said by HiVolt :

The numbers... Can I be the first one to say... WTF? Congestion?

said by Mirko five_perct :

Hivolt, per the publicly filed report:

"While these numbers may seem low to the average lay person, they are significant to network traffic engineers".

k?

said by HiVolt :

I read that... I don't buy it.

k?

said by HiVolt :

The numbers... Can I be the first one to say... WTF? Congestion?

said by R0CKY :

Just realised... How can they put a "total" to those values... They don't relate... They all have different thresholds and mechanisms to deal with packet-loss or load. They'd need to talk on a case by case, not on a global... Some of this is on a customer to customer issue other portions are on a more aggregated level....

said by zinc :

They're referring to the links in their backbone aggregation network. (i.e. the network where the BAS links terminate and connects to ISPs)

said by zinc :

I can only assume they've added capacity to the BAS and aggregation links since otherwise it doesn't make much sense that the throttle can remove congestion from the BAS and aggregation while not affecting congestion at the DSLAM level. (If the traffic's been stopped between the Backbone and BAS, then it's not there to flow from Aggregation->DSLAM and logically that should result in less congestion at the DSLAM level...)

said by zinc :

More things to note...

As Bell stated, congestion of any link == bad customer experience.

Since throttling of 3rd party ISPs began, there's been no significant change in congestion at either the backbone or DSLAM level. So one can argue that the throttling is purely for competitive reasons as whether or not we're being throttled the amount of congested users is still the same.

I can only assume they've added capacity to the BAS and aggregation links since otherwise it doesn't make much sense that the throttle can remove congestion from the BAS and aggregation while not affecting congestion at the DSLAM level. (If the traffic's been stopped between the Backbone and BAS, then it's not there to flow from Aggregation->DSLAM and logically that should result in less congestion at the DSLAM level...)

said by mr_hexen :

Bell does touch on this. They are saying (basically) because there is less P2P, there is more HTTP and other traffic which is why no reduction is noted.

In reality, its all BCE BS

DSLAMS are the most congested by their numbers, goes back to what I said a month or so ago, they added too many users then they are capable of.

said by AkFubar :

Just a thought.

The chart shows percentage (which is proportion). It may be difficult to tell what effect throttling has had from that data because actual volume figures are not shown and the number of customers taxing the network or actual changes in throughput is not shown.

Perhaps it is possible that Bell will make the argument that the reason why the percent numbers have not changed is because throttling abated an increase in the percentage or in other words, held it where it is before it got really bad?