dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
50
share rss forum feed


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

2 recommendations

reply to espaeth

Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges

It's news because a cable lobbyist admitted it, and it's a huge accomplishment that the opposition had so much proof the network congestion was a farce that they finally had to come clean and admit it.

Of course they just switched to a new argument, but that argument is even weaker in my opinion.


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

2 recommendations

said by MovieLover76:

it's a huge accomplishment that the opposition had so much proof the network congestion was a farce that they finally had to come clean and admit it.

Congestion would become very real and a very expensive problem to fix if all incentives to moderate usage and artificial speed bumps were removed while people are still expecting dedicated-like performance.

Building the network just to reach the customers is expensive but bulking up the network to sustain high concurrent usage at high speeds quickly gets expensive too.


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

Really? how do both cablevision and Verizon FiOS manage uncapped users, while also being two of the Fastest ISP's based on real life speed tests.

The lobbyist gave up the argument man, time to toss in the towel.



Joey1973

@verizon.net
reply to InvalidError

And there ya have it folks... some people still believe the old mantra about caps being an essential part of managing the "network".

No, caps are and have always been about PR and managing customers' perceptions about using the network. ("Don't use it! You might break it!")


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to MovieLover76

said by MovieLover76:

Really? how do both cablevision and Verizon FiOS manage uncapped users, while also being two of the Fastest ISP's based on real life speed tests.

Just because you can speedtest the highest speed does not mean the network behind those speeds could actually cope with a large percentage of subscribers using anywhere near those speeds at the same time.

guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

You Obviously know nothing about FIOS and that for all practical purposes Verizon IS a major backbone of the US internet.

Verizon could care less what its users send/receive as being a tier one provider, it costs the same for one bit or one trillion GB, they have no peering charges



Cinematech

@adelphia.net
reply to InvalidError

I am fortunate enough to live in an area with municipal broadband. I'm also fortunate enough to have been given an unrestricted access tour of the local NOC. Granted, the user base is only 15000 users, the lead network engineer reported that typical constant bandwidth usage during prime time stays around 50 MB. If everyone on their program suddenly decided to go hog wild, they would still have sufficient network overhead. Oh yeah, they only charge $35 for a 10 Meg, symmetrical fiber connection.



OSUGoose

join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH
reply to InvalidError

Yea but that cost comes down if you build a network that is reliable, more customers will subscribe.

Compare DSL and Cable, Where the DSL connection provided frequently has issues and throttles even youtube, yet the cable connection doesn't and provides a predictable consistent connection & speed regardless of content or time of day. The cost to provide the cable network will drop as there will be more rate payers to subsidize the costs for the installed network, while the DSL connection will degrade worse as there are less and less users to foot the costs. Now swap roles, and the argument remains.


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to guppy_fish

said by guppy_fish:

Verizon could care less what its users send/receive as being a tier one provider, it costs the same for one bit or one trillion GB, they have no peering charges

Peering charges have nothing to do with the stuff I was thinking about.

Unless Verizon can break the laws of physics, their costs would start increasing exponentially once they start having to stitch multiple 2M$ routers together to accommodate peak demand across network nodes. Having to do this at few strategic facilities is one thing but having to do it systematically network-wide would kick costs up a few notches.

The biggest single-chassis routers can handle about 5Tbps of non-blocking traffic. Once you need to go beyond that while maintaining close to non-blocking routing, things get a whole lot more expensive and that is definitely where Verizon or any other ISP with millions of subscribers would end up if everyone was trying to use 100+Mbps during peak hours, ignoring potential congestion at the DSLAM or node/CMTS level.

People keep saying that equipment gets cheaper but what they almost always neglect to mention is that density in routed Tbps/rack only doubles every ~5 years, which is much too slow to keep up with peak demand which increases by 50-60%/year which is about 10X over the same period. Since technological progress alone is insufficient to meet demand (about 5X too slow), how many identical switches or routers do you think you need to put together to double the capacity of a single one of the same while maintaining non-blocking performance? You need six of 'em... 2X the capacity = 6X the rack space using same-model equipment. The cost scaling is really horrible.

Not every ISP can afford (or is willing) to use the latest and biggest gear available so don't be surprised if there are more stories about smaller ISPs hitting their equipment's practical brick walls in the future or attempting to extract money from their transit providers to cover some upgrade costs.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by InvalidError:

Not every ISP can afford (or is willing) to use the latest and biggest gear available so don't be surprised if there are more stories about smaller ISPs hitting their equipment's practical brick walls in the future or attempting to extract money from their transit providers to cover some upgrade costs.

Then those ISPs can expect to go out of business. and extract money from their transit providers? Please stop making me laugh.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to OSUGoose

said by OSUGoose:

Compare DSL and Cable, Where the DSL connection provided frequently has issues and throttles even youtube, yet the cable connection doesn't and provides a predictable consistent connection & speed regardless of content or time of day. The cost to provide the cable network will drop as there will be more rate payers to subsidize the costs for the installed network, while the DSL connection will degrade worse as there are less and less users to foot the costs. Now swap roles, and the argument remains.

What you said is far from true everywhere. There are plenty of places where the opposite is true and *DSL networks run fine without congestion and cable nodes are congested to crap. It really depends on the company and how the network is managed and if the components are upgraded appropriately.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

Then those ISPs can expect to go out of business. and extract money from their transit providers? Please stop making me laugh.

Most incumbent ISPs have pretty close to an effective monopoly over their respective service areas so going out of business due to not upgrading is unlikely.

As for ISPs wanting to extract revenue from their transit providers, Comcast has tried it with Peer1 and Free is trying it on Google so there certainly are some who are tempted to test those waters. While the scheme may be upsetting for CDNs and transit providers, it actually has a handful of advantages if the ISPs' savings from it are passed down to their end-users, one of them being that it takes most capacity-related costs out of end-users' monthly fees... pay directly for physical access, pay indirectly for your actual usage.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by InvalidError:

Most incumbent ISPs have pretty close to an effective monopoly over their respective service areas so going out of business due to not upgrading is unlikely.

As for ISPs wanting to extract revenue from their transit providers, Comcast has tried it with Peer1 and Free is trying it on Google so there certainly are some who are tempted to test those waters. While the scheme may be upsetting for CDNs and transit providers, it actually has a handful of advantages if the ISPs' savings from it are passed down to their end-users, one of them being that it takes most capacity-related costs out of end-users' monthly fees... pay directly for physical access, pay indirectly for your actual usage.

I'm not saying it would on its own but its another nail in their coffin. ISPs in this situation are typically very small and are already struggling as it is.

Actually it is France Telecom/Orange and Google. The amount of money these very large ISPs are extracting from these companies is a drop in the bucket in the bigger picture and I'm very skeptical the ISPs will pass on any savings to the users. These companies never do anything that truly benefits the end user. If they were using the money to directly go towards doing network upgrades then I wouldn't be against this concept so much but that isn't the case. They just want another revenue stream and drag out doing network upgrades as much as possible.


OSUGoose

join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH
reply to 34764170

That's exactly what I was saying, but the same can be true if you reversed it.

Case in point here AT&T DSL is ok, yet Insight/RR is oversold.