nasadude

join:2001-10-05

Rockville, MD nasadude Member our competitive market well, the march backwards starts Oct. 1.



caps beat the hell out of capex to add capacity don't they?



wonder how much Robert's bonus will be for the period beginning Oct. 1?



TilhasBB

Premium Member

join:2000-08-05

canada 2 edits TilhasBB Premium Member Re: our competitive market 250GB is so bad. Right now its okay but not for long when HD Youtube and such goes live. Once inforced I dont think they will ever up it.



djrobx

Premium Member

join:2000-05-31

Valencia, CA djrobx Premium Member Re: our competitive market said by TilhasBB:



250GB is so bad. Right now its okay but not for long when HD Youtube and such goes live. Once inforced I dont think they will ever up it.

250GB is so bad. Right now its okay but not for long when HD Youtube and such goes live. Once inforced I dont think they will ever up it. lot better than the 20GB cap Time Warner is "testing" on their Standard customers in Beaumont. It's abetter than the 20GB cap Time Warner is "testing" on their Standard customers in Beaumont.



funchords

Hello

MVM

join:2001-03-11

Yarmouth Port, MA funchords MVM Re: our competitive market said by djrobx:



It's a lot better than the 20GB cap Time Warner is "testing" on their Standard customers in Beaumont. It's abetter than the 20GB cap Time Warner is "testing" on their Standard customers in Beaumont.



on the other hand, Comcast never competes with Time Warner. On one hand, Comcast has a new ad slogan opportunity ... "Well, we're not as bad as Time Warner" ...on the other hand, Comcastcompetes with Time Warner.



Rob

Premium Member

join:2001-08-25

Miami, FL Rob Premium Member Re: our competitive market said by funchords:



said by djrobx:



It's a lot better than the 20GB cap Time Warner is "testing" on their Standard customers in Beaumont. It's abetter than the 20GB cap Time Warner is "testing" on their Standard customers in Beaumont. never competes with Time Warner.

on the other hand, Comcastcompetes with Time Warner. Right. They could have just made it 20GB and called it a day, instead they made it a reasonable 250GB.



N10Cities

Premium Member

join:2002-05-07

0000000 N10Cities Premium Member Re: our competitive market A lot higher than Cox's 60 GB cap on Premier Tier, although they RARELY enforce it....



Dreadan

join:2005-11-15

Argonne, WI Dreadan Member Re: our competitive market I'll trade my 5gb frontier cap for the 250



Iria

@good.com Iria Anon Re: our competitive market Yah, I was thinking of the Frontier cap ...



funchords

Hello

MVM

join:2001-03-11

Yarmouth Port, MA funchords to Rob

MVM to Rob

said by Rob: said by funchords: said by djrobx:



It's a lot better than the 20GB cap Time Warner is "testing" on their Standard customers in Beaumont. It's abetter than the 20GB cap Time Warner is "testing" on their Standard customers in Beaumont. never competes with Time Warner.

on the other hand, Comcastcompetes with Time Warner.

Right. They could have just made it 20GB and called it a day, instead they made it a reasonable 250GB.



But my gut so far tells me that today this DL Cap is somewhere in the neighborhood of "fair enough." The break-even point could be about 150-350 GB (such a wide range because much of the cost is in infrastructure).



I still don't think customers want caps -- so Comcast has disappointed today. But if they insist on having them, disclosing them is the right thing to do. At this point in the day, we only have Karl's insider's information to go on. We don't know if upload is included, nor if the cap will increase regularly.But my gut so far tells me that today this DL Cap is somewhere in the neighborhood of "fair enough." The break-even point could be about 150-350 GB (such a wide range because much of the cost is in infrastructure).I still don't think customers want caps -- so Comcast has disappointed today. But if they insist on having them, disclosing them is the right thing to do.



Rob

Premium Member

join:2001-08-25

Miami, FL Rob Premium Member Re: our competitive market said by funchords:



At this point in the day, we only have Karl's insider's information to go on. We don't know if upload is included, nor if the cap will increase regularly.



But my gut so far tells me that today this DL Cap is somewhere in the neighborhood of "fair enough." The break-even point could be about 150-350 GB (such a wide range because much of the cost is in infrastructure).



I still don't think customers want caps -- so Comcast has disappointed today. But if they insist on having them, disclosing them is the right thing to do.

At this point in the day, we only have Karl's insider's information to go on. We don't know if upload is included, nor if the cap will increase regularly.But my gut so far tells me that today this DL Cap is somewhere in the neighborhood of "fair enough." The break-even point could be about 150-350 GB (such a wide range because much of the cost is in infrastructure).I still don't think customers want caps -- so Comcast has disappointed today. But if they insist on having them, disclosing them is the right thing to do. Can't have your cake and eat it too Robb.



funchords

Hello

MVM

join:2001-03-11

Yarmouth Port, MA 1 edit funchords MVM Re: our competitive market said by Rob:



Can't have your cake and eat it too Robb.

Can't have your cake and eat it too Robb.



I can watch unlimited OnDemand movies. That takes bandwidth. If everyone on my block did it, each choosing different movies, we could very well recreate similar cost-of-service (upgrade) situations on the non-HSI that Comcast faces on the HSI side.



So I can have my cake and eat it too, no? That's an old saying, but what does it mean?I can watch unlimited OnDemand movies. That takes bandwidth. If everyone on my block did it, each choosing different movies, we could very well recreate similar cost-of-service (upgrade) situations on the non-HSI that Comcast faces on the HSI side.So I can have my cake and eat it too, no?



miscDude

@208.17.34.x miscDude Anon Re: our competitive market Actually, your comparison is flawed for a couple reasons.



