Reply to post: Re: A question about cost:value of access in the US

California’s net neutrality rules good to go after judge boots Big Cable’s lawsuit

tip pc Silver badge

Re: A question about cost:value of access in the US

“ VM has the benefit of being cable internet rather than contention-restrictive ADSL. It's _theoretically_ not throttled as well. ”

Im on vm and get 200mbs and am paying £27, your laying too much.

You likely don’t remember the dsl vs docsis wars.

Vm can have worst contention.

Say your on BT FTTC, your contention is from the cab back to exchange & exchange to bt peering exchange etc. The main contention will be amongst the 30 - 50 others sharing the bandwidth to your dslam (or what ever it’s called) in the cab. Read BT’s view on contention.

Cable internet aggregates your street to a node, then many nodes together then uphauls to their pop. If it wasn’t for isolation procedures you and your neighbours would effectively be on a shared hub (yes hub not switch), able to see each other’s traffic. Cable uses far larger contention domains than dsl and suffers more from over subscription.

Subsequent docsis versions helped dramatically.

Technically cable is very primitive and was a privacy fail.

Dsl always was far more segregated with far lower contention closer to the subscribers home.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon