| Throttling This is the reason why I dropped Netflix.I pay for a service,if I don't get what I'm paying for,I drop it and move on.This is BULL$%#%!If you pay good money for something and can't fully use that product then your getting #$%#@#!! PLAIN AND SIMPLE 
--
9929 |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | Pay more for an actual data line, run it 24/7 if you wish!
Might cost a bit more than $40-$50 per month though... 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
 herdfanPremium
join:2003-01-25
Hurricane, WV | reply to Calabria
But I pay for the service as well, and if I get slow speeds because the kid up the street is pulling 5 steams full tilt, then I am not getting what I paid for. |
|
| reply to Calabria
At 250GB caps you would have to stream over 70 movies a month before you start seeing any additional charges. If you have that much spare time on your hands how can you even afford the services? |
|
| reply to herdfan
If networks were designed properly the way they should be in the first place, you wouldn't be affected by that kid up the street pulling 5 streams, everyone would have their own dedicated line and you would get your full speeds 24/7 regardless of how much your neighbors use. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by VZ FiOS :
If networks were designed properly the way they should be in the first place, you wouldn't be affected by that kid up the street pulling 5 streams, everyone would have their own dedicated line and you would get your full speeds 24/7 regardless of how much your neighbors use. If networks were designed in this matter, you'd be paying $1000+ for your 8mbps connection.
There is oversubscription at every level of the Internet, including carrier backbones. The difference is that backbones have fewer points of presence to upgrade, they can add more capacity in a shot (10GigE at a time vs 38mbps downstream channels), and the hardware is cheaper because Ethernet & SoNET are more prevalent technologies than DOCSIS so there is more vendor competition to keep equipment prices down. Backbone carriers can scale their networks to meet demand much more rapidly than any of the broadband last-mile providers can. |
|
| reply to SRFireside
Depends on the quality of the movies. With HD streaming starting I can see people eating up the bandwidth. Especially if you consider that you may also be looking at more than one person in a home pulling down data from various sites. It's entirely possible for people to cross that threshold while still getting only legal content. I agree that not many will do it, but it's definitely doable. |
|
| Currently the NetFlix offering Hog is talking about streams only in standard definition. Thus my response to the short-sighted reaction of cancelling services. We won't really see HD streaming happen on a consumer level for at least a few years. My concern will be what Comcast does at that time when the 250GB cap is no longer sufficient.
It's just like back in the DSL heyday where some ISP's capped the transfers at 6GB and such. When content demand went up those caps were removed. Will CC follow suite? |
|
| Never have a problem with V*!Constant 15/15.not are problem if C* can't get it right.If people are going to stick with C* they should stop there bitching.If you haven't learned by know the way C* operates then you deserve to get the royal shaft  |
|
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:If networks were designed in this matter, you'd be paying $1000+ for your 8mbps connection. Not quite. FiOS customers have their own dedicated fiber to their building. These fibers are connected together at the ISP and then to the backbone network overall. What you said about the backbone carriers is true and they can upgrade their networks more faster than any last-mile provider can.
However, my point was that if the last-mile providers would stop oversubscribing more and more customers to their networks and take the time to actually upgrade and improve upon them like Verizon has done with rolling out new lines all together; we wouldn't see as much saturation in the networks and people who use their bandwidth to its fullest potential would not have as huge of an impact on those saturated networks as they currently do.
ISP's like Comcast wouldn't then have to "manage people" because the network would be able to handle that kind of bandwidth.
Plus, as we as a society rely more on the internet, these networks would be future proofing themselves to be able to handle additional bandwidth. The amount of bandwidth an average user consumes is only going to increase over the years. If ISPs can upgrade their networks ahead of time, instead of trying to squeeze all the bandwidth they can out of their current layouts without shelling out some cash for an upgrade, we will see speed tiers that countries like Japan and Korea have. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by VZ FiOS :said by espaeth:If networks were designed in this matter, you'd be paying $1000+ for your 8mbps connection. Not quite. FiOS customers have their own dedicated fiber to their building. These fibers are connected together at the ISP and then to the backbone network overall. Not entirely correct here either. The individual subscriber fiber connections aggregate at a BPON/GPON optical splitter/combiner. The downstream signal is simply split 32 (BPON) or 64 (GPON) ways to reach the ONTs. Every ONT off that mux receives the same downstream signal (meaning your neighbor's downloads hit your ONT, but your ONT just ignores it). For the upstream, every ONT on the mux is transmitting on the same optical fiber leading up to the head-end. The transmissions are managed using TDMA to ensure that only 1 ONT is transmitting at any given time. It's the TDMA negotiation and sync overhead that limits the upstream BPON channel to 155mbps, whereas the downstream is 1 transmitter (headend) to multiple receivers (ONTs) so the downstream channel runs at 622mbps.
