[133662] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Graydon)
Wed Dec 15 13:28:29 2010
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 08:28:23 -1000
From: Paul Graydon <paul@paulgraydon.co.uk>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4D08DA11.3010504@kenweb.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 12/15/2010 05:09 AM, ML wrote:
>
>> According to:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast
>> "Comcast has 15.930 million high-speed internet customers"
>>
>> If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
>> that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
>> to properly desaturate this particular link.
>>
>> Did I compute something wrong?
>>
>> Laurent
>
> Assuming that I did my math right.
>
> It's actually 1.9 cents/month/per customer.
>
> Assuming they pay $30/meg...
>
Probably preaching to the choir here but there are a lot more costs than
that involved. It's all right having the bandwidth at transit points,
but you've got to be able to get the bandwidth to the customers
locations. With no idea of what Comcast's distribution is like for all
we know the graph could be one transit point in one area of the country
and indicative of poor localised behaviour rather than centralised.
Virgin Media were notorious in various cities in the UK for
over-saturating the local network. Out in the towns and smaller cities
you'd be okay and have no problem saturating a 20Mb line, but often
whole areas of London, Manchester and the like would suffer high
latency, packet loss and so on during 'peak' hours because they would
over sell their infrastructure (12am-10am fine, then steadily worse
until unusable come the evening). They only seemed to add more capacity
to the areas when enough people complained.
IMO two network graphs are next to useless out of context.
Paul
