dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8503
share rss forum feed


JGROCKY
Premium
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON

1 recommendation

What exactly is a bandwidth hog?

This seems to be the big play for the incumbents (like Bell)... Seems everyone is talking of moderation of use on Internet, causing this somehow large need for control mechanisms.

In the middle of launching higher speeds for over a the better of a million homes, Bell declares they need to throttle to take care of the demand.

But here's the silly part, these nodes now feed telephone, dsl, fibre connections, mobile high speed data and now iptv, the biggest hog of them all! If all these services function well, then why throttling and why UBB for that matter. If an economic or technical itmp is put in place it's to curb use in an emergency network state!

There's nothing emergency or maintenance about any of this! In fact, if you look at usage, a 5 Meg connection can consume upward of 1.5TB of usage so if a person is deemed a heavy user at 25GB, so less than 2%, of the total capability.... Someone never intended to provide the service he sold to that user.

...my two cents for the day!
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.

Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )


grunze510

join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC
kudos:1

said by JGROCKY:

What exactly is a bandwidth hog?

Babe 3: Pig On The Internet


Angelo
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18
reply to JGROCKY

an "angelo" is a heavy user?



JGROCKY
Premium
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON

said by Angelo:

an "angelo" is a heavy user?

Power user maybe, heavy user maybe, but you paid for a connection to give you this ability.

PyroDan

join:2005-11-04
Montreal, QC
reply to JGROCKY

And yet they offer the "Optional 7 Mbps upload speed" even though they know the network can't support shit. The major problem is the uploading due to torrents, but if you pay, all problems are gone ... my ass. What a bullshit company.

Dan



Angelo
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18
reply to Angelo

let's see these services...

Chatham HDD Swap
trade hds with friends!
1u colo
fast 100meg internet!
$19.99 /mo

Chatham lan exchange
limited lan connect to trade linux isos with other cx's
fast 1mbps
$10.99


buttaknife

join:2007-06-01
reply to Angelo

If we ban the Angelos from the internet, 95% of Canada's bandwidth usage will be freed up.

But on topic, while what you are thinking, R0CKY, is very logical and also very much true, Bell is a company that does not adhere to logic. Nor does the CRTC... because well... let's face it, it's all about the money for both parties. And anyone who thinks the CRTC isn't getting paid in some manner for this is delusioned. Tin-foil hats has nothing to do with it either. Nobody can be this stupid and ignorant (re: CRTC).



HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to JGROCKY

It's all about protecting their legacy wireline, tv and broadcasting business, and in the mean time racking in millions in these bogus UBB charges with costs inflated 10x over.

The whole congestion thing has been a smokescreen from the start, when they first started throttling EVERYONE, congestion on the node or not.

And the throttling was a punitive 30KB/sec, for over 10 hours each day in the timeslot, not dynamically when the conditions required it.

CRTC gave them technical and economic ITMP. What the hell is next? Prepaying for blocks of websites you can access? How the hell is the CRTC so blind?

This is such a 180 from the Policy Directive or whatever they call it. Not fair, not competitive, and monopolistic abuse of power.
--
BUCK FELL ,,!,,('-'),,!,,



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
reply to JGROCKY

It's about stiffing the competition, nothing todo with so called hogs. Maybe 10 years ago bandwidth of these high numbers was expensive but these days it's the cheapest part of the game



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
reply to HiVolt

Wasn't part of the rumors a year ago about paid access to popular sites like YouTube? Like tv packages



bbwarrior

join:2005-12-12
Saint-Laurent, QC
reply to JGROCKY

said by JGROCKY:

said by Angelo:

an "angelo" is a heavy user?

Power user maybe, heavy user maybe, but you paid for a connection to give you this ability.

Netflix.ca sucks (right now) but I'm using the US one via a VPN and I can tell you that with the huge selection of shows and movies they have it's not hard to do 4-5 GB per day or 150 GB per mo. My parents stream their favorite latin american soaps via Justin and our usage is constantly around 300 GB per mo. We're not subscribed to TV so all we do is on-demand streaming.

