espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| reply to funchords
Re: Waiting...
said by funchords  :We never used to talk about bandwidth as if it was a datarate versus consumption. A few people found reason to do so (the bandwidth aggregators). But why do we drink the cool-aid? Who's we?
The discussion has always traditionally been speeds and feeds. Some of the rate qualifications has dropped out of the public vernacular, but the rate is always a critical component. We talk about "10 meg" NICs and "8meg" broadband and "56k dialup", but all those things refer to the number of bits per second the interface is capable of. You can't buy a 5GB/mo interface.
I think you're missing the premise of increasing speed to improve efficiency, not necessarily to increase quantity. One of the reasons broadband providers are giving high speeds (ie powerboost) is to get you on and off the network faster. The websites you visit push the same quantity of data whether you have a 1mbps or a 100mbps line, so providing you with a faster connection gets you on and off the network faster. In a network where access EVERY SECOND is statistically multiplexed, this is important.
When it comes to broadband scaling, it's a matter of adjusting for both increasing speed to increase quantity and increasing speed to improve efficiency. Of course, some applications are natural enemies to the improve efficiency goal. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to espaeth
ESP,
I think a better exampled would be one like this in clearer terms. Say Highway X can hold 10,000 cars along a 25 miles stretch at capacity. Normally, there are only 5,000 cars or less and traffic runs pretty smooth. There are few backlogs, traffic jams, etc during the day. Yet, at 5 P.M. everyone gets off work, and now there are 10,000 cars on that highway for the next two hours. Obviously, everyone is slowed down, making less efficient time. This is pretty typical of MOST highways in major cities.
Basically put, this example correlates with my bandwidth model of slowing high users down. It's about the best win win anyone can ever see. ISPS seem to think building out is a swear word, and would like to find ways to make their outdated and oversold systems last. Customers are use to the "Unlimited" marketing we've seen for the last ten years. So the only solution is to do this. During the day (or non rush hour), let everyone have full capacity. However, during peak hours, everyone who has exceeded a CLEARLY stated cap has their bandwidth turned down so faster cars can go around. It would be like building a bypass so those 10,000 people are not all stuck in traffic longer due to the accident up the road. It sucks that a few people can ruin it for all, but in this day and age where businesses have millions to lobby, it won't change. As long as they keep lining Washington's pockets, we the customer, will rarely so pro consumer initiatives. The only way this changes is when consumers either
A) Speak up
B) Speak with their wallets
C) mobilize lots of people to rally around a central idea. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to espaeth
I feel like the guy who wakes up as if he was struck by lightening, shakes his head to ward off the effects, and says "what the hell happened?"
We never used to talk about bandwidth as if it was a datarate versus consumption. A few people found reason to do so (the bandwidth aggregators). But why do we drink the cool-aid?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :Q. What's the difference between 60 miles per hour or a mile per minute? 60 miles per hour could be 50 minutes of 0 miles per minute, and 10 minutes of 6 miles per minute.
said by funchords :Bandwidth is bandwidth is bandwidth. If you have an amount divided by a time period, that's an expression of bandwidth. But interfaces are only capable of moving so many bit per second. It doesn't matter if 1mbps is roughly 330GB/mo -- that doesn't mean you can try to move 330GB in just one of those 30 days and have it work.
This is like reporting how many cars a highway can move per hour vs how many cars it can move per day. Those are vastly differently numbers with very different meanings.
You're demonstrating my point quite nicely though, Robb. You're an incredibly sharp guy (I mean this genuinely, no BS), and yet you're falling into the same pitfalls most on this site do. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :The problem is that most users have trouble with the difference between rate and quantity when it comes to talking about bandwidth. It happens in nearly every thread on this site. Q. What's the difference between 60 miles per hour or a mile per minute?
A. None
Bandwidth is bandwidth is bandwidth. If you have an amount divided by a time period, that's an expression of bandwidth.
Only in Comcast land do people invent concepts to purposefully cloud the issue. What's surprising is that people actually buy it and repeat it!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
indy0365
join:2001-08-25
Franklin, IN
| reply to telcolackey
Yeah... they are screwing it up so bad they have become a profitable and successful ISP (not easy to do) that has driven the broadband industry
I would think the profitable isp has to to more with frequent rate hikes on the tv cable side they charge 4.99 to 6.99 for a movie
comcast bought my old cable co out insight
first thing we get is a rate hike
I still have the same speed/package
I had with my old cable co same price to
Damn them for providing a solid product for 99% of the customer base!
sure ok depends which market you in some markets its vs fios some markets its dsl lets see the same price/speed for everyone
Damn them for introducing powerboost that increases speed for interactive apps.
got me on that one i just noticed its increases download speed for the first 10 megs ? then drops off kida like a tease |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to espaeth
Well the honest truth is this, and honestly this. You have a large share of users who are not tech savvy. They are susceptible to hackers, viruses, botnets, etc. These users wouldn't know the difference if they used the bandwidth or someone else. The other half are tech savvy but probably could care less. You have a small amount who given the tools would be conscience of their usage. Therefore, my solution above is the most reasonable. For the less tech savvy, their bandwidth is slowed down. It will cut usage on the network, and make them solve the problem of why they consume bandwidth (virus, hacked, etc). For the other portion that like to download a ton, capping them with speed limits would make them more conscientious. Let's face it, people don't want to wait a long time on their download. Making a 10mbit line 2-3mbit down is quite a punishment. It is enough to where it might discourage high users but not to the point where it pisses them off. Plus, it lessons the strain on the network. I know some foreign isps do this. Cap high users during peak hours. It would be a start. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to dynodb
I tend to agree that there's a limit at both ends.
