backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 38 comment(s) - last by BruceLeet.. on Apr 29 at 4:32 PM

Says Comcast's equipment didn't distinguish between a network that needed management and one that didn't

Testifying before Congress, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin presented a damning contrast (PDF) to Comcast’s claims that it blocked traffic only when needed.

“Contrary to some claims, it does not appear that [Comcast’s BitTorrent technique] was used only to occasionally delay traffic at particular nodes suffering from network congestion at that time,” said Martin. Basing his statements on testimony received, he added that Comcast’s blocking equipment is “typically deployed over a wider geographic or system area and would therefore have impacted numerous [regions] within a system simultaneously.”

Martin further accuses Comcast of not using “content agnostic” management equipment, a point that violates FCC policy and inadvertently conceded by Comcast, who recently announced a switch to “content agnostic” network management techniques.

Comcast says it expects to have its network switched over by either the end of this year or early 2009 – a timetable that many, including the FCC, have found unsatisfactory. Comcast claims that it can’t implement a change instantly as such a tactic would overwhelm its network.

Regardless of Comcast’s stated intentions – and prior praise for the change, taken entirely on Comcast’s own initiative – Martin expressed doubts on Comcast’s commitment: “Indeed, the question is not when they will begin using a new approach but if and when they are committing to stop using the old one,” he said.

However, the seemingly adversarial relationship between ISPs and the FCC enjoys at least one common ground: Kyle McSlarrow, president and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, urged Congress not to regulate (PDF) ISPs’ management of their networks – a point that Martin agrees with.

“Congress should resist calls to interfere with broadband providers’ freedom,” said McSlarrow. “The disaster scenarios voiced by network neutrality proponents for many years have never happened. In fact, the opposite has happened — the Internet is booming without regulation. There is quite simply no problem requiring a government solution.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It's ComCraptic
By Shukla on 4/24/2008 8:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
I must say, I have ComCrap. Generally when the service is working (most of the time) I have no issues. Call their customer support and you should just kill yourself. They have the worst customer service. While the techs are friendly, the can't solve your problem. Recently trying to get a new cable modem provisioned, the cust. svc reps are nothing more than a call center. They have to wait in a cue w/someone from S.E. Asia. *Because I bought a Zoom Modem-- that comcast recommended*, they couldn't figure out how to provision it. 4 days later and I finally find the right comcast person who has it up in less than 1 min. I used to rave about their internet techs. Seems like ComCrap has taken away a lot of their rights and training.

Ugh. It's ComCraptic!




RE: It's ComCraptic
By TheSpaniard on 4/24/2008 10:00:42 AM , Rating: 2
I also have Comcast, I can never get anywhere near 1mbs speed. I am usually stuck at around 70 - 125 kbs.

Their service also cuts out randomly (online games dropping connection). their customer service apparently understands the crappyness of the service and waives my fee for the month if I call and complain (that would be the only reason I haven't gone back to dial-up)


RE: It's ComCraptic
By AssassinX on 4/24/2008 10:37:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I also have Comcast, I can never get anywhere near 1mbs speed. I am usually stuck at around 70 - 125 kbs.


mbps or MBps? One would be megabits per second while the other is megabytes per second. My cable company advertises in mbps and I imagine Comcast does the same. In any case, 1mbps = 125 kbps which would actually match the range you were specifying. Unless you have an 8mbps package(which I'm sure there are and greater), I wouldn't be expecting 1 MBps.


RE: It's ComCraptic
By AssassinX on 4/24/2008 10:39:40 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry that was supposed to be 125KBps not kbps


RE: It's ComCraptic
By TheSpaniard on 4/29/2008 9:00:37 AM , Rating: 2
thanks... I never really understood that but thatnks for explaining it to me.

That dosent really matter though when Comcast has its lowest package, in my area, set to 10mbs


RE: It's ComCraptic
By cartera on 4/24/2008 10:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
Divide 1 megaBIT (1024ish with a bunch of zeros) by 8 (BIT to BYTE conversion) and you get 128 kiloBYTES, the exact number that they advertised and about what you've been getting.


RE: It's ComCraptic
By jordanclock on 4/24/2008 4:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
I have Comcast too. But I have a modified modem, so I get 2MB/s. That's a "B" as in bytes, not bits. I also live in an apartment with at least 6 other Comcast internet users, yet my downloads rarely see a dip below 1.5MB/s (when the host can put it out that fast, of course).

