Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to en102
Re: Waiting... 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. |
|
|
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | 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 |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to nasadude
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. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
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. |
|
| 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 |
|
 dnoyeBFerrous 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. |
|
