Uncapped Network

[LooeyUK]

I was thinking. What is stopping NTL from offering an uncapped service for customers in a network. For example, between me and people down my street.

They arent paying for bandwidth.

There is no such thing as Uncapped (physsically its not possible). How ever there may not be any need to impose a superficial cap if the provider was able to better use its resources. But then again any provider should be able to provide the same level of service to every customer and to do that you have to implement some sort of controls.

Trouble is NTL cant provide the same level of service to every customer anyhow.

[BBKing]

Nice wallpapering job.

But then again any provider should be able to provide the same level of service to every customer

Really? I think that's a pipe dream tbh, and unachievable in practice.

[td444]

To the original post - that means having to limit each IP's bandwidth , quite a fiddly process. That would need to be applied to the router that passes packets to the internet backbone routers. Given the hundred's of thousands of customers, it would provide pretty difficult.

Also, each upstream (NTL use Euro/Docsis 1.1 not 2.0) has 2.56mbits of capacity each channel. 6 channels , of which some are not available. Letting users peer with their next door neighbour would impact everyone on that upstream unfortunately.

[Foo Fighter]

I'd like to see this one day, everyone in an area can share between each other uncapped... would save loads of my time and should save some bandwidth

[Ignition]

Nice idea but entirely unachievable with current or other network. However it's done you'll have some effect on at very least other people in your street (based on an Ethernet system) and with current system you affect all those who are on your upstream.

As a note to td444 upstreams don't necessarily deliver 2.56Mbit, on a 1.6MHz QPSK upstream there's 1.9Mbit of IP left after the mass of overheads, and 3.2MHz upstreams deliver twice this.

Ta.

[erol]

As people have pointed out Cable is a shared resource in the last mile (down your street) and it is exactly in this area where all NTL's existing congestion issues exist.

However for DSL there is much merit in such an idea. As your link to the exchange is exclusive to you and you alone - a system whereby you got the full ADSL rate (8mbs/2mbs i think) between yourself and others on your exchange/DSLAM and less when you went 'out' of the exchange to the internet in general could work.

[td444]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

Nice idea but entirely unachievable with current or other network. However it's done you'll have some effect on at very least other people in your street (based on an Ethernet system) and with current system you affect all those who are on your upstream.

As a note to td444 upstreams don't necessarily deliver 2.56Mbit, on a 1.6MHz QPSK upstream there's 1.9Mbit of IP left after the mass of overheads, and 3.2MHz upstreams deliver twice this.

Ta.

I did realise that raw overheads make that a lower figgure, but NTL do allocate that much to each channel.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by LooeyB

I was thinking. What is stopping NTL from offering an uncapped service for customers in a network. For example, between me and people down my street.

They arent paying for bandwidth.

If you need to share files with your neighbours, why not buy a wireless router and share them yourself?

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by td444

I did realise that raw overheads make that a lower figgure, but NTL do allocate that much to each channel.

Not entirely sure what you mean by 'channel'. If you mean per upstream as I said there are also 3.2MHz upstreams which have twice the symbol rate and twice the bandwidth capacity. 1.6 and 3.2MHz QPSK are most commonly used, 3.2MHz has stricter RF requirements in that you need to find a 3.2MHz wide band with clean enough signal rather than 3.2, plus you need a bit of buffer in between upstreams this way round.

Next major upgrade is QAM16 upstreams, but these require really good quality RF plant.