Moonlight_x
@videotron.ca
| reply to jfmezei
Re: tsi unlimited logins
said by jfmezei  :And in the end, when you look at very big content like HD movies or even HD television "live" (streamed), the only way it will work is if each ISP as its own server to stream it to its own customers, or use peering with folks like google or akamai to do it "locally". This sounds an awful lot like webcache and peercache... I'm sure many webcasters have deployed a number of such techniques with their partner ISPs sand are working on standard ways of enabling caching for streaming content.
Duplicating transit for one data stream is inefficient and everybody would gain from standardized caching technologies for it. |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to Black Moon
General comment:
Some had said that increasing the DSL speeds in pointless until transit costs come down.
You forget peering. For instance, if you download a google video, or somethin from akamai, then you don't cost Teksavvy any transit since tesavvy connects to them directly via torix.
So, on such occasions, having higher speeds pays off.
And in the end, when you look at very big content like HD movies or even HD television "live" (streamed), the only way it will work is if each ISP as its own server to stream it to its own customers, or use peering with folks like google or akamai to do it "locally". Having 5000 customers all stream HD version of a LOST episode live from the abc.com servers would be ludicrous because it would no only cost Teksavvy a lot of transit, but the idea of the ABC servers able to serve all its viewers live is not feasable. Distribution of content will have to be done as locally as possible to eliminate transit costs. (or reduce it to just one stream coming in from abc to each ISP and the ISP then streaming to all the customers who want that stream. |
|
Omr
join:2004-01-10
M1S-1B3
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :said by espaeth :said by Omr :About the IP Transit going at $10/Mbps I saw one months ago on an Linux Journal Magazine going at $5/Mbps The $5/Mbps special they are running is $5000 for a full GigE, and you have to be transiting IPv6. For IPv4 only it's $7000 for a GigE for new customers. Standard rates apply after the initial circuit. -Eric "IPv6 and IPv4 on the same connection - included at no extra charge." So you don't have to move entirely to IPv6, just support it. TekSavvy is already a multi-gigabit ISP, so it's not like it's a huge insanely big commit for them... Here's the important part, though: "Hurricane Electric IP Transit service is available in colocation facilities such as Equinix, Switch and Data, Telehouse, Interxion, etc. and cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Fremont, Palo Alto, San Jose, Dallas, Chicago, Ashburn, London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Frankfurt." The closest is Chicago, IIRC, as that's where most traffic enters the US. So TekSavvy would have to pay for a point-to-point line to Chicago on top of everything else. If we can use Bell's non-transit GigE pricing for wholesalers as a rough estimate (I can't recall, it was either $1300 or $1800, and I have no better frame of reference), then the total cost would still be lower than cogent, but no longer dramatically so. Sorry for reviving an old thread I just wanted to add this little tidbit. Hurricane Electric is supposedly available through Switch and Data, which has a Data Centre at 151 Front St. I believe TekSavvy won't have to run a Point to Point but I may be wrong as I am no expert in these fields and have no real empirical data on Hurricane Electric or Switch and Data for that matter. It all depends on TSI crew contacting Hurricane Electric and doing what all business men do ... roll up the sleeves and prepare for Bare Knuckle fighting via a conference call  . |
|
Moonlight_x
@videotron.ca
| reply to NBomb
said by NBomb :I believe I tend to average 60~GB a month on my premium account (according to the stats tool, I went over my limit last month, probably thanks to a torrent... damn those!), and honestly I don't feel cramped for cap space. Even on an unlimited account, I doubt I'd top 150 or even 120 GB a month, I do everything I want right now and don't really reach my limit. My point is, I don't mind caps, as long as they're somewhat in line with the speed that's being offered. No problems there given that TSI has bumped Unlimited to $40/month, dropped overage charges (again, already) to $0.25/GB and increased the cap basic Premium to 200GB/month today.
As for caps being in line with speed, this is not really necessary: if you had 100Mbps service, would you really download that much more than if you had 10Mbps or even 5Mbps service?
I download less than 60GB/month worth of stuff and already do not always have time to use/try/watch/whatever everything I download... the only difference speed makes for me is reduce the amount of time I have to wait after downloads and will not have a significant direct effect on how much I will download - it might add a few GB/month at most. I like speed for the convenience of shorter wait times but that's pretty much it. |
|
Angelo_
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18 | reply to NBomb
how about banana bonaza service... |
|
NBomb
join:2007-01-23
Etobicoke, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Angelo_
Not that anyone really cares, but my two cents on the matter (and no, I'm not complaining about TSI, I love em):
I believe I tend to average 60~GB a month on my premium account (according to the stats tool, I went over my limit last month, probably thanks to a torrent... damn those!), and honestly I don't feel cramped for cap space. Even on an unlimited account, I doubt I'd top 150 or even 120 GB a month, I do everything I want right now and don't really reach my limit.
My point is, I don't mind caps, as long as they're somewhat in line with the speed that's being offered. What I do mind is unlimited plans being sold as such but not being provided as such (on principle). What I REALLY mind is throttling, shaping, etc, which is the main reason I left Rogers.
Sell me a speed, sell me a cap, but let me use either or both of them to the full extent possible! I'd rather have my connection cut off or throttled to 64k if I go over my cap than have my pipe strangled or have my packets screwed with over the entire month.
I'd urge you, if you end up having to cap the unlimited plan, please don't market it as unlimited anymore. Just call Premium the 'Fast Lane' (or whatever), and the pseudo-unlimited 'Big Byte Bonanza' or something.
Cheers! |
|
Moonlight_x
@videotron.ca
| reply to id24601
said by id24601 :I would stick with my good old Unlimited 3000/800. If all Unlimited users abused their Unlimited service to the furthest extent possible, Unlimited would be extinct within the next 2-3 months. Even TSI's Unlimited only works because of this "the vast majority of Unlimited users make reasonable use of Unlimitedness" gambit.
Proof: TSI's average for Unlimited accounts in September was only 55GB. (Read the long "If..." thread.)
You can bet TSI will start deploying counter-measures against Unlimited before the Unlimited average ever gets anywhere near 200GB/month. Unlimited ISPs can keep the Unlimited illusion alive only for as long as they do not suffer wholesale abuse/assault from it.
Nearly all things unlimited are only illusions. |
|
id24601
join:2007-09-05
| reply to Angelo_
The more I read about the way things are going, the less excited I am about future internet offerings. I was looking forward to ADSL2 and the speed upgrades it would bring but now... Given the choice of:
ADSL 3000/800 No Cap No Throttle
ADSL2 16000/800 With Caps (Throttle?)
I would stick with my good old Unlimited 3000/800. |
|
Moonlight_x
@videotron.ca
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :The problem is that connection speeds are driven by competition irrespective of transit costs. High speed residential internet is also based on the premise of typically intermittent residential, not continuous bandwidth hog usage models. The simplest way for ISPs to enforce the INTERMITTENT assumption they need to make high speeds work out is to introduce caps and this is exactly what all the first-tier players are doing.
With any given cap, there is not much of a reason for ISPs to artificially limit speeds as long as their network has ample headroom to cope with the associated bandwidth spikes. |
|
Black Moon
join:2005-02-01
Scarborough, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :Again, if that's your concern, then don't screw over the rest of us; take your 5mbit connection with 300GB cap and limit it to 1mbit at your router. There, you don't have to worry any more, and the rest of us can enjoy non-crippled speeds. I'm not fucking with the rest of you. I'm just giving an alternative to the current situation. Most places in the world have different internet packages priced at different speeds; usually faster is more expensive. Why isn't that the case here? What happens here is that the 'up to' phrase is used and many people pay for 'up to' 5 Mbps but only get 3 or 2 or even less. Better to have a guaranteed speed and pay for that only. It also increases consumer satisfaction without them being tricked by a sneaky 'up to'.
Anyway, if you want a fast connection, that's fine, and you can pay whatever price the market sets. But I think that in the long run it is better if there are several speed profiles at different prices for those of us who don't give a damn about speed but do worry about going over the cap.
It's easy to say to limit the speed at the router, but most people don't have a clue about how to do this. Having different profiles can also defend them from having high costs associated with going over the cap. Additionally, why would I do that if I'm paying for (up to) 5 Mbps, being able to get 5 Mbps it but don't use it? It doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying that I would ALWAYS want 1 Mbps connection (since I can do do sometimes download at fast speed, and it can be an advantage), but, if I had to choose between a 5 Mbps package capped at 300 GB or a 1 Mbps package capped at the same, I'd choose the former.
Granted, that choice isn't here today, but maybe it might be prudent to have that choice in the future.
Anyway, TSI is still unlimited so this is a non-issue and I won't debate this any further. I agree to disagree,
Thanks for the BT tip. The 70K/sec is a maximum that I set in Azureus. I use the auto-speed plugin to adjust as necessary. I usually download at about 450K/sec on a well-seeded torrent with a large swarm (such as TV shows0 but most of the stuff I download with BT has small swarms and a low seed2peer ratio, so that usually limits the download speed to be approximately the same as the upload speed. |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to Omr
The problem is that connection speeds are driven by competition irrespective of transit costs. If Videotron raises speeds and Bell doesn't, then Videotron will get more customers than Bell. Any such agreement would have to be an industry-wide thing between the major players (Bell, Videotron, Rogers, etc) to stop the current connection speed "arms race".
Don't worry, one day, TekSavvy will be a tier 1 ISP, and won't have to worry about transit costs :P |
|
Omr
join:2004-01-10
M1S-1B3
| reply to Angelo_
My way of observing this issue would be to not see new speed increases until the Transit fees are at an acceptable level which over time they should go down (unless it is an industry like oil), but it shouldn't be like oil as this is a digital resource and technology should in the future reduce the Transit fees.
Lets not go backwards at the same time. If right now 5Mbps is the norm and widely available then 5Mbps should be good. Since right now Bell is pumping out 7Mbps then it won't be fair for those that tasted 7Mbps to be slowed down again ... so stop it where it is now 5-7Mbps and the ISP's should stop pushing out what they can't afford or support. I know the speeds they can support, but it is not right when the speed increases come with more caveats and restrictions ... I and no one else asked for it. If ISP's told users that if they stuck to old speeds of 3Mbps they would get Unlimited/ Un-Throttled/ Uncapped service as opposed to a 5Mbps upgrade that restricts you at every turn it would be obvious what users would of chosen. I and no one else want to be part of ISP's marketing games to show off who has the bigger dick, when truly offering a crappier service. Sadly I and others see ISP's repeat the same mistakes over and over again now upgrading to 7Mbps and 16mbps for services which honestly are so crippled. Those that say NNTP is an option, well be aware that with NNTP you would still pass most of those measly data caps and in the future it will be the next protocol to throttle after BT and it will happen. The onus is on the ISP as they control the flow of water, and that is the hardest thing to predict in this business "Who would eat the most out of an all you can eat buffet?". |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to Black Moon
said by Black Moon :said by Moonlight_x :
BTW, unlimited 1Mbps = 270GB/month... that in itself is a sort of cap. Would you prefer to have 1Mbps unlimited or 10Mbps with a 250GB cap? I would prefer 10Mbps capped.
The former, because I CANNOT go over the cap (assuming it's around 300) and needn't worry about having to pay more if I do. You all might favour insane speeds with low to medium caps. I do not. Different strokes. Again, if that's your concern, then don't screw over the rest of us; take your 5mbit connection with 300GB cap and limit it to 1mbit at your router. There, you don't have to worry any more, and the rest of us can enjoy non-crippled speeds. |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
1 edit | reply to Black Moon
Catch up with us? No, I'm on Premium, not unlimited. When I need to use my connection, it's available, and it's fast.
You're looking at your own usage and proposing a solution that would work for you, but not necessarily everybody else.
EDIT: If your BitTorrent download speeds are limited to the same as your upstream, and you're uploading at 70 KB/s without using QoS, that'd be because you should be limiting your BitTorrent upload speeds to 50 or 60 KB/s, not because the swarm can't perform any better. 70KB/s is too close to your maximum possible upstream (especially considering overhead involved with BitTorrent), and that is impacting your downstream speeds. |
|
Black Moon
join:2005-02-01
Scarborough, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Moonlight_x
said by Moonlight_x :
BTW, unlimited 1Mbps = 270GB/month... that in itself is a sort of cap. Would you prefer to have 1Mbps unlimited or 10Mbps with a 250GB cap? I would prefer 10Mbps capped.
The former, because I CANNOT go over the cap (assuming it's around 300) and needn't worry about having to pay more if I do.
You all might favour insane speeds with low to medium caps. I do not. Different strokes. |
|
Black Moon
join:2005-02-01
Scarborough, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :No offense, but your laziness would undo a decade of progress in internet connection speeds. If you're that desperate to get a slower connection, it's trivial to limit your connection to 1mbit on your router (if it's something like a WRT54G) or in Windows/Linux. And that is about to catch up with us right now, isn't it?
As for limiting the connection speed, most of the time my download with BT is the same as my upload, so I already rarely do above 70K/sec. |
|
Angelo_
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18 | reply to TSI Gabe
Gabe stop using the Juniper router's to download your movie's  |
|
TSI Gabe
Premium,VIP
join:2007-01-03
Chatham, ON
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :download Alien and Aliens in high def Is that a new movie? |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to Moonlight_x
1mbit is 270GB/mth assuming you download at max speed 24/7.
If you download at max speed a few hours a day at 1mbit (when you want to download something), your usage will be far lower.
Of course, with such a slow speed, downloading the things you want might have to be queued up so far in advance that you really are downloading at full speed for extended periods of time. Downloading a high-definition movie on 1 mbit would take about 12-24 hours depending on if it's a DVD5 or DVD9 sized encode. So if you want to do something like, say, download Alien and Aliens in high def, well, your connection is out of commission (downloading at full speed) for up to two days.
That's not a situation I'd like to be in. |
|
Moonlight_x
@videotron.ca
| reply to Black Moon
said by Black Moon :And seriously, when can you ever pull 500K/sec? Almost never. So once you get to about 16Mbps, you expect to download at 1.5Mbyte/sec? Forget it. It's not gonna happen. With my current cable ISP, my torrents regularly hit 700-750KB/s on my 7Mbps service and HTTP downloads from major sites (like ATI's driver download servers and kernel.org) even reach close to 800KB/s. My friends who were on the 10Mbps plan from the same cable ISP regularly hit around 1MB/s.
I will be taking Bell up on its no-contract three $20/month Total+ 16Mbps service to test my line later this month and you bet I will be expecting to see 1.4-1.5MB/s if they deliver 16Mbps sync. Of course, because Bell is now throttling torrents, that might not happen.
When I sign up with TSI after the Bell testing, I will be expecting 5Mbps sync and 400-500KB/s out of my Premium account. If the Bell test-run says my line is bad and Bell fails to fix it in due time, I will scrap my DSL plans and remain on cable for another year.
BTW, unlimited 1Mbps = 270GB/month... that in itself is a sort of cap. Would you prefer to have 1Mbps unlimited or 10Mbps with a 250GB cap? I would prefer 10Mbps capped. |
|