Also, I've never had my service interrupted, yet I don't pay for it. The modem let's me connect without a subscription. But the guy in the unit next to me told me about a few times where he had hour or longer outages. Weird, huh?


RE: It's ComCraptic
By Brainonska511 on 4/24/2008 6:02:00 PM , Rating: 4
So you're stealing?


RE: It's ComCraptic
By Runiteshark on 4/24/2008 6:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how you can authenticate on their network when you don't have an account to match your Modem's MAC address to.

Instead of having a modified modem, I have a Cisco 815, which is worlds better then any Motorola modem, modified or not.

There is no issues in changing the configuration with ease, or threat of detection either.


RE: It's ComCraptic
By Runiteshark on 4/24/2008 10:05:15 AM , Rating: 5
A long while ago, I applied to be one of their Tier 1 techs. After going into one of their Centers in Denver, 2 minutes later I decided that that wasn't the place for me.

No doubt that their techs are retarded. I had my service turned off because I was moving, and then turned back on when I got into my new apartment. I didn't want to run their shit registration software (I'll keep my TCP/IP stack and routes normal, thank you) and it took them 40 minutes to figure out what I was talking about (The noreg flag on the account).

Back even longer ago when I was with my ISP, then called Valor Communications, I used to just directly call the guys at their NOC to bounce my port, since the DSLAM in my area was probably the crappiest one I've ever had the pleasure of being allocated to. The joys of having 4000 users on a piddly 5 T1's. A majority of those users had the 3mbit connection to. Needless to say, extremely heavy packetloss was rampant, pings shot up into the 1000s seemingly all the time, and it was a hellish experience to browse even the most rudimentary of sites. The NOC engineers that I dealt with were pretty decent (Skipping Teir 1's 2s' and their TAC) but once they changed into Windstream, I no longer had any connection to the engineers. When I called them requesting the bounce my port, or report if a line was down (you know, when everyone in the town went down) they always thought I worked there, but now with Windstream they wouldn't talk to me. From there a steady decline in service happened, and soon all I could get was Tier 1's telling me that "They had no ability to see my modem on their network (A Cisco 837) due to them not having access", whereas other techs did?

I was almost joyed, thrilled even when I moved and switched to Comcast; Finnaly I thought, speed, not the horrible crap I was used to. What did I find? Pay for 8/1 and get 256/768.

If these damn ISPs would actually just upgrade their endlinks with better equipment, thats all that would need to be done. There is no need to "lay new fiber" to go to these new locations. Just replace say old 100b-lx cards with 1000b-lx cards and you're fine. For my old ISP (Valor/Windstream) It'd be a little different, since they still have ATM setups in their backbone with piddly DS3 links, but still.


RE: It's ComCraptic
By Murst on 4/24/2008 10:20:47 AM , Rating: 3
Tech support at any ISP is horrible, its not really limited to Comcast.

A while ago I called about an issue I was seeing and the lady that picked up the phone was completely clueless. She then argued with me that I have a 10mb upload connection, and a 512kb down.

After arguing a while, I decided to play along and pointed out that if this is the case, my upload connection is working at only 5% of what I pay for. Then she went off about how the speeds are not guaranteed, etc. Fortunately, I was able to get transferred to someone who actually had some limited knowledge of the way their network works and the issue was fixed, but it certainly took a while.


RE: It's ComCraptic
By BruceLeet on 4/29/2008 4:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well bad luck on you guys, never had to deal with tech support at my ISP but I suppose my little Canadian ISP does an outstanding job by Comcasts 'standards'. Because Ive never had a dropped line, 4275/down and 880/up plus I got a 94ms ping at around ~1250mi(Speedtest). We got no fancy fiber optic lines but I'd like to see my ISP Manage one 8)

Btw am I the only one that thinks >> 8) looks like a ninja turtle? Michaelangelo FTW!


RE: It's ComCraptic
By darkpaw on 4/24/2008 10:27:09 AM , Rating: 2
I really can't wait till Verizon has FiOS available in my building. I've been generally happy with the service until the last few months. First, I inexplicably couldn't access Netflix.com from my home at all. Pings worked fine, and my out bound SYN packets were obviously reaching Netflix because several minutes later I'd get a RST packet. Somewhere in between Comcast was blocking or dropping the ACK packets. Of course their customer service people had no clue what I was talking about at the packet level. It was really sad that I had to VPN into my work computer to manage my Netflix account (and of course I couldn't access any of the streaming video).

