Heavy Internet Users Unplugged By Us Cable Company

[ThaiLife]

I know this is not Thai related , but may be its a trend that will spread.... who's Next ...?

Cable Internet and entertainment provider Comcast "has punished some transgressors by cutting off their Internet service, arguing that excessive downloaders hog Internet capacity and slow down the network for other customers," the Washington Post reported.

Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas told AFP the company was addressing "the problem of abusive activity that adversely impacts on everybody else's experience."

"I can't give you a number" for clients who have been disconnected, said Douglas, while assuring that customers whose plugs were pulled are "very rare."

According to the Washington Post, a customer would have to download the equivalent of 1,000 songs or four feature films a day to trigger a disconnection warning.

Comcast gives customers a month to fix problems or upgrade their service before they are disconnected, the Washington Post said.

An unplugged client in Rockville, a suburb of Washington, has filed a complaint with the county he lives in, saying his contract with his service provider states that he is entitled to unlimited Internet access, officials in Montgomery County said.

A recent report by the ABI market research company warned that the growth in demand for "bandwidth-hungry services such as HDTV and online gaming is leading to a critical lack of capacity" in US cable operators' networks.

"Cable TV operators trying to satisfy the increasing bandwidth demands of HDTV customers feel very much like the thrifty grocer who tried to cram ten pounds of potatoes into a five-pound bag," ABI research director Stan Schatt said last month.

"The increasing bandwidth demands on cable operators will soon reach crisis stage, yet this is a ‘dirty little industry secret’ that no one talks about."

http://www.physorg.com/news108449464.html

TL

[cdnvic]

They were given a warning and a chance to upgrade so what's the issue? Bandwidth is not a finite resource, why should everyone else have to subsidize the heavy downloaders when they refuse to upgrade to a suitable package?

[Mid]

would be a fair argument if the ISP's ever delivered anything close to what they advertise ...............

don't know about anyone else but when I buy nam solar it goes in my tank .

[cdnvic]

would be a fair argument if the ISP's ever delivered anything close to what they advertise ...............

Mine does

[Mid]

Chock Dee ,

at the other end of the scale the best I've ever seen on a 1024 / 512 business package is 10% !!!!!

[cdnvic]

In most countries they'd be in trouble for that.

[Mid]

sadder still is that it's the best , most stable package I've had .

[Guest Reimar]

I agree with cndvic! This should also applies for Thailand! There alot users around which downloading a whole day even if they really don't want what they downloading! And all of us who's using the internat "normal" are suffering from that actions!

As cndvic: I nearly get what I'm paying for!

[Veazer]

They were given a warning and a chance to upgrade so what's the issue? Bandwidth is not a finite resource, why should everyone else have to subsidize the heavy downloaders when they refuse to upgrade to a suitable package?

I generally agree, but I don't care for the idea that someone can advertise something as unlimited when it isn't. If there's a limit, make it easily known and don't mislabel the service.

The same thing has occurred with some voip providers. They would advertise unlimited calling packages and then add high surcharges to users who used over 2000 minutes/mo etc. The info was in the fine print of the legal agreement, but imho I believe it's fundamentally wrong to intentionally mis-represent your service as something that it isn't.

I'm in a strange circumstance in CM where most low bandwidth uses like skype, voip, etc. work very poorly but torrents work well. They tell me that voice service is not guaranteed for home service, a ridiculous policy for something that uses 80kbps at the absolute most, usually a fraction of that.

[Guest Reimar]

They were given a warning and a chance to upgrade so what's the issue? Bandwidth is not a finite resource, why should everyone else have to subsidize the heavy downloaders when they refuse to upgrade to a suitable package?

I generally agree, but I don't care for the idea that someone can advertise something as unlimited when it isn't. If there's a limit, make it easily known and don't mislabel the service.

I do believe that the rules was made at a time where the downloads was just a fraction of todays downloads! The change from the medias like printed photos, Videos on Casette pp. was increasing unbelivable within the last few years! No one was able to see in tha pst what's happens today and to keep the service reliable for everyone the ISP's has to do someting. And the way the american company is going with an 1 monthy time I belive is OK!

