dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2008-11-25 13:07:47: Last week we explored how companies like AT&T use cherry picked data, think tanks and policy groups like the Internet Innovation Alliance to promote the idea that we're facing a horrible bandwidth crisis (aka the "exaflood"). ..


swhitney2003
Premium
join:2003-06-13
NH

2 recommendations

just wait

Just you wait until there isn't much more internets to go around. Eventually we will have to go out to Californie-way to get some. There will only be one computer, and we'd all have to share.

Darkfairy
Aeolus, your daughter flies.
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Tampa, FL

Re: just wait

I see what you did there.

»gawker.com/380877/south-park-the···od-still
--
Faerie Blessings,
Stephanie - www.GlitterFaerie.com

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Past statistics don't always show future trends

compiled the latest set of data concerning the growth of Internet traffic
A lot of these predictions that the internet WON'T face much higher bandwidth demand is based on past statistics. But a paradigm break is in process. The past statistics can't recognize the tremendous growth of online high def video that is coming. Those predicting drastic growth may be more prescient than the statisticians looking backward.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

said by FFH5:

compiled the latest set of data concerning the growth of Internet traffic
Those predicting drastic growth may be more prescient than the statisticians looking backward.
So the answer is obviously to institute caps? I meant, if bandwidth use is growing as Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T insist, then clearly capping monthly bandwidth and charging for people who go over that amount is the answer.
ggultra2764

join:2007-09-13
Cambridge, NY
Reviews:
·Verizon Wireless..
·Millenicom
·AT&T Wireless Br..

Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

Yeah, but the trust of the three above is questionable with AT&T bugging the government for teleco immunity from lawsuits, Comcast butting heads with the FCC and angry consumers over P2P throttling and invisible caps, and some of Time Warner Cable's decisions regarding channel packages.

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Caps and ridiculously priced overage charges speak volumes toward most ISP's future business model.

They found a way to increase the transfer speeds in a relatively inexpensive manner, but rather than spend the money on the infrastructure to support these increases, they would rather place a moratorium on the bandwidth consumption limits. They want to impose a freeze on the amount of data that can be transferred. It costs too much money in their eyes. And if they all join forces, this will be the accepted standard and it will not come back to haunt them.

They are trying to make it impossible for innovation to take root. They are crippling one type of service to keep another type alive. This is par for the course with these giant entities that have way too much control and influence in any industry. I wish it were easier to identify and eliminate these nefarious business practices that the RIAA and their ilk seem to employ after they gain too much control.

not me 2

@comcast.net
Whether most people would choose to watch TV online is hard to say. It hasn't happened so far and even if everything was available in HD I don't know that would make many more people switch to watching online instead of on their TV. Online viewing is nice for short clips like Youtube carries, but most people will want to watch on their larger TV screen than their laptop or desktop computer has. (Yes, you can connect a PC to the TV but most people don't do that and aren't likely to do it in the near future.) People are creatures of habit and watching shows/movies on the TV is what they are used to and most aren't going to change that viewing habit, especially not if they have more than one viewing at a time.

In either case it probably doesn't matter because monthly usage caps are here and they aren't likely to go away. The caps will keep people from switching to watching large amounts of HD video online even if the cap would allow someone to do so. That's just because most people don't want to risk going over the cap so they will turn to other sources (watch live or recorded TV) instead of watching online.
Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

not me 2

I think you are VASTLY underestimating the general public. PVRs are very popular, mythtv(among others) is a fairly common thing to see in people under 30 households. Since the computer is already hooked to the TV it usually does not take very long for these people to figure out that they can get media online. It may start out as just finding episodes that were missed for one reason or another, but it soon spreads. If you like one show from a pay channel (say Dexter). If you like a series from overseas (say Kingdom). After a while people soon start to ask themselves why they are paying $60+ for cable when they can get the same media online. While this has been climbing slowly over the last decade(I had my first pvr in 93) it has hit a huge growth spurt since DVRs have become popular (people do not like paying that monthly fee, just like when they got rid of cable boxes the first time).

fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
Are you copying this stuff right off of a list of telco talking points?

