how-to block ads
|
|  XNemesis
join:2002-11-16
Kitchener, ON | Re: Assume those were packet loss numbers But the question is, "With this proof now in the clear, will anything actually be done about this?" I wonder | |
| | 
TI POIL
join:2006-03-05
Toronto, ON | Re: Assume those were packet loss numbers LOL nothing, it's Canada... we bend over and take it. | |
| Capharnaum
join:2006-06-19
Montreal, QC
| Packet loss has increased throttling if you look at the provided numbers.
Now about congestion figures provided by Bell, you need to read the small text. A link is congested when it reaches 60-90% capacity (not 100% capacity) at least 0.30% of its uptime. That still means a link could be uncongested for 99.7% of the time and be deemed "congested".
Also, traffic just moved from the throttled service to unthrottled services, but with higher packet loss, following the throttling of the service. In other words, "throttling" does not reduce traffic unless you throttle the whole connection. When you're there though, it's just that you reduce the speed of all the users because you can't provide the marketed speed.
Another solution is to provide bandwidth limits (caps) that are different based on the time of the day. The cell phone industry does it, maybe that's what ISPs should do.
Anyway, the bottom line is that throttling is a stupid idea, moreso when you decide to throttle the concurrence to make sure they can't compete with you based on that point. | |
| | | |
|
·
·
·