What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
89 Comments
- Neiby, on 09/19/2008, -2/+52Since this new approach only kicks in during times of congestion, this seems like a reasonable approach. It's similar in premise to weighted fair queuing. It attempts to stop bandwidth-hogging flows from choking out smaller flows. This is very common. Every major network exercises some form of queuing and Quality of Service.
- stoanhart, on 09/19/2008, -1/+31This is a good, logical system. This is what "network management" should consist of.
In fact, many people already do this privately. I have a VOIP line, and I used to get choppy connections when I was torrenting. So, I installed Tomato on my router and set up QoS, with VOIP at the top, Torrents at the bottom, and everything else in the middle. Works like a charm. - philodygmn, on 09/19/2008, -1/+26If I didn't know any better, I'd think this were good news.
/sarcasm[?] - lilhelper, on 09/20/2008, -1/+25hmm. I think comcast should just upgrade its infrastructure.
American Internet connections are way outdated to other countries current technologies....
I guess this is what american companies do, wait until it is absolutely necessary to make changes usually resulting from a community uproar. Pathetic.
Maybe they should be building "now" for tomorrow, not tomorrow.
With the blu-ray disc, bigger hard drives, and faster computers, we are going to see bigger and bigger programs, video games, and more complex applications. This is going to demand a much higher bandwidth than what is on average.
- Bith8654, on 09/20/2008, -0/+23Enough with your sorcery!
- inactive, on 09/20/2008, -1/+17They have plenty of bandwidth, that's not the issue. They're just trying to preserve their TV business. They could fix "hogging" issues with ease, but then who would pay for TV when they could stream it as quickly as they can off their TV, on their computers?
It' *****...don't fall for it. - stoanhart, on 09/19/2008, -0/+16Then you don't really understand net neutrality, do you?
- dixon1e, on 09/19/2008, -0/+14"Type Of Service" bits have always been a part of the TCP/IP stack, enabling active traffic shaping by the network operator. These bits have been there from the beginning, whenever you define that to be. The use of this feature is totally appropriate and "working as designed", if the technical summary in the article is correct.
FTR, there were historically two bits, meaning you could have four classes of service. Remember that "back in the old days", you had low latency terminal traffic (Telnet) and high latency file transfers (FTP) as two services that you'd want to separate. This mapping of HTTP vs. P2P is almost identical. - Wosat, on 09/20/2008, -0/+11So, philodygmn, you say "I" as if you are also Hortinstein? Do you have two accounts?
- pbryan, on 09/20/2008, -1/+12
- LordBacon, on 09/20/2008, -1/+12
- HonoredMule, on 09/20/2008, -0/+11What you are doing isn't protocol-agnostic...which for yourself is fine because at home it is essentially you cooperating with yourself. You're not going to try seeding torrents on the VOIP port or something like that.
What Comcast is now planning to do is protocol-agnostic, but just like what you are doing in principle, just on a per-user level instead of per-service level, and yes that is exactly what they should be doing. What I can't understand for the life of me is why it wasn't done this way in the first place. I can't fathom how their previous methodology could possibly be more effective OR fail to cost much more than this one.
Before, they were using expensive custom hardware to perform process-intensive deep packet inspection on all traffic so they can make "throttling" decisions based on asinine and sweeping assumptions--by generating more data themselves which is probably also process-intensive--which ultimately only results in excessive retransmission to re-establish connections and re-send actual content, all in the name of /saving/ bandwidth/money.
Now, they're using off-the-shelf hardware, software, and methodologies to accomplish full utilization of bandwidth for /real/ data and fairly distributed amongst users, doing what most large networks--and you would have thought they as well--already do: count packets and classify them by simple rules for a priority queue. - kaelyiesta, on 09/20/2008, -1/+12As long as they just stop lying about the service they sell(and a clause that allows for contract cancellation if they change said service) I don't care what they do. Oh, except for that whole government sponsored network infrastructure monopoly thing. That kinda still makes me homicidal. Oh wait, I also have a problem with them colluding with the FCC by employing ex-FCC commissioners as consultants along with the rest of the telcos. Hmm, nevermind. I take it back, ***** comcast. They still suck.
- inactive, on 09/20/2008, -2/+11I just want to tell you guys that day time strippers have ***** *****. That is all.
- endrest, on 09/20/2008, -1/+10Agreed. Comcast has a lot to preserve in its business model because their services aren't just SD video. VIOP requires low-latency. So there's a couple factors as to why they did what they did, but in the end, I'm glad that they are being more public with their policies. Regarding @Neilby: Queuing isn't the same as QoS. QoS is like a ticket to the front of a line.
