Bandwidth Hogs Get Butchered

The Skinny: Cable Companies Disconnect Customers Who Download Too Much

(CBS)  The Skinny is Keach Hagey's take on the top news of the day and the best of the Internet.

---

Has your Internet been molasses-slow lately? You may want to blame the download-addicted teenager down the block. And if you happen to be that teenager - or someone with his voracious appetite for mp3s and movies acquired online - you may want to watch out.

The Washington Post reports that Comcast has punished some of its more bandwidth-greedy customers by cutting off their Internet service. The company argues that excessive downloaders hog Internet capacity and slow down the network for other customers - but it won't tell anybody just how much is too much.

For now, only Comcast customers have reported getting cut off, but analysts say such caps could become more common as Internet service providers try to keep up with the demand for increasingly sophisticated online entertainment.

Cable companies in particular could end up with a critically short supply of bandwidth, since several hundred subscribers often share an Internet connection and one high-traffic user could slow down the rest of the neighborhood's connection. Phone lines are run directly to each home, so a single bandwidth hog will not slow connections.

To trigger a disconnection notice, analysts say cable customers would have to be downloading the equivalent of 1,000 songs or four full-length movies a day. But Comcast wouldn't confirm it's cut-off point.

One disconnected user said he just used his Internet connection to watch YouTube videos, listen to Internet radio stations and chat using a Web camera.

Companies have argued that "if strict limits were disclosed, customers would use as much capacity as possible without tipping the scale, causing networks to slow to a crawl."

"A Blistering, Scalding Indictment Of The TSA"

Here's a fun fact to remember next time you're standing in the airport security line, bare feet sticking to the grimy floor, frantically removing your belt and watch as you prepare to be groped and probed in front of a few hundred cranky and impatient fellow passengers: According to USA Today's lead story today, "Only a small percentage of cargo put on passenger planes is physically inspected."

In fact, a new government investigation shows the Transportation Security Administration's program for keeping bombs out of airplane cargo holds is "riddled with holes that leave passenger planes vulnerable to attack," the paper reports.

The Homeland Security Department inspector general said the TSA has too few cargo inspectors, an ineffective database to track violations and "vague regulations" for screening cargo being put on passenger planes. One congressman called the report a "blistering, scalding indictment of the TSA."

The TSA claims it's already made some improvements since the investigation. John Sammon, a TSA administrator, also defended his agency by suggesting that "terrorists are less likely to use a cargo bomb because it's not certain the explosive will make it on to a passenger plane," the paper reports.

According to this defense, we are apparently expected to believe that it's more likely that a terrorist will whip up a bomb cocktail on the fly in the airport bathroom out of ingredients he smuggled into his carry-on luggage. Or that he'll create a massive explosion using something stashed in the sole of his flip-flop.

OK, fine. But until we get this sorted out, can we please bring shampoo on airplanes again?

Starbucks Brings Its Coffee (And Laywers) To Russia

Starbucks opened its first Russian coffee shop in a mall near Moscow yesterday, signifying a victory for the corporation in its three-year fight with a trademark squatter, the New York Times reports.

The Seattle-based coffee giant first registered its trademark in Russia in 1997 but did not open any shops because of the economic crisis of 1998. Then in 2002, as the Russian economy was picking up, former car alam salesman Sergei Zuykov filed a request with Russian authorities to cancel the chain's trademark because it had not been used in commerce in Russia. He then registered Starbucks in the name of a Moscow company he represents as a lawyer.

Zukyov defended his stake on the name Starbucks for three years, saying that if Starbucks would pay $600,000, he would abandon his registration. The company refused to pay. He lost his case in 2005, as Russia stepped up its bid for membership in the World Trade Organization and hewed closer to international standards for the protection of property, the Times reports.

And how will Russians reap the benefits of this victory over trademark extortion? By lining up for the privilege of shelling out the $8.96 for a venti mocha, the Times reports. And yes, even the Russians are being forced to call the small coffees "grande" - which must make even less sense to them than it does to us.


A NOTE TO READERS: The Skinny is available via e-mail. Click here and follow the directions to register to receive it in your inbox each weekday morning.

[jjp735i]

Comcast is one of the worst cable companies I have ever seen (at least in the Pittsburgh area). I had Adelphia, which was really pretty good. Comcast took over, service feel, images suffered and line up got worse.

