NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information

 


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


The only thing worse than Telco mentality is self righteous activists who
conflate "up to" with "at least" and/or grossly exaggerate how bad it is by
falsely claiming that the delivered speeds are less than half of what's
promised.  What is needed is a rational debate
(http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/the-need-for-a-broadband-transparency
-standard/) that tries to highlight the issues and solve the problem rather
than try to demonize people.

" 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."

That's not how networks work and you're confusing latency with congestion
induced jitter.  You can almost flood the upstream and still be able to
download very quickly.  I do this every week with P2P and so long as you
leave just a little bit of upstream capacity to allow the TCP ACKs to get
through, the downstream will flow very quickly because the TCP window will
eventually get wide open.  A T1 line will definitely not permit more typical
simultaneous users than a 3 Mbps DSL connection unless you have users that
all want to upload which is very unusual.  A T1 line definitely has much
lower contention ratios and minimum speeds, but the typical DSL or Cable
broadband connection will almost always be much faster than a T1 even though
the theoretical minimum capacity is MUCH lower.

You can also fill the downstream with 15 Mbps of isochronous IPTV traffic
and produce almost zero measurable jitter (yes I've run the experiment), yet
filling the downstream with 3 Mbps of P2P traffic or filling the upstream
with 0.1 Mbps of P2P traffic can induce horrible jitter in the range of 

" Why is it not assumed that most businesses would have a fiber link?"

Why assume?  Have you ever asked most businesses if they want a fiber link.
I've dealt with businesses as an IT guy most of this decade, and I can tell
you that the vast majority of them don't want it for the office.  If they
need to host content and applications, they'll put a server in a colo or
they'll least something in the cloud.  They don't want YouTube in their
offices.  They might want 1.5 Mbps of upstream capacity for occasional 720P
video conferences, but for the most part they aren't asking for more than a
T1 line for their business users.  The larger offices may have a fractional
T3 or a full T3, but that's probably 45 Mbps shared between 1000 employees
and all the servers, and even that is typically 80% idle in my experience.

"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."

And this is the type of hyperbole that really isn't very helpful.  There are
all these studies that compare small individual European countries to the
entire US showing the US trailing a bit, but if you compared US to the EC,
the US actually leads.  So you know what they say about statistics. 


George