No doubt it's a huge reason why Bell and the cablecos are crapping their pants.


BWHog

@cgocable.net

Well according to Bell's standards I guess I am a bandwidth hog.

Yesterday I downloaded a few game demos from Xbox Live which added up to about 5GB. According to Bell as a normal user I should be using 25GB/mo or less... so those 5GB I downloaded should have lasted me 6 days instead of 1 day.

Conclusion: I am an hog because I download 6x that of a normal person in a day. I would like to humbly apologize to everyone else in Canada for my actions yesterday. I know when I was downloading those demos and hogging up all the bandwidth that your quality of internet access was suffering due to my wanton abuse of the network. I heard some people lost access completely due to my binging. I guess this is why we need UBB - to weed out all the hogs like myself who cripple the infrastructure when we download. I'm sorry.


TheMG
Premium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·NorthWest Tel
reply to JGROCKY

Further proof that Bell's claims of congestion control is pure BS:

Fact: The majority of bandwidth is used during certain peak hours.

Fact: ISPs pay for bandwidth capacity, not for amount of data transferred.

So why then should the caps and overages apply 24/7? If it really is to control network congestion, then why not implement the caps and overages only during peak hours, to encourage people to download during non-peak hours, alleviating network load during peak hours?


Quakky

join:2008-11-12
reply to JGROCKY

Here's an argument you could use (but again logic doesn't seem to be part of the CRTC and certainly not part of the c***s named Bell).

You purchase a cable/satellite tv service for 40 dollars. You can keep your tv on 24/7 and the channel quality will never degrade, you will never be abruptly cut off from the service, and you will never be billed extra for "Keeping your TV on too much or too long".

You purchase internet service for 40 dollars. You cannot keep your connection running at full speed (at 5Mbps that's 1.54TB of data per month but soon be only allowed 25GB), your service will degrade based on what you do (p2p), you will be billed extra for "Using the internet too much".

I don't really want to compare these 2, but a signal is a signal to the Canadian customer, and the CRTC can't get that and they won't unless we stand up against them and go out on the streets holding signs and informing the public.

So looking at it, for me to watch TV the same way I use the internet, I could only watch about 11.4 Hours of TV per month before I get charged for watching too much TV.

When you have the brightest people in the internet business who tell you that it's profitable to charge 25 dollars to give 500GB of bandwidth (give or take depending on speed of said service), it does not make TV signal and Internet signal sound so different after all.

But yet, We never hear anyone claim "there's alot of TV hogs out there"...well except the wife on a sunday..


MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to BWHog

said by BWHog :

Yesterday I downloaded a few game demos from Xbox Live which added up to about 5GB. According to Bell as a normal user I should be using 25GB/mo or less... so those 5GB I downloaded should have lasted me 6 days instead of 1 day.

I patched a Mac yesterday with some OS X updates, an updated version of Firefox and a few other patches ......~2Gb


shikotee

join:2007-01-11
Canada
kudos:2
reply to JGROCKY

»UBB - Who is the Real Internet Hog?



Gimli
Premium
join:2006-01-03
l5a2o4
reply to JGROCKY

just sent another email to my MP. F-this shite. I am beyond pissed.
The CRTC and incumbents will not send us back to 1990 and make us all hillbilly's again.

ARRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!

I'm so pissed, I cant even articulate anything right now.....



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to MaynardKrebs

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by BWHog :

Yesterday I downloaded a few game demos from Xbox Live which added up to about 5GB. According to Bell as a normal user I should be using 25GB/mo or less... so those 5GB I downloaded should have lasted me 6 days instead of 1 day.

