dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Upload congestion?
Hmmm... Comcast CRAN - redundant 10G to the headend.
Pretty sure that is a symmetrical 10G... both of them.
So, I can have 16+mbps down and 2mbps up - where is the rest of all the upload getting chewed up at?
The problem lies with the technology(so I'm told) - not the capacity.
So stop with the horseshit, Quitcha Bitchin!
Simple math indicates that I should be able to light up my upstream with TONS of headend room to spare.
NOTE: Currently, I can, and do, get all of my connections provisioned speeds - all times of the day.
If that offends anyone - sorry! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA | OMG...
Bandwidth is scarce... quick someone reboot the huge master Linksys like I saw on TV! |
|
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
| Is it that hard
To boot the 'heavy' users, who some how cause mass congestion on various cable networks? Why do they keep these type of users, if they're causing all these problems.
I've said it in many other posts, the cable co's had ample time to prepare/install/configure a network, that would handle all the loads/users. But for some reason, they just kept on taking in all those profits, while technology was passing them by.
it's all just a sham. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| reply to Jerm
Re: OMG...
said by Jerm  :Bandwidth is scarce... quick someone reboot the huge master Linksys like I saw on TV! LMAO! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
1 edit | reply to Jerm
Dupe |
|
RobP
join:2008-03-30
Brantford, ON | reply to dadkins
Awesome! |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Don't Fear The Bandwidth Apocalypse
But ... fear is such a good selling tool.
Its been used to sell just about anything you can think of (Insurance comes to mind... as does war).
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| A word on QOS and prioritization
From the article: "Like most techs, Topolski doesn't oppose reasonable network management (booting high consumption users, some QOS and prioritization)"
I got lambasted here by an ex-mod for suggesting that QOS has the potential to be useful (mostly centering around VOIP/ip video), and was basically told I didn't know what I was talking about even when I showed documentation. So if QOS/prioritization are going to be discussed, I'll go get my waders out again, 'cause it's gonna get deep. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to Pizz
Re: Is it that hard
said by Pizz :I've said it in many other posts, the cable co's had ample time to prepare/install/configure a network, that would handle all the loads/users. But for some reason, they just kept on taking in all those profits, while technology was passing them by. it's all just a sham. Well in Comcraps case, you're partially right; they've had ample time to build their networks. But unfortunately, they're at the mercy of their shareholders. Since they're at $18.50 now, I can't see a big infusion of cash for their infrastucture any time soon!
How Comcraptic |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| lol...
Topolski has a problem with the bandwidth hogs having their p2p interfered with...
but doesn't have a problem with them being kicked off their isp instead as his suggested "alternative" ?
"Like most techs, Topolski doesn't oppose reasonable network management (booting high consumption users, some QOS and prioritization)"
Perhaps his next expose should be lets see how many customers Comcast can drop this month for network abuse.
Isn't a far better solution what sandvine did which let them at least remain customers..albeit reigning in their outrageous behavior somewhat?
The problem sometimes found with critics is that their "solutions" are sometimes worse.
And this is one of those times IMHO.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Dammit, the solution is EASY
DON'T SELL WHAT YOU CAN'T PROVIDE. If you offer an all you can eat buffet, you can't complain if someone eats a lot. Simple as that. You ADVERTISE all you can eat, so why do you complain if someone eats a lot. The solution is quite simple. DON'T ADVERTISE ALWAYS ON INTERNET, or Don't sell bandwidth you can't provide. Either or works. If there is so much congestion on the cable networks, MAYBE it's because they are selling connections that are too fast. If the connection can only support 2mb/sec, then SELL 2mb/sec.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
lordofwhee
join:2007-10-21
Everett, WA
| reply to viperlmw
Re: A word on QOS and prioritization
I've taken to running my bit torrent at night when I'm sleeping so I can stand to use my connection, but I'd be totally OK with Comcast throttling (not RESETTING) my uploads during peak hours (or even non-peak hours, if to a lesser extent).
However, forging RST packets I am NOT OK with, as it undermines the basis of TCP/IP.
Slow down my bit torrent packets, I don't care, just don't sever the connection completely (especially not with forged replies). |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
4 edits | Bandwidth costs practically NOTHING!
All you need to make bandwidth is CPU horsepower and a little electricity. What costs the most is to TRANSPORT bandwidth. In some ways it's like the Coke bottle and transportation to the store costing Coca-Cola more then the liquid inside. Transporting large amounts of bandwidth is DIRT CHEAP if you use fiber. Distribution of massive amounts of bandwidth via coax or copper is not efficient. Cable's problem is that they got greedy, and instead of upgrading their infrastructure, instead spent all their money buying each other out. NOW they are screwed-their plants are basically obsolete-and they are now squeezing the consumer. Problem is, in the competition limited RIGGED marketplace that our wonderful Bush controlled FCC has given us (now many DECADES will it take to undo his incompetance, graft and greed?), most of us have have but one alternative broadband competitor-and many have none. |
|
AVonGauss
Premium,MVM
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
| Embarrasement
What really bothers me about this topic is this...
All the quotes I have seen always state that its a very small percentage of the users that are causing all of the upload bandwidth congestion problems - one percent or less is the usual quote. So, what they are saying in effect is that one percent or less of their users can degregate their network infrastructure to the point where they ask (force) those particulars users to leave in order to maintain service for the rest of the network?
I don't know about anyone else, but if that were actually true I don't know that I would exactly go around and advertise that fact. I would be too embarrassed.
|
|
tad2020
join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA
·AT&T DSL Service
|  "reasonable"
Nothing is likely to change anytime soon. It's unreasonable to expect ISP's to act "reasonable". About the only way anything will be changed in their current culture of DPI & throttling is sever government intervention, and that's just as unlikely to happen unless there is some kind of horrible event on the scale of Enron involving the misuse of DPI and other related practices. If some tech at ISP X used the DPI systems to collect millions of credit card numbers and personal information, Congress would seriously call in to question the lack-of-privacy practices of ISP's. Or if ISP X secretly started to block or severely limit access to competing service websites like YouTube or Hulu for favor to their own VOD site, and then their is a huge scandal involving leaked emails showing that previous press releases that the brocades were accidental were lies and the orders came for the top, Congress would possible pass a decent network neutrality bill that means something to the people.
Of course, I'm just speaking metaphorically. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  Congestion is a potential problem and ....
.... accusing ISPs of greed doesn't change the facts.
"Complete congestion is a technical fantasy which only exists in the minds of people who do not understand TCP congestion control and how Additive Increase/Multiplicative Decrease (AIMD) works in TCP Congestion avoidance works, he says. "AIMD allows a linear growth of bandwidth utilization until loss occurs, at which time an exponential reduction takes place. This slow-start, fast-fallback ensures congestion cannot cause gridlock." Of course, Complete congestion is impossible. But disabling congestion is NOT impossible. Who cares if the network isn't ever totally completely down, if the response time for a small web page takes 2 mins instead of 2 secs. Claiming that "COMPLETE" congestion is impossible is a straw man argument that tries to minimize the legitimate possibility of severely reduced response times to a majority of customers.
"In an ISP, such as Insight's network, a network upgrade ought to be performed if the network is routinely experiencing congestion," he notes. "This does not mean that individual cable modems ought to be provisioned with higher speeds, but that the shared pool of uplink bandwidth that they share ought to be increased to reduce the occurrence of congestion." Now that is something I agree with. Stop the constant upgrading of modem speeds at the behest of marketing types and actually offer speeds that can be supported with the existing infrastructure. And only increase offered speeds when the infrastructure can handle it.
As Mr. Willner pointed out, network upgrades that are intended to enhance the speed and quality of Internet access would, in the absence of network management, only exacerbate this problem because P2P users around the world seek to retrieve files from computers on systems with the fastest upload speeds. Just increasing speeds without dealing with the reality of P2P and also HD video streaming is a no-win proposition. If an ISP upgrades their speeds without recognizing the probability of their customers then being used by P2P systems to disproportionately serve up content, then their system has to increase costs and will be at a competitive disadvantage to systems that aren't targeted for serving up P2P content.
So, we all agree that network management and abusive customer management is necessary. But how that is done is up for debate.
Content providers, of course, come down on the side of never slowing down their particular content at all - no matter what it costs ISPs to deliver it to customers.
ISPs, on the other hand, don't want to aggravate the 95% of their customers who aren't on the bleeding edge of needing unlimited speeds to download 100 HD movies a month(even though those doing so could never watch them all). To allow that is to drive up costs for all customers.
My suggestion:
- Boot the "I need unlimited bandwidth 24x7" wackos or force them to pay much, much more for their service.
- stop offering increased speed tiers and start offering byte transfer tiers with costs based accordingly.
The only way that infrastructure will expand is if those creating the need for it pay the costs of the expansion.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
1 edit | reply to AVonGauss
And it's going to get worse....
said by AVonGauss :What really bothers me about this topic is this... All the quotes I have seen always state that its a very small percentage of the users that are causing all of the upload bandwidth congestion problems - one percent or less is the usual quote. So, what they are saying in effect is that one percent or less of their users can degregate their network infrastructure to the point where they ask (force) those particulars users to leave in order to maintain service for the rest of the network? I don't know about anyone else, but if that were actually true I don't know that I would exactly go around and advertise that fact. I would be too embarrassed. This has NOTHING to do with bandwidth! Just like the RIAA and MPAA wants to control what music and movies you buy, the cablecos want to control what you WATCH! Look at what's happening out there. All the major networks now offer their shows online (and in HD!) the day after they run on TV. Consumers LOVE this-it's the ultimate on demand system. Problem is, the cablecos get NOTHING from this, except a headache-as this kind of usage grows. SO, they want to nip it in the bud! They do this by spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), claiming that 1% of users are taking all YOUR bandwidth, when the fact is that THEY want MORE! Right now they only get a 1000 percent markup on each byte provided to the customer-but they want a 10,000% one (or more!).
This is all about GREED on the part of the cablecos-nothing more, nothing less! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to viperlmw
Re: A word on QOS and prioritization
said by viperlmw :From the article: "Like most techs, Topolski doesn't oppose reasonable network management (booting high consumption users, some QOS and prioritization)" I got lambasted here by an ex-mod for suggesting that QOS has the potential to be useful (mostly centering around VOIP/ip video), and was basically told I didn't know what I was talking about even when I showed documentation. So if QOS/prioritization are going to be discussed, I'll go get my waders out again, 'cause it's gonna get deep. You know you are not allowed to speak out against the bandwidth hogs or you will be attacked. It is against populist mob rule to demand people not get unlimited everything for free.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to lordofwhee
I could see that type of prioritization of resources being ok. If the network is being heavily used and large groups of people are going to be affected, then get the top 5-10% of users and slow down their speeds until the congestion is over. Better that 5-10% of customers get slowed down than 100% of customers get slowed down. Of course, improving their network capacity is the better, long term solution.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to karlmarx
Re: Dammit, the solution is EASY
sarcasm
But... that's the whole basis of the U.S. economy.
Sell a business model that makes as much profit as possible with as little expense as possible.
Selling a network with 2Mbps that 'MAY' hit 100% usage for a few minutes / day is not sufficient, when you can sell +10Mbps for 3x the price and have a little caveat that those that are 'using' the product to its full extent are bandwidth hogs, are a threat to national security and must be dealt with.
/sarcasm
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
