|
 | | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here I did not see anywhere in the paper any reference to the 250 cap. Although the dynamic management of bandwidth is described in detail, the cap is not mentioned anywhere that I could see.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
 |  jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here said by sturmvogel:I did not see anywhere in the paper any reference to the 250 cap. Although the dynamic management of bandwidth is described in detail, the cap is not mentioned anywhere that I could see. Which is due to the fact that the 250GB limit has nothing to do with the congestion management system.
--
JL
Comcast | |
|
|  IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
3 edits | This RFC is about preserving "bandwidth" in the terms of speed, not capacity. If the 250GB cap really helped prevent congestion etc. in conjunction with this system, I am sure they'd mention.
There's a disconnect between what Comcast says the cap is and what it really does.
Proof of this is that nothing is changing with respect to the cap under Docsis 3.0 in the residential tiers.
There is no 250GB hard cap mentioned for the business tiers, which only cost 20-40 dollars more inclusive of the domain services, Microsoft Mail, and business level support. If Comcast is using the congestion management system without the cap on these, then it shows it can be done and that the cap is not necessary.
The purpose of the cap in the residential space has a purpose that comcast hides behind the guise of excessive use.
Excessive use as to what?
Apparently, excessive use is excessive no matter what speed is provisioned. There is a natural cap created by the congestion management system. However, Comcast doesn't want us reaching that because of the threat to the TV biz and Comcast Digital Voice.
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
|
| | jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here said by IPPlanMan:This RFC is about preserving "bandwidth" in the terms of speed, not capacity. If the 250GB cap really helped prevent congestion etc. in conjunction with this system, I am sure they'd mention. Quite so.
Also, this FAQ is still valid in this respect: »customer.comcast.com/Pages/FAQVi···50relate
--
JL
Comcast | |
|
| | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
3 edits | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here That FAQ doesn't clear it up.
What is the purpose of defining and implementing excessive use and what benefit does that definition and implementation provide when Comcast already has a congestion management system?
If the purpose of the cap is not about congestion, as you said it was not above, what are you trying to prevent or what problem are you trying to address with a static cap at 250GB?
Again, excessive use as to what? | |
|
| | | | jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here said by IPPlanMan:That FAQ doesn't clear it up. What is the purpose of defining and implementing excessive use and what benefit does that definition and implementation provide when Comcast already has a congestion management system? If the purpose of the cap is not about congestion, as you said it was not above, what are you trying to prevent? The 250GB limit does not relate to the system to mitigate the effects of real-time congestion. In terms of the purpose, I can only refer you to this other FAQ (this is more a job for an official spokesman and not a guy like me)... »customer.comcast.com/Pages/FAQVi···sive-Use
--
JL
Comcast | |
|
K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | An extraordinary attitude resulting in an extraordinary post!
Many thanks for the full disclosure of what Comcast is doing. | |
|
| IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
3 edits | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here Not exactly full disclosure by Comcast...
We still do not have full disclosure on what problem the cap is trying to solve... But it's not congestion as said above. | |
|
| | K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here A draft of an RFC disclosing what a lot of firms might regard as confidential data is pretty full disclosure.
Viewed from the perspective of a customer who cannot/will not be appeased, everything is inadequate disclosure. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here said by K Patterson:A draft of an RFC disclosing what a lot of firms might regard as confidential data is pretty full disclosure. Viewed from the perspective of a customer who cannot/will not be appeased, everything is inadequate disclosure. I believe a lot of that disclosure has to do with the settlement with the FL AG and the FCC and not about "listening to customers" as the FAQ says.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
| | | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here Agreed 100% | |
|
| | | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
1 edit | said by sturmvogel:I believe a lot of that disclosure has to do with the settlement with the FL AG and the FCC and not about "listening to customers" as the FAQ says. Sturm,
It's very important that users take note that this is not a consumer disclosure made at the threat of government regulation, this is a open and voluntary submission to the Internet Engineering Task Force. This the exactly the kind of thing that the Internet community wants to see. It's open disclosure, cooperative, open to critique and constructive suggestions, and it's an important part about how the worldwide Internet agrees to work together.
I salute the move. I probably won't like everything about the draft, but I don't criticize submitting the Internet Draft itself -- this is how Internet Governance works.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5 | |
|
| | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
2 edits | I think it's great that Comcast is disclosing this. As JL said, unless I am misunderstanding, the 250GB cap has nothing to due with addressing congestion. Thank you for clarifying that.
So I am left asking what problem is an excessive use policy with a 250GB cap trying to address if it's not congestion.
There has not been full disclosure on the purpose of the 250GB cap.
I have my own theories...
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
|
| | | | K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here The new publication deals with one topic having to do with a small part of the system.