1. The major costs for an ISP are not always the raw bandwidth of their network, but the interconnect fees and uplinks with the rest of the internet.



2. VOD content is stored on a VOD cluster at your local headend. Internet data is...well.. on the internet. VOD goes from the cluster straight to RF to be broadcast on a VOD RF video channel. Internet data is a lot more shared.



3. Depending on the way your local node is setup, if everybody on your block was watching VOD at the same time, you could get an error because there is not another Video channel to put the new content on.



Data services and video services on a cable plant work a lot differently. Even on the backbone side of their network, a cableco may have a 100gig fiber link connecting all the systems within their area, but that link carries all their traffic, from video, to phone, to internet...and even their internal network traffic. The video feeds are going to be sent multicast to the different headends, so you are looking at 1 feed per channel for every system. Phone does take much space on their network. Internet however you are looking at....in theory... 1 stream per customer. The internet traffic is going to obviously be taking up a lot more traffic as a whole on their network than any other catagory of traffic when you look at it.



Even if you break it down per customer or per account, You use more bandwith on their network with your HSI, even if you just check your email and BBR several times a day, than you do for your TV service. (Figure even a HD channel running at 19mbps, multicast across their video backbone to every system in the area, and then given a dedicated RF video channel.... if you divide that bandwith across the 100,000+ customers in just your area, it's virtually nothing.)



Now I'm not going to say I'm for or against caps. I haven't honestly paid enough attention to the debate to be able to make a decision... but from the big network management side of things, I can see a need to have some sort of management practice in place in order to be able to manage the network....or even just to plan capacity upgrades. Obviously you can't lay down and turn up new fiber overnight, so I can see an advantage to having some manageable numbers available to help with the planning of capacity upgrades. (and 250gb is definately better than the much smaller numbers other ISP's have given us... and it's better in my opinion to know the limit than for them to keep the numbers hidden.)



funchords

Hello

MVM

join:2001-03-11

Yarmouth Port, MA funchords MVM Re: our competitive market said by miscDude :



1. The major costs for an ISP are not always the raw bandwidth of their network, but the interconnect fees and uplinks with the rest of the internet.



2. VOD content is stored on a VOD cluster at your local headend. Internet data is...well.. on the internet. VOD goes from the cluster straight to RF to be broadcast on a VOD RF video channel. Internet data is a lot more shared.



3. Depending on the way your local node is setup, if everybody on your block was watching VOD at the same time, you could get an error because there is not another Video channel to put the new content on. #1 is true for the TV side as well. The content comes from somewhere, and although we might have to make one step down away from the 3rd-part aggregation point in order to make my comparison, there are one-time and ongoing costs for interconnecting these things even within the same metro area.



#2 -- to RF, really? It's not sent to my box digitally and converted into RF there?



#3 and this is really the rough comparison I'm making -- both systems are (roughly) similarly subject to usage saturation. But we're making "hogs" out of the users who don't watch Comcast video products.



All in all, I agree with the gist of your message, though.



Part of Network Management is not selling more than you can reasonably expect to deliver. By putting in a cap, Comcast is saying that it can only deliver X. Now, they could rearrange things and avoid naming a cap, but doing so would expose Comcast to some competitive truths it would rather customers not know -- such as DSL may not be as fast second-by-second, but overall the Tortoise beats the Hare. You should be a member. We need informed people like you on this system. I could give you a "thumbs up" if you were a member.#1 is true for the TV side as well. The content comes from somewhere, and although we might have to make one step down away from the 3rd-part aggregation point in order to make my comparison, there are one-time and ongoing costs for interconnecting these things even within the same metro area.#2 -- to RF, really? It's not sent to my box digitally and converted into RF there?#3 and this is really the rough comparison I'm making -- both systems are (roughly) similarly subject to usage saturation. But we're making "hogs" out of the users who don't watch Comcast video products.All in all, I agree with the gist of your message, though.Part of Network Management is not selling more than you can reasonably expect to deliver. By putting in a cap, Comcast is saying that it can only deliver X. Now, they could rearrange things and avoid naming a cap, but doing so would expose Comcast to some competitive truths it would rather customers not know -- such as DSL may not be as fast second-by-second, but overall the Tortoise beats the Hare.



djrobx

Premium Member

join:2000-05-31

Valencia, CA djrobx Premium Member Re: our competitive market Cable VOD works by dynamically creating a QAM channel, typically unencrypted. You can sometimes find shows your neighbors are watching if you do a channel scan. Of course, if they pause the show to go to the bathroom, you're pausing too.



skuv

@rr.com skuv to funchords

Anon to funchords

said by funchords:



#2 -- to RF, really? It's not sent to my box digitally and converted into RF there?

#2 -- to RF, really? It's not sent to my box digitally and converted into RF there?



VOD is just another channel on a QAM over RF. It will be combined with other channels, just as digital channel delivery occurs now over QAMs.



SDV is the same way, your set top box requests a channel and it is built on an IP Multicast network, but in the end, it is a channel riding on a QAM over RF to you.



