| reply to bbenso1
Re: TekSavvy wants no throttling of anyone said by bbenso1:Correction - that's where Bell is CLAIMING the bottlenecks are. They have yet to show any documentation proving that there is, in fact, high levels of network congestion that would require throttling. The doc posted here at BBR previously and that I looked at indicates significant congestion. TekSavvy and some others say that level of congestion is not significant. I disagree.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
| You're about the only one that seems to disagree... But that's your role on DSLR, isn't it? |
|
|
|
 elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by bbenso1:Correction - that's where Bell is CLAIMING the bottlenecks are. They have yet to show any documentation proving that there is, in fact, high levels of network congestion that would require throttling. The doc posted here at BBR previously and that I looked at indicates significant congestion. TekSavvy and some others say that level of congestion is not significant. I disagree. then may be i dont know but they should ether A. upgrade there network
or b. not sell so much to 3rd partys?
oh wait that would mean spending money or not making as much |
|
bbenso1
join:2004-11-28
Baltimore, MD | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:The doc posted here at BBR previously and that I looked at indicates significant congestion. TekSavvy and some others say that level of congestion is not significant. I disagree. You are, of course, free to disagree with anyone's opinion. However, what qualifications do you have to make an educated statement regarding network usage/congestion levels? Do you work or have any training in the network design/maintenance field?
TekSavvy and I both do. How about you? |
|
| said by bbenso1:said by fAcEtIOUs:The doc posted here at BBR previously and that I looked at indicates significant congestion. TekSavvy and some others say that level of congestion is not significant. I disagree. You are, of course, free to disagree with anyone's opinion. However, what qualifications do you have to make an educated statement regarding network usage/congestion levels? Do you work or have any training in the network design/maintenance field? TekSavvy and I both do. How about you? I was a system programmer; data communications programmer; network designer(I designed a 23 state network for a major railroad); telecomm/datacomm MGR; telecomm/datacomm Director before I retired. I am not unfamiliar with the concepts and tools that measure network congestion.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
Reviews:
 ·Acanac
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by bbenso1:Correction - that's where Bell is CLAIMING the bottlenecks are. They have yet to show any documentation proving that there is, in fact, high levels of network congestion that would require throttling. The doc posted here at BBR previously and that I looked at indicates significant congestion. TekSavvy and some others say that level of congestion is not significant. I disagree. Ah yes, must be that obvious evidence that nobody else but Bell and corporate shills like you seem to notice.
Adi |
|
bbenso1
join:2004-11-28
Baltimore, MD | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:I was a system programmer; data communications programmer; network designer(I designed a 23 state network for a major railroad); telecomm/datacomm MGR; telecomm/datacomm Director before I retired. I am not unfamiliar with the concepts and tools that measure network congestion. Okay, so given your background, at what level does congestion become 'significant'? |
|
| reply to adisor19
said by adisor19:Ah yes, must be that obvious evidence that nobody else but Bell and corporate shills like you seem to notice. Adi Every time the accusation of industry shill is trotted out, this will be the reply:
"This mode of reasoning is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem: attacking the person presenting the argument, instead of pointing out a flaw in their actual argument. It's a fallacy because even if the criticism of the person is true, his argument may still be valid. You can only tell if the argument is valid by examining the actual argument to see if it is actually valid.
Attacking the person instead of the argument they present is intellectually lazy. It's a substitute for thinking. It's also 100% flawed reasoning: you don't arrive at the conclusion from the argument presented."
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by bbenso1:Correction - that's where Bell is CLAIMING the bottlenecks are. They have yet to show any documentation proving that there is, in fact, high levels of network congestion that would require throttling. The doc posted here at BBR previously and that I looked at indicates significant congestion. TekSavvy and some others say that level of congestion is not significant. I disagree. The congestion has actually gone UP since they implemented throttling. Did your wife switch your reading glasses with the rose colored ones again? 
Additionally, they could throttle at step 4, but it's pretty obvious they are throttling at step 3 to eliminate a competitive threat. Can't have those pesky unlimited customer eating into Bell impending TV service now can we? |
|
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:I was a system programmer; data communications programmer; network designer(I designed a 23 state network for a major railroad); telecomm/datacomm MGR; telecomm/datacomm Director before I retired. I am not unfamiliar with the concepts and tools that measure network congestion. And if you were doing all that at a high level, then you know that if someone came in and audited your network and all they'd show you was a powerpoint presentation with some very vague numbers in it, you'd likely tell them to please give you the raw data before you drew any conclusions or spent another dime, right? |
|
| said by sporkme:said by fAcEtIOUs:I was a system programmer; data communications programmer; network designer(I designed a 23 state network for a major railroad); telecomm/datacomm MGR; telecomm/datacomm Director before I retired. I am not unfamiliar with the concepts and tools that measure network congestion. And if you were doing all that at a high level, then you know that if someone came in and audited your network and all they'd show you was a powerpoint presentation with some very vague numbers in it, you'd likely tell them to please give you the raw data before you drew any conclusions or spent another dime, right? They were giving data to lawyers at the CRTC - and not engineers. I'll bet the techs got the backup data - but that doesn't make the news.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:The congestion has actually gone UP since they implemented throttling. Has it? Who says? |
|
| "TK Junk Mail"
I'm not doubting your knowledge in the field, but if you claim that you have checked the stats and can prove congestion. Please spill, I'm all ears. err..Eyes |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Matt:The congestion has actually gone UP since they implemented throttling. Has it? Who says? If you look at the numbers they submitted, their measure of "packet loss" has gone from a steady 2-3% before DPI, to a steady 8% in the months since they implemented DPI.
