dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
19
share rss forum feed

K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to IPPlanMan

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.



sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

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.


IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

2 edits
reply to K Patterson

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



IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
reply to sturmvogel

Agreed 100%


K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to IPPlanMan

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.



IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

4 edits

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



NathanO

join:2008-08-21
Moorestown, NJ

2 edits

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



funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to sturmvogel

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


IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

2 edits
reply to NathanO

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



NathanO

join:2008-08-21
Moorestown, NJ

1 edit

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.

Expand your moderator at work

FactChecker
Premium
join:2008-06-03

1 recommendation

reply to IPPlanMan

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

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.


koshoka

join:2006-12-01
Pottsville, PA
reply to NathanO

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.



IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

4 edits
reply to FactChecker

Interesting...

Does bandwidth on Fios or dsl cost less than bandwidth on cable? People have been talking about the technical limits of dsl. Now I think we've seen the money limits of cable instead of the technical limits. Would money limits explain why the cap is the same regardless of provisioned speed, even on the Docsis 3.0 tiers. Any thoughts?

Is Comcast able to subsidize with its cable tv service in the same way?


FactChecker
Premium
join:2008-06-03

1 recommendation

said by IPPlanMan:

Interesting...

Is Comcast able to subsidize with its cable tv service in the same way?
Given the costs of programing, I think TV has lower margins.

Another example is when a store has a sale (e.g. day after Thanksgiving), they subsidize this off the non-sale items most people buy.

FactChecker
Premium
join:2008-06-03

4 edits

1 recommendation

reply to NathanO

said by NathanO:

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 NathanO:

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.
Expand your moderator at work


NathanO

join:2008-08-21
Moorestown, NJ

4 edits
reply to FactChecker

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


K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1

3 recommendations

reply to IPPlanMan

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.


NathanO

join:2008-08-21
Moorestown, NJ

1 recommendation

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"



Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

2 recommendations

said by NathanO:

"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?


NathanO

join:2008-08-21
Moorestown, NJ

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)


AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 edit

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.



bellhead1970

@southernco.com
reply to koshoka

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

They are taking a loss now because their current copper infrastructure is a dying technology.



IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

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


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to FactChecker

said by FactChecker:

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.
I think I spot the marketing, but it's more in the word "needed" than anywhere else.
--
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


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to FactChecker

said by FactChecker:

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".
I think espaeth characterized it best when he called it a "stop loss."
--
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


IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

Is Verizon better able to handle the cost of bandwidth because of the company's size/structure/market position/history?


K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1
reply to IPPlanMan

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.