[dead]
Cox slows Internet speeds in entire neighborhoods to punish any heavy users (2020)
171–180 of 196 posts
Re: Cox slows Internet speeds in entire neighborhoods to punish any heavy users (2020)
#172[dead]
Re: Cox slows Internet speeds in entire neighborhoods to punish any heavy users (2020)
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any more context on this? We've got copper AT&T DSL as our only option, besides Starlink. Have been trying to work with the county, look for grants, etc to present to a local ISP who's mentioned interest.
So I know part of the money was through the state. It was matching funds for federal dollars. I think it was through rural development, which is closed, but I'm not absolutely sure. I'll check with my neighbor (works for ISP) tomorrow to see if he knows. To be honest, we approached the ISP, who was offering fiber in a town 45 minutes away. They said if we could get sign ups at least every half mile, on average, they…
Thanks! Yeah, we have a local ISP that has laid fiber in other communities where they could get grants (namely native communities), but they are only doing WISP in our community right now, and it won't service about half the homes here.
Re: Cox slows Internet speeds in entire neighborhoods to punish any heavy users (2020)
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who do you think the telcos are lobbying?
Then it’s extra important to remind the regulators that the telcos are blowing smoke up their ass. If they’re only hearing the telcos’ side, they might be under the mistaken impression that it’s the truth.
You’re under the impression that the regulators give a shit about their constituents, rather than campaign donations.
Re: Cox slows Internet speeds in entire neighborhoods to punish any heavy users (2020)
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 56kbps dialup connection saturated 24/7 will get you ~18GB per month.
Yes, and in the 90s that was a truly incredible amount of data, when most of their customers were probably transferring a few tens of megabytes per month at most. I don't think I even had 18GB of disk space back then.
My dad bought a 600mb disk at vast expense. What did your dad have?
Re: Cox slows Internet speeds in entire neighborhoods to punish any heavy users (2020)
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So many people are mad because “I paid for a gigabit and I can’t use the whole thing”… but like you didn’t pay for a gigabit you paid for a gigabit shared among 100 other people, which means peak-of-sums you should usually get gigabit, but it’s not guaranteed. But that's something different than what Cox is doing. "Unlimited" and over-subscription aren't incompatible. You have a gigabit connection, the 40Gbps uplin…
That's true, although the reality is that the capacity is much more limited in many providers local infrastructure than you'd like to think. Those 1000 users will only get 10G at best, and remember that both in Cable and FTTH the spectrum allocation on the local segment is asymmetric. You have a finite downlink capacity and a finite uplink capacity, users are not just competing for the same time on the wire, they're…
There's not really any real tension between "you should know their stated rates are bullshit" and "they should accurately describe the service they are willing and able to provide".
One is a stupid way to run a society and the other isn't.
Re: Cox slows Internet speeds in entire neighborhoods to punish any heavy users (2020)
#177[dead]
It's fascinating, "lord bubuza" is found all over different forums. I wonder why more spam filters don't have that keyword blocked.
Re: Cox slows Internet speeds in entire neighborhoods to punish any heavy users (2020)
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then it’s extra important to remind the regulators that the telcos are blowing smoke up their ass. If they’re only hearing the telcos’ side, they might be under the mistaken impression that it’s the truth.
You’re under the impression that the regulators give a shit about their constituents, rather than campaign donations.
I only have so much cynicism to go around. For my own mental health, I have to presume that at least some people in charge want to do the right thing, and I act accordingly.
Re: Cox slows Internet speeds in entire neighborhoods to punish any heavy users (2020)
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FTTH offerings from Ziply, Cox, Comcast, Google, ATT, Centurylink etc are all the same "shared media with high oversubscription" design too. Among them the typical ratio is ~32 PON users for the given "base rate" PON standard, similar to a typical ~20-50 for coax at a given DOCSIS standard. Both have better/worse examples (particularly early gigabit PON deployments were 64) but FTTH has rarely been about getting…
An actual Google PM called me up the other day trying to upsell me to $200 a month 20 gigabit. Said they’d give me a router but I’m free to hook whatever I want to the fiber, saturate it as much as I want, no worries. They must have a lot of extra bandwidth if this is a service they’re offering in my neighborhood.
That'd be the testing of the 25G-PON. They say you can do that because they known oversubscription ratios of 32:1 really aren't such a horrible concept. Think about it - they told you and a couple dozen others to blast it with 20G up and 20G down as much as you want... and how often do you actually use anywhere near that much? When you do, how long are you actually using the full pipe? For 99.999% of home users high last mile oversubscription makes perfect sense and allows the network to be built out SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper.
High last mile oversubscription is a net good for home consumers, it almost always works out in everyone's favor. The exception is that 1 guy in 10000 that will actually somehow use 20 gbps a day all day every day in some neighborhood and create some drama in the news because ISPs can't be bothered to try to explain why oversubscription is good to everyone who already doubts them.
Re: Cox slows Internet speeds in entire neighborhoods to punish any heavy users (2020)
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FTTH offerings from Ziply, Cox, Comcast, Google, ATT, Centurylink etc are all the same "shared media with high oversubscription" design too. Among them the typical ratio is ~32 PON users for the given "base rate" PON standard, similar to a typical ~20-50 for coax at a given DOCSIS standard. Both have better/worse examples (particularly early gigabit PON deployments were 64) but FTTH has rarely been about getting…
> The FTTH offerings from Ziply, Cox, Comcast, Google, ATT, Centurylink etc are all the same "shared media with high oversubscription" design too. No, they're really not, you can't compare single strand FTTH XGSPON on singlemode fiber (16:1 or 32:1 contention ratio), something that is built on 10G XGSPON tech, to something that is built on bonded RF channels on coax copper. The aggregate capacity per oversubscribed n…
DOCSIS 3.1 is extremely comparable to PON in terms of oversubscription design (in bandwidth and allocation breakout). The largest difference between the two is DOCSIS uses dynamic bonding of OFDM channels to chop up the ~10 Gbps of bandwidth while 10G-PON uses TDM to slice up the bandwidth.
The physical medium itself really has next to nothing to do with it. You can TDM and OFDM on both fiber and coax. The bandwidth is a factor of the total frequency and modulation methods.
FTTH is popular for new rollouts because it's cheaper to rollout and run. It uses less power, it goes longer distances, it's cheaper to repeat if you need to, it's cheaper to upgrade to the next generation of PON. It also has a better scaling future, but I already mentioned that above.