There is no competition. Each area only allows one company and have you by your wallet. Either you pay them or have nothing. Prices go up, service goes down and now they can just cut you off because they feel you are using the product too much? What a crock..........go DSL.

[hugbee]

Many of the people I work with have Comcast. They all complain about them. I never have any problems with my cable company. If I lived in a Comcast area I''d have to move.

[klingon69]

I am on cableone, haven''t had any real problems, their tech help was great, and if lose service for any period over a few hours, and they discount it from the bill.

[mitch0927]

I''ve had DSL Pro now for 5 years from SBC which is now AT&T and haven''t had any bandwidth issues and my daughter downloads tons of stuff. It could be that I''m one of two subscribers on the same gateway in my area. Speed is fine (3.0Mbps) bandwidth and haven''t had any issues for years with my connection, it''s always there. On the other hand, I have seen many cable customers having issues with their speed, which makes sense, since cable companies here in sht sticks keep buying out on another. I believe thet they need to phrase the "unlimited access" to "limited".....

[dmorgan64-2009]

Probably not a good idea to rely on Comcast for all three Phone, TV and Internet. Looks liek their systems do not have the capacity!

Having all eggs in one basket could be serious with cutoffs like they are doing.

Would be nice if these internet providers could specify a throughput per month rather than touting just speed.

[hypnotoad72]

Comcast designed their broadband internet system to run off of shared segments (you and your neighbors) and then charge individuals who hook up routers for a home LAN more money. It''s no shock that the bandwidth they boast about in those dilettante adverts aren''t based on real information; the only way to have any accurate bandwidth test figures to come out is by kicking off those who pay for the highest speeds. If each subscriber had a dedicated channel, all this wouldn''t be an issue. Or even as remotely a significant issue as it is.

People are sold a service. People lease or buy it because they wish to use it. They are not trying to use a 12MB connection when they paid for a 6GB one; they''re just using 6MB. That''s not infringing on anybody. Especially given the cost of the service.

And the way the cable companies are set up, they''re all a gaggle of "mini monopolies" -- when you try to contact a competitor, the prices seem to be similar and for some reason you''re not in their coverage area.

I''ll stick to DSL, thank you very much.

Signed
A person who doesn''t use much bandwidth despite griping about it.

[sevenveils]

COMCAST has an outdated infrastructure. Profits have soared from their internet services yet the company insisted on linning the pockets of its executives rather than upgrading its infrastructure to keep up with demand.

Shame shame shame on Comcast Cox and other cable companies who insist on using the shared pipe paradigm. The customer payed for it, and the company should live up to its end of the bargain. It''s in the contract!

[mitch0927]

What I find more comical than the COMCAST problem are these posts by people who think they know what they''re talking about. I know a wannabe when I read all the buzzwords being used instead of the lay terms where most people would be able to understand what they''re saying. Try and speak (or write) in a way that most people know what you mean, it only makes you look silly.

[l8c6]

It appears the private sector is failing to provide the greater service and efficiency it promised when the assault on big government began before a generation or two.

Instead of expanding and developing the private for profit corporations must blame the consumer and cut service. Pierce county in Washington state provides basic cable and internet to it''s citizens at an affordable rate. It helps when profit margins don''t need to be so high in order to pay off failed corporate heads severance packages and annual salaries of those still in place.

Of course the intellectual property of all these technologies have origins in the public universities but legal theft by private corporatists have seized it and tell us we need to sacrifice so they can maintain their profit.

So unamerican when a few wealthy will be censoring us in the future, paying minimal tax so they can maintain a caste system like the old world.

[lime-ade]

What''s up with all these companies disconnecting their customers. First it was Sprint and now Comcast. WTH.

I''m a CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP student. I download/buy everything online, from music to movies, to games. Anything I want, I find find it online. My problem is that when I moved into my current apartment, (STUPID) AT&T doesn''t provide internet to my apartment complex. The subdivision across the street can get DSL but I can''t so I switch, phone and internet over to Charter(no other choice).

I''m just angry that the Phone Company in my area has become a monopoly and no one can provide me with the service I want.

