 NOCManMacChatterPremium join:2004-09-30 Colorado Springs, CO | Devils Advocate I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a bit.
I do not mind they delaying mass downloads if that means when I want web pages to work they will not timeout because of a network congestion issue.
I know firsthand how bad bittorrent can be for an ISP who is trying to provide customers with a consistent service level. It throws all your bandwidth predictions out the window because every time you upgrade that 10% that causes the problem just sucks the upgrade right up with it.
There really needs to be some honest discussions between users and service providers as to what an acceptable method of dealing with bandwidth hogs.
One issue is the lack of a good point to multi-point distribution model that does not destroy network resources. It's now the upload that's the problem it's the download. Even if they were to put caching bittorrent servers on a cablecompany's head ends there's still the issue that the torrent application would suck down a good chunk of the bandwidth. On a dedicated medium such a DSL that would eliminate a huge bandwidth issue.
I think that's part of the reason the bad guys right now are the cable companies because their model for broadband delivery has the big flaw of not being able to provide dedicated bandwidth per customer in the same way a DSL/Fiber connection is capable of.
WISP/WiMax will also suffer this problem and even EVDO has an issue where the cell tower and the radio link are the choke points in the network. -- Mac Chatter »www.macchatter.net |
|
 Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium join:2005-11-23 Erial, NJ kudos:2 1 edit | Here's where you are somewhat wrong. If they upgrade the network, that 10% are still stuck using the same speeds they are already maxing out. There's nothing more for them to suck up yet there is now additional bandwidth for the other 90% to take advantage of.
And who's really to blame here? They keep jacking the speeds. People will use those speeds. Where's the bandwidth to compensate? They keep adding customers. Where's the bandwidth to compensate? Don't blame the users for their own short-sightedness. |
|
 RickPremium,MVM join:2001-02-06 Waterbury, CT | reply to NOCMan Here's how I see it. Comcast..is a chinese buffet. All you can eat for 7.99.
There's a line of 50 of us at lunch.
4 or them weigh 800 lbs and will consume 40% of the whole table leaving a whole lot less for the other 46 of us.
You say that Comcast should feed them what they want.
I say they should eat less or divide up their meals with some other establishment.
Comcast does not owe them that much food for 7.99 and is not here to accomodate them.
Their use is impacting all the rest of us.
They are the ones who need to make other arrangments... Comcast needs to keep doing what they're doing. Stopping them from taking all the food because it hurts the rest of us.
Comcast should not have to put more food out on the table to feed those 4..for that same price.
Damn..now I'm hungry. Time for an early lunch.  -- The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
 | Then implement a cap, and ensure customers know what the cap is. I would rather be capped than slowed. |
|
|
|
 Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA | reply to Rick said by Rick:Here's how I see it. Comcast..is a Chinese buffet. There's a line of 50 of us at lunch. 4 or them weigh 800 lbs and will consume 40% of the whole table leaving a whole lot less for the other 46 of us. Their use is impacting all the rest of us. They are the ones who need to make other arrangments... Comcast needs to keep doing what they're doing. Stopping them from taking all the food because it hurts the rest of us. Actually what Comcast is doing by "delaying" is analogous to letting the 4 stay while eliminating their favorite foods in the hope they'll go away. Of course the restaurant business is very competitive so chances are most of the other 46 who also like the eliminated foods would go away too. That's why most restaurants will ask the 4 to leave long before they consume 40% of the food. |
|
 Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| reply to Rick What a stupid analogy on your part.
Buffet works on a single principle that some people will eat exactly their $7.99 worth, some will eat less than $7.99 worth, and a few will eat more than $7.99 worth, however on average, even with some people who eat more than $7.99 buffet will still be profitable. It's all about projecting average food demand and adjusting food supplies and prices accordingly.
If comcast can't project average demand and adjust speeds and bandwidth accordingly, whose fault is that?
A buffet which sets the prices too low will go out of business due to revenue loss, a buffet which starts imposing limits on what kind of food and how much a customer may get will lose customers and will also go out of business, only the buffet which correctly projects average demand and stacks enough food (or bandwidth in comcast case) and sets appropriate price that will average out the cost of the food and labor will survive.
Unfortunately due to monopolistic nature of comcast and ISPs in USA in general it's not going to happen. Many customers do not have a choice, so comcast and others, bells including are free to do whatever they want and customer can't do anything because ther is no competitor they could switch to. |
|
 gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA 3 edits | Everyone has all these analogys that dont take into account that comcast is apparently overselling thier nodes in dense areas, and instead of upgrading or expanding, they are traffic shaping.
Here's one; an airline sells 1200 seats on a 400 person plane. After it fills, theres still 200 people waiting to board the plane(600 didnt show up). After a few hours, the people in line wonder why the line isnt moving.
Meanwhile, the pilot notices there are 47 people who weigh 300 pounds, so he tells them to get off the plane. Another 63 people are wearing eyepatches, so they have to go too ... -- Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts, Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit, With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish. Solon |
|
 | reply to Rick And Comcast is 'ready now' for the demands of streaming tv/video and yet they're doing crap like this now. Yawn ... yeah. |
|
 james join:2001-02-26 CWCville USA | reply to gaforces Don't be silly, everyone knows fat people can't go in normal planes! they forklift them into the cargo hold. |
|
 Talis join:2001-06-21 Houston, TX | reply to NOCMan said by NOCMan:I think that's part of the reason the bad guys right now are the cable companies because their model for broadband delivery has the big flaw of not being able to provide dedicated bandwidth per customer in the same way a DSL/Fiber connection is capable of. Well said! |
|
 Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA | reply to james Comcast may not be perfect but when you attack fat people you attack the USA! |
|
 braynesPremium join:2005-03-14 Waterville, ME | reply to Rick Rick You are right. Comcast should be a Chinese buffet. Bruce |
|
 gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA | reply to james Why take slow boat, much faster to take jet plane. |
|
 gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA | reply to Shill Patrol I heard they got some genius engineers, they hooked up some quad-shield coax to a glider pulling 300 more people behind that 777! OH, nevermind that was another story ... |
|