Latest Study Confirms Cox Traffic Shaping; Comcast Misleading Again
from the sounds-familiar dept
A bunch of folks have been submitting various news reports claiming the "news" that Cox is traffic shaping just like Comcast is -- but that's hardly news. We had a story about that last November. What is a bit more interesting out of the same study (though, not very surprising) is the news that Comcast has been less than forthright in explaining what it's doing. While Comcast denied any traffic shaping for the longest time, when it finally 'fessed up (just a bit) it said that it only used traffic shaping during peak hours. However, the research suggests otherwise. After testing a bunch of users at various times, this new study found no noticeable difference in blockages based on time.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: misleading, traffic shaping
Companies: comcast, cox
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you just can't advertise an un-metered access line, and then expect that 'everyone' is going to be satisfied with service that doesn't reflect what was said on some x-million dollar commercial.
internet providers need to not over subscribe their lines to the point where they become overloaded so easily (or as easily as they would want some to believe). upgrade and maintain. is it so much to ask that some profits be shaved and put back into the company?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Upgrading Infrastructure
I agree to a point but there is also a corollary to this statement that implies equal access for the rest of the subscribers. It's kinda like those folks who like to drive at or below the limit in the passing lane. Sure they have a right to drive at that speed, but they should also respect the rights of others and yield the lane to other who wish to go faster. Their rights should not trample on the rights of others. To that end I agree on the idea of traffic shaping but only with regards to a published formula that is measurable and verifiable to external scrutinies.
"internet providers need to not over subscribe their lines to the point where they become overloaded so easily (or as easily as they would want some to believe). upgrade and maintain. is it so much to ask that some profits be shaved and put back into the company?"
Again, sound in concept but in practice it begs the question of who would benefit? Without some degree of QoS or Shaping the rest of the users on the network still get crowded out by the noisy P2P users. Also since the majority of the users usually only pay for the lowest level of account access, it really does not support the idea that enough revenue would be realized to offset investment.
I for one pay for a business level of cable internet and it burns my backside when I look out at the edge of my network and see the traffic passing by my router. If anything I think that service limits should also be imposed to allow the customers that pay more to actually be able to get a higher level of priority than the average base subscription user.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Upgrading Infrastructure
There's a huge problem here...HUGE! Bit Torrent isn't preventing others from getting the access they deserve. When I use my Internet connection, I want the speeds that I pay for regardless of protocol. No more, no less. I pay X dollars/month for X/bandwidth. IF Comcast/Cox are selling more bandwidth than they have the supply for, then that's their fault...why in the hell should my Internet connection suffer because of it?
"Without some degree of QoS or Shaping the rest of the users on the network still get crowded out by the noisy P2P users. Also since the majority of the users usually only pay for the lowest level of account access, it really does not support the idea that enough revenue would be realized to offset investment."
QoS? Come on! Throttling my connection at all hours of the day is quality of service? I get the idea of "peak hours"...but at 3am? This is definitely NOT about QoS...this is some political BS so they can have ammunition to kill Net Neutrality...which, by the way, this whole thing just tramples over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Upgrading Infrastructure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Upgrading Infrastructure
First let me say this is a terrible analogy. The law says you can drive up to the speed limit, it does not say you have any right to drive faster then that limit. As a matter of fact you do not even have the right to drive period. you have the right to take the test and become licensed, which allows you to take advantage of the privilege of driving, but I promise you, you do not have a right to drive, and definitely do not have the right to speed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Upgrading Infrastructure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Upgrading Infrastructure
Also, there is a master law to the effect of "One should not impede the flow of traffic". This is law in all states and applies to lane discipline...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just "shaping"
Also, if you advertise unlimited service, then that's what you should provide. If you plan on offering anything else then make that apparent. Nobody is advertising unlimited oil. We're used to buying things with limits, it's a concept we, as consumers, can understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
I'd like to see your customer service agreement where it says you pay X for X bandwidth. You should have read it first. Their ads typically say speeds "up to x megabytes". I've never see a guarantee of bandwidth, and I really don't think they EVER said EVERY user gets byte 24/7. If you find that, please post.
To continue the car analogy: the speed limit is 70, my car can go 70, why are all these people in my way during rush hour?
Its is a shared resource, designed for bursty traffic. You want to suck it all down, I'm all for filters to throttle you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
Comcast/Cox is the one person slowing you down...except they won't let you pass...even though the road is empty. You've paid the toll for UP to 55MPH and they're holding you back at 25MPH (not even in a school zone).
How's THAT for an analogy?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's only going to get worse from here. Netflix downloads, all the broadcast stations throwing their show up online, internet tv, you name it, the average user's need will only increase, and dramatically.
The cable companies have two choices, spend more money upgrading their infrastructure or limit the number the customers they have. Packet shaping is just a finger in the dike. It might work now, but the way demand is going, is no long term solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now having said that, I believe that they should put in a program to only perform shaping when bandwidth saturation gets above a certain threshold. This would be very easy to implement as an automated process and would cost them almost nothing. They would also be legally required to inform their customers of this, but that can just be included in the monthly bill for current users and in the contract for new ones. A program like this would prevent throttling during off-peak hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I beg to differ, though the DSL lines may well be in parallel, they share a feeder that is indeed shared. Try DSL some time the kids get a school holiday, it is like molasses in January.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]