Mind if I “De-Prioritize” Comcast as My ISP, Then?
by John Paczkowski
Posted on August 21, 2008 at 2:27 PM PT
My apologies. Comcast has made no final decisions about its future network management practices; nor has it committed to slowing the Internet connections of heavy users for up to 20 minutes during network congestion, though Comcast senior vice president Mitch Bowling convincingly told Bloomberg just that on Wednesday. Rather, that technique–which the company prefers to describe as a “de-prioritizing” of heavy user traffic–is one option among the many Comcast (CMCSA) is considering. Said Comcast spokesperson Charlie Douglas, “It’s the heaviest of users that are directly contributing to the degradation of the service for the other people on the network.”
Obviously. But hasn’t Comcast guaranteed those users access to a set service? And if they’re paying for an 8 megabit-per-second connection, shouldn’t they be able to use it whenever and however they please? And shouldn’t that connection always test out at 8Mbps? Or at 12 Mbps when “heavy users” who’ve paid an additional free for Comcast’s PowerBoost upgrade are “downloading large files like videos and games”? After all, that’s what they’re paying upward of $42.95 per month for, isn’t it?
Really, wouldn’t Comcast be better off investing in its network rather than punishing its heaviest users? Wouldn’t it be wiser to accelerate the rollout of that “wideband” network that will reportedly offer speeds of up to 100Mbps over the next two years? Or at the very least, work on consistently providing subscribers with the 6Mbps to 8Mbps it has promised them?
Comments
“But hasn’t Comcast guaranteed those users access to a set service? …” No, they don’t guarantee that bandwidth, speed, latency, etc. To get a guarantee, you would have to obtain a data connection with an Service Level Agreement, like a full or fractional T-1, at $200-$300 a month. Cable/DSL residential broadband continues to be best effort. “Really, wouldn’t Comcast be better offer (sic) investing in its network rather than punishing its heaviest users?” The answer is “Probably not”. If Comcast were to commit to a large capital program to upgrade infrastructure more than they’re doing now (to keep these heavy users happy), they’d first need the funds to support it (borrowing, use existing cash flow, issue stock). Then, they’d face pricing resistance because Cable is already priced comparably high to alternatives. If they didn’t have a significant increase in revenue as a result of that spending, Wall Street would likely punish their management and stockholders by lowering their EPS estimates and drive the stock price down. VZ has experienced similar pressure with the FIOS build out. The “just build out the infrastructure” populism you espouse is unfortunately constrained by the practicalities of real world corporate finance.
Posted by David Griscavage at August 21st, 2008 at 10:13 pmQuoted:
“Then, they’d face pricing resistance because Cable is already priced comparably high to alternatives.”
Yes, and that’s because people pay for better + faster. That’s the whole point.
The one thing that makes “business class” worthwhile is synchronous mode (up/down). Comcast consumer service speeds are all DOWNSTREAM, that’s what makes it “consumer” and not for business class. People pay the PREMIUM for that DOWNSTREAM speed.
Any talk about customers looking for “business-like” service because they’re heavy DOWNSTREAM users is folly. They’re paying for that “one-way freeway” plain and simple.
If they’re not “ready” to provide that service, then please don’t advertise as such.
“The “just build out the infrastructure” populism you espouse is unfortunately constrained by the practicalities of real world corporate finance.”
Hmmm. I get that, and if thats reality, I think it’s time to open discussions about “public utility”. Or opening up all that fiber to possible competitive carriers, ala the CLEC route.
We can’t have ONE company effectively deciding on matters that effective “stunt” technological growth because of “practicalities of real world corporate finance”.
Posted by Ed Chavez at August 21st, 2008 at 11:41 pmIt’s amazing to me that we’ve allowed these large ISPs to get away with rampant overbooking, and that it took so long for it to hit the fan.
Probably the most asked question when the .com era started was, “… but what throughput can I expect to get on this x Mbps connection?” ISPs would rarely give an honest answer to this legitimate question.
These early customers understood that the shared media in their neighborhood could not support more than a couple of customers using the network at the media speed of their cable/DSL connection.
But actually, they aren’t overbooking if you read the fine print.
No throughput performance is guaranteed by Comcast. They could probably legally give every customer 16Kbps throughput 24/7 and be within the terms of the contract for service.
caveat emptor – http://dictionary.reference.co.....t%20emptor
Posted by Mark Walker at August 22nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm