Heelo ToySoldier,
Wow ... how this all relates to Novell and caching and NDS I'm not sure ... but I'm game ... ;-)
> Scott, you failed to grab my point. You mentioned in your comment
> that @HOME is realizing that pipe governing is where they have
> already moved to and the use of the pipe to the customer is up to
> the customer.
Realizing, yes ... implemented, no. I'm not sure where you might have read into my comments that they are fully implemented for this type of service ... but their architect explained that this is where they are heading ... and for obvious, common sense reasons (some of which you explain below) they aren't quite there yet ...
> WRONG!!! Thats not the way @HOME sees it.
I'm sorry, but it is ... at least from Milo Medin's perspective ...
> @HOME has clear policies that state @HOME users cannot install and
> operate servers OF ANY KIND. In fact, they even have policies that
> state that I cannot max out the capacity of my bandwidth. WHY!? As
> you clearly mentioned - govern my bandwidth and then dont worry how
> I use the pipe.
Actually, the reason is that they are selling you an access product, not a "service provider" product. They fully realize that if they did not put such policies in their agreements, Yahoo! could sign up and try and run their business over a $40/month cable modem ... but obviously there would be problems. They full understand the *migration* and *evolution* that must occur in their infrastructure in order to be able to support the home users and small businesses. It's the back bones that are growing with huge amounts of bandwidth ... not the last mile.
> But, this is not the case. And, my regional provider of @HOME has a
> cable-modem deployment that they can and have easily governed (they
> did it several times when they first rolled it out and their
> internal truck pipes over congested).
Side questions: Curious, who's specific products and models? I talked with the @Home folks about the equipment they use ... I'm curious if they were accurate.
Yes, this is the classic "catch-22" that even US West found themselves caught in. They have now "sold" a product called "Megabits" services ... but it's not a megabit. It's actually 128kbps or 256kbps, or *maybe* 384kbps for the average person. What these folks have found is that there are two issues ... one (that you mention below) is that the backbone connections to the CO are not able to cope with the number of last-mile loops to homes. The other is that *managing* these early attempts at bandwidth throttling is a very difficult task since most of the designs didn't think real well about the manual labor requirments.
> What you might have forgotten Scott and they have not is that there
> is a difference between high speed and high capacity.
Nope ... not at all! This is the specific area of investments and analysis that I have been working in, and following, for over a year ... ;-)
> @HOME wants to provide the home user with very quick response for
> Internet client activities (browsing, game playing, file download,
> etc.).
Actually, no. They want to make reasonable amounts of money by providing acceptable levels of service to the customer while trying not to accumulate debt or high levels of overhead. ;-)
> This requires them to keep the pipes BIG. But, by making them big,
> they encourage people like my friend to take advantage of the pipe
> and use it to its max. If too many people do with their high-speed
> pipe like my friend did, then their core trunk pipes would over
> congest - not the links to the home! So they are in a catch-22
> situation.
I agree, and disagree. Yes, it is common sense that the bottleneck has moved another step into the infrastructure (hence the need for caching appliances!), but they are not encouraging people to use it ... in a different way then you think. After the executives presentation, the chief architect indicated that they aren't even promoting the service in many areas because they don't want the customers yet ... they fully realize, and track, the ability for them to build out their available bandwidth. It was interesting, they discussed how much they have learned about sign-up rates, and usage patterns ...
> They cannot govern bandwith to the home or they will not have the
> marketable feature that people are looking for over dial-up, high
> speed bursts for Internet client activities.
Are you absolutely sure that you want to make this statement and be held to it? ;-) Or would you like to put some limits on the context where this statement applies? Are you stating this as a final statement forever?
> They have no effective and automated manner of identifying NATs and
> servers. They can only do this by anaylyzing traffic flows and
> patterns. That is how they found my friend.
Well ... they seem to have some way to effectively locate servers. ;-) But I will argue that it is in the locating of servers. Again, they *might* be able to guess at NATs only because of outbound TCP/UDP port patterns.
> If you really think the @HOME people are on the ball, go to the
> NewGroups for @HOME and hear the non-marketing stories from real
> @HOME users who are frustrated with their use.
Yep ... and what business are you saying this doesn't exist? Let's also go to the stock analysis, and financials and take a look there? You're the one saying that "@HOME wants to provide the home user with very quick response for Internet client activities" ... I'm the one arguing that they simply want to make money, and that a "reasonable" level of service is what they are trying to provide.
Are there any stats on the ratio of complainers on the newsgroups vs. the number of users?
> You might have fallen too much for the @HOME marketing at your
> recent conference like I was fooled by NOVL's NDS marketing. :)))
;-) I'm not sure that I see a single instance of where the executives of @Home were incorrect ...
Actually, I'll suggest to anyone that can go, to attend the Forbes/Gilder Telecosm Conference. If you want to be enlightened to what is really going on in the infrastructure of telephony, Internet, technology, and science it is the place for information.
> Let me ask you Scott - are you an @HOME user and if so - how happy
> are you with your service. I have been for 1 year now and its OK.
> Not that stable - not as fast as proclaimed on TV commercials, but
> better than dial-up.
Yes ... but not at my house. I was able to get my parents, and my sister, to install @Home via their TCI service. When I spend time in California I use it the entire time I'm there. As the "support center" for both homes, I can say that I have not had a single call due to service problems ... as compared with dial-up problems which were monthly.
As for speed, to me it is more than enough. But you're asking someone who bought a T1 in their house back in the early '90s ('93 or '94) and enjoyed the bandwidth. But I moved the T1 to my office in town, and have gone back to 56k dial-up (pegs 50.6kbps every time) so that I can see the Internet from a more realistic perspective ... ;-)
Scott C. Lemon |
