 GameGuy369
join:2004-07-09 Olathe, KS clubs: | Eh Cant really see any reason anybody would disagree with this. As long as it really does only effect congested nodes where "managing" the heaviest user(s) bandwidth usage during that period of time, than who can really complain. | |
|
 |   funchords Hello Premium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Eh said by GameGuy369 :As long as it really does only effect congested nodes where "managing" the heaviest user(s) bandwidth usage during that period of time If the ISP is behaving irresponsibly, then another way to rephrase this is, "As long as it really does only effect grossly oversold nodes where 'managing' the customers merely using their service as advertised usage during that period of time"
... we need to be careful that "fairshare" doesn't become the cheap alternative for keeping up with network upgrades. I agree with Karl's assessment (based on reading the forums) that we haven't seen that with Comcast so far ... -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5 | |
|
 |  |   fishmaster Premium join:2004-10-08 Rockford, IL
·Comcast
·Insight Communicat..
1 edit | Re: Eh I dunno...maybe some folks are just confused over Comcast's craptacular regular service or the throttling.
This I know. In my neck of the woods we are lucky to see 2/3 rd of our rated speed with powerboost.
I know for a fact when uploading videos and such to a website I manage. I am lucky to see 1/3rd the rated speed. Then again most folks in my area don't know any better of what they should get verses what they are actually receiving. -- »www.freedombuild.net Browse A lot - Sign In Little - Post Even Less | |
|
 |  |  |  Mordhem Love it, Hate it.
join:2003-07-10 Baltimore, MD | Re: Eh Well that's unlucky for you! My comcast service has always been perfect! Mine is aways at speed but allot of the times I get speeds allot higher then what I am paying for. So you wont see my crying. | |
|
 |  Lazlow
join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO
| I think they need to be very careful with this. If it is only kicking in for a couple of hours a day, then I would agree that it is no big deal. But if it starts kicking in for six hours a day, that would indicate to me that there is a real congestion issue and they need to split the node. Keeping a close eye on that type of thing and determining how often it is kicking in is too often, will be the real test. | |
|
 |  sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24 Cleveland, OH
| Upgrading a single or a few nodes with increased bandwidth to handle congestion is a drop in the bucket to a company as large as Comcast. Employing any sort of traffic throttling is simply a way to allow a very profitable company to avoid having to spend money to provide the same quality of service to *all* its users.
In technology it's the heaviest and most prolific users who ride the wave of new tech and applications. They often tend to be early adopters and the ones who spend the most money (like on Comcast's highest bandwidth tiers). Any sort of throttling is bad for consumers as it stifles innovation on the application provider's end. | |
|
 |  |
 JSRoman Premium join:2005-03-10 Callahan, FL | "massive network nerd controversy "
Best choice of words I've seen in a long time. -- »www.seabee.navy.mil | |
|
 |  |
  jmn1207 Premium join:2000-07-19 Reston, VA | Interesting I'm suspicious of Verizon FiOS and the mysterious "fluff" introduced with their latest price increase...er...speed upgrade. | |
|
 |
 |  Skippy25
join:2000-09-13 Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Sandvine says Docsis 3 won't end need for traffic mgt Nah..... they are looking at caps with overage charges to keep people like you (corporate stock jockeys) happy.
So they are rolling out what is suppose to be the next great technology and yet still need a device that they implemented with last decades technology to make up for it's shortcomings?
I guess if this new great technology wasn't so good, it should of been skipped and they should of went right to the true next great technology - FIBER all the way to the consumer. That would make too much sense though. Why invest now for tomorrow when you can keep the "we want maximum profits and want them now short timers" happy by milking this cow until it falls over dead? | |
|
 |  iansltx
join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO | Funny how there's no mention of GPON in their bandwidth apocalypse. Why? Well, when you're dividing up 2.488 Gbps of capacity among 32 (at most) users you can run everyone at full throttle with no ill effects. | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |   espaeth Digital Plumber Premium,MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: Sandvine says Docsis 3 won't end need for traffic mgt said by iansltx :That's true, however once you've upgraded the edge to PON, you simply drop in faster electronics and you have 10G-PON and beyond. Sort of.
GPON to 10G-PON usually requires recharacterization and signal remediation because the allowable signal tolerances are different. The downstream is also shared across all of the ONTs on the segment, so to upgrade to 10GPON you either need to upgrade all the ONTs at the same time or break the 10G signal out into a different lambda and upgrade specific ONTs to using the new wavelength.
At a high level you're absolutely correct, but when you actually start working down into the details of implementation the required tasks make it cost a lot more than it would appear on the surface.
said by iansltx :On the backbone side, again all you need is electronics to get where you need to be. 100 Gbit WDM tech (per strand) should be along soonish, so the backbone won't be congested either. 100GigE Ethernet isn't due for ratification until sometime around Q2 2010, so I wouldn't expect to see product being widely available for that until probably around 2011. You also have to keep in mind that the major carriers have massive investments in existing WDM solutions that may not be 100G capable. (ie, there's still an insanely large deployment of Nortel Optera 5xxx hardware amongst carriers) | |
|
 bt
join:2009-02-26 canada | That's not possible! But it's not possible to do that! Bell Canada said so, and they wouldn't lie to us.
/sarcasm | |
|
 andyross
join:2003-05-04 Schaumburg, IL
| Reason for DCC's? I wonder if thew new version is responsible for the excessive number of Dynamic Channel Change (DCC) sent to my modem since mid June. I can get these as often as 5-6 minutes apart. They cause 10-15 second outages. That in turn causes Vonage to go out for 15-20 seconds, and my Citrix connection to work to time out for 30 seconds or more while it tries to reconnect.
Using DCC's is one way to balance and minimize load across multiple channels in D3 areas, but somebody needs to tell the programmers that changing channels is not instant! | |
|
 |
 |   major marco Res Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA clubs:
| Re: Docsis 3? said by ztmike :If a certain area is heavily congested and its not on D3..the logic to me would be to upgrade to Docsis 3 and split some nodes. Not "manage" peoples connection that they pay full price for. ISPs consider only those areas without a FiOS or U-Verse option to be "heavily congested." For some strange reason, only areas without competition need to be "managed" more.
/sarcasm -- The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
|
 |  |   ztmike Mark for moderation Premium join:2001-08-02 Michigan City, IN
·Comcast
| Re: Docsis 3? said by major marco :said by ztmike :If a certain area is heavily congested and its not on D3..the logic to me would be to upgrade to Docsis 3 and split some nodes. Not "manage" peoples connection that they pay full price for. ISPs consider only those areas without a FiOS or U-Verse option to be "heavily congested." For some strange reason, only areas without competition need to be "managed" more. /sarcasm I guess I can consider myself "lucky" so far. My area has been upgraded to Docsis 3 and my speed jumped from 6/2 to 12/2 for free..and I get my full speeds if the server I'm downloading from can even do it.
I don't live in a to big of an area..so that's probably why I get full speeds.
I just think its bullshit what Comcast is doing to its customers with traffic management and monthly bandwidth caps, then they don't even provide the bandwidth meter! lol
Until they get a "working" meter, they shouldn't have a cap. The customer shouldn't be the one to figure out how much bandwidth he/she uses. Or what Comcast itself goes by to be their "actual" numbers.
So far (in my eyes) Docsis 3 is nothing but marketing hype, and the fact that these ISP's that have Docsis 3 and still cap users just goes to show how much greed they have. | |
|
 |  |  |  sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24 Cleveland, OH | Re: Docsis 3? Why would you be willing to accept a cap even if they provided a meter? Caps don't make economical or technical sense. | |
|
 |  iansltx
join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO | DOCSIS 3 only has Nx38 Mbps of capacity, where N = 4 right now. Granted, that's better than 38 Mbps of capacity, but still nothing compared with *PON or AON. | |
|
 |  |
 |  |   ztmike Mark for moderation Premium join:2001-08-02 Michigan City, IN
·Comcast
| Re: Docsis 3? said by espaeth :said by ztmike :Why are they even doing traffic management? Isn't Docsis 3 suppose to solve most of these issues? Adding a lane to a freeway makes things better, but it doesn't necessary solve rush hour. The DOCSIS 3 plant is still oversubscribed, which means there is still always the possibility of congestion. This isn't something that's used to solve the problem of links being congested 50% of the time, this is for links congested 1% of the time or less. Then they need to split those nodes also. | |
|
  spanglo Premium join:2004-05-17 San Diego, CA | ? I wonder what their definition of a heavy user is? Or are they merely targeting the "heaviest" users on the node? And what if the node is oversubscribed to begin with? | |
|
 |  |
 |
 |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA | Re: What a crappy company! How is Sandvine limiting the Internet? And why are the such a bad company? They actually appear to be turning around and listening to their customers, which are sort of listening to their customers. | |
|
 |  |   r81984 Thread is Premium join:2001-11-14 St John'S, NL | Re: What a crappy company! They are in the business of limiting internet. If they are listening to end users then they would not be in business. -- For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! | |
|
 |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: What a crappy company! They are not limiting the Internet. A tool is only that...a tool. It's how the tool is used that maybe you take issue with. When end users start paying Sandvine for service, then they get a voice, until then, direct your "internet limiting" at the ISPs. FWIW, Comcast appears to be implementing Sandvine's technology with minimal to no noticeable impact to the end users so maybe they are listening  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: What a crappy company! said by r81984 :If they are not impacting users then the equipment is not working. Noticeable impact  said by r81984 : An ISP and sandvine do not have a right to say what traffic is more important than others that should be left up the end user. Sandvine isn't determining traffic priorities. Besides, with Comcast's implementation of Fairshare, priorities are left up to the end user. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24 Cleveland, OH