- inactive, on 09/20/2008, -1/+10I heard this morning that Comcast has also initiated an overall bandwidth cap on customers, with a possible punishment of account removal. They have gone way too far. It's going to be hilarious when FiOS becomes a truly widespread service. People are going to jump ship by the hundreds, swimming directly to Verizon.
Comcast made the mistake early on to construct a hybrid fiber-coaxial network, instead of simply running fiber directly to the home -- like Verizon. That last length of coax is going to get them in the log run, and I've been saying it for years. Traffic congestion is only the start. - usamaizm, on 09/20/2008, -1/+9that still doesn't mean we need to trust them.
- Philbert, on 09/20/2008, -0/+7Hmm.. I'll stick with FiOS thanks.
- BooneFaustus, on 09/20/2008, -1/+8Dugg for digging R.E.M. reference
- Abjure, on 09/20/2008, -3/+10Dugg for R.E.M. reference.
- HonoredMule, on 09/20/2008, -0/+6I'm pretty sure it was a 540.
- crownedgriffin, on 09/20/2008, -0/+6Wow. That sounds totally fair. Well, except for the 250GB limit part. I've passed that already this month. Good thing I don't have Comcast. ;)
- KMartSheriff, on 09/20/2008, -1/+7Did Comcast just do a 180?
- crownedgriffin, on 09/20/2008, -0/+6Um.. lol?
- SolidSnak, on 09/20/2008, -0/+5it wasn't obligatory
- morphinapg, on 09/20/2008, -0/+5Why do they advertise these bandwidths if they can't offer you them full time? Why don't they just sell lower bandwidths?
- twiztidsinz, on 09/20/2008, -0/+5I'd like to share with all you good people a quote from the bible that is very near and dear to me, it has great meaning to me and I wish to share it with you in the hopes it will have an impact on your life.
It is taken from the book of Joshua, chapter 18, verse 10 word 19...
"the"
Thank you, my brothers and sisters for your time, I ask that you go out into the world and share your new found wisdom with all who are willing to learn. - stuffradio, on 09/20/2008, -0/+5*****
- darkfire79, on 09/20/2008, -1/+6It's already rolled out in Minneapolis. Reboot the modem.. it will switch to DOCSIS 2.0 mode, which is part of the roll out. I find it odd thought that Comcast can't even send the right firmware upgrade to my modem. You'd think they'd know that it's a SB5101, and not a SB5100... and they have received complaints about this. I dont think it affects speed however, but it would be nice if they'd send the right upgrade file. Dont bother calling about it either.. waste of time.
- handheldchimp, on 09/20/2008, -2/+6***** COMCAST!!!
- rusty0101, on 09/20/2008, -0/+4I understand that they plan on doing that right after their loans for the new equipment and infrastructure are approved. Too bad that they have to keep going to different banks...
- twiztidsinz, on 09/20/2008, -0/+4Thats 250GB total....
Downloads, uploads, IMs, games, LOLCats, /d/ickgirls, and The Googles.
I wont even begin to fathom how quickly you'll hit that cap if a few of your friends send you an Internets, that's if it's even able to get through the tubes. - BobbyMC, on 09/20/2008, -0/+4Games are approaching a 10 gig standard. While systems like Steam are going full.... steam Comcast is imposing a limit. For the power of broadband to create a digital market it must have no artificial boundaries.
I'm not remotely clean when it comes to what I download, but thanks to companies beginning to get their head out of their ass I watch a ***** ton of Hulu. A site that good causes me to watch the entire seasons of Arrested Development and It's Always Sunny in philadelphia multiple times. Hi Res streaming is not only potentially a huge bandwidth drain, but is untraceable for the average person and far too much of a hassle for someone who knows how.
At least when it was a secret number I never expected them to bother in the vast majority of cases. A hard cap on a service they have a hardon for tripling the speed of every 3 seconds is kind of... retarded. When they pushed upload from 250 to 1k I think worldwide BT speeds rose about 50%. if theyr eally cared about too much bandwidth, they shouldn't be enabling a direction which very rarely benefits anyone but the seeders they hate. - inactive, on 09/20/2008, -0/+4No, I'm talking about the line running from the house, to the pole, down the street, and out of the neighborhood to a headend facility where an optical node is connected to the coax through some sort of transceiver.
That's miles, not feet, of cable that would need to be replaced. - jimv1983, on 09/20/2008, -1/+5If 20% of users are using 90% of the bandwidth that's not fair. Some are using it 24/7 and that is not fair for people who want to watch a few youtube vids, check their myspace, check email and download small amounts of music. It is good that comcast is being less bias about what type of traffic there is and just trying to divide up the bandwidth fairly. Comcast just earned a few points in my book.