Sometimes, depending on the cable company, if you have a TV that has a QAM tuner, and you auto-tune channels, you can pick up VOD streams that are currently playing while you were auto-tuning. If the cable company is not encrypting the feed to the cable box. Yes, the only thing that can get to current generation digital set top boxes is RF over the coax.VOD is just another channel on a QAM over RF. It will be combined with other channels, just as digital channel delivery occurs now over QAMs.SDV is the same way, your set top box requests a channel and it is built on an IP Multicast network, but in the end, it is a channel riding on a QAM over RF to you.Sometimes, depending on the cable company, if you have a TV that has a QAM tuner, and you auto-tune channels, you can pick up VOD streams that are currently playing while you were auto-tuning. If the cable company is not encrypting the feed to the cable box.



funchords

Hello

MVM

join:2001-03-11

Yarmouth Port, MA funchords MVM Re: our competitive market No, I get that. I thought it was saying in #2 that the signal is sent as analog. (Mentally, I was interpreting the word RF as "analog signal.")



miscDude

@208.17.34.x miscDude to funchords

Anon to funchords

said by funchords:



#1 is true for the TV side as well. The content comes from somewhere, and although we might have to make one step down away from the 3rd-part aggregation point in order to make my comparison, there are one-time and ongoing costs for interconnecting these things even within the same metro area.



#2 -- to RF, really? It's not sent to my box digitally and converted into RF there?



#3 and this is really the rough comparison I'm making -- both systems are (roughly) similarly subject to usage saturation. But we're making "hogs" out of the users who don't watch Comcast video products.

#1 is true for the TV side as well. The content comes from somewhere, and although we might have to make one step down away from the 3rd-part aggregation point in order to make my comparison, there are one-time and ongoing costs for interconnecting these things even within the same metro area.#2 -- to RF, really? It's not sent to my box digitally and converted into RF there?#3 and this is really the rough comparison I'm making -- both systems are (roughly) similarly subject to usage saturation. But we're making "hogs" out of the users who don't watch Comcast video products.



#2 As others already pointed out, It's sent via QAM digitally, but QAM works different from DOCSIS for your data.



#3 The big differences "last mile" between your VOD and data is the way the system reacts. With VOD if the capacity is maxed you just get an error that basically says "No available resources" (channels) when trying to set up the actual video session. Beyond that, what other people are watching on their VOD stream isn't going to effect your VOD stream's performance. The actual QAM can't/won't let any streams be created to max it's available output bandwidth. In theory, it's also a bit easier to add capacity on the RF side because you could throw an extra QAM anyplace you have the available bandwitdth on the plant.



With a cable modem, things work differently. First off, pretty much everybody is talking at the same time. Your 2 places to control the speed are at the modem itself (what it's provisioned/capped at), and at the CMTS node equiptment. Unlike a video stream with will take the available bandwidth and basically reserve X amount of bandwith for the stream and is the only thing broadcasting on that frequency, with a cable modem you have many different devices broadcasting basically sharing the big pipe. What your neighbor is doing, can actually effect your performance. (say your neighbor uncaps his cable modem so it no longer has the speed governor that the provisioning caps are there for). It's actually possible in theory to bring everybody's feed to a standstill if you have too many devices trying to talk at once or have a couple uncapped modems just shotgunning out data without respect for the "rules of the road" and sharing the connection. (I believe modems may use a time-sharing mechanism like settop boxes do to help avoid overtalk..but I'm not certain). On top of that, it's not as easy to add capacity. Cable-modems' tuners don't have the frequency range that a video settop box has. this limits the available RF space you can stick the downstream. their transmitters are also limited in their frequency range. So this means to just plug in additional capacity, you may have to do a lot of shuffling of services on the RF...and that becomes a pain in the ass when you factor in FCC rules on notification. The other, more widely used route is to do a node split. Basically, you split the areas on the plant being fed by the CMTS at the node so you can basically create a new node. This requires physical work because you need the new equiptment for the node, plus you need to do some rewireing work to basically cut the existing node in half RF wise so you don't end up with cross-talk and end up breaking everything.



Once nice thing with DOCSIS 3 coming up is the fact that thru the channel bonding it makes it easier to enlarge the pipe. Everybody looks at it as a way to increase their upload/download speeds, but if you think about the way everybody shares the existing pipe, If you enlarge that pipe but keep the existing speed caps, you are still going to get an effective speed increase during those peak times. Even though it probably won't happened because of marketting, currently during peak times EVERYBODY may slow down a bit..or a lot... if you increase the size of the pipe, more data can get thru allowing everybody to stay at their top speeds even during those peak times.



Think of it like highway traffic. We've all been in situations where they close a lane or something and traffic slows dramatically for everybody. We may have quick bursts up to a high speed, but we can't average anywhere near the speed limit. Then suddenly a lane opens back up, and the traffic spreads out and increases speed. Even if we aren't going above the speed limit like we may do during those off-peak times on the road, we are going much closer to the speedlimit and ultimately are averaging a higher speed than we were before just because there is more capacity.