| Re: What a crappy company! No they're not. They're throttling users when a node is "congested" instead of simply splitting the node and providing more bandwidth. Any throttling tool will allow an ISP to skip one cycle of upgrading, but after that cycle they are forced to permanently use that tool even as they upgrade. It's a stopgap measure, and doesn't address the real issue of congestion. Only splitting the node will fully address the problem. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9
join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: What a crappy company! said by sonicmerlin :No they're not. Yes the are. From my understanding, Comcast's current implementation of Fairshare doesn't prioritize specific protocols over others. Therefore, the end user has control over protocol prioritization (at least through Comcast's network).said by sonicmerlin :Any throttling tool will allow an ISP to skip one cycle of upgrading, How did you determine this? Throttling schemas are used to manage peak congestion. Until the congestion is more than intermittently bursty, laying out resources to split nodes doesn't make sense. Having said that, the network engineers should monitor their networks and plan upgrades accordingly.said by sonicmerlin :but after that cycle they are forced to permanently use that tool even as they upgrade. Forced? More like ISPs choose to maintain tools that enable them manage their networks and minimize impacts as traffic eventually bursts to new bandwidth limits. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |   espaeth Digital Plumber Premium,MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by sonicmerlin :Any throttling tool will allow an ISP to skip one cycle of upgrading, but after that cycle they are forced to permanently use that tool even as they upgrade. It's a stopgap measure, and doesn't address the real issue of congestion. Only splitting the node will fully address the problem. So called "Fair Access Policies" such as those used by satellite internet providers are systems that allow for the elongation of upgrade cycles. Those systems have a limit at which a hard throttle kicks in that effectively limits the maximum number of bytes any particular user can put on the network.
Fairshare, by contrast, is a completely different system in that it's a prioritization scheme and not a throttle. Your priority on the network is inversely proportional to your amount of bandwidth demand; those who create the least amount of demand get the highest priority.
We're talking about scenarios where the circuit is filled to the point where there is congestion, and congestion usually affects every single connection on the wire. Say you're streaming a HD video which is running along but fills the shared pathway to capacity. When I pick up my phone to make a VoIP call, the extra traffic I add to the line creates a congested condition -- but the impact occurs to both of us. In that state some of my packets get dropped, some of your packets get dropped -- my VoIP call has unusable audio, your video maybe falls behind on buffering.
So if you are streaming video for an hour, and I want to make a 6 minute phone call, your traffic use over the hour was impacted 10% of the time, but my phone call was 100% impacted. FairShare is just a system to even out those odds. If my connection had higher priority than yours, 0% of my 6 minute VoIP call would be impacted, and you'd still have impact to 10% of the duration of your video stream. | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  |  See 9 replies to this post |
|
 |   SVC Investor
@bell.ca | hmmm
company with no debt, 90M in the bank, solid biz model...
do your research b4 you comment.
sure sounds like a crappy company! wake up and buy some stock. | |
|
 |  |  See 13 replies to this post |
|
 Zoness
join:2009-07-21 united state
| Blah Comcast is terrible company as it is I doubt the new system will really be fair. They have spread all over the country you would think they could manage a few upgrades but nah its easier just to throttle people. I'm so glad I am not with them anymore. In central Illinois I didn't really have the sandvine problem but they had terrible uptime after they acquired InsightBB's local setup and their support people knew nothing. | |
|
 tmc8080
join:2004-04-24 Floral Park, NY
| cable has no balls The cable companies do not want to compete with a dedicated bandwidth last mile network such as FTTP. This undermines their cable-tv business and phone business (phone, to a lesser extent). A 250Gb soft cap is primary proof that the biggest footprint cable company Comcast will not go toe to toe with Verizon's FTTP broadband network. Whatever they do now, they continue to prove that they are an inferior provider of broadband in a feeble attempt to protect a video(aka Cable-TV) revenue stream that's going to see a decline on the order of that seen by Plain Old Telephone Service providers. Due to this lack of competition in duopoly footprint, it begins to make broadband MORE expensive thus, in a way protecting for a little while longer, the cable revenue stream.
As cable companies see a mass exodus of customers, you will see more cable companies offering "ON DEMAND" channels streamed by packets. Cable companies will have no choice but to offer MORE for LESS again. Docsis 3 in and of itself IS NOT an evolution of a business model. The way the cable companies have deployed the service it's more like a circling of the wagons than competition. What is the result.. a clammoring for a 3rd party provider. | |
|
 |   IPPlanMan Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20 Washington, DC | Re: cable has no balls 100% spot on... | |
|
 |
|
 |