bobjohnson
Premium
join:2007-02-03
Titusville, FL | reply to Dogfather
Re: FAP and CAP
What is the issue with the biggest providers wanting to cap and such... I don't understand the reasoning behind it, didn't they say that 1% of their customers are causing the bandwidth issues.. |
|
gwbuffalo
join:2001-12-08
Mokena, IL
 ·Comcast
| said by bobjohnson  :What is the issue with the biggest providers wanting to cap and such... I don't understand the reasoning behind it, didn't they say that 1% of their customers are causing the bandwidth issues.. That's exactly the reason. It's 1% using a massive amount of bandwidth so the caps make the other 99% happy. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Then why FAP? Caps should be enough to keep those heavy users "under control". Or conversely, FAPping keeps the traffic flowing for non-heavy users at all times.
One or the other. Both aren't necessary for network management. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to bobjohnson
said by bobjohnson :What is the issue with the biggest providers wanting to cap and such... they would like to have metered broadband where we pay by the bit, but to do that they first are going to pretend there is a "bandwidth crunch". Because there is a "bandwidth crunch", it's necessary to do all these things to "save" bandwidth.
incidentally, this will also allow them to slow down upgrades, eventually making the "bandwidth crunch" a reality as their network fails to keep pace with demand.
implementing all these caps and throttles also sets them up for the next step - prioritizing their content over other content. Watch something on Hulu? that's gonna cost ya! on the other hand, you can get this other programming free from the comcast portal!
without competition, they do whatever they want. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :Then why FAP? Caps should be enough to keep those heavy users "under control". But until they hit their cap, they could make life miserable for other people on their local node and slow their uploads. And that is why there are caps and a QOS scheme as well.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :implementing all these caps and throttles also sets them up for the next step - prioritizing their content over other content. Watch something on Hulu? that's gonna cost ya! on the other hand, you can get this other programming free from the comcast portal! They won't do that because it will set off a firestorm of "network neutrality" issues with the FCC and others(including content providers).
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| reply to TKJunkMail
Then if they have a FAP, why cap? The FAP accomplishes by itself what they're claiming (their claims haven't been substantiated) is necessary.
IOW, if the goal is to insure fair access and smooth sailing for all users, the fair access policy by itself accomplishes that. But it doesn't matter. The corporate kissasses and cable shills will excuse anything Comcast does, whether justified or not. |
|
pspcrazy
Anime Freak
join:2008-02-06
San Diego, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TKJunkMail
Comcast just wants to spend less time upgrading their service and more time counting their cash. Sorry TK but this is just wrong no matter how I look at it.
I feel for you comcast users out there, you guys are truly worse off then the dsl users everywhere else. I'd suggest you switch since this means you'll be at dsl like speeds most of the time anyway.
To the comcast poster, i love how you AVOID all the bad posts and go for the 1 pro comcast post. Show's how you guy's handle customer feedback as well. Thanks for giving the finger to all the other feedback we give on here.
I did like comcast at one point, but that's all in the past now. |
|
bobjohnson
Premium
join:2007-02-03
Titusville, FL
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :said by bobjohnson :What is the issue with the biggest providers wanting to cap and such... they would like to have metered broadband where we pay by the bit, but to do that they first are going to pretend there is a "bandwidth crunch". Because there is a "bandwidth crunch", it's necessary to do all these things to "save" bandwidth. incidentally, this will also allow them to slow down upgrades, eventually making the "bandwidth crunch" a reality as their network fails to keep pace with demand. implementing all these caps and throttles also sets them up for the next step - prioritizing their content over other content. Watch something on Hulu? that's gonna cost ya! on the other hand, you can get this other programming free from the comcast portal! without competition, they do whatever they want. Ahh... That all makes sense...
--
Any unauthorized copying or distribution of the opinion above constitutes stupidity and you should probably be punished
|
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :Then if they have a FAP, why cap? The FAP accomplishes by itself what they're claiming (their claims haven't been substantiated) is necessary. The FAP takes care of point in time congestion concerns.
The CAP is still useful to make sure that people don't force the requeuing to constantly go into effect. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | That's irrelevant. The traffic shaping is always in effect. The only difference is who is traffic shaped and who isn't.
If you have a FAP, a cap is totally unjustified. |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | reply to pspcrazy
And you'd think with FiOS eating their lunch they'd want to retain customers! |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :That's irrelevant. The traffic shaping is always in effect. The only difference is who is traffic shaped and who isn't. First off, it's not really traffic shaping. If you're a heavy user and you get tagged into the best effort class, your traffic will only be impacted so much as light users are trying to get packets on the network. If you're a heavy user, the channel is getting busy enough to start to implement the tagging, but never actually reaches a point of saturation, there is no impact to anyone's traffic.
Second, this isn't in effect all the time. I suggest you re-read the technical details of the proposal; the requeuing only takes place when the channel reaches a near congested state. The overwhelming majority of the time there is no action taken at all by the system.
It's the solution for 2 distinct problems: reduce the impact by chronic heavy users (CAP), and reduce short term bottlenecks that can occur during times of peak demand (FAP). |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| That makes zero sense.
The FAP alleviates network traffic issues for casual users. If there is no congestion, then no cap is warranted. If there is network congestion, the FAP is all that is warranted.
IOW, the FAP reduces the impact of chronic heavy users if they're impacting other users and the FAP reduces the impact of extended use during periods of peak demand. The FAP is all that is needed. Caps are unjustified if you already have a fair access policy in effect. If chronic heavy users aren't affecting other users then it shouldn't be a concern. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to gwbuffalo
said by gwbuffalo :That's exactly the reason. It's 1% using a massive amount of bandwidth so the caps make the other 99% happy. Except that's a lie.
Some of these ISP's are saying 5GB is enough, or 20GB, or 40.
That's way more then 1% now, and it's going to be a lot nearer to 100% as video usage grows.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
not me 2
@comcast.net
| Agreed. Comcast is pushing their Fancast site a lot in the past few weeks. That's a site where you can see all sorts of shows from the various networks in high quality. If you have a number of members in your family it's very possible that you could cross the 250GB barrier if, say, you have a few teenagers that are into watching various TV shows off the site. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Who knows...Fancast may be magically excluded from their caps. This rush to caps has always been about defending their own video revenues (either things like Fancast or PPV VOD) from video competitors like Nextflix, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple. |
|
DJMASACRE
join:2008-05-27
Nepean, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to gwbuffalo
said by gwbuffalo :said by bobjohnson :What is the issue with the biggest providers wanting to cap and such... I don't understand the reasoning behind it, didn't they say that 1% of their customers are causing the bandwidth issues.. That's exactly the reason. It's 1% using a massive amount of bandwidth so the caps make the other 99% happy. Which, obviously, is bull.
dont be fooled by these companies. |
|
