Anon0
@army.mil
| reply to Nightfall
Re: Zero justification for it
said by Nightfall  :My main point in my post, in case you missed it, was that the total amount of bandwidth used per account and per node, and how much is available is there. The ISPs have been keeping track of this info for years.
But that doesn't really matter. ISPs are making the claim that they have to enforce bandwidth caps on users or their system will be unable to handle the extra load due to demands for things like streaming video. Who cares how much the individual users are using? What matters is how much bandwidth there's still available for everyone. Even if 3% of users are using more bandwidth than everyone else, if there's still more than enough bandwidth for all users then ISPs cannot say their infrastructure will be overloaded. It's twisting the statistics to make them say what you want them to. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :That's going to change though. More and more "regular users" are going to be moving up the ranks when they start ACTUALLY using their connections for services appearing in infancy on the Net now. The problem is that ISP's have enjoyed and telecom providers have exploited for profit for years the people who buy high speed lines and then use very little. (Hell even I fall into this class.) So now they are scared not so much for network capacity but for profits as they realize that soon the gravy train will be ending and regular Joe Sixpack connections will be starting to use their connections for actual useful services and actually want to use more then 5% of the bandwidth they pay for.... I have to agree with you. The ISPs profits are going to sink even further when this day comes. Once again though, I am not arguing this point at all. Merely that the data these ISPs are keeping on their customers and the "congestion" on their network is well documented and kept track of. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Nightfall
That's going to change though.
More and more "regular users" are going to be moving up the ranks when they start ACTUALLY using their connections for services appearing in infancy on the Net now.
The problem is that ISP's have enjoyed and telecom providers have exploited for profit for years the people who buy high speed lines and then use very little. (Hell even I fall into this class.)
So now they are scared not so much for network capacity but for profits as they realize that soon the gravy train will be ending and regular Joe Sixpack connections will be starting to use their connections for actual useful services and actually want to use more then 5% of the bandwidth they pay for....
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
 ·Skype
| reply to Dryvlyne
Indeed. If as the comcast network engineer showed, they know down to the node and account who is running flat-out, they should be dealing with those customers rather than using them as justification to impact everyone.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL :said by Nightfall :Here in the city of Grand Rapids, the top 3% of their customers use more bandwidth than the bottom 97% combined. So. That is a FUD claim unless you ALSO back it up with the amount the percentage of total available bandwidth that is actually being used. If the total usage is 95% of the available bandwidth the fact that those 3% are using more of the 95% than the other 97% of the users is not important. Only if the usage is 100% of capacity does the split possibly become an issue. I never made a claim that Comcast bandwidth in my area was an issue. So what FUD claim did I make?
Secondly, you don't wait until you are using 95% of the bandwidth in an area before you add more. A well managed network has plenty in reserve, like about 20%, in case something bad happens. They also have multiple points of entry. Thats besides the point though...
My main point in my post, in case you missed it, was that the total amount of bandwidth used per account and per node, and how much is available is there. The ISPs have been keeping track of this info for years. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall :Here in the city of Grand Rapids, the top 3% of their customers use more bandwidth than the bottom 97% combined. So. That is a FUD claim unless you ALSO back it up with the amount the percentage of total available bandwidth that is actually being used. If the total usage is 95% of the available bandwidth the fact that those 3% are using more of the 95% than the other 97% of the users is not important. Only if the usage is 100% of capacity does the split possibly become an issue. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to jaminus
said by jaminus :Why slow down high users, when you can just make them pay more? In the DSL model I'd agree with you.. make them pay more. Still, I think it should be close to the Fair and Flexible model that Sprint once had with cell phone use. If you go over, they just upgrade you to the next plan for that month.
As for cable, it's a little different. The lines were built for residential use.. they weren't designed for heavy users. In fact, some cities/systems won't let residential homes sign up for business accounts just because of the implied heavy use in that area. The problem is that you have to cut the heavy users back to some degree, not necessarily allow an overage fee, because in a node model, and say you luck out and have a lot of heavy users in one area, they will slow the node down for everyone. You can split the node, but in some areas that's either a costly move OR not worth it if there is a high churn rate in the area.
In some nodes where there are higher rental homes/apts, you split the node and the people move to another node, that split was for nothing. And, in lack on contracts, you never know if the node split would be necessary for too long.
One thing that COULD work is a contract term on heavy users too. If a node split has to be done, at least those causing high use would be held to that contract, no ETF, and paid to term, for the trade of node splitting.
Yes, I realize that the last option is not user friendly, but neither is capital expense for a few people either.  Some operators are actually okay with seeing a few problematic customers become someone else's problem.
I still, also, say that we're in a turning point in the history of the internet where the service and the content are growing at a fast paced and a bit off balance.. I think all of this issue of heavy use will go away in the next 8 years. |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| reply to TKJunkMail
If I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, then I think you have it wrong.
Consider your average broadband user's consumption habits. They download large files infrequently, and the main thing they do is load websites, download songs, and the like.
Why would the typical user want a relatively narrow pipe they could saturate, when most people simply aren't downloading constantly?
Overselling hasn't emerged because consumers are stupid. It has succeeded as a business model because it makes sense. Even as a relatively high bandwidth user, I prefer a fast 16mb with monthly usage caps to a slower, uncapped connection. I want to be able to download 7 Gigs in an hour, and I don't have a problem if my ISP oversells its nodes to a point.
Residential broadband providers don't ever claim you can use your connection all the time. BroadbandReports.com users may want an uncapped pipe, but it'd mean much higher prices, which is unacceptable to the typical broadband user. |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| reply to fiberguy
Why slow down high users, when you can just make them pay more?
