dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
41
share rss forum feed


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2
reply to yyzlhr

Re: [The Call] So, I was on the phone with Rogers...

said by yyzlhr:

That is not true, if more and more people got on faster tiers, Rogers would need to upgrade capacity by doing more node splits etc which are time consuming and costly.

I submit this is a moot point. If Rogers is currently upgrading to 150/10 across the footprint then necessary upgrades have been done already. This fairytale "capacity" excuse has worn itself out.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
said by elitefx:

If Rogers is currently upgrading to 150/10 across the footprint then necessary upgrades have been done already.

No, they won't have been. That would be a big waste of money.

yyzlhr

join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON
kudos:4
reply to elitefx
said by elitefx:

said by yyzlhr:

That is not true, if more and more people got on faster tiers, Rogers would need to upgrade capacity by doing more node splits etc which are time consuming and costly.

I submit this is a moot point. If Rogers is currently upgrading to 150/10 across the footprint then necessary upgrades have been done already. This fairytale "capacity" excuse has worn itself out.

I think you're assuming that the Rogers network can handle every single customer uploading and downloading simultaneously at 150/10 speeds. That is simply not true. If every customer was using the internet at that speed, the network would simply buckle. Even Verizon FiOS cannot handle every single one of their customers uploading and downloading at full speed. Networks are designed under the assumption that only certain customers are going to saturate the network at such high speeds at certain times. If you open the gates for everyone to do that, the network would need significant upgrades to keep up.


J E F F
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Rogers Portable ..
But customers DON'T all download/upload at the same time.

And if they did....if they did....and IF Rogers could handle this, everyone would blow through their caps within a few hours...maybe 16 hours or so...that's assuming Rogers 1 TB cap on those profiles...half that time if capped at 500 GB.
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
said by J E F F:

But customers DON'T all download/upload at the same time.

And if they did....if they did....and IF Rogers could handle this, everyone would blow through their caps within a few hours...maybe 16 hours or so...that's assuming Rogers 1 TB cap on those profiles...half that time if capped at 500 GB.

No they don't. But at peak hours which is 7PM to 11PM or so is when the most downloading happens and that's when congestion is fairly common with cable nodes. Caps are irrelevant. It's not about the amount of traffic transferred, it's about the aggregate sum of all of the users on the cable node. You can't sell everyone a 150 Mbps connection when there is only 600 Mbps to go around. Nodes can pass upwards of hundreds of houses in a neighbourhood.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elitefx
said by elitefx:

said by yyzlhr:

That is not true, if more and more people got on faster tiers, Rogers would need to upgrade capacity by doing more node splits etc which are time consuming and costly.

I submit this is a moot point. If Rogers is currently upgrading to 150/10 across the footprint then necessary upgrades have been done already. This fairytale "capacity" excuse has worn itself out.

There is no excuse for traffic caps. There is a limit to how much capacity exists on each node in your neighbourhood. Upgrading to allow being able to service the 150 Mbps tier does not mean they can go out and sell that tier to everyone. All broadband is provisioned based on over-subscription typically around 10:1 or greater. Meaning the aggregate of all of the users in the neighbourhood is 10 times greater than the capacity at the node. The assumption is is that not everyone is using their connection at peak hours and not everyone is downloading full tilt for the users that are. The more they sell the higher speed tiers the greater the chance of having congestion as they're allowing more users the possibility to consume more of the capacity that is available.

.e.g. You can have a 25 Mbps user downloading 3TB a month and have no real impact per se with regard to congestion on the node; the user can only consume 25 Mbps of the capacity. You can have 10 150 Mbps users downloading at half their speed tier and they will cause congestion.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile
reply to 34764170
With 100+ houses passed on a cable segment today, the segments are overloaded, but we rarely feel that congestion. What continues to matter the most is the upstream. That has certainly improved on the 4 channel bonded upstream.

In general, once you exceed 10 Mbps, in normal internet browsing etc. we don't notice much the difference in speeds, so similarly, we won't see much in the way of mild congestion especially since we'll be hittiing the congestion limits of the path to the destination and the speeds of the hosts.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
said by sbrook:

With 100+ houses passed on a cable segment today, the segments are overloaded, but we rarely feel that congestion. What continues to matter the most is the upstream. That has certainly improved on the 4 channel bonded upstream.

That isn't 100% true. There are still nodes that Rogers has not split that do experience congestion and the upstream situation is still pretty pathetic even with the upgrades. Rogers cheaped out.