Re: do read !!! Comcast confirms 250GB cap effective October 1

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Dr. Lawrence Roberts" <lroberts () anagran com>
Date: August 30, 2008 1:16:14 AM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>, Larry Roberts  
<lroberts () anagran com>, dan () lynch com
Subject: Re: Fwd: [IP] do read !!!  Comcast confirms 250GB cap  
effective October 1

Unfortunately, the problem is even worse for Japan and S. Korea. P2P  
users are more common, the countries are small so most downloads or  
uploads go international, and their High speed symmetric BB links  
suffer far worse than our un-symmetric lower speed BB connections. So  
they have major economic problems. They have tried DPI even before us  
but it cannot find all the encrypted flows now so the remaining 30% or  
the P2P users still can operate freely. The remaining P2P users then  
spawn more flows and take up the same 80-90% of the pooled capacity.  
The result is the average user get very poor service.

However going to a GB cap or a charge per GB is really bad as we know.  
But put this down to flailing for a solution in the face of an  
extremely bad situation. The Internet cannot stand up to this as more  
and more applications discover the ease of getting more capacity by  
using more flows.

I continue to believe that equal capacity for equal pay instead of  
equal capacity per flow is what we need to move to, since then  
congestion will affect us all fairly (as it used to). But how does one  
convince the world?
Larry

At 02:12 PM 8/29/2008, David Farber wrote:


> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Dan Lynch <dan () lynch com>
> Date: August 29, 2008 2:37:05 PM EDT
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, Tony Lauck <tlauck () madriver com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] do read !!!  Comcast confirms 250GB cap effective
> October 1
>
> Thanks Tony.  Now I think it gets trickier here as a solution for a
> single
> AS (like Comcast) may not be very helpful for customers who span
> multiple
> Ases, if the intermediate systems do not also play by the same rules.
> Maybe
> someone like Mike O'Dell can offer his deep experience here?  Or Larry
> Roberts whose new company, Anagran, is wrestling with this issue of
> "fairness" across a long haul.  We do need some "rules of the road"  
> that
> benefit everyone or no one will win very much.  Right now those
> countries
> that are overprovisioning (like Japan, South Korea and Finland) look
> pretty
> smart and don't have to address the fairness issue (yet).
>
> Dan
>
>
> On 8/29/08 10:13 AM, "Dave Farber" <dave () farber net> wrote:
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Tony Lauck <tlauck () madriver com>
> > Date: August 29, 2008 12:55:28 PM EDT
> > To: Dan Lynch <dan () lynch com>
> > Cc: "'David Farber'" <dave () farber net>
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   do read Comcast confirms 250GB cap effective
> > October 1
> >
> > Dan,
> >
> > Yes, a cap will solve the congestion problem if it is set  
> > sufficiently
> > low.  In the limit it definitely solves the congestion problem by
> > driving away all the customers. (The Prodigy solution.)
> >
> > The problem is that congestion is caused by instantaneous load
> > exceeding capacity, whereas monthly usage measures average load. If
> > there are, say, four busy hours per day, an average based cap will
> > need to be set (roughly) six times lower than it would otherwise need
> > to be. The result will be unhappy customers. In addition, the bean
> > counters (who are unlikely to know any queuing theory) may suggest
> > that expenses be cut by reducing resources!
> >
> > I have written many IP posts on this subject and you can find them in
> > the archive. Basically, a proper solution is to give higher priority
> > to users who create less congestion. Let everybody go as fast as they
> > want when there is no congestion. If people need or want more  
> > capacity
> > than others, let them pay more for more "shares" and adjust the
> > weighting accordingly, and use the money to increase capacity. This
> > approach is politically neutral, i.e. it will work in a capitalist or
> > a socialist society. Unlike the Comcast cap it follows the principle
> > of maximum utilization of resources.
> >
> > Tony Lauck
> > https://www.aglauck.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Dan Lynch wrote:
> > > Tony, can you teach me how a cap does not solve their congestion
> > > problem?
> > > In the limit it sure does...
> > > Thanks,
> > > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
>
>
> Tel. 707-967-0203   Cell  650-776-7313
> My assistant is Dori Kirk   Tel. 707-255-7094  dori () lynch com


Dr. Lawrence G. Roberts,  Ph:+1 650-906-8746,  W:  www.anagran.com,  
E:    lroberts () anagran com
Founder, Chairman, Chief Architect, Anagran, Inc., 580 Pastoria Ave.,  
Sunnyvale, CA 94085 USA
If not for you, please return. Any use other than the intended  
recipient is unauthorized.







-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com