Comcast told its employees to not comment when customers ask about recent reports in an AP article that it contracted BitTorrent sabotaging to a company called Sandvine, or to even discuss that a relationship exists between the two companies. Too bad that Barron’s financial magazine reported back in April that the two are in bed together:
“Sandvine already counts top U.S. cable provider Comcast Corp (CMCSA) among its customers, Barron’s said.” – Easing network debate may aid Allot/Sandvine-paper, Reuters, Sun Apr 8, 2007
Here’s the orginal Barron’s article (subscription required): Here’s How the Drama Over ‘Net Neutrality End
Sandvine also posted the article in the press archives section on their very own website.
Oops. Hard to play the no comment game when the facts are already in print.
PREVIOUSLY:
LEAKS: Insider Tells Us There’s Proof Comcast Contracts BitTorrent Sabotaging To Sandvine
Comcast’s “We Don’t Throttle BitTorrent” Internal Talking Points Memo
More From Consumerist
-
Comcast Refuses To Believe I Didn't Open An Account When I Was 16 At A House I Didn't Live In
-
Man Accused Of Illegally Downloading Porn Countersues For Defamation
-
Woman Sues Porn Companies For Threatening To Sue Her Over Alleged Illegal Downloads
-
There Is No Point Asking Comcast Where You Can Buy A Cable Box
-
Standalone HBO Go Inching Closer To Reality
@JustAGuy2:
Sorry, my connection is not that slow, and yes I get full use of my speed whenever I need or choose to use it. So do I get what I pay for? Yes I do. You are incorrect saying that every provider oversubscribes.
Also, only an ignorant fool thinks you can get a direct pipe to the internet. The internet is not a location, it is a collection of computers and other network devices connected to each other.
I wish I had found this site sooner!
Unfortunately I am soon to be terminated
from Cox Communications Internet Service
ostensibly because I have complained about
some of my emails taking 4-18 hours to reach me. I have been waiting to get this
fixed since the first week in September.
I’ve called, I’ve written letters and even
called the FCC (always a thrill). However, the letter I received said
they(Cox) could not meet my expectations,which is silly because all they need to do to meet my expectations is fix the problem. It’s been interesting on some level, but sad too
and now as I’m nearing the end of my tenure, I feel a certain remorse and a certain sadness. Actually, it has been a
very interesting story and I would be happy to provide details and now that I
think of it, it would make a great story
for the Consumerist!
I call bullshit on Comcast. They also claim that they don’t block ports, but they definitely block port 445 (which is where some of my business routers have their consoles located). Port 444, no problem, Port 446, no problem. 445, packets never reach the routers from Comcast.
I live in TX. I’ve seen the NOC here at Suddenlink cable in the city where I live, and they too have a Sandvine box in their arsenal. I can’t say that I’ve really noticed bit-torrent throttling, but never can be too sure.
@ShadowFalls:
Clearly, you just don’t understand oversubscription. When done right (i.e. actual traffic matches or is below what’s modeled), it means that customers DO get the service level promised. The fact that you don’t use your full bandwidth 24/7 means that the service provider CAN oversubscribe, and you still “get what you pay for.”
They tell you it’s a best efforts offering. If you want an SLA, where they actually commit to a particular service level, you can get that, but at about $400/month per 1.5Mbps of capacity, more outside major urban areas.
@JustAGuy2:
And you dont have to do that with the advent of FIOS as it is a constant connection of the speed you pay for. It does not matter how many other subscribers are on your same line as each subscriber has their own dedicated FIOS line to the connection site. Its is why Verizon is spending millions to get it spread out here in Maryland and other places. A few cable companies are moving their enitre backbone to fiber optics because it offers far supior bandwidth. MCI, which is the backbone of the whole US as far as internet subscriber line(they provide to all ISPs) has already done this so that the companies they provide to can start upgrading their backbones to fiber optic lines. The fact that Comcraapstic has to resort to such tactics is because they refuse to upgrade anything to newer hardware that would be able to support the needs of their customers.
I pay $45 a month for my 15Mbit down and 2Mbit up connection.
[URL=http://www.speedtest.net][img][www.speedtest.net]][/URL]
And incase you think I’m full of it, I just downloaded the 1.77GB demo of Crysis in under 30 minutes with an average DL speed of 1.4MB/s
@Logan26:
Logan, I hate to break it to you, but:
1. FiOS and cable are essentially identical except for the last 3000 or so feet to your house. For that portion, Verizon is fiber, and Comcast is coax.
2. Your connection is oversubscribed too. The fact that your line back to the central office isn’t shared doesn’t mean that the links from the central office to the backbone aren’t. If all the customers in your area tried to use their 15Mbps service at the same time, you wouldn’t see 15Mbps.
Now I have you. I happen to work on one of the crews installing this stuff, IT IS 100% FIBER OPTIC from the connection to all neighborhoods. Sorry pal, go peddle your lies elsewhere. As I said before, Verizon is sinking Millions into this venture.