Make sense? #1 If you are refering to the costs for the content, that's where your TV rates go. Depending upon the size of the MSO, your interconnect fees (to get the content) could be handled at the system level, the region level, division, or corporate. It all depends where they stick the dish. The ongoing fees are the XX amount per subscriber fees that your tv rates go to pay.#2 As others already pointed out, It's sent via QAM digitally, but QAM works different from DOCSIS for your data.#3 The big differences "last mile" between your VOD and data is the way the system reacts. With VOD if the capacity is maxed you just get an error that basically says "No available resources" (channels) when trying to set up the actual video session. Beyond that, what other people are watching on their VOD stream isn't going to effect your VOD stream's performance. The actual QAM can't/won't let any streams be created to max it's available output bandwidth. In theory, it's also a bit easier to add capacity on the RF side because you could throw an extra QAM anyplace you have the available bandwitdth on the plant.With a cable modem, things work differently. First off, pretty much everybody is talking at the same time. Your 2 places to control the speed are at the modem itself (what it's provisioned/capped at), and at the CMTS node equiptment. Unlike a video stream with will take the available bandwidth and basically reserve X amount of bandwith for the stream and is the only thing broadcasting on that frequency, with a cable modem you have many different devices broadcasting basically sharing the big pipe. What your neighbor is doing, can actually effect your performance. (say your neighbor uncaps his cable modem so it no longer has the speed governor that the provisioning caps are there for). It's actually possible in theory to bring everybody's feed to a standstill if you have too many devices trying to talk at once or have a couple uncapped modems just shotgunning out data without respect for the "rules of the road" and sharing the connection. (I believe modems may use a time-sharing mechanism like settop boxes do to help avoid overtalk..but I'm not certain). On top of that, it's not as easy to add capacity. Cable-modems' tuners don't have the frequency range that a video settop box has. this limits the available RF space you can stick the downstream. their transmitters are also limited in their frequency range. So this means to just plug in additional capacity, you may have to do a lot of shuffling of services on the RF...and that becomes a pain in the ass when you factor in FCC rules on notification. The other, more widely used route is to do a node split. Basically, you split the areas on the plant being fed by the CMTS at the node so you can basically create a new node. This requires physical work because you need the new equiptment for the node, plus you need to do some rewireing work to basically cut the existing node in half RF wise so you don't end up with cross-talk and end up breaking everything.Once nice thing with DOCSIS 3 coming up is the fact that thru the channel bonding it makes it easier to enlarge the pipe. Everybody looks at it as a way to increase their upload/download speeds, but if you think about the way everybody shares the existing pipe, If you enlarge that pipe but keep the existing speed caps, you are still going to get an effective speed increase during those peak times. Even though it probably won't happened because of marketting, currently during peak times EVERYBODY may slow down a bit..or a lot... if you increase the size of the pipe, more data can get thru allowing everybody to stay at their top speeds even during those peak times.Think of it like highway traffic. We've all been in situations where they close a lane or something and traffic slows dramatically for everybody. We may have quick bursts up to a high speed, but we can't average anywhere near the speed limit. Then suddenly a lane opens back up, and the traffic spreads out and increases speed. Even if we aren't going above the speed limit like we may do during those off-peak times on the road, we are going much closer to the speedlimit and ultimately are averaging a higher speed than we were before just because there is more capacity.Make sense?

patcat88

join:2002-04-05

Jamaica, NY patcat88 to funchords

Member to funchords

said by funchords:



I can watch unlimited OnDemand movies. That takes bandwidth. If everyone on my block did it, each choosing different movies, we could very well recreate similar cost-of-service (upgrade) situations on the non-HSI that Comcast faces on the HSI side.



So I can have my cake and eat it too, no?

I can watch unlimited OnDemand movies. That takes bandwidth. If everyone on my block did it, each choosing different movies, we could very well recreate similar cost-of-service (upgrade) situations on the non-HSI that Comcast faces on the HSI side.So I can have my cake and eat it too, no? OnDemand is circuit switched, not packet switched. When your box errors out, thats a synonym for "all circuits are busy". I haven't seen cable companies ever care that VOD was not working 75% of the time.

voipdabbler

join:2006-04-27

Kalispell, MT voipdabbler to funchords

Member to funchords

Actually, you're being overly generous. TW's proposed cap is the same as Frontiers--5GB.

Desdinova

Premium Member

join:2003-01-26

Gaithersburg, MD 1 edit Desdinova to djrobx

Premium Member to djrobx

"It's a lot better than the 20GB cap Time Warner is "testing" on their Standard customers in Beaumont."



Maybe so, but that's like saying having your hand torn off is better than losing the whole arm...*sigh*

PDXPLT

join:2003-12-04

Banks, OR 1 recommendation PDXPLT to nasadude

Member to nasadude

said by nasadude:



caps beat the hell out of capex to add capacity don't they? caps beat the hell out of capex to add capacity don't they? From Comcast's POV, caps beat customers downloading so many videos, they stop buying HBO (and other TV) from them.



en102

Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26

Valencia, CA en102 Member Re: our competitive market Maybe their customers will stop using their service altogether and use Verizon/AT&T ... and they won't get any service from them.



sapo

Cruising Down Memory Lane

Premium Member

join:2002-09-16

Sacramento, CA sapo Premium Member Re: our competitive market Comcast usually will beat their speeds unless its FIOS.

fiberguy2

My views are my own.

Premium Member

join:2005-05-20 fiberguy2 to en102

Premium Member to en102

said by en102:



Maybe their customers will stop using their service altogether and use Verizon/AT&T ... and they won't get any service from them.

Maybe their customers will stop using their service altogether and use Verizon/AT&T ... and they won't get any service from them.



The MAJORITY of all the customer base will not even think two seconds about this change as it won't affect them.. who it WILL affect,.. mostly the people here bitching.



What does this tell you?



... it tells you they don't want you.. and, if you are going to get your service and go way beyond and push arguments like "It's my internet and I'll use it how I want" .. well..? .. now you're going to pay. now you're getting what you asked for... you're getting the clear caps and the hands off approach that everyone wanted.



Congratulate yourselves.



