K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | reply to IPPlanMan
Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here A draft of an RFC disclosing what a lot of firms might regard as confidential data is pretty full disclosure.
Viewed from the perspective of a customer who cannot/will not be appeased, everything is inadequate disclosure. |
|
| said by K Patterson:A draft of an RFC disclosing what a lot of firms might regard as confidential data is pretty full disclosure. Viewed from the perspective of a customer who cannot/will not be appeased, everything is inadequate disclosure. I believe a lot of that disclosure has to do with the settlement with the FL AG and the FCC and not about "listening to customers" as the FAQ says.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
 IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
2 edits | reply to K Patterson
I think it's great that Comcast is disclosing this. As JL said, unless I am misunderstanding, the 250GB cap has nothing to due with addressing congestion. Thank you for clarifying that.
So I am left asking what problem is an excessive use policy with a 250GB cap trying to address if it's not congestion.
There has not been full disclosure on the purpose of the 250GB cap.
I have my own theories...
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army |
|
IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | reply to sturmvogel
Agreed 100% |
|
K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | reply to IPPlanMan
The new publication deals with one topic having to do with a small part of the system.
The 250GB cap has an obvious purpose - to reduce the need to expand their network. Some of you may recall that when this subject started a couple of years ago, i was the voice in the wilderness crying "the last thing you really want is a stated cap".
I lost. And now you who won and got the cap view yourself as having lost.
I don't use Comcast, it's not available. I use TW, but the arguments are the same. I have no desire to have them hire more competent reps because there time will still be taken up by simple problems and so-called experts criticizing them them.
And I also don't want to pay more money so folks can download large amounts of data. If you have big needs, pay big money. I shouldn't have to. |
|
IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
4 edits | Reduce the need to expand the network? What does that mean?
Comcast is rolling out Docsis 3. Why does it have the exact same 250GB cap as before?
What do competent reps have to do with a cap? Am I missing something?
What has now been confirmed is that the cap doesn't address congestion.
If there's not a congestion problem because of the traffic control system, then why are you concerned? What negative effect are you implying?
Would you support a metered billing system: you don't want to pay for the usage of others.
And why doesn't Fios have this issue?
Why doesn't DSL have this issue? (Sturm did the math on running a 1MB connection 24/7.... Verizon can handle that for about 20 dollars a month. Compare that to Comcast's economy plan which costs the same and has the 250GB cap.)
Why doesn't cablevision have this issue?
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army |
|
2 edits | As I understand it, Comcast must purchase bandwidth from their peers (such as Level3 and Cogent). My guess is that they buy 250gb x # of subscribers. If everyone went over, their would probably be a large cost, if they can "kick" people for going over the bandwidth cap, they can save money. There are probably other reasons.
This doesn't explain why Verizon doesn't have caps, but they are willing to spend a lot more money than comcast (as shown by FiOS costing tens of billions of dollars).
I think that the cap should be something like: "15% of the total amount of bandwidth you could use in a month"
i.e.
50/10 Mb/s tier would get: 2.5 TB
22/5 Mb/s tier would get: 1 TB
16/2 Mb/s tier would get: .75 TB
12/2 Mb/s tier would get: .5 TB
8/2 Mb/s tier would get: .35 TB
6/1 Mb/s tier would get: .25 TB
That seems like a fair distribution to me  |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
1 edit | reply to sturmvogel
said by sturmvogel:I believe a lot of that disclosure has to do with the settlement with the FL AG and the FCC and not about "listening to customers" as the FAQ says. Sturm,
It's very important that users take note that this is not a consumer disclosure made at the threat of government regulation, this is a open and voluntary submission to the Internet Engineering Task Force. This the exactly the kind of thing that the Internet community wants to see. It's open disclosure, cooperative, open to critique and constructive suggestions, and it's an important part about how the worldwide Internet agrees to work together.
I salute the move. I probably won't like everything about the draft, but I don't criticize submitting the Internet Draft itself -- this is how Internet Governance works.
--
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 |
|
|
|
IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
2 edits | reply to nate1234
Does Verizon have a more efficient cost structure than Comcast with respect to Internet or are there other factors?
Given that the purpose of the cap is not about addressing congestion, Is the capacity (cap/usability) difference between Verizon's DSL/Fios and Comcast's cable internet due to infrastructure (Docsis) limitations as has been said before or is it more about the cost of doing business?
Is Verizon going to go broke doing what they do or they have a competitve advantage over Comcast? If so, what is it?
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army |
|
1 edit | I think that verizon is willing to spend money on infrastructure, and not make as much money, whereas comcast is trying to milk all that they can out of their current cable lines and system, and make tons of money.
Verizon does have a competitive advantage, their network capacity is MUCH greater, and they can offer people more and more speed in the future. For now, comcast is limited to 160 Mb/s. |
|
| reply to IPPlanMan
Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here said by IPPlanMan:Does Verizon have a more efficient cost structure than Comcast with respect to Internet or are there other factors? I wouldn't say that. Fiber has a longer lifespan than HFC, but right now it is more marketing as DOCSIS3/HFC can deliver the service needed as well as FTTH can. The cost to deliver FTTH is very high and the ROI for Verizon is probably a few years / sub. That said, they had to do something as twisted pair was not going to cut it. Also, Comcast is FTTN and could go FTTH cheaper than VZ, but the reality is it is not needed... yet.
