AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL |
to camper
Re: [Business] Looks like Netflix is paying up to improve signals Source WSJ.said by camper:To be a bit more precise in your comment... Its actually oversubscribed, everywhere... There is no way all end points (servers and end users alike) could be running at full throttle all the time. |
|
markf join:2008-01-24 Scarborough, ON |
markf
Member
2014-Feb-23 11:00 pm
said by AVonGauss:There is no way all end points (servers and end users alike) could be running at full throttle all the time. Absolutely right on that, but then the pricing model needs to change for everyone and not cherry pick certain types of data going through. If it's bogged down at certain times, every bit of data should cost the same, whether it's Netflix, YouTube, Skype or grandma's email. |
|
camperjust visiting this planet Premium Member join:2010-03-21 Bethel, CT |
to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:Its actually oversubscribed, everywhere... There is no way all end points (servers and end users alike) could be running at full throttle all the time.   I agree. But I am making the distinction between the on-ramps to the Internet (the end points you mention above) and the Internet itself. Let's suppose I have a connection to the Internet that can deliver its full capacity all the time, 24/7. Let's also suppose that I have a server that I am "talking" to which also has a connection that can deliver its full capacity all the time, 24/7. Those two can talk to each other all the time at full throttle. So from the vantage point of those two connections, the Internet is not oversubscribed. That's why I wanted to clarify what you mentioned --- the Internet is not oversubscribed, in your own words the ISPs have oversubscribed the endpoints. |
|
|
train_wreckslow this bird down join:2013-10-04 Antioch, TN Cisco ASA 5506 Cisco DPC3939
|
said by camper:the Internet is not oversubscribed, in your own words the ISPs have oversubscribed the endpoints. and this is the balance that has to be struck, at what congestion level is the service still acceptable? btw, that's a wild wild price for a 33MHz system :0 |
|
AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL |
to camper
said by camper:Those two can talk to each other all the time at full throttle. So from the vantage point of those two connections, the Internet is not oversubscribed. The connections in the middle too, its all one big shared medium of sorts... What it really boils down to is are people able to do what they want when they want, and if they're not, we get 19 page threads like the NetFlix one on here. |
|
markf join:2008-01-24 Scarborough, ON |
to train_wreck
said by train_wreck:and this is the balance that has to be struck, at what congestion level is the service still acceptable? The issue, especially with cable providers around here, is that they use higher speeds as a marketing tool to get more revenue. If you are intentionally selling something you can't deliver, that's a problem. Why sell 120 Mbps 500GB plans if you know you can't meet that service level? In my area cable has speed with low caps while DSL has slower max speeds with much higher caps. I'm going through a third party DSL provider and 25/7 is usually easily attainable most times of day. I haven't noticed slowdowns since they upgraded things on their end. |
|
camperjust visiting this planet Premium Member join:2010-03-21 Bethel, CT |
to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:The connections in the middle too,   Yup. When the people who control the end point choke points also control the connections in the middle, then the issues seem to occur. It certainly makes one wonder...... |
|
AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL |
to markf
said by markf:Why sell 120 Mbps 500GB plans if you know you can't meet that service level? Speed and capacity aren't the same thing, in fact, one could argue faster speed could yield higher capacity for typical usage. I'm not saying companies don't advertise speed as a lure, they do and it works, just that they are two different aspects. |
|
train_wreckslow this bird down join:2013-10-04 Antioch, TN Cisco ASA 5506 Cisco DPC3939
|
to markf
said by markf:In my area cable has speed with low caps while DSL has slower max speeds with much higher caps. I'm going through a third party DSL provider and 25/7 is usually easily attainable most times of day. I haven't noticed slowdowns since they upgraded things on their end. Interesting. Here, cable is the much higher performing option in terms of speed & caps, and outside of the recent netflix issue, i never notice any types of interruptions other than natural-cause related. I was quoted a max speed of U-Verse available to me at 12mbps a few months ago due to central office distance. |
|
camperjust visiting this planet Premium Member join:2010-03-21 Bethel, CT |
to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:Speed and capacity aren't the same thing   But you miss what I see as the point of the comment --- why sell something that cannot be delivered? At what point will the State Attorneys General start becoming involved when the ISPs promise everyone a bandwidth that cannot possibly be delivered simultaneously? |
|
train_wreckslow this bird down join:2013-10-04 Antioch, TN Cisco ASA 5506 Cisco DPC3939
1 edit |
said by camper:But miss what I see as the point of the comment --- why sell something that cannot be delivered? probably because to deliver EXACTLY 12 (or 25 or 50 or 100) megabits down to EVERY customer ALL the time would require an overkill of resources, particularly as most home internet connections are unused a majority of the time? btw, to the point of not "selling something they can't deliver", it's worth pointing out that the fine print of every Comcast service agreement states a given speed "up to" x. |
|
AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL |
to camper
said by camper:At what point will the State Attorneys General start becoming involved when the ISPs promise everyone a bandwidth that cannot possibly be delivered simultaneously? Well, considering the poster I was replying to I don't believe is from the United States, I would imagine the State Attorneys will never get involved. |
|
|
quote: At what point will the State Attorneys General start becoming involved when the ISPs promise everyone a bandwidth that cannot possibly be delivered simultaneously?
