Prev: FPU multiplication issue
Next: batch image scanner
From: Rod Pemberton on 19 Jan 2008 10:25

I noticed my ISP (Comcast) routed me through two more IP's
(.ibone.comcast.net) the other day. I noticed a number of sites, like
Yahoo, being "chunky"... Yesterday, the news said Time Warner was going to
test throttled IP access. Today, I retested my speeds. The last time was
about six months ago. Instead of getting the payed for 8Mb down/500Kb up, I
seem to be getting from 1.5Mb to 2Mb down/ 500Kb up. Anyone else notice
this too?

http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest
http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/speedtest.swf


Rod Pemberton



From: Robert Redelmeier on 20 Jan 2008 12:59
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote in part:
> I noticed my ISP (Comcast) routed me through two more IP's
> (.ibone.comcast.net) the other day. I noticed a number of sites,
> like Yahoo, being "chunky"... Yesterday, the news said Time
> Warner was going to test throttled IP access.

It would be a monumental co-incidence if the news were right,
especially on technical items. Usually they are early or late.

I do not use cable for both cost and security reasons, but
many do and you should be able to find a comcasthaters.com site.

> Today, I retested my speeds. The last time was about six
> months ago. Instead of getting the payed for 8Mb down/500Kb
> up, I seem to be getting from 1.5Mb to 2Mb down/ 500Kb up.
> Anyone else notice this too?

Well, this could just have technical reasons. Routers and
modems can easily get hung up. Some need rebooting weekly.
MS-Windows can also have problems [arp?] that survive the
daily reboots necessary for basic stability. Turn modem
off for minimum 5 minutes and reboot onto Knoppix.

But you might well be correct. If you've run `traceroute`
and notice extra routers, either they've been reworking
their routing or they're after you.

AFAIK, external traffic still costs the ISP ~$0.50/GB.
Do you load up your connection? Videos 24/7? If so, you
ought not be surprised Comcast tries to throttle you.
This is probably not a violation of contract which reads
"up to 8". Even less likely if it is month-to-month.

Yes, you could take it to court. And most likely lose both
on contractual exactness and in sympathy if Comcast has the
brains [not often seen] to argue they throttled you to ensure
good/fair service for your neighbors on the cable segment.


-- Robert

From: Rod Pemberton on 20 Jan 2008 17:08

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm(a)ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:b_Lkj.41559$lD6.11387(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> > Today, I retested my speeds. The last time was about six
> > months ago. Instead of getting the payed for 8Mb down/500Kb
> > up, I seem to be getting from 1.5Mb to 2Mb down/ 500Kb up.
> > Anyone else notice this too?
>

Still that way today...

> Well, this could just have technical reasons.

Yup, could be something temporary, or accidentally cut fiber, etc., but more
likely cost cutting on their part. Or, it could be something worse and
permanent, like their switch to centralized DNS servers which were quickly
overloaded and crashed a few years ago. Fortunately, I had numbers for
other local ISP's and dialup's DNSes in the area. But, once Comcast got
that worked out, their DNS servers were so slow, I had to install a DNS
cache... They used to heavily advertise their 6Mb service for about five
years, and then their upgraded to 8Mb service for about two years. Today,
they don't advertise either...clue?... But, they sure are advertising
digital cable, internet telephone, etc.

> But you might well be correct. If you've run `traceroute`
> and notice extra routers, either they've been reworking
> their routing or they're after you.
>

Well, I probably keep more info on this than the regular user. We
experienced severe connection problems some years ago which we couldn't get
them to fix...(What's new?) So, I "inventoried" outgoing path's and
incoming (via other methods), DNS servers, gateway, IP, etc. I check every
now and then for changes. The things they've changed: many more routers, in
state and out of, before they "pass off" the data to "the Internet", many
DNS server changes, external IP after first year of use (Shock!). They
advertise "always on," but in fact we typically lose connection 15 min. or
more per day at random times. That's been going on for four or five years
now... Today, data from me crosses 1/2 the US today inside Comcast's
network, versus one state, originally. Perhaps, they are slowly building a
"slower," lower cost to them, nation-wide network. So, it'll be like the
phone companies, good connection in network only! :-)

> Do you load up your connection? Videos 24/7?

No.

> If so, you
> ought not be surprised Comcast tries to throttle you.

I'm wondering if we've been throttled for the opposite reason. I used to
use more bandwith, e.g., operating system .iso CD images, etc. Today, usage
is light by comparison... We only have one "new" neighbor, so I doubt
that's the reason. But, some of the young kids are growing up...
dslreports.com seems to be getting mixed info from Comcast users, many with
6 or 8Mb, some with off the chart speeds, many with more moderate 1 to 3Mb
speeds, and a few recent posts about being throttled, i.e., they probably
did do something... A few years ago, dslreports.com was the only one
accurately reporting certain bad Comcast routers. Too bad ping can't be
used to do speed tests... Then, one could track which router was the
"problem."

http://www.dslreports.com/badrouters

> This is probably not a violation of contract which reads
> "up to 8". Even less likely if it is month-to-month.
>

Well, I think originally it was 6Mb, and they upgraded the entire area to
8Mb for free... I'll have to wait until I have need to download a large
file, like an OS CD, from a fast source where I'm familiar with the download
speed.


Rod Pemberton

From: Robert Redelmeier on 20 Jan 2008 23:34
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote in part:
> Yup, could be something temporary, or accidentally cut fiber,
> etc., but more likely cost cutting on their part.

Or a [new] customer on your segment who becomes a
heavy user and unthrottled, crowds you out.

> Well, I probably keep more info on this than the regular user.
> We experienced severe connection problems some years ago which
> we couldn't get them to fix...(What's new?) So, I "inventoried"
> outgoing path's and incoming (via other methods), DNS servers,
> gateway, IP, etc. I check every now and then for changes.
> The things they've changed: many more routers, in state and
> out of, before they "pass off" the data to "the Internet",
> many DNS server changes, external IP after first year of use
> (Shock!). They advertise "always on," but in fact we typically
> lose connection 15 min. or more per day at random times.
> That's been going on for four or five years now... Today,
> data from me crosses 1/2 the US today inside Comcast's network,
> versus one state, originally. Perhaps, they are slowly building
> a "slower," lower cost to them, nation-wide network. So, it'll
> be like the phone companies, good connection in network only! :-)

Quite possibly. Cost savings for them.

> We only have one "new" neighbor, so I doubt that's the
> reason. But, some of the young kids are growing up...

One is all it takes. 8 is all they have, burst. I someone
starts eating it, there's less for their neighbors until/ unless
CC resegments. Which costs so they're unlikely to do it.

> Too bad ping can't be used to do speed tests... Then,
> one could track which router was the "problem."

Sure it can, with the right [unix] `ping`. Just set the
"size" and flood options correctly. But you'll be limited
by your upload. Nasty and not really good for public nets.
You can use `ttcp` for bandwidth testing in both directions,
but you need shell access to the machines at both ends.

> entire area to 8Mb for free... I'll have to wait until I
> have need to download a large file, like an OS CD, from a
> fast source where I'm familiar with the download speed.

I use ISO images from freebsd.org. They'll immediately
saturate my 3 Mbps connection.

-- Robert

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: FPU multiplication issue
Next: batch image scanner