Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
| reply to Jerm
Re: well...
said by Jerm  :hmm so much for Cable and their caps... What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps? |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Rob :said by Jerm :hmm so much for Cable and their caps... What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps?    |
|
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Rob
said by Rob :said by Jerm :hmm so much for Cable and their caps... What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps? From the arguement that was made by some that a customer using their full bandwidth costs a cableco money, hence the need for caps. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by Jodokast96 :said by Rob :said by Jerm :hmm so much for Cable and their caps... What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps? From the arguement that was made by some that a customer using their full bandwidth costs a cableco money, hence the need for caps. 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. |
|
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
3 edits | Cable providers have no trouble providing an equal share at the backbone connectivity level just like telcos don't.
They do have trouble at the nodal level on occasion which requires traffic management or bandwidth saving measures that allow more channels to be assigned for transport between those saturated nodes and the head end.
It's this particular capacity problem that DOCSIS 3, SDV and other tricks will solve. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by Dogfather :Cable providers have no trouble providing an equal share at the backbone connectivity level. They do have trouble at the nodal level on occasion which requires traffic management or bandwidth saving measures that allow more channels to be assigned for transport between those saturated nodes and the head end. Yea, that's what I meant. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| 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. That's only 'part' of the equation.
Why would Cable companies require a cap on a 512kbps connection then ? Its not entirely about having a limited amount of bandwidth, or they would not be selling 10-20Mbps plans with 95GB cap and a 512kbps plan with a 5GB cap. There's a profit margin they want to keep. By having a low bandwidth cap, they can push people off lower tiers. Many don't need +6Mbps, but they may want more than 25GB/month. Eg. I have a 3Mbps plan ... should I only be limited to 15GB?
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ | reply to Rob
True, but that is the reason some (not me) have put forth as a need for caps. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | reply to Dogfather
quote:
Cable providers have no trouble providing an equal share at the backbone connectivity level just like telcos don't.
They do have trouble at the nodal level
I don't buy it. I didn't buy it back when Pacific Bell was pushing the "webhog" ads, either. 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.
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.
Of course there will be some clogs at the node level in certian active neighborhoods. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. There's always going to be choke points in the network that require maintenance.
Time Warner's SoCal region seems to have more capacity problems at the city level than they do the node level, as made evident by the threads that crop up every few months.
-- Rob |
|
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| reply to BF69
... at least someone gets it ...
It's like Verizon charging $0.15 per text msg. Or TWC and their proposed $1.50/GB fee. |
|
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| reply to Rob
said by Rob : 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... "Limited amount of bandwidth"??? Then UPGRADE the dang backbone! Most cable co's own their own regional fiber networks, upgrade the friggin lasers!. And DOCSIS 3 will take care of the last mile.
On the contrary, it's all about the money. Oh and preventing online video from competing. After all what takes the most bandwidth? hmm... |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by Jerm :said by Rob : 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... "Limited amount of bandwidth"??? Then UPGRADE the dang backbone! Most cable co's own their own regional fiber networks, upgrade the friggin lasers!. And DOCSIS 3 will take care of the last mile. On the contrary, it's all about the money. Oh and preventing online video from competing. After all what takes the most bandwidth? hmm... It's not about the backbone. It's about the last mile, and yes it's about money. But it's not about the Cogent lowering their pricing. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to Jerm
said by Jerm :... at least someone gets it ... It's like Verizon charging $0.15 per text msg. Or TWC and their proposed $1.50/GB fee. Remember a cellular phone call is 7 to 11 text messages PER SECOND bandwidth wise. Nothing like getting payed half a million $ to move 1 CD worth of text messages. $930K per GB of texts. They must be laughing all the way to the bank. |
|
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 djrobx
Cable operators don't have problems if they dedicate enough channels to their HSI offerings.
It doesn't matter how many nodes cover a city, it's how many customers they're trying to serve with a node and how many channels they're dedicating to get that done.
It's no secret that there are markets with saturated channels otherwise you wouldn't see evening slowdowns in some parts of a city while the other parts run fine. And not every market has problems which is why I said they have problems on occasion.
I was a TWC 15/2 customer up until a couple of weeks ago and never had an issue, but I know people served by the same head end that did during the evening, particularly in upstream speeds and and occasionally latency.
And while cable systems for the most part are handling current traffic demands, cable operators can't continue ramping up speeds without providing an increase in node to headend capacity. |
|
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. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to djrobx
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. |
|
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.  |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| 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
| 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. |
|
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 |
|
