said by dadkins :

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?

said by 20217732 :

Hi everyone,

Bandwidth is infinite so is natural resource

said by Jerm :

Bandwidth is scarce... quick someone reboot the huge master Linksys like I saw on TV!

said by Jerm :

Bandwidth is scarce... quick someone reboot the huge master Linksys like I saw on TV!

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.

said by S_engineer :

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

said by Pizz :

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.

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.

said by TKJunkMail :

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.

said by TKJunkMail :

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.

said by TKJunkMail :

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.

said by TKJunkMail :

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.

said by filizaragoza :

That's Whats happening here, The Cable is Charging for a Service that is not fulfilling 100%, as it lacks capacity,
SOLUTION Sell only what you have.
Want to sell more, Upgrade,

said by viperlmw :

I got lambasted here by an ex-mod for suggesting that QOS has the potential to be useful

said by Rick :

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" ?

said by funchords :

If they're interfering with others or violating the terms of their contracts, of course! Why should anyone put up with such Net.Idiots? That's the traditional way to handle the abuse desk.

said by Rick :

On one hand, here you are saying that if people are interfering with others..throw the bastards off the network.

On the other hand, for MONTHS now, we've read of your opposition to Comcast trying to do what they can to insure that all we users have a positive experience with our connections and to insure that this vast minority of people aren't taking down the network.

Robb..let's face it. All the bandwidth hogs were the ones maxing out their p2p. That's who was doing it and who was causing the problems. And so, Comcasts efforts went towards regulating that..and only that by implementing sandvine.

Was it a perfect solution? No. Because it could have some carry over impact on some who weren't abusing it and who were using p2p for legal means. But that isn't what the vast majority were and are using it for today.
They're using it to continue to steal and trade others copyrighted works.

And so, Comcasts focus on that, while maybe not perfect and one that had some carryover impact on others..was targeted at the right thing.

Comcast and the other isp's didn't have the perfect solution. But it was superior to just terminating users connections. The real harm would come from that..in not allowing people access to the internet.

I've always been for free and unlimited access. And felt that instead of terminating users..isp's should work towards having the tiers available to people who wanted them.
And who were willing to pay for them.

What your posts the last few months haven't done is to address the needs of people like me and the vast majority of comcast users.

We want our service to work..and work properly. We want our fast speeds..99% uptime..and to pay a fair price. We don't want to support the 5% who are using 50% of the bandwidth and causing the problems that they have in various areas when they start to utilize their p2p setups 24/7.

While maybe not perfect..I support(ed) sandvine. And I think that the vast majority of users would also if they understood fully what was involved here.

Sometimes laws and rules that are in place are an inconvenience to many people. Even the law abiding ones.
Sometimes I'm really in a hurry..and 30mph seems too slow to me. And sometimes if I wanted to use my connection for p2p for legitimate reasons..sandvine might have impacted me too inadvertently. But even so, I can recognize that sometimes..not everything is perfect. In laws or in life.
And I recognize that the greater purpose was there to really help me..and the majority.

I would not fault comcast or any isp in this regard for their efforts. I'd maybe say that it could be made better..and to proceed in that regard.

But fault them..Criticize them to no end..and call for them to be fined?

No way Man.

Not for trying to help the average customer enjoy their service.

said by en102 :

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'
/sarcasm

said by benc :

And how about using those USF funds to pay for this?

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.

"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."

"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."

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.

said by person842 :

You can't get 100% profit of everything you sell. You have to reinvest the damn money to upgrading your network as technology as usage increases.

said by Karl :

The guys actually working in the network operation centers will generally tell you that congestion can almost always be handled with smart design and capacity upgrades