reply to rradina
Re: Just curious
By definition, that's A CAP. Uncapped means zero obstruction to using the full bandwidth of the system. If it's capable of 40, you can use all 40. If it's capable of 300, you can use all 300.
... isn't going to be exhausted by one user even if everyone is configured with 100Mbps capability.
If you don't think this is bad, or even possible, please stop by my office and I'll show you just how bad it can get thanks to ONE user! The *ONLY* thing that will put a limit in such a system is the speed of the remote side of the connection. (or connections) ISPs limit per user connection speeds and deploy queing methods to more evenly/fairly divide their finite bandwidth.
You misunderstood what I meant by removing the throttle. We're also both probably using the wrong term for CAP since that's usually associated with a quantity of bytes over a period of time and not the speed at which they are transferred.
If one user can jeopardize the system, there are deep, deep issues that go beyond what we can discuss here.
reply to cramer
Exactly. People used to uncap modems, and the cable companies cracked down on it, as if it became more widespread, it could have really screwed cable systems up... And yeah, one user could screw with a system if they were sucking the full bandwidth of all the channels.
But that's in the past, isn't it? Isn't all that stuff now controlled by the CMTS? (i.e. PowerBoost?) If so, that means there's no excuse, other than poor management, for one user to lay waste to the "system" (whatever that means). At worst they can impact a node but if properly managed, the CMTS should be able to use pretty basic algorithms to balance what's available across all the node's active users. I say let them have it all...unless, as I've been postulating, the last mile is, for the moment, capable enough that if they did this, the problem would reveal itself upstream.
Yes, Comcast does it farther upstream, but it's still a form of capping. It's necessary for a stable system.