Ha, bandwidth to the closest speedtest server? I wouldnt fret. |
|
camperjust visiting this planet Premium Member join:2010-03-21 Bethel, CT |
to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:Well, considering the poster I was replying to I don't believe is from the United States, I would imagine the State Attorneys will never get involved   So you are saying that speed and capacity are the same thing in the US but not other countries? |
|
AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL |
AVonGauss
Premium Member
2014-Feb-24 12:47 am
said by camper:So you are saying that speed and capacity are the same thing in the US but not other countries? No, and you know that. What I am saying is that I'm not going to get involved in a circular debate about something that is not an issue. |
|
markf join:2008-01-24 Scarborough, ON |
to train_wreck
said by train_wreck:btw, to the point of not "selling something they can't deliver", it's worth pointing out that the fine print of every Comcast service agreement states a given speed "up to" x. They all say this, but when you can't deliver a 6 Mbps Netflix stream over cable, your network has major issues. Looking on Comcast's website (» www.comcast.com/internet ··· ice.html) I'm shocked at the services they offer. High priced, low speed compared to what we have in my area. 6/1, 25/5, 50/10? 105/20 is the only one that beats VDSL in my area, and the prices for all of them are higher than I pay. Not sure the cap, but I'm unlimited for 12 hours per day at 25/7 (my DSL line can't handle 10 up) We have capacity based billing here, so third party ISP's have to manage their over subscription numbers to match with the capacity they buy from incumbents. If they buy 1000 Mbps but have peaks of 2000, then users will suffer. Some unlimited providers, in order to keep prices down, clearly sell packages that have reduced speeds during peak times (i.e. 25/10 off peak, 12.5/5 on peak) to manage traffic. That's being honest with the customer. If you sell me a 50 Mbps line, it should be under exceptional circumstances that it doesn't hit that. If it's happening every evening, you'd better tell me, or as a customer you're lying to me about what you're selling. If I sold you a car that can go 40 MPH on level ground, 60 MPH down a hill and I tell you that it goes 60 MPH, am I misleading you? If I sell you "up to a dozen" donuts, and you open the box and always find 10 or less, am I telling you the truth about what I'm selling you? I understand that networks need to be oversubscribed to be economical, but if it's so bad that a 6 Mbps stream is too much for the network to handle on lines advertised as 25 Mbps or more, then there is a major issue there. |
|
train_wreckslow this bird down join:2013-10-04 Antioch, TN Cisco ASA 5506 Cisco DPC3939
1 recommendation |
ehhhhh i understand your concerns here, but if you want the truest metric of how the Comcast network is delivering you your speeds, » speedtest.comcast.net is the best, as it's hosted by them within their network. Comcast can't directly control how bandwidth enters & exits their network, and they try to exact control via these kinds of peering agreements/bandwidth arrangements between lots of other companies. I think in this recent example, Netflix was, by themselves, generating enough traffic to overly congest a few peering links, and COmcast was (perhaps rightly) asserting that it's Netflix who should pay up, and a deal was reached. Now I don't know the terms of said deal, as to how fair & just it was, but the deal makes mostly sense to me. Yeah, it's bad that your 25/50/whatever potential speed internet connection can't deliver 1mbps worth of Netflix. It's just in this case, it seems it was unrelated to your Comcast connection. Don't get me wrong, Comcast is as evil as they come in terms of oligarchy membership, but what transpired is close to how I figured it would. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to markf
said by markf:They all say this, but when you can't deliver a 6 Mbps Netflix stream over cable, your network has major issues. I followed the longer thread, and note that several Comcast users asserted that only Netflix streaming was affected; but not Amazon, or Hulu, or others. So how was that a Comcast network issue? |
|
|
markf join:2008-01-24 Scarborough, ON |
to train_wreck
I'm not a Comcast customer, just an interested observer from the net neutrality perspective.
Obviously we don't know all of their peering agreements, but if it was just Netflix data coming through those links and nothing else, or as some other posters are saying, only Netflix data affected, then it's not a good sign for internet customers.
Using their speedtest isn't the most accurate if they're shaping traffic. |
|