NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Pizz
Re: Powerboost is the lamest gimmick ever.
said by Pizz  :I dont understand, nor comprehend how MSO's can even have a last mile run problem. Subs keep getting signed up, so if there was this so called 'last mile bandwidth' issue, wouldnt they hold off on signups, until upgrades are put into place. No. They often upgrade the "Last Mile" in reaction to congestion problems, not in anticipation of them.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by NormanS :said by Pizz :I dont understand, nor comprehend how MSO's can even have a last mile run problem. Subs keep getting signed up, so if there was this so called 'last mile bandwidth' issue, wouldnt they hold off on signups, until upgrades are put into place. No. They often upgrade the "Last Mile" in reaction to congestion problems, not in anticipation of them. You do see the problem in that business plan? Wait until the network is over-subscribed, than upgrade. Instead of seeing how many users are being added on to that particular node.
And thats why Verizon is going to be taking over the Video/Internet Business. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Pizz :You do see the problem in that business plan? Wait until the network is over-subscribed, than upgrade. Instead of seeing how many users are being added on to that particular node. Yes, it is a problem. OTOH, how do you spend money that you haven't yet made?
And thats why Verizon is going to be taking over the Video/Internet Business.
Only in places where Verizon serves the community, and is willing to deploy their FTTH product, "FiOS". The closest that FiOS will come to my premises would be the town of Monte Sereno, California (about 7-8 miles out). Assumes that Verizon will actually deploy FiOS in that community. All I will get is "Uverse" (the AT&T FTTN product).
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY | thats why companies have Analysts - and other 'predict the future' marketeers.
FIOS will be nation-wide probably around 2020ish - im predicting, dont think it's going to be inside alot of rural areas though, as with majority of the MSOs. |
|
hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
clubs:
| reply to Pizz
"You do see the problem in that business plan? Wait until the network is over-subscribed, than upgrade. Instead of seeing how many users are being added on to that particular node."
There is far more to it than that. The TYPE of user is more important than how many there are. Several 24/7 downloaders cause far more issues than 50 very light users. Nodes are monitored for capacity on a daily basis,
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
| I dont think the 24x7 heavy users get a warning, or a phone to call to ease up on it. I dont know what you're use to Upstate, but downstate here - It goes on for many months before a node split occurs.
My neighborhood had this problem on/off for 6 months - finally it got split, because people started canceling service. Never once did Level 3 or Client Relations state, the node was at capacity, until engineering came out and saw how it was during prime-time. |
|
Xizer
join:2004-02-05
New York, NY | reply to Xizer
You all seem to be overlooking something.
Heavy users should get to use as much bandwidth as they desire. |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
1 edit | said by Xizer :Heavy users should get to use as much bandwidth as they desire. Why? because you are a heavy user and that's what you desire?
Any other reasons? |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Pizz
said by Pizz :FIOS will be nation-wide probably around 2020ish - im predicting, dont think it's going to be inside alot of rural areas though, as with majority of the MSOs. Only in areas Verizon serves as the ILEC. Which means most of the U.S. Pacific Northwest and Far West (except where GTE used to be the ILEC, as they are now part of Verizon).
Most of California, and a small part of Nevada are AT&T territory. Most of the Pacific Northwest, and substantial parts of the Mountain states are Qwest territory. Most of the Midwest, and parts of the Southwest are AT&T territory. Most of the Southeast is AT&T territory. Most of Connecticut is AT&T territory. Large swaths of the regions I've mentioned so far, which are not covered by AT&T, Qwest, or Verizon, are Embarq territory.
Unless Verizon has the financial wherewithal to buy AT&T, Embarq, and Qwest, in addition to deploying FTTP in their own territories, FiOS will never cover a substantial part of the USA.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | reply to Xizer
Hardly. The technical limitations of bandwidth on the cable plant "Last Mile" seem to indicate that bandwidth is shared at the CMTS; a little closer to home than with DSL. Cable companies have to split nodes to "add bandwidth". Basically, the B/W on the "Last Mile" is fixed, and the only way to "add capacity" is to reduce the number of subscribers sharing that bandwidth. Theoretically, the sharing could come down to one customer per node; at which point, you would have what AT&T is already deploying in their Uverse product. Except that the cablecos would either have to run one coax per premises (what AT&T already has: FTTN), or deploy FTTP. Somehow I suspect that the cablecos would rather spend the money on DOCSIS 3 than on FTTP (cheaper, in the long run).
P.S. I do know that, as currently configured, the HFC plant is already FTTN.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
RoadRunner79
join:2008-01-19
San Antonio, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Rombus
Please do not think your words have fallen on deaf ears, I understand what your saying and thanks for hearing me and others out, but even if standard users are only able to keep up with me for a short time is aggravating because from the link I posted earlier standard users should not even be getting a power boost in the first place. They are not in a contract or had to get all the requirements I had to get just to get into the PLG. This is the part that I agree with the title of this thread 
Thanks. |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
3 edits | reply to NormanS
said by NormanS : The technical limitations of bandwidth on the cable plant "Last Mile" seem to indicate that bandwidth is shared at the CMTS; a little closer to home than with DSL. Cable companies have to split nodes to "add bandwidth". Basically, the B/W on the "Last Mile" is fixed, and the only way to "add capacity" is to reduce the number of subscribers sharing that bandwidth. Theoretically, the sharing could come down to one customer per node; Make it CMTS ports instead of nodes. CMTS upstream/downstream ports are the limiting factor as that is where the bandwidth is limited (by DOCSIS channel specs). Each CMTS port transmits or receives a single DOCSIS channel. A single physical node can actually be several virtual nodes (thank WDM for that) and each can have multiple upstream/downstream data channels. ...but current DOCSIS 1 and 2 modems can only connect to 1 downstream and 1 upstream channel at a time.
