republican-creole
Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Former FCC Boss On Comcast Traffic Shaping » uhh wtf mate!
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
Not so fast »
« "If we had 100 Mb/s..."  
AuthorAll Replies

jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk

reply to Jerm
Re: uhh wtf mate!

said by Jerm See Profile :

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

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!

nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast

reply to jester121
said by jester121 See Profile :

....

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?

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.


RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

reply to Jerm
said by Jerm See Profile :

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.
Forums » Former FCC Boss On Comcast Traffic ShapingNot so fast »
« "If we had 100 Mb/s..."  


Monday, 30-Nov 12:19:01 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [23] Broadband Killed The Game Console
· [19] AT&T Top Lobbyist Cicconi Has His Feelings Hurt
· [16] Midcontinent Socked With Easement Lawsuit
· [8] Rural Carriers Quickly Embracing Fiber
· [3] Monday Morning Links
Most people now reading
· Are GPS's better today? [General Questions]
· filling an in-ground pool [Home Repair & Improvement]
· Options if ACTA is ratified [TekSavvy]
· Considering Leaving Vonage, who should I Consider? [VOIP Tech Chat]
· Portable power for blackouts? [Home Repair & Improvement]
· Maximizing Rogue DPS for ToC/ToGC (3.x) [World of Warcraft]
· [Newsgroups] Newzleech down? [Filesharing Software]
· Leveling to 85 [World of Warcraft]
· Whats the big deal about being "Old School"....? [World of Warcraft]
· [Config] cisco asa 5505 with multiple outside IP addresses [Cisco]