dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
64

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan to koshoka

Member

to koshoka

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.
K Patterson
Premium Member
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH

K Patterson

Premium Member

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

koshoka to IPPlanMan

Member

to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan:

Dying technology?
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?

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

2 edits

IPPlanMan

Member

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.

NathanO
join:2008-08-21
Seattle, WA
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC-HD
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro

3 edits

NathanO

Member

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= ··· s&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.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

1 edit

IPPlanMan

Member

Interesting... It may come to that.

Makes me wonder if Comcast has any similar ground-up plans.

NathanO
join:2008-08-21
Seattle, WA

1 edit

NathanO

Member

Thats the great thing, its not ground up! they already have 80% of the infrastructure!

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 edit

2 recommendations

SpaethCo to IPPlanMan

MVM

to IPPlanMan
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.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

3 edits

IPPlanMan

Member

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.

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

2 edits

funchords

MVM

said by IPPlanMan:

That would be great. But I have feeling that the cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options from reaching critical mass.
To me, the question is only partially about intent. If it does prevent competitive VOD options from reaching critical mass, then such a cap should be heavily scrutinized -- intent or no.

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

1 edit

sturmvogel6

Member

said by funchords:

If it does prevent competitive VOD options from reaching critical mass, then such a cap should be heavily scrutinized -- intent or no.
It already prevented it for me.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

2 edits

IPPlanMan to funchords

Member

to funchords
Isn't it doing that already?

There are plenty of other uses for the Internet besides VOD.

The cap is creating an effective data squeeze here, exacerbated by the fact that there is no accurate meter available.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 edit

SpaethCo to IPPlanMan

MVM

to IPPlanMan

DOCSIS 3.0 has the same cap, so far

said by IPPlanMan:

So far, we're going to have Docsis 3.0 with the same Caps.
Not all areas have been upgraded to DOCSIS 3.

Greatest common divisor is the easiest approach when setting the policy, considering 99.99+% of the subscriber base won't be affected by it.

A 38mbps DOCSIS channel cannot move more than 12312GB/mo. When you factor out overhead and CDV bandwidth, the HSI share is still divided out across approximately 250 users per channel today. If you do the math, it's not possible to support every user hitting 250GB.

Over time that will improve, but you have to keep in mind that network expansion is done over years, not months.

NathanO
join:2008-08-21
Seattle, WA
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC-HD
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro

1 edit

NathanO

Member

Wow... In my neighborhood (where everyone has comcast, and at least 125 homes are served off of one node) One bonded channel would only allow for 100 GB per person per month... but w/ 4 bonded channels that goes to 400 GB per home, and then doubles again with 8 channels.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

2 edits

IPPlanMan to SpaethCo

Member

to SpaethCo
How is this possible? Again, no caps on a Docsis 3.0 system...

»twitter.com/midconews/st ··· 20466717

»West Fargo Gets DOCSIS 3.0 Before Manhattan [20] comments

Just like cablevision, as was discussed earlier...

What is so different about Comcast that they cannot do this on their Docsis 3.0 tiers?
FactChecker
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03

1 edit

FactChecker

Premium Member

said by IPPlanMan:

What is so different about Comcast that they cannot do this?
Are you implying that because one company makes an "at this time" business decision, all companies should operate under the same business decision?

Mod Note: Did this thread lose a sticky?

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

2 edits

IPPlanMan

Member

Cablevision makes it at least 2 companies that can do this. I am sure that there are more.

It shows that it is technically possible.
FactChecker
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03

1 edit

FactChecker

Premium Member

said by IPPlanMan:

It shows that it is technically possible.
Many things are technically possible. Should all businesses do everything that is technically possible?

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

1 edit

IPPlanMan

Member

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 edit

1 recommendation

SpaethCo to IPPlanMan

MVM

to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan:

How is this possible? Again, no caps on a Docsis 3.0 system...
No published caps.
said by IPPlanMan:

What is so different about Comcast that they cannot do this on their Docsis 3.0 tiers?
Different subscriber:channel ratios on the DOCSIS plant, and a vastly different service footprint.
FactChecker
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03

3 edits

1 recommendation

FactChecker to IPPlanMan

Premium Member

to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan:

I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Your facts were correct, but I think the point you were trying to make was not valid. Just because one company does something under their current variables and needs, does not mean all will make the same business decisions at the same time.

