[kwlug-disc] Rogers Bandwith Limit - Consequences of exceeding?

unsolicited unsolicited at swiz.ca
Mon Feb 9 12:57:40 EST 2009

Andrew Kohlsmith (lists) wrote, On 02/09/2009 10:05 AM:
> On February 4, 2009 09:21:17 pm unsolicited wrote:
>> 2 modems? On same cable? Interesting. Just goes to show (a) each modem
>> / digital cable set top box is just a 'terminal' on their wires, (b)
>> capacity far exceeds bandwidth offered. They claim their HomePhone is
>> "not VoIP" - what they really mean is there's so much capacity they
>> can dedicate the necessary bandwidth for their VoIP to maintain call
>> quality without impacting internet and cable services travelling on
>> the same wires. So, they can shape your 'internet' VoIP while
>> maintaining their own call quality, and make their claims. <sigh> Net
>> Neutrality anyone?
> HomePhone isn't voip -- the home phone modem uses a different "channel" for 
> its communications, so it's plain old not over the internet.

Run that by me again? I'm missing something.

I haven't used it to know - where does their phone box go, assuming 
you have TV and internet:

                incoming cable
<-> internet <-> home phone <-> tv digital terminal <->

Or something?

Is home phone digital or analog? Is it IP?

> And yes -- all cable modem traffic for a neighbourhood is on the same channel 
> or group of channels.  That's why when you are in a neigbourhood filled with 
> teenage kids on cable and they've all got "teh torrentz" running 24/7 you 
> suffer.

Did you use 'cable modem' above particularly? I know the suffering 
you're referring to. Does this impact (digital) TV or home phone? 
(Same set of wires.) Digital TV just being a different 'IP range' 
going over the same wires.

>> I don't think you'd get 2 Mbps up though, 2 x 1 Mbps yes, but that's
>> not exactly the same thing. I don't believe you can aggregate
>> bandwidth across different mac addresses. (Even if you make one
>> virtual mac address out of two physical mac addresses.)
> Depends; I have set up bandwidth aggregation for several businesses where it's 
> impossible to get decent broadband, or they wanted failover capability.

OK, makes sense. But I've never seen aggregation over disparate 
hardware still be 2x. I've seen x+x yes, but not 2x. e.g. I can feed 2 
requestors at 1k, but I can't feed 1 requestor at 2k, only 1k. 3 
requestors means 1 gets 1k, the other 2 get 1/2 k. True aggregation 
would give each of the 3 2/3 k. You're saying you get the last?

More information about the kwlug-disc mailing list