Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: well... 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
| Re: well... 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. | |
|
 | |
| |
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| Re: well... 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. | |
|
| | |
| | | |
| | | 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| 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. | |
|
| | | | 
boils down
@mcleodusa.net
| 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? | |
|
| |
|
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ | True, but that is the reason some (not me) have put forth as a need for caps. | |
|
| 
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| 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
| Re: well... 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. | |
|
| | |
| | | markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: well... 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
| Re: well... 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
| 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. | |
|
| | | | |
| |
|
|
|
·
·