 ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | I see this impact my usage and I'll be cancel I'm in FiOS territory and unlike some TWC customers don't have to tolerate this BS. |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by ColorBASIC:I'm in FiOS territory and unlike some TWC customers don't have to tolerate this BS. Want a cookie? |
|
ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | Sure, got one? |
|
 telcolackey5The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | reply to ColorBASIC
said by ColorBASIC:I'm in FiOS territory and unlike some TWC customers don't have to tolerate this BS. For now...
When the newcomer competes with a large incumbent, everything is free love during the honeymoon. What FiOS is doing is a crazy business plan that 1) won't scale and 2) won't last.
Remember FiOS is brought to you by Verizon. I love how people forget that and the history that Verizon has in the phone and wireless business.
Enjoy it while it lasts. |
|
ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
1 edit | They've been saying that about Verizon for 10 years. The difference is topology and how overselling (which all of these providers do) impacts the network. Verizon's topology for both fiber and DSL deals with individual so-called hogs better than cable's network topology does. |
|
telcolackey5The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | I call FUD/BS on that. Users / technology is the same for pretty much most architectures. There is always a choke point and each have the ability to limit the oversubscription.
Technology is to choke point as
•Cable:CMTS
• DSL:DSLAM
• FiOS:OLT |
|
| reply to telcolackey5
hater. |
|
|
|
| reply to ColorBASIC
sugar ones yes  |
|
ColorBASIC8-bit FunPremium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
3 edits | reply to telcolackey5
Cable's choke point isn't the CMTS. Cable sees choke points at the node level because they don't allocate enough channels to handle every subscriber running wide open; as well they shouldn't. Dedicating that channel bandwidth to deal with 1% of subscribers is cost prohibitive.
If cable had direct runs all the way from the user to the CMTS so there was no shared capacity between the user and CMTS there wouldn't be a problem just as there arne't problems with DSL or FTTH.
Imagine a road and you approach a toll plaza. This 6 lane toll plaza would be the DSLAM, CMTS etc.
What we see with cable is the 6 lanes compartmentalized into 3 groups of 2 lanes. So while lanes 1 & 2, and 3 & 4 are flowing nicely to the toll plaza, lanes 5 & 6 have a pair of trucks rolling side by side slowing traffic for everyone else in those 2 lanes.
The toll plaza is a bottle neck for everyone only if everyone is on the road at the same time which is rarely the case so long as the toll plaza is operating properly. But for cable you have this compartmentalized topology that lends itself to bottlenecking in certain circumstances. The bottlenecking is easily controlled by a few ways. Get the trucks off the road (Comcast cancelling users), make the trucks drive in only the right lane (traffic shaping). |
|