(en102 - this isn't directed necessarily at you.. juts felt like the right time and place to chime in) Maybe you're not in the majority then.. MOST people will notice NOTHING with this change. With that said, what many people are not getting is that this move is to go after those that constantly push the envelope, otherwise, the cap would be lower, and not high at 250.The MAJORITY of all the customer base will not even think two seconds about this change as it won't affect them.. who it WILL affect,.. mostly the people here bitching.What does this tell you?... it tells you they don't want you.. and, if you are going to get your service and go way beyond and push arguments like "It's my internet and I'll use it how I want" .. well..? .. now you're going to pay. now you're getting what you asked for... you're getting the clear caps and the hands off approach that everyone wanted.Congratulate yourselves.(en102 - this isn't directed necessarily at you.. juts felt like the right time and place to chime in)

Dampier

Phillip M Dampier

join:2003-03-23

Rochester, NY Dampier to nasadude

Member to nasadude

The real issue to take from a 250GB cap is not whether or not people are going to come close to hitting it in October 2008 when it gets implemented, because the overwhelming majority of customers won't.



The issue is what happens in 2009, 2010, and 2011. People aren't hitting 250GB a month using the majority of today's web applications because so few of them consume that amount of bandwidth. If you're running a torrent server or engaged in lots of online backups, you could easily hit this cap when it gets implemented. But the average person web browsing or watching YouTube will not... yet.



What will change all of this is streaming HD video content which is precisely where the next generation of applications are going to make an impact. It takes several gigs to deliver an hour of programming in HD, and as set top boxes connect to the net, consumers will easily consume many times the bandwidth they do right now.



Comcast's cap starts high and seems generous, but quickly becomes an impediment, particularly in establishing a precedent for usage caps, and likely will not grow with the times.



The abusers Comcast always likes to talk about are a tiny minority on Comcast's network, but the company punishes their entire customer base to deal with a few "problem customers." This, even after the company has a track record of dealing with users who consume "excessive" bandwidth.



So what is the real agenda here? To control "abuse" on their network which they were already doing, or attempt to manipulate the marketplace with caps, limits, and new revenue streams, particularly impacting the potential competition the video side of their business faces from a next generation Internet with high quality video streaming.

jc10098

join:2002-04-10 jc10098 to nasadude

Member to nasadude

Here's the striking part. Bandwidth is becoming increasingly cheaper, while companies make it out to be more expensive. Sure, you got network costs (infrastructure, maintenance, etc), but better technology has still DRIVEN that down versus up.



If it were me, I think this would be a better method. THROTTLING.



Set a Cap, 250GB. Then throttle people's speeds after that to a point. SO someone has 10/1. If they exceed 250GB give them 2/1 instead for the remainder of the month. While not ideal, it slows down the user, freeing up "bandwidth" on the network for others. Seriously, ISPS need to upgrade to keep up with demand, but since that wont happen, THIS WOULD BE he next best thing.

Couch Potato

What?

Premium Member

join:2004-08-29

Statesville, NC Couch Potato Premium Member Re: our competitive market said by jc10098:



Here's the striking part. Bandwidth is becoming increasingly cheaper, while companies make it out to be more expensive. Sure, you got network costs (infrastructure, maintenance, etc), but better technology has still DRIVEN that down versus up.



If it were me, I think this would be a better method. THROTTLING.



Set a Cap, 250GB. Then throttle people's speeds after that to a point. SO someone has 10/1. If they exceed 250GB give them 2/1 instead for the remainder of the month. While not ideal, it slows down the user, freeing up "bandwidth" on the network for others. Seriously, ISPS need to upgrade to keep up with demand, but since that wont happen, THIS WOULD BE he next best thing.

Here's the striking part. Bandwidth is becoming increasingly cheaper, while companies make it out to be more expensive. Sure, you got network costs (infrastructure, maintenance, etc), but better technology has still DRIVEN that down versus up.If it were me, I think this would be a better method. THROTTLING.Set a Cap, 250GB. Then throttle people's speeds after that to a point. SO someone has 10/1. If they exceed 250GB give them 2/1 instead for the remainder of the month. While not ideal, it slows down the user, freeing up "bandwidth" on the network for others. Seriously, ISPS need to upgrade to keep up with demand, but since that wont happen, THIS WOULD BE he next best thing. I don't like this alternative either as I currently have 20/1.5 sold to me as unlimited service. why would I buy limited unlimited service? I do suppose it's better than just shutting down my modem but still...



miscDude

@208.17.34.x miscDude to jc10098

Anon to jc10098

Didn't I see someplace that that is kind of along the lines of what Comcast was proposing. If you exceeded the cap they would throttle you to "better than dsl speeds"?



Iria

@good.com Iria to jc10098

Anon to jc10098

It's all about the money, for corporations. Maximize profit, right?



nukscull

@rr.com nukscull to jc10098

Anon to jc10098

said by jc10098:



Here's the striking part. Bandwidth is becoming increasingly cheaper, while companies make it out to be more expensive. Here's the striking part. Bandwidth is becoming increasingly cheaper, while companies make it out to be more expensive.



You can buy all the 10gbit or 40gbit circuits to the Internet you want, but that isn't going to give a node more than the 42mbit/sec that is available with DOCSIS 2.0.



So while you can probably get wholesale Internet bandwidth for $3-$5/mbit per month, that isn't going to help someone who is on a node with someone that uses their full 10-15mbit/sec 24x7x365. But running new fiber and adding new nodes to neighborhoods to fix the actual bandwidth choke points is a lot more expensive than buying more bandwidth from an backbone provider.You can buy all the 10gbit or 40gbit circuits to the Internet you want, but that isn't going to give a node more than the 42mbit/sec that is available with DOCSIS 2.0.So while you can probably get wholesale Internet bandwidth for $3-$5/mbit per month, that isn't going to help someone who is on a node with someone that uses their full 10-15mbit/sec 24x7x365.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19

Austin, TX ·Time Warner Cable

iansltx Member Re: our competitive market In most cases, Comcast's highest residential tier is $62.95 for 8 Mbit/s. This is $8ish mer megabit, sustained transfer. COmcast may or may not have to even pay for bandwidth on the headend; they probably just peer or charge other comapnies (!) for access to their network (take FDCServers.net for example). Yes, they may have capacity issues at the node level, but bandwidth is dirt cheap on the internet side of things to the point that a user with an 8 Mbps connection COULD NOT push Comcast to a loss from a perspective of sheer bandwidth costs, unlike what might happen with a smaller ISP.