My .02: I think this thread has digressed into yourself and sturmvogel6 See Profile agreeing with each other about why you are both upset at Comcast. I think we all get it. Are there any new topics that have not been raised (or beat to death?)

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

1 edit

IPPlanMan to SpaethCo

Member

to SpaethCo
If so, and i am not sure if there's anything to indicate that. But if so, think they're higher than 250GB?

What effect does the footprint have?

What's kept Comcast from adjusting its ratios?

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

2 edits

2 recommendations

SpaethCo

MVM

said by IPPlanMan:

If so, and i am not sure if there's anything to indicate that. But if so, think they're higher than 250GB?
Cablevision has a well documented history of throttling connections of heavy users. If you get throttled to the point that you can't transmit more than a certain amount of bits across the wire, it's essentially coming down to the same thing as a bandwidth cap.

We've covered this ground earlier in the thread here: »Comcast vs. Cablevision caps

Check out the first post in this thread -- Sunny See Profile has invested quite a bit of effort in summarizing out the various topics.

It's to the point now where "Round and Round" by Ratt should start playing when you click on this thread.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

3 edits

IPPlanMan

Member

I think that subthread has been overlooked in certain respects.

Sunny
Runs from Clowns

join:2001-08-19

2 edits

4 recommendations

Sunny to SpaethCo

to SpaethCo

Traffic Control For The Remainder Of Topic, Please Read

said by SpaethCo:

We've covered this ground earlier in the thread here: »Comcast vs. Cablevision caps

Check out the first post in this thread -- Sunny See Profile has invested quite a bit of effort in summarizing out the various topics.

It's to the point now where "Round and Round" by Ratt should start playing when you click on this thread.
In fairness to all forum participants, as I have heard from so many, the repetition of the circular debates has been dizzying and tiring. It has long been obvious continuing this repetition is only important to a couple of people and I really believe we have given you guys a fair length of time to express your views.

In regard to my links in the first post, yes, I have really tried to rename subtopics and provide those links. I always welcome suggestions if I miss some which should be included. I had two reasons for doing that: (1) to help people searching for info and (2) to help a couple of you find the previous discussions so, hopefully, you would not feel the need to repeat, so that your views were not really buried and you could see they are still accessible.

To those who really would like to see the repetition end, when you see it, heymod the post and give me a link to where it was discussed previously. While even a rantlike complaint is allowed in this forum, to a point, pounding us with it repeatedly just needs to stop.

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

1 edit

funchords to IPPlanMan

MVM

to IPPlanMan

Again, opinion cap is meant to prevent competitive VOD options

said by IPPlanMan:

Isn't it doing that already?

There are plenty of other uses for the Internet besides VOD.

The cap is creating an effective data squeeze here, exacerbated by the fact that there is no accurate meter available.
How would we know?

I have examples of caps and metering crushing businesses, but nobody with a 250 GB-ish soft cap, Comcast is a bit unique in this area.

The specter of the nation's largest residential ISP having a static cap year after year means that anyone who does have a 3-5 year outlook on their high-bandwidth project is not likely to fund the investment. I know that, you know that, but we don't know that it has -- in fact -- already happened.
Expand your moderator at work
FactChecker
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03

4 edits

1 recommendation

FactChecker to funchords

Premium Member

to funchords

Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

said by funchords:

I have examples of caps and metering crushing businesses, but nobody with a 250 GB-ish soft cap, Comcast is a bit unique in this area.
There are probably just as many, or more, examples of successful broadband businesses that grew under "invisible caps" and since.
said by funchords:

The specter of the nation's largest residential ISP having a static cap year after year means that anyone who does have a 3-5 year outlook on their high-bandwidth project is not likely to fund the investment. I know that, you know that, but we don't know that it has -- in fact -- already happened.
Part of the problem is funding the Usage. I think most with some basic network knowledge understand that bits cost money. More bits = more costs. Most also understand that in a Consumer flat-fee billing model, the light+medium fund the majority of heavy users and the costs wash out. The ultra-heavy are a bit different (see ad-nauseum previous discussions on this).