»Past may not be prelude

Based on present ISP measures, the evil growth of which you speak will never take place since they'll cap the hell out of anything that's not sourced from their own servers.

Assuming tremendous growth of high def video really isn't any more accurate than using past years' data to predict future growth. Who can say with certainty what HD video is actually going to do on the internet.

At least looking at the past--say--5 years is going to indicate whether some sort of non-linear increase is taking place which could be extrapolated. Assuming some kind of 'oh my freaking God the world is going to end because of HD' growth is practically pulling numbers out of one's ass.

If someone has concrete numbers to represent this paradigm shi(f)t you keep referencing, I'm sure many people here would like to see them.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

said by fireflier:

Assuming tremendous growth of high def video really isn't any more accurate than using past years' data to predict future growth. Who can say with certainty what HD video is actually going to do on the internet.
How about story after story about Apple TV; Roku; Sling; Xbox; PS3 and now the Blockbuster STB being discussed in the BBR story right after this one.

It is anecdotal evidence right now, but it does speak to a change coming and coming very soon. A massive change in user actions in TV watching is being predicted here and everywhere on the net. And the statistics doesn't show it yet, but predictions say it is coming.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

2 recommendations

Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

Is this anything like the massive change in user actions with music listening? Are we going to have to suffer through a bunch of control freaks that will stifle innovation and hold firm to an outdated business model until the very end?

fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
While it does represent a potential traffic increase--the significance of which cannot be accurately determined at this point--I don't know that (and I don't think it can be proven) the traffic increase will result in a sudden discontinuity in the slope/curve of traffic over time that would necessitate such drastic actions, e.g. things the telcos are askig for like lower taxes, subsidies, and relaxed regulations.

They've survived other internet advancements (graphic heavy pages, flash, shockwave, MP3, etc) without these conditions. As an apparent advocate of free market capitalism, you should be suggesting the telcos deal with what's coming and let the strongest and smartest survive.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

said by fireflier:

They've survived other internet advancements (graphic heavy pages, flash, shockwave, MP3, etc) without these conditions. As an apparent advocate of free market capitalism, you should be suggesting the telcos deal with what's coming and let the strongest and smartest survive.
Unfortunately the strongest and biggest have decided they want to place crippling caps on our service. And in Canada, the biggest and most irritating is allowed to make sure that all competition must follow their lead in throttling.

There is no legitimate free market capitalism here. Not in the sense where it is beneficial or advantageous to the consumers.

Nightshade
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
said by FFH5:

Those predicting drastic growth may be more prescient than the statisticians looking backward.
I have a very serious problem with that statement and here's why.

I took statistics and probability. If there's anything I learned out of that class is that statisticians look at past data to make predictions about future trends. Without past data, there is no baseline for them to show future trends.

You can't have one without the other. You got to have past data to create any statistical trends at all regardless if the trend is accurate or not, period.
--
Be careful who you vote for, you just might get it.

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

said by Nightshade:

I took statistics and probability. If there's anything I learned out of that class is that statisticians look at past data to make predictions about future trends. Without past data, there is no baseline for them to show future trends.

You can't have one without the other. You got to have past data to create any statistical trends at all regardless if the trend is accurate or not, period.
So did I. And there is no statistical models that project when the knee in a curve may happen. And that is what you can't predict based purely on past trends.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

Nightshade
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR

1 edit

1 recommendation

Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

Oh I know. If anything creating statistics is really a combination of mathematical theory and good old fashioned educated guessing. All statistical models will eventually fail, it's just a matter of when and how the data that already exists is modeled. But you still need strong past data to make the predictions. Without that all you really are doing is doing baseless guessing.
--
Be careful who you vote for, you just might get it.

