 Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | If they actually make good on their promise Then what they will likely do is throttle BitTorrent
traffic during peak periods, mainly if the node where
the traffic is being generated is at or close to capacity.
This is similar to what Time Warner is doing.
Or maybe they'll allow a certain amount, then charge
something like $2.00/GB over that.
Even though I may disagree with those who consider file
sharers thieves or those who use BitTorrent bandwidth
hogs, they do have a point: BT is one of the more traffic
intensive protocols - it can easily overwhelm most
consumer routers if connection limits aren't set in the
client. If it is doing that to routers, imagine what it
is doing to ISP network equipment.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
|
|
|
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | said by Doctor Four:Then what they will likely do is throttle BitTorrent traffic during peak periods .... Or maybe they'll allow a certain amount, then charge something like $2.00/GB over that. These are the management techniques that Comcast should have used from the beginning IMO. It would have avoided some of the bad press and probably generated revenue. |
|
| reply to Doctor Four
said by Doctor Four:Even though I may disagree with those who consider file sharers thieves or those who use BitTorrent bandwidth hogs, they do have a point: BT is one of the more traffic intensive protocols - it can easily overwhelm most consumer routers if connection limits aren't set in the client. If it is doing that to routers, imagine what it is doing to ISP network equipment. ISP backbone routers don't have to track sessions like your Linksys or Netgear router running NAT. The nature of the problem isn't related to the number of TCP connections open, instead, it is the shear number of small packets that is the problem.
As for the routers themselves, most of the newer routers can handle BT traffic well. Most Windows operating systems can barely generate enough packets to bring down a carrier class router/switch. Not to mention that the SOHO routers most people have would fall over before enough packets could be generated to also bring down a carrier router.
The effect is cumulative, though, so more users, the greater the effect of BT, but it would have to be many thousands of users. |
|
| reply to openbox9
If companies like Comcrap weren't so caught up in the quest for short term profits, they would be upgrading their networks to handle more traffic. The only one that seems to have a clue is Verizon. |
|
| said by Jim Kirk:If companies like Comcrap weren't so caught up in the quest for short term profits, they would be upgrading their networks to handle more traffic. The only one that seems to have a clue is Verizon. Docsis 3? |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to Jim Kirk
Comcast (and other ISPs) are spending billions to upgrade infrastructure, so I believe they're concerned with more than just short term profits  |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | said by openbox9:Comcast (and other ISPs) are spending billions to upgrade infrastructure, so I believe they're concerned with more than just short term profits They're in a really tough spot right now. Investors want blood. During times like this, the quarterly results often get too much attention and the long term vision too little. (None of that is unique to Comcast.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. |
|
 a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Cingular Wireless
| reply to Doctor Four
$2/gig? The only way that's fair is if:
a) The connection is uncapped
-OR-
b) The transfer limit is something like 500 gigs/month to start with.
Unless one of the above applies, 2 bux per gig is a pure ripoff, even after factoring in the last-mile network management costs. I mean, the actual peering agreements are DIRT cheap!! Heck, a couple of TB of data is about $20, on cogent or Level3.
Sigh, ridiculity at its very best...... |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to funchords
We obviously don't know about the next quarter yet, but look at the previous quarters...Comcast and many other ISPs are spending large sums of money increasing infrastructure and capacity, which is what digitalfreak implied wasn't being done. |
|
 RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | reply to LeftOfSanity
said by LeftOfSanity:said by Jim Kirk:If companies like Comcrap weren't so caught up in the quest for short term profits, they would be upgrading their networks to handle more traffic. The only one that seems to have a clue is Verizon. Docsis 3? Facts don't matter to some people. 
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! |
|
Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | reply to a333
I was just giving that as an example. Its what some UK ISPs
that charge by the byte for overusage are charging - only
theirs are more like £2 for gigabyte (which is much more than
$2 per gigabyte). Knowing the greed of ISPs like Comcast, if
they do start charging by the byte, it will be this exorbitant.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
|
|
