 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | reply to Dogfather
Re: FAP and CAP said by Dogfather:Then why FAP? Caps should be enough to keep those heavy users "under control". But until they hit their cap, they could make life miserable for other people on their local node and slow their uploads. And that is why there are caps and a QOS scheme as well.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Then if they have a FAP, why cap? The FAP accomplishes by itself what they're claiming (their claims haven't been substantiated) is necessary.
IOW, if the goal is to insure fair access and smooth sailing for all users, the fair access policy by itself accomplishes that. But it doesn't matter. The corporate kissasses and cable shills will excuse anything Comcast does, whether justified or not. |
|
 pspcrazyAnime Freak
join:2008-02-06
San Diego, CA | reply to ThrowDemsOut
Comcast just wants to spend less time upgrading their service and more time counting their cash. Sorry TK but this is just wrong no matter how I look at it.
I feel for you comcast users out there, you guys are truly worse off then the dsl users everywhere else. I'd suggest you switch since this means you'll be at dsl like speeds most of the time anyway.
To the comcast poster, i love how you AVOID all the bad posts and go for the 1 pro comcast post. Show's how you guy's handle customer feedback as well. Thanks for giving the finger to all the other feedback we give on here.
I did like comcast at one point, but that's all in the past now. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather:Then if they have a FAP, why cap? The FAP accomplishes by itself what they're claiming (their claims haven't been substantiated) is necessary. The FAP takes care of point in time congestion concerns.
The CAP is still useful to make sure that people don't force the requeuing to constantly go into effect. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | That's irrelevant. The traffic shaping is always in effect. The only difference is who is traffic shaped and who isn't.
If you have a FAP, a cap is totally unjustified. |
|
| reply to pspcrazy
And you'd think with FiOS eating their lunch they'd want to retain customers! |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather:That's irrelevant. The traffic shaping is always in effect. The only difference is who is traffic shaped and who isn't. First off, it's not really traffic shaping. If you're a heavy user and you get tagged into the best effort class, your traffic will only be impacted so much as light users are trying to get packets on the network. If you're a heavy user, the channel is getting busy enough to start to implement the tagging, but never actually reaches a point of saturation, there is no impact to anyone's traffic.
Second, this isn't in effect all the time. I suggest you re-read the technical details of the proposal; the requeuing only takes place when the channel reaches a near congested state. The overwhelming majority of the time there is no action taken at all by the system.
It's the solution for 2 distinct problems: reduce the impact by chronic heavy users (CAP), and reduce short term bottlenecks that can occur during times of peak demand (FAP). |
|
|
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | That makes zero sense.
The FAP alleviates network traffic issues for casual users. If there is no congestion, then no cap is warranted. If there is network congestion, the FAP is all that is warranted.
IOW, the FAP reduces the impact of chronic heavy users if they're impacting other users and the FAP reduces the impact of extended use during periods of peak demand. The FAP is all that is needed. Caps are unjustified if you already have a fair access policy in effect. If chronic heavy users aren't affecting other users then it shouldn't be a concern. |
|