In the end, last mile congestion comes down to how many customers are sharing the upstream/downstream CMTS ports, how the channels on those ports are configured, and the average/maximum bandwidth usage per customer. The 38 mpbs downstream channel bandwidth per CMTS downstream port is eaten up pretty quick when users are configured with 10 or 15 mbps and then saturate their connection for hours.
I know, it's nitpicking, but I hate when people describe nodes as the bandwidth choke point in cable systems. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by MacLeech :I know, it's nitpicking, but I hate when people describe nodes as the bandwidth choke point in cable systems. Okay, okay. Call it "one customer per channel". Uverse is also a FTTN product, and I do undestand that, with Uverse, it can be multiple customers per node; but it is only one customer per physical port in the node.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
daveinpoway
Premium
join:2006-07-03
Poway, CA
| reply to Mele20
I tried the MySpeed test, and the download graph was a huge mess, with tons of lag spikes. Not sure if that is right, but it probably isn't, since my speeds are shot right now (testing within my ISP's system, I am only getting about 3 Mbps download speed, even though I am supposed to get 15).
I see there is an "Advanced" option, but this asks for a user name and password, so you probably have to pay for it. |
|
Baseline
join:2001-02-26
Buffalo, NY
1 edit | reply to MacLeech
said by MacLeech :said by Xizer :Heavy users should get to use as much bandwidth as they desire. Why? because you are a heavy user and that's what you desire? Any other reasons? Because he's paying for it and there or no provisions in the agreement as to set bandwidth limits? |
|
Baseline
join:2001-02-26
Buffalo, NY
2 edits | reply to Pizz
said by Pizz :thats why companies have Analysts - and other 'predict the future' marketeers. FIOS will be nation-wide probably around 2020ish - im predicting, dont think it's going to be inside alot of rural areas though, as with majority of the MSOs. The FIOS deployment speed is ridiculous. For a year now it's been available 10 minutes from where I live, actually on both sides of me. I'm in a part of WNY called Sloan (near Cheektowaga). And if you look on the fios availability map, the available shaded zones are on both sides of me, and haven't really changed in about a year.
FIOS is rolling out at a snails pace. Personally, if you really use the internet that much and are that hell bent on bandwidth, plan your next move to a FIOS area. |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
| reply to Baseline
said by Baseline :said by MacLeech :said by Xizer :Heavy users should get to use as much bandwidth as they desire. Why? because you are a heavy user and that's what you desire? Any other reasons? Because he's paying for it? He's paying for access to a network up to a particular data rate, not unlimited data transfer capacity. |
|
Baseline
join:2001-02-26
Buffalo, NY
2 edits | said by MacLeech :He's paying for access to a network up to a particular data rate, not unlimited data transfer capacity. Really? And what part of the agreement specifies the data limit?
Aside from our friends being taken advantage of in Beaumont of course. |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
2 edits | said by Baseline :said by MacLeech :He's paying for access to a network up to a particular data rate, not unlimited data transfer capacity. Really? And what part of the agreement specifies the data limit? Other than the RR subscriber agreement specifying: quote:
"Subscriber acknowledges and agrees that Road Runner and Operator shall each have the right to monitor Subscriber's “bandwidth consumption” (i.e. aggregate volume of data that may be sent or received) at any time and on an on-going basis, and to limit excessive bandwidth consumption by Subscriber (as determined by Road Runner and/or Operator) by any means available to Operator or Road Runner, including suspension or termination of the Road Runner Service."
and the TWC Acceptable Use Policy stating: quote:
The ISP Service may not be used to engage in any conduct that interferes with Operator's ability to provide service to others, including the use of excessive bandwidth.
The ISP Service may not be used in a manner that interferes with Operator's efficient operation of its facilities, the provision of services or the ability of others to utilize the ISP Service in a reasonable manner. Operator may use various tools and techniques in order to efficiently manage its networks and to ensure compliance with this Acceptable Use Policy (“Network Management Tools”).
there are no hard limits defined.
There is a soft limit of "when another user's service is impacted".
--
Don't mind me, I'm just trying to help...
|
|
Baseline
join:2001-02-26
Buffalo, NY
2 edits | Well, if we want to be honest, that is more or less just an open door for the ISP to boot anyone they want since there is no clear limit defined.
I'm sure there are quite a few people with 10 or 15 mbit plans downloading a ton daily / going heavy on the torrents. If TW really wanted to, they could have taken the top 5% of the bandwidth usage list, sent them service termination notices and there, done.
Have you ever heard of someone being booted off TW for excessive bandwidth?
They wouldn't do it, because then there would be an uproar that they want to offer these huge speeds but only have customers that want to check their email and load web pages in 0.2 seconds instead of 0.8 seconds with their competitors.
People get these connections for file transfer / HD content / bandwidth-intensive content. If a line for BW limits is going to be set, then that's fine. Apparently TW agrees with what they've started in Texas. |
|
