[ NNSquad ] Re: nnsquad Digest, Vol 3, Issue 223

[Robert J Berger <rberger@ibd.com>]

Actually George's point is worth talking about because it shows some  
of the confusion of how "Broadband" is advertised and promoted. But in  
the end the issue is what Lauren talks about with the "Telco  
Mentality" (though I don't know George to know if he himself has such  
a mentality :-)

  [ Or more precisely, what I talked about *regarding* the
    "Telco Mentality" -- We wouldn't want to defame the telcos
    by suggesting that they and I have a shared mentality! -- Lauren ]

When people see "3Mbps down / 500kbps up" they just see the "3Mbps".  
They don't realize that the actual TCP throughput of a link is highly  
dependent on both directions. The TCP protocol and even most "bulk"  
UDP protocols like streaming, are not one way. There are ACK packets  
sent back upstream for ether every packet or some relatively small  
number of packets sent downstream. If the speed (and really mostly  
latency) of the upstream is dramatically worse than the downstream (as  
in the case of 3Mbps/500kbps) then the actual throughput is  
dramatically less than the rated downstream.

And if you have many users at the office using the same 500kbps  
upstream, that latency goes up dramatically and the ability to use the  
3Mbps downstream is severely limited.

This is a major reason that a 1.5Mbps T1 link can handle a lot more  
simultaneous users. A T1 link is 1.5Mbps symmetrical. So the upstream  
is no more limited than the downstream. Also T1 links tend to be  
better provisioned end-to-end. Consumer DSL infrastructure may have  
more congestion points from where the DSL line is terminated to  
wherever the local plant hands off to an Internet Backbone. The  
minimal cost for a 1.5Mbps T1 to the Internet around here is about  
$350/month.

Completely independent of the issue of asymmetrical TCP links, in our  
case of remote access, the 500kbps "upstream at the office is now  
really the bottleneck for the remote worker as that 500kbps is the  
"downstream" to the remote site for that link. So for the use of  
remote access to our office, the real effective speed of that link is  
500kbps. We will probably have to get a T1 soon even though its pretty  
expensive for what little connectivity it delivers.

I think its funny (in a sad way) that copper pair T1's, technology  
from the late 70's, is still considered the fundamental business  
connection in the US. Why is it not assumed that most businesses would  
have a fiber link? We have supercomputers in our pockets but  
technology for delivering faster and faster connectivity has basically  
stopped in the US.

The US is doomed to be the first country in modern times to go from  
being the leading "1st World" country to a "3rd World" country due to  
political / economic corruption of the means of communications.

__________________
Robert J Berger
Internet Bandwidth Development
http://blog.ibd.com

On Oct 3, 2009, at 11:33 AM, George Ou wrote:

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 02:34:03 -0700
From: "George Ou" <george_ou@lanarchitect.net>
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Subject: Re: [IP] "Entry level pricing"
To: "'Robert J Berger'" <rberger@ibd.com>,	"'Declan McCullagh'"
	<declan@well.com>
Cc: 'Shannon McElyea' <Shannon@ShannonMcElyea.com>,
	nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Message-ID: <000601ca440c$a5600470$f0200d50$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

"We can't even use that to do remote work on our computers at work and  
the
overall thruput is severely limited by the ridiculously low upstream
bandwidth."

Just out of curiosity, what kind of work do you do that requires more  
than 3
Mbps?  I know plenty of offices with 50 people all sharing a single  
1.554
Mbps T1 line.  Well designed remote productivity applications are  
designed
to work at 0.028 Mbps modem speeds and you can use Citrix and RDP on
dial-up.  I've got 3 Mbps at home and the only thing that's annoying is
trying to download larger video files but it does work.  Posting 10  
Mbps HD
content onto YouTube so they can encode a good 2.25 Mbps version is much
slower than I like but it does work.

My particular housing complex unfortunately does not have Comcast when  
it's
available everywhere else across the street because we have a local
Satellite based analog cable company, and U-verse isn't here yet but
hopefully soon.

Is 3 Mbps great?  No, it's well below the national average.  Is it  
that bad
that you can't "work remotely"?  Only if your work involves HD video  
content
creation and you need to publish it from home.

George Ou

  [ George, your response is notable, in the "best" traditions of Big
    Telecom telling customers "what Big Telecom thinks they need"  
rather
    than reacting to what technically-skilled customers are asking for.

    If Robert, obviously no slouch at this stuff, says that his firm
    is unable to work effectively at those bandwidths, who are you to
    tell him "no, you're wrong, you can work just fine!"  That sort
    of reaction encapsulates so much of what is wrong with Internet
    access in the U.S. today.

    When I saw your note, I instantly flashed back to a conversation
    I had with a telephone company tech rep back in early ARPANET
    days.  I was discussing our desire to more widely deploy 1200 bps
    (Vadic) dialup modems to replace the 300 bps units commonly in
    home use.  The telco guy couldn't see the point.  He claimed we'd
    be wasting our money, since "almost nobody can really read as
    fast as 1200 baud anyway!"

       -- Lauren Weinstein
          NNSquad Moderator ]