said by topoloski dumb :

The article sites a dude named Topoloski (spelling?). The guy is way way off-base. We can complain all we want, but what Comcast wants to do is fine and ... needed.

What Topo does not understand that if the FCC keeps Comcast, AT&T and other providers from doing what is necessary to move bandwidth from heavy users then all we are going to get is much higher prices. And or poor performance. What Comcast is attempting to do is come closer to guaranteeing quality of service for all customers.

said by qworster :

BUT WE'RE IN THIS (SINKING) BOAT BECAUSE OF COMCAST (and other's) GREED!

Instead of building out their infrastructures to deal with what THEY KNEW WAS COMING

said by qworster :

They built this billion dollar HUGE phallic symbol of their greed in Philadelphia!

said by qworster :

People in the cable business have known since the mid '80s that coaxial cable was a dead end technology. Over twenty years later, what's still on the poles? COAX!

said by qworster :

People in the cable business have known since the mid '80s that coaxial cable was a dead end technology. Over twenty years later, what's still on the poles? COAX!

said by espaeth :

Last time I checked, Comcast doesn't own CableLabs -- the industry body that defines the DOCSIS protocols that determine what can be deployed on last-mile copper infrastructure. Comcast (and other MSOs) can also only buy product that exists; there isn't a checkbox on the equipment order that simply states "faster modems".

DOCSIS is a joke-a set of protocols designed to squeeze every last drop out of a dying technology. Coax is dead-if you don't believe me, then ask Verizon!

Liberty Property Trust built the tower, Comcast is just the principle leasing tenant so they get their name on the building.

Yeah. With a monitor wall that cost the better part of 2 million dollar$!

Coax is far from dead. Hell, if you order Verizon service the other side of the ONT is coax delivered up to your access router.

For cable plants the islands of copper continue to shrink as nodes are getting moved deeper into the field with vast expanding fiber interconnects. To talk about the coax network of today as being the same coax network of the '80s is ridiculous.

Of course, facts don't help your rants at all, so feel free to ignore all of this.

said by jester121 :

quote:

---

"Deep Packet Inspection devices capable of detecting what applications end points are using are both new and intrusive. They do not perform a task of Network management, they are performing tasks of Session and Application management. These are both new and inappropriate roles for Internet Service Providers."

---

The first part is just plain wrong, upper layer filtering and control have been around for a long time.

said by jester121 :

The second is merely semantic masturbation -- the phrase network management doesn't mean that all higher levels of the OSI model are ignored, and Topolski knows it.

said by jester121 :

He'd make a good politician -- make some solid statements at first, get loosened up, and then shove your foot in your mouth trying to hit one out of the park, thus blowing your credibility.

said by wifi4milez :

Coax is a dead technology?? Where did you get that information, coax is more than adequate for current applications. It was certainly more than adequate 20 years ago, and will be used long into the future.

said by qworster :

Even your beloved DOCSIS 3 can't get you uploads faster then about 4 mbit. ....
I have been a TV/Radio/cable engineer for over 30 years. I KNOW the facts-probably better then YOU do!

said by funchords :

Keep reading, I said more than that. Technology enabling full-speed full-packet capture of all the data crossing a box has only been available for the past year or two.

said by jester121 :

Errr... Netbios port blocking occurs at layer 4, friend. You know, where all the UDP and TCP port number are used? Session and Application layers are 5 and 7, respectively. Which you of course know.

But if these were being blocked on "the open internet" (whatever that means)

then why do I still see traffic on these ports in my firewall logs? The answer is, they aren't being blocked on "the open internet". Many ISPs choose to block them at the edge of their subscriber networks, or on their own transport networks, just as some block outbound 25/tcp to addresses other than their own SMTP hosts, or inbound 80/tcp for subscriber lines where they don't want people hosting webservers.

You're right, at the enterprise level we've had DPI to manage (i.e. block, inspect, or prioritize) traffic based on what's inside the packets for a long time. Why? Because processing power hadn't caught up with the speeds that ISPs deal with. At the provider level, I certainly don't think this capability is going to go away any time soon, so the focus should be on making sure they get it right.

I'm not that familiar with AIMD but once again your comment about "complete conjestion" sounds like semantic masturbation, not to mention nit-picking. When I'm using all 1 Mbps of my upload speed for P2P, anyone else in my house will most certainly experience degraded performance due to congestion, to the point that web pages may time out (just for example). I think we're all able to figure out what happens when a network is moving around all the traffic that it can move around. For the pea brains at the FCC gridlock is probably as good an analogy as any, even if it offends the sensibilities of geeks like us who know better.

Finally, your apparent view that capacity upgrades are simple and infinitely effective (and practical) don't help you make your case, unless you know of anyone giving out carrier grade routers for free, guaranteed unlimited peering for a set cost, and indentured technicians to manage the entire thing. ISPs and carriers have CFOs who need to make sure that they have money to pay bills, including salaries so the smart people can keep things running.

(Lest this sound like I'm against what you're talking about, or bashing you, I'm not. My main point is that the way to win this fight isn't to beat them over the head with engineering knowledge, and it's going to involve some give and take on both sides. At least I think that was my point, when I started this post about an hour ago).

said by funchords :

Please stop trying to vilify me. I'd much rather just have a conversation. As often as you recognize what I know, I recognize that you know what you're talkign about.

said by funchords :

We're talking about the big ISP level, not the enterprise level.