Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

Wed Dec 15 23:34:53 UTC 2010

1) Sure, if those streams are only video streams and they can only exist at
5mbps. In reality, a network of 16 million users has lots of types of
streams and some like file downloads, UDP data for game players, video with
user buffers, etc, are capable of getting squeezed a little.

It seemed that the OP was stating that once the network was at capacity, all
further users got zero  bandwidth.

Also, adding 1 user to 16 million is very different then adding 1 user to a
pool of 10, 20, or 2000. It is a LOT harder to measure the impact.

2) Fair enough, I have not read either of those. Again, I was not arguing
the point, simply pointing out that you can't imply that all relationships
are 1:1 without some backup or proof.

3) That describes every for profit business on the planet. We pay comcast
more then we should for a service, just like buying a burger.

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Ricky Beam <jfbeam at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:51:05 -0500, Mikel Waxler <dooser at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bandwidth is not allocated in static blocks on a
>> first come first serve basis. It is shared across all users. ...
>>
>> a single new connection would not noticeably effect others.
>>
>
> I love how people demonstrate how they've failed most of the math classes
> in their life.
>
> Let's start with a 10G link (10,000M).  If a live (real-time) video stream
> needs a minimum of 5Mbps, then the link can support a maximum of 2000
> streams.  Add one more stream and you will not have the bandwidth to support
> the required rate for all of them.  In a perfectly fair system, everyone's
> experience begins to be degraded; *every* additional user robs an
> incremental amount from all the others.  With Comcast's 16mil users, it's a
> safe bet that tens of thousands of them are streaming at any given point.
> Why do you think Level3 asked for ~30 10G ports?
>
> (I know netflix streams are less than 5M.)
>
>
>  2) "Comcast claims that a good network maintains a 1:1 "
>>
>> I have never heard them assert that.
>>
>
> Read their blog posts.  Read the peering agreement.
>
>
>  Would it drive up the cost of monthly internet? Yes.
>>
>
> Of course it would.  But not because comcast would go broke doing it.  They
> make plenty already.  They aren't interested in doing anything that doesn't
> immediately *increase* their profits. (which is making content sources pay
> them to get to their millions of customers.)
>
> --Ricky
>