GNca George
GorillaNET
Premium
join:2008-07-12
Minden, ON
| reply to cbp
Re: CRTC ruling coming Thursday Nov 20
Would that be 600GB per second, or 600GB per month?
That's the real question that most people are skating around.
If you really are paying for a dedicated pipe, then that is your pipe to do with as you please. God bless you, pay here please. You have just become my favorite customer!!
If you are paying for a set amount of transit, then we are talking about a whole different deal.
If you are paying for a 'best effort', 'up to' deal, then you are likely to get what you paid for particularly as traffic patterns have changed and your provider probably doesn't have the spare capacity they had a year ago... You are sharing that bandwidth with x number of others, on the basis that you all don't hit the 'enter' key at the same time. Guess what? PtP changed the rules, you all want to use the same bandwith at the same time, all the time. OOOPS!!
I figure it cost us about $15,000 per dedicated, exclusive-use megabit out to the far edges of out network. How many of all y'all want to step up to that kind of bill??
Thought so.
George
--
Powered by Candlelight Wireless Broadband and Teksavvy MultiLink DSL! |
|
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| said by GNca George  :If you are paying for a 'best effort', 'up to' deal, then you are likely to get what you paid for particularly as traffic patterns have changed and your provider probably doesn't have the spare capacity they had a year ago... You are sharing that bandwidth with x number of others, on the basis that you all don't hit the 'enter' key at the same time. Guess what? PtP changed the rules, you all want to use the same bandwith at the same time, all the time. OOOPS!! I figure it cost us about $15,000 per dedicated, exclusive-use megabit out to the far edges of out network. How many of all y'all want to step up to that kind of bill?? Thought so. George There's quite a big difference between internet transit and Bell's network transit. For one, it does not cost as much to maintain or upgrade the network and certainly not $15,000 per megabit. Secondly, P2P does not change anything, this is not a cable network! If anything youtube uses just as much so why does Bell blame it on P2P and not youtube? The upload saturation BS also does not apply as much. Remember this is internal bandwidth mostly on owned lines. Stop drinking the Bell kool aid, it's bad for your health. |
|
andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
1 edit | reply to me13
said by me13 :
Not true Bell has been upgrading, from 1 meg modems to ATM networks, to GiGe networks, with more remotes. This year Bell will spend over $500 million dollars on capital expense, not including $700 million for wilrless spectrum.
upgrade from 1 meg was history long ago in 99% of places and has nothing to do with the 500 mill.The 500 mill is to put in remotes so that wholsalers like teksavvy cant get the customers.They paid out billions to shareholders over the last few years and sunk near 0 into backbone. |
|
GNca George
GorillaNET
Premium
join:2008-07-12
Minden, ON
| reply to mlerner
Stop drinking the Bell koolaid. Hmmm. We built out the first backbone sections of our network six years ago before most of the people on this forum barely became aware of the issues surrounding broadband, particularly in rural areas. What were you doing then?
I get the undiluted pleasure of watching exactly what is happening on our network, minute by minute, hour by hour, month by month. For SIX years. And unlike the vast majority of the pundits here, I watched the changes happen. And then accelerate, very quickly in the first half of 2007 leading to where we are now.
Yes, PtP is the biggest culprit. By far. Streaming barely figures on our radar compared to PtP.
Next??
George
--
Powered by Candlelight Wireless Broadband and Teksavvy MultiLink DSL! |
|
GNca George
GorillaNET
Premium
join:2008-07-12
Minden, ON
| reply to andyb
Hard to argue that.
I have a major customer in Huntsville who can't get service via Teksavvy. Guess what, they can get service from Bell, if you can call it service.
I guess if you're Bell, the remotes are a beautiful thing. If not direct from Bell, that's another story...
George
--
Powered by Candlelight Wireless Broadband and Teksavvy MultiLink DSL! |
|
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to GNca George
said by GNca George :Yes, PtP is the biggest culprit. By far. Streaming barely figures on our radar compared to PtP. Next?? George Remember this graph?
»/speak/slidesh···LQ%3D%3D
According to Bell's own stats, current and future growth streaming is almost on par with P2P and they project almost equal growth between now and 2012. |
|
GNca George
GorillaNET
Premium
join:2008-07-12
Minden, ON
| Sure. I remember all kinds of stuff coming out of Bell and others that I mostly don't agree with.
I really don't know where the streaming argument is coming from, perhaps aside from Bell attempting to feather their own nests.