The same thing has occurred with some voip providers. They would advertise unlimited calling packages and then add high surcharges to users who used over 2000 minutes/mo etc. The info was in the fine print of the legal agreement, but imho I believe it's fundamentally wrong to intentionally mis-represent your service as something that it isn't.

Unfortunate most of the people refuse to read the fine print and starting later complaining about something they should know (if they had read the fine print)!

I'm in a strange circumstance in CM where most low bandwidth uses like skype, voip, etc. work very poorly but torrents work well. They tell me that voice service is not guaranteed for home service, a ridiculous policy for something that uses 80kbps at the absolute most, usually a fraction of that.

So you're also a "victim" of that "downloaders"?! Because if the Torrent's works fine at CM means that alot will use the foreent downloading! But on cost of whom?

[stumonster]

what about the people whose computers are a hive of <deleted> ?

how much bandwidth is used by zombied pcs that are part of a botnet ?

[Firefoxx]

The "unlimited" part actually pertains to unlimited connection time, not unlimited transfer. It's "unlimited" vs "charged by the hour". I'll side with the ISP on this one, since I support this practice (but not all practices) in general.

The actual cost of bandwidth is very high. Say, to buy 1 mbits international bandwidth, an ISP has to pay quite a lot, in the tens of thousands of baht (and Thai ISPs have to pay even more because of the regulations here, but that's another story). To make it so that the average Joe pays less than 1,000 baht (I'm using Thai currency, but this pertains to all ISPs) for that 1mbit, the bandwidth is shared among many "Joe's", usually around 30-50. Therefore, there are 30-50 people simultaneously using that bandwidth. This works out well if these people use their connection responsibly, as in for normal surfing, some downloading, and the occasional big download. However, if even *one* of those people turns out to be "Joe Selfish", and uses something like Bittorrent to simultaneously download 100 streams at a time and saturate the bandwidth (even though he'll never actually use any of those files he downloads), then the system crumbles to a halt, since the other 29-49 people sharing that same bandwidth are left out in the cold, even though they paid the same as "Joe Selfish". An analogy I like to use is the expressway. Everyone uses the expressway, and everyone pays the same. Yet if there is one idiot who decides that he's going to be an ass and park his car in the middle of the expressway to eat his lunch, everyone else suffers. His argument is "Hey, I paid 30 baht to use the expressway, so I'm using it", which is the same argument that people who abuse their bandwidth use. Something like this doesn't happen on the expressway since that idiot would have his guts kicked 50 different ways. It does happen on the net, since we have anonymity, and no one (except the ISP) can know who's being an ass. Therefore, in this case, the ISP has to do the policing. The big "abusers" (and I do mean abusers, as in people who do their best to use up all their bandwidth, all the time) amount for only a very small part of the user base, yet account for a very huge chunk of bandwidth usage. Kicking one of these people out means losing one customer, but gaining the satisfaction of the rest of the customers. Small loss (very small), big gain.

Corporate users pay the actual price of the bandwidth that the ISP pays (and then some) and so they get exclusive use of that bandwidth. They can abuse it as they like, since they're actually paying for that kind of use. You can't go into an amusement park, pay the normal entrance fee, and then expect to have exclusive use of all the rides. You're not paying for that, you don't get that.

Be realistic, people. Yes, the "unlimited" word can be misleading, if you choose to interpret it in your own way. But hey, you can say that for practically every single product and service out there. Interpret something in the wrong context and presto, false advertising.

[Veazer]

...Yes, the "unlimited" word can be misleading, if you choose to interpret it in your own way. But hey, you can say that for practically every single product and service out there. Interpret something in the wrong context and presto, false advertising.

I see what you're saying, but I still believe that using the word 'unlimited' is intentionally misleading and false - not misinterpreted. If a connection is not time limited but is limited to 20GB of data transfer per month, it is a limited connection by definition. It is the prohibitively expensive unshared corporate connections you mentioned that are truly unlimited. Some ISPs even advertise "always-on, unlimited connections!". Should the customer assume the statement is redundant?