The 250GB cap has an obvious purpose - to reduce the need to expand their network. Some of you may recall that when this subject started a couple of years ago, i was the voice in the wilderness crying "the last thing you really want is a stated cap".
I lost. And now you who won and got the cap view yourself as having lost.
I don't use Comcast, it's not available. I use TW, but the arguments are the same. I have no desire to have them hire more competent reps because there time will still be taken up by simple problems and so-called experts criticizing them them.
And I also don't want to pay more money so folks can download large amounts of data. If you have big needs, pay big money. I shouldn't have to. | |
|
| | | | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
4 edits | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here Reduce the need to expand the network? What does that mean?
Comcast is rolling out Docsis 3. Why does it have the exact same 250GB cap as before?
What do competent reps have to do with a cap? Am I missing something?
What has now been confirmed is that the cap doesn't address congestion.
If there's not a congestion problem because of the traffic control system, then why are you concerned? What negative effect are you implying?
Would you support a metered billing system: you don't want to pay for the usage of others.
And why doesn't Fios have this issue?
Why doesn't DSL have this issue? (Sturm did the math on running a 1MB connection 24/7.... Verizon can handle that for about 20 dollars a month. Compare that to Comcast's economy plan which costs the same and has the 250GB cap.)
Why doesn't cablevision have this issue?
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
|
| | | | | |
2 edits | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here As I understand it, Comcast must purchase bandwidth from their peers (such as Level3 and Cogent). My guess is that they buy 250gb x # of subscribers. If everyone went over, their would probably be a large cost, if they can "kick" people for going over the bandwidth cap, they can save money. There are probably other reasons.
This doesn't explain why Verizon doesn't have caps, but they are willing to spend a lot more money than comcast (as shown by FiOS costing tens of billions of dollars).
I think that the cap should be something like: "15% of the total amount of bandwidth you could use in a month"
i.e.
50/10 Mb/s tier would get: 2.5 TB
22/5 Mb/s tier would get: 1 TB
16/2 Mb/s tier would get: .75 TB
12/2 Mb/s tier would get: .5 TB
8/2 Mb/s tier would get: .35 TB
6/1 Mb/s tier would get: .25 TB
That seems like a fair distribution to me  | |
|
| | | | | | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
2 edits | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here Does Verizon have a more efficient cost structure than Comcast with respect to Internet or are there other factors?
Given that the purpose of the cap is not about addressing congestion, Is the capacity (cap/usability) difference between Verizon's DSL/Fios and Comcast's cable internet due to infrastructure (Docsis) limitations as has been said before or is it more about the cost of doing business?
Is Verizon going to go broke doing what they do or they have a competitve advantage over Comcast? If so, what is it?
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
|
| | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here I think that verizon is willing to spend money on infrastructure, and not make as much money, whereas comcast is trying to milk all that they can out of their current cable lines and system, and make tons of money.
Verizon does have a competitive advantage, their network capacity is MUCH greater, and they can offer people more and more speed in the future. For now, comcast is limited to 160 Mb/s. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |  koshoka
join:2006-12-01
Pottsville, PA | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here Verizion is losing money hand over fist on FiOS. It's estimated that they *lose* $769 on each FiOS customer. They expect to burn through something like $6 billion.
--
*******
Disclaimer: I am a Comcast employee. Any statements are my own and should not be construed as official Comcast communications. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here What you are not seeing though on "verizon's loosing $769 per household" is the amount of overhead they are slashing on the outside plant side. Yea it is very expensive to put in a new plant, but the cost of maintaining the new fiber plant is 80% less than the old 2 pair.
Once the network is overbuilt in a few years they will be able to bring cost containment into focus and cut the cost down several hundred dollars. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | koshoka
join:2006-12-01
Pottsville, PA | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here They are taking a loss now because their current copper infrastructure is a dying technology. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here said by koshoka:They are taking a loss now because their current copper infrastructure is a dying technology. Dying technology?
If you dissect the cable coming into your house it is copper.
Seems to me that Verizon is unloading itself of the "dying" technology while Comcast is not making the same efforts. Verizon's implementation of this dying technology actually provides better service to the customer in some respects, especially where usage is concerned.
You can get a 1MB line from Comcast on the economy tier and one from Verizon. Both are about the same price. Comcast's is capped. Verizon's "dying" technology is not.
DSL still has a lot to offer us in that respect.
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
|
| | | | | | | | | K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here said by IPPlanMan: Comcast's is capped. Verizon's "dying" technology is not. Read Verizon's AUP. Itis just as "capped" as Comcast. They just don't specify a number, just that you can be terminated for excessive usage, either web or email. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | koshoka
join:2006-12-01
Pottsville, PA | Yes. Dying technology. Verizon is not spending $25 billion or so to upgrade infrastructure because they think it's fun.
