Reviews:
 ·Comcast
·Charter
| reply to funchords
Re: I can see both sides here... 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? |
|
| 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 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. |
|
|
|
| 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? ... |
|