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 recommendation

said by FFH5:

compiled the latest set of data concerning the growth of Internet traffic
A lot of these predictions that the internet WON'T face much higher bandwidth demand is based on past statistics. But a paradigm break is in process. The past statistics can't recognize the tremendous growth of online high def video that is coming. Those predicting drastic growth may be more prescient than the statisticians looking backward.
I think we're in the middle of that, now.

Again, folks, know your history or it will come to know you (in a Biblical way).

When the web took off, everything strained under the addition of images,

and then animated images,

and of course demand of the web increased and another cycle was born --

flash and light video and larger images --

multiple computers per household -- more consumers -- more worldwide adoption.

Plus, don't forget that video itself has undergone a revolution. There aren't many 19-inch 4x3 format TV's selling these days.

That's not the future -- that's now. Those that are throttling are throttling the inevitable --

-- they're throttling progress --

-- and more insightful countries are passing us.

How can we invent the technology of tomorrow when throttling ISPs keep us all using the technology of yesterday?

Holy crap!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

2 recommendations

Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

It's simple. Some CEO can make $18 million now instead of $4 million. If the company crashes and burns while crippling an entire industry, certainly the people will bail them out with our taxes. Although the tax payer will still be left with an inadequate, overpriced infrastructure with no other options available.

fatness
subtle
Premium,ex-mod 01-13
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14

1 edit
said by FFH5:

A lot of these predictions that the internet WON'T face much higher bandwidth demand is based on past statistics. But a paradigm break is in process. The past statistics can't recognize the tremendous growth of online high def video that is coming. Those predicting drastic growth may be more prescient than the statisticians looking backward.
I realize you've said that before, but it reads more like a provider's press release than empirical information.
--
goodbye dad

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

1 recommendation

Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

said by fatness:

I realize you've said that before, but it reads more like a provider's press release than empirical information.
If Karl can keep posting the same story over and over, I figure I can post the same reply as well.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22
said by FFH5:

A lot of these predictions that the internet WON'T face much higher bandwidth demand is based on past statistics.
Using proper forecast models, you can use past data to make fairly accurate forecasts. That's how planning is done on bandwidth planning. It is also how the weather is forecast.

It is true that past performance is not indicative of future performance, but without having a handle on past performance, you can't make an educated estimate of future performance.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab.

Brett Schulte

@sbcglobal.net
said by FFH5:

compiled the latest set of data concerning the growth of Internet traffic
A lot of these predictions that the internet WON'T face much higher bandwidth demand is based on past statistics. But a paradigm break is in process. The past statistics can't recognize the tremendous growth of online high def video that is coming. Those predicting drastic growth may be more prescient than the statisticians looking backward.
I'm with you - everyone seems to be adding broadband "On Demand" to their Direct TV, Netflix to their Xbox, etc. I see a crunch coming as soon as this holiday... it's not hard to imagine bandwidth would at least triple using these new services... people who go from minimal email and web use are now downloading multi-gig movies!

kontos
xyzzy

join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY

Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

said by Karl Bode:

Again, there is absolutely no evidence that Internet growth is accelerating so quickly that carriers can't manage it with modest capacity improvements.
Ah, so as long as the capacity improvements are "modest" The carriers don't have to pay for them. Got it.
sjr

join:2006-08-27
Osseo, MN

1 recommendation

Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

Interestingly that is how most businesses run. They use part of their profits to maintain and expand their infrastructure. It is what one would call investing in the future. But I suppose if one can only see the next quarters profits one would never expand since that costs immediate money, never mind the payoff down the road in a year or 2 or more. Since the telecom's and cable companies seem to operate in a world of handouts and increasing investor profits every quarter they are not very good at planning ahead.

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

1 recommendation

They never pay for them, their customers do.

kontos
xyzzy

join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY

1 edit

Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

I'd agree with you in a metered billing price model. With that model, increasing capacity increases revenue (as long as you can get your customers to use the increased capacity).

But that's not where we're at today. Today we have the all you can eat price model.