Incase you are wondering, verizon started laying Fiber Optic Cabling from their connection offices to neighborhoods across Maryland 2 years ago and it is currently in about 1/3 of the state and still growing.
@Logan26:
What do you mean you “have me?” I said, in my post, that “FiOS and cable are essentially identical except for the last 3000 or so feet to your house.” This is true. Both networks are 100% fiber up to that point. From that point on, FiOS is fiber to the home, cable is coax.
Actually, Verizon is sinking billions into the venture, not millions. About $18 billion through 2010.
This is an upgrade Verizon needed to make to be competitive with Comcast (and other cable operators) who put $80-90 billion into their networks between about 1998 and 2004.
Logan26 and Justaguy2: your argument adds nothing to this conversation. take it elsewhere.
@bravo:
Thank you for your esteemed comment, which added to much to this discussion of oversubscription and bandwidth management policies at Comcast. As soon as you buy Gawker, please do come back, and I’ll be happy to take my comments elsewhere.
I hope Comcast gets nailed good over this.
If you don’t have the bandwidth, and actually throttle bandwidth, all is OK. Not well, not great, but OK. Your new *dora or *buntu may only come in at 250KB/s, instead of 600KB/s of us folks with a network that can reach advertised performance
.
But, er…blocking a user by blocking packets and inserting reset packets that didn’t really come from where your software thought they were coming from…I don’t know, there. I might go as far as to say I might call it a denial of service attack, sprinkling in terms like man-in-the-middle, spoofing, etc. for good measure.
We still can’t figure out why Comcast doesn’t just come right out and admit what it’s doing in jamming certain kinds of traffic. It’s not like it’s a secret any more — and the longer Comcast tries to play dumb on this, the worse it looks for the company.
@JustAGuy2:
Wrong again. I get 15mbps, Paying $65 a month.
I make use of my bandwidth 24/7. If I am not personally using it, someone else is. For my cable company to provide me such bandwidth? All they had to do was tell my cable modem to provide said bandwidth and it was provided.
There was nothing else needed to be done as my cable company does not oversubscribe for their network. When they get close to capacity, they compensate for it by installing additional equipment.
At no time has there been issues with anyone in my cable provider’s subscription area not getting the bandwidth they paid for. Sorry dude, your arguments don’t hold up to actual fact. Makes me wonder where you get your supposed “facts” from.
I could think of one place you are pulling it from, but usually it is just a waste exit…
@ShadowFalls:
You just don’t get it. You don’t make use of your bandwidth 24/7. Well, maybe you do, but not everybody does. Are you saying you’re actually _transferring_ 15Mbps 24/7? Saturating your pipe? I don’t think so.
Oversubscription is (when done right) entirely transparent to the customer. It’s like a gym – they sell more memberships than they could possible handle all at one time, because not every customer comes all day, every day. Or does your gym only sell memberships to 10 people, because that’s how many treadmills they have?
If you do oversubscription right, everybody DOES get the bandwidth they pay for, that’s the whole point.
All oversubscription means is that the operator, through a statistical model, sells more bandwidth than they actually have. Everybody does it, and it works fine, until that model breaks down.
BTW, I assume you’re a Cablevision customer, based on the service offering you mentioned. Just so you know, about 60-100 people in your area share 38Mbps of actual bandwidth for internet service, and you all get your 15Mbps when you actually use it.
@Charles Duffy: BitTorrent has commercially significant noninfringing uses, and this kind of action makes the ‘net less of the level-ground venue it has been where anyone with a good idea and minimal capital can launch a business (or a noncommercial venture). This kind of action may not be illegal at present, but even so it’s certainly anything but kosher.
Thank you! This is exactly the concern that anyone interested in a strong, vibrant US economy should be up in arms about. Calcified quasi-monopolies shouldn’t be able to pick winners and losers in such a fashion.
While the tech sector moves so fast that laws are often outstripped by which laws are on the books, this is clearly bad policy. Why give other countries the edge to create the Next Big Thing that will rule the web?
Net Neutrality. Now.
I have to agree with the other posters here. FIOS is unbelievable. I get exactly what I pay for, when I first got it I used 3 or 4 of the speed test sites at different times of the day for a couple of days. In that small sampling, it was the exact bandwidth I purchased. The other benefit is that it is NEVER down. When I had Comcast cable it went down every time it warmed up after a long period of cold. For someone who basically can’t function without the internet (as I am sure many of the people in this community would be), this is invaluable. FIOS is highly recommended by me if you can get it.
@JustAGuy2:
Well, you do know what assuming does right? It is an old saying.
But you are wrong, I am not a Cablevision customer.
Also, whether you think or not, I do make heavy use of my connection at all times. Sure 24/7 might be exaggerating abit, it is more around 20/7. But, still no issues with bandwidth.
The gym analogy doesn’t really work. You are talking about physical equipment and mass compared to physical equipment and data transfer speeds. Obviously two people can’t occupy the same space at any given time, that has nothing to do with this whole situation.
