[95231] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gadi Evron)
Tue Mar 13 10:32:36 2007
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:31:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Gadi Evron <ge@linuxbox.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On funsec we have had a discussion on broadband providers and bandwidth
limitations, pretty much what we rehearsed here.
Michael brought up an interesting case from a decade ago, which speaks of
some litigation issues we did not discuss. It is also
interesting to hear his view as a client on "been there done
that". Interesting reading.
=09Gadi.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:55:17 -0400
From: Blanchard_Michael@emc.com
To: ge@linuxbox.org
Cc: funsec@linuxbox.org
Subject: RE: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users
Way back when, in the late 90's I was a named plaintiff on a class action =
lawsuit against Hughes DirectPC. They were doing exactly what was mentione=
d in the article. They had this thing called a "fair access policy", that =
would cut your speed in half if you downloaded too much, then in half again=
if you kept downloading, then in half again, until your speeds were much l=
ess than modem speeds.
They would never tell you how much was too much, and never tell you when=
your speed was cut in half. I run Dumeter so I constantly watch my i-net =
speeds, then and now, so I knew when it was happening. If you called custo=
mer service, they'd say that everything was ok and they'd have zero knowled=
ge of any speed throttling. They'd say, "well your dish must not be aligne=
d properly". Even when I explain to them that I'm an Engineer and used a t=
housand dollar meter to establish the strongest signal possible, they'd sti=
ll say that it must be a problem on my end. Customer service would have ze=
ro knowledge (or deny any knowledge) of any bandwidth throttling.
DirectPC's claim was exactly what the article mentions Comcast is claim=
ing, that .1% of the users make up the majority of usage. I think DPC said=
something like 1% of the users took up 30% of the bandwidth.
Well, I was part of the Windows 95 and Windows 98 beta teams, and was do=
wnloading a CD a week from Microsoft. That was too much downloading, I wou=
nd up using just my 28.8k modem most of the time and that would download qu=
icker. (At that time you used a modem to upload and the satellite dish onl=
y for download at advertised speeds of 400kps fast for that time).
Even after the suit was settled, I don't think they ever fully acknowled=
ged the amount that you had to download that was deemed "too much" and init=
iated the throttling. Heck I'd use the latest Netscape install to test my =
speed, and that initiated the throttling, it was only 75meg if I remember c=
orrectly!
The only one that really got justice was the lawyers... DPC was ordered=
to "buy back" the equipment from us, at a loss to us, if we chose to sell =
it back to them. I think the lawyers got a couple hundred thousand bucks o=
ut of the deal for "legal fees".
Mike B
Michael P. Blanchard=20
Antivirus / Security Engineer, CISSP, GCIH, CCSA-NGX, MCSE
Office of Information Security & Risk Management=20
EMC =B2 Corporation=20
4400 Computer Dr.=20
Westboro, MA 01580=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Gadi Evron [mailto:ge@linuxbox.org]=20
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:29 PM
To: Blanchard, Michael (InfoSec)
Cc: funsec@linuxbox.org
Subject: RE: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 Blanchard_Michael@emc.com wrote:
> wow, it's the Hughes DirectPC FAP all over again.....=20
That doesn't ring a bell?
=09Gadi.
--
"beepbeep it, i leave work, stop reading sec lists and im still hearing
gadi"
- HD Moore to Gadi Evron on IM, on Gadi's interview on npr, March 2007.
