maybe this will help

Post #318,115 by boxley 12/4/09 8:39:00 AM Reply	maybe this will help http://www.fttxtra.c...sis-3-0-tutorial/ The most important thing about DOCSIS 3.0 is bonding cable TV channels for more bandwidth. Previous versions of DOCSIS only used a single channel and were limited in their throughput. With 4 channels, bandwidths of about 160/120Mbps are possible. With 8 channels, rates of 320/120Mbps are possible. Of course, the cable companies with have to give up these analog video channels to devote them to DOCSIS 3.0, but this can be done incrementally in the headend, and it does not have to be done throughout the network all at once. look at the diagram HFC network that shows the head end subscriber base. Look at the table figure 1 that labels max speed capability. Do a little math, yes virginia there is a bandwidth hog. Anyone using max all the time can impact the neighbors quality of service. Now since people are uncormfortable letting ISPs manage the network, we can monetize the managent with a pay as you go scheme. Everyone likes that idea, same as the eejits that want to tax me by the mile instead of the gallon for road fees :-)
Post #318,117 by drook 12/4/09 9:42:46 AM Reply	So you've seen the unicorn?! "Anyone using max all the time ..." I think that was his point. There isn't anyone using max all the time. And if you know how to set your client up at all, you can be in their top 5% of monthly users and still not cause bottlenecks, because you schedule your large downloads for off-peak hours. -- Drew
Post #318,121 by boxley 12/4/09 10:37:45 AM Reply	yes, they whine on dslreports.com sometimes again the abuse desk doesnt just get involved "just because" they have to be causing issues for the neighbors before anyone really gets their panties in a wad
Post #318,134 by folkert 12/4/09 3:02:18 PM Reply	No not really. Comcast has begun to push these limits on everyone. Its been hurting horribly in the evenings. 7PM - 11PM Eastern time around here is the bad time. Its not just me. Comcast has seen call volume up by 25 times "normal" amounts. So, you think they worked it out well?
Post #318,150 by boxley 12/4/09 7:32:43 PM Reply	ah, thanks for proving my point limits on bandwidth hurts the neighbors, so you all sure that you need net neutrality with no limits?
Post #318,157 by folkert 12/5/09 12:36:38 AM Reply	I'm not even close to the throttle limit or cap... and neither is anyone on my street or even this area of town, yet we all are being forced to have problems with this "cap system" Either I don;t understand you or you are talking out of the side of your mouth or both. In the REAL world, the implementation they have is so badly made (causing overloads on the DHCP, tftpd, QAM and provisioning systems its not even funny. Nothing like prototyping on a miniscule system and dropping out to millions of homes. From what I hear you saying: UNICORNS do exist and the throttling is good for everyone. Explain to me why you think I proved your point? As far as I can see, Net Neutrality shoudl be about equal access to equivalent services. IOW, why do I have to use Comcast's Youtube mirror when I want to use the same one everyone else is using. And why do I get "unfettered" access to Giganews where as other usenet services are severely crunched? Why is it that IF I chose to use Netflix streaming service vs Comcast's streaming service do I get hammered. Huh? Please, inform me.
Post #318,174 by boxley 12/5/09 1:43:30 PM Reply	greg, I cant speak for comcast, are you using docsis 3? I use comcast at home, 2 hd tvs on all the time have several machines on the net and levi is around so youtube and the playstation is constantly downloading gigs of shyte with no issues or errors except the occasional loss of dns at 6pm weekdays. It doesnt appear to have any issues at my home. Dont know why your market is different
Post #318,177 by malraux 12/5/09 2:30:55 PM Reply	It's different all over. Down here our network guy (brilliant guy, very very knowledgeable) swears by AT&T's cable modem offering. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #318,179 by folkert 12/5/09 3:10:32 PM Reply	Its not just DNS.... I use my OWN DNS server and Google's. They are blocking and trying to inline DNS requests. Docsis v3 isn't quite supported here yet, the equipment and the cable lines here are 25 year plus old... and are getting cranky causing tons of bad things.
Post #318,159 by scoenye 12/5/09 10:32:04 AM Reply	Where do you get the "no limits" part? A quick Google on said phrase turns up nothing. The only thing that happened so far was a decision that said they couldn't restrict P2P. And there is absolutely no need for the idiotic system Comcast is trotting out now. Lots of ISPs the planet over seem to have no problem limiting individuals without clamping the rest of the neighborhood. I have no problem whatsoever with a cap, as long as it is clearly advertised (i.e you can make a fully informed decision. A free marketeer should not have a problem with that, no?) And here is where things go off the rails. Not only do they not advertise it, just like ATT, they keep digging their own grave by advertising solely on speed and pushing bandwidth hungry applications on a network that clearly can't handle it (and neither does the operator).
Post #318,119 by Another Scott 12/4/09 9:47:41 AM Reply	Interesting, but misses the point. The point of the article was that you have to demonstrate there is a problem if you want to claim there's a problem that needs solving. If the "hogs" are doing their huge downloads when most customers are asleep, and if there's no impact on the rest of the customers, then what's the problem? Simply saying that 5% of the customers download 75% (or whatever) of the packets doesn't mean that that 5% is impacting the rest of the users or the network as a whole. ISPs need to show more data if they want to convince educated users that throttling is necessary. Cheers, Scott.
Post #318,122 by boxley 12/4/09 10:39:22 AM Reply	have to what? you dont like it use someone else show me an actual person who cannot get treated for a condition in this country. Then say you need to fix healthcare
Post #318,131 by drook 12/4/09 1:07:34 PM Reply	Here you go, hope you've got plenty of time to read http://www.google.co...insurance+company -- Drew
Post #318,151 by boxley 12/4/09 7:34:32 PM Reply	I said not treated, didnt say free by health insurance If these people didnt get treated by someone they are not in the US or didnt show up at the available public access clinics or emergency rooms
Post #318,152 by drook 12/4/09 8:02:33 PM Reply	Free clinics do transplants? Besides which, medical care that leads to bankruptcy is a negative outcome. -- Drew
Post #318,173 by boxley 12/5/09 1:39:20 PM Reply	st judes, shriners etc keep trying besides I have health insurance and am ineligible for a transplant so whats yer point? Not everyone that needs one can get one unless it involves india and bathtubs filled with ice
Post #318,153 by Another Scott 12/4/09 8:05:03 PM Reply	You really believe everyone gets treatment? If so, you need to start reading different news sites. http://kristof.blogs...lth-care/?apage=7 My Sunday column looks at health care reform through the prism of Nikki White, a young woman from Tennessee. She became too sick with Lupus to work Â and then lost her health insurance, and then died because of lack of medical care. We may know intellectually that 18,000 Americans die each year because they donÂt have insurance, but to confront one such person is still heartbreaking. And I just canÂt believe that we will let this opportunity for health reform slip through our fingers, so that Americans like Nikki continue to die needlessly every 30 minutes. [...] More on Nikki here: http://www.post-gaze...339/743713-84.stm HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #318,172 by boxley 12/5/09 1:37:32 PM Reply	what is the cure for lupus? Lupus sufferers would like that

Welcome to IWETHEY!