boils down
@mcleodusa.net
| reply to espaeth
Re: well...
Great so what you're saying is that is has nothing to do with the wholesale cost of traffic to their upstream providers and more to do with them not being able to offer the speeds and services they advertise to more and more customers without charging overages under the guise of collecting more money for "upgrades" (As if somehow what users currently pay does not allow a cable provider to do anything more than scrape by). If it truly is not related to the extremely cheap cost of wholesale bandwidth, then i suppose they will just implement a "free nights and weekends" sort of deal where they are unmetered, or unrestricted during periods of non peak usage right?
OR
Being somewhat knowledgeable in the way corporate america operates what is the more logical conclusion? |
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | reply to Dogfather
Re: Very Interesting ...
Agreed Skeedatl. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| reply to markopoleo
Re: well...
said by markopoleo  :said by espaeth :said by Jerm :And DOCSIS 3 will take care of the last mile. DOCSIS 3.0 will help the last mile, but only once they upgrade every installed CMTS and replace every single subscriber cable modem with a DOCSIS 3.0 model. Will you people stop thinking DOCSIS 3.0 is the answer to all. It means NOTHING to the end user currently, it just helps the cable provider. Let me say it again..current cable customers have NOT REACHED THE BANDWIDTH OF CURRENT DOCSIS MODEMS. Had to yell it cause some people are not listening.  Huh? DOCSIS 3 absolutely is the answer to increasing speeds to end users. The biggest benefit is channel bonding.
And yes, there are cable systems where channel capacity is saturated. The bandwidth capacity of the modem is IRRELEVANT in cable topology. Those modems share bandwidth to the head end and without more dedicated channels, you aren't going to get any more speed, no matter what the modem's capacity is. And without channel bonding you will NEVER see the speeds to the end user that a competitor like Verizon is capable of delivering. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Rob
said by Rob :But that really isn't why caps exist. Caps exist because of the limited amount of bandwidth that a cable co can send to its customers. It's not about costing more money, it's about trying to give everyone an equal share. That was their argument for Docsis... Anyone remember @home in the pre-docsis days? THAT's when people really shared and fought for bandwidth. Docsis allows everyone an equal share.
Caps are a "solution" to oversubscription.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| reply to Dogfather
Re: Very Interesting ...
said by Dogfather :Backbone connectivity is scalable and bandwidth is cheap and evidentally getting cheaper. Silence! Everyone knows there's a bandwidth crisis and we NEED $5 per GB overage charges to prevent total global collapse! (Of payTV revenue streams...)
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to Lazlow
Re: well...
said by Lazlow :Markopoleo You forget about the shared part of the Docsis. We all (on the same node) have to share the bandwidth on the channel(38 down and 10 up for Docsis 1.1, most markets). You start splitting up 10 (up) with a bunch of guys running 16/2 and the brakes go on in a hurry. That really is not a DOSIS problem though, thats just a problem in deployment. They should not even be oversubscribing nodes in the first place. Nothing saying they won't use 3.0 and oversubscribe it anyways even if they have more bandwidth at headend. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to markopoleo
Markopoleo
You forget about the shared part of the Docsis. We all (on the same node) have to share the bandwidth on the channel(38 down and 10 up for Docsis 1.1, most markets). You start splitting up 10 (up) with a bunch of guys running 16/2 and the brakes go on in a hurry. |
|
markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :said by Jerm :And DOCSIS 3 will take care of the last mile. DOCSIS 3.0 will help the last mile, but only once they upgrade every installed CMTS and replace every single subscriber cable modem with a DOCSIS 3.0 model. Will you people stop thinking DOCSIS 3.0 is the answer to all.
It means NOTHING to the end user currently, it just helps the cable provider.
Let me say it again..current cable customers have NOT REACHED THE BANDWIDTH OF CURRENT DOCSIS MODEMS. Had to yell it cause some people are not listening. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | reply to Jerm
Re: Very Interesting ...
That's true. I'm watching a South Park episode via the Internet based DirecTV On Demand while I'm downloading Semi-Pro in 720P on my AppleTV. These services were once exclusive domain of cable companies. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | reply to dvd536
But it is going down, in terms of the same $/Mb.
When I first got Cox in 1997 it was 3Mb for $30. Now it's 7Mb for $42.
So I was paying $10/Mb in 1997 and now I'm paying only $6/Mb. A decrease of 40%.