1. Don't sell something (i.e. +20Mbps/1Mbps) then cap/filter because you can't reasonably sell that product anyways. Eg. If everyone was at 1.5Mbps, there would probably be no issue on that same node.
2. 20Mbps 'looks' better for sales than '1.5Mbps', especially for video apps. E.g. You 'need' to have this package to do 'X'.
Its all marketing, and a way to ensure that the 'unlimited' isn't 'SYN FLOOD'.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to jc100
Actually, I don't disagree with that at all. The key constraint in networks is rate, not quantity, so it only makes sense to come up with a good mechanism for balancing the traffic rates that each subscriber gets. In the hosting world quantity based limits are loved by users and hated by providers, because all too often someone will wait until the last 3 or 4 days of the billing cycle to decide they want to move 400GB of data but still be under their 1500GB/mo limit.
The problem is that most users have trouble with the difference between rate and quantity when it comes to talking about bandwidth. It happens in nearly every thread on this site.
I wonder if there is any good way to bridge that gap in understanding to arrive at a shared network plan that is truly fair? |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10 | reply to espaeth
Nope they are instituting usage caps (X amount allowed) versus speed caps (no limits on usage but limits on bandwidth capacity). I think a bandwidth capacity limit would be better than a usage cap. My 2 cents. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :Simple solution. Limit the speed of high users, hence alleviating congestion and free up speed for everyone else. That's exactly what it sounds like Comcast is implementing here, no? |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to en102
said by en102 :It would be easier to deal with overloaded nodes at times than going through caps/filters/traffic shaping techniques. If it were just dozens of nodes- perhaps.
If it's thousands of nodes- probably not.
Besides, increase the bandwidth and the "bandwidth hogs" just use that much more. Double the capacity today, and a month from now they'd be in the same boat. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to espaeth
Simple solution. Limit the speed of high users, hence alleviating congestion and free up speed for everyone else. If everyone has 10/1 and say 10 percent of users exceed a CLEAR CUT TRACKABLE CAP (IE offer software or online counter to track usage), these 10 percent get throttled to a slower speed. Say maybe 3/512 or 2/512 for the remaining month. This A) Cuts down on lawsuits and investigations as no traffic shaping is taking place. B) ISPS say UP TO in their speed clause meaning they can offer less. C) Make it clear to users. This way you don't alienate everyone. Also, no one is disconnected. The worst that happens is their speed is slower. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to telcolackey
said by telcolackey :said by alalper :If there is a way to screw it up, Comcast will be sure to find it.  Yeah... they are screwing it up so bad they have become a profitable and successful ISP (not easy to do) that has driven the broadband industry. And having some of the lowest customer satisfaction ratings of any industry.
 |
|
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | reply to Matt
I agree on the VOD front. The writing is on the wall with the new streaming p2p direction. |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | reply to alalper
oh... yeah.. ok.  |
|
ske99slem
@swbell.net
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :said by en102 :It would be easier to deal with overloaded nodes at times than going through caps/filters/traffic shaping techniques. everything I've read indicates the most straightforward, simplest way to deal with congestion is to add capacity. One of the network engineers for Internet2 said they did a trade between caps/filters/shaping/etc. and adding capacity and adding capacity was cheaper and simpler. I would be willing to bet money the real reason comcast is doing this is to position themselves for the "two tier" internet, with "fast lanes" for their content and those that pay a premium and "slow lanes" for the rest. Adding capacity is expensive and no one here seems to want to pay for it. If they can't get more revenue, why do you think they would pay for more network?
Adding a few shaping boxes is relatively cheap and solves the problem in the short term. In the long term, us high usage people are going to be paying for their capacity upgrades.
Doc |
|
alalper
Premium
join:2000-08-20
Philadelphia, PA
| reply to telcolackey
Whoa! I don't believe I said anything even remotely in the same ball park as your response.
I simply said that they will surely find a way to screw up their traffic shaping attempt (kind of like the way they screwed up their implementation of Sandvine) thereby causing themselves and their customers all kinds of problems.
Believe it or not, I'm a triple play subscriber and I'm actually a pretty happy camper when it comes to Comcast.  |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to telcolackey
Uh, yeah. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
1 edit | reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :everything I've read indicates the most straightforward, simplest way to deal with congestion is to add capacity. One of the network engineers for Internet2 said they did a trade between caps/filters/shaping/etc. and adding capacity and adding capacity was cheaper and simpler. When technologies like Ethernet and Packet-over-SoNET are being used, you are correct it is usually cheaper to add bandwidth. With technologies like DSL and DOCSIS, there are limits to how far you can expand them out. In the Internet2 domain they can add a variety of links from 100mbps - 10,000mbps (10gbps). For DSL you're limited by distance, protocol, and collective connection crosstalk. (ie, if all lines are transmitting at the same time the effective throughput goes down on each line due to interference) For DOCSIS you can only increase downstream capacity 38mbps at a time eating up 6MHz chunks. Even there, the DOCSIS standard limits how many channels you can have on a segment.
The ugly truth is that broadband networks have much harsher scaling limits than other network technologies, and upgrades often require forklift replacement of all involved distribution gear. Just look at DOCSIS 3.0 -- MSOs won't see the benefits there until all of the head-ends and most user cable modems are replaced. Swapping out 14+ million end-user devices isn't a swift activity. |
|