This is nearly identical to how DOCSIS plants work today, only DOCSIS 2.0 is restricted to 38/27 for down/up channel capacity and FiOS is 622/155. The density is also significantly different, where current DOCSIS plants extend out to 400-500 homes per HFC node, and Verizon is limited to 32 - 64 homes per neighborhood optical distribution.
said by VZ FiOS :
However, my point was that if the last-mile providers would stop oversubscribing more and more customers to their networks and take the time to actually upgrade and improve upon them like Verizon has done with rolling out new lines all together The problem is there is no financially viable application driving that upgrade. Verizon is not rolling out FiOS solely to build kick-ass broadband services, though that is a nice marketing addition. The leading driver for Verizon is getting into video distribution. All of the PSTN providers are aware that the future of local dialtone services continues to decline. Video is a clear place to make money -- look at FiOS TV: $40-50/mo for service. From a capacity planning standpoint, the bandwidth to deliver TV channels is all in the "to-subscriber" direction, the capacity is known and fixed, there are no head-end carrier capacity requirements, the trouble calls are less, and any additional traffic beyond the fixed video content (ie, On Demand services) present yet another opportunity to collect revenue.
Cable MSOs don't have the same drivers. They're already providing video, they're already doing OnDemand, and they have an entire support infrastructure already in place to manage these things. It's not the same "greenfield" Verizon and ATT situations where they are starting with no existing video user base, and they have the benefit of deploying nearly a decade after cable MSOs rolled out the now ubiquitous HFC network.
said by VZ FiOS :
we wouldn't see as much saturation in the networks and people who use their bandwidth to its fullest potential would not have as huge of an impact on those saturated networks as they currently do. Every network can be saturated with the right mix of traffic. Large websites can be taken out by Denial of Service attacks, most of which are just HTTP GET attacks that obey every single standard for IP communications, they just generate a quantity of requests that the service is incapable of fulfilling. If more users start gaining 15+mbps connections and P2P use continues to increase, even FiOS is going to start running into capacity issues at some point in the not too distant future.
said by VZ FiOS :
If ISPs can upgrade their networks ahead of time, instead of trying to squeeze all the bandwidth they can out of their current layouts without shelling out some cash for an upgrade, we will see speed tiers that countries like Japan and Korea have. You can't forecast for network growth that has an exponential growth curve. At some point we're going to have to come to the realization that our ability to grow bandwidth is less than our ability to create apps that consume it.
Using Japan and Korea is an interesting example, because while there are indeed many people with higher speed connections, the individual user experience is still hit-or-miss just like it is here in the US. Congestion is as much an issue in those countries as it is anywhere else. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to herdfan
said by herdfan:But I pay for the service as well, and if I get slow speeds because the kid up the street is pulling 5 steams full tilt, then I am not getting what I paid for. Fine, but your problem is not with the kid -- it's with the company that oversold its inventory.
You both have paid for the same amount of bandwidth. You're mad at the kid for using it?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
 knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by VZ FiOS :
If networks were designed properly the way they should be in the first place, you wouldn't be affected by that kid up the street pulling 5 streams, everyone would have their own dedicated line and you would get your full speeds 24/7 regardless of how much your neighbors use. If networks were designed in this matter, you'd be paying $1000+ for your 8mbps connection. There is oversubscription at every level of the Internet, including carrier backbones. The difference is that backbones have fewer points of presence to upgrade, they can add more capacity in a shot (10GigE at a time vs 38mbps downstream channels), and the hardware is cheaper because Ethernet & SoNET are more prevalent technologies than DOCSIS so there is more vendor competition to keep equipment prices down. Backbone carriers can scale their networks to meet demand much more rapidly than any of the broadband last-mile providers can. A bit of exaggeration on that, a properly designed network in which it's possible for link saturation would simply do a pipe shaping setup (where their traffic as a whole is shapped, not individual ports or protocols).
If you and the kid have 16 Mbps of bandwidth and the kid down the street is using 16 Mbps and you can't get anything to hit google.com then that is not a properly designed network nor is the gateway handling the session traffic properly. All equipment has finite limits and it's just a matter of making sure the limits can never be reached by a single user, otherwise I have to agree, "poor network design and setup" is to be blamed. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to Calabria
over subscribing, over booking, etc are all policy at customer fronted businesses. from what i hear many airlines overbook the plane because they know a certain percent dont make it. just as an ISP over subs a node because they know there is a few heavy users and then that user that check the email after work and then rots in front of reality TV on the networks all night.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
