
>points to it, but absolutely nothing to indicate that the 250 GB
>monthly soft cap has any bearing on it.

Works for me

Fosco_Bleecker-Baggins@shire.com
03-16-09, 07:38 PM
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:30:08 -0800 (PST), kombi187@gmail.com wrote:

>I also have comcast. One bay I went from 8mbs download on giganews to
>728k. I have tried different ports everything. Well I guess the
>downloading of the past is over. Big brother is now going to watch
>every bit the you get.

comcast is throttling. their algorithm (as in DSL magazine) is they
estimate if you are using 70% of your alloted bandwidth for 15
minutes. if u r, and they decide what your 'alloted bandwidth' is
supposed to be, they cut the speed by 50 %. they will during their
'busy' times drop you to 0%. that is why as soon as FIOS hits and
area, almost all of the comcast internet users switch.

Bill M.
03-17-09, 12:50 AM
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:38:13 -0400, Fosco_Bleecker-Baggins@shire.com
wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:30:08 -0800 (PST), kombi187@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>I also have comcast. One bay I went from 8mbs download on giganews to
>>728k. I have tried different ports everything. Well I guess the
>>downloading of the past is over. Big brother is now going to watch
>>every bit the you get.
>
>comcast is throttling. their algorithm (as in DSL magazine) is they
>estimate if you are using 70% of your alloted bandwidth for 15
>minutes. if u r, and they decide what your 'alloted bandwidth' is
>supposed to be, they cut the speed by 50 %. they will during their
>'busy' times drop you to 0%. that is why as soon as FIOS hits and
>area, almost all of the comcast internet users switch.

Amazing. You STILL don't understand their current 'traffic management'
plan. Oh well.

--
Bill

Fosco_Bleecker-Baggins@shire.com
03-31-09, 07:53 PM
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:50:54 -0500, Bill M. <wbillups@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:38:13 -0400, Fosco_Bleecker-Baggins@shire.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:30:08 -0800 (PST), kombi187@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>I also have comcast. One bay I went from 8mbs download on giganews to
>>>728k. I have tried different ports everything. Well I guess the
>>>downloading of the past is over. Big brother is now going to watch
>>>every bit the you get.
>>
>>comcast is throttling. their algorithm (as in DSL magazine) is they
>>estimate if you are using 70% of your alloted bandwidth for 15
>>minutes. if u r, and they decide what your 'alloted bandwidth' is
>>supposed to be, they cut the speed by 50 %. they will during their
>>'busy' times drop you to 0%. that is why as soon as FIOS hits and
>>area, almost all of the comcast internet users switch.
>
>Amazing. You STILL don't understand their current 'traffic management'
>plan. Oh well.

yes, unfortunately it is the one from the dsl reports and from a tech
at comcast. but what the ****, you know more then they do, after all
you don't work for them.

Fosco_Bleecker-Baggins@shire.com
03-31-09, 07:58 PM
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:50:54 -0500, Bill M. <wbillups@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:38:13 -0400, Fosco_Bleecker-Baggins@shire.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:30:08 -0800 (PST), kombi187@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>I also have comcast. One bay I went from 8mbs download on giganews to
>>>728k. I have tried different ports everything. Well I guess the
>>>downloading of the past is over. Big brother is now going to watch
>>>every bit the you get.
>>
>>comcast is throttling. their algorithm (as in DSL magazine) is they
>>estimate if you are using 70% of your alloted bandwidth for 15
>>minutes. if u r, and they decide what your 'alloted bandwidth' is
>>supposed to be, they cut the speed by 50 %. they will during their
>>'busy' times drop you to 0%. that is why as soon as FIOS hits and
>>area, almost all of the comcast internet users switch.
>
>Amazing. You STILL don't understand their current 'traffic management'
>plan. Oh well.




you bill, you really are an idiot:


New Comcast Throttling System 100% Online
Comcast tells us new network management system live in all markets
12:27PM Monday Jan 05 2009 by Karl Bode
tags: business bandwidth cable networking consumers caps
Comcast
Tipped by TK Junk Mail
In line with their traffic management website Comcast has confirmed to
us they've installed their new broadband throttling system across all
markets. The system, which we first profiled back in September,
throttles a user's connection if a particular CMTS port is congested,
and if that user has been identified as a primary reason why. This
two-condition throttling system replaces Comcast's old, FCC-criticized
system of using forged TCP packets to throttle upstream P2P services
for all users, regardless of consumption.

