said by CanadianIron :

But Rocky you have no infrastructure of your own, you have no way of knowing the complications of netwwork management:

said by R0CKY :

We pay $2,000/month on 1 Gig-E connection, $1,700 for the interface fee per month, and $21 per user per month on that Gig-E. The estimates are roughly 1,000 users per 100Mbps on our end, so the math would be $21 X 1,000 per 100Mbps. Being as a Gig-E is 10 times that, you find yourself with $210,000/month of income to bell per saturated Gig-E connection.

said by rade450 :

So rocky will Teksavvy going to appeal to CRTC on this matter?
or do they have done that already? And do you think CRTC goin'
to listen?

said by cacruden :

You mention that you have 1,000 users per 100Mbps, and the charge is $21 /user. Is that $21/user charged to you on a per user basis by the Gig-E provider? Or is that $21 / user charge actually a per 100Mbp charge that you have calculated to be around $21 /user. I am just a little surprised that they would charge per user and not traffic. Is that just point to point traffic, or is this Peer1 or Cogent that you are talking about (includes internet)? Just curious.

said by cacruden :

You mention that you have 1,000 users per 100Mbps, and the charge is $21 /user. Is that $21/user charged to you on a per user basis by the Gig-E provider? Or is that $21 / user charge actually a per 100Mbp charge that you have calculated to be around $21 /user. I am just a little surprised that they would charge per user and not traffic. Is that just point to point traffic, or is this Peer1 or Cogent that you are talking about (includes internet)? Just curious.

said by Glen1 :

Where is the actual point where they throttle the traffic, I am curious. We are "mushrooms" here.

said by R0CKY :

We pay for that portion... 5 X Gig-E connections at multiple thousand per month, an gig-e interface charge to aggregate the DSL connections to, which is another $1,700/month per Gig-E charge..... (snip)

said by weblurker :

I was curious about the impact of the throttling on TSI's peak bandwidth requirements.

Some estimates indicate that p2p transfers were taking up almost half of the available bandwidth during peak hours. The throttling should have reduced TSI's peak needs for p2p by about a factor of at least 10 and possibly 15, so it would seem that the peak load during prime time should have fallen by a factor of about 5.

Are you seeing that kind of reduction during the throttled hours? Would that mean that most of the pipes you bought from Bell are no longer needed?

Or has the p2p bandwidth usage shifted from prime time to the non throttled off hours, so those pipes are still needed?

said by CanadianIron :

But Rocky you have no infrastructure of your own, you have no way of knowing the complications of netwwork management:

"Bandwidth doesn't just fall from the sky," Bibic said, adding that demands for more bandwidth would not resolve traffic congestion issues and that traffic shaping is part of a "multi-pronged" strategy used to limit congestion issues.

He dismissed requests that Bell invest in more bandwidth, describing the "irony" of receiving such requests from providers who have no infrastructure of their own and who don't directly deal with the complications of network management.

»canadianpress.google.com/article···fFgQQ5Gg