What few understand is that the current Internet transit/peering model does not actually fund high-bandwidth Usage properly.

[Below is mostly from a previous post in another thread]

There is a calculate shift by Content and CDNs to move their high-bandwidth growth costs to the ISPs (and in turn the Consumer). The cost of traffic growth around next gen high-bandwidth apps is something Content and CDNs, obviously, want to pay as little as possible for. Most of the time they pay an intermediate provider that doesn't actually carry the traffic any distance. If the source of traffic no longer pays their network share for the growth, or the broadband carrier that has the majority of the costs is not funded by Usage, there is a challenge. (Please read on before you call me Ed Whitacre)

Examples like ESPN360 may be the future and it is unclear if this is good or not. Also the BBC iPlayer over P2P or the BBC PR campaign to force multicast peering. This gives the BBC unlimited free access and all the end to end traffic growth costs are pushed to the broadband ISPs without incremental revenue that was previously obtained (by someone) via Content transit. While Content may not have paid that specific broadband ISP directly, with peering ratio balance requirements, this typically can wash out as a balance of trade.

The major CDNs and major Content distributors have very creative ways to cause ISPs pain and manipulate peering relationships to either gain peering (typically with smaller broadband w/ transit costs) or exploit an intermediary ISPs peering relationship with a broadband ISP. Two examples were above, and the below quoted blocks are what Content providers are stating:

Broadband ISP - Not sure I should peer with you as I have all the network costs"
quote:
We both pay for transit, so why don't we just peer

Because any transit savings for the broadband ISP are for current or existing traffic. Unlimited free (for Content) bandwidth has the potential of large end to end, unexpected, growth costs of infrastructure. These new costs no longer have a growth funding source and the costs have moved to the consumer.

Unbalanced peering traffic growth is not mutually beneficial and is an enabler which brings with it large unfunded costs.

I'm concerned about the traffic growth and while I won't offer free peering, as I have all the network costs, I will offer you the same or lower rate for transit that you pay now
quote:
If you won't peer with me, I will use your most expensive transit provider and they will make money off of you.

or

I will connect to the same router port as you and your peer and pay them small amounts unless you peer with me. (Given the costs of a port vs the full end to end costs are small, the intermediate provider can do this. This is one of the reasons the existing Internet peering environment is a mess. NOTE: Depeering is messy and not a simple solution to this)

IOW:

I will not pay you the same amount I would pay an intermediate provider even though you carry the bits end to end and they just offer 1 router hop.

All of these shifts have the potential to move the cost of high-bandwidth traffic growth from Content, to the Consumer.

You can say "I don't care, I buy bandwidth from my ISP", "Just upgrade your network", but the reality is bandwidth has been a two party payer system and the business plan for high-bandwidth apps does not fit well with the legacy Tier based transit / ISP system.
Expand your moderator at work

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

funchords to FactChecker

MVM

to FactChecker

Re: Broken Funding around High Bandwidth Applications

I have some basic networking knowledge. More bits or less bits = same cost. It's capacity (idle or not) that drives costs. The rest is just power.

The facts you cite seem to forget that the source ends must build for capacity or move data closer to the edges at their own cost. They don't just wake up one morning with a plan to jerk ISPs around, nor can they push their bits onto ISPs without some user requesting the content in the first place.

I've never seen this "incremental revenue" of which you speak. It's never existed. Someone is trying to invent it by "monetizing" my activity. I already pay a premium rate over per-hour or flat-rate dial-up service. And since Moore's law (1995 150 MHz CPU $1500 500 MB RAM 40 GB HDD; 2009 3000 MHz CPU $200 3000 MB RAM 500 GB HDD) indicates that growth ought to come for free or even at a discount, I am persuaded that there are some non-market forces at work here.