Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Jerm
Re: uhh wtf mate!
You damage the network neutrality argument.
ISP's can ABSOLUTELY manage their network by limiting heavy users. A consumer grade network should be no different. If anything, if Comcast can't manage their network properly, maybe they do have too much market share, and SHOULD be limited.
If a Business wants to upload 24/7 they get a business account, and no problem.
Network neutrality is about treating every protocol the same, from every provider.
Sandvine doesn't do at all what he says, it completely disables a portion of protocol, weather it be abusive or not. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | reply to jjeffeory
GPON, nuff said. Standards have existed for ages. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to Jerm
said by Jerm  :DOCSIS 2.0 running QAM16 upstream (common configuration) would have 10mbps of upload bandwidth shared between all users on the "node". Go with 32-QAM, 64-QAM and 128-QAM and you get 3 times the bandwidth (30.72 [27] Mbit/s) to share. |
|
lvlorpheus
join:2008-02-17
Eureka Springs, AR | reply to jester121
It's nice to see you agree with me. If our country can pump 12 billion a month in to Iraq it should be nothing to invest billions right here at home. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :.... Too bad that handling that sort of traffic requires thousands of multi-million dollar routing/switching platforms, and hundreds of very well paid engineers to manage them. Billions of dollars doesn't sound like an engineering challenge to me. Japan, France, S.Korea, etc etc have all done it or close to it.
You saying the U.S. is not as good or capable as them? |
|
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
| reply to Jerm
said by Jerm :"If we had 100 Mb/s, we’re not going to talk about throttling because there will be plenty of bandwidth." If every customer had a 100/100 I have no faith in Comcast to engineer their backbone sufficiently to handle multiple customers uploading @ a full 100mbps. It just isn't feasible at this point in time. I think it's possible to do. Just because there is no solution out right now doesn't mean it's not possible to do. It's only not possible right now because they're not trying to do it. |
|
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| reply to jester121
Economically Feasible.
Think about it this way. Lets say for the sake of argument the current average cable modem upstream is 1mbit - Comcast is only at 768kbps for example and they feel the need to throttle torrents already.
Oversell ratio on residential lines is commonly in the area of 25:1 (25mbit sold to customers for every 1mbit of actual backbone bandwidth).
DOCSIS 2.0 running QAM16 upstream (common configuration) would have 10mbps of upload bandwidth shared between all users on the "node".
Do the math: This works out to a "node" with 250 customers that would share 10mbit of upload bandwidth. (25/1 oversell x 10mbps x 1mbps per customer)
The problem is in reality it only takes 10-15 users uploading at their full bandwidth to saturate the upstream - ruining the experience for everyone else.
------------------------
Now give everyone 100x the upload (100mbps) and the problem magically goes away?
Oh wait, whats that sound? I think it's Comcast sh**ting their pants! |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to Jerm
said by Jerm :If every customer had a 100/100 I have no faith in Comcast to engineer their backbone sufficiently to handle multiple customers uploading @ a full 100mbps. It just isn't feasible at this point in time. Yeah, it all sounds magically simple -- they should "engineer" their network to perform faster!
Too bad that handling that sort of traffic requires thousands of multi-million dollar routing/switching platforms, and hundreds of very well paid engineers to manage them. Billions of dollars doesn't sound like an engineering challenge to me. |
|
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
1 edit | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25 :Every customer wouldn't upload at that speed and for the most part those that do will not do it for an extended amount of time ... I have 100mb to the desktop. If there is network slow down I put a sniffer on it and find the user that is "abusing" it. That individual is dealt with and if they don't adhere to my "advice" I get their performance manager involved. Skippy - Your model works great if P2P didn't exist. What you are talking about of course is a network you manage at work. A consumer grade network is a *very different* beast and it should NOT have admins telling customers what they can/can't do on the network. Network neutrality.
Think about your upstream provider - say your business *wanted* to use your 100mbps upload 24/7 to host a legal bittorrent file your business created. Should your ISP cut you off and tell you NO?
P2P (ie bittorrent) can fill 100mbps up on a popular file if it is configured in a fashion to do so.
Comcast currently uses their sandvine application to do essentially what you describe, but on an automatic basis. Thus transfer caps and throttling again rear their ugly head.
BT is an amazing protocol, because for the very first time users - even (and perhaps especially) uneducated ones - can do exactly exactly what you state they won't: "upload at that speed (100mbps) ... for an extended amount of time" |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to Jerm
Every customer wouldn't upload at that speed and for the most part those that do will not do it for an extended amount of time because the general internet to the general user is a very lopsided road on the download side.
The network would handle what it can handle and then the providers should deal with user's individually that are saturating the network. Just as they should now. Just as I do on the network I manage. I have 100mb to the desktop. If there is network slow down I put a sniffer on it and find the user that is "abusing" it. That individual is dealt with and if they don't adhere to my "advice" I get their performance manager involved. |
|
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
1 edit | "If we had 100 Mb/s, we’re not going to talk about throttling because there will be plenty of bandwidth."
Does that mean no caps also?
In a theoretical world without oversell - yes he's right.
In the real world?
Uhh. No.
He must be talking about a 100/1 package or something.
If every customer had a 100/100 I have no faith in Comcast to engineer their backbone sufficiently to handle multiple customers uploading @ a full 100mbps. It just isn't feasible at this point in time. |
|