My 30Mb Verizon service will be less than $5/Mb, when with 768Kbps DSL many years ago I started at $50 or a whopping $65 per Mb. |
|
raccettura
join:2002-09-28
USA
| reply to Jerm
said by Jerm :So much for cable and their whining/caps. Just means more profit. Cable providers connect to upstream provider like Cogent. If they lower the cost, and cable companies cap their service (hence cap their costs)... that results in higher profit margins.
Just more reason to go ahead. |
|
nukscull
@rr.com | reply to espaeth
But, but, but doesn't it run on magic beams? You just "activate the lasers" and it all knows what to do by itself? There's no silly upkeep or maintenance contracts, or anything like that! |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :said by jc100 :However, aren't all ISPS hooked into the backbones and simply resetting the bandwidth that level 3 providers sell? Backbone connectivity is scalable and bandwidth is cheap and evidentally getting cheaper. However i don't see my HSI bill going down.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to djrobx
Re: well...
said by djrobx :Back then this same argument was being made, when cable's caps were as low as 1500/128. Cable companies are now offering 10x those speeds on pretty much the same DOCSIS 1 technology, and overall it's holding up quite well. Back then it was also very common to share the same downstream channel across a half dozen nodes or more. Over the last decade the MSOs have been pretty active in getting the number of nodes per downstream channel reduced, down to 1 DS in many cases. They've also added multiple upstream channels and performed physical node splits to get the number of homes per node down.
said by djrobx :Think about how many nodes cover a city, and then think about how much backbone capacity it would require to fill all of those nodes, at 38mbps per node. And don't forget, you need a very big link from the cable plant TO the backbone provider that can handle all of that traffic. That infrastructure is in place for many carriers.
Look at Comcast's network:
The CMTS hardware is connected to user/utility routers with GigE connections. The user routers connect to the aggregation routers with multiple 10GigE connections, and the area/aggregation routers connect to the core with multiple 10GigE connections.
Comcast's network is extremely fat in the middle, with Internet access circuits provisioned by demand (at significantly less capacity than what is available in the core) and the CMTS routers can't generate enough traffic to come even remotely close to choking the GigE uplink connections they have into the network.
For MSOs the congestion is in the last mile that connects the subscribers, followed by a distant chokepoint at the Internet access points. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Jerm
said by Jerm :And DOCSIS 3 will take care of the last mile. DOCSIS 3.0 will help the last mile, but only once they upgrade every installed CMTS and replace every single subscriber cable modem with a DOCSIS 3.0 model. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to espaeth
Re: Very Interesting ...
A beeeeeelion dollars. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Jerm
said by Jerm :Yep you're right about the Cogent facility part, but in my area for example I know my Cable Co has their own regional fiber network. Then they have one massive telco circuit to Seattle where they hit the peers (and other one to Portland for backup). You can't tell me that one or two telco circuits just upped the price per GB 125X from $0.012 to $1.50 ... So what do you suppose it costs to operate your own regional fiber network?
Before you say that's a fixed buildout cost, don't forget about the people that are employed specifically to maintain that regional network. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88 :said by espaeth :The carrier tail circuits, however, are about $20-35k/mo on the Minneapolis side (depending on private fiber or LEC circuit) and $25-45k/mo on the CT side for each circuit from Hartford to Trumbull. So how does FIOS, let alone copper POTS exist? $20K-$40K is the installation cost, not the monthly fee. Telcos laugh all the way to the bank with outrageous business customer prices since they know there is no way around them. Exactly...why do they charge business what they do? 'Cause they can. It's what the market will bear. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| reply to djrobx
It doesn't matter how many nodes a cable system has. Nodes themselves can handle a boatload of traffic.
The capacity crunch is solely how many channels a cable operator dedicates for traffic between that node and the headend. You can handle hundreds and hundreds of customers on a node, if you dedicate the channels to do it.
Backbone capacity is easily scaleable and because the pool of customers is so much larger, the backbone capacity isn't suceptible to overselling issues like nodal capacity is. It only takes a few seeding customers to saturate the upstream channels of a node. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :The carrier tail circuits, however, are about $20-35k/mo on the Minneapolis side (depending on private fiber or LEC circuit) and $25-45k/mo on the CT side for each circuit from Hartford to Trumbull. So how does FIOS, let alone copper POTS exist? $20K-$40K is the installation cost, not the monthly fee. Telcos laugh all the way to the bank with outrageous business customer prices since they know there is no way around them. |
|
