how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | reply to funchords
Re: MORE! MORE! MORE! said by funchords:said by espaeth:Hey, someone who actually read the Comcast statement where they said they would become protocol agnostic in their bandwidth management in 9 months! Yeah, that's a prompt response -- seeing as how the AP story that busted this wide-open was only 6 months ago. If they were serious about fixing this, it wouldn't take 9 hours let alone 9 months. OH Great Topolski of BBR fame, emperor of Rome, Ruler of the Worlddddddd!
Whatare they suppose to do about BT protocol sucking up all the bandwith in the meantime. Just because they stop doesn't mean the problem goes away.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by caco:Whatare they suppose to do about BT protocol sucking up all the bandwith in the meantime. Just because they stop doesn't mean the problem goes away. I'm a ham-radio operator. I'm used to the concept of not using more power than I need to communicate effectively.
If I got a polite email from Comcast, asking me to help them curb a temporary neighborhood bandwidth crunch** for a few months, and showing me how to set my P2P client to 33% during prime-time hours -- I know that I'd comply.
There's only one reason that they didn't: it would make them look uncompetitive to Verizon.
Well, they got caught -- very publicly. So now there is no excuse.
Even if half of the P2P guys would not comply, the half that would should make a difference!
**In a recent NCTA interview, Comcast revealed that only 35% of its node splits require anything more than adding equipment at the headend (known as a virtual split). This means that they have the spare capacity in the neighborhoods. Instead of using it, they're creating a false sense of scarcity.
quote:
The return bandwidth is not on the worry list right now, for a bunch of reasons. For one, we’re splitting a lot of nodes based on the success of voice, high-speed Internet, and VOD. In other words, all based on downstream requirements, not upstream.
On HSD (high-speed data), I’m using two to three 3.2 MHz carriers (upstream). A lot more than that are sitting fallow in my CMTS cards. In most markets, I still have 12 MHz of bandwidth I can reclaim from circuit switched voice, once we migrate off of those platforms. So for now, the 5-42 MHz to me seems plenty adequate.
...
As we hit 70 percent utilization, we issue a work order to split the node. But it depends on utilization. Usually we set it to split to 250 homes. And for us, 65 percent of our node splits are really decoupling of nodes at the headend."
»www.cedmagazine.com/how-sexy-is-···nty.aspx
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. | |
| "If I got a polite email from Comcast, asking me to help them curb a temporary neighborhood bandwidth crunch** for a few months, and showing me how to set my P2P client to 33% during prime-time hours -- I know that I'd comply."
Very few would do this. After all they think it's their God given right to do anything now matter what with their connection. That or they would expect 10 years of credits. | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by battleop:After all they think it's their God given right to do anything now matter what with their connection. They should be able to do the things described in the FCC Policy: »hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···51A1.pdf
said by battleop:or they would expect 10 years of credits. If it's voluntary, it's voluntary. Any credits would be simply goodwill (and good customer-relations).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
FCC Public Hearing on the Future of the Internet - Thursday, April 17th - Stanford Univ., Calif. | |
|