If you dissect the cable coming into your house it is copper.
Are you seriously suggesting that all copper wire is the same?
--
*******
Disclaimer: I am a Comcast employee. Any statements are my own and should not be construed as official Comcast communications. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
2 edits | Cable internet may be the dying tehchology You said:
"Yes. Dying technology."
Based on Espaeth's most excellent post, it seems to me that Cable Internet might actually be the dying technology that you say DSL is. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
3 edits | Re: Cable internet may be the dying tehchology I agree, but since cable is already FTTN, it is easy and cheap to upgrade the: nodes, head ends and cables to go FTTH.
Check this out:
Method for upgrading and converting a coaxial cable with a fiber optic cable
Here is what they could use
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUBRjiVhJTs&fmt=18
Abstract:
A communications system including an initially installed coaxial cable may be readily upgraded by installing a fiber optic cable therein. The coaxial cable has an empty longitudinal channel extending continuously along substantially the entire length thereof. A propellable fiber optic cable is later installed in the channel by a fluid flow which creates a sufficient drag to advance the fiber optic cable into the channel. The fiber optic cable is installed to meet increasing communications demands or when otherwise desired. The coaxial cable may include an empty electrically conductive tube serving as the center conductor for later receipt therein of the fiber optic cable. In other embodiments, the coaxial cable may have a channel provided in a dielectric material between the center and outer conductors, or a channel formed in the outer protective jacket.
They pull the copper and metal out of the plastic sheath, and then shoot fiber through, pretty neat!
Also:
Method for upgrading a hybrid fiber coax network to an all fiber network
Abstract:
Disclosed is a method for making the transition from a hybrid network into an all fiber network. In the preferred embodiment, the first step is to replace an existing fiber optic/coaxial cable conversion device located at a remote node with an optic distribution device. Secondly, a house optical network unit is installed in a living unit. Finally, a downstream optic fiber is installed between the optic distribution device and the house optical network unit. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: Cable internet may be the dying tehchology Interesting... It may come to that.
Makes me wonder if Comcast has any similar ground-up plans. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Cable internet may be the dying tehchology Thats the great thing, its not ground up! they already have 80% of the infrastructure! | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
1 edit | said by IPPlanMan:Interesting... It may come to that. Makes me wonder if Comcast has any similar ground-up plans. Doubtful.
When you look at it, FiOS is really a HFC system with the only difference being the node is at each house. The handoff within each residence is a coax cable -- the TV is distributed within the home using standard QAM over coax delivery so you can use a TiVo or a VZ-provided cable box that can do on-demand. The handoff to the router can be either Cat5 from the ONT or it can also use the MoCA transport over coax.
For the cable system they can keep adding capacity without residential dispatch by continuing to reclaim analog channel space and performing node splits to reduce the number of homes per RF segment. The capacity of the DOCSIS plant can actually match or exceed that of GPON networks if they did the same 16 homes per node scaling, especially if they were aggressive in converting over to switched digital video in each of the segments.
The HFC cable plant is a long way from dead. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
3 edits | Again, opinion cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options That would be great. But I have feeling that the cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options from reaching critical mass.
So far, we're going to have Docsis 3.0 with the same Caps. What comes next and when? We've already had the analog shutoff.
It seems to me that Comcast's approach to competitive VOD is to have a cap. No matter, Comcast has it's own revenue generating VOD and premium channels.
Verizon is happy to sell you TV but they are not trying to channel their userbase the same way or threatened by competitive VOD services. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
See 81 replies to this post |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
4 edits | said by nate1234:I think that verizon is willing to spend money on infrastructure, and not make as much money, whereas comcast is trying to milk all that they can out of their current cable lines and system, and make tons of money. Good rhetoric, but not very accurate. The reality is they both spend a lot on infrastructure every year. Telco "milked" about a hundred years out of their twisted pair infrastructure before going to FTTH (to compete with cable). Cable's HFC is only about ~10-15 years old and as they move to all-digitial, they have enough capacity for the near future (at current usage and speed growth profiles). Going from FTTN to FTTH is the next logical step when needed.
said by nate1234:Verizon does have a competitive advantage, their network capacity is MUCH greater, and they can offer people more and more speed in the future. For now, comcast is limited to 160 Mb/s. A few points on this
• While "who has the bigger pipe" is fun to talk about here. The reality is the market (i.e. need) for these speeds today to the home is very, very small. The competitive advantage is more how many homes do you serve and can you keep that customer base with quality service.
• The network is more than just the last mile. Given Comcast's customer base, I expect beyond the last mile, Comcast has larger network capacity than Verizon in their metro and core. Comcast was the first Nx40G infrastructure (2 years ago) and pushed 100G and IPv6 technology more than most of the telcos. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
4 edits | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here Lets hope comcast goes FTTH soon
Comcast could do gigabit Ethernet to the last mile (well, it probably wouldn't even be a mile), From the node to the houses.