Ultimately I fully agree with your statements about bandwidth use and cost, to allow a full time bandwidth hog on your network is not worth the costs they incur. I just believe anyone offering a product or service should describe it in a manner that accurately reflects what the customer can be expected to receive. Then again, that might not work too well in LOS. "Oversold and mismanaged!" in big bold print wouldn't exactly bring herds of new customers.

I'm in a strange circumstance in CM where most low bandwidth uses like skype, voip, etc. work very poorly but torrents work well. They tell me that voice service is not guaranteed for home service, a ridiculous policy for something that uses 80kbps at the absolute most, usually a fraction of that.

So you're also a "victim" of that "downloaders"?! Because if the Torrent's works fine at CM means that alot will use the foreent downloading! But on cost of whom?

No, I'm a victim of incompetent network administrators who don't know how to properly implement bandwidth management. If the traffic of some 100GB/mo BitTorrent bandwidth hog is the same priority as my low-bandwidth VoIP service, I blame the ISP. In my experience, Thai ISPs often give equal priority to each connection without regard to how many connection are already established and other factors. This is why the "divide and conquer" technique of 50 part downloads and BitTorrent can render other users connections less usable.

what about the people whose computers are a hive of <deleted> ?

how much bandwidth is used by zombied pcs that are part of a botnet ?

This is a very valid point that seems to be overlooked. Despite the problems they cause, at least a torrent user (in theory) is getting and giving something wanted by themselves and others (legal issues aside). A virus ridden computer using bandwidth to pump spam mail in our inboxes is not desirable to anyone except the spammer.

[kayo]

Veazer, I get what you're saying about "unlimited" being misleading,

but ultimately, isn't all advertising?

[monty]

Over subscribing? What's that?

This is on a 2048/512 link.

Yep, in Thailand

[Carmine6]

No, I'm a victim of incompetent network administrators who don't know how to properly implement bandwidth management. If the traffic of some 100GB/mo BitTorrent bandwidth hog is the same priority as my low-bandwidth VoIP service, I blame the ISP. In my experience, Thai ISPs often give equal priority to each connection without regard to how many connection are already established and other factors. This is why the "divide and conquer" technique of 50 part downloads and BitTorrent can render other users connections less usable.

For a time in the US, some internet backbone companies like phone companies were deliberately making VOIP packets low priority over their equipment to degrade the calls. That was until they got into the business themselves. Your situation may not be accidental.

[Prasert]

I see what you're saying, but I still believe that using the word 'unlimited' is intentionally misleading and false - not misinterpreted. If a connection is not time limited but is limited to 20GB of data transfer per month, it is a limited connection by definition. It is the prohibitively expensive unshared corporate connections you mentioned that are truly unlimited. Some ISPs even advertise "always-on, unlimited connections!". Should the customer assume the statement is redundant?

Ultimately I fully agree with your statements about bandwidth use and cost, to allow a full time bandwidth hog on your network is not worth the costs they incur. I just believe anyone offering a product or service should describe it in a manner that accurately reflects what the customer can be expected to receive. Then again, that might not work too well in LOS. "Oversold and mismanaged!" in big bold print wouldn't exactly bring herds of new customers.

Let's assume the internet in Thailand is properly managed and that unlimited means unlimited as you explain it.

The average DSLAM has 64 adsl lines, so it must be capable of providing 64Mbps constantly. All 64 subscribers are maxing out their download 24/7.

Each ISP will have hundreds of DSLAMs throughout Thailand, where ever they provide ADSL. Let's pick an ISP with 500 DSLAMs, each has 64 subscribers with a 1024/512 package. Total required bandwidth: 500*64*1024|512 =~ 32Gbps downstream / 16Gbps upstream.

Think about that for a minute. And then look at the total available international bandwidth in Thailand: roughly 21Gbps (June 2007).

So even if the ISP from the example would offer his 32000 customers unlimited, unrestricted, guaranteed upload and download speeds, it would be impossible to actually make it happen.

[Veazer]

I see what you're saying, but I still believe that using the word 'unlimited' is intentionally misleading and false - not misinterpreted. If a connection is not time limited but is limited to 20GB of data transfer per month, it is a limited connection by definition. It is the prohibitively expensive unshared corporate connections you mentioned that are truly unlimited. Some ISPs even advertise "always-on, unlimited connections!". Should the customer assume the statement is redundant?

