[133681] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ricky Beam)
Wed Dec 15 17:50:40 2010
To: "Mikel Waxler" <dooser@gmail.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:50:25 -0500
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimK2uDY2o2U2ic4dOym8Z0Bz6daPRLgo+_pnCDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:51:05 -0500, Mikel Waxler <dooser@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
