dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
18
share rss forum feed
« Energy is not finiteHelping Grandmothers »
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from Physics fail

dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

2 recommendations

reply to JackKane

Re: Physics fail

Having read his article, the point is that Nowak is an intellectually dishonest hack.

He doesn't believe that there are congestion issues caused by heavy users because it's not been "proved"? REALLY? He's not seen the complaints from users of poor performance during peak hours? Either he's an imbecile or intentionally dishonest.

The proposed Canadian model was too harsh, but there's a very real incentive for ISPs to try and slow the ever-increasing bandwidth per user consumption that has nothing to do with trying to limit competition. Constant upgrades and capacity expansion aren't cheap, and the simplistic "they make a profit, so they should just keep throwing money at the problem" isn't very convincing.



kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

1 edit

said by dynodb:

Having read his article, the point is that Nowak is an intellectually dishonest hack.

No, it's you who is doing a classic cablecorp astroturfing here.

He doesn't believe that there are congestion issues caused by heavy users because it's not been "proved"? REALLY? He's not seen the complaints from users of poor performance during peak hours? Either he's an imbecile or intentionally dishonest.

again: since when internet congestion have to do with your masters pocketing profits instead of re-investing?

There is no blackout, congestion etc on the internet, there is PLENTY of bandwidth at DIRT CHEAP prices - brownout is possible when your masters at Time Warner will shit into their pants that no more ripoff profits, they *have* to start pulling out the fiber they are postponing for almost a decade now.

The proposed Canadian model was too harsh, but there's a very real incentive for ISPs to try and slow the ever-increasing bandwidth per user consumption that has nothing to do with trying to limit competition. Constant upgrades and capacity expansion aren't cheap, and the simplistic "they make a profit, so they should just keep throwing money at the problem" isn't very convincing.

Abslute and utter BS, straight out of Time Warner's 'BS-book' - your cable masters are raping 1000-1500% (yes, that's 1000-1500 PERCENT!) PROFIT on EVERY BIT OF BANDWIDTH they deliver.
--
said by bicker:

Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.


dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 recommendation

You have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about. Zero.


cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

1 recommendation

reply to dynodb

Nobody is saying there aren't any congestion issues. (there are.) The problem is not with congestion but with operators who aren't investing *anything* in upgrading systems/technology to elminiate congestion.

I'd have congestion in my home network(s) if I were still using 10Mbps hubs from decades ago. I've upgraded my shit (several times) over the years. The major operators are much more willing to shovel money in their pockets than spend anything on modernization. As an ISP, they should know damned well their equipment is going to need upgrading over time.

Expand your moderator at work


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
reply to cramer

Re: Physics fail

said by cramer:

Nobody is saying there aren't any congestion issues. (there are.) The problem is not with congestion but with operators who aren't investing *anything* in upgrading systems/technology to elminiate congestion.

I'd have congestion in my home network(s) if I were still using 10Mbps hubs from decades ago. I've upgraded my shit (several times) over the years. The major operators are much more willing to shovel money in their pockets than spend anything on modernization. As an ISP, they should know damned well their equipment is going to need upgrading over time.

Exactly - it's a very typical, primitive astroturfer trick to exact the "congestion" caused by parasitic monopoly (=cablecorp) on its own network and shortage of backbone bandwidth.
It's also the most cynical PoS argument: it's artifically generated by the very cablecorp to cause distress thus prepare for their push for metered billing while, as a nice side effect, it saves money that goes out the window as profit.
Scum of the Earth, all of them.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]

dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 edit
reply to Anon


You provided nothing remotely close to a "fact". Ranting about make-believe 1500% profit margins is not fact.

My opinions are my own. They're also more valid than those of someone like yourself who has no idea what they're talking about.



annonymiss

@comcast.net
reply to kamm

Hmm, 1000 percent huh?

So you're trying to say TW had the biggest profit of any telcom ever in history huh?

Guess you should have bought some TW stock huh?

Spewing hyperbole's and junk numbers won't win your argument.



annonymiss

@comcast.net
reply to cramer

Tell you what.

You point to 1, ANY 1 major ISP that spent ZERO on Infrastructure upgrades and I'll pay your internet bill for the rest of your life.