[the_quietman]

For the Networking Novice:
Broadbanding on a cable line versus a DSL line.
Cable networking is the fastest thing available IF you happen to be the ONLY user of internet services on that line. The more users you add, the lower your bandwidth. DSL, while slower for a single user remains fairly constant as you add users. Also, DSL is available in different speeds (256, 384, 512, 768) and types (DSL & ADSL).
On a personal note, I had used Comcast when I lived in an area where most of my neighbors could not afford it and was very pleased. Times changed so I switch to DSL 384 and have been happy ever since. I hope that this helps some of you.

[walt1944-2009]

Comcast is one of the worst cable companies out there. They yanked my service, refusing to work with me when I was out of work. They screwed my daughter on services when their eager sales person sold her a pile of goods, then Comcast argued that she wasn''t paying for those services after all.

Businesses were more customer-friendly when there was more competition and the threat of taking your money elsewhere really scared the pants off of them!

THANK YOU VERY MUCH REPUBLICANS EVERYWHERE!

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!

[jimmyc1955]

Quiteman and others - Cable runs over the cable in your lawn and it''s a loop. It runs from house to house so you share that hunk of cable with the others on that loop.

DSL provides a single port for every home - BUT they sell up to 200 times more service than the box that port attaches to can handle. So DSL is not assurance that you will get better performance. Most operators do a decent job of policing traffic but even in their own ads they tell you that the "384" or 1.5 Mbps service is not guaranteed and you will get whats available.

It is technically impossible to police the loop so those who are constantly downloading pose a problem. There was a kid in my neighborhood who ran a file sharing service - left his PC up all day and night and there were downloads and uploads that killed the neighboorhood (I put a sniffer on the loop) till Comcast cut him off.

I don''t like it either but until they run a 100Mbps fiber to everybodies house with it''s own switched port - I don''t know how you can afford to fix either problem.

[jimmyc1955]

I8C6 - have you considered that your paying a whole lot more than you think? IF your county is running the network - how much of your tax dollars, and others who don''t use the service, tax dollars are being spent on the network that you claim is so cheap?

[mitch0927]

Jimmyc1955,
DSL is set up on gateways for a certain amount of customers per gateway....get your facts straight....

[jimmyc1955]

walt1944 - can you explain to my how your inability to pay your comcast bill is a republican/bush issue? The competition was for phone companies who own the phone lines to your house - not your cable service. That is regulated by your local community and they decide who gets the contract.

If your mad at comcast - get DSL? If you can''t get it its because your copper loop is a poor loop. That in a nutshell is why there is no competition for your low money service. It would cost Billions of dollars (and is costing billions of dollars for Verizon''s Fios network) to replace that copper.

So your irrational anger at Bush is misplaced - since nothing he, Republicans or anybody in congress has done or not done impacts competition for cable systems.

[archangelric]

jimmyc1955 - your comments belie a total lack of understanding of the issues.

L8C6 is right; face it. The basic math is that it is cheaper for a government to provide services without a built in profit or the overpaid execs of comcast; where government is usually more expensive than business is illustrated by this article: business can, perhaps illegally (in violation of their franchise agreement), cut off service to high cost clients, government can''t.

walt1944 is right, when comcast bought att broadband they raised the price of internet access, then offered a discount of the price increase IF you combined it with TV (they had promised for the merger to be approved that they would not raise -cable tv- rates). Then they restructured rates making more rate classes which raised people''s prices. The merger was approved by the FCC under Bush''s presidency, ignored by the FTC. so, yes, "THANK YOU VERY MUCH REPUBLICANS EVERYWHERE! "

I suggest you try better to understand the issues that people are saying and research your facts before making comments that are at best ill advised

[dems08]

If most people now think their broadband is unlimited... why would telling them there is a limit make them download more? They just don''t want to change their marketing. They have been dragging their feet on increasing bandwidth in many areas. Even though many companies have been receiving government funds to speed upgrades. They even fight some communities in court when local governments try to upgrade the systems themselves to attract new residents. Japan is years ahead of the US on these issues, where they have average speeds about 40 times faster than our best.

[the_quietman]

Jimmyc1955
The 384 number, and other numbers, are sold as a maximum throughput speed. not a guaranteed speed, but it is still faster than cable within the same size community. Granted the networking classes I took were the shorter managerial rather than "habds on" this fact was strongly emphasized. The actual speed is a factor of the server being accessed and you have no control over that regardless of your connection speed.