I patched a Mac yesterday with some OS X updates, an updated version of Firefox and a few other patches ......~2Gb

Yup, I've avoided my latest Mac update because it's in the same 2 gig range, guess I better do it now while I can


Anon dude

@rogers.com
reply to JGROCKY

I've been a long time reader, first time poster of this forum.

I think that this whole UBB situation is for all intents and purposes a cash grab and nothing more then that.

If Bell and Rogers were right in their stance that bandwith hogs are a detriment to their networks there would be cold hard evidence of this that would be supported by multiple sources. Not only that but there would be actual data that shows that once a threshold is met then the network is degraded.

Case in point, why does every ISP have their own packages with different monthly download totals? The numbers are completely arbitrary. Comcast in the US allows 250 gb, Rogers has their own packages, and Bell has their own just as an example. So, what's the threshold that if supposedly is broken - causes the network to degrade? They can't quantify it, so it's completely made up.

Rogers has a package that lets you download at 25 Mbps download 1 Mbps upload and 125 gb in total bandwith, the same 25 Mbps package with Bell has a total 75 gb monthly allotment with completely different prices.

I realize one is cable and one is DSL, but the point of this rant is just that these numbers are just completely made up, and change over time. And since they change over time, and there is no entity with cold hard numbers proving at what point the network is degraded then to me it just shows that it's completely without merit. The download speeds are always going up, so their network can afford speed increases but not monthly cap increases?

I'm not an expert on this subject, just someone with an opinion. This might be a stupid question but if you're watching Rogers on Demand, aren't they streaming the movie to you? So if theoretically someone watched 5 movies a day for a whole month, isn't someone that's abusing the service? What's the difference between how data is delivered via internet and via cable, there doesn't seem to be any concern about people streaming too many movies from the on Demand service.


T13R

join:2007-12-30
Lasalle, QC
reply to JGROCKY

I absolutely agree with you Rocky, but have these points been brought up to the CRTC when it was time? (I've been following the proceedings, but some details might escape me) Why is it that Bell is having "problems" to cope with the bandwidth, where is the bottleneck, the real proof? What are they doing to improve their network to accommodate this increasing demand, aside from trying to impose throttling and UBB? Why should Bell get the money from UBB while doing nothing in return? For all I know, their network is perfectly fine for the current demands and they are just trying to milk all the customers out of every penny possible before they need to invest in adding the required hardware to provide every Canadian with some adequate internet (hah!). What guarantee has Bell given the CRTC in terms of upgrading the infrastructures for EVERYONE (not only their own customers)?

Also when Bell proposed their UBB tariffs and UBB in general, why was it not mentioned that Bell's UBB is NOT a disincentive to be a "bandwidth hog". I'm in Quebec, I go over the 60 gig limit, reach 80 gigs, so I pay the maximum overage fee of 30$ (using retail price 20 gigs x 1.5$/gig (if I got my info right)). Now if I wanted to, I could purchase a 40 gig block for 5$, thus costing me 0.125$/gig. So for 25$ less, I get an extra 20 gigs, where is the disincentive? How is it an economic ITMP if you can buy "insurance blocks" for 12 times less than the regular UBB rate? And what happens when you go over 80 but less than 300? NOTHING! So now we're looking at 240 gigs for 30$, which is again 0.125$/gig. Why are these rates ok if buying "insurance" blocks or going over a certain limit, but not ok ALL the time or from 60 to 80 gigs only? If it really is a disincentive, why is the $/gig cheaper after 300 gigs? Shouldn't it cost more the more you become a "bandwidth hog"?

If UBB was really necessary (current infrastructures really can't handle the demand) and the rate per GB above cap was reasonable, then if this money went into some kind of fund to improve infrastructures then this would all make sense. But we have been given no reason to believe Bell will do anything to improve the situation with that money. To top things off, the wholesalers kind of agreed to this UBB farce if they could get a discount for their users... How does this really help the end user, the one who is paying for the service? We still have max 5Mbps speed with many stuck on CO's too far to get close to these stone age speeds and we are now capped. But hey, good news, Bell is getting a little less money from us for doing nothing, just what we needed: no return whatsoever on our increased cost of internet. That sure showed them.