We aren't seeing the same trends at all. Not even slightly close. I do have sympathy with the PtP position, but Bell doesn't seem to be defending that much now. I shut down one customer this aftenoon for rabid PtP running wild, they were pulling a steady 8Mb download which slows everyone else down a bunch.
One of the big problems with providing really fast links is the issue with really fast PtP deriving from the link speed. All networks are shared, its just a question of where that sharing happens.
It can crater a big chunk of our network 'right now' as a result of one customer going nuts. We can't handle a really big continuous load. Sorry, the technology won't support dedicated bandwith to all customers at the same time, not now, not in the forseeable future. So much for the wireless/WiMax dream.
So you get cautious as a result as you don't want the flurry of support calls when one customer starts a big torrent, so you put processes in place to control the torrents...
Not a good scenario.
George
--
Powered by Candlelight Wireless Broadband and Teksavvy MultiLink DSL! |
|
GNca George
GorillaNET
Premium
join:2008-07-12
Minden, ON
| A point that may be worth mentioning...
Once you get outside the major metro areas, the Internet becomes more like a giant primordial fern, frail and graceful in its majesty and reach, rather than a majestic oak founded on a tremendous trunk and spreading root system.
The branches up here get thinner and thinner, and less tolerant of rough treatment.
In downtown TO, there is a lot of redundancy and resiliance and a few people bucking the trend is neither here nor there.
Up here in the bush, a couple of people running wild can bring down the whole tree. You would have to see it to believe it.
Ever watch Axmen?
George
--
Powered by Candlelight Wireless Broadband and Teksavvy MultiLink DSL! |
|
BonkersInc
King of Lalaland
join:2008-09-05
| reply to Scoop
said by Scoop :Bell gets $20 a month for each Teksavvy customer. Something like that, yes.
Now factor in everything else Bell needs to be paid for for one month, divide it by a month's total revenue, and multiply by 100. Then, for the sake of not giving out all the company's important numbers, round it off somehow. |
|
DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
clubs:
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to andyb
said by andyb :said by me13 :
Not true Bell has been upgrading, from 1 meg modems to ATM networks, to GiGe networks, with more remotes. This year Bell will spend over $500 million dollars on capital expense, not including $700 million for wilrless spectrum.
upgrade from 1 meg was history long ago in 99% of places and has nothing to do with the 500 mill.The 500 mill is to put in remotes so that wholsalers like teksavvy cant get the customers.They paid out billions to shareholders over the last few years and sunk near 0 into backbone. You need a refresher in history. Having been around here since 2000, I can trace my speeds from 1.5 meg to 5 meg over that time. It started in 200 and reached 5 meg in 2005. That's not "long ago".
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
| reply to GNca George
said by GNca George :Sure. I remember all kinds of stuff coming out of Bell and others that I mostly don't agree with. I really don't know where the streaming argument is coming from, perhaps aside from Bell attempting to feather their own nests. We aren't seeing the same trends at all. Not even slightly close. I do have sympathy with the PtP position, but Bell doesn't seem to be defending that much now. I shut down one customer this aftenoon for rabid PtP running wild, they were pulling a steady 8Mb download which slows everyone else down a bunch. One of the big problems with providing really fast links is the issue with really fast PtP deriving from the link speed. All networks are shared, its just a question of where that sharing happens. It can crater a big chunk of our network 'right now' as a result of one customer going nuts. We can't handle a really big continuous load. Sorry, the technology won't support dedicated bandwith to all customers at the same time, not now, not in the forseeable future. So much for the wireless/WiMax dream. So you get cautious as a result as you don't want the flurry of support calls when one customer starts a big torrent, so you put processes in place to control the torrents... Not a good scenario. George This isn't the case with DSL... If you are taking a single point and distributing it directly to all clients, from this same point, then yes, what you say in here is a concern. This isn't our issue here. We don't get impacted the same way at all.
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
|
|
andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario | reply to DKS
5 years is a long time in technology and I don't need a refresher as this is near 2009 and I was with bell before DSL as you were and just recently left for a company that cares.I think you need to stop suckin up for bell. |
|
Anon_Cow
@bell.ca
| said by andyb :5 years is a long time Perhaps not in DKS years. As he keeps reminding us, he's a grumpy, yet wise, old man (I'm sure at least 3 of the 4 are correct) who was apparently the New World's designated greeter to the Leif Ericson landing party  |
|
pnjunction
Teksavvy Premium
Premium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to DKS
said by DKS :said by andyb :upgrade from 1 meg was history long ago in 99% of places and has nothing to do with the 500 mill.The 500 mill is to put in remotes so that wholsalers like teksavvy cant get the customers.They paid out billions to shareholders over the last few years and sunk near 0 into backbone. You need a refresher in history. Having been around here since 2000, I can trace my speeds from 1.5 meg to 5 meg over that time. It started in 200 and reached 5 meg in 2005. That's not "long ago". And when we started actually using that 5 Mbps we got slapped with a throttle, which is his point: That Bell upgraded the last mile (first 5-7 Mbps ADSL, now ADSL2 remotes) so that they could advertise fast speeds but neglected invest in the rest of the network to carry our data.
