| reply to Dogfather
Re: Very Interesting ... However, aren't all ISPS hooked into the backbones and simply resetting the bandwidth that level 3 providers sell? My understanding, and I might very well be wrong, is that ISPS wire neighborhoods and business. However, the actual capacity is the backbone on which the ISP leases the bandwidth. So lets say X company has a backbone in LA. This backbone has 1 10 gigabits of speed for say 100,000 people. The slow downs come w here an ISP has too many people sharing a node, but not because of said backbone. The capacity is there, just the fact an ISP doesnt have enough nodes in the area. It'd be like a 6 lane highway being able to handle those 100,000 people until construction forces it down to 2 lanes a mile before the highway ends. The highway itself is sound up until the point of exit. |
|
|
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | said by jc100:However, aren't all ISPS hooked into the backbones and simply resetting the bandwidth that level 3 providers sell? Not always. The largest providers are tier 1s themselves like Verizon and AT&T. Time Warner also owns a massive network.
Backbone connectivity is scalable and bandwidth is cheap and evidentally getting cheaper. |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| reply to jc100
quote:
The capacity is there, just the fact an ISP doesnt have enough nodes in the area
Don't forget about the intermediate connections between the cable plant and the backbone peering point. Such connections need to be able to handle the traffic from every node. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | 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. |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | 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 |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | 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. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Dogfather
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!) |
|