Why is it people like you have to spew a bunch of BS and just make the argument look stupid from your end?



ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
reply to dynodb

he said that the only reason there are any "congestion problems is because of a lack of investment by the ISP. Which is absolutely true.


dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

said by ArrayList:

he said that the only reason there are any "congestion problems is because of a lack of investment by the ISP. Which is absolutely true.

Only in the sense that if providers spent an unlimited amount of money on an unlimited amount of capacity- then yes. That's like arguing that the only reason that rush hour traffic is congested is because they didn't instantly add more lanes at the first sign of trouble.

One can't disregard the fact that bandwidth consumption per user has been seeing double-digit increases per quarter. The same trunks / nodes that only six months ago were perfectly fine might now be congested, even without an increase in the number of subscribers riding it.

Obviously, the providers are for-profit businesses. The expectation that any amount of profit made should be spend on endless upgrades to benefit a very small percentage of "bandwidth hogs" isn't realistic.


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to annonymiss

an ISP doesn't need to spend 0 or even close to remain behind the curve

if your an ISP you could replace only failed parts or limit your self to just maintaining the existing gear

now spending 0 on upgrades to gear is another story
you could keep eol gear up and running well past the time it should be replaced (sure EOL gear is just fine for a business but not for an ISP)



coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream

1 recommendation

reply to dynodb

said by dynodb:

said by ArrayList:

he said that the only reason there are any "congestion problems is because of a lack of investment by the ISP. Which is absolutely true.

~snip~

One can't disregard the fact that bandwidth consumption per user has been seeing double-digit increases per quarter. The same trunks / nodes that only six months ago were perfectly fine might now be congested, even without an increase in the number of subscribers riding it.

Obviously, the providers are for-profit businesses. The expectation that any amount of profit made should be spend on endless upgrades to benefit a very small percentage of "bandwidth hogs" isn't realistic.

Well here's an easy fix: STOP OVER SUBSCRIBING! Next, expand your deployments when you feel like adding more customers. Your assertions that the problem is due to "hogs" is a straw man that is CAUSED by the ISP over subscribing and pushing that new node beyond what it was reasonably meant to handle properly.

Stop wasting the reader's and consumer's time as well as tying up the courts to keep from having to service your customers appropriately and fully.
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC


coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to annonymiss

said by annonymiss :

Hmm, 1000 percent huh?

So you're trying to say TW had the biggest profit of any telcom ever in history huh?

Guess you should have bought some TW stock huh?

Spewing hyperbole's and junk numbers won't win your argument.

Then how about regaling us with real numbers then?

No numbers = no credibility and just because you say it, does not make it true or even close to reality. Put up or shut up!
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC


Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to dynodb

said by dynodb:

said by kamm:

said by dynodb:

You have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about. Zero.

Ouch. What's up, no more instructions from your masters? You cannot reach them or is it now way over your silly little astroturf head?

You know, stupid little lies come from similar people - and that means they run out of them pretty quickly as soon as someone tackles them with facts.

You provided nothing remotely close to a "fact". Ranting about make-believe 1500% profit margins is not fact.

My opinions are my own. They're also more valid than those of someone like yourself who has no idea what they're talking about.

Opinions, assholes, and all that.

rahvin112

join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
reply to dynodb

So if UBB is the answer that means that there are no longer capital expenditures to fund and prices can fall.

In addition because we're charging for usage there will be no fixed costs, only per byte charges. That means no $50 base plan, just per byte billing where customers actually have the ability to regulate and control costs.

If that's going to be allowed where there is no competition then the service is a utility and the price per byte should be regulated and justified just like the gas and power company. Afterall we can't allow monopoly service providers to use low competition areas with high prices to fund high competition areas with low prices.

And as was pointed out in the article, if UBB is allowed to go forward at that point the ISP should be subject to the same meter rules that the gas and electric companies are. Such as that the meter be tested and certified accurate by an independent testing laboratory. Otherwise the usage numbers are just a bunch of crap.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to coldmoon

said by coldmoon:

Well here's an easy fix: STOP OVER SUBSCRIBING!

