11 ms·

Hasn’t Comcast heard about proper network design techniques? Redundancy is a well defined concept for a reason. Two is one and one is none.

guenthert 5y ago
Why should 30k people pay for redundancy just because a few loons can't keep their shooting to the range (or have guns in the first place)?
- Hizonner 5y ago
  Because redundancy is a basic expectation for an infrastructure service, not an add-on extra. There are a million other things that can also take out a cable. Maybe it's OK for that to knock out 1000 subscribers, if it can be fixed quickly, No way is it OK for it to knock out 30000 subscribers.
- _trampeltier 5y ago
  A truck also could hit a pole or something like that.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Because if it's not someone with a gun it'll be an errant semi truck on ice or something else.
totalZero 5y ago
Networks that allowed multiple comparable paths between critical nodes 24 months ago may no longer be as redundant with so much WFH and all the other developments of the pandemic. Infrastructure isn't software.
- Hizonner 5y ago
  If that were the case, then you would expect to see degraded service, not total loss of service. And anyway what should be getting overloaded by lots of subscriber use is switching equipment, not cables. Cables have ridiculous amounts of bandwidth, and fibers are so cheap compared to the fixed installation cost that you're out of your mind if you install a cable without running 10X the glass you actually expect to light up.
justapassenger 5y ago
Redundancy in a back-bone? Sure. Redundancy in the last mile? None of the infrastructure services provides that for residential customers. Not for internet, not for power, not for gas, not for water.
- Hizonner 5y ago
  A cable that's carrying traffic for 30,000 subscribers is "backbone" enough. I don't expect redundant paths to my block, but 30,000 is a big enough area that it's reasonable to expect it not to be knocked out by single, reasonably likely events. Even for power, which is much, much more expensive to make redundant, single transmission lines that can knock out that many people should be rare. Let's not normalize bad behavior here.
  - justapassenger 5y ago
    Oakland is fairly densely populated urban area. 30k subscribers is roughly an area of 3 sq miles. It's normal for any type of infrastructure service not have redundancy for it. I hate Comcast as much as most other people, but this is not something I can blame them for. It's a reasonably sized area for last mile service.
    - iptrans 5y ago
      It may be normal, but it’s still poor engineering practice.
      - alar44 5y ago
        Thinking you can just buy 2 of everything is poor engineering practice. That's almost never practical. Engineering is about balancing reliability with other factors, not just over designing things. Then again, maybe you're right, and you're the first person to come up with this idea.
        iptrans 5y ago

guenthert 5y ago

Why should 30k people pay for redundancy just because a few loons can't keep their shooting to the range (or have guns in the first place)?

Hizonner 5y ago
Because redundancy is a basic expectation for an infrastructure service, not an add-on extra. There are a million other things that can also take out a cable. Maybe it's OK for that to knock out 1000 subscribers, if it can be fixed quickly, No way is it OK for it to knock out 30000 subscribers.
_trampeltier 5y ago
A truck also could hit a pole or something like that.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Because if it's not someone with a gun it'll be an errant semi truck on ice or something else.

totalZero 5y ago

Networks that allowed multiple comparable paths between critical nodes 24 months ago may no longer be as redundant with so much WFH and all the other developments of the pandemic. Infrastructure isn't software.

Hizonner 5y ago
If that were the case, then you would expect to see degraded service, not total loss of service. And anyway what should be getting overloaded by lots of subscriber use is switching equipment, not cables. Cables have ridiculous amounts of bandwidth, and fibers are so cheap compared to the fixed installation cost that you're out of your mind if you install a cable without running 10X the glass you actually expect to light up.

justapassenger 5y ago

Redundancy in a back-bone? Sure. Redundancy in the last mile? None of the infrastructure services provides that for residential customers. Not for internet, not for power, not for gas, not for water.

Hizonner 5y ago
A cable that's carrying traffic for 30,000 subscribers is "backbone" enough. I don't expect redundant paths to my block, but 30,000 is a big enough area that it's reasonable to expect it not to be knocked out by single, reasonably likely events. Even for power, which is much, much more expensive to make redundant, single transmission lines that can knock out that many people should be rare. Let's not normalize bad behavior here.
- justapassenger 5y ago
  Oakland is fairly densely populated urban area. 30k subscribers is roughly an area of 3 sq miles. It's normal for any type of infrastructure service not have redundancy for it. I hate Comcast as much as most other people, but this is not something I can blame them for. It's a reasonably sized area for last mile service.
  - iptrans 5y ago
    It may be normal, but it’s still poor engineering practice.
    - alar44 5y ago
      Thinking you can just buy 2 of everything is poor engineering practice. That's almost never practical. Engineering is about balancing reliability with other factors, not just over designing things. Then again, maybe you're right, and you're the first person to come up with this idea.
      - iptrans 5y ago