Ultimately I fully agree with your statements about bandwidth use and cost, to allow a full time bandwidth hog on your network is not worth the costs they incur. I just believe anyone offering a product or service should describe it in a manner that accurately reflects what the customer can be expected to receive. Then again, that might not work too well in LOS. "Oversold and mismanaged!" in big bold print wouldn't exactly bring herds of new customers.

Let's assume the internet in Thailand is properly managed and that unlimited means unlimited as you explain it.

The average DSLAM has 64 adsl lines, so it must be capable of providing 64Mbps constantly. All 64 subscribers are maxing out their download 24/7.

Each ISP will have hundreds of DSLAMs throughout Thailand, where ever they provide ADSL. Let's pick an ISP with 500 DSLAMs, each has 64 subscribers with a 1024/512 package. Total required bandwidth: 500*64*1024|512 =~ 32Gbps downstream / 16Gbps upstream.

Think about that for a minute. And then look at the total available international bandwidth in Thailand: roughly 21Gbps (June 2007).

So even if the ISP from the example would offer his 32000 customers unlimited, unrestricted, guaranteed upload and download speeds, it would be impossible to actually make it happen.

But I'm not saying that they should give unlimited bandwidth, quite the opposite. Like you did (very precisely I might add), it's easy to point out that this is financially impossible when considering the real cost of a dedicated connections.

I'm trying to make 2 points but evidently I'm not doing it clearly enough:

1) Bandwidth is a limited resource so don't tell your customer his usage is unlimited or later on you'll have to explain that you didn't really mean it. On shared connections, clearly state the monthly bandwidth usage allowed. Nearly every web hosting package available will tell you this information clearly, so why not do the same for internet users?

2) Because bandwidth is a limited resource, use the best available bandwidth management strategies so that effects of bandwidth abusers is as low as possible. Giving all traffic equal priority, or essentially not managing bandwidth, doesn't accomplish this and is not effective use of the bandwidth. Like I've said here many times, this creates a situation where those with ridiculous numbers of concurrent connection get what they want and those who are just trying to make a call or listen to an online station get screwed.

Veazer, I get what you're saying about "unlimited" being misleading,

but ultimately, isn't all advertising?

True... I wonder if this is why my 'stainless steel knife' and 'shatterproof mug' lawsuits are not going well.

@Monty - I'm moving to your neighborhood, that's a fantastic connection.

[pattyboy]

I agree with cndvic! This should also applies for Thailand! There alot users around which downloading a whole day even if they really don't want what they downloading! And all of us who's using the internat "normal" are suffering from that actions!

As cndvic: I nearly get what I'm paying for!

Huh??? Do you really think a lot of people download just for the sake of downloading then delete the stuff once they have it. Perhaps a few whacko dementos do that, but I really think it's very very rare. Someone else makes a good point, saying that far more internet bandwidth is chewed up by people not being careful about spybots, adware, and spyware on their computers that suck up bandwidth. I consistently check for this stuff, but I also download many things. I don't know why anybody would bother paying for an ADSL connection if not to grab some goodies. I think it's pretty "normal" to download.

Edited September 11, 2007 by pattyboy

[Furbie]

I agree with cndvic! This should also applies for Thailand! There alot users around which downloading a whole day even if they really don't want what they downloading! And all of us who's using the internat "normal" are suffering from that actions!

As cndvic: I nearly get what I'm paying for!

Huh??? Do you really think a lot of people download just for the sake of downloading then delete the stuff once they have it. Perhaps a few whacko dementos do that, but I really think it's very very rare. Someone else makes a good point, saying that far more internet bandwidth is chewed up by people not being careful about spybots, adware, and spyware on their computers that suck up bandwidth. I consistently check for this stuff, but I also download many things. I don't know why anybody would bother paying for an ADSL connection if not to grab some goodies. I think it's pretty "normal" to download.