[kaiyo4u]

I had DSL when I lived in the NW. I''m currently running cable now. I preferred DSL, just because of tiered speeds. The only problem with speed for residences is that the fastest phone cable you have coming from the phone hub to your house is CAT 3 and in some instances of older homes you may only have CAT 2 cable. Even in some new subdivisions, the phone company is pulling CAT 3 to new homes. We were installing CAT 5e in new homes. But the bottleneck is in the copper from the phone company.

[brianbwb-2009]

If you sell unlimited broadband, by law, ethics, and common sense you should deliver unlimited broadband. To stop service to a customer is breach of contract, it doesn''t matter what the customer is downloading, or how much. If you can''t deliver, then don''t promise.

Why does the press continually present a one sided view that ignores the efforts of ISPs that seek to have fraud codified into law?

[horse3farm]

I live in the country and have Hughes satellite service for Internet. I have no complaints with speed and very happy with the service.

At Hughes, they provide a link where you can check your usage anytime of day. They publish the limits of bandwidth you can use in a 24 hour period, (depending upon your level of service.) If you exceed it, you don''t get cut off, you get a slow crawl. After about 10-15 hours...it picks back up.

Also the bandwidth issue is not applicable with Hughes between and 3am and 6am ET. You can download to your heart''s content.

Now that''s a service oriented ISP.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by horse3farm,

It would be interesting to know if Hughes sold your plan as "unlimited" or not. Many ISPs do, and then they limit your bandwidth, this is fraud, pure and simple.

[Dennis_Nilsson]

Here in Sweden we have fibre direct to home and pays about 40 USD for 100Mbps, and 4 dynamic IP-numbers.

SB Bredband is building real broadband with fibre to every apartment and commercial local they own. And then they let several Internet operator sell broadband connections to the users. Only the fibre is owned by SB Bredband. And SB Bredband is owned by the community. Read more about it here:
http://www.svebo.se/Page____11519.aspx

"The network is built of optic fiber (fiber to the home) to make sure it will have enough capacity to meet the demands of today and tomorrow."

[kaiyo4u]

Posted by brianbwb at 04:31 AM : Sep 08, 2007

I bought hughes for my mom who lives in the country. They did not sell the package as unlimited and they do offer tiered speeds. The cost for a small home office (speed necessary for two or more computers) is about $70.00/month. I bought the equipment outright and only pay for the subscription.

www.hughes.net is the link to get their info.

The only drawback to satellite is the weather. They say the rain and clouds do not make a difference to delivery, but they do. If you have a cloud with a lot of water content it will refract the signal and you will lose packets. Sometimes to the point stopping the download.
Other than that it is a good service except for the price... I still feel it is too high, but with cable here I am paying $50.00/month and am not getting the speed I was with the satellite.

[ge_1947]

Cable companies are notoriously cheap, inefficient and heavily engaged in lobbying.

All cable companies that operate interstet should be regulated by Federal laws, regulations and rules. The current hodge-podge is ridiculous!

Most local government bodies lack the expertise to deal with the technology and they grant favored deals in exchange for next-to-nothing or a few "free" connections for local government, libraries and schools. Then they allow an unregulated monopoly to gouge customers across the USA. What a sad state of affairs.

The cable companies have made bad deals with sports providers and so on that EVERYONE must pay for if they receive cable TV service. Again, all must pay for poor management practices by cable companies.

Then the news media gets a few quotes, sound bites or visits a propagandistic cable company website, then buys hook, line and sinker everything the cable companies state and repeat that to the general public.

Same old tactic, repeat the lies and misinformation enough times until everyone believes it to be true.

Today''s US media are far more effective at misinforming and spreading false information than any government anywhere on this Earth has ever been capable of doing.

[lastdance2]

People should be using : Usenet

Usenet - is - "Not" - The Internet - The protocol "NNTP" is used. "NNTP" is available via Anonymous FTP server. With "No" Government control. The
Internet is "Bypassed" completely

You are connected (with software) directly to the : World Wide Web

With every nation in the world now connected There are - 120,000 groups

It is the world''s largest computer network.

You can have text discussions with millions of people You can also download files such as pictures,movies, software and music.

