4 comments

• 

  Jake

  1 year ago

  A problem I've experienced is that using bittorrent throttles my entire connection--in other words, it slows to a trickle http or email. Although I don't like the idea of slowing torrent traffic--TOS or not, I pay for unlimited bandwidth and if Comcast can't provide it they should adjust their pricing or their own bandwidth--I can understand it. But it seems like what they're doing is punitive--"if you use bittorrent you have to sit in the slow internet corner!"--rather than palliative.
  
  And really, if you have to resort to the small print language in a contract you know that no one ever reads in order to prevail on a technicality, you're not being very consumer-friendly. In other words, just because the contract allows Comcast to act this way, that doesn't mean that they should. It's disingenuous to advertise an unlimited use service and then attach restrictions to it. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of all this is that while Comcast (and others) admit that their service isn't, truly, unlimited, they refuse to give any indication on exactly what amount of use is excessive.
  
  And just for the record, I hardly ever use torrents and have never gotten in any trouble over my bandwidth use. I just find this whole issue to be Bad For Consumers.
  reply
• 

  Omar Ismail

  1 year ago

  Agreed that throttling isn't the ultimate evil that some people make it out to be. I mean, practically speaking my Skype/Vonage call, or email, or telnet session is going to be a lot more important than someone getting Hot Fuzz a few minutes faster. Limits are all over society, they keep us in line so the abusers don't have too much damage.
  
  Compare bandwidth to driving. Bittorrent is like a fleet of hummers and transport trucks with no speed/weight limits. For the guy in the Miata he's going to wait along the side of the street so he doesn't get crushed. But if you limit the places these vehicles can go, then the normal traffic is free to move without worry.
  
  Now if people want to pay more for a specialized service (Highway 407) more power to them. But don't make other people suffer because of your need for porn and the latest episode of Lost.
  
  There is a balancing act here though. How much are ISPs gouging customers? Rogers... probably a lot! Without getting details it's easy for ISPs to cry foul, when they really COULD support the extra bandwidth without charging extra, but nobody knows except them. That's why increased competition would weed out these inefficiencies without the need for explicit information to be released.
  reply
• 

  Rob Hyndman

  1 year ago

  I think the real answer is to simply charge people for the amount of bandwidth they use - premium charge during prime time if that makes sense.
  
  The Comcasts of the world have created this problem by creating inefficient pricing structures - structures they've adopted because they presumably facilitate billing and are easier to market. Structures they've been able to sustain because the market is not competitive. It is *easy* to blame them for this, IMO, because it's a pricing structure they created because it's good for them.
  
  People who want to use more bandwidth - for any purpose (Omar - describing them - effectively - as porno fiends is not helpful) - are being cast in the role of the villain because there are no alternatives to the Comcasts - not really.
  
  So, "more power to them"? No, less actually - because users who are willing to pay more for more don't have any way to do it - because of the utility-like infrastucture costs involved in providing access, there likely never will be alternative service providers who can offer the alternatives that power users would use if they could. So they're forced on to the slow lane, with all of the attendant resource sharing problems that this creates.
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  1 year ago

  I agree, Rob -- a more efficient pricing structure, with more choice based on your downloading (or uploading) usage would make a lot of sense, and would likely solve a lot of these problems.
  
  Unfortunately, I think a lot of providers use the one-size-fits-all bucket because they can charge noobs more for something they will never use, and that seems like a good business model to them.
  reply