Cable Forum - View Single Post

Ignitionnet · 25-08-2008, 18:46

Little something form the largest cableco in the world:

http://downloads.comcast.net/docs/Co...i-20080528.pdf

http://www.comcast.net/terms/network/

I'll summarise differences between this and STM

There is no 'throttling' just priority, customers who are using heavily will have a lower priority than less heavy users.

Unless the network ports are nearing congestion there is no prioritisation at all. Unless the network actually needs the bandwidth control to avoid bandwidth issues it doesn't happen.

In addition the following being done to assist with P2P usage:

– Tracker optimizations (optimizing & localizing P2P flows)
– Caching
– P2P client optimizations

This strikes me as a better approach. The only time that any prioritisation happens is when the network is nearing congestion. This seems to me to be far closer to 'preserving the customer experience' than the VM approach of throttling you down whether your area is congested or not and whether you are affecting other customers or not.

Also I like the idea of just prioritising traffic, so that customers who are heavily using data can continue to use whatever bandwidth is left over from customers using less. To me anyway that is preserving the experience of lighter users while giving heavier ones whatever resources are left. If the bandwidth is there why not use it?

Just for the sake of inflicting pain on us subs / soon to be subs

A sub with 384Kbps upstream will go to 1Mbps
A sub with 768Kbps upstream will go to 2Mbps

Oh for 2Mbps on cable.

Downside being it takes a bit more than a couple of lines of config on a uBR, but sure if Virgin are more interested in the customer experience than saving money you'd think they'd have no problems implementing this somewhat more granular approach

Any thoughts?

25-08-2008, 18:46	#1
Ignitionnet Inactive Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire Age: 47 Posts: 13,995	Comcast's Approach To Congestion Little something form the largest cableco in the world: http://downloads.comcast.net/docs/Co...i-20080528.pdf http://www.comcast.net/terms/network/ I'll summarise differences between this and STM There is no 'throttling' just priority, customers who are using heavily will have a lower priority than less heavy users. Unless the network ports are nearing congestion there is no prioritisation at all. Unless the network actually needs the bandwidth control to avoid bandwidth issues it doesn't happen. In addition the following being done to assist with P2P usage: – Tracker optimizations (optimizing & localizing P2P flows) – Caching – P2P client optimizations This strikes me as a better approach. The only time that any prioritisation happens is when the network is nearing congestion. This seems to me to be far closer to 'preserving the customer experience' than the VM approach of throttling you down whether your area is congested or not and whether you are affecting other customers or not. Also I like the idea of just prioritising traffic, so that customers who are heavily using data can continue to use whatever bandwidth is left over from customers using less. To me anyway that is preserving the experience of lighter users while giving heavier ones whatever resources are left. If the bandwidth is there why not use it? Just for the sake of inflicting pain on us subs / soon to be subs A sub with 384Kbps upstream will go to 1Mbps A sub with 768Kbps upstream will go to 2Mbps Oh for 2Mbps on cable. Downside being it takes a bit more than a couple of lines of config on a uBR, but sure if Virgin are more interested in the customer experience than saving money you'd think they'd have no problems implementing this somewhat more granular approach Any thoughts?