Then our phone service went out for over a week. All inbound went straight to voicemail. Evertime I called support I was given a different story about when it would be addressed and after a week they finally dispatched a tech because they swore the issue wasn't on their end. The tech wasn't there 30 seconds before he was on the phone with the NoC telling them what they did wrong and how to fix it.

Sadly, other then Comcast the only choice right now is very slow DSL and OTA tv so I'm stuck with them. Hurry up Verizon, you've got another customer just waiting to send you money!


RE: It's ComCraptic
By kjboughton on 4/24/2008 11:20:02 AM , Rating: 2
WOW! This is EXACTLY what I've been dealing with for the last 3 months! I can ping Netflix.com but the site just refuses to load. I've called COMCAST multiple time to discuss the issue and have always been told there's nothing wrong with their network and it must be something on my end. It finally got to the point where I had to cancel my Netflix account and go with BlockBuster Online, although I'd prefer to go back to Netflix.

Did you get this resolved? What was the problem? What do I need to tell them to get this fixed? Please! You're my only hope! (P.S. I live in Santa Clara, CA...in case that has something to do with it.)


RE: It's ComCraptic
By Runiteshark on 4/24/2008 11:38:23 AM , Rating: 2
nslookup netflix.com

(for reference, for me it comes up as
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: netflix.com
Address: 208.75.76.17)

tracert (the ip it says), if you see routes drop, then theres your problem. If you can see it and the traceroute completes normally, try going http://theipthatitshowsyou or http://208.75.76.17

My guess is one of 2 things:

1. They are screwing with the DNS and injecting their own crap or deliberately not updating it properly. I've encountered several ISPs that will actually change the DNS information and point them to incorrect locations, or nullroute it, or even in some cases (Cox Communications) route users connecting to an IRC server to their own and attempt to uninstall a bot with typical commands (but without logging in, so what good are the uninstall commands going to do). If this is the case, don't bother calling them, you will either:

-------a. Get some woman who is proud of her associates degree in computer science tell you that they (the ISP) only passes traffic from one end to the other. There isn’t any routers or firewalls, or anything like that, they just “pass” traffic. (Yeah I had this conversation)
-------b. Have someone tell you its not on their end and hang up on you

What you can do is change your DNS settings to use someone else instead of your ISP for DNS.

2. One of Comcast’s routes or their peers routes are not up, or have latency/packet loss
What you can do: Find out which specific route it is, and make sure that it is, traceroute to that specific IP that is failing (or name) and if the last hop fails it is that hop. Have a friend with the same service do the same thing, then call them and tell them that so and so route is failing on this specific hop. When you do call, don’t bother speaking with T1’s they will have no idea what a route even is.


RE: It's ComCraptic
By kjboughton on 4/24/2008 1:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
OK, the rabbit hole goes even deeper.

First, I am using OpenDNS, so my DNS lookup requests shouldn't have anything to do with Comcast's DNS servers but nonetheless here is my response when running "nslookup netflix.com"

Server: UnKnown
Address: 192.168.100.1

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: netflix.com.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
Address: 208.67.219.132

This is wild...why would comcast be claiming that netflix.com is a subdomain belonging to them?? The problem MUST be related to this somehow. The first response (from 192.168.100.1) is just my router forwarding the DNS response outside of the LAN.

I also ran a trace route, hops 2 and 10 timed out with no response (out of 14 total hops). Which, conincidently, returned an final IP address for Netflix.com of 208.75.76.17 which doesn't match the IP address returned when running a straight NS lookup. This matches the IP address that you provided though...WTF.


RE: It's ComCraptic
By darkpaw on 4/24/2008 1:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
Having a few replies dropped during a trace route isn't unusual. It just means those specific routers are set not to respond to pings. Tract route works by sending pings with consecutively higher TTL values, so you are in essance pinging each stop individually. If the stops do not respond to the pings after a while it will mark it as no response, increment the TTL and move on to the next one.

As I mentioned in my post pings arrived at Netflix just fine (ICMP packets). From what I saw, there is something blocking the three way TCP connection though. The non-authoritative DNS answer you got is very suspicous.


RE: It's ComCraptic
By kjboughton on 4/24/2008 2:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
I changed my DNS servers from OpenDNS provided IPs to Comcast's and here's my new response for "nslookup netflix.com"

Server: UnKnown
Address: 192.168.100.1

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: netflix.com
Address: 208.75.76.17

This matches with the earlier response, now leading me to believe that there may be a general incompatability between the way Netflix's site sends HTTP traffic and the OpenDNS lookup. Even after flushing the DNS resolver cache though I still cannot access Netflix.com. The tracert looks exactly the same as before.


RE: It's ComCraptic
By darkpaw on 4/24/2008 2:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
According to Arin, the 208.75.76.17 is the correct address for Netflix, so it is definitely not a DNS issue. You are resolving to the correct addresses and your tracert went to the right place. That would definitely indicate to me that the TCP connection is being disrupted.


RE: It's ComCraptic
By Zoomer on 4/25/2008 11:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
I am using OpenDNS and am finding their practices very shady. They do this to lots of other sites as well. Think Google.

Think i should just stop using them althogether, though RR's DNS servers are less responsive.


RE: It's ComCraptic
By darkpaw on 4/24/2008 1:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
Wish I could tell you how it was resolved, but I honestly don't know. The problem "magically" went away the same time they announced they weren't going to be filtering P2P traffic anymore so I figured it was their blockers doing it.


RE: It's ComCraptic
By Some1ne on 4/24/2008 5:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
I used to have Comcast, until I noticed that I would start having connectivity issues every time I tried to download a torrent. Then I switched to SpeakEasy. Apart from the fact that they cost roughly twice as much as comparable service from Comcast (though admittedly their service includes various extras not available through Comcast, such as multiple static IP numbers for me to use), they've been an excellent ISP. Their uptime has been nearly flawless (and they're good about sending notifications for any scheduled downtime for maintainence/etc.), and I haven't had any problems downloading torrents (or anything else, for that matter) since. I guess if you want quality, you have to pay for it, which I'm quite happy to do after experiencing the kind of BS that Comcast tries to pass off as Internet service.


Comcast...
By JazzMang on 4/24/2008 1:30:26 AM , Rating: 2
A great example of a bad company, all around.
From the awful support to the amazingly consumer-unfriendly practices, Comcast makes me hate it more every day.

Its comcastic!

*puke*




RE: Comcast...
By daftrok on 4/24/2008 2:11:18 AM , Rating: 1
Comcast, the Fox News of Cable Companies.


RE: Comcast...
By odessit740 on 4/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Comcast...
By odessit740 on 4/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Comcast...
By MozeeToby on 4/24/2008 11:00:17 AM , Rating: 4
Here's what I don't understand. Someone from Comcast lied, under oath, in a court of law. Why the hell aren't they being charged with perjury? Why aren't they being charged with obstruction of justice?

People at Comcast knew what was going on, knew that what was being testified was false, they need to be held accountable.


RE: Comcast...
By RaulF on 4/24/2008 12:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
Makes you wonder huh.
I'll go with money talks BS walks.

I guess MLB didn't have deep enought pockets, or the players told congress or whoever to shove it.


Slogan Reversal
By Inkjammer on 4/24/2008 2:57:01 AM , Rating: 6
At the rate Comcast is going the term "Comcastic" is going to become the new "FUBAR".

"Eighteen car pile up, five dead, a dozen injured... it's beyond Comcastic. Never seen anything like it.




RE: Slogan Reversal
By Mitch101 on 4/24/2008 9:55:50 AM , Rating: 2
Whose C-Block is bigger?

Congress Block or Comcast Block?

I just wanted to say C-Block. ;)


Evil ISPs
By winterspan on 4/24/2008 4:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
“Congress should resist calls to interfere with broadband providers’ freedom,” said McSlarrow. “The disaster scenarios voiced by network neutrality proponents for many years have never happened. In fact, the opposite has happened — the Internet is booming without regulation. There is quite simply no problem requiring a government solution.”

What a total industry shill. His point is completely invalid. The internet indeed HAS BEEN booming. The effort for network neutrality legislation is to continue and protect this booming system.

His other argument is a strawman. Juts because Comcraptic hasn't decided to start charging online video operators to reach "their customers" on "their network" at decent speeds doesn't mean the bastards won't try it in the future.
You sure as hell don't wait for the disaster to occur before making laws and regulations. That's a completely nonsensical concept.

And if the ISPs would never actually think about becoming gatekeepers for their networks and try some bullshit like chargin money from online content providers for "accessing their customers", why do they even care about network neutrality regulation?