I could not agree more; my GF brought her laptop over because after a year of using it, it was running too slow. One Adaware scan had something like 200+ critical items to be removed; I can't recall how many little programs reporting back to the mothership and crushing the bandwidth. Now she is running all the necessary anti-spyware, anti-virus and firewall programs. How many like her in Bangkok alone?

Edited September 11, 2007 by Furbie

[Prasert]

@Veazer:

Good points.

Take those a little further:

1) Keeping track of data-transfers requires accounting of every single subscriber. Gathering all that data and processing it will be technically impossible (for Thai engineers).

2) Implementing quality-of-service (or traffic prioritization) is technically impossible for Thai engineers.

This discussion has been on ThaiVisa before. All ISPs in Thailand have all the proper networking equipment required to achieve a good service. But....

...the documentation to configure all this is in English. And (technical) English exceeds the knowledge of the average Thai engineer working at an ISP. (By the way, if you see a job at a Thai ISP for a farang engineer, let me know!)

So in the end you don't have to worry about being shut down if you use too much bandwidth. First of all it's nearly impossible to use too much bandwidth in Thailand and second the ISPs don't know how to measure it.

And now we can all go back to our daily complains about slow internet and poor adsl lines.......

[Veazer]

And now we can all go back to our daily complains about slow internet and poor adsl lines.......

I'll bite... Here's a typical test on my True 1024/512 connection. The progress 'dot' of the speedtest often stops for a few moments which correlates with the VoIP dropouts. The attachments show my speedtests shortly after 6pm. The second is from speakeasy.net/speedtest. Idle connection other than the speedtests.

[Prasert]

Speedtests only show 1 moment. This is a graph of the line we use for torrents and other entertainment traffic:

green=incoming, blue=outgoing.

traffic is squeezed from 0900 till 2300

[ungcas]

I know this is not Thai related , but may be its a trend that will spread.... who's Next ...?

Cable Internet and entertainment provider Comcast "has punished some transgressors by cutting off their Internet service, arguing that excessive downloaders hog Internet capacity and slow down the network for other customers," the Washington Post reported.

Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas told AFP the company was addressing "the problem of abusive activity that adversely impacts on everybody else's experience."

"I can't give you a number" for clients who have been disconnected, said Douglas, while assuring that customers whose plugs were pulled are "very rare."

According to the Washington Post, a customer would have to download the equivalent of 1,000 songs or four feature films a day to trigger a disconnection warning.

Comcast gives customers a month to fix problems or upgrade their service before they are disconnected, the Washington Post said.

An unplugged client in Rockville, a suburb of Washington, has filed a complaint with the county he lives in, saying his contract with his service provider states that he is entitled to unlimited Internet access, officials in Montgomery County said.

A recent report by the ABI market research company warned that the growth in demand for "bandwidth-hungry services such as HDTV and online gaming is leading to a critical lack of capacity" in US cable operators' networks.

"Cable TV operators trying to satisfy the increasing bandwidth demands of HDTV customers feel very much like the thrifty grocer who tried to cram ten pounds of potatoes into a five-pound bag," ABI research director Stan Schatt said last month.

"The increasing bandwidth demands on cable operators will soon reach crisis stage, yet this is a 'dirty little industry secret' that no one talks about."

http://www.physorg.com/news108449464.html

TL

That is quite new. Usually an isp will disconnect u only if they found u have a virus or you are using your internet connection for illegal purposes such as hosting a file tranfers site.( and yes i'm speaking from experience).

But now in Canada, they are starting to enforce limits for most people and for every GB you go over monthly, it's a charge of $1.25cdn or roughly.

[Oleg_Rus]

What is illegal to host a file on my pc ?

I have video exchange service hosted on (True + CS+ TOT) placed on the second floor of my house. who gives ?

What about canada ? Why not talk about Namibia ?

Torrents has one very important problem - they open thousands concurrent connections - and that's a b**ch, not a speed they use or so. btw, same-same skype, written by ppl who brought you Kazaa

[technocracy]

Let's assume the internet in Thailand is properly managed and that unlimited means unlimited as you explain it.

The average DSLAM has 64 adsl lines, so it must be capable of providing 64Mbps constantly. All 64 subscribers are maxing out their download 24/7.

