how-to block ads
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to fiberguy
Re: Metering is a Scare Tactic
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. | |
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. | |
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| 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.  | |
-
|