The servers are called : News Servers
The software used are called : News Readers
The most popular software is : Forti Agent or News Rover

Software needed to uncompress "RAR" files
"winrar"
Software for "PAR" files
"Quick Par" - PAR files - Repair - incomplete or broken RAR
Both are down loadable from the internet

Groups : Example :
alt.binaries.movies.9 - Full DVD Movies (8-9 gigs)
alt.binaries.movies.divx - DVD Movies in the X-vid format (700mb)
alt.binaries.music - by decades or artist
alt.binaries.cd.image.games - Games

Movies - Music - From around the world
In their own language - Chinese movies - Vietnamese music ...ect

Easy News offers both - The Internet and The "NNTP" service

It is not as - Complex - as it sounds.
Free - Forti Agent is available - as free software.
But the Retail version - makes the - NNTP - service Extremely easy to use.

Research :
Usenet - Easy News.com
copy and paste (Google)

Lastdance

[horse3farm]

would be interesting to know if Hughes sold your plan as "unlimited" or not. Many ISPs do, and then they limit your bandwidth, this is fraud, pure and simple.
Posted by brianbwb

No they not sell as unlimited. The bandwidth limit was on a chart showing features of each level. So I knew about it up front.

[michellem99-2009]

I have been on DSL for over a year. I only had 2 times I could not access the net. Seattle .I hate dial up. I can sent a e mail and it is fast. The fastest the phone company has. I don''t don''t know the techs. It is unlimited. The time on the system tray is and that is when I will hit the button to add my say.4:19 pm

[glossypan]

People should be using : Usenet.................
I agree and thanks, lastdance2
A little additional info: a lot of folks refer the service as newsgroups. You can use any eMail client (Microsoft Outlook for instance) if you are only interested in text files. If you want to download binaries (all the files you download are binary, of course, but it has come to mean picture and sound files) you will need a newsreader like Forte. Free 3o day trial. $30 first time and about half that every couple of years for updates. You will need an ISP. Some ISPs offer newsgroup access directly, some do not. Comcast, for instance, gives you a supposed 2 gigabytes download per month with free headers. I do not know how they count, but I only get about 1.6 GB per month before they cut me off. Still, that is over 300 high bitrate, chart lenghth mp3s per month. If you have Comcast and are not using their newsgroup service you are cheating yourself. Check their FAQs for info. If your ISP does not offer them directly, there are newsgroup providers who can hook you in. They cost$$. "Newsgroups" in any search engine will get you there. Videos of trains,fresh every day. Knitting how-tos. Porn. mp3s. Church services. No matter what you are into, there are other people all over the planet willing to provide you with it. After you get the hang of it, you will need to stop leeching and upload too. Enjoy.

[lastdance2]

RE : glossypan

Anyone who uses a provider (comcast) - e-mail (outlook express)
to download from usenet.
Is Purposely looking to - be Tracked and Monitored

No provider (comcast) can regulate download speeds.
The download speed is regulated by the server (giga news ect)

With the "NNTP" service - There is No Tracking - No Monitoring -
No personal information - Only the amount of gigs downloaded.

No-one (except yourself) - Recommends - Direct up-loading.

Up-loading is done through a proxy service - "Power Post 11"
Anonymous - Directly into the - "NNTP" - Service only.

Why would you - Recommend to people - To use an :
Unsecured Up-load Service
Unsecured Provider (comcast) and Unsecured Ports (e-mail service)
to Down-Load from : "Usenet" ? ? ? ?

People want and need : Security and Protection
While downloading from : Usenet
Servers and news Readers provide that.

"Not the Open Door" - Policy - as you Described

Lastdance

[glossypan]

lastdance: I do not think I said a thing about download SPEEDS anywhere. I was speaking of Comcast''s monthly download allowance. I presume that anyone downloading or uploading material they do not want tracked is going to learn a little about security. My post had three purposes: get folks into the usenet community, let them know they had free limited access from Comcast, and correct your spelling of Forte so that new users could find it.

[lastdance2]

RE : glossypan

Security and Protection - Security and Protection
First and Foremost - Security and Protection

Forti : It was supposed to read : Fort''e (French)

It was changed - When I posted it ! !

Lastdance

[glossypan]

lastdance: thanks again for the guide. I hope I added a little for the new user. I hate to see people paying Comcast prices and not taking full advantage.

[ckcool192001]

This is kind of crazy, I mean, what if you are attempting to run a home business or working from home?