And then you & almost all residential subscribers couldn't afford the monthly bill that would cost. Oversubscribing is the ONLY reason broadband is affordable to huge numbers of people.


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
reply to dynodb

said by dynodb:

said by kamm:

said by dynodb:

You have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about. Zero.

Ouch. What's up, no more instructions from your masters? You cannot reach them or is it now way over your silly little astroturf head?

You know, stupid little lies come from similar people - and that means they run out of them pretty quickly as soon as someone tackles them with facts.

You provided nothing remotely close to a "fact". Ranting about make-believe 1500% profit margins is not fact.

My opinions are my own. They're also more valid than those of someone like yourself who has no idea what they're talking about.

Except it's a well-known fact, little paid astroturfer, check wholesale prices and then your masters' proposals.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
reply to dynodb

said by dynodb:

said by ArrayList:

he said that the only reason there are any "congestion problems is because of a lack of investment by the ISP. Which is absolutely true.

Only in the sense that if providers spent an unlimited amount of money on an unlimited amount of capacity- then yes. That's like arguing that the only reason that rush hour traffic is congested is because they didn't instantly add more lanes at the first sign of trouble.

One can't disregard the fact that bandwidth consumption per user has been seeing double-digit increases per quarter. The same trunks / nodes that only six months ago were perfectly fine might now be congested, even without an increase in the number of subscribers riding it.

Obviously, the providers are for-profit businesses. The expectation that any amount of profit made should be spend on endless upgrades to benefit a very small percentage of "bandwidth hogs" isn't realistic.

ANother full of BS astroturfer reply - wholesale bandwidth prices are ALWAYS FALLING and pipes are getting fatter and fatter.

It is really nobody else but scumbag corporations like yours who overcharges and THEN has the thick skin to complain about growth in needs.


Scumbags, rotten, crooked lying scumbags, ALL CABLECORPS.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
reply to kamm

said by kamm:

Abslute and utter BS, straight out of Time Warner's 'BS-book' - your cable masters are raping 1000-1500% (yes, that's 1000-1500 PERCENT!) PROFIT on EVERY BIT OF BANDWIDTH they deliver.

* Citation needed.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP

1 recommendation

reply to coldmoon

said by coldmoon:

Well here's an easy fix: STOP OVER SUBSCRIBING!

That type of solution exists. Ever price out DSx/OCx services? That is 100% dedicated last-mile bandwidth.

Oversubscription is what keeps high speed Internet access affordable to the masses.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
reply to kamm

said by kamm:

ANother full of BS astroturfer reply - wholesale bandwidth prices are ALWAYS FALLING and pipes are getting fatter and fatter.

This doesn't magically happen though. You know what, hard drives are getting cheaper and larger every day. How much did your hard drive magically increase in size last month?

It isn't cheaper for you to add more storage -- you'd have to spend cash to get more capacity -- but you'll get more storage for your dollar this time around than you did the last time you bought a hard drive. Except eventually you run out of what is feasible to put into a single box for storage and you end up buying a SAN storage array and building out the SAN infrastructure to support it, etc.

Capacity augmentation is a system-wide expense.


coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to espaeth

said by espaeth:

said by coldmoon:

Well here's an easy fix: STOP OVER SUBSCRIBING!

That type of solution exists. Ever price out DSx/OCx services? That is 100% dedicated last-mile bandwidth.

Oversubscription is what keeps high speed Internet access affordable to the masses.

What does getting a t1, etc line have to do with ISPs over subscribing the equipment they grudgingly deploy? That sounds more like bait and switch to me...

Hey, if you don't like not being able to use the connection you are paying for because the pipe has too many people using it, you should look over here at this expensive and thoroughly ridiculous option.

If subscribing within your equipment's limitations with expansion in step with subscription is too expensive, prove it. Lets see some real world numbers for representative selections of rural and urban environments so we can all see the truth of what you are saying. My expectation is that you will simply reply with more double-speak...

Anyone taking bets?
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP

1 recommendation

said by coldmoon:

said by espaeth:

said by coldmoon:

Well here's an easy fix: STOP OVER SUBSCRIBING!

