how-to block ads
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
2 edits | reply to karlmarx
Re: Metering is a Scare Tactic
I'm not a republican... get your facts straight.
And please, where did comcast advertise "always on speed"? If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know what "always on" refers to. I suppose you recall the day of "always on" and "always available" broadband connections don't you? Always on meas just that.. always available meant you clicked an icon to "connect" your broadband, same as how mobile BB works today. They both have their speeds, however, their connection types do not dictate speed.
Further, they also never told you that you could use the service always on 24/7. They DID tell you that the service 1) could be managed and 2) that it was for typical residential use. Is it typical for residential use to be always on and used wide open? No!
I'm sorry that the AUP/TOS actually requires people to apply and use logic and that noodle between one's ears. I guess that's what people get for assuming. Maybe people will learn and wake up as to what happens when people want everything dictated to them.. oh wait.. you're getting it now!
Want to tango? | |
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Ok, I'll play. You agree that they advertise ALWAYS ON, correct? That's still in use today. So, the fact that it's 'always on', means that I can use it at 2:00 in the afteroon, and I can use it a 4:00 AM the next morning. I mean, it's ALWAYS ON, right? So, lets say I'm an evil pirate (I may just be one). If I want to PIRATE something big, say, "The X-Files Seasons 1-8", which is a 70GB torrent, well, that's going to take a long time. But I'm not worried, because my connection is 'Always On'. Thus, at 6Mb/sec, It will take about 30 hours to download it. Since my connection doesn't turn off, I start it at noon, and by 6:00 PM the next day, it's done! Always on.
Now, is that 'typical residential use'. Maybe, maybe not. Please show me the document that clearly states what 'typical residential use' is, and I'll follow it. Oh, wait, you CAN'T, because 'typical residental use', is a VAGUE and UNDEFINED philosophy.
Look at it this way. If my node has 150Mb/sec, and there are 200 people on it, then the SOLUTION is very simple. ONLY SELL 1mb/sec! Thus, I CANNOT SATURATE THE NETWORK. PERIOD. If I only get 1mb/sec, then I can not use more that .60% of the total bandwidth of the node in a single month! That's not too hard for you to understand is it?
But NO, they go and advertise 16mb/sec, when they FULL WELL KNOW the node cannot support that. THAT is why people are pissed. They aren't pissed because it's 'too slow', let's be honest, 1mb/sec is PLENTY fast for 'web browsing' and 'e-mails'. They are pissed because the ADVERTISING doesn't match the PRODUCT they are selling.
The only thing I am advocating is that the cable companies only SELL what they can provide. The simple fact of the matter is that CABLE can't hold a candle next to FIOS. I'm on FIOS, I get 30/15, AND MY NODE CAN SUPPORT IT, even if I use it 7x24x30! Very simple. THAT'S why I got FIOS, not because it's faster (it is), but because it's BETTER.
Comcast should sell 1mb/sec x 256k/sec, because THAT'S WHAT THEY CAN PROVIDE. Oops, guess they will have to lower their prices, A LOT, cause they've spoiled people into thinking that they deserve 16mb/sec for $60.00/month. That's an out and out LIE. I don't DESERVE a 16mb/sec for $60.00/month, but I do deserve a 1mb/sec for $60.00/month. And if I'm on FIOS, well, since it's a much better technology, I deserve 30mb/sec for the same $60.00/month.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| said by karlmarx  :Comcast should sell 1mb/sec x 256k/sec, because THAT'S WHAT THEY CAN PROVIDE. I don't know if those are the right numbers, but I agree with the general gist of your message. Truth is, though, that with ~10 Mbps uplinks being shared by up to 125 homes or so (presuming they call subscribe), that number would be 85 kbps or so. If you are advocating to ban all oversubscription or "statistical multiplexing," then I do not think that is wise.
I think it would be fair to sell the service at bandwidths and speeds that the ISP can reliably or confidently hit. I think that "reliably or confidently" means in the 90th percentile.
I still guess as you do -- whatever the 90th percentile numbers would turn out to be, they would probably no longer appear to be competitive with DSL or FIOS and that's why they won't do this and chose to secretly attack P2P instead.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
Bill03
Premium
join:2007-11-26
Richmond, VA
clubs:
| reply to karlmarx
That's not quite how it works. It's not as simple as taking your total available bandwidth and dividing by the desired speed to get the total number of people you can have on a node. It's all about utilization. By your reasoning, if I have an office network with 100 people and they all use computers with Fast Ethernet connections then I need to give them a 10 Gigabit Ethernet pipe to the Internet so they can surf at the maximum speed allowed by their connection. I can promise you FIOS network designers didn't build in enough switches so everyone on each switch had 30 Megs available to them continuously.
You also assume that all 200 of your people are fully utilizing all the available bandwidth. I'm sure they monitor utilization and they augment capacity or reduce the size of the node when necessary.
I've had office networks with small numbers of users and high utilization and large numbers of users with lower utilization.
The "Always On" they mentioned in their advertising (I haven't seen it worded like that lately) referred to the dial-up days. You had to call in to get connected. The cable modems were always connected to the network, hence the always on mention.
It's about how much they use, not how many there are. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| There is one other thing about the Always on vs always available. I haven't had a chance or the time to tango with my post's original replyer yet. But, he still tried to twist always on to unlimited internet again.