All you can eat pricing works great when you're adding customers (revenue) faster that you're adding capacity (costs). The ISP bean counters are starting to crap their pants now because customer adds are slowing down while costs continue to rise. Their graphs are showing the cost and revenue lines starting to converge.

All that the study says is that the convergence may not happen as soon.

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

1 recommendation

Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

In all models where customers are billed, customers are paying.

There is no evidence that ISPs are seeing a "capacity" crush and when they are forced to turn over evidence, like Bell Canada, it turns out they were lying.

These moves to capping and overage fees aren't about capacity and never have been. They have always been about protecting their video revenues from competitors like Netflix, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft.

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

said by Dogfather:

There is no evidence that ISPs are seeing a "capacity" crush and when they are forced to turn over evidence, like Bell Canada, it turns out they were lying.
If you focus solely on the Bell table with the percentage of congested links it's easy to say there isn't a capacity issue. If you actually look through the rest of the supporting documentation published here: »The Bell Disclosure! take a closer look at the big document in the zip. The last slide showing exponential growth in the number of ATM cell loss events is most telling. The data could have definitely been packaged better, but it's quite clear that all is not well with the growth of traffic.

said by Dogfather:

These moves to capping and overage fees aren't about capacity and never have been. They have always been about protecting their video revenues from competitors like Netflix, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft.
The companies offering video services are just middle men. They built a distribution system that economically allows content producers to get their product to subscribers. If you convert to IP based services they are still going to get their cut, only it's going to end up costing you more due to the extra costs associated with IP video delivery.

The big problem is that people are expecting that they can drastically increase the usage of their Internet connection while paying the same or less than they pay now. That, I'm afraid, is an unrealistic expectation.
Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

espaeth

The part you are forgetting (and ISPs are trying to hide) is that the cost per/unit has been and will continue to drop dramatically. We can all see from the stockholders reports that ISPs are making huge profits. Will expanding the capacity of their networks cost a lot of money? Certainly. But if they quit looking at next quarters numbers and instead focus on the numbers over the next few years there will be no issue.

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

said by Lazlow:

The part you are forgetting (and ISPs are trying to hide) is that the cost per/unit has been and will continue to drop dramatically.
Ahh... but *why* and *where* has the cost per unit dropped? At the core, companies have been able to take leased fiber and swap out GigE optics for 10GigE optics or even xWDM optics to get N*10GigE on the same physical fiber pair.

Upgrades at the core are easy because: the technology is there to provide 1000+% increase in capacity over GigE on the same fiber path, the interfaces are available for existing network hardware already used in core positions, and the core represents a handful of physical connections in relation to all of the ports at the edge.

Growing bandwidth at the edge isn't so simple. Hardware is cheap and purpose built. You want to upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0, you need to swap out every single cable modem on the plant to get the true full benefit. You want to upgrade to VDSL? You need to deploy more remotes closer to the subscribers at massive costs *AND* swap out every existing customer DSL modem with a VDSL capable model. You want to upgrade FiOS BPON to GPON, you have to replace every ONT on the network segment you upgrade to be GPON. Even then, you still top out at about a 300% increase in capacity over what you have today at ridiculously high costs.

The growth model at the core and the edge is highly disproportional. At the edge you spend a ton of cash to get minimal gains; at the core you can get massive gains with minimal cash investment.
Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

"You want to upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0, you need to swap out every single cable modem on the plant to get the true full benefit."

espaeth

That is patently false. Docsis 3.0 is backward compatible to previous versions. The only cable modems that need to be replaced are those of the high speed users. You bond their channels off the channels(on different channels than) used by the earlier Docsis versions. This gives the high speed users (presumably high capacity as well) a clear path and it drops them off the capacity load on the channels being used by the older Docsis versions (more bandwidth for the Docsis 2.0 users to share). Yes, only those users that have the Docsis 3.0 modems will be able to get the speeds above 30meg(I think that is the limit for 2.0). But most of the ISPs are claiming that only a small percentage of their users are soaking up the majority of the bandwidth. Presumably these(high capacity) user are usually the high speed users. Even if all the above was not true, every single piece of equipment you mentioned is cheaper today than it was a year ago and a year from now it will be even cheaper. So as time goes on the price/unit drops regardless.