On another note... my local node is busted (EDIT: misconfigured), and comcast wont fix it until they replace my: modem, splitter, crimps, and drop  (their just cheap... my internet has been out for almost a week now, and my EMTA is barley working... 58dBmV upstream)
Well, they came and ran a temp line. My upstream signal went from 58dBmV to 50dBmV, still not too great. My downstream signal and SNR are unchanged | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | said by IPPlanMan:Does Verizon have a more efficient cost structure than Comcast with respect to Internet or are there other factors? I wouldn't say that. Fiber has a longer lifespan than HFC, but right now it is more marketing as DOCSIS3/HFC can deliver the service needed as well as FTTH can. The cost to deliver FTTH is very high and the ROI for Verizon is probably a few years / sub. That said, they had to do something as twisted pair was not going to cut it. Also, Comcast is FTTN and could go FTTH cheaper than VZ, but the reality is it is not needed... yet.
FiOS is in early customer acquisition mode and I expect they would not rule out having a cap or threshold as there is a point where a residential user consuming 250G+ starts costing more than their monthly bill brings in. This is known as a "loss leader".
said by IPPlanMan:Given that the purpose of the cap is not about addressing congestion, Is the capacity (cap/usability) difference between Verizon's DSL/Fios and Comcast's cable internet due to infrastructure (Docsis) limitations as has been said before or is it more about the cost of doing business? As said before, it is about the cost of doing business and a diferentiator from residential speed and commercial usage. To VZ, customer numbers and the marketing around this is worth the competitive edge, even at a loss. (IMO)
said by IPPlanMan:Is Verizon going to go broke doing what they do or they have a competitive advantage over Comcast? If so, what is it? No. They have a lucrative wireless income and subsidize one line of business with another. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
See 7 replies to this post |
| | | | | | K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | said by IPPlanMan:Reduce the need to expand the network? What does that mean? if you limit the amount of traffic you limit the amount of money you have to spend on system expansion.
said by IPPlanMan:Comcast is rolling out Docsis 3. Why does it have the exact same 250GB cap as before? Comcast's choice.
said by IPPlanMan:What do competent reps have to do with a cap? Am I missing something? Nothing. I started a thought and didn't finish it.
said by IPPlanMan:What has now been confirmed is that the cap doesn't address congestion. Not so. Shat has been confirmed is that the cap is unrelated to Comcast's method of controlling congestion on individual upstream and downstream channels
said by IPPlanMan:If there's not a congestion problem because of the traffic control system, then why are you concerned? What negative effect are you implying? The traffic control system only controls one part of the system.
said by IPPlanMan:Would you support a metered billing system: you don't want to pay for the usage of others. Yes.
said by IPPlanMan:And why doesn't Fios have this issue? Why doesn't DSL have this issue? (Sturm did the math on running a 1MB connection 24/7.... Verizon can handle that for about 20 dollars a month. Compare that to Comcast's economy plan which costs the same and has the 250GB cap.) Why doesn't cablevision have this issue? They all have the problem in that subscribers that generate more thaffic incur more expenses for the company. All the terms that I have seen include prohibitions against actions that impact negatively on the network. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here Ars Technica has a good article on congestion and speed:
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···slow.ars
"Why you'll never see 200Mbps from a 200Mbps 'Net connection" | |
|
| | | | | | | |  CabalPremium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX
 ·Suddenlink
| Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here said by nate1234:"Why you'll never see 200Mbps from a 200Mbps 'Net connection" People said that about 10 Mbps (LAN equivalent!) Internet connections 10 years ago.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here and you still cant! Their is overhead. We may eventually see a 200mbps internet service, but the article says that even if they can provided you with a 200mbps internet connection doesn't mean you can consistently download at that speed. (due to congestion, small pipe size at peering stations...etc) | |
|
| | | | | | | | | AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
1 edit | Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here I think at a certain point, you will see the "speed wars" abate and more emphasis placed on delivery techniques and customer experience / services. What is often neglected in conversations regarding speed / capacity is that the Internet, by its definition, is also a shared resource. What matters more than speed (such as seen by a speed test) is that the service does what you want, when you want. If I click on a movie, I want to watch the movie now or if I need to download a Linux ISO, I want it to download expeditiously with little or no waiting.
Does that mean I need a gigabit connection? Perhaps, I don't know, but I am pretty sure as a residential consumer that I don't always need that gigabit allocation of bandwidth. Even with FTTH, which I strongly support, there will always be the need to effectively manage resources . In my opinion, the methods and techniques that will be successful are those that are barely, if at all, noticed. | |
|
|
|
