 koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14 | reply to MysticGogeta
Re: Gives False Hope of a Faster Connection I both agree and disagree.
Agree:
The core of the problem is that, for absolutely no justified reason (in my opinion), residential bandwidth has gone the asymmetrical route. A lot of networking equipment *does not work this way*, so honestly you have to go out of your way to make things asymmetrical.
There's really no technical reason that I know of for cable being asymmetric like that. I realise cable television was originally engineered with the concept of upstream data being very minute, but has the cable network not evolved since then?
Disagree:
As a Comcast user myself, I can tell you my #1 complaint has been with the upstream rate. I pay the outrageous price of US$72/month for my broadband service just so I can get something higher than a 384kbit upstream (the faster downstream is nice too, but that's not why I pay for the higher tier service).
So, from a residential user perspective, Comcast offering something like speedboost on upstream is absolutely wonderful. 2000kbit upstream? Awesome. You're NOT going to find DSL offering that anytime soon, because hardly any (basically none) of the DSL providers in the United States are going to re-engineer their networks and buy into ADSL2+ just to give customers that. Let's not forget that ADSL2+ only gives you decent speed improvements if you're an incredibly short distance from the CO, too.
Now, from a marketing perspective, Comcast offering speedboost on their upstream gives them another thing they can hold over the head of DSL.
Do I like DSL? Absolutely! I hate cable for the fact that it's a "shared bandwidth" medium; all it takes is one of my neighbours to be a w4r3z kiddie and my speeds are basically shot, since he'll be chewing up the pipe 24x7. I also hate how flippant latency is on cable. DSL gives each user what they pay for, and the latency is much more consistent/stable. If I had a choice of technology, DSL or cable, I'd pick DSL. But I'd want cable speed/bandwidth on DSL. 
But honestly I don't see DSL winning this war until telcos agree to upgrade their existing networks, and that's never going to happen in the United States.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. |
|
|
|
| You pay 72 month for cable connection wow dammm why so high.
But now look very nice upload speed and download looks awesome but it's still too high 72 dammmmmm |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
·Charter
| reply to koitsu
said by koitsu:Do I like DSL? Absolutely! I hate cable for the fact that it's a "shared bandwidth" medium; all it takes is one of my neighbours to be a w4r3z kiddie and my speeds are basically shot, since he'll be chewing up the pipe 24x7. Why share with only your neighbors when with DSL you can share with your whole town?
The "neighborhood sharing" issue is old, tired and mostly marketing FUD. With EVERY technology sharing is a factor. It is just where and how you manage capacity |
|
| reply to koitsu
said by koitsu:I both agree and disagree. Agree: The core of the problem is that, for absolutely no justified reason (in my opinion), residential bandwidth has gone the asymmetrical route. No justified reason? In case you haven't been around for a while all this broadband explosion eats up ALOT of bandwidth. You want symmetrical? Get all your friends and neighbors who refuse to get digital from the cable co's to either cancel or upgrade that tired analog service.
said by koitsu:I both agree and disagree. Do I like DSL? Absolutely! I hate cable for the fact that it's a "shared bandwidth" medium; all it takes is one of my neighbours to be a w4r3z kiddie and my speeds are basically shot, since he'll be chewing up the pipe 24x7. I also hate how flippant latency is on cable. DSL gives each user what they pay for, and the latency is much more consistent/stable. If I had a choice of technology, DSL or cable, I'd pick DSL. But I'd want cable speed/bandwidth on DSL. You obviously need to read up on the subject. As noted above DSL is shared at the DSLAM, so they are both a "Shared" service. It's all about how the area plans and maintains for capacity. It's not "oversold nodes" or because cable is "shared". |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to devnuller
said by devnuller:The "neighborhood sharing" issue is old, tired and mostly marketing FUD. With EVERY technology sharing is a factor. It is just where and how you manage capacity Precisely. And cable companies have a horrid track record of managing capacity.
There are precious few comments here or anywhere (if any at all) of anyone's speed being killed by the neighborhood warez kiddie on DSL. It is far too easy to do on cable, and no matter how much you want to deny it, it is an issue that DSL simply does not have.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Charter
| said by RadioDoc:There are precious few comments here or anywhere (if any at all) of anyone's speed being killed by the neighborhood warez kiddie on DSL. Relativity. It is really hard to tell when the Internet is slowing down, when it starts that way. |
|