I'd be fine with a base price of $50 per month up to 200GB, then $0.25 GB at normal speed after that -OR- you get slowed down to the lowest priority during peak hours where congestion is an issue.
Make the hogs (like myself) pay and they'll either cut back, or at least they'll bear the burden of the added strain they induce on the last-mile. |
|
Dryvlyne
Far Beyond Driven
Premium
join:2004-08-30
Newark, OH
| reply to Nightfall
All the more reason for those top 3% users to be migrated to a business tier or risk being disconnected. There is no way in hell any ISP can justify usage-based billing to make it "fair" to everyone who uses the Internet. Quite the contrary, it would be quite UNfair for the vast majority of users to have to pay for the abuse of such a small minority. Furthermore, as you've noted, ISP's have the means to identify specific users that are placing such extreme demands on their network.
The idea that it would somehow be 'fair' for the ISPs to just throw everyone into a new pricing model because of the actions of a small minority is simply ridiculous! |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | reply to Nightfall
The very same is said here in the Twin Cities.. That statement about the top 3% using about the same, or more, than the rest of the 97% is echoed around in different systems..
If people actually saw these numbers in person, at the actual computer screen showing the data, people would flip and often not believe it.
Personally, I have no issue with caps, but would like to see them higher.. Comcast wants to do a 250gb cap, rather, I think 500gb is more reasonable, maybe a little higher. Further, passing the cap doesn't mean charges or cut off, personally, I'd rather see the connection slowed to that of a 1.5/256 line. If people want to run wide open connections for everyone else to take files from them.. fine. But when their line becomes almost unusable to the account user him/herself, maybe they'll think twice about opening up their connections to everyone and keep their bandwidth to themselves.
Further, as networks continue to be upgraded, the caps should also reflect reality. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :Short of a Mission: Impossible action, there will be no getting their data. It would take a job-losing leak of industry shattering proportions. Oh, this data does exist. I have a friend who is a network engineer for Comcast cable. He has brought me some very interesting information when it comes to network congestion. They have detailed information on each node and each account. Here in the city of Grand Rapids, the top 3% of their customers use more bandwidth than the bottom 97% combined. They have maps of the nodes and what accounts are using the most and which accounts are running their connections full force. I know that all ISPs have this data at their fingertips. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to Nightfall
Short of a Mission: Impossible action, there will be no getting their data. It would take a job-losing leak of industry shattering proportions. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :That data would be a closely guarded secret because like Bell Canada, their data won't support their doom and gloom assertions. Correct.
Which is why making it public is the best thing to do. The ISPs are going to sneak this in. The majority of the people on this site will be affected by low caps. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | reply to Nightfall
That data would be a closely guarded secret because like Bell Canada, their data won't support their doom and gloom assertions. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to Matt
said by Matt :said by Nightfall :said by Dogfather :And when the ISPs crying about capacity are forced to turn over their data, like Bell Canada, turns out they're lying out their ass. U.S. metered billing and caps has nothing to do about capacity and everything about protecting their PPV VOD revenues from competitors like Apple, Netflix, Microsoft, Amazon and others. Link? Source? I haven't seen a single bit of data from ISPs showing their capacity at the node or national level and what they have available. Would be helpful to see that data since you apparently have seen it. What he is referring to is the congestion that Bell Canada claimed left them no other choice but to enable throttling. When they posted the numbers, they were simply laughable. Thanks!
What I would like to see is a breakdown of all the major ISPs done by a 3rd party showing this kind of data. In the end though, the decision to cap is up to the provider. The consumer doesn't have a say in it.
EDIT:
The article you posted had to do with P2P Throttling. While the information is useful, what I would like to see is even a further breakdown from each node. Total amount of nodes saturated really doesn't help much. Ah well. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
You know I meant that with a shot of sarcasm.
Consumers are sheep.
Similarly, when it comes to elections and politics, voters are sheep as well, driven more by hype, nitpicking, smear campaigns and PR spin, than real details.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to en102
said by en102 :Is there a reason WHY they are attempting to sell higher data rates than they can support ?Eg. If they can only support 6Mbps, why attempt to sell 20Mbps and put a cap on it ? Yes. It is called marketing. And it is used to appeal to the average customer who are morons in most cases. Marketing isn't about logic and never has been. It is all about convincing people that they need something they really don't need.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to Nightfall
Is there a reason WHY they are attempting to sell higher data rates than they can support ?
Eg. If they can only support 6Mbps, why attempt to sell 20Mbps and put a cap on it ?
If its raw usage (i.e. 24x7x20Mbps) then there's a general usage issue.
If the average user on a 6Mbps line consumes 500GB of data / month, there should be no issue.
Similarly, I'd like to see the capacity issues (legit data here) where there's a capacity issue.
I've been on 3Mbps DSL for almost 5 years, and probably transfer over 200GB/month, and I haven't heard any complaints from DSL-Extreme.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall :said by Dogfather :And when the ISPs crying about capacity are forced to turn over their data, like Bell Canada, turns out they're lying out their ass. U.S. metered billing and caps has nothing to do about capacity and everything about protecting their PPV VOD revenues from competitors like Apple, Netflix, Microsoft, Amazon and others. Link? Source? I haven't seen a single bit of data from ISPs showing their capacity at the node or national level and what they have available. Would be helpful to see that data since you apparently have seen it. What he is referring to is the congestion that Bell Canada claimed left them no other choice but to enable throttling.
When they posted the numbers, they were simply laughable. |
|
