| |
to elray
Re: If the 'Bandwidth Hog is a Myth'said by elray:Huh? How are special interests and government keeping the market as a duopoly?
There is no legal barrier to entry for an overbuilder to compete for the last-mile as a second or third player. I think county and statewide franchise agreements could be impacting deployment of competing cable / DSL systems. |
|
| talz13 |
to ChucksTruck
Re: Canada is the so called land of bandwidth hogssaid by ChucksTruck :Bell Canada believes anyone who downloads more than two (2) gigabytes a month is a bandwidth hog.
2GB per month?!? That's roughly the equivalent of 15 MILLION tweets! Who would ever possibly need to use that much internet tubes? [/sarcasm] |
|
| |
to Nightfall
Re: Why we have capsI PAY FOR MY SERVICE. It is not "something for nothing".
It is normal to desire the most service for the cheapest price. Why is it ok for companies to gouge customers and for monopolies to flourish ?
The corporate apologists make me puke. I hope one day all of you will be rounded up and shot. |
|
| |
to elray
Re: If the 'Bandwidth Hog is a Myth'said by elray:Public transportation suffers precisely because its public, and has no incentive to be efficient. Our healthcare system is overpriced thanks to government mandates and regulation, but remains the envy of the free world.
By incentive you mean corporate lobbyist. |
|
| DataRiker |
to Nightfall
Re: ConcurrencyYou consider accepting BS unsubstantiated positions as open minded?
Your more than welcome to explain the technical intricacies of this bandwidth shortage you mean to imply, but not imply at the same time. |
|
 DaneJasperSonic.Net
Premium Member
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
1 recommendation |
to FFH5
Re: Laymans termssaid by FFH5:said by rradina:Applied to ISPs, it means going to 100% UBB where they charge less for off-peak hours and more for peak hours. There could even be "free" periods much like cell companies offer free nights and week ends. The free periods would cause the "hogs" to make sure their activity is performed when most other folks don't use the system.
That is an interesting idea on how to manage bandwidth usage and is worth a try by a big ISP just to see how it worked. But, it's not necessary to charge during peak time - the fix is simply to slow the fastest user down to the level of the next-heaviest user. Iterate until the link is not congested. Cisco implements a "weighted fair queuing" solution that basically achieves this outcome. The "hog" is slowed down a little when others want to "use the road", but is otherwise unimpaired - and not billed for bogus excesses! See also my article here: » corp.sonic.net/ceo/2011/ ··· eb-hogs/-Dane |
|
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
1 edit |
to DataRiker
Re: Concurrencysaid by DataRiker:You consider accepting BS unsubstantiated positions as open minded?
Your more than welcome to explain the technical intricacies of this bandwidth shortage you mean to imply, but not imply at the same time.
That is exactly what your position is.  If you don't understand that bandwidth is a resource, and that in order to add bandwidth, you have to maybe upgrade a pipe and definitely spend money.....then I can't help you. Bandwidth is not infinite, and there is a cost to adding it. Wouldn't that cost be better suited to upgrading the infrastructure? My point is this....and its a simple one so please take the time to read this. ISPs should be looking for ways to improve their infrastructure to make the traffic more efficient. The cable nodes where you have bandwidth feeding 400 homes and some feeding 10 homes should be optimized so that bandwidth can go across nodes somehow. D3 upgrades are still going on today, and they should have been done a long time ago. Especially at the profits these guys are bringing in. It should be less about just blindly adding bandwidth and speed and more about optimizing what they have to make the network more efficient. You seem to be caught up on the fact that I said bandwidth is a finite resource, but it is. You may not believe that, but its true. Even if there was a pool of bandwidth out there that is unlimited, the cable and dsl providers don't have the infrastructure to take advantage of it. Doesn't it make sense to look at that troubled infrastructure first? |
|
4 edits |
to msilbey
Nice try, my problem is you implied that ISP's are short on Bandwidth, which they certainly are not.
BTW, anything can be considered scarce. Its all relative.
I'll state it again: The majority of "scarcity" on networks is self inflicted through bad network management and absolutely pitiful amounts of corporate greed. The unwillingness to speed even a small % of profits for upgrades unless direct and real competition is at hand. |
|
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI |
said by DataRiker:Nice try, my problem is you implied that ISP's are short on Bandwidth, which they certainly are not.
BTW, anything can be considered scarce. Its all relative.
I'll state it again: The majority of "scarcity" on networks is self inflicted through bad network management and absolutely pitiful amounts of corporate greed. The unwillingness to speed even a small % of profits for upgrades unless direct and real competition is at hand.
In that case, we are both correct. ISPs don't have an unlimited amount of bandwidth = True. ISPs networks are badly managed = True. So I guess we can /thread. |
|
| |
Again, not so fast. I think 90+ % of the problems stem from just plain old greed and the opportunity to capitalize on it ( Duopoly markets, and in some area Monopoly markets) |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI |
said by DataRiker:Again, not so fast. I think 90+ % of the problems stem from just plain old greed and the opportunity to capitalize on it ( Duopoly markets, and in some area Monopoly markets)
I think that problem is closer to 50% greed and 50% infrastructure. Lets not hash over numbers though. We are in complete agreement. |
|
| |
OWS123
Anon
2011-Dec-4 12:28 am
Not To Be Confused Between Data Volume And Bandwidth"The top 20% of users are hogging up 80% of the network's resources"
I would never buy that crap statement from greedy ISPs.
Whose network resources is that in the 1st place? Does the consumer have any control over their resources?
Think carefully of what the confusion they are actually causing.
They were never transparent to the public about how much bandwidth they made available versus the number of users they put up to share the pipe.Even if they were to claim numbers how sure are we that it's the TRUTH?
If an ISP is going to share 1Gbps of pipe among say 1 million users with 10Mbps accounts resulting in lots of complains that users never achieved speed results close to advertised speed should they be blamed for not abiding the FUP?
It's obvious the ISP's are the one that are overselling their capacity and they expect subscribers to play along their game?
Just like the article claims, ,don't get mixed up between data usage volume and bandwidth. The capacity of subscriber intake is related to bandwidth because it you have sufficient bandwidth you'll never need to put up with congestion even with 100% load that's if overall bandwidth is more than total customers usage. That's how floodless networks are plan. Excess bandwidth to absorbed peak traffic like they do in Tokyo's metropolitan network.
On the other hand, if you have insufficient bandwidth but you oversell your lines, the only way to call for more capacity is to ask consumers to take turns to go on the net while you continue to make everyone pay your monthly subscription fees. |
|
| |
to fifty nine
Re: Why we have capssaid by fifty nine:I think the crowd here won't be happy until they get the most speed available, unlimited bandwidth with no conditions at all for a rock bottom price.
Can I ask you to honestly explain why this is a bad thing? Other countries are moving towards this model and they are leaps and bounds above consumer-grade broadband in the US. You pay for your internet, and unless you're doing something extremely intensive like grabbing more than 10TBs of data a month, it shouldn't be up to anyone but you to decide how you use it. It's like the only thing you want the ISPs to do is make money and completely ignore the reason they're monoliths of industry in the first place. Less restrictions, more speed, and expanded availability at a competitive price would equal more customers and a happier consumer base. Adding more customers would boost profits in the long term and seems like a better alternative to claiming "FREE MARKET!" and doing the exact opposite of what free market actually is. |
|
graison
join:2011-04-27
Lloydminster, AB |
So TrueThis couldn't be more true... ISPs can't be blaming their users, when it is mostly the fault of the network! |
|
| |
Why don't broadband caps separate peak and off peak usage?An interesting thread from the network engineer's POV. |
|
 bear73Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium Member
join:2001-06-09
Derry, NH
1 recommendation |
to DaneJasper
Re: Laymans terms*said by greedy Verizon exec* Shhhh!!!! dammit don't tell them that we can effectively and inexpensively manage our existing network! then we can't make double-digit profits while simultaneously convincing the gov't that we need subsidies to bring affordable broadband to the rural US! |
|
Paxio
Premium Member
join:2011-02-23
Santa Clara, CA |
Paxio
Premium Member
2011-Dec-6 1:08 pm
The "burstable billing" disconnectOne problem is that the price paid for transport (bytes to and from the Internet) by providers is done on a very different model than consumers. At the carrier level, we pay on a "burstable billing" model. The amount we pay for transport is set by the top 95% of use in any given 15-minute period. The amount we pay is somewhere between $5 and $15 per megabit on this 95% traffic depending on the carrier. Here is the disconnect. The price we pay for transport is not at all the same model as what we charge our customers (flat rate per month with the price adjusted for the speed of the connection). Our costliest customer is the 5M customer who does bittorrent 24/7. He raises our baseline by 5M because he raises our PEAKS by that much. His transport can cost us $75/mo. for a connection that generates $24/mo. Not a good way to stay in business! At Paxio, we do not have caps, but we do have a "fair use" policy. If we have a customer who torrents excessively we call him and ask him to throttle down his connection a bit. (Most don't even realize they are seeding 24/7 -- at least that's what they tell us!) As long as Internet providers need to pay for transport on the "burstable billing" model there will always be some tension between providers and users. |
|
| |
anonnymiss
Anon
2011-Dec-6 4:52 pm
Um2 people sharing 1 line to the internet, whether it's a cable line, or a fiber line, or whatever. Doesn't matter where they are sharing, everyone shares somewhere. 100% of the internet is tree/branch somewhere.
