US Cable Support > Cox HSI > @Home needs to raise upload cap!!

reply to Anon

Re: @Home needs to raise upload cap!!

Umm... I bet they all want really speedy e-mail.

reply to Homunculus

said by Gengar:

---

okok... question though... if and when we are given better UL speeds, what exactly do you plan to do with it? Not running a server im sure... not ULing warez im sure... maybe itll help you send that email thats 40k a lot faster though!?!?

just curious what everyone would ~honestly~ do with the extra UL bandwidth....

---

quote from Navas group
-----------------

How the Upstream Cap can affect Downstream Speed
Although downstream speeds are usually high (typically in the range of 768 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps), consumer-grade Cable or DSL service often has an upstream cap (artificial limit) of 128 Kbps, which is only about 3 times faster than a V.90 (56K) dial-up modem, and a fraction of the downstream speed.

What is not generally well-known is that the upstream cap can also affect the downstream speed -- if the upstream is saturated by uploading (e.g., sending a large PowerPoint file to the boss, or running a Napster or other public service), the downstream will drop to about the same speed. This is due to a weakness in the basic TCP Internet protocol, not Cable or DSL per se, and not the service provider.

Cable Internet is more vulnerable to this problem than DSL. Unlike DSL, where each subscriber has a dedicated connection to the head-end (DSLAM), the Cable Internet upstream path to the head-end (CMTS) is shared by all subscribers on a given cable segment. If that upstream gets saturated, which might be caused by only a relatively few subscribers, downstream speeds take a big drop for all subscribers on that segment.

As an illustrative example, consider a DOCSIS cable segment with 4 upstream channels per downstream channel, and 1000 subscribers (a recommended maximum).

The upstream channels can be anywhere from 160 Kbps (200 kHz QPSK) to 10 Mbps (3.2 MHz QAM 16), with 800 Khz QPSK perhaps the most common in practice, giving an upstream channel capacity of 640 Kbps.
The downstream channel can be 27 Mbps (QAM 64) or 36 Mbps (QAM 256), with 27 Mbps (QAM 64) perhaps the most common in practice.
The aggregate upstream capacity of 4 channels would be about 2.5 Mbps, as compared to downstream capacity of 27 Mbps. If the upstream saturates, the downstream rate will drop to about the same speed, a dramatic slowdown of about 90% (2.5 Mbps as compared to 27 Mbps).

Even with cable modems capped to 128 Kbps upstream, 2.5 Mbps upstream capacity can handle only 20 (2.5 Mbps / 128 Kbps) simultaneously active modems before saturation. That's generally not a problem if cable modem usage is typically (1) infrequent, (2) downstream [e.g., web surfing], and (3) interactive [e.g., fetch-use]. The system can break down if those conditions are not met.

This makes it easier to see why certain Cable Internet providers condemn continuous use of upstream (e.g., running a popular public service) as "abuse" -- each such subscriber consumes capacity normally allocated for 1000 / 20 = 50 subscribers. Worse, there's a threshold effect: If the upstream is running at (say) 80% of capacity with typical subscribers, it takes only 4 (out of 1000) heavy upstream users at 128 Kbps to drive the upstream into saturation, thereby slowing downstream to a crawl for all subscribers on that segment. (Exact numbers, of course, depend on actual channel numbers and speeds.)

reply to Homunculus
Can you blame them? Just the ability to have a high UL makes everyone happy.

I can understand that, Even with a higher UL you would surf the web much faster, Because you can request more data at once. Right now my UL is about 1 meg, But I sure wouldn't mind having 2 megs

reply to Homunculus
Gengar - when I came on board @Home it was uncapped in my area. I routinely exchange files on the order of 3 to 5 MB with my clients, so the difference between uploading at 1.5mbps and 256kbps is very apparent to me. I miss it, I'd love to have it back, but I can live with 256.

Now - everybody, please step into the WayBack machine... remember trying to send those large files over a 56K dialup (or slower) line? Remember all the times you got knocked off line right at the end of it and had to start all over? And over? And over!!? I do. The reliability of the connection also adds some level of "speed increase" to the equation, although I'm at a loss as to how to calculate it. But I do remember one day when I was trying to transfer a large file - about 25 minutes on dial-up. Three times in a row I lost the connection at the 20 minute point. That was an entire hour WASTED, with an effective data transfer rate of ZERO!! bits/second.

reply to Homunculus
good point. Many people would probably use it to host games and stuff like that but that would attract more customers instead of turning some away. I know many gamers in my area who decided against @home because of such a low UL cap. Even when I want to send a file through email to a friend or family member it is drastic change from the download speed. Let's not forget that we are paying $40 monthly for this. Fact is they are overselling nodes and it's no fun for us who could use the higher UL speed. I'm not asking for anything like 1Mbps upload (although I know several people in the US and in Canada who can get those upload speeds on their cable modems). But something a little more reasonable such as 384 kbps or 514 kbps would be nice for the price we're paying.

reply to Sebastian

said by Buddah:

---

Can you blame them? Just the ability to have a high UL makes everyone happy.

I can understand that, Even with a higher UL you would surf the web much faster, Because you can request more data at once. Right now my UL is about 1 meg, But I sure wouldn't mind having 2 megs

---

reply to Homunculus
There really are ALOT of legit reasons to want higher UL than 128, with gaming leading the way big-time:)

128 doesnt simply equate to the quantity as with uploading huge amounts of data. 128 is also a measurement of speed, with higher UL everything will be faster:)

Hosting games, video conf, home networks with more than 3 pc's, etc... All legit activities for the HOME user that doesnt consists of running public servers. Im sure there are more leget activities that can benefit, including faster browsing, email, etc...

reply to Anon
I hate the upload cap too, I don't want to run a server off this crappy, unstable line, but I would also like higher than the 128k upload for occasional (and legal) file transfers..

However, folks keep saying they'll switch to DSL if the cap isn't raised. Just make sure you can actually get DSL w/ decent uploads before you go through the hassle of switching broadband lines. I know that most DSL providers I can actually afford in this area (say, under $75-100 a month, I'm poor) do speeds like UP TO 1.5M/256K, and you're damn lucky (and living within the first mile from the CO, most likely) if you even get the full 256K upload.

There don't seem to be many residential SDSL providers, at least not where I live.

I have a friend in Cali who has 1.5M SDSL w/ a bank of 16 IPs, from speakeasy.....*GEEK ENVY*
Bet it's costing him hundreds though.

reply to Anon
if higher UL will degrade my service (more people uploading warez, hosting servers etc etc etc) then keep things the way they are.. if @home can actually pull it off, and raise the UL cap without service going down the tubes, then yes, of course I wouldnt mind.. but this is @home... do you REALLY think they can pull that off?

one thing I am afraid of, if they raise the UL cap, is that more people will NOT use it responsibly (just look at whats happening with this Code Red crap). I know there are some of us that would legally use the extra bandwidth, but we are just a few people out of hundreds of thousands on @home. Its a shame that the responsible users like us are far out numbered by those who arent.

if @home can pull it off, without another rate increase, then bring it on, of course!
--
iTunes or noTunes!

Thats a legit concern I suppose Gengar, however with the new Cable standards ISP's can actually block those culprit ports if they are abused. Also @Home has the ability to cap individual lines of those who abuse the service:) All it takes for a couple of emails sent to abusers, then if still not cooperative then individually cap their line or even suspending service temporarily or eventually permement if still abusers insists.

All in all I really think there are enough ways for @Home to truly handle those who abuse their service without implementing a global 128UL cap. Personally I dont see how allowing 500UL will open up all this flood gate of servers since that is still VERY low UL speed to handle public servers or public email servers.

I personally dont feel the need for 1MB of UL but 500UL would be great:) This would better handle all the legit needs I mentioned above for the Home user. Keep in mind that other Cable ISP's like OOL are able to handle higher UL without being overwelmed by the concern of SERVERS:)

Again its all about how EACH node is managed:) Dont blame @Home customers for a 128UL cap when other Cable ISP's are able to manage their nodes with higher caps.

thats a good idea Mrq5, but i don't think @home truly cares that the customers get the highest upload speeds. They are more concerned with overselling nodes. This way they a)get more people into one node and b)prevent upload abusers. But I still think 128kbps is too low and they could raise it to keep more people happy.

reply to Homunculus

quote:

---

if higher UL will degrade my service (more people uploading warez, hosting servers etc etc etc) then keep things the way they are.. if @home can actually pull it off, and raise the UL cap without service going down the tubes, then yes, of course I wouldnt mind.. but this is @home... do you REALLY think they can pull that off?

---

I emailed @Home customer service and this is what they sent me back:

Dear Customer,

Thank you for contacting AT&T @Home. I apologize for any inconvenience that you may be experiencing.

Upstream Rate Management is part of our continuous effort to provide customers with the fastest, most consistent broadband service at the lowest possible price. Individuals or families use the residential service mostly to surf the Web or download software, music, or video and will now enjoy a more consistent, faster experience.

Without the 128 kbps upstream rate setting, the service is vulnerable to degradation by a few "enthusiastic" customers who run servers at home and other activities at odds with both the purpose of providing residential AT&T @Home service and the design of the network. Running servers and similar activities is prohibited by the AT&T Subscriber Agreement and the @Home Acceptable Use Policy. These customers engage in activities that are inconsistent with our residential service and require a disproportionate amount of network resources. In essence, they are taking more than their fair share of capacity, and, as a result, other customers (who constitute the vast majority of subscribers) may experience sub-optimal performance. In short, by setting the upstream rate to a specific level, we can deliver better service.

Thank you again for contacting AT&T@Home.

The question is how do the other cable companies provide fast downloads while not having a ridiculous upload speed of 128k??!