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN SpaethCo MVM Re: our competitive market All the bandwidth at the head-end doesn't change the landscape at the edge where technology is more limiting, just as all the food in the US doesn't help people starving in Africa.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19

Austin, TX ·Time Warner Cable

iansltx Member Re: our competitive market Bbbbut I recently realized that my router was the bottleneck on my connection: I can get 15-25 Mbps on PowerBoost on my connection. That means at any given time 30-50% of the node is open, and we're talking about a town where most college kids live off-campus and as such have to get internet of some sort. As such, they get Comcast for higher speeds generally.



I have no problem with throttling down users equally during peak periods, so long as the throttling merely zeroes out PowerBoost during the affected times, and maybe reduces throughput by 25% on long downlods. Just being reasonable here. But anything more...gimme a break...and caps? Tech.



If I get a ComCall I'm switching ISPs. Or maybe asking Cogent what local loop would cost for a 100 Mbit circuit. Or mayne just using a wireless link to get the service.



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN SpaethCo to jc10098

MVM to jc10098

said by jc10098:



Here's the striking part. Bandwidth is becoming increasingly cheaper, while companies make it out to be more expensive. Sure, you got network costs (infrastructure, maintenance, etc), but better technology has still DRIVEN that down versus up. Here's the striking part. Bandwidth is becoming increasingly cheaper, while companies make it out to be more expensive. Sure, you got network costs (infrastructure, maintenance, etc), but better technology has still DRIVEN that down versus up.



There is no upgrade in the DOCSIS world that gives a 1000+% bump in capacity, nor is the DOCSIS marketplace anywhere close to being as fiercely competitive as the Ethernet / SoNET / Carrier world.



The same factors that make bandwidth cheaper at the top unfortunately don't exist at the edge; at least not today. The cost of physical connectivity is actually going up slightly, not down. The reason bandwidth is getting cheaper at the top is on that same physical run instead of just 1GigE you can run 10GigE or N*10GigE on the same physical fiber run if you use a WDM solution.There is no upgrade in the DOCSIS world that gives a 1000+% bump in capacity, nor is the DOCSIS marketplace anywhere close to being as fiercely competitive as the Ethernet / SoNET / Carrier world.The same factors that make bandwidth cheaper at the top unfortunately don't exist at the edge; at least not today.



NOCMan

MadMacHatter

Premium Member

join:2004-09-30

Colorado Springs, CO NOCMan to nasadude

Premium Member to nasadude

And so much for online backup services such as Dropbox, Mozy, iDisk, and whatever M$ calls their service.

fiberguy2

My views are my own.

Premium Member

join:2005-05-20 fiberguy2 Premium Member Re: our competitive market said by NOCMan:



And so much for online backup services such as Dropbox, Mozy, iDisk, and whatever M$ calls their service.

And so much for online backup services such as Dropbox, Mozy, iDisk, and whatever M$ calls their service.



... for one, you can still use the service. If you go over, you pay.. pretty simple. Don't back up every drive you have on line.



... another reason, you don't need to do full backups all the time. Even at 250 GB, you have PLENTY of space. Like they say about anything.. everything is good in moderation - don't throw everything at it at once. If you need to back up, use a 20 cent DVD perhaps and keep a local copy or two.



... do incremental backups.. This isn't like traditional backups where you have to periodically perform a full back up to standard media which is subject to degeneration where a periodic full back up was required. Get your back up done and do incremental.



If you want to use that much internet, then you SHOULD be paying for it. if you're using that much all the time and 250 is not enough, honestly, I'm glad you're not on my node. So what you're saying is that if you can't have it all for one flat rate, it must not be worth it? Before online back up, what did you do? .. you paid for a storage device, right? That meant you had to pull money out of your pocket to use a feature. For a while, you got a nice ride, and honestly, you still do. the 250 GB bucket isn't going to hurt you, to be honest.. (and, I'll tell you why NOC man.. remember the NOC part of your name)... for one, you can still use the service. If you go over, you pay.. pretty simple. Don't back up every drive you have on line.... another reason, you don't need to do full backups all the time. Even at 250 GB, you have PLENTY of space. Like they say about anything.. everything is good in moderation - don't throw everything at it at once. If you need to back up, use a 20 cent DVD perhaps and keep a local copy or two.... do incremental backups.. This isn't like traditional backups where you have to periodically perform a full back up to standard media which is subject to degeneration where a periodic full back up was required. Get your back up done and do incremental.If you want to use that much internet, then you SHOULD be paying for it. if you're using that much all the time and 250 is not enough, honestly, I'm glad you're not on my node.



NOCMan

MadMacHatter

Premium Member

join:2004-09-30

Colorado Springs, CO NOCMan to nasadude

Premium Member to nasadude

Also be interested in how this changes telecommuting. This would be a step backwards if companies just tell you to come to work rather than paying for your internet.



jsz0

Premium Member

join:2008-01-23

Jewett City, CT jsz0 to nasadude

Premium Member to nasadude

The real issue is congestion at the node level (between you and the headend) not really the Internet side. Internet bandwidth is cheap for a huge company like Comcast who can negotiate on a very large scale. Many cable companies have their own fiber back bones so they can actually purchase bandwidth hundreds of miles away from the node level to find the best deal. They're not limited by what they can get locally.