On another note, I thought something was hilarious on the Bell website. I know Ontario is capped at 25 gigs per month, and on a plan I saw they included a 25 gig SkyDrive account. Imagine someone thinking:"Hey, that's neat, I'll back up my information on there just in case and download it when I need it". Well guess what "average Joe", you just reached your limit and can't use your internet anymore, unless you're ready to pay extra. Another service offered that you can't use, and they're shafting their own customers on top of it (unless grandfathered/promotions/bundling).

Which brings me to the last point: grandfathered plans, promotions, bundling deals. Yea, Bell can waive the UBB fees to their own customers or give extra "insurance blocks" for free if you bundle your internet with another service and keep users on grandfathered plans. So these customers could become/are "bandwidth hogs" but the network can handle this no problem! It could also be that Bell's own "bandwidth hogs" are causing them issues and are trying to attribute their problems to the customers of wholesalers and resellers. This is an awesome tactic: make the CRTC believe the opposite is happening and charge the wholesalers/resellers for the bandwidth being used by their own customers, genius! This could probably be the truth... the issue stems from Bell's own customers, not the "bandwidth hogs" from the smaller isp's, and the CRTC is rewarding Bell for it. If you have 100 Bell customers downloading something at 12Mbps (Fibe12) and 100 non-Bell customers downloading something at 5 Mbps, all at the same time, then who is the hog? Bell most likely has many more customers than the resellers/wholesalers combined, so on average, it's likely that the non-Bell customers are being slowed down BY the Bell customers, and not the opposite, yet are being charged the same as the Bell customers. (The 15% discount is a joke)

Bell/Shaw/Rogers/Videotron are BS, UBB is BS, Throttling is BS, CRTC is BS, all political parties are BS... but even WE, all of us, are BS. Nothing will change. Having a negative attitude won't help some say, but Canadians are sheep in general. I've seen it recently here in Lasalle with parking permits in a school zone. It was free for so many years I lost count. All of a sudden the city decided each permit was now 40-50$. People went to city council to complain and they revised it to give the first parking permit free and the rest were charged 40-50$ depending how many you bought/needed. All I have to say is people are quick to grab the deal and completely forget about the long term mess they just put themselves in. Who's to say next year the city won't decide to come back to it's original plan of charging for all parking permits? What's there to complain about, the citizens agreed and they are already paying for the other permits, what's one more? The same can will happen to internet if nothing changes. People will jump ship, even if it means going to Bell/Videotron/etc.. in order to get the better deal, not realizing they are actually promoting the actions taken by the big ISPs in crushing competition and increasing their respective monopolies, thus almost (there is still a CRTC, albeit corrupt) leaving them carte blanche to charge whatever they want for a quality of service they think is adequate for us. Thank you Canada.

said by JGROCKY:

This seems to be the big play for the incumbents (like Bell)... Seems everyone is talking of moderation of use on Internet, causing this somehow large need for control mechanisms.

In the middle of launching higher speeds for over a the better of a million homes, Bell declares they need to throttle to take care of the demand.

But here's the silly part, these nodes now feed telephone, dsl, fibre connections, mobile high speed data and now iptv, the biggest hog of them all! If all these services function well, then why throttling and why UBB for that matter. If an economic or technical itmp is put in place it's to curb use in an emergency network state!

There's nothing emergency or maintenance about any of this! In fact, if you look at usage, a 5 Meg connection can consume upward of 1.5TB of usage so if a person is deemed a heavy user at 25GB, so less than 2%, of the total capability.... Someone never intended to provide the service he sold to that user.

...my two cents for the day!



nukscull

@rr.com
reply to TheMG

Fact: ISPs pay for bandwidth capacity, not for amount of data transferred.