Just think of this scenario. Comcrap decides that not only do their broadband customers have to pay them, but they want to get paid on the other side of the connection for companies "using their network" (even though this concept is illogical and inane).

So they call up Youtube, Microsoft, Apple, Netflix, Amazon, and whoever else and basically try to extort vast sums of money from them in order for them to allow the companies to continue sending their video downloads to their customers without having the connections throttled to death. All they have to say is that they are practicing "legitimate network management".
They will simply claim that online video is overwhelming their network, and they will then create a tiered network. If Netflix or Apple pays up, then comcast customers will be able to download Itunes videos in the "fast lane" of the network. If they don't pay the blackmail, then when customers try to download a movie from iTunes, it will be throttled down to the slow lane to the point where it will take many hours to download. Of course, conveniently, at the same time Comcast will offer their own on-demand rental service that will operate at the fastest possible speed on their network. All their customers then switch over to their service or a paying companies service because now "iTunes is so slow".. all the while the customers never knew what happened, and are too ignorant to realize they are the ones getting screwed and they do nothing about it.

Think this can't happen? Elect McCain and you'll see it happen. His campaign is CRAWLING with telecommunications lobbyists... look it up




RE: Evil ISPs
By Christopher1 on 4/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Evil ISPs
By rsmech on 4/24/2008 8:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You sure as hell don't wait for the disaster to occur before making laws and regulations. That's a completely nonsensical concept.


What's the problem? The market is correcting it now. The market will bring these issues before congress when needed. You can't create laws to be 100% effective. There will always be lawbreakers. The only thing wrong with making everyones good ideas into law is that by doing so you take away my rights 1 by 1. Just think of your fat Social Security account, Homeland Security, Medicare drug bill, future National Health Care. These are some examples of "good ideas" that maybe should have stayed just that, "good ideas." Each one has taken more of my money as well as my rights.

quote:
without having the connections throttled to death.


Again the market will take care of this. If this happened you just found yourself in a great position to start your own company with instant customers. Just saying if a better deal comes along the customers will take it, if customers complain someone will listen & make money off of it. Free Market. Stand on your own feet, don't use the gov't as your crutch, use your dollar.


By ninjit on 4/24/2008 11:49:45 AM , Rating: 2
Where I live in SoCal (San Diego), the options are DSL from AT&T (or DSLextreme), and TimeWarner cable.

Reading some of the other posts here about Comcast, I'm amazed that we're all talking about internet service in the same country.

I've never had any real problems with internet here, DSL from AT&T has always been fast and cheap (6 Mbps for $29.95 / month), but I recently switched to Cable because of AT&Ts price increases - I now have 15 Mbps for $39.95/month.

Installations with either DSL or cable were completely painless, and I have to say customer service from AT&T was actually pretty good - being fairly computer savy, I would always just say I knew exactly what the problem was, and ask for a Tier 2 tech right-away, who would then have everything sorted in a jiffy - Tier 1 never gave me any crap about transferring right away.

I realize rural ISP options are limited, but for those of you complaining about your Comcast 1 Mbps connections, are you all in the boonies?
How much do you pay for that speed, and what area do you live in? (So I can make sure I never move there unless FiOS is available)




Help for those in ISP-purgatory
By ninjit on 4/24/2008 12:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
For those of you with Comcast (or any other ISP for that matter) issues that maybe related to them screwing with DNS, I'd suggest trying OpenDNS:
http://www.opendns.com/

to see if it helps at all.

If not, then try using an open/free proxy to get round their crap, but that will likely slow down your browsing speed considerably.
If you're in school, your college may have an authenticated proxy server you can use (from off-campus) which would be much faster.

Of course, these tips only really help with website problems, packet-specific blocking (like with bittorrent) is another matter.
Good BT clients (like Azureus) have the option of obfuscating their packets through encryption, which should help some.




Who's freedom ?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/24/2008 1:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
“Congress should resist calls to interfere with broadband providers’ freedom,” said McSlarrow.


If the ISP's " freedom " is infringing on the ISP's customers freedom, then yeah, its time for the FCC and Congress to do their job ! The ISP's freedom isn't whats at stake here McSlarrow, idiot.




Thanks
By bdewong on 4/24/2008 4:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for making an article on this. I'm glad to get the news out about bad business practices.




found?
By omnicronx on 4/24/2008 1:50:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
a timetable that many, including the FCC, have sound unsatisfactory.
I assume you mean found.




"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki