"Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:H8Kdnfw1GvIRQnvbnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
Then the Comcast ratio is higher than 1:1 as many customers own their
own modems. However this long drawn out, very stupid argument is over
how customers utilize the service not just numbers of modems VS people
using the service. Customer ratio is a straw-man argument.

"Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QZCdnY-1MdFNaXvbnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@comcast.com...

No You did as usual!

NormanM wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but you're forgetting that 1) you can't see the
other cars on the internet or know whether it's raining or not, thus you
don't know the conditions to know whether it's safe or not, and 2) your car
has a governor on it that already keeps it from exceeding the speed limit.

All of these analogies don't work.

PS: I don't ever cross-post - to Comcast or any other group.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:xAxFi.1314$vq6.1208@textfe.usenetserver.com:

No, you've given an extremely lame excuse. You'd be laughed out
of court if you used that as your defense.

--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

Fred Atkinson said the following on 9/11/2007 11:50 AM:
of a crowded road with many cars and the bigger ones get picked on
first: i.e. trucks are routinely excluded from the fast lane and can be
ticketed if they are driving in it (regardless of the speed limit)

--
(^\pop/^)
I Stopped to think but forgot to start again.
--

Bill <none@none.invalid> wrote in
news:1dcee3hjn4oak7lm350cruhk0f8v05gt0k@4ax.com:

Over-subscription doesn't make fees cheaper for users so much as
it makes more profit for the service provider. I doubt that we'd
be paying more, but there'd certianly be less high-speed access
available right now. Users have a figure they are willing to pay
for a service, and if the price is higher than that ideal price,
most of them won't use it. They will wait until the price comes
down, and eventually, it will do just that.

"Almost always" isn't "always." It's like pregnancy; it's one or
the other. Since it can be demonstrated that a system can be
compromised, and since it can also be demonstrated that a system
HAS been compromised, providers must face the reality that a
system WILL be compromised and plan accordingly.

That doesn't mean business should NEVER oversubscribe, but that
the margins should be less and not more. There has to be a plan
in place on how to handle the one moment when everyone shows up
at the same time. Because it WILL happen.

--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/

"Strike the show, my ass. I'm outta here when the curtain
drops."
Clive Mitchell

In alt.online-service.comcast Rick Merrill <rick0.merrill@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
I did? You replied to this:

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

In alt.online-service.comcast Bill <none@none.invalid> wrote:
It didn't confuse me :-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

In alt.online-service.comcast Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote:
Absolutely it makes it cheaper for the consumer? Have you priced a simple T1
to your home or business? How about how much it would cost you to get the
equivalent dedicated bandwidth (i.e. DS3) that a cable modem can provide you?
We are talking as much as a factor of 1000 hear. At one time, I was pulling
as much as 26Mbps down and 2.5Mbps up with Comcast until they "fixed" it and I
get the standard 8Mbps provisioning. I can tell you that to buy dedicated
bandwidth of that sort will cost so much more that just about NOBODY would
have high speed Internat at that price.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

In alt.online-service.comcast AuldPhart <auldphart@the.home> wrote:
You don't have to be an "end-user" of AT&T. Your traffic just has to pass
through their backbone, and as much as 25% of Internet traffic does.

Here is a little tidbit for you:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200..._police_i.html

And AT&T was working with the NSA during the summer of 2006, so have fun if
you think big brother isn't watching. And Hollywood is in bed with Big
Brother (incestuous as that may seem these days).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
All the ratios above are about user modem to isp modem.

Modem ratio is really the Only way that 'over subscription' can be done.

Throughput or the much misused 'bandwidth' is merely a matter of packet
congestion.

In alt.online-service.comcast Rick Merrill <rick0.merrill@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
No they aren't. That value is always 1:1 (considering that with DSL, it is a
port on a blade rather than an "isp modem").

Over subscription is simply making X amount of bandwidth available to a given
population, P, and the population was sold Y amount of bandwidth, and they are
oversold if P*Y > X. If you ever look at the AUP for a service sold under
this model, it will always say actual bandwidth levels are not guarrenteed.

No, it isn't. They can be oversubscribe and NEVER see congestion, or a better
term is probably saturation. If they over subscribe by too much, or there is
abuse, then saturation may become an issue on a regular basis, leaving them
the option to either add more available bandwidth or cut the abuse.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
[1:1 When Connected, but] 'oversubscribed' to me means selling more
tickets than seats, or having more internet subscribers than modems.

Daytripper has never explained how 'bandwidth' can be made available!-)

I don't want to be argumentative, but apparently we just do not see each
other's point of view on this thing.

In alt.online-service.comcast AuldPhart <auldphart@the.home> wrote:
I don't know, but I have used SSL or GnuPG in many cases for many years
precisely because of all the *spying* that is going on. Granted, 99% of
anything that I do on the internet is unencrypted, but, given the option, I
always choose it.

I have read a couple of articles about that AT&T bit and I am pretty sure that
there was no question among them [except this article] about whether they plan
to use it on the backbone traffic or not; they did. I will just go ahead and
assume they are.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

Bill <none@none.invalid> wrote in
news:8jdge358hvd1q0dh02n791bk36p6jjv3mr@4ax.com:

I agree with this description, anyway.

While "oversubscription" is SOP in resource management, I feel
that the provider should take more care in the ratios. 50 people
using a node optimized for 30 isn't unrealistic, or even 60, but
putting 500 people on that same node is going to result in
problems.

It's like an airline: if fifteen people routinely don't show up
for their flight, you shouldn't sell fifty extra tickets. There
are reasonable calculations, and greedy to the point of stupid
ones.

--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/

You laugh just like the angles dancing on the head of the pin
jabbed into my mind's eye.