That's not a fact, at least not entirely true.

Not all ISP's pay the same way for their circuits. An ISP could have a 10gigabit/sec circuit to an upstream provider, and either pay for the entire thing, or pay for the peak usage.

I don't know any that pay for the amount of data transferred, so you may be right about that, but it's not a fact that they only pay for the capacity. Some only want to pay for the peak bits/sec. Which would make a 10gig circuit cheaper if you are not using all 10gigs at any point. This especially makes it cheaper if an ISP is wanting to get multiple 10gig circuits for redundancy and unexpected traffic.

freejazz_RdJ

join:2009-03-10
kudos:1
reply to JGROCKY

Bandwidth hog is going to be an evolving definition as usage patterns change. Where do you put the threshold, 2 or 3 standard deviations from the mean or median, xth percentile? That is one of the worst parts of this decision, that it is tied to retail caps (marketing) and not their provisioned capacity or some sort of metric like cap will cover 90th percentile of usage or grow at x%/year(techincal/statistical).

Bell should have been smarter in the way they built their service so that from the outset, fees were based on real load/cost, rather than some average. Their own lack of foresight. Lots of providers elsewhere charge a fee for sync speed, then fees for transport, then fees for interconnect/handoff.

As for the other services being hogs, I'm not sure that is going to work as a strategy, unless they are stealing capacity provisioned for GAS/DSL and repurposing it for wireless backhaul, biz services, etc. How does selling a private line to their affiliate or someone else affect DSL?



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

2 edits
reply to TheMG

said by TheMG:

Further proof that Bell's claims of congestion control is pure BS:

Fact: The majority of bandwidth is used during certain peak hours.

Fact: ISPs pay for bandwidth capacity, not for amount of data transferred.

So why then should the caps and overages apply 24/7? If it really is to control network congestion, then why not implement the caps and overages only during peak hours, to encourage people to download during non-peak hours, alleviating network load during peak hours?

.
Never the obvious !

They allegedly have 10,000 lawyers and BHell STILL would never get it !



BTW, same logic applies to BHell's version of Throttling.

They use a sledgehammer to kill a (perceived) fly, and keep swinging it for HOURS after any fly surely HAS to have been squashed !


FormerMadCow

@teksavvy.com
reply to JGROCKY

I like to explain speed and bandwidth this way: Think of data as water, the speed is the pressure you have and the bandwidth is how much water you can use. I'm getting 5000psi, but can only use 25 gallons, that's ridiculous. The caps are set nearly at the same level as what you could get out of an analog modem connection in continuous use. I remember when Videotron came out with their TGV50, I calculated that you'd burn the cap in less than an hour of use, what's the point then? With caps at 25GB you might as well have 1Mb connections and leave it at that.

Rocky I liked that post you made earlier about seeing this as a challenge, it's inspiring and that's the attitude that will win out eventually.



idlewillkill
Go Blue
Premium
join:2005-09-28
North York, ON
reply to JGROCKY

This seems like a rather disingenuous arugment.
ISPs, including Teksavvy, don't build out a network based on max potential bandwidth. If you have 1000 customers on a 5 meg connection, and you put in a 5 gig backhaul connection to support that, you're doing it wrong. But of course you're not doing that, because that would be stupid.



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to T13R

said by T13R:

