dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7
share rss forum feed


Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
reply to EPS4

Re: Cable companies need to wake up

said by EPS4:

The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to? While I understand that DSL is also shared, it doesn't seem to have the same level limitations as DOCSIS 1.1 (which most of Comcast uses IIRC) that lead Comcast to think of capping.
Because capping has nothing to do with the line between the customer and the ISP; but the line between the ISP and other ISP's, which is an issue for every ISP regardless of how they deliver service to the customer.
--
I never though that we would end up here;
When fascism comes as an angel of light;
Its license parading as tyranny drives forth its son.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
said by Combat Chuck:

Because capping has nothing to do with the line between the customer and the ISP; but the line between the ISP and other ISP's, which is an issue for every ISP regardless of how they deliver service to the customer.
I don't know if I agree with that. Carrier bandwidth is the cheapest bandwidth you can buy; it's generally a small number of massive circuits with large commits so Internet bandwidth itself is dirt cheap. The DS1/DS3/OC3 circuits to feed the remote terminals, on the other hand, require buildout of the telco ATM cloud which is definitely not cheap bandwidth.

The costs are in the last mile, always have been.


factchecker

@cox.net
reply to Combat Chuck
said by Combat Chuck:

Because capping has nothing to do with the line between the customer and the ISP; but the line between the ISP and other ISP's, which is an issue for every ISP regardless of how they deliver service to the customer.
Chuck, you've got it backwards... Take it from someone who has worked/still works with enterprises that purchase transit bandwidth... Transit is the cheap bandwidth. Bandwidth for regional, long haul backbone and local access networks (last mile) are where the costs are for providers because they have to run fibre/coppper, install nodes/RTs, etc.

There is no transit and backbone level bandwidth shortage, it is entirely in the last mile.


Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
said by factchecker :

Chuck, you've got it backwards... Take it from someone who has worked/still works with enterprises that purchase transit bandwidth... Transit is the cheap bandwidth.
That's not what everyone was saying a couple years ago when the "invisible cap" originally hit.


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
Yes but with the rollout of docsis3, you can reach these caps faster than ever...costing you the consumer more than ever!

How Comcraptic!


Quaoar

join:2004-08-11
Fort Collins, CO
Docsis 3.0 is only viable for Comcast in DIRECT competition with FIOS or similar. Most of Comcast will never see Docsis 3.0 since Verizon overlaps Comcast in only very limited areas.

Q

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to S_engineer
As it should cost you more. If you are using that much bandwidth on a regular basis then you need to be paying for it. Plain and simple and now they are spelling out for you.


factchecker

@cox.net
reply to Combat Chuck
said by Combat Chuck:

said by factchecker :

Chuck, you've got it backwards... Take it from someone who has worked/still works with enterprises that purchase transit bandwidth... Transit is the cheap bandwidth.
That's not what everyone was saying a couple years ago when the "invisible cap" originally hit.
Well, most of "everyone" back then, like now too, probably have no idea of how transit bandwidth is purchased and priced.

Yes, transit WAS more expensive back when the "invisi-cap" sprang up, but that was partly because interfaces and hardware just for those transit circuits was more expensive (think about how much a router that could handle a dozen or two GigE or OC48 or OC192 interfaces cost back then compared to now). There also wasn't as much capacity on the backbone and access portions of the major carriers' networks that ISPs connect to as there is now (thanks to DWDM, etc.).

But if it was being said that transit costs were part of the reason for the "invisi-caps"... That would be true...

As for now, with most ISPs connecting to transit providers (or being their own transit providers) at, in most places, 1 and 10 Gbps, there definitely is not issue with transit. The problem is that the last mile is much harder to upgrade than a router card swap or installing a new router.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
So do we need this new policy at all? Maybe what we need -- all we need -- is something that addresses the uplink side?


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

As it should cost you more. If you are using that much bandwidth on a regular basis then you need to be paying for it. Plain and simple and now they are spelling out for you.
Maybe they should have spelled it out before. I don't know where you learned the English language from but where I grew up "unlimited" meant without limitations. An invisible cap on an "Unlimited" network constitutes breach of contract.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
reply to Quaoar
said by Quaoar:

Docsis 3.0 is only viable for Comcast in DIRECT competition with FIOS or similar.
Saying this more times doesn't make it any more true.

The big gains on DOCSIS 3.0 deployments are in enabling switch digital video, allowing greater channel density without further degrading quality from compression. That you can get additional HSI bandwidth is just a nice cherry on the package.

The reason FiOS is being deployed by Verizon is that they needed a plant overhaul to be able to get into the video services distribution business. HSI gains are, again, only a side benefit.

PS: Minneapolis is a Qwest/Embarq market, and we have DOCSIS 3.0

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:

said by Skippy25:

As it should cost you more. If you are using that much bandwidth on a regular basis then you need to be paying for it. Plain and simple and now they are spelling out for you.
Maybe they should have spelled it out before. I don't know where you learned the English language from but where I grew up "unlimited" meant without limitations. An invisible cap on an "Unlimited" network constitutes breach of contract.
Comcast doesn't use the word unlimited anywhere, what makes you think it is?

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to S_engineer
We can play all day with what the term unlimited means in respect to your connection and the ISP's obligation to you and YOUR obligation to the ISP.

Bottom line is, as been pointed out numerous times already, they do not use the term Unlimited and haven't for quite some time.

You want unlimited bandwidth to download all the crap you want, then pony up the cash and get it or stop the whining.


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

The reason FiOS is being deployed by Verizon is that they needed a plant overhaul to be able to get into the video services distribution business. HSI gains are, again, only a side benefit.
I don't get it. We (Internet subscribers) pay pretty big bills -- a good fraction of any double-play. Are we getting our share of the plant in return?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
said by funchords:

I don't get it. We (Internet subscribers) pay pretty big bills -- a good fraction of any double-play. Are we getting our share of the plant in return?
Not all services are created equal, even if they use the same amount of capacity on the plant. Video is largely identical downstream replication, and it's a gift that keeps on giving in terms of subscriber revenue *AND* advertising insert revenue. The engineering is less complex, there are no DoS attacks/worms/DMCA complaints/SPAM floods/etc in the video world. The capacity is fixed 24x7, making the infrastructure easy to plan for, and people are accustomed to paying premium rates for content.

Even though video services occupy the overwhelming majority of a cable system, what do you figure the ratio is for service calls on video vs data? My guess would be 1:10 for video:data.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
Good points, all of them.

It's been a breath-taking week -- and it's not over. The Network Neutrality news is snowballing.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:

The costs are in the last mile, always have been.
This held true even for POTS services. Recall how the price of long distance dropped like a stone after the AT&T divestiture while the price of local service has done nothing but increase. AT&T was using long distance revenue to subsidize the last mile and couldn't keep doing that once other players entered the long distance market.

How quickly we forget.