How else can you explain that we can get 5-16 Mbps sync rates, but 'need' to be limited to 30 kB/s to relieve congestion? |
|
shepd
join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to zaptor99
The excuses (whether valid or not) I see here suggesting that ISPs in general can't support P2P, and that customers don't mind, remind me of the excuses from American car makers that their customers don't want "fuel efficiency" or "stylish" or "reliable" cars, that really, customers just want "muscle" and "big". Except, of course, the opposite. This time, customers want "muscle" and "big" out of their internet.
If customers are saying they want to do P2P, and that's the majority of traffic you're all seeing, you're being told what you need to figure out: Either figure out how you can support P2P or, well, companies like Bell that don't care will join AMC. Someday. |
|
riojew04532
@cia.com
| reply to R0CKY
Bell does backhaul traffic from the customer's CO to you, TSI, at 151 front. The AGAS link cost pays for that link only, and doesn't vary based on how far the end-user is from that point. It costs more in ressources to haul a TSI client from Quebec City PQ to Toronto than it does a metro Toronto customer. Likewise, in an area where the protected fiber that feeds the entire set of villages is either a dedicated OC-12 or several shared OC-48's, there is a very finite amount of bandwidth to haul back to a larger POP runing on the IP/MPLS national cloud of multiple 10Gig-E's over nortel DWDM. Basically, customers use Bell's infrastructure (shared accross all Bell's services and clients, residential and business, retail and wholesale) all the up until Bell's AGAS point where it then runs on dedicated links to TSI's equipment at 151 Front.
In the UK, ISP's who want to avoid BT's high oversubscription ratios haul their traffic from the CO onwards over their own infrastructure, and therefore have almost total control of the network experience.
In the GAS service, everything is shared accross all services from all providers until handoff either to Bell's border routers or the wholesale ISP. There is no dedicated 7gig's worth of capacity to any one point in the bell network or any 1 subcsriber after the AGAS links terminate on the Bell side. And the price paid today by wholesale users doesn't reflect the load ("usage") of the Bell facilities up until the handoff. There is a real difference in carrying a constant or sustained few Mbps of P2P traffic versus the bursty nature of surfing and http downloads of yesteryear on which the broadband over subscription model is based. I do not know what the best or fairest way to cost this usage is, but I hope it is reasonable for all parties.
Bell's need to throttle is based on lack of capacity at some point prior to a major IP pop where there is less exhaustion and more links to spread the load over, although Montreal-Toronto-NYC I hear will be the first major links to be rushed onto 40G to alleviate capacity issues.
My hope is that once usage based billing is in place, which it will be someday (I'm a realist), the throttle will be application neutral and based on real-time congestion information, either by law, the CRTC or Bell's own doing (you can dream). |
|
Exit_i_Bell
@bell.ca
| reply to zaptor99
Different TacK?
I know precious little about the networking side of things, so could Rocky and/or the network gurus out there please answer the following:
Given that it is no more Bell's business what comprises the content of the data that Teksavvy customers interchange with Teksavvy over leased connections than it is the post office's business what people write in letters sent through the mail (and in fact an invasion of privacy to attempt to ascertain such), is it not possible to encrypt all traffic between the customer and Teksavvy? And could this not be done at the router or modem hardware level, so that Teksavvy would not to have to concern itself with multiple OS support and the like?
Teksavvy could even advertise that it is guarding the end-user's privacy from Bell's prying eyes, which would be a big selling feature given the rumoured capabilities of Satan's boxes.
Yes, there would be some up-front engineering costs involved and some communications overhead incurred (surely no more than 5%), but I cannot imagine that they would be inordinate and I'm sure the flood of new customers that such a service would bring would more than make up for it. |
|
riojew04532
@cia.com
| reply to R0CKY
Re: CRTC ruling coming Thursday Nov 20
On DSL, the choke point is north of the last mile infrastructure. on cable it's the actual amount of subcsribers per node. In Bell's case, the choke point is further upstream:
DSLAM's with large numbers of customers using OC-3 to 2XGig-e uplinks, with up to (14X5X144) 10080 customers. Even with 2GE's, that's about 0.2Mbps per client. Most units aren't that subscribed, but it's still pretty dire.