User 1 uses bittorrent and opens 99 connections to his home computer. User 2 opens 1 connection to youtube.
User 1 gets 99% of the total bandwidth. User 2 gets 1%.
Tell me again how User 1 isn't "hogging" the entire line?
Yeah, it's a myth. And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a racecar too. |
|
| anonnymiss |
anonnymiss to Nightfall
Anon
2011-Dec-6 4:59 pm
to Nightfall
Re: ConcurrencySorry, but your knowledge is seriously out of date.
Cable ISPs watch and spend a lot of time and money fixing bandwidth issues at the node level every day of every week of every month of every year. |
|
| anonnymiss |
anonnymiss to DataRiker
Anon
2011-Dec-6 5:11 pm
to DataRiker
LOL, how long are you going to keep spewing this ignorant information? Comcast spends about 1/4 of it's profits on upgrades every year. » bar.cabl.com/read/322245.htmSorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Again. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours
MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI |
to anonnymiss
said by anonnymiss :Sorry, but your knowledge is seriously out of date.
Cable ISPs watch and spend a lot of time and money fixing bandwidth issues at the node level every day of every week of every month of every year.
Just based on their profits, they should be spending more. |
|
4 edits |
to anonnymiss
said by anonnymiss :LOL, how long are you going to keep spewing this ignorant information?
Comcast spends about 1/4 of it's profits on upgrades every year.
»bar.cabl.com/read/322245.htm
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Again.
0% of which has been used to upgrade capacity for users. Has Comcast changed their 250 gig cap? Basic premise fail. |
|
| |
to anonnymiss
Re: Umsaid by anonnymiss :User 1 gets 99% of the total bandwidth. User 2 gets 1%.
Tell me again how User 1 isn't "hogging" the entire line? How can you claim such statements like that when internet packages offered to users are just a fraction of bulk bandwidth available from the ISP? User 1 isn't hogging the line. It's the ISP fault for overselling its capacity which could only accommodate 1 user. It gets all clogged up as soon as ONLY 1 user starts occupying? Don't you think the ISP is selfish for trying to oversell beyond what its network could handle? Your example is just an example of a 1:2 contention. In the real world, greedy ISPs could oversell their lines by several folds. If you ask me, the users are the victims of the ISP's greed. As an ISP you're responsible to furnish a fair deal to your customers.If you expect users to fit in your bandwidth saving idea then you deserve a bad rating for being dishonest. To me, the reason why they started the bright idea of volume capping was because they wanted to increase contention in order to rake in more profits. |
|
sparks
join:2001-07-08
Little Rock, AR
2 edits |
sparks
Member
2011-Dec-8 1:08 pm
well I can give you my side of it and please let me know how far off I am.
when dsl and comcast were first starting everyone was happy to NOT have to mess with dialup. As time went by everyone was content and the isp's saw drops in their cost and making more each year.
Then here comes cell phones and the idiots that don't mind paying $200 a month to use their iphones and overages out the ass etc.
Yep the morons spending $2000 + a year to use a phone is killing any thought of a smart consumer.
Maybe they just checked the facts and learned that America is now 24th in the world in education.
DUMB ASSES FOLLOW LIKE SHEEP
I really think that they said hey we make more with these idiots so lets do the same with our internet services. Rape them more and more and watch them pay more and more. WEEEEEEE this is fun
what all of the isp's want is $1 a meg for internet service and they will be happy.
NO MORE CAPS, NO MORE OVERAGES this way we have handled all the problems and again everyone is happy.
Hey lets do that first on the phones then move it to the internet.
YEP we don't have to upgrade, overselling and slow speeds are fine and again the co makes billions and the customer gets F'd ..
have a problem, spend a little in washington and make it illegal to bitch.
Wait they already did that.
Don't you think the ISP is selfish for trying to oversell beyond what its network could handle?
TRUE -- check all the forms and I can't do anything in the evening. |
|
| |
to anonnymiss
The situation you've just described has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This article is a discussion regarding data consumption caps not bandwidth caps. They are not in any way related.
User 1 would never get 99% of the total bandwidth available because Comcast does not offer packages and services that enable that capability. There's a reason that each user has tiered packages of 10/15/20/25/30 mbps bandwidths.
Limiting the consumption of monthly data to 250 GB does absolutely nothing to stop bandwidth consumption during peak hours and in fact penalizes users who consume data outside of peak hours (thus not contributing to congestion). |
|