The numbers are there in there filing. Everyone on the internet has picked them apart and called BS. Their DPI equipment is causing MORE issues, which is to be expected due to the nature of DPI.
»arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···ent.html
Quote:
But the congestion rates weren't high before throttling began. One year ago, in May 2007, the aggregation link was congested 1.8 percent of the time, the BAS was congested 0.4 percent of the time, and the backbone experienced congestion 3 percent of the time.
Data source: Bell Canada
At the DSLAM, though, congestion hovered around 4 percent last year. From October 2007 to May 2008, when Bell was rolling out its traffic-shaping gear, congestion at the DSLAM picked up dramatically, and Bell set three new congestion records (going from 7.8 percent to 8 percent to 8.2 percent). |
|
| said by Matt:If you look at the numbers they submitted, their measure of "packet loss" has gone from a steady 2-3% before DPI, to a steady 8% in the months since they implemented DPI. The numbers are there in there filing. Everyone on the internet has picked them apart and called BS. Their DPI equipment is causing MORE issues, which is to be expected due to the nature of DPI. Your conclusion is based on a logical fallacy(If B follows A, therefore A caused B). Because congestion followed the installation of DPI equipment you can't conclude that it caused congestion. There are other variables involved including rapidly growing bandwidth demand throughout the period(as shown in the submitted supplement(  080623_CAIP ···R(2).zip 352538 bytes
). Without DPI equipment, congestion could very well have been even worse.
So the data doesn't support your conclusion. It doesn't exclude it either.
Also, the data collected by Bell was too coarse to come to any guaranteed conclusions. See my post on that issue: »Low % congestion #'s could still indicate problem though
In conclusion: the data submitted could have been more comprehensive. But I'll take the opinions of the network engineers actually running the network rather than opinions of those who are basing their analysis on only the small subset of data submitted to the CRTC.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by fAcEtIOUs:In conclusion: the data submitted could have been more comprehensive. But I'll take the opinions of the network engineers actually running the network rather than opinions of those who are basing their analysis on only the small subset of data submitted to the CRTC. And I think that is where you and I differ on opinion. I think that Bell knows they have congestion, knows what it will cost to fix that congestion, but they also wants to eliminate their CAIP competitors, while reducing congestion for their forthcoming video service.
From a business perspective, DPI gear solves a LOT of problems for Bell and is cheaper than performing the required upgrades across their service area. However, if they admitted why they really rolled it out, they'd be admitting to breaking Canadian telecommunication laws.
I think in this case there are too many "coincidences" pointing to ulterior motives for there not to be any and Bell's attitude of "We say it, so that's how it is." doesn't help their cause. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by bbenso1:Correction - that's where Bell is CLAIMING the bottlenecks are. They have yet to show any documentation proving that there is, in fact, high levels of network congestion that would require throttling. The doc posted here at BBR previously and that I looked at indicates significant congestion. TekSavvy and some others say that level of congestion is not significant. I disagree. Well the data they showed isn't what applies to third parties but I guess you'd be sold on anything... Maybe you should read the other parties submissions and understand the issue at hand before making those comments. |
|
 mazhurgPremium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
·MTS
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:In conclusion: the data submitted could have been more comprehensive. But I'll take the opinions of the network engineers actually running the network rather than opinions of those who are basing their analysis on only the small subset of data submitted to the CRTC. What we have heard so far is not from the network engineers but from the spinsters. The numbers submitted (in the public documents) are, as you say, too vague. However, it stands for reason that if congestion was really the case, don't you think Bell would have trumped the real numbers loud and clear? That they did not, and that they are using dubious analysis (and results) to try to prove congestion indicate that there probably is not. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by bbenso1:said by fAcEtIOUs:The doc posted here at BBR previously and that I looked at indicates significant congestion. TekSavvy and some others say that level of congestion is not significant. I disagree. You are, of course, free to disagree with anyone's opinion. However, what qualifications do you have to make an educated statement regarding network usage/congestion levels? Do you work or have any training in the network design/maintenance field? TekSavvy and I both do. How about you? I was a system programmer; data communications programmer; network designer(I designed a 23 state network for a major railroad); telecomm/datacomm MGR; telecomm/datacomm Director before I retired. I am not unfamiliar with the concepts and tools that measure network congestion. A: Based on your track record here I absolutely do not believe this. No way no how.
B: You are a fake shill, who has taken it upon himself to argue against all evidence to the contrary that Bell Canada has issues with network congestion even after its own documents tell otherwise. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Matt:If you look at the numbers they submitted, their measure of "packet loss" has gone from a steady 2-3% before DPI, to a steady 8% in the months since they implemented DPI. The numbers are there in there filing. Everyone on the internet has picked them apart and called BS. Their DPI equipment is causing MORE issues, which is to be expected due to the nature of DPI. Your conclusion is based on a logical fallacy(If B follows A, therefore A caused B). Because congestion followed the installation of DPI equipment you can't conclude that it caused congestion. There are other variables involved including rapidly growing bandwidth demand throughout the period(as shown in the submitted supplement( [att=1] ). Without DPI equipment, congestion could very well have been even worse. So the data doesn't support your conclusion. It doesn't exclude it either. Also, the data collected by Bell was too coarse to come to any guaranteed conclusions. See my post on that issue: » Low % congestion #'s could still indicate problem thoughIn conclusion: the data submitted could have been more comprehensive. But I'll take the opinions of the network engineers actually running the network rather than opinions of those who are basing their analysis on only the small subset of data submitted to the CRTC. This is now way shape or form proves any of your argument. Your strategy of "out posting" will not dig you out of this hole. Please provide evidence of Bell Canada's congestion. All of Canada is eagerly awaiting your proof TK. |
|