According to Comcast's filings (pdf) with the FCC, they've deployed
new hardware and software close to the company's Regional Network
Routers (RNRs). This hardware will flip a user from the standard
"Priority Best-Effort" traffic (PBE) to lower quality of service (QoS)
"Best-Effort" traffic (BE) for fifteen minutes if they're a major
reason congestion exists.

While certainly a slightly more transparent system to those paying
attention, the new system is probably going to confuse the American
public, many of whom don't even know what a gigabyte is. Comcast used
a bus metaphor to explain the difference between best effort and
priority best effort traffic to the FCC:
If there is no congestion, packets from a user in a BE state should
have little trouble getting on the bus when they arrive at the bus
stop. If, on the other hand, there is congestion in a particular
instance, the bus may become filled by packets in a PBE state before
any BE packets can get on. In that situation, the BE packets would
have to wait for the next bus that is not filled by PBE packets.
Comcast says that sustained use of 70% of your up or downstream
throughput triggers the BE state, at which point you'll find your
traffic priority lowered until your usage drops to 50% of your
provisioned upstream or downstream bandwidth for "a period of
approximately 15 minutes." A throttled Comcast user being placed in a
BE state "may or may not result in the user's traffic being delayed
or, in extreme cases, dropped before PBE traffic is dropped."

Note that upstream and downstream bandwidth are managed separately.
Also note that the differentiation between PBE and BE traffic occurs
in two millisecond increments. According to Comcast, even if the
packets for a best effort throttled user missed 50 "busses," the delay
would only be about one-tenth of a second.

In addition to the new throttling system, Comcast has also a 250GB
monthly usage cap for all users. As we mentioned last Friday, Comcast
has confirmed that a web portal-based bandwidth tracker is currently
in beta among Comcast employees -- but has yet to give an official
launch date. A Comcast insider had previously given us leaked
screenshots of the monitor, and said it was originally scheduled to go
live on January 5 (today).

Comcast has confirmed to us that they've completed the upgrade to the
new system.

Bill M.
03-31-09, 10:37 PM
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:53:36 -0400, Fosco_Bleecker-Baggins@shire.com
wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:50:54 -0500, Bill M. <wbillups@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:38:13 -0400, Fosco_Bleecker-Baggins@shire.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:30:08 -0800 (PST), kombi187@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>I also have comcast. One bay I went from 8mbs download on giganews to
>>>>728k. I have tried different ports everything. Well I guess the
>>>>downloading of the past is over. Big brother is now going to watch
>>>>every bit the you get.
>>>
>>>comcast is throttling. their algorithm (as in DSL magazine) is they
>>>estimate if you are using 70% of your alloted bandwidth for 15
>>>minutes. if u r, and they decide what your 'alloted bandwidth' is
>>>supposed to be, they cut the speed by 50 %. they will during their
>>>'busy' times drop you to 0%. that is why as soon as FIOS hits and
>>>area, almost all of the comcast internet users switch.
>>
>>Amazing. You STILL don't understand their current 'traffic management'
>>plan. Oh well.
>
> yes, unfortunately it is the one from the dsl reports and from a tech
>at comcast. but what the ****, you know more then they do, after all
>you don't work for them.

I'm not sure what you want me to do, point out every instance of where
you're wrong? Since the whole thing is wrong, I thought it would be
easier to just dismiss it that way. As for DSLReports, the actual
press release posted there was right, but your analysis of it was
completely wrong.

--
Bill