FiOS is in early customer acquisition mode and I expect they would not rule out having a cap or threshold as there is a point where a residential user consuming 250G+ starts costing more than their monthly bill brings in. This is known as a "loss leader".
said by IPPlanMan:Given that the purpose of the cap is not about addressing congestion, Is the capacity (cap/usability) difference between Verizon's DSL/Fios and Comcast's cable internet due to infrastructure (Docsis) limitations as has been said before or is it more about the cost of doing business? As said before, it is about the cost of doing business and a diferentiator from residential speed and commercial usage. To VZ, customer numbers and the marketing around this is worth the competitive edge, even at a loss. (IMO)
said by IPPlanMan:Is Verizon going to go broke doing what they do or they have a competitive advantage over Comcast? If so, what is it? No. They have a lucrative wireless income and subsidize one line of business with another. |
|
 koshoka
join:2006-12-01
Pottsville, PA | reply to nate1234
Verizion is losing money hand over fist on FiOS. It's estimated that they *lose* $769 on each FiOS customer. They expect to burn through something like $6 billion.
--
*******
Disclaimer: I am a Comcast employee. Any statements are my own and should not be construed as official Comcast communications. |
|
IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
4 edits | reply to yt
Interesting...
Does bandwidth on Fios or dsl cost less than bandwidth on cable? People have been talking about the technical limits of dsl. Now I think we've seen the money limits of cable instead of the technical limits. Would money limits explain why the cap is the same regardless of provisioned speed, even on the Docsis 3.0 tiers. Any thoughts?
Is Comcast able to subsidize with its cable tv service in the same way? |
|
| said by IPPlanMan:Interesting... Is Comcast able to subsidize with its cable tv service in the same way? Given the costs of programing, I think TV has lower margins.
Another example is when a store has a sale (e.g. day after Thanksgiving), they subsidize this off the non-sale items most people buy. |
|
4 edits | reply to nate1234
said by nate1234:I think that verizon is willing to spend money on infrastructure, and not make as much money, whereas comcast is trying to milk all that they can out of their current cable lines and system, and make tons of money. Good rhetoric, but not very accurate. The reality is they both spend a lot on infrastructure every year. Telco "milked" about a hundred years out of their twisted pair infrastructure before going to FTTH (to compete with cable). Cable's HFC is only about ~10-15 years old and as they move to all-digitial, they have enough capacity for the near future (at current usage and speed growth profiles). Going from FTTN to FTTH is the next logical step when needed.
said by nate1234:Verizon does have a competitive advantage, their network capacity is MUCH greater, and they can offer people more and more speed in the future. For now, comcast is limited to 160 Mb/s. A few points on this
• While "who has the bigger pipe" is fun to talk about here. The reality is the market (i.e. need) for these speeds today to the home is very, very small. The competitive advantage is more how many homes do you serve and can you keep that customer base with quality service.
• The network is more than just the last mile. Given Comcast's customer base, I expect beyond the last mile, Comcast has larger network capacity than Verizon in their metro and core. Comcast was the first Nx40G infrastructure (2 years ago) and pushed 100G and IPv6 technology more than most of the telcos. |
|
4 edits | reply to yt
Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here Lets hope comcast goes FTTH soon
Comcast could do gigabit Ethernet to the last mile (well, it probably wouldn't even be a mile), From the node to the houses.
On another note... my local node is busted (EDIT: misconfigured), and comcast wont fix it until they replace my: modem, splitter, crimps, and drop  (their just cheap... my internet has been out for almost a week now, and my EMTA is barley working... 58dBmV upstream)
Well, they came and ran a temp line. My upstream signal went from 58dBmV to 50dBmV, still not too great. My downstream signal and SNR are unchanged |
|
K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | reply to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan:Reduce the need to expand the network? What does that mean? if you limit the amount of traffic you limit the amount of money you have to spend on system expansion.
said by IPPlanMan:Comcast is rolling out Docsis 3. Why does it have the exact same 250GB cap as before? Comcast's choice.
said by IPPlanMan:What do competent reps have to do with a cap? Am I missing something? Nothing. I started a thought and didn't finish it.
said by IPPlanMan:What has now been confirmed is that the cap doesn't address congestion. Not so. Shat has been confirmed is that the cap is unrelated to Comcast's method of controlling congestion on individual upstream and downstream channels
said by IPPlanMan:If there's not a congestion problem because of the traffic control system, then why are you concerned? What negative effect are you implying? The traffic control system only controls one part of the system.
said by IPPlanMan:Would you support a metered billing system: you don't want to pay for the usage of others. Yes.
said by IPPlanMan:And why doesn't Fios have this issue? Why doesn't DSL have this issue? (Sturm did the math on running a 1MB connection 24/7.... Verizon can handle that for about 20 dollars a month. Compare that to Comcast's economy plan which costs the same and has the 250GB cap.) Why doesn't cablevision have this issue? They all have the problem in that subscribers that generate more thaffic incur more expenses for the company. All the terms that I have seen include prohibitions against actions that impact negatively on the network. |
|
| Ars Technica has a good article on congestion and speed:
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···slow.ars
"Why you'll never see 200Mbps from a 200Mbps 'Net connection" |
|