Are you seriously telling me it is impossible for a company to sell a specified bandwidth and provide said bandwidth to all its customers at any given time in a properly maintained network? If you are telling me that, then something might not be triggering up there properly…
I am not saying it is common, I am saying it does happen. The fact that it is not common is a problem within itself.
If a movie theater oversold tickets to a showing, do you think it would be ok that when you went in there, that there were no seats for you because they did that? And they say, we didn’t expect all those people to show up at that time. Sorry, please take a seat on the floor. Would that be fine and dandy for you? Or would you be upset?
Sigh. Sorry, all. Paying too much attention to the pretty formatting and not enough to the text.
“…While the tech sector moves so fast that applicable laws are often outstripped by events on the ground, this is clearly bad policy.”
@JustAGuy2:
Apparently you were not reading or have no comprehension skills. I AM WORKING ON ONE OF THE CREWS WHO ARE LAYING THIS STUFF OUT AND IT IS 100% FIBER FROM THE CONNECTION JUNCTIONS(Verizons main offices to the remote sights to neighborhoods to the house, its all Fiber Optics now) TO THE HOUSE.
@Logan26:
That’s what I said! Verizon is fiber all the way from the backbone to the house. Cable is fiber to about 3k feet from the house, and coax from there. What’s the misunderstanding?
@ShadowFalls:
OK, I give up. Bottom line, every operator oversubscribes. Period. If they do it right, then the customers never notice, because not all customers are using the connection every minute, and not all are using it at full speed (if you’re accessing a webserver that will only stream content to you at 1Mbps, it doesn’t matter how fast your connection is, the bottleneck is elsewhere). As a result, you can have less bandwidth in your network than the sum of the bandwidth offered to each customer (i.e. have 50Mbps of total bandwidth but have 10 customers each with a 25Mbps connection).
The more the operator oversubscribes, however, the greater the risk that too many of your customers WILL want to use the connection at the same time, and hence people start not getting the bandwidth you advertised.
I don’t know which cable operator you have, but every cable operator in the country (Cox, Comcast, Mediacom, TW Cable, Insight, Advance Newhouse/Brighthouse, Cablevision, Charter, etc., etc.) dedicates one downstream channel to data (a few are considering going to 2-4 once DOCSIS 3.0 launches next year and they can bond those channels to offer 75-150Mbps service), which is a max of 38Mbps total. This is shared among, at minimum (and this is a real minimum) 10 customers. Usually, it’s more like 150 customers.
Do you think email should take 18 hours
to get where it’s going?
Rogers in Canada started “shaping” BitTorrent traffic when they introduced their VOIP service. Seems to be the same with Comcast. These companies oversell their networks, and therefore can’t guarantee good QoS for their VOIP calls, and instead of upgrading their network, they take the easy way out. It will eventually bite them in the ass though… BitTorrent is here to stay and it’s usage will only become more and more common.
@JustAGuy2:
Repeating yourself over and over doesn’t make you right, it just means you are repeating yourself.
You somehow are under the impression that people can not do more than one thing at once and that there are not more than one person that uses an internet connection in a single household.
By the way, if you gave up, your response would have been 4 words, not 3 paragraphs.
@ShadowFalls:
Being consistently wrong doesn’t make you any less wrong, it just makes you consistent.
I was trying to actually give you some insight into what happens behind that “magic box” attached to your computer. My mistake. I apologize for attempting to reduce your hard-won ignorance.
@JustAGuy2:
It seems like you are under the impression that you know everything. Try and keep your ignorance to yourself, stop trying to think it is contagious.
I know exactly what happens thank you, I don’t need to explained to me by some half-wit. And what is with the magic box comment, you should feel more stupid just for typing it, or maybe that is what everyone else tells you it is called as to not confuse you.
Besides, you never once proved me wrong, you just threw out a smattering of statements that could not be proved with any certainty.
I feel your pain, JustAGuy2. But there is no point trying to explain concepts like traffic shaping and oversubscription to people who can’t even grasp the difference between committed and best effort transmission rates. BTW, to the T1 guy …your 1.5 Mb CIR is guaranteed only to and through your ISP’s network. As JustAGuy2 points out, the bottleneck can occur anywhere along the path to your final destination on the WWW and that is where traffic shaping is required so everybody gets their fair share of the bandwidth at any particular hop.
I guess the point (to get back on topic) is that traffic shaping is happening. Maybe not on your local network area, but if you have ever sent or received a packet via the WWW you traffic has been shaped. The real topic of debate is whether traffic should be discriminated against based on the application (bittorrent for instance) to assist shaping for available bandwidth (which is already happening).
Local networks do this all the time. If your corporate office network uses VoIP phones then your network admin has rules in place that when you pick up the phone, its packets get a higher preference on the network than your web browser. Your webpage’s packets can be downloaded at any speed and in any order and your browser will figure it out. Your call’s packets need to come quickly and in order or the call is nothing but noise. A LAN with limited bandwidth has to decide which traffic has a higher priority.
The question now is whether that type of discrimination is appropriate on the WWW even if your ISP happens to own the tiny portion of it to which you connect.