| But if the Network was so congested..... .....wouldn't we need to keep these 300 Mbps people from downloading so much?
Either the network is congested or it's not. If it's not, then there's not really any justification for the caps other than making money. |
|
| But those customers on the 305Mbps tier download SO FAST that they're only using the line 1% of the time! |
|
|
|
| But the number of GB is what matters to what travels over the network, not the speed. Sure, they're getting it faster.
But 250GB is 250GB, to use the old number. While it may move faster on a 305Mbps connection, it doesn't degrade the network any more.
Because of all the channels implemented to have this, the Comcast network is pretty strong now. It's stronger than any other cable ISP. There's little reason to cap now other than you can make money off it.
I really don't think they're going to enforce bandwidth overages at all in the Northeast. It's just too easy for anyone they start overcharging to leave for FiOS. This is what the AT&T and CenturyLink areas are going to suffer through. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to osravens
naturally network congestion is simply monetary congestion. It is why business customers also have no cap. they pay more.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to osravens
Easy: 305M is delivered over fiber, not coax. You aren't competing with other users for last-mile bandwidth, and since Comcast actually has a pretty strong backbone (and cheap too...people pay them for peering nowadays) they don't have to worry about contention on this kind of tier, where their deployment costs are dealt with thanks to the high initial ($500) and monthly ($300) prices. |
|
| So why not start migrating other customers over to the fiber and off the coax? |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Because Comcast can't get $500 from said customers for an installation, plus $300 per month  |
|
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| reply to osravens
said by osravens:But the number of GB is what matters to what travels over the network, not the speed. Sure, they're getting it faster.
But 250GB is 250GB, to use the old number. While it may move faster on a 305Mbps connection, it doesn't degrade the network any more. Umm, you've got this completely backwards. The number of bits does not really matter, but the bit-rate does matter. All things being equal, a customer with a higher peak bit-rate requires greater infrastructure investment than a customer with a lower peak bit-rate, even if they both move the same amount of bits in a billing cycle. The low bit-rate customer is less likely to interfere with his neighbors, hence less likely to compel the ISP to upgrade their infrastructure in order to deliver an acceptable level of service. |
|
jagged
join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL | the infrastructure investment and support requirements are already accounted for and included (amortized) into the price you now pay for internet service |
|
jagged
join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL | reply to Kearnstd
no, they pay more because of the 99.999% SLA guarantees business service comes with |
|
jagged
join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL | reply to iansltx
yet Google can provide 1Gps symmetrical for $70 per month not counting install costs |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to osravens
I agree with CrookShanks. Speed does matter. Some routers allow you to throttle certain services to a maximum bps. For instance, FTP or peer-to-peer protocols. If you have a 50Mbps line and you tell your router to throttle those protocols to 10Mbps, you can use them ALL DAY LONG at maximum speed and the rest of your access will never "feel" it. At the end of the day, you'll have downloaded may GB. Without throttling, you might download the same amount in 1/5 of the time but during that time, anything else you try to do is going to be all but unusable.
Hence, from a network impact perspective, it really is how fast and when and not how much. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to iansltx
If it's fiber, why the pitiful upload speed?
If they have fiber, I'm shocked that it's FTTH and not FTTC. Short run coax has tremendous bandwidth capabilities -- especially when it's dedicated to a single premises. Heck, I'd guess with the right engineering and hardware, 10Gbps over 600' runs wouldn't be out of the question.
I suppose it's better to run FTTH if there's no such gear but holy cow, it would be a lot cheaper to use that old coax for the last bit of distanceif the right gear was available. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to jagged
They don't have intermediate tiers, and they're doing everything as cheaply as humanly possible. Oh, and they can take an initial loss while things spin up, since access isn't their core business.
Don't get me wrong, Google Fiber is awesome. However it shouldn't be the benchmark to which every ISP in the world should be held accountable. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to rradina
At the distances we're talking (less than 1/3 of a mile) the cost to install fiber to one location isn't ridiculously huge anyway, as long as you've got aerial plant. Plus, Comcast provisions enough metroE circuits over fiber that their equipment there won't be too expensive either.
As for pitiful upload speeds, look at FiOS. Are they doing any better? |
|
 whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to osravens
said by osravens:But the number of GB is what matters to what travels over the network, not the speed. Sure, they're getting it faster.
This is actually the exact opposite. The time of downloading and fast download speeds matter more to congestion.
Not the actual amount of data downloaded. Someone maxing out their connection at 3 AM in the morning until 6 AM (downloading lets say 600 gigs) is causing less congestion than someone downloading at peak periods doing 250 gigs. |
|
whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:Easy: 305M is delivered over fiber, not coax. The articles still list DOCSIS as being used. I've yet to see a clear answer between the forum post claiming fiber and the articles claiming DOCSIS. |
|
| reply to rradina
said by rradina:If they have fiber, I'm shocked that it's FTTH and not FTTC. Short run coax has tremendous bandwidth capabilities -- especially when it's dedicated to a single premises. Heck, I'd guess with the right engineering and hardware, 10Gbps over 600' runs wouldn't be out of the question.
That's true. But they'd have to power the coax transmission gear both at the pole, and also at the side of the house. Why power two pieces of equipment when you can power just one?
Now, I am kind of shocked that they're willing to dig a trench to replace the underground drop to the house. Considering that this is already a limited deployment -- limited to houses within 1/3 mile of the node, with aerial infrastructure to the curb -- why not also limit eligibility to locations that have aerial drops to the house?
It's probably a consequence of the fact that this is designed to compete against FiOS. Since FiOS is willing to dig a trench, then so is Comcast. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to whfsdude
When in doubt, look at the forum posts |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to tanzam75
Could the CPE device provide power back to the pole device? Of course this assumes the device on/in the pole/pedestal is per customer. A multi-drop device powered by a one customer's equipment would kill all the drops if they go on vacation and unplug stuff.
I was reading through the thread in the Comcast forum that discussed the approach and one post claimed it might be also be DOCSIS, depending on the area. |
|
