Re: IMPORTANT!! ALL COMCAST Subscribers!! PLZ READ! COMCAST COMCAST

I haven't bothered to read much about FioS, but if Comcast was 1:1 we wouldn't be having this conversation. :)

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

Maybe that's a bad example. Even with posted speed limits that you aren't exceeding, a cop can still ticket you for speeding if he thinks you're going too fast for conditions. Your point is taken, though.

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].

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).

Don't be obtuse.

Come on, even you don't believe that.

Define "a lot". You can't, just like Comcast can't.

According to the folks I talked to at Comcast abuse, backed up by the majority of the forum reports, most notifications do come as a surprise. After all, why wouldn't they? It's not like Comcast provides any mechanism for monitoring one's usage.

We were talking about the user:modem ratio.

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".

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".

No, you misunderstood.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then the Comcast ratio is higher than 1:1 as many customers own their own modems. However this long drawn out, very stupid argument is over how customers utilize the service not just numbers of modems VS people using the service. Customer ratio is a straw-man argument.

No You did as usual!

That's all fine and dandy, but you're forgetting that 1) you can't see the other cars on the internet or know whether it's raining or not, thus you don't know the conditions to know whether it's safe or not, and 2) your car has a governor on it that already keeps it from exceeding the speed limit.

All of these analogies don't work.

PS: I don't ever cross-post - to Comcast or any other group.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in news:xAxFi.1314$ snipped-for-privacy@textfe.usenetserver.com:

No, you've given an extremely lame excuse. You'd be laughed out of court if you used that as your defense.