how-to block ads
|
jcremin
@genesiswireless.us
| People don't understand caps
Every time an ISP even mentions caps, the whole community goes nuts about how ridiculous the idea is in the first place. Maybe it's just because nobody explains WHY caps are necessary. I run a small ISP, and here's my explanation, which hopefully helps people understand the purpose of the caps.
First thing that people don't seem to understand is that every piece of equipment has limitations as to how much bandwidth it can handle. In some instances, you may have places where you can only get so much bandwidth to, and once it's used up, it's used up. For instance, say you have a DSLAM (the thing that everyone's DSL modems connect to on the other side of the copper, similar to a modem bank) which is only capable of 10 megabits. The ISP sells 1 megabit connections to 100 people on that DSLAM. That gives you a 10:1 "contention ratio" (see next point below). If you had 5 "power users" that kept torrents downloading 24x7, that only leaves 5 mbps for the other 95 users. Not really fair for them.
Second thing is that ISP's work on an oversubscription model where the assumption is that with "standard" usage, any give customer will only be using the connection so much each day. Like above, the ratio is 10:1. Some ISP's go as high as 50:1 or 100:1. I personally pay $200 per megabit for dedicated wholesale bandwidth, but I only charge $80 to my customers for a 1 megabit connection. If I didn't oversell, I would have to charge closer to $300 per month to cover my bandwidth, equipment, office, vehicle, insurance, and other expenses... otherwise I would go out of business. Obviously nobody wants to pay $300/mo, so we oversell... If we go back to 10:1, you can now see the problem... If one power user maxes out their connection 24x7, I LOSE $120/mo on bandwidth costs alone. This problem isn't quite as drastic for larger ISP's, but it still applies.
The third problem is that "standard" usage is changing over time. 5 years ago, it could be light browsing and email. 2 years ago it could be browsing, email, and streaming audio. Today it could be all of those plus VoIP, and video streams, and tomorrow it could add high def content.
With the current pricing models ISP's use, I think they would all go out of business in the next 5 years without starting to make some changes. So you now have a choice... Raise the price for EVERYONE so the ISP is still profitable, or use caps to limit the most demanding users and keep the service affordable for the other 95% of the population.
Which would you prefer? | |
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| When can US consumers expect to have an internet connection available that can keep up with potential changes at an affordable cost? What is the limiting factor? It seems that other countries and even some local technologies are already capable of handling an average usage many times greater than what is currently being used. (FiOS comes to mind, but I know there are others options to a select few)
Have we fallen so hopelessly behind the curve? Are many of us going to be using proverbial candles to light our way into the future? | |
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to jcremin
You need to consider that the companies we are speaking of (AT&T, Comcast, Cox, etc) cost for bandwidth is no where close to what you pay.
You didn't say, but I would imagine by the price you are paying that you are probably a 3rd or 4th tier provider. I get 4x the bandwidth you get for slightly more money so it is all relevant to the market and how much they want to rape you.
Someone like you capping may be needed but capping is not necessary by a tier 1 provider like the ones we are speaking of. It is simply a money grab. | |
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 jcremin
said by jcremin :
For instance, say you have a DSLAM (the thing that everyone's DSL modems connect to on the other side of the copper, similar to a modem bank) which is only capable of 10 megabits. The ISP sells 1 megabit connections to 100 people on that DSLAM. That gives you a 10:1 "contention ratio" (see next point below). If you had 5 "power users" that kept torrents downloading 24x7, that only leaves 5 mbps for the other 95 users. Not really fair for them. Uh, the problwm here isn't the 5% using their connection--- It's the ISP for thinking that a 10:1 oversell ratio is acceptable!
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
jcremin
@genesiswireless.us
| reply to jcremin
Skippy25,
You are correct that I am a 3rd tier provider. Keep in mind that while I used my $200/mb buying cost vs $80/mb selling, that a company like Comcast is also selling 15mb for $40/mo. So while their cost is no doubt only a fraction of mine, they're also selling their bandwidth for $2.66/mb. I'm sure that if you add their cost of bandwidth with the rest of the expenses they have, that $2.66/mb doesn't even come close to covering it.
I also think that Comcast is being extremely fair with their caps. 250 GB is a ton of data for the average user. I agree that in the coming years it will become a problem for more and more people. I will agree wtih you that the ISP's putting 5 gig caps on thier users are simply going for the "money grab" as you put it.
With our current infrastructure and the rate data usage is growing, the only alternatives to caps that I can think of would be 1) usage based pricing, which would raise the cost for the power users, 2) simply raising the price of bandwidth for everyone, or 3) lowering speeds..
I still stand behind any ISP who tries to implement something that helps the majority of their users, as long as it doesn't hurt more than 5% or so. | |
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | reply to jcremin
Usage Stats | 
Service Stats |
said by jcremin :
First thing that people don't seem to understand is that every piece of equipment has limitations as to how much bandwidth it can handle. In some instances, you may have places where you can only get so much bandwidth to, and once it's used up, it's used up. For instance, say you have a DSLAM (the thing that everyone's DSL modems connect to on the other side of the copper, similar to a modem bank) which is only capable of 10 megabits. The ISP sells 1 megabit connections to 100 people on that DSLAM. That gives you a 10:1 "contention ratio" (see next point below). If you had 5 "power users" that kept torrents downloading 24x7, that only leaves 5 mbps for the other 95 users. Not really fair for them.
That's a perfect example of dynamic pipe management. You don't care how many connections users 1 through 5 are using, their entire pipe is shaped based on load. So if 5 users are using all 10 Megabits (10 / 5 = 2 megabits per user), and then user 6 jumps in to watch a streaming movie you are saying the equipment won't divide the bandwidth out evenly? That would be 10 / 6 = 1.6 megabits per user. If you have any kind of traffic shaping, the 6th user would probably get even more bandwidth due to priority, but not a single one of your customers would have their connections dropped off completely.
I run a small ISP as well. I get wholesale bandwidth that isn't capped. So while that's great and expensive as hell at the same time, as you said, there are still limitations to the equipment.
We don't have caps, you can download 24/7 if you want (some users do, BT heavy), but the difference I'm seeing is technology and embrace.
The ISP was designed from the ground up to be bandwidth managed based on priority and customer feedback. So we have customers that want to use BT 24/7, hey that's fine. All the tech head power users we setup specific ports and let them know how to use them. So someone running BT knows that they can have "all you can eat" up to what is available as long as it doesn't affect everyone else. Once the bandwidth squeeze happens, BT takes a ride on the low priority express while other customers can serve up their web pages or e-mails or video quicker.
If we have a customer that wants to ignore us and just use BT on any ole' port, that's fine, it's automatically limited on priority as well. So no one gets capped, they only get their pipe size dynamically adjusted based on load. So it's no secret that not every single customer can get full speed at exactly the same time, the equipment and setup is still managed properly to provide that even at times of high traffic, everyone is still getting a fair share of the bandwidth.
It doesn't matter if a BT user is using 1 or 10,000 connections at the full rate, their entire pipe is affected during traffic load and that's the big difference between trying to managed based on available resources vs. complex or complicated systems trying to figure out who would be cut off on traffic, etc.
Whenever I read the "BT users eating up all the bandwidth" I just shake my head and know that some ISP get it and some don't. Fight your customers and they fight back. Embrace your customers and they will embrace your policies if you are upfront about them.
I've attached some screen shots so you all can see what I'm talking about. I'm just a small wireless ISP, imagine what kind of stats the big boys have for their network?
My service is basically a 3.0 Mbps / 448 Kbps service for $9.99 a month. It only covers one medium sized city.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
jcremin
@genesiswireless.us
| reply to KrK
said by KrK  :Uh, the problwm here isn't the 5% using their connection--- It's the ISP for thinking that a 10:1 oversell ratio is acceptable! You'd be lucky to find an ISP using less than 10:1 ratio. Most use many times that, as I mentioned, some even in the 100:1. I would say you are lucky if your ISP only has a 10:1 ratio. | |
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
| said by jcremin :
You'd be lucky to find an ISP using less than 10:1 ratio. Most use many times that, as I mentioned, some even in the 100:1. I would say you are lucky if your ISP only has a 10:1 ratio. Which really is the problem in a nutshell, then isn't it? It's not that we MUST have caps to "protect" the "normal users" from the "Hogs" but the fact that the ISP's are overselling or not willing to maintain the capacity needed to properly serve their customers. They want to sell it to you but not deliver it.
/sigh
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
jcremin
@genesiswireless.us
| said by KrK :ISP's are overselling or not willing to maintain the capacity needed to properly serve their customers. They want to sell it to you but not deliver it. Well when speed sells, people are buying into the very thing that is causing the problem. When you're selling bandwidth for a couple bucks per Mb, you have to oversell big time to ever make a profit. That is why my "standard" package is still a 512k connection for $40/mo. If you want more speed (aka the ability to download more) you have to pay more. | |
meh37
@verizon.net
| But the ISPs--Comcast, for one--keep raising the tier speeds for an increasing customer base but not upgrading infrastructure in any significant way. The ratio gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger. Basically, they make the situation worse, and then blame customers for using the access that they're paying for while allocating them each a smaller share of the "pie". 512 @ $40? might as well have dial-up. | |
jcremin
@genesiswireless.us
| said by meh37 :
But the ISPs--Comcast, for one--keep raising the tier speeds for an increasing customer base but not upgrading infrastructure in any significant way. The ratio gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger. Basically, they make the situation worse, and then blame customers for using the access that they're paying for while allocating them each a smaller share of the "pie". I agree, but that's what customers are demanding.... Does anyone really NEED a 15 meg connection? If they kept it at 5 megs, (or 3 megs where it was when I was last on a Comcast connection) they wouldn't have the potential for as much "abuse" by thier users. But then the next ISP would raise their speeds and everyone would switch, thinking that more speed = better service. It's a plain stupid war for who can provide the fastest service.
said by meh37 :
512 @ $40? might as well have dial-up.
I bet if Comcast switched every person to 512k, 75% would never notice the difference. Obviously anyone on the DSLR site is at least a step or two above the most basic user, but really, for basic web browsing and some email, 512 is just fine. Yes, I understand that it won't accomodate HD streaming, but we'll tackle that one soon enough.
Also, I should mention that I live in a very rural area. No comcast, quest, at&t, verizon or anything like that here. There are only 2 companies in neighboring areas who offer faster speeds for the same price. One is a local telco which advertises 2 megs @ 45/mo... real speeds average 600k... The other one is CenturyTel, and they offer 1.5 megs for around $35 or so. Speeds are all over the board.
I find that by offering a solid 512k connection, which always performs at 512k, the perception is that it is fater than those who oversell so much that the speed varies depending on the time of day.
P.S. I personally think that broadband is a horrible delivery mechanism for HD streams, but that's another topic for another day. Any opinions? | |
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| reply to jcremin
The third problem is that "standard" usage is changing over time. 5 years ago, it could be light browsing and email. 2 years ago it could be browsing, email, and streaming audio. Today it could be all of those plus VoIP, and video streams, and tomorrow it could add high def content. In other words, and this is the main problem - ISPs assumptions on customer usage have not kept up with the times.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
I pos rep
join:2008-08-22
| reply to jcremin
said by jcremin :
Every time an ISP even mentions caps, the whole community goes nuts about how ridiculous the idea is in the first place. Maybe it's just because nobody explains WHY caps are necessary. I run a small ISP, and here's my explanation, which hopefully helps people understand the purpose of the caps.
First thing that people don't seem to understand is that every piece of equipment has limitations as to how much bandwidth it can handle. In some instances, you may have places where you can only get so much bandwidth to, and once it's used up, it's used up. For instance, say you have a DSLAM (the thing that everyone's DSL modems connect to on the other side of the copper, similar to a modem bank) which is only capable of 10 megabits. The ISP sells 1 megabit connections to 100 people on that DSLAM. That gives you a 10:1 "contention ratio" (see next point below). If you had 5 "power users" that kept torrents downloading 24x7, that only leaves 5 mbps for the other 95 users. Not really fair for them.
Second thing is that ISP's work on an oversubscription model where the assumption is that with "standard" usage, any give customer will only be using the connection so much each day. Like above, the ratio is 10:1. Some ISP's go as high as 50:1 or 100:1. I personally pay $200 per megabit for dedicated wholesale bandwidth, but I only charge $80 to my customers for a 1 megabit connection. If I didn't oversell, I would have to charge closer to $300 per month to cover my bandwidth, equipment, office, vehicle, insurance, and other expenses... otherwise I would go out of business. Obviously nobody wants to pay $300/mo, so we oversell... If we go back to 10:1, you can now see the problem... If one power user maxes out their connection 24x7, I LOSE $120/mo on bandwidth costs alone. This problem isn't quite as drastic for larger ISP's, but it still applies.
The third problem is that "standard" usage is changing over time. 5 years ago, it could be light browsing and email. 2 years ago it could be browsing, email, and streaming audio. Today it could be all of those plus VoIP, and video streams, and tomorrow it could add high def content.
With the current pricing models ISP's use, I think they would all go out of business in the next 5 years without starting to make some changes. So you now have a choice... Raise the price for EVERYONE so the ISP is still profitable, or use caps to limit the most demanding users and keep the service affordable for the other 95% of the population.
Which would you prefer?
I'm sure we can upgrade half the equipment and buy all that with a couple of more million dollars a year. Maybe that CEO should stop getting 50 mil bonus checks for Christmas and get a 5 mil bonus check. No offense, but until I see the MASSIVE EXCESSIVE bonus checks pay drop by a huge percentage and we still have a problem then I will concede. But I know Economics and I know MONOPOLIES and DUOPOLIES ARE HELL OF A PROFITABLE business.
Like the guy below said. You are not a tier one provider. Comcast's cost for bandwidth is probably 50x cheaper than yours and I don't think you sign hundreds of multi million dollar bonuses. That is the difference. There is profit, and then there is RAPE UP THE CONSUMER UP THE ASS HARD profit.
I have nothing against profit in businesses. I do have a problem with them butt raping the consumer though for more bonus checks. | |
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| reply to meh37
Many on this site have contended that increasing speeds actually reduces the load. If users can get their content delivered faster, then the capacity is freed up more quickly.
I fully support oversubscribing. I also fully support having an oversubscription model that is adhered to. When you add enough customers to fill a node, it is managed until it can be split. Most companies will get away with what they can before adding capacity.
cw | |
meh37
@verizon.net
| Absolutely. It's not that they oversubscribe; it's the degree to which they oversubscribe before "splitting nodes". It's also true that if everyone were allowed to go full speed (no speed caps), then traffic management could be a non-issue; you'd just need to prioritize users based on their usage: the more you use, the lower your priority. Instead of speed tiers, though, they could sell "priority" tiers (no, I don't mean metering--it would be more like priority package delivery: if you want it sooner when things are busy, then you'd pay more to ensure faster delivery... which means nothing if things aren't busy). | |
bcoleman71
join:2007-09-18
Dallas, TX
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :said by jcremin :
You'd be lucky to find an ISP using less than 10:1 ratio. Most use many times that, as I mentioned, some even in the 100:1. I would say you are lucky if your ISP only has a 10:1 ratio. Which really is the problem in a nutshell, then isn't it? It's not that we MUST have caps to "protect" the "normal users" from the "Hogs" but the fact that the ISP's are overselling or not willing to maintain the capacity needed to properly serve their customers. They want to sell it to you but not deliver it. /sigh DING!! DING!! DING!! DING!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!
Dead on assessment as to what the REAL ISSUE is!! | |
-
|
