ultracat
join:2008-01-30
Toronto, ON | reply to TSI Gabe
Re: How much Bell's throttling affects our network and others
It's the scale I think. That's a typical effect when comparing to similar graphs at different scales. |
|
the cerberus
join:2007-10-16
Richmond Hill, ON
| reply to Snickerdo
said by Snickerdo  :Even if you combine all UDP traffic and all P2P traffic on those graphs, you're still at 50%, not 70-90% like Bell has tried to claim in the past. I'm not so sure about that, I'd like to see a difference (before - after) graph if possible, so we can see exactly whats changed. Any chance we could get some raw charted data (perhaps using a better system then port identification), instead of a graph? then we could make our pie graphs and such for clarity. |
|
alec
join:2007-12-24
Ottawa, ON | reply to ultracat
yup its the scale..
if we could get both of same graphs with the same scale on the left..then the impact of the graph would be more effective. |
|
gord27
join:2005-05-01
Mississauga, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to ultracat
said by ultracat :It's the scale I think. That's a typical effect when comparing to similar graphs at different scales. hmm, true enough. i'm a bit slow. :P |
|
dcorreia
join:2003-08-08
Mississauga, ON
1 edit | reply to TSI Gabe
Before looks like 20Megabits/s of P2P traffic vs current 5Megabits/s. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Correction: I think these numbers need to be multiplied by something. |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
| I mentioned this in the "discount thread" but thought it was worth repeating.
As a result of this stuff (not being forewarned, etc...), we've now over-committed on transit!
We've committed to the following:
Peer1 - 1,000Mbps
Internap - 800Mbps
Cogent - 600Mbps
Teleglobe - 100Mbps
T-Systems - 100Mbps
Total committed - 2,600Mbps
So, savings.... after having sat down and done the math today with these graphs???? Don't think so.
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | No doubt there are financial consequences. Looks like Bell is now trying to outright force you out of business.  |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
1 edit | Ottawa gal from p2pnet just sent me this....
»www.p2pnet.net/story/15438
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
LiQuiD
BSD geek
Premium
join:2002-08-08
Anjou, QC
| reply to BozoTheCl0wn
said by BozoTheCl0wn :said by TSI Gabe :It's a netflow graph. Only a certain percentage of the data is collected. But it still represents a global view of the network. Sampled Netflow is pretty common but your graphing applications should be adjusted according to the sample rate you are using if you want the traffic levels to be more representative of reality. Also, Netflow is pretty lousy at identifying applications because it only knows about ports. I wouldn't trust it's P2P classification because BT/P2P apps tend to use ports all over the place... That's why they rely on DPI now because it goes further than just ports and looks at payload signatures to identify applications. Good information to know. That would explain why there is that high amount of "UDP" showing on the graph, when streaming media has it's own category. Worth noting though is that even if you were to combine UDP and P2P together, that still isn't the "80-90%" Bell claimed being used by P2P |
|
Name96
join:2008-03-28
| reply to Snickerdo
said by Snickerdo :Even if you combine all UDP traffic and all P2P traffic on those graphs, you're still at 50%, not 70-90% like Bell has tried to claim in the past. Torrent data transfers use TCP, not UDP. A traffic analyzer that couldn't tell the difference between TCP and UDP packets would best be described as severely broken.
The only things that make heavy use of UDP are streaming media, VOIP (VOIP is really just a subtype of streaming media anyway), gaming and certain VPNs. Nothing else should come close to this level of UDP usage. I'm certainly not aware of any P2P apps that make extensive use of UDP for data transfer. |
|
NeoStylez
Cheers
join:2008-02-10
Peterborough, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Cogeco Cable
·Look Communications
1 edit | reply to R0CKY
what does this mean r0cky |
|
Name96
join:2008-03-28
| said by NeoStylez :what does this mean r0cky It's strong circumstantial evidence that Bell is trying to abuse its last mile monopoly to extract more money from DSL internet users. |
|
poopie
@videotron.ca
| reply to NeoStylez
said by NeoStylez :what does this mean r0cky Short version:
means their story they fed the press, the story they are feeding everyone about how the throttle is due to lack of bandwidth is a load of poop.
Its about one thing and one thing only. How they can get the most money and at the same time destroy the competition (or try to). |
|
NiGHTS
join:2008-03-23
| Of course they want to destroy the competition. They want independents to go out of business. Then they get control. That is exactly what this is about.
All the talk about "lack of bandwidth" is complete nonsense. They want to destroy their competition, plain and simple. |
|
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
| reply to Name96
said by Name96 :Torrent data transfers use TCP, not UDP. Not all torrent data is TCP, there is a good chunk that is also UDP, albeit your point still stands. |
|
DJ R
Premium
join:2005-06-12
Brossard, QC | reply to TSI Gabe
wow, according to the graph, seems like it has been cut down 3 time of the regular flows.
120Mbps average down to 40Mbps. |
|
LiQuiD
BSD geek
Premium
join:2002-08-08
Anjou, QC | reply to Snickerdo
So then all that UDP has to be the pr0n streams!! Lord knows the net is consumed by porn. |
|
qweloo
join:2007-10-04
h3p 2c4
·Bell Sympatico
1 edit | reply to R0CKY
regarding this passage:
"The last thing Bell Canada wants, especially with the sale of the company front and centre, is for even more users to jump ship to the likes of TekSavvy, as they’ve been doing recently, especially since the mainstream media have now picked up the story."
Yes true that they dont want their customers base to shink further but even with that fact, the deal is already in jeopardy because the banks that are supposed to fund the deal (ie borrow the money to teachers pension and their consortium so that they can go out on the open market and buy the shares at 42$) are having cold feet.
They are simply running out of money because of the losses from all the bad debt on US mortgage that they bought. So they have to save and shore up liquidity in order to avoid panicking their customers and partners who at one point might feel that those banks wont have enough money to run normal operations anymore. If that happens then those banks will fail like Bear Stearns a week ago when everyone will be asking for their money back at the same time.
So it runs a lot deeper than BCE losing customers. Its more like the bank that was going to loan you the money to buy BCE simply cannot honor that loan anymore.
These are the same banks involved in the Clear Channel deal
Clear Channel Deal Still In Doubt
The largest U.S. radio broadcaster said its $19.5 bil deal to sell itself to private equity firms may collapse after banks financing the deal missed a meeting to close the sale, published report said. Earlier last week, buyers Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners sued the banks and won an injunction against them. Clear Channel (NYSE:CCU - News) fell 1.4% to 29.20. |
|
Trisomy21
join:2006-04-27
Kingston, ON | Ugh, the greed and stupidity makes me sick. |
|
Black Moon
join:2005-02-01
Scarborough, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to TSI Gabe
Hang on a second, Gabe. Someone already said that the dip is between midnight and 6 AM. Usually traffic is low during that time. For example, if you look at ToriX's graphs, the minimum is often around 6 AM and the maximum around 6 PM. So how can you be really sure that the 1 Gbps dip that you see here is caused by Bell's throttling? |
|