The always on connection was not just marketing. SOME connections, mostly DSL (some cable modems) actually had a dialup broadband service. They have a connection manager software that you had to, well, basically you leased an IP and traffic went through. THAT type of service really doesn't exists outside of mobile broadband any more.
It really is not a marketing ploy.. it's a real term used to distinguish the two types of connection methods available. | |
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy : Further, they also never told you that you could use the service always on 24/7. They DID tell you that the service 1) could be managed and 2) that it was for typical residential use. Is it typical for residential use to be always on and used wide open? No! Yes, but as you know, the definition of "typical residential use" has been going up and it's not the fault of the residential user that the offerings on the internet have required more and more bandwidth. As Karl notes, ISPs have been making money, so they have no excuse for not improving their networks to handle the coming demand.
--
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them?
-"Planes, Trains & Automobiles" | |
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :Look at it this way. If my node has 150Mb/sec, and there are 200 people on it, then the SOLUTION is very simple. ONLY SELL 1mb/sec! Thus, I CANNOT SATURATE THE NETWORK. PERIOD. If I only get 1mb/sec, then I can not use more that .60% of the total bandwidth of the node in a single month! That's not too hard for you to understand is it? Do you understand how much more expensive bandwidth would be if they didn't oversubscribe, and gave each customer a dedicated, guaranteed amount of bandwidth like you're recommending they do? It sounds like you have no idea. Go price a T1. That's how much dedicated bandwidth costs. I like the oversubscription method (and concurrent pricing) just fine. Your post shows a shocking lack of understanding of economics and network engineering both. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to jslik
Well, even though use is going up, and I agree with that statement, it still doesn't equate damn near 24/7 wide open use with P2P usage topping the list. Further, that's operating a server - no matter what anyone says. That's NOT typical residential use. Second, around here, Karl can tell people the sky is lavender with green polka dots in color and many would believe it. Just because Karl "The Slanted" News guy says its so, isn't. ISPs ARE making money, yes.. many of them, but who is to say they are not investing? You are aware that Comcast just upgraded the Twin Cities to Docsis 3.0, there are cities in Florida being upgraded as well. The Bay Area just got a MASSIVE rebuilt project. Numerous other cities are getting updates in addition to other projects.
People will see and believe what they want to in absence of the facts for convenience.
In all honesty.. the only two major players I see putting money into anything worth paying attention to is Verizon with FiOS first, then Comcast with Docsis 3.0 second. | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by fiberguy :Further, that's operating a server - no matter what anyone says. A peer-to-peer application is a node. It is neither client nor server. It's definitive.
Think about what Comcast itself has said. They have repeated indicated that P2P is permitted on their network. And these aren't flunkies -- it's Joe Waz and David Cohen!said by fiberguy :That's NOT typical residential use. Typical residential use is defined by typical residents, no? Who do you think are running these programs, Real Estate offices?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to RJ44
Blah Blah Blah. A T-1 PORT charge is about $140.00 a month. That's 1.5/1.5 GUARANTEED SPEED. So having a 1/256K connection, all things being equal, would be.. hmm.. about $50.00/month. YOU do the math.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| said by karlmarx :Blah Blah Blah. A T-1 PORT charge is about $140.00 a month. That's 1.5/1.5 GUARANTEED SPEED. So having a 1/256K connection, all things being equal, would be.. hmm.. about $50.00/month. YOU do the math. LOL. I bow to your superior logic.  | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to funchords
Peer to peer applications, sorry to say, ARE servers. Calling them a node is like calling a traffic camera a cop. The function of the sending portion of the P2P app is a server; sorry, I don't buy the "node" definition as it's being used to play twister in this game being played.
Comcast can't play twister on both sides of the table, too, in order to save it's own ass. They can play the "we're not throttling traffic" game and then turn around and say "we like P2P" on the other side in order to turn the tables on the "you guys are doing to this because the XXAA is telling you to" group's opinion.
If comcast really wanted P2P on it's network, the name Sandvine would NEVER have been uttered - ever - on BBR. I am more to believe that P2P being permitted, or lets say, "welcomed" on their network was more P.R. play.
As for typical residential use. It's not typical for a residential user to operate servers on their connection. It's not typical for someone to use their connection wide open 24/7 for any reason. Even if someone is using their connection to work at home and they are on the higher/highest side of the use group, then they are also not "typical residential" users. When it comes to using your residential line for working at home, I'd also have to say that its a fine line. The AUP says "not for commercial use".. running a business from home or working from home is a violation of that policy. They have teleworker and business accounts for that.
So, while the definition of what is something typical of residential use is evolving, some things aren't going to change anytime in the future.
One thing is for certain, and many have agreed with me here on this, but BBR users are far from typical users. Not only have others agreed,.. others have stated it on their own to which I've also agreed, obviously.  | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
2 edits | said by fiberguy :Peer to peer applications, sorry to say, ARE servers. Let's speak factually, shall we? I have offered expert sources about this. I am speaking correctly.
You may still call it wordplay, but doing so doesn't change the facts.
But even more important than that argument is whether or not using P2P applications is authorized on Comcast's network. It is both a matter of Internet policy, United States policy, and spoken and submitted testimony from Comcast's highest executives that using these applications are allowed, including uploading.
So even if you read the same TOS that I read, and by your interpretation you read it differently than I do, how can you maintain that using P2P applications is not allowed in the light of the above paragraph?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More fun, more features, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
-
|
