Re: Phone companies, sheesh
- From: phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 19 Sep 2007 17:28:27 GMT
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:57:20 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| In article <alpine.OSX.0.9999.0709171707530.27800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
| Mark Crispin <mrc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|> As far as I have heard,
|> cable will only give you a single dynamic IP address;
| Ummmm....that has nothing to do with the physical cable that brings the
| network in, and everything to do with the network setup at the server
| My cable company gives three dynamic IP addresses as part of its basic
You can also do your own NAT and support millions of IPv4 addresses and
so many IPv6 ones I can't even think of the number.
|> and it's a violation
|> of the terms of service to run any servers.
| Ummmm....that has nothing to do with the physical cable that brings the
| network in, and everything to do with the network operator's business
| In other words, there's nothing inherent to DSL that means they ALLOW
| servers, and there's nothing inherent in cable that means the DISALLOW
When the bandwidth is shared, there is that issue where they want to
cap heavy users. It's shared everywhere. Cable and FiOS share it in
groups of nearby customers. DSL and other directly connected services
share it at the central office (1000 DSL lines might be sharing one
OC-3, for example).
When a DSL line is _dedicated_ to another ISP, at least that is going
to that ISP over dedicated bandwidth, such as over an ATM trunk. But
the other ISP almost certainly is sharing.
Where significant differences apply is how differnet companies deal
with their policies. Comcast, for example, denies there are any limits,
yet do cut customers off for exceeding them. Recently they have stated
some limits in vague terms. But reportedly they give no warning about
being close to a limit. People get caught by surprise and are then
denied internet access for a year.
A smaller ISP is more likely to have a sensible policy in that regard.
Smaller businesses are more agile. Smaller businesses make it a lot
easier to talk to someone that actually _knows_ what is going on.
|> Furthermore, you have to
|> share the cable bandwidth with other subscribers,
| Think about that one for a moment. We'll wait.
| OK, how do you think DSL does it? At some point, the network provider
| provides an interface between its users and the internet. It doesn't
| matter WHERE that interface is; all traffic must go through that
True enough. But _where_ the "choke point" is, is critical.
| Where do you think that DSL line goes? "Straight to the internets"?
| Straight to cnn.com, or youtube.com? No. It goes to the phone company
| switching office, which has a pipe to the net. That pipe is only so
| big. Everyone who has DSL and is using it at that moment must share
| that pipe.
Not in the OP's case. His DSL goes over a dedicated connection to his
alternate ISP. They may be running a DSLAM in that central office. Or
they may have wired him over an ATM circuit to their network center.
Either way, it's a full bandwidth connection up to that ISP. Then they
have the "choke point".
| The ONLY difference between cable and DSL is where the sharing takes
| place. Physically.
And under which company's policy it is under. And this is crucial.
Phone and cable companies both have major difficulties in dealing with
it. Independent ISPs like BLARG.NET are smaller, where people have a
better grasp on what is going on with their customers, and usually have
a better work environment for more skilled technical people.
| It's quite possible to build a DSL system where the coming-together
| point at the front of that pipe gets crowded because the pipe is too
| small. It's also very easy to buy enough bandwidth--pay to make the
| pipe big enough--for everyone.
Or just move the "choke point" to a business that manages it sensibly.
| And on a cable system, it's quite easy to make the entire system equally
| accommodating to everyone. There's no inherent "my pipe is bigger than
| your pipe" thing with DSL.
Cable can provide different tiers of internet service. Most don't have a
clue how to do it.
DSL does have a number of different levels of bandwidth, with varying
|> and if you are perceived
|> to be using too much bandwidth the cable company will cut you off for a
| pssssssst.....NO network provider wants you to take over his network.
| EVERY provider, cable or DSL, can monitor you and can cut you off if he
| thinks you're using up too much bandwidth.
| Why do you think these issues have something to do with the type of
| physical cable that brings the network into the house?
The type of cable has a LOT to do with where the "choke point" is located.
With Cable and FiOS it is a LOT harder to move that "choke point" back to
where it has minimal effect, or is under the control of a company that does
a better job of managing it. With DSL it is easier since it is not hard
to cross connect the pair over to a differnet DSLAM or ATM switch. Making
a dedicated circuit over Cable or FiOS is not impossible, but it is very
hard, has limitations (not enough bandwidth for more than a couple customers
to do that), and is run by a clueless company that won't know what to do
even if they had deployed the equipment to do it.
|> DSL is effectively a dedicated private line to your ISP.
| <snort> it is? You mean, to the pipe the phone company brings the net
| in through. Once your "private line" gets to that common pipe, your
| "private line" system is sharing that same pipeline with everyone else
| on the DSL system. And the pipe is only so big. If every DSL user on
| the system started downloading Windows NT SP4 all at once, what do you
| think would happen?
His DSL line is dedicated all the way to BLARG.NET. Then BLARG.NET is
do a better, smarter, job of managing the bandwidth. They could, for
example, offer the OP the service of as much bandwidth as he wants to
use (e.g. he gets a dedicated chunk of bandwidth out of whatever trunk
BLARG.NET has running). Or if he's just a basic DSL customer like many
of their others (if they do that), and he overuses the bandwidth, they
might call him up or email him within a day or so asking what is going
on, rather than letting a problem persist for a couple months the cut
him off with no notice (as is very typical for Comcast, and likely to
become typical for Verizon over FiOS).
| Hint: there's no "private line" to Microsoft's servers.....and every
| bit of DSL traffic into that phone company is coming through a pipe
| that's only so big, just big enough to handle peak demand without people
| screaming too much.
He never said that. He specifically DID say it was dedicated to his ISP.
|> DSL is effectively a dedicated private line to your ISP. You pay the
|> phone company for a fixed bandwidth which is dedicated to you (and you
|> alone). The details such as running servers, static vs. dynamic IP
|> addresses, blocks of IP addresses, etc. are between you and your ISP; the
|> phone company has nothing to say in the matter.
| What you're describing here is a dry loop--where the phone company isn't
| the ISP. That's rare. Nonetheless, there's nothing inherent about
| being an ISP that deals over DSL that means you're allowed to run
| servers, you get unlimited bandwidth to wherever you want, you get
| whatever IP addresses you want/need, etc. That's simply a business
| decision made by the ISP.
That's not rare at all, and not always even a dry loop. It can be a
pair simply cross connected to an ISP operating as a colocated CLEC
with a DSLAM on site at the CO. Or it can be a dedicated ATM circuit
fed through DSL at the end point (usually done with SDSL but can be
done with ADSL).
Whenever you sign up for DSL service through an alternate ISP, this
is usually what you get. There are cases where an "alternate ISP"
is not "facilities based" (at least in that location) and is just
reselling the telco's internet service. But this mode is one that
is now rare.
|> My ISP sells me a static /29 netblock,
| That's extremely rare in the world of consumer internet access. And
| while you won't see that on cable, in the real world you won't see
| consumers setting that up on DSL. The real world consumers simply buy
| their network access from the same guy providing the physical link.
It's only rare in that as more people get online (which at the same time
drags the average internet IQ level down). People who understand the net
have nearly all already gotten connected. Most people who connect today
are ignorant of their choices (and phone/cable companies like it that way).
There are occaisionally smart people getting first connections who could
choose something better. These are usually people just graduating from
college and now living on their own.
|> I certainly pay a premium for this;
| Ah. But above, you acted like DSL is by definition your setup--but now
| you admit that it's not, and that what you have costs more than the
| going rate.
His DSL is through another ISP rather than the incumbent telco. That does
cost more. The other ISP might well be charging a permium service. But
he is likely getting premium quality of service. If there is a problem,
the chances are much higher he can call and reach a real person that knows
what is going on. And if he has to escalate the service, it probably ends
up with an engineer that actually installs, configures, and monitors routers.
Or maybe even the CTO in person. There _is_ value in having an ISP like
that ... worth paying more for.
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-09-19-1153@xxxxxxxx |
- Prev by Date: Re: Phone companies, sheesh
- Next by Date: Re: Phone companies, sheesh
- Previous by thread: Re: Phone companies, sheesh
- Next by thread: Sony XBR960 vs all