....have these points been brought up to the CRTC when it was time? (I've been following the proceedings, but some details might escape me)
Yes and no, but even so, they were ignored and/or laughed at.
Why is it that Bell is having "problems" to cope with the bandwidth, where is the bottleneck, the real proof ?
No public proof, as BHell got CRTC to let them submit stats 'In Confidence' - Believable ? - IMNSHO, NOT !
What are they doing to improve their network to accommodate this increasing demand, aside from trying to impose throttling and UBB? Why should Bell get the money from UBB while doing nothing in return ?
We're not sure.
For all I know, their network is perfectly fine for the current demands and they are just trying to milk all the customers out of every penny possible before they need to invest in adding the required hardware to provide every Canadian with some adequate internet (hah!).
Many of us here believe exactly THAT.
What guarantee has Bell given the CRTC in terms of upgrading the infrastructures for EVERYONE (not only their own customers)?
We're not sure.
=========
Also when Bell proposed their UBB tariffs and UBB in general, why was it not mentioned that Bell's UBB is NOT a disincentive to be a "bandwidth hog".
I think so, but even so, it was ignored and/or laughed at.
I'm in Quebec, I go over the 60 gig limit, reach 80 gigs, so I pay the maximum overage fee of 30$ (using retail price 20 gigs x 1.5$/gig (if I got my info right)).

Now if I wanted to, I could purchase a 40 gig block for 5$, thus costing me 0.125$/gig. So for 25$ less, I get an extra 20 gigs, where is the disincentive? How is it an economic ITMP if you can buy "insurance blocks" for 12 times less than the regular UBB rate? And what happens when you go over 80 but less than 300? NOTHING! So now we're looking at 240 gigs for 30$, which is again 0.125$/gig. Why are these rates ok if buying "insurance" blocks or going over a certain limit, but not ok ALL the time or from 60 to 80 gigs only? If it really is a disincentive, why is the $/gig cheaper after 300 gigs? Shouldn't it cost more the more you become a "bandwidth hog"?
What you just said makes complete sense to me. - I started a thread here just yesterday, where I proposed a REAL UBB rate structure and suggested some fair and reasonable linear numbers. - I'll add the link here after completing this reply.
=========
If UBB was really necessary (current infrastructures really can't handle the demand) and the rate per GB above cap was reasonable, then if this money went into some kind of fund to improve infrastructures then this would all make sense. - But we have been given no reason to believe Bell will do anything to improve the situation with that money.
Even if the rate was 'fair and reasonable', and properly 'cost-based', without any other assurances, many of us would say OK to UBB.
To top things off, the wholesalers kind of agreed to this UBB farce if they could get a discount for their users... How does this really help the end user, the one who is paying for the service ?
[The reader is shrugging his shoulders and rolling his eyes, along with you.]
We still have max 5Mbps speed with many stuck on CO's too far to get close to these stone age speeds and we are now capped. But hey, good news, Bell is getting a little less money from us for doing nothing, just what we needed: no return whatsoever on our increased cost of internet. That sure showed them.
[sarcasm]It soitainly DID ![/sarcasm]
=========
On another note, I thought something was hilarious on the Bell website. I know Ontario is capped at 25 gigs per month, and on a plan I saw they included a 25 gig SkyDrive account. Imagine someone thinking:"Hey, that's neat, I'll back up my information on there just in case and download it when I need it". Well guess what "average Joe", you just reached your limit and can't use your internet anymore, unless you're ready to pay extra. Another service offered that you can't use, and they're shafting their own customers on top of it (unless grandfathered/promotions/bundling).
Predatory to say the least. - But BHell's greed is not subject to any 'Cap'.
=========
Which brings me to the last point: grandfathered plans, promotions, bundling deals. Yea, Bell can waive the UBB fees to their own customers or give extra "insurance blocks" for free if you bundle your internet with another service and keep users on grandfathered plans. So these customers could become/are "bandwidth hogs", but the network can handle this no problem !
Absolutely possible, since we believe that BHell's alleged 'Network Congestion' was the result of a BHell intern page person mitakenly swapping and delivering a doctor's diagnosis and an IT report to the wrong department heads.
It could also be that Bell's own "bandwidth hogs" are causing them issues and are trying to attribute their problems to the customers of wholesalers and resellers. This is an awesome tactic: make the CRTC believe the opposite is happening and charge the wholesalers/resellers for the bandwidth being used by their own customers, genius! This could probably be the truth... the issue stems from Bell's own customers, not the "bandwidth hogs" from the smaller isp's, and the CRTC is rewarding Bell for it. If you have 100 Bell customers downloading something at 12Mbps (Fibe12) and 100 non-Bell customers downloading something at 5 Mbps, all at the same time, then who is the hog? Bell most likely has many more customers than the resellers/wholesalers combined, so on average, it's likely that the non-Bell customers are being slowed down BY the Bell customers, and not the opposite, yet are being charged the same as the Bell customers. (The 15% discount is a joke)
That very well could be the case, IF there even IS any congestion. - And yes, BHell can do just about whatever they please, even if it contradicts logic which they have previously presented.
=========
Bell/Shaw/Rogers/Videotron are BS, UBB is BS, Throttling is BS, CRTC is BS, all political parties are BS....
I agree that most of them are, but we WILL find a way to beat this warped injustice which BHell has dares to call UBB, even if it involves civil disobedience and the court system.



