how-to block ads
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| a solution that's apparently not on the table they could always add bandwidth to resolve this issue, but that's not in their interests (their interests being monetizing every aspect of the internet).
although a few in this forum continue to point out "the high costs of capacity", a lot of things I read indicate bandwidth is not that costly.
the ILECs and their supporters (traffic shaping h/w companies and big business sycophants) are much more interested in promoting the fallacy of bandwidth scarcity (repeat the lie over and over and over and pretty soon it becomes "true"). this plays into their narrative that they need to "manage" the network, which seems to consist of throttling, blocking or otherwise interfering with traffic and/or applications; and don't forget caps.
it would be very interesting to see a study comparing the cost of adding network management equipment that inspects and interferes with packets versus simply adding more bandwidth capacity.
when the internet2 project looked ahead to what options were available when the existing bandwidth became inadequate, they concluded it was much cheaper and simpler to just add capacity, rather than implementing traffic shaping/monitoring capability. | |
|  | | 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| Re: a solution that's apparently not on the table said by mlerner  :I also do not see why they would not increase traffic since they are technically (though not in my experience) a tier 1 bandwidth provider. What makes a carrier a "Tier 1" carrier is that they don't pay anyone else for access to any routes. There's only (10) Tier 1 carriers that have exclusively settlement free peering: ATDN (AOL Transit Data Network), Level(3), Global Crossing, ATT, MCI/UUNet/Verizon (whoever they are today), NTT/Verio, Savvis, Sprint, Qwest, and TeliaSonera. Everybody else pays someone else to move at least some of their traffic. | |
| | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: a solution that's apparently not on the table WRT AT&T, specifically, AT&T Worldnet Services. My DSL connection, from the premises to the edge is AT&T; but it is AT&T Internet Service. My traffic may, or may not, transit AT&T Worldnet Services routers en route to the destination, but it always leaves/returns on ATTIS routers.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | 
Piggie
I Actually use Windstream
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Orange Springs, FL
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
·Windstream
| Re: a solution that's apparently not on the table I don't live there, I haven't followed it closely. But I had several friends leave Sympaco in the last year after they announced selling IPTV on demand or something like that? Now won't that eat up bandwidth?
Hughes this year started a hard hard limit on it's users. At first the casual users thought it was for them to have better access. Later the truth came out of Hughes wanting to put more subscribers per satellite.
Watch what they tell you is the reason.
Plus, IF bit torrent is the problem, why not QoS it down to 1 mbps or so on down and 128 on up. That way they can still play. To all but ban it is arcane.
--
| Speedstream 4200 Modem - 3m/384 plan | W98-W2KSP4-XPSP2 - All AMD | Buffalo WHR G54S with OpenWRT WR0.9 | 3 downstream switches feeding 6 total clients (no wireless) | Including the Data port on the side of my pork belly | | |
| | | |
|