Each ISP will have hundreds of DSLAMs throughout Thailand, where ever they provide ADSL. Let's pick an ISP with 500 DSLAMs, each has 64 subscribers with a 1024/512 package. Total required bandwidth: 500*64*1024|512 =~ 32Gbps downstream / 16Gbps upstream.

Think about that for a minute. And then look at the total available international bandwidth in Thailand: roughly 21Gbps (June 2007).

So even if the ISP from the example would offer his 32000 customers unlimited, unrestricted, guaranteed upload and download speeds, it would be impossible to actually make it happen.

You seem to have forgotten contention in that example. Virtually all household non-business ADSL services the world over have a contention ratio of 50:1 i.e. 50 user share 1 meg. Obviously this is dependant on the loading of the DSLAM.

Edit: Also this disconnecting of people is quite a common occurance in the UK. Oh and the 21Gbps is actual traffic available at once - the amount of people that would support is quite staggering.

Not long ago I did a review of a metro network provide who supplied 100meg tails to companies, when I did the review they had nearly 300 companies with 100meg circuits. They were concerned by the fact they only had multiples of 1Gbps of bandwidth in the core - traffic was split using MPLS over 2 different paths. The avg throughput of the core was 225Mpbs~ on each of the paths. In general there is a lot more to the utilisation of bandwidth than the numbers of users.

These people downloading large amounts of data don't necessarily have to be hammering 10meg just leave a 512kbps circuit on a large list of Bit-torrents or e-Mule downloads 24/7 and they'd rack up a huge amount of downloaded data but little actual utilisation of bandwith.

Edited September 13, 2007 by technocracy

[Prasert]

You seem to have forgotten contention in that example. Virtually all household non-business ADSL services the world over have a contention ratio of 50:1 i.e. 50 user share 1 meg. Obviously this is dependant on the loading of the DSLAM.

No I have not forgotten that.

The example calculation was made based on 2 assumptions. Read again.

Oh and the 21Gbps is actual traffic available at once - the amount of people that would support is quite staggering.

21Gbps total international bandwidth was the number published in June 2007 - see the Thai IX'es.

Not long ago I did a review of a metro network provide who supplied 100meg tails to companies, when I did the review they had nearly 300 companies with 100meg circuits. They were concerned by the fact they only had multiples of 1Gbps of bandwidth in the core - traffic was split using MPLS over 2 different paths. The avg throughput of the core was 225Mpbs~ on each of the paths. In general there is a lot more to the utilisation of bandwidth than the numbers of users.

These people downloading large amounts of data don't necessarily have to be hammering 10meg just leave a 512kbps circuit on a large list of Bit-torrents or e-Mule downloads 24/7 and they'd rack up a huge amount of downloaded data but little actual utilisation of bandwith.

Both issues you describe have a lot to do with the amount of packets-per-second that the routers can switch or route. Bittorrent causes an enormous amount of concurrent connections - the average home-use router/modem/whatever-thing will very soon give up, while the actual bandwidth utilization may only be 50% or so. As I said before, the "router" that TOT supplies with their adsl line is the biggest joke of last century.

[somchai69]

would be a fair argument if the ISP's ever delivered anything close to what they advertise ...............

Mine does

In Canada maybe, but Thailand???????????????

[Smithson]

If they say unlimited and then put limited conditions in the fine print it's misleading. I think companies have been taken to court for similar things and lost.

It's incredible how many ppl side with companies when it's obvious they're being misleading.

If you went to an 'all you can eat buffet' and were kicked out for eating too much would you accept it?

Customers who hardly use the 'unlimited connection' don't get any refunds. Similarly when the mobile networks or internet services go haywire over here we don't get refunds or apologies from the companies. They just say 'It's not our fault', but still take our money for a service they can't provide.

[brahmburgers]

in case you're wondering, up here in C.Rai, off the grid, I have a wireless CDMA connection via CAT that gives me between 15 and 23 Kb/sec when it's not stalled. Often, I can't even get streaming audio, let alone streaming video. Even email is slow, depending on whether gmail is coming thru or not (about 40% of the time).