 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to bzmeteorite
Re: I can see both sides here... said by bzmeteorite:On one hand, the fact that CDV is on its own channel It is not, it shares the same channel (and thus contributes to the bandwidth congestion) with all other HSI traffic. That said, it does get priority handling by the network -- that appears to be part of what this FCC inquiry is about.
But there seems to be a larger question being asked by the FCC here, and we tech geeks and NN-backers are overlooking it because we're steeped in the technical details. That larger question is Is Comcast a phone company? subject to the regulations that phone companies endure.
Comcast has had it both ways -- generally telling the states (like Missouri, for example) that CDV is a VOIP service not subject to certain state regulations and taxes.
They had to see this coming -- even if it wasn't cuddled in a Net Neutrality question, after being lauded as the "third largest telephone company" by Wired in its new issue (17.02 pg 56).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
·Charter
| said by funchords:said by bzmeteorite:On one hand, the fact that CDV is on its own channel It is not, it shares the same channel (and thus contributes to the bandwidth congestion) with all other HSI traffic. That said, it does get priority handling by the network -- that appears to be part of what this FCC inquiry is about. So are we incenting technology to build separate physical channels as was done in decades past? Should business move away from IP convergence for fear of regulation? FiOS TV priority? Uverse? |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| reply to funchords
So then does that make FiOS and U-verse cable companies? They offer TV service over IP. Comcast offers Phone using IP. Why doesn't U-Verse have to go to each city? They claim they're not a cable TV service but yet they offer cable tv. it works over a coax in the home. hmmmm.. sounds like a cable company to me.
Also if you talk to Comcast actually to someone that knows what they're doing they will tell you that the DV actually does NOT touch the Internet. It stays off the Internet and stays on its private network. The Internet is not a private network. Thus why it does not count toward anything on the network. |
|
| reply to devnuller
So if you had NYNEX / Verizon to choose from for landline. Then I had VoIP choices like Callvantage and Vonage and Sun Rocket. Then you get ccable companies offering choices too. Isn't that what is supposed to happen and shouldn't that kind oif competition be encourages? Any of these alternatives have more features for less money that my old landline 10 years ago. And when they came on the market, the landline services started to have better prices and bundles of minutes and stuff like that. |
|
|
|
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:It is not, it shares the same channel (and thus contributes to the bandwidth congestion) with all other HSI traffic. That said, it does get priority handling by the network -- that appears to be part of what this FCC inquiry is about. So what? My buddy just switched to FIOS due to a great price offer and his phone service shares the same fiber wavelength as his Internet connection. |
|
| reply to devnuller
said by devnuller:So are we incenting technology to build separate physical channels as was done in decades past? Moving phone to a separate channel on the cable has other, more technically sound reasons going for it. CLI and ingress mitigation come to mind. With the old TDM based system with NIUs, you could move the phone channels around if you had interference.
But in this case, where phone sharing the DOCSIS channel and potentially opening cable companies to further regulation may be a good reason.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Charter
1 edit | said by NetAdmin1:But in this case, where phone sharing the DOCSIS channel and potentially opening cable companies to further regulation may be a good reason. Bingo! One technology step forward and two steps back. Thanks FCC and everyone pushing for "stick it to the man" regulation!
Network Engineers should STOP doing what's right and focus on how to avoid illogical politicians and anti-corporate, mob influencing propaganda pushers. |
|
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:So then does that make FiOS and U-verse cable companies? They offer TV service over IP. First of all, at least in NJ, Verizon is regulated like a cable company, through a statewide franchise agreement.
Secondly, FiOS TV is not an IP based service. In fact the equipment and protocols are virtually identical to HFC cable. Think of it as an 860MHz cable system with the fiber node in your house. |
|
| reply to devnuller
said by devnuller:Network Engineers should STOP doing what's right and focus on how to avoid illogical politicians and anti-corporate, mob influencing propaganda pushers. I don't know if the current model of putting voice and data in the same DOCSIS channel was the best idea to start with in this case. If regulation like what is being discusses pushed voice back to a dedicated channel, I don't see that as a "bad thing" necessarily, but I agree that it isn't the best way to get there (being forced by the FCC).
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to devnuller
said by devnuller:So are we incenting technology to build separate physical channels as was done in decades past? Should business move away from IP convergence for fear of regulation? FiOS TV priority? Uverse? Probably not, but the already too-thin pool of Internet access bandwidth ought not be eroded by those other services -- particularly in the midst of using a nasty thing like Sandvine's RST attacks reclaim some of the customer's requested bandwidth so you can sell it again. That's just wrong on its face.
U-Verse is an interesting thing -- bandwidth is sloshing around between Internet Access or TV (VOD?) on a per-household basis. It's another trend I don't like but with current laws, can anything be done?