And pretty much anything from aggregation to transport can be pretty tight these days.
The myth some people seem to have is that given the right sync, they have 5Mbps all time time from them to the handoff to the internet or the wholesale ISP. They don't. I would expect that globally, ratios of oversubscription at any one point (and the worst pinch point defines the whole experience) could be from 24:1 up to 64:1 or even 100:1.
This document »www.undertakingsbulletin.com/con···m_vp.pdf has some great illustration of how the GAS product physically connects, with GAS being like IPstream, except ATM and Ethernet are used by Bell interchangeably on the access network. Datastream, the product my earlier post alludes to is where the end ISP controls contention by choosing a dedicated amount of backhault from each CO to it's own PoP. |
|
drjp81
join:2006-01-09
canada
·TELUS
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | reply to zaptor99
Strange,
It just occurred to me that the CRTC has completely sold out. I mean a lot of speculation has been going around and nothing really convinced me, until a thought just came up:
Bell Canada is a business and businesses' main goal and focus is profitability, not to say to make as much money as possible. We are not talking about a philanthropic organization here, especially not Bell.
Therefore every single move and decision made by a business is to affect the so called bottom line... and as much as possible. Even mores in public holding companies like Bell.
Now since it is a not a fact, or it is to say, debatable, that the throttle was ever about congestion (and since an agreement on this has never been ascertained any group of experts (other than by Bell nitwits and former Bell nitwits) the only possible other way that throttling the last mile on DSL connections makes any sense "on the bottom line" for Bell it *IS* as an way to maintain it's competitiveness.
Simply put, why in the world would anyone stay with Bell a Internet supplier if the were the only one throttled?
I mean, how else does Bell's profit margin stand to gain by throttling? More happy customers? Normally I'd be trying hard not to laugh, however, the pathetic way the CRTC operates leaves me with little humour.
So I am now thoroughly convinced that the CRTC is bunch of scumbags.
It is, sadly, a turning point in my view of our country as well. I always prided myself that we, me ans my country, were a fair people. We put people before money. Our regulators and semi-socialist nature was supposed to be about the checks ans balances between powerful money and important people.
This notion has seemed to dwindle into a mere long past dream.
To ROCKY I say, thank you man. If there is still a spark of hope in my soul it is because I see how you run your business with us, the folk, in mind. You may yet be the model for a new generation of businesses built on fair value instead of ... well the alternative...
JP
--
Cheers! |
|
GNca George
GorillaNET
Premium
join:2008-07-12
Minden, ON
| reply to R0CKY
said by R0CKY :This isn't the case with DSL... If you are taking a single point and distributing it directly to all clients, from this same point, then yes, what you say in here is a concern. This isn't our issue here. We don't get impacted the same way at all. Sure, but you don't own the infrastructure end-to-end, so you don't have to deal with the issues of saturation in Upper Welly Boot, Ontario. Backhaul capacity is a problem for pretty much everyone once you get outside the metro cores. There is always a choke point somewhere. For example, there isn't enough backhaul bandwidth available at reasonable prices in a lot of Central Ontario. Sure, Toronto to Orillia is pretty good, but then you hit a relative desert until you get to North Bay.
And DSL is relevant where Bell has DSL infrastructure in place. There are LOTS of places still without DSL today because even Bell can't make the business case to install it. Which unfortunately means zero chance of making a case to install a parallel wired/fibre network in most of the country outside the downtown cores. Its very expensive erecting tens of thousands of kilometres of fibre up on the Shield.
In those areas you might have Bell/Rogers/Innukshuk pseudo-WiMax, probably do have Bell/Rogers/Telus 3G, or joy of joys, satellite as a last resort. If you're really lucky you might have a local wireless provider or two. But that brings you back to backhaul and the costs associated... The real cost of providing continuous-use 5 Mbit service in an outlying area is staggering, and $40 bucks a month or so comes no where near to covering it.
There has been a lot of chatter about building a wireless network to replace Bell. You could do that if you don't need a lot of bandwidth and pretty much ban PtP, but it won't work otherwise with any of the technologies available today or on the horizon.
So that brings us back to how do you make Bell play nice, while allowing them to achieve a reasonable return on their investment in a world with dramatically different traffic patterns to those existing even a couple of years ago? Ouch.
George
--
Powered by Candlelight Wireless Broadband and Teksavvy MultiLink DSL! |
|
