Rick Merrill <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote in
news:sOOdnSy59vrWGnjbnZ2dnUVZ_vrinZ2d@comcast.com:

If that is the issue, it's poor administration by Comcast, not
abuse by a serious user.

It's supposed to be a formula: total available bandwidth on a
node divided by amount of bandwidth to be used by each user gives
you the number of users that can be on a node. If they aren't
calculating in that order, they're stupid.



--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/

If I were you I'd dance naked in the middle of the street just
to embarrass you.

"Christopher Jahn" <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99A7ED341A6F2xjahn@216.196.97.136...

This same damn argument has been going on for over 5 years now and
many idiots are to stupid to understand the AUP does set limits. Read
the damn thing some time and then ask any child over about 8 years of
age to explain it in words you can understand. At the point your
bandwidth negatively affects anyone else on the node you become an
abuser and become subject to account termination if you continue to
interfere with the bandwidth usage of anyone else on your node after
being notified of your abuse.

At least in my area Comcast has been doing a good job of upgrading the
system and handing out more bandwidth on a regular basis.

Dr Feelgood WA wrote:
That's a bunch of bull. It's up to the ISP to keep your bandwidth
throttled to what the node can handle - not the other way around.
On a dial-up, you certainly wouldn't be asking people to not use
all of their bandwidth, would you ? Why should broadband be any
different ? If you give me a 6 Mb bandwidth, I'll use all of it
for as long as I like - if they have a problem with that, throttle
me back.

"Dr Feelgood WA" <drfeelgoodwa@comcast.net> wrote in
news:w7OdnWAZ3-iR-HjbnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@comcast.com:

Bullshit. How can any user possibly know that their use will
negatively affect any other Comcast user if Comcast hasn't
defined in plain terms what sort of actions can result in such
negative impact?

And again, bring up state or federal law is POINTLESS, since that
isn't why they've cut off the people complaing about being cut
off. That's nothing but a strawman argument.



"Temporary suspension" is not a warning, it's suspension of
service. And it's a suspension of service that has already been
*paid for* by the person whose service has been suspended.

Snail Mail is totally unacceptable as a primary method of warning
in a medium where the limit can be exceeded days before the
warning of that limit will be recieved. Phone calls are better -
but inadequate, as there is no accounting trail.

Users should recieve email notifications to their Comcast
accounts, and they should be able to look it up in their account
settings. Snail Mail can be a backup to that, but only if an
email is sent immediately.

It's the twenty first century, fer pete's sake.




--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/

Build a system even a fool can use, and only a fool will use it.

In alt.online-service.comcast AuldPhart <auldphart@the.home> wrote:
I wasn't referring to AT&T prosecuting you. I was referring to the fact that
they turn over that information for prosecution. It is in the works and is
public; feel free to use your favorite search engine for details.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

In alt.online-service.comcast Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am sorry, but there is and I have already defined it. The industry pricing
model is built around it and it has been working for more than a decade. If
you don't like it .. buy DEDICATED bandwidth.

That is the point, it isn't a specific number that meets the criteria for
abuse. For one, different parts of the network have different capacity, and
thus less prone to abuse. Highly built out and deployed infrastructure is far
more susceptible to abuse. If Comcast were to tell you, you can download
400GB per month because that is all your local network can handle ... and you
better not do it all during prime time, would you accept that? Even if the
guy down the road is on better network infrastucture that can handle more
additional load and thus he can download 800GB per month and if he wants he
can do it all during prime time ... would you be happy with that? You are
asking for a fixed number, but there isn't one. The comcast and all consumer
ISP models are based on overselling the infrastructure, thus abuse has
differing thresholds based upon localized conditions.


Duh ... this isn't about crime, so the 'innocent until proven guilty' crap
doesn't fly here.

Oh, they have a limit, but you you might consider it a "formula" based upon
multiple variables. They probably also have a soft tolerance meaning that
their may be local descretion to let it fly (perhaps they intend to buildout
more infrastructure in a very competitive market).

I made no such accusation, but your response does seem paranoid.

packet sniffing is not illegal. They are not recording content, but they
often do scan for patterns. The FBI has been doing it for years, and there
was a bit of an uproar about it many years back.

A very vocal minority. The satisfied majority is usually quite quiet.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

Charles Newman said the following on 9/4/2007 3:42 AM:
everyone on the node. I think that the ISP overloads a node to the point
that at times when there are many users the node (at the same time)
bandwidth is overloaded. At that point the ISP is faced with the problem
of expanding the node or reducing the number of users on the node. Guess
who are the first users to be removed from the node? Yep - it is the
users with the most bandwidth use. Anyway, that is my best educated guess.

--
(^\pop/^)
I Stopped to think but forgot to start again.
--

Bill wrote:
I believe FioS is 1:1 by definition and Comcast broadband also.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:31:05 -0500, pop <p_o_p@MUNGEDhotmail.com>
wrote:

So, there is no posted speed limit but the cop can charge you
with speeding when *he* thinks you are going too fast?

Regards,


Fred

In alt.online-service.comcast Bill <none@none.invalid> wrote:
They don't need to know where they stand on it. For one, you "know" if you
download a lot. I have absolutely no doubt that a phone call or letter
indicating that you should cease and desist would EVER come as a surprise to
you [you in general not you as in Bill].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

In alt.online-service.comcast Rick Merrill <rick0.merrill@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
I assure you that consumer [residential] broadband from ANY company, be it
Comcast or Verizon, is NOT 1:1 and NEVER will be unless they complete change
their business model (i.e. quotas and caps).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

In alt.online-service.comcast Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote:
Don't be obtuse.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
We were talking about the user:modem ratio.

In alt.online-service.comcast Bill <none@none.invalid> wrote:
Absolutely I do. If I download a lot of data several months in a row, I will
know it. Further, if I get a message from Comcast to cease and desist, I will
also know it is too much. Justing by the fact that the notify in the top 0.1%
(1 in 1000), it should be an excellent indicator that you should be
considering a higher dedicated bandwidth product or one with looser
restrictions [you won't get this from cable in all likelihood] or cut down the
usage. I mean really, it does't take a genius to know he has tied up his
8+Mbps download pipe for several hours per day all month long as the cause of
the "abuse" notification.

Your rumblings to the contrary are not going to change things either because
Comcast's model works as it has been tested and fine tuned for more than a
decade. It is an industry wide model that isn't going to change because an
abuser thinks it is unfair.

Really ... how many non-abusers have actually gotten the cease and desist
notification, and of those, how many didn't have a clue why they got it. Come
one ... I will use the word again, don't be "obtuse".

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

In alt.online-service.comcast Rick Merrill <rick0.merrill@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
Your reply was to the posting on "over subscription" where it was indicated
that in the past it was often 20:1. In that context, it was "subscribed
capacity" : "actual capacity".

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
No, you misunderstood.

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
Duh - so what ?

Relative to what ?

They give you 8 Mb, you should use it. Where does it say how long you can use it ?

When the number of your *abusers* multiplies, they will start to become the norm.

Mom and pop learn about streaming video and have no idea what bandwidth even
means. Kids in the other room are downloading tons of music to play.

He's not - don't be smug.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:50:18 -0400, Fred Atkinson wrote:

When making "speeding" analogies, it is wise to consider that there are
speed limits which exist, but are not posted, and the police officer on
speed enforcement can use his judgment to determine if a motorist is
speeding.

The State of California has two /prima facie/ speed laws, a Basic Speed Law,
and a Maximum Speed Law. They are all different, and ambient conditions can
exist which override them all. If your judgment of what is safe is at odds
with the traffic enforcement officer's judgment, guess who will prevail in
court?

Unfortunately, unlike driving on the highways, where ambient conditions are
known to you, ambient Internet conditions are largely invisible to you until
something happens which has an adverse affect; and even then, you can't
always tell what caused those conditions.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:08:08 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

Not prosecuting, surely.

As I understand it, AT&T wants to develop tools to keep pirated content off
of it's network. It is reportedly to appease the **AAs over content they
will provide to their U-Verse customers via IPTV.

That will probably be a humongous undertaking, just to deal with their
U-Verse customers; without even considering all the traffic they would have
to monitor on their transit networks, where the endpoints are *not* AT&T
customers.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:57:16 -0400, Rick Merrill wrote:

Are you referring to the ratio of customer modems to company modems? DSL is
surely 1:1 in that case. If there is no modem port available at the DSLAM
there is no way to provision the line for a DSL customer.

However, I believe that "oversubscription" is common at the aggregation
routers. I don't know the technical equivalent in a FiOS, or HFC plant.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum