Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to HMS1
Re: Translation said by HMS1:All your points are reasonable. If it were just a matter of policies or business decisions on the part of the ISPs you would be right on target. There are other factors to be taken into consideration tho:
- There are technical reasons that cable, in current form, can't handle upstream nearly as well as downstream. I don't recall the explanation (maybe someone will fill in this part), but it has to do with it being designed years ago when it was all about delivering TV with little need for up.
- It's way expensive to improve the "last mile" infrastructure. In the long run, hopefully we'll have fiber and big, symmetrical bandwidth. But it takes investment by either the providers or government. The providers need a good ROI to do it, and we don't have a political climate for government to do it. And either way it takes time.
- Competition theoretically would improve things, but in most cities there is a cable monopoly (maybe even legally forced) and a telco oligopoly at best. Also this factor is in tension with the "last mile problem" - practically speaking, only one entity can own each connection from the individual residences or businesses to the central office (or whatever it's called).
Consumer connections are mostly asymmetrical in nature. So uploading in general usually takes the beating.
It costs more to send traffic then to receive because of the peering agreements made by isp's to tier 1's and some tier 2's.
If I told you give me 10 k a month and id carry 100 mbit both ways to another peer you would say hell no thats to high my customers don't use that. I say ok then we will give you 45 mbit for 5 k.
Now downloading is mostly used and is burst type traffic. Meaning it is not sustained , it is only sustained by the server sending the content. So more can be downloaded without worries of sustaining. And to be clear downloading does include web surfing.
Uploads are more sustained. Usually since the servers are sending out to more then 1 downloader at a time. It's all relative. And since the transport is all bunched together your server may be on your backbone and helping saturate the upload you want so bad.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
 Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | reply to dfgdg
you do... that is why speeds are UP TO xMb/xMb.. no company as far as i know has anything in writing that says all speeds are guaranteed. |
|
1 edit | reply to G_Poobah
In all fairness, RCN has given a number of free speed increases over the years.
Used to be 1500/800, then they made a $10/m extra 3000/800 tier
then they bumped the 1.5s to 3 and the 3s to 5
then they bumped the 3s to 5 and the 5s to 7
then they bumped the 5s to 7 and the 7s to 10
(all for free)
They're going to be rolling out a 20/2 tier soon, it's still uncertain whether it will be another free upgrade or cost more. We can only hope.  |
|
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to koitsu
said by koitsu: US$40 6/1 cable versus US$400 512/512 co-location. Damn! If you're paying $400 for a server and 512Kb/s of usage, I've got a bridge to sell you.
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity |
|
|
|
 koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14 | said by sporkme:Damn! If you're paying $400 for a server and 512Kb/s of usage, I've got a bridge to sell you. Actually the bandwidth isn't that bad -- it's the 14U of rack space and power which is.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. In memory of 2005... |
|
1 edit | reply to gheezer
true the AUP doesnt guarantee bandwidth. The ONLY thing that i ask of my isp is that they DO NOT RESTRICT WHAT PORTS OR WHAT DATA i send on my line. if the bandwidth to max out my connection is available and not being used by anyone else on the same co then i damn well expect to be able to use it on any port. i dont want a connection where port 80, and 8080 are the only 2 ports that can use maximum bandwidth.
As long as an isp make a good attempt to get the amount of bandwidth that every user needs to his/her home then i am happy with it (i can see comcast or sbc trying to "low ball" the number so they only buy 45 mbit to support 1000+subs).
Does anyone know what the current user to bandwidth ratio that major companies use? it would be interesting to find out that information, like 15 users @ 5 mbit : 1 isp connection @ 5 mbit.
i dont have rcn cable so does anyone know if them limiting bandwidth to certain applications is justified? or are they just trying to lower there cost? a justification would be your bandwidth drops significantly during peak hours or ur max bandwidth cannot be obtained during off hours. |
|
| reply to kd6cae
quote:
I've wondered about this myself. Why should it cost any more to send data then to receive it? And why can't residential users be offered symetrical connectivity?
Because then there's no incentive for hella expensive commercial connections. You can run a relatively decent web server on 1.5 mbit, or most other servers now that I think about it (except your "super elite top ftp site")
Also, if you look at commercial connections/t1/etc. they have guarenteed bandwidth. The bandwidth you get on your 7 mbit connection might be 4 mbit during peak times, might by 7 off peak, and that's in the agreement. For business customers, they had better get their full bandwidth, otherwise according to the SLA, then the telco will probably be opening their wallet.
Also, is it painfully clear to everybody else that higher capacities basically mean you can download/upload illegal things more quickly? |
|
| reply to G_Poobah
You are insane.
The entire business model of ISPs is and has been oversubscription. Reserving 1:1 bandwidth is the circuit-switch telephone model. It simply isn't affordable and is NOT what has powered the growth of the Internet. |
|
JimFPremium
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA | reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah:The BOTTOM LINE is that 'your network cannot support the higher upstream speeds". So DON'T SELL IT LIKE THAT. Don't sell something you can't support! Never fly an airline. They sell more seats than they have. And never buy a car with a speedometer rated 140 mph. They really don't let you go that fast. |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | reply to huziwhatsis
said by huziwhatsis:You are insane. The entire business model of ISPs is and has been oversubscription. Reserving 1:1 bandwidth is the circuit-switch telephone model. It simply isn't affordable and is NOT what has powered the growth of the Internet. Actually, that is true with most residential communications, computer or voice. Just try using the phone (cell *or* POTS) after an earthquake, tornado, or other major news disaster when over 30% of the people are trying to call in/out, or in some areas where a special promotion requires you to call in.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
 rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | reply to sycocowz
While I'd be very appreciative of this sort of speed upgrades, wake me up please when my broadband has monthly costs more like the Asians are enjoying on a $/mbit/s basis. I have a feeling you can just call me van Winkle. |
|
Hanko
join:2001-12-28
Eatonville, WA | reply to sporkme
It isn't only those who run servers that have to pay a high price for bandwidth. If you are a "Rural" customer like me who cannot get cable or DSL and Satellite is just not cutting it for VPN use you are stuck paying high prices.
I have a T1 to my house. It allows me to work from here instead of driving into downtown Seattle every day. I gladly pay the $536/month for the service. While I feel for those who complain that they are not getting all of their bandwidth from a 6/1 cable connection at $50/month I would gladly trade my monthly bill with them for the bandwidth anytime.
It is all relative on your situation. |
|