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

Proper UBB

said by T13R:

....have these points ....

-
Here it is, as promised :

»A Fair Rate for REAL UBB on 5Mb DSL service


AkFubar
Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
reply to JGROCKY

Re: What exactly is a bandwidth hog?

IMHO "bandwidth hog" is an "arbitrary" collective definition for someone that downloads over a certain "arbitrary" amount.

Smoke and mirrors. It's all arbitrary based on someone's say-so (BHell?, Robbers?, the CRTC?, some mis-informed segment of the population?). Who's to say that large downloads are not the new normal and in fact those that download less than 25GB a month are the exception not those who download more?

Where's the data supporting any of this? The argument is frivilous to say the least and invalid at best.

It seems in this country, science fiction is the basis for decision and not fact-based decision making. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled??



shikotee

join:2007-01-11
Canada
kudos:2

said by AkFubar:

IMHO "bandwidth hog" is an "arbitrary" collective definition for someone that downloads over a certain "arbitrary" amount.

Its clever marketing/propaganda. Note how it has a dash of plausibility to it, which is all propaganda really needs. When you analyze and explore further, it doesn't really pass the sniff test, but that is irrelevant because the focus is on people who are not going to be bothered to look at and think about the various layers angles.

By using this angle, Bell is able to frame and shape the debate to the public, without actually having to prove anything. They've dumbed it down to a simple argument - We are trying to stop the bad guys, and this is something that the general public can relate to. All it needs is that dash of plausible truth.

Disproving it is pointless, as no one is interested in debating the subject. Geeks like us thrive on breaking down the flaws on various levels, but what good is that if you can't sell it to the mainstream?

The concept of a bandwidth/internet hog is absolutely ridiculous, but it will generate sympathy. If the anti UBB movement hopes to have any form of success, they need to find a way to re-frame the debate in their favour. They need to find something remotely plausible that they can lock in on, and focus on bringing attention to this aspect to the public.

This was what the "Internet Tax" concept was based on.

I think another angle (that is worthy of pursuit) is to turn the tables on Bell and call them the hogs. This is something that the public already inherently feels - they need that extra push. Applaud the CRTC for bringing in UBB, but demand that it needs to be TRUE UBB. In other words, a metered internet with nothing included - you pay ONLY for what you use.

Now this is something that I would never ever want, but more importantly, it is something that Bell would want even less. As we are well aware, according to stats, there are many users that use but a fraction of their allotted use, and I would imagine they would very much resonate towards an idea of not being forced to over pay.

pablo
MVM
join:2003-06-23
kudos:1
reply to JGROCKY

Hi Rocky,

The definition of a bandwidth hog is best characterized by a skit I heard from a comedian on drivers. The ones driving faster than you, are f*ck'n maniacs and the ones driving slower than you are f*ck'n morons.

Similar, a bandwidth hog is someone who uses more bandwidth than you.

Cheers,
-pablo
--
openSUSE 11.1/KDE
ISP: TekSavvy DSL; backhauled via a 6KM wireless link