 Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to espaeth
Re: Cable companies need to wake up said by espaeth:said by Jeffrey:I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else. Statistically speaking, 250GB would easily fit 99+% of the existing user base usage on the single node - out of thousands deployed across multiple companies - I happened to see the stats from in Minnesota. Yes I realize my sample size is statistically meaningless but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. I fixed it for you. |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
 ·Site5.com
| said by Matt3:said by espaeth:said by Jeffrey:I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else. Statistically speaking, 250GB would easily fit 99+% of the existing user base usage on the single node - out of thousands deployed across multiple companies - I happened to see the stats from in Minnesota. Yes I realize my sample size is statistically meaningless but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. I fixed it for you. Yea, cause we all know that measurables like that in a discussion like this are meaningless. /sarcasm |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to Matt3
said by Matt3:I fixed it for you. Do you have stats to counter extrapolating that to represent broadband services as a whole?
The logic doesn't seem far off: assume an extremely conservative 125 users per downstream channel.
38mbps downstream DOCSIS channel * 1byte/8bits * 60sec/min * 60min/hr * 24hr/day * 30day/mon = 12312GB of total possible capacity on the downstream channel per month.
12318GB / 125 users = ~98.5GB per user on an equal division.
If it were common for many people to be downloading extremely large amounts of data then CMTS channels would always be congested and nobody would ever be able to hit these 250+GB monthly transfer numbers. |
|
|
|
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:Yea, cause we all know that measurables like that in a discussion like this are meaningless. /sarcasm No, the sample size is what makes it meaningless. You can't use a sample from one node to represent the whole user population of a network. Nodes vary not only in size, but also in the types of users that are passed - some neighborhoods may have more light users than others. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
| said by factchecker :said by Nightfall:Yea, cause we all know that measurables like that in a discussion like this are meaningless. /sarcasm No, the sample size is what makes it meaningless. You can't use a sample from one node to represent the whole user population of a network. Nodes vary not only in size, but also in the types of users that are passed - some neighborhoods may have more light users than others. Helps if you read my post. It was city wide, not by a node or neighborhood. |
|
| said by Nightfall:said by factchecker :said by Nightfall:Yea, cause we all know that measurables like that in a discussion like this are meaningless. /sarcasm No, the sample size is what makes it meaningless. You can't use a sample from one node to represent the whole user population of a network. Nodes vary not only in size, but also in the types of users that are passed - some neighborhoods may have more light users than others. Helps if you read my post. It was city wide, not by a node or neighborhood. I read your post and you stated:
He pulled up the data usage of all the homes in our area and we counted a grand total of 50 people over 100gb. You didn't say an entire city... Your "entire area", more likely than not, does not include enough subscribers to be meaningful statistically... |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
| said by factchecker :
I read your post and you stated:
You didn't say an entire city... Your "entire area", more likely than not, does not include enough subscribers to be meaningful statistically...
My mistake. I should have said it was the city I live in to be more specific. Thats included over 50,000 accounts. I can't remember the exact number. I think that sampling is more than meaningful. |
|
