O Canada! > Canadian > TekSavvy > What exactly is a bandwidth hog?

What exactly is a bandwidth hog?

reply to JGROCKY
an "angelo" is a heavy user?

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

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

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).

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 ,,!,,('-'),,!,,

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

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

reply to JGROCKY

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.

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?

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..

reply to BWHog

reply to JGROCKY
»UBB - Who is the Real Internet Hog?

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.....

reply to MaynardKrebs

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.

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.