At the node level you're dealing with 38mbit QAM256 downstreams that serve hundreds of customers. With DOCSIS 2 you can do multiple downstream channels load balanced but you need to have room for them. Customers want more VOD, more HD channels and don't want to give up analog. So where does that bandwidth come from? Once they can ditch some analog channels, improve compression methods it's viable to do DOCSIS 3 and bond many downstreams together. However... you're talking about a brand new $250+ modem for every single customer along with hundreds of millions of dollars of CMTS/EDGE QAM hardware nationwide for a company like Comcast. They'll do it eventually but prices need to go down before it's really viable on a large scale.



There's also no reason to believe that heavy bandwidth users won't simply consume more bandwidth if it's available. So Comcast could do this massive nationwide upgrade costing probably billions of dollars and end up with the same exact problem in 5 years. As a for-profit company Comcast does have an obligation to their share holders to turn a profit.



fatmanskinny

Premium Member

join:2004-01-04

Wandering ·Vonage

·Comcast XFINITY

·AT&T U-Verse

3 edits fatmanskinny Premium Member Hmm....



Hit them in the pocket and drain the blood (money) out of them. So I guess I will be going here on Sept 30th, 2008. Well, I may not download 250GBs yet but I guess I will hang in there until I get that first notice of the overcharge and then, off to another provider.Hit them in the pocket and drain the blood (money) out of them.

cybercrimes

join:2003-12-24

Honey Brook, PA 1 edit cybercrimes Member fios alot of you will leave comcast i bet



Dogfather

Premium Member

join:2007-12-26

Laguna Hills, CA Dogfather Premium Member FAP and cap Why both? FAP by design would control traffic. If people are not in a congested area, you don't need to cap them.

mbkowns

Got Bandwidth?

join:2003-07-01

Riverside, CA mbkowns Member Direct CAPs are gay Good to know if I ever moved I wouldn't use there service.



burgermeister

All Computers Are Junk

join:2000-10-23

Utica, MI 1 edit 1 recommendation burgermeister Member Re: Direct CAPs are gay Caps are not happy nor do they seem to prefer the company of same-sex caps.



Please explain.

Rob2647

join:2008-08-12

Rochester, MI Rob2647 Member Fine with me I'm leaving Crapcast for U-verse in a week anyway. I'm not a bit torrent user, but they already have my speeds "DSL like speeds". Caps are a the trend of the year now.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ 1 edit FFH5 Premium Member Upload is the problem more than download "As far as I am aware, uploads are not affected, at least not initially." At first I heard that the cap was based on upload & download combined and not just download.



And since upload capacity is the choke point for cable companies, why not cap upload? Besides the throttling, it would make more sense to surcharge heavy uploaders more than anyone else. At first I heard that the cap was based on upload & download combined and not just download.And since upload capacity is the choke point for cable companies, why not cap upload? Besides the throttling, it would make more sense to surcharge heavy uploaders more than anyone else.



fancydancer

Perception is just your reality

Premium Member

join:2002-08-28

Springfield, IL fancydancer Premium Member The glass ceiling has been "painted"

So I wonder if Comcast will provide each customer their badnwidth usage on their bill or will we just know when we go over the limit? So I wonder if Comcast will provide each customer their badnwidth usage on their bill or will we just know when we go over the limit?

Bobcat79

Premium Member

join:2001-02-04 1 recommendation Bobcat79 Premium Member 8 GB per day Who downloads an average of 8 GB per day? That's 6 to 12 pirated XviD movies a day!



fatmanskinny

Premium Member

join:2004-01-04

Wandering 1 edit fatmanskinny Premium Member AT&T and Verizon merge with Verizon running the ship... Then, Verizon agressively install FIOS in all Comcast / A&T overlap markets. This would definitely make Comcast change their tune. Well, you can dream, right?

hottboiinnc4

ME

join:2003-10-15

Cleveland, OH hottboiinnc4 Member Re: AT&T and Verizon merge with Verizon running the ship... overlap? HA! keep dreaming! they over lap here in some areas I don't see VZ doing anything here. Hell they have no plans actually to deploy any FiOS here. ATT is putting in those big ugly boxes on the corners but have been for years- they have no plans on turning them on any time soon.



VZ may have plans to cap as well. You know how companies work right? they do the wait and see game. If it works without a problem others will soon follow.



VZ doesnt care about the customer. Their FiOS network was only built to kick 3rd party companies such as DSLExtreme, Earthlink, Sonic.net and every other ISP and telco off the network. So why they're add it they added a faster speed of Internet. And to top it all off they're prices for TV aren't cheaper as they claimed they would be either.



Evdo User

@dal.net.va.gov Evdo User Anon Verizo Caps 250gb cap....



I have Verizon's EVDO service...only thing I can get without having a 3 second ping. I have the "Unlimited" plan. I was originally told it had a cap of 5gb/month and that anything above this would cost me .49c/Mb afterwards. On a few occasions I went above the 5gig and wasn't charged.



I contacted Verizon and they said that I was on the unlimited plan and that meant that nothing would happen until I got around 8gig and then they'd throttle it down (I average around 700KB downloads)

hottboiinnc4

ME

join:2003-10-15

Cleveland, OH hottboiinnc4 Member Re: Verizo Caps .49c huh? you know how much that really is?



And as we see it! The news report was true the other nite about gov't employees.

cornelius785

join:2006-10-26

Worcester, MA 1 recommendation cornelius785 Member what is so wrong with 250GB? what are you people doing that you require +250GB every f'ing month? i only use ~500MB a day, probably closer to 700MB when fedora updates are fixed. so that is minimum 15GB/month just for me. right now, i don't have an remorse for those that use more than 250GB/month and get cut off or forced to pay up. if they complain that 'it's not fair', all i have to say 'CRY ME A RIVER'.



Trinijoy

Premium Member

join:2005-09-12

Brick, NJ Trinijoy Premium Member Ummm... Seriously if you are a heavy online gamer this will kill you, and if you like to stream HD movies online, LEGALLY this is really bad... bad... I could understand to stop pirates but this is just silly, do they want to lose a lot of customers?



Chiyo

Save Me Konata-Chan

Premium Member

join:2003-02-20

Charlotte, NC Chiyo Premium Member Business class / Extreme Tier? so how does this affect us who either have the extreme teir or the business class?



badtrip

Premium Member

join:2004-03-20 badtrip Premium Member Re: Business class / Extreme Tier? I was told by a comcast business salesman a few months ago when I was calling about getting business class internet that there will never be a monthly cap on usage, up or down. However, since it came from the mouth of a salesman that was only interested in getting me to sign a 2-year commitment, I would take that information with a pile of salt.



Cjaiceman

MVM

join:2004-10-12

Castle Rock, WA (Software) pfSense

Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-AC-PRO

Cjaiceman to Chiyo

MVM to Chiyo

If your on the extreme tier you still on the residential side, so probably the 250GB cap will be in place on it. I hope that comcast will upgrade the caps on their extreme tier to something more reasonable for those speeds, like 400GB/month, but I'm not holding my breath.



I'm glad that I have their business class internet if there won't be any caps enforced now. I do about 300-350GB/month on my 16/2 (which is the fastest I can get).



battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 1 recommendation battleop Member Stop your whining. Good grief. So everyone bitches because Comcast won't admit to the 250Gb cap. So now they get what they want, Comcast admitting what the cap is. What does everyone do? Why the bitch about it.



Be careful of what you wish for.



aaronwt

Premium Member

join:2004-11-07

Woodbridge, VA 901.8 127.8

Asus RT-N56U

Asus RT-ACRH13

aaronwt Premium Member I hope they have a way to keep track of usage I hope they have a way to keep track of usage. I used to be on Comcast before FIOS. I have over 3 dozen devices connected to the Internet so I never know exactly my usage. Although it's usually between 800GB and 1.3TB a month.

I'm glad I don't still have Comcast.

I download too much HD content to have a 250GB cap.



badtrip

Premium Member

join:2004-03-20 badtrip Premium Member Call Comcast now Call Comcast now if you are a customer and ask for information regarding this. Tell them in person how you feel about this, whether you agree or disagree.



gate1975mlm

Premium Member

join:2001-09-30

Philadelphia, PA 1 edit gate1975mlm Premium Member bandwidth-usage tracking system? If comcast is going to have this 250GB cap then I really hope they add a bandwidth-usage tracking system icon on the comcast.net page!



Onat

@comcast.net Onat Anon How about happy hours I am a comcast customer and even though it is very cool to hate them I am actually happy with them. The 250GB cap doesn't bother me but later on they should come up with happy hours and maybe don't count any downloads toward the limit that were done between 12am to 7am or something.

nasadude

join:2001-10-05

Rockville, MD nasadude Member Re: How about happy hours said by Onat :



I am a comcast customer and even though it is very cool to hate them I am actually happy with them. The 250GB cap doesn't bother me but later on they should come up with happy hours and maybe don't count any downloads toward the limit that were done between 12am to 7am or something.

I'm a comcast customer and I don't have any problems (actually, my connection is quite good mainly because two years ago I gave them so much trouble, I think I got on their "keep that damn guy satisfied" list), but I still hate them. It sounds like you are lucky enough not to have ever had a problem that required you to deal with their customer service.



some of you guys seem to think this is really about congestion - IT'S NOT ABOUT CONGESTION. This is about comcast creating artificial scarcity to justify tighter control of their monopoly over the last mile connection.



One can see they got in trouble with the FCC and congress when they decided to block applications that could compete with comcast video products (and don't forget their web portal they are dying to monetize).



fresh from that debacle what do we get? Caps and throttling. Since these will be protocol agnostic and applied only during periods of congestion (so they say), it avoids the trouble they got into for blatantly interfering with P2P applications. But it gives them the same result - limits what the customer can do with the connection they are paying for, without the hassle from the govt.



whether you have good service from comcast or not, there are plenty of reasons to hate them. I'm a comcast customer and I don't have any problems (actually, my connection is quite good mainly because two years ago I gave them so much trouble, I think I got on their "keep that damn guy satisfied" list), but I still hate them. It sounds like you are lucky enough not to have ever had a problem that required you to deal with their customer service.some of you guys seem to think this is really about congestion - IT'S NOT ABOUT CONGESTION. This is about comcast creating artificial scarcity to justify tighter control of their monopoly over the last mile connection.One can see they got in trouble with the FCC and congress when they decided to block applications that could compete with comcast video products (and don't forget their web portal they are dying to monetize).fresh from that debacle what do we get? Caps and throttling. Since these will be protocol agnostic and applied only during periods of congestion (so they say), it avoids the trouble they got into for blatantly interfering with P2P applications. But it gives them the same result - limits what the customer can do with the connection they are paying for, without the hassle from the govt.whether you have good service from comcast or not, there are plenty of reasons to hate them.