••••••••••

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

4 edits
The bandwidth apocalypse is a total myth and Bell's claims of congestion handily debunked. This capping is all about protecting these cable and telco's lucrative VOD and other video revenues, especially from providers like Netflix which is appearing on more and more devices like the XBOX 360. By capping and charging overage fees, cable and telco operators abuse their market position to price video competitors out of the market.

It's a very simple and often repeated concept. Customers pay for their service and these companies are profitable. Just because they are greedy is not an excuse to allow them to abuse their market position and kill innovation and competition.

••••••••••••
nath12

join:2008-10-13
Deepwater, MO

revenues

Telcos are just trying to quell free high def video so the can keep the triple play going forward. It's just another ploy to keep revenues up.

IHM
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-18
Hamilton, ON

2 recommendations

The last mile...

Karl forgets that the last mile is the choke point and keeps focusing on undersold backbones. Upgrading the capacity of the last mile is millions of dollars with little to no return.

I don't understand what is so wrong with paying for the bandwidth you use? The "all you can eat buffet" is a terrible business plan unless you're serving garbage to senior citizens. I'd suggest that metered bandwidth would lower prices for most people AND improve network performance.
--
2 Large Bunnies...1 Dead Penguin

••••

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

Methodology problem

This report is only using data off public exchanges (mostly international) and university networks. It doesn't take into account private peering, which is by far the most prevalent method of interconnection for the Internet.

Run a few traceroutes to... well.. anywhere. How many times do you see a public exchange in between carrier hops? The interconnection method is to use carrier neutral meet-me facilities in strategic locations throughout the world; the capacity and link performance at these locations remains largely private, and hence cannot be factored into this report.

The other problem with weighting the data heavily with university network exchanges is that the overwhelming majority of university networks are governed by "fair use" policies that rate limit or otherwise restrict high-bandwidth applications like P2P, Skype (particularly when supernode election in an issue), and excessive FTP traffic. Of course traffic growth isn't going to be huge from these networks -- it's already throttled down more aggressively than any public ISP complained about in these forums!

•••••
raye
Premium
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA

wish at&t would spend more time figring out

how much bandwidth it actually has. Having work for and with this company they could not find their network (and how much throughput they actually have) with a flashlight and a map to guide them. Since this is the company upon which Scott Adams bases dilbert it is no wonder...

cpsycho

join:2008-06-03
HarperLand
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

My View

Telcos and cables want to protect their bottom line. That means they dont want to invest in infastructure. The put it in and they thing they can hook up as meny as they want without upgrading. They are being greedy.

Rogers last year made over $400,000,000 in profits. Why would they want to dip into that to increase their networks. Awnser they dont, they want to keep their marry profit and stick as meny people on a overloaded network as they possibly can.

All the people siding with these companies have vested interest with them or are paid by them. When companies boast this kind of profit and complian they should STFU and do what they have to and upgrade. I upgrade my computer every single time I must or I fall behind because newer programs/games wont run.

Anyone buying into the belief that the cables and telcos are their friends are just brain washed.

REMEMBER $400,000,000 PROFIT POSTED BY ROGERS LAST YEAR AND THEY EXPECT MORE THIS YEAR.

Narcississ

@exetel.com.au

re: capping of downloads

DON'T Let them do it !!!!

have a look at how Australia fairs with internet and telephone plans - the prices keep going up, the limits are ridiculously low and we are supposed to be thankful it isn't worse!

The companies are just out to screw the consumer
the limits once imposed will get lower and lower to drive up profits while the "service" gets worse.
»www.bigpond.com/homepage/ = our monopolistic telco

»www.whirlpool.net.au/ - see how bad it could be ...

Again - dont do it!!