- jimv1983, on 09/20/2008, -0/+4How do you really go over 250GB a month. The only thing I can think of is HD video and even that would be like 70 hours of 1080p HD video or 85 hours of 720p HD video. Even in my heaviest month when i downloaded like 200 hour long tv episodes(standard definition), several albums and my regular browsing and still hit maybe 100GB in a month. Then it took me 2-3 months to watch all those shows.
So really what do you download? - DeathfireD, on 09/20/2008, -0/+4The hardware Comcast has at the head ends can already support it, but the lines cant. Comcast doesn't want to invest billions of dollars upgrading to fiber when it's easier and cheaper for them to just throttle and limit traffic using their hardware. The sad part is this will probably continue and, unfortunately be adopted by other ISPs that haven't put out fiber lines, thus putting our Internet progress in a stand still compared to other country's. We could be stuck with "up to 20Mb/s-30Mb/s" speeds for years upon years wile other country's progress to 200-500Mb/s speeds or higher and have web services that have evolved that us Americans wont be able to use because of the limits and throttles. It saddens me when anyone that reads this news thinks this is good news.
- renegadeafk, on 09/20/2008, -0/+4
- d03boy, on 09/20/2008, -1/+4the way they describe it, it really is. You can improve your own latency by reducing your bandwidth. So your speed/latency is really up to you.
- twiztidsinz, on 09/20/2008, -1/+4I'd say it's good news too.... This is a great way of limiting traffic so that everyone has a fair share without trying to rape net neutrality and pissing people off who use "non standard" (read: non mainstream) protocols like BitTorrent... except they still have that 250gb/mo limit looming over your head.
Had they done this from the start, they could have saved themselves MUCH headache and bad press. - jpinsonault, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3they give you a max possible speed. All the commercials say "speeds up to blah blah". It's clear that it's not a guarantee. And if they're going to be as equitable as this says, then you have nothing to worry about.
Nah I'm just kidding they're all douche bags :| - Elderon, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3What I'm curious is that if / when this goes into effect, will the 250GB cap be dropped? I mean what is the point of kicking heavy users when the whole purpose of this new system is to target heavy users when the network fills up and pushes them to the back of the line?
- rusty0101, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3Don't forget it also includes attempts by compromised systems to compromise your system(s). ssh attacks, ping, ftp, http, 1438, nimda, code red, just about every known windows exploit, etc. etc. None of which is being blocked by any of the routers in Comcasts networks, and none of the source IP addresses for packets leaving Comcast's networks are being verified as being from a device they accept traffic from as it leaves the network.
- d03boy, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3it's called a "time share"
- inactive, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3Comcast can't simply drop the bandwidth limit, their infrastructure can't support all the new load. That's the whole reason for it to begin with, node congestion. It's gonna take significant spending on their part to design a new scalable network.
They should have either stuck with TV only and HFC, or embraced voice and Internet with FTTH. They embraced voice, Internet and TV with a HFC network, and it has been their downfall. - inactive, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3Actually it's more of what equipment is along the line than at the end. Since fiber is immune to EMI it takes less equipment to amplify the single as it goes down stream. Including less power to initially push the signal, as well. Not to mention the lack of a modem, as fiber is natively digital. It's only a matter of separating TV, voice and Internet signals at the end.
Fiber is a higher bandwidth cable as well, supporting speeds well over 2.5GB/s. Currently coaxial maxes out around 1.5GB/s. So that last run does make a difference when bandwidth needs grow larger and larger, as they are right now.
And the irony is, extended cable runs -- of any copper based wire -- are more expensive than fiber, not counting repeater equipment. - tnoy, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3From the banner on Comcast's website: "Up to 16Mbps"
Key words there: *UP TO*. They're not advertising that you'll get those speeds all the time. In fact, I've never seen a advertisement for a ISP guaranteeing a speed. - scimanal, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3Most importantly, you end up with Node Swarming, and that my friend, SUCKS.
once a node gets congested, by oh idk, everyone torrenting off each other, then you = slow internet. - Prototek, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3The headline is not funny or topical.
- inactive, on 09/20/2008, -0/+3Check this:
http://www.dslreports.com/gmaps/fios
FiOS has already rolled out to many places on the Eastern Shore. It's only a matter of time before it becomes widespread. I'm not saying, and didn't to start, that it will be quick. But it is happening and it will eventually cover the continental United States.
I'm also not some FiOS fan-boy here, either. I want more towns to roll out their own FTTH networks and start fighting companies like Verizon and Comcast. It's time we not only had a free and neutral Internet, but user controlled networks as well.
So if Verizon wont hurry their ass up, get crackin'. Stop spewing depressive claims and find ways to improve the situation. *****. -
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is