We definitely don't want to be the country that invented the net and somehow mismanaged our way such that we have only ghetto-style access: That everything else gets prioritized except for the thing that provides the maximum consumer choice!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... |
|
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:It is not, it shares the same channel (and thus contributes to the bandwidth congestion) with all other HSI traffic. That said, it does get priority handling by the network -- that appears to be part of what this FCC inquiry is about. Same physical channel in most cases, but it's on a different logical channel (stream) which is how the voice traffic is given priority over the same "last mile" from the modem to the CMTS.
Non-cable VOIP provider's services use the "data side connection" not the "voice side connection" of the eMTA/modem and because the traffic originates from the "data side" it is classified "best effort" not "priority". |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by voicenotdata :
Same physical channel in most cases, but it's on a different logical channel (stream) which is how the voice traffic is given priority over the same "last mile" from the modem to the CMTS. ...and which reduces the bandwidth for the data side and which contributes to congestion.
Logical channel is beside the point.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by funchords:said by voicenotdata :
Same physical channel in most cases, but it's on a different logical channel (stream) which is how the voice traffic is given priority over the same "last mile" from the modem to the CMTS. ...and which reduces the bandwidth for the data side and which contributes to congestion. The bandwidth of an individual user is never allocated such that it can consume the entire bandwidth of the channel. Let's say they carved off 2mbps of a worst-case 38mbps down / 9mbps up configuration for CDV. Even if that reduced channel capacity down to 36/7, it's still less than 6/1, 8/2, 12/2, 16/2 configuration that an end user is allowed for attachment into the shared infrastructure.
On a per-connection basis there is no conflict. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by espaeth:On a per-connection basis there is no conflict. Also true on the data side -- illustrating that the whole "BitTorrent grows to consume all the bandwidth" ruse just doesn't stand up under examination.
I've been trying to explain that for over a year -- and still am, but the voices of truly frustrated network admins drown out that illustration. They're convinced its something that the protocol must be doing.
When the near side is traffic limited, you can't cheat like that.
But c'mon, we're talking about VOIP here. I don't care if everyone in the neighborhood jumps on the line, it's not going to be the straw that breaks any camel's back.
My point of the above response was to refute the nonsense that the word "logical" as used meant anything. It doesn't.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by funchords:said by espaeth:On a per-connection basis there is no conflict. Also true on the data side -- illustrating that the whole "BitTorrent grows to consume all the bandwidth" ruse just doesn't stand up under examination. I've been trying to explain that for over a year -- and still am, but the voices of truly frustrated network admins drown out that illustration. They're convinced its something that the protocol must be doing. That's not the same argument. My argument is this: You don't know how much of the 38mbps DOCSIS channel is allocated to HSI, so you have no way of knowing that CDV traffic was ever in conflict with HSI capacity.
You keeping making the argument that since each raindrop is small there is no risk, but losing sight that large collections of raindrops in a storm can cause all kinds of destruction.
Large collections of clients that create simultaneous traffic are the issue, be it in the form of a swarm of P2P clients or a botnet of denial of service traffic generators. By removing the spontaneous/random elements that naturally balance out network load you are engineering your own scarcity. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by espaeth:You don't know how much of the 38mbps DOCSIS channel is allocated to HSI, so you have no way of knowing that CDV traffic was ever in conflict with HSI capacity. I'm betting that we already know (Comcast probably disclosed it one way or another, if not in an article certainly in one of their July or Sept filings).
The tack on CDV, no matter how slight, how can it not remove from the pool?
As for continuous uploads -- yeah, it raises the floor but it does so in a constant manner -- if it's background bursty (big number theory) or if its constant from each, or both, it's still the same effect.
Something big to worry about -- at 384 Kbps when this all broke? C'mon. Then Comcast tripled the upload speed of everyone's modems: it doesn't seem too concerned.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by funchords:The tack on CDV, no matter how slight, how can it not remove from the pool? There were never guarantees from *ANY* broadband service from day 1 how much back-end infrastructure would be in place to support the end user connections. Heck, there's not even any guarantee if you buy a connection directly from a carrier today -- that's part of the cost-effective scalability that makes the Internet possible. The only guiding rule was that it at least has to be reasonably possible to achieve the maximum subscribed rate from your connection.
Arguing that CDV is taking away from the bandwidth pool is like arguing that the other 650+MHz of video on the wire are cutting into the bandwidth pool. Both statements are equally true and equally irrelevant.
said by funchords:Something big to worry about -- at 384 Kbps when this all broke? C'mon. Then Comcast tripled the upload speed of everyone's modems: it doesn't seem too concerned. This started in 2006, they bumped the upload speed 2 years later in combination with network upgrades taking place for the DOCSIS 3.0 rollout. |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| You can't argue with Robb with Comcast. He knows all about them  especially the "illegal" or "questionable" things they do.
You never see him spouting off about how U-Voice does the same thing on U-Verse. That their Voice system that is IP as well does NOT touch the Internet and gets a different ride than Vonage or someone else. NOPE its always poor Comcast that he gets all over.
Oh and one more thing else Robb-- EVERY cable company's VOICE SYSTEM DOES NOT TOUCH THE INTERNET! IT STAYS ON ITS OWN NETWORK! |
|
