how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| | Re: I can see both sides here... 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 | Re: I can see both sides here... 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
| Re: I can see both sides here... 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 | Re: I can see both sides here... 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
| Re: I can see both sides here... 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 | Re: I can see both sides here... 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
| Re: I can see both sides here... 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..
| Re: I can see both sides here... 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! | |
|
| |
|
