What vexes VoIP users?

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Tue Mar 1 22:08:16 CST 2011


On 03/01/2011 07:51 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> As I said, this second channel doesn't exist in almost all cases (its
>> not cost effective nor needed in almost all cases). Having said that
>> over the top VOIP providers do suffer in comparison because they don't
>> get the benefit of prioritization in the local cable plant.
>>      
> "Cost-effective"?
>
> Could you expand on how the provisioning of a second virtual pipe down
> the hill to a cable box has any incremental costs at all?
>    

The original analog cable plant was separated into bands,
so carving out IP of any kind meant sacrificing channels. They
initially put the IP uplink into a band that was used originally
used for very low bandwidth uplink signalling... the kind the
big refrigerators and other noise producers torqued badly.
So from the MSO's perspective, giving QoS treatment to the
upstream had a big potential business case. Of course, analog
cable is now gone and I doubt that any of the original assumptions
have much bearing today.

Mike, where's John Chapman when you need him?





More information about the NANOG mailing list