how-to block ads
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Waiting... It would be easier to deal with overloaded nodes at times than going through caps/filters/traffic shaping techniques.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|  | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Waiting... I don't know.. I've never had issues with an overloaded node on cable or DSL... which is why I see this as a method of rate increase for consumers.
Eg. Lowest tiers ( 1.5Mbps or less) should not need caps, yet they're typically capped hard to purchase a higher rate plan, which is now set as an overloaded node, and requires traffic shaping and/or caps. The end result for the AVERAGE user is not much (i.e. going from a 1.5 to 10Mbps) unless they are bit torrent / gamers / VOD users.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Waiting... True - not all nodes are good on all providers.
DSL-Extreme has been good.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10 | Re: Waiting... 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: Waiting... 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| Re: Waiting... 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...
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| 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. | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| 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. | |
| |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Waiting... I'm sure that adding capacity is simpler, and very effective.
ISP's (management) typically would prefer making more money off of existing, through attempting to squeeze a lump of coal into a diamond. Management doesn't really 'care' if its simpler, your typical upper level management is type alpha, and would prefer control at all cost.
I.e. Simple solution = add capacity (requires cost to an outside source... no direct gain, capacity will hit again in the not too distant future)
Complex solution = form of traffic reduction through many different means, which will require some cost, but can recoup at the per MB transferred level, and will allow for future transparent price increases (i.e. same price for service, higher cost on overage, etc)
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by nasadude :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. Yep, and Comcast's pursuit of P4P (Bittorrent that prefers local, on-network peers) is evidence of that. If they really were concerned about local node congestion, there are MUCH easier and more effective ways to handle this. This is nothing more than a way to kill P2P video distribution and protect their Video On-Demand revenue, while simultaneously lowering costs.
Time Warner is doing the same thing, only with a ridiculously low bit cap. | |
| | | 
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | Re: Waiting... I agree on the VOD front. The writing is on the wall with the new streaming p2p direction. | |
| | 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
1 edit | 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. | |
| | 
ske99slem
@swbell.net
| 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 | |
| dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| 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. | |
| |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Waiting... 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 | |
| | | |
|
·