That type of solution exists. Ever price out DSx/OCx services? That is 100% dedicated last-mile bandwidth.

Oversubscription is what keeps high speed Internet access affordable to the masses.

What does getting a t1, etc line have to do with ISPs over subscribing the equipment they grudgingly deploy?

It provides exactly what you are asking for -- a 100% dedicated last-mile circuit with pricing that is regulated by the local Public Utilities Commission. You can order a DSx/OCx circuit through any CLEC or ILEC you wish and you will have absolutely no competition for moving bits across the wire.

said by coldmoon:

Hey, if you don't like not being able to use the connection you are paying for because the pipe has too many people using it, you should look over here at this expensive and thoroughly ridiculous option.

Hold on a sec. You're the one that jumped to the extreme of saying that dedicated facilities should be provided. The bottom line is that most Internet subscribers don't drive their connection to 100% -- not even remotely close. Building out dedicated facilities when average usage is relatively low is ridiculously (and needlessly) expensive.

said by coldmoon:

If subscribing within your equipment's limitations with expansion in step with subscription is too expensive, prove it. Lets see some real world numbers for representative selections of rural and urban environments so we can all see the truth of what you are saying.

The problem is accounting for the top percentage of subscribers who are placing excessive demand on the infrastructure.

The top 1 percent of broadband connections is responsible for more than 20 percent of total Internet traffic. The top 10 percent of connections is responsible for over 60 percent of broadband Internet traffic, worldwide.
Source:»www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/co···_WP.html

From a business standpoint, there is more motivation to keep the 90% of revenue generating subscribers who are presenting 40% of the demand happier than the top 10% who are presenting 60% of the demand.

If there was growth in revenue tied to growth in usage this wouldn't be as big of a problem.

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to dynodb

If a bandwidth shortage is looming, why do consumer BB packages keep getting faster for the same price? Something doesn't add up. Wouldn't offering faster speeds accelerate the arrival of the coming bandwidth shortage? Isn't this like an all-you-can-eat buffet keeping the price steady but giving folks bigger plates, bigger cups and a doggy bag to fill at the end of their meal?



coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to espaeth

It provides exactly what you are asking for -- a 100% dedicated last-mile circuit with pricing that is regulated by the local Public Utilities Commission. You can order a DSx/OCx circuit through any CLEC or ILEC you wish and you will have absolutely no competition for moving bits across the wire.

Where did I ask for any of that. What I asked for is for providers to stop over subscribing so that the service the consumer is paying for is delivered at all times as it should be. This means deploying to meet the full service needs for ALL customers in all areas of coverage.

Hold on a sec. You're the one that jumped to the extreme of saying that dedicated facilities should be provided. The bottom line is that most Internet subscribers don't drive their connection to 100% -- not even remotely close. Building out dedicated facilities when average usage is relatively low is ridiculously (and needlessly) expensive.

No, I said nothing extreme and certainly did not call for dedicated facilities. What I called for was deployment that meets the full service needs of the customer; be they business or consumer.
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP

said by coldmoon:

What I asked for is for providers to stop over subscribing so that the service the consumer is paying for is delivered at all times as it should be.

said by coldmoon:

No, I said nothing extreme and certainly did not call for dedicated facilities.

That is still, for all practical purposes, dedicated facilities. Even if you take shared access and hard provision it such that there is no overlap in capacity, the costs would still be pretty close to dedicated facilities anyway because you have no stat-mux efficiency to balance out the costs.

So ISPs should over-provision the hell out of everything such that the bulk of the capacity sits idle continuously?

That sounds cheap.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to espaeth

Ever price out DSx/OCx services? That is 100% dedicated last-mile bandwidth.

Those services are traditionally regulated. Prices are dictated by published tarriff tables. They've been expensive forever because the bell's wanted it that way in the beginning -- and regulated prices rarely ever go down.

As for "dedicated bandwidth"... in modern networking, even what you might think is a point-to-point dedicated circuit usually isn't. (see also: optical switching and circuit emulation.)

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to espaeth

said by espaeth:

said by coldmoon:

Well here's an easy fix: STOP OVER SUBSCRIBING!

That type of solution exists. Ever price out DