dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
341
28619103 (banned)
join:2009-03-01
21435

28619103 (banned)

Member

Graph of how it works

Click for full size
Bryan Berg's analysis was excellent! He had some missing pieces which were clarified in Tony Werner's blog post about how DSCP is not used for Xbox priority, only service flows, but here is a great picture Bryan posted which shows the traffic does not impact his Internet. It is bandwidth over and above his service.
GTFan
join:2004-12-03
Austell, GA

GTFan

Member

said by 28619103:

Bryan Berg's analysis was excellent! He had some missing pieces which were clarified in Tony Werner's blog post about how DSCP is not used for Xbox priority, only service flows, but here is a great picture Bryan posted which shows the traffic does not impact his Internet. It is bandwidth over and above his service.

Great! Now I can have even more bits flowing down the pipe potentially clogging up my neighborhood node at peak times!

So where's that justification for the cap again?
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to 28619103

Member

to 28619103
So you are saying it is OK to add additional bandwidth to accommodate for your own services to not impair the customers experience while allowing similar competing services to impair the customer service by not adding that same additional bandwidth?

All while claiming the reason you must "manage" the network is to prevent congestion. Congestion they claim is at the node in which adding bandwidth would further congest.

Just doesnt make much sense to me.
28619103 (banned)
join:2009-03-01
21435

1 edit

28619103 (banned)

Member

The graph clearly shows that the user is getting over 100% of their purchased service. I don't get your point.

Comcast chose to put additional investment in THEIR network to run a new and separate IP (not Internet) service.

As far as the capacity congestion argument. It is moot for two reasons. 1) they are not prioritizing the bits and 2) proper capacity planning has kept them as a top performing ISP for years.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

So again I ask, "So you are saying it is OK to add additional bandwidth to accommodate for your own services to not impair the customers experience while allowing similar competing services to impair the customer service by not adding that same additional bandwidth?"

Yet it appears as though you are claiming that the xBox service is running through a whole new network that is independent of the internet service. Really? Do they need to run another line to my house for me to get this xbox service?
28619103 (banned)
join:2009-03-01
21435

28619103 (banned)

Member

They are two separate and distinct services with provisioned bandwidth per service to the home. Look at how Uverse and FiOS work. One exception: I believe Uverse TV does impact the Internet bandwidth.

All networks today run multiple services over IP infrastructures (aka convergence). This allows for economies of scale vs building a separate physical infrastructure for every service. If the requirement is to have a separate physical network, it would be highly inefficient and much more expensive for the service.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

You are completely wrong. They are the same "service" (ip packets getting routed) working over the same IP network. They are simply marking one of them to not be used against a cap.

I wont argue your uVerse and FiOS work, as I would say any IP routed packet that is treated differently than another over the same infrastructure is not being net neutral. IP phones, IPtv, IP games, IP video, IP anything that is routed through an IP network should all be equally "managed" no matter the source or destination.

This service also impacts the internet bandwidth, however, they are offsetting that by increasing the bandwidth for its usage. As it does for FiOS as any IP packet is going to take space on the network and there is no way around that. The difference with fiber is that you have so much damn bandwidth and scalability it doesnt matter.

I understand your last statement, mine was made in jest because of the stupidity of what was implied (see my first statement above).
28619103 (banned)
join:2009-03-01
21435

28619103 (banned)

Member

This is network convergence and applicable to all today's providers. You would be hard pressed to find any ISP, carrier, etc, that does not use MPLS, QoS, or some other logical method to differentiate SLA based services across a common IP infrastructure.

Forcing operators to move to separate physical, dedicated infrastructures per service would be an enormous industry cost which would be reflected back into the service costs.

Net-neutrality is about the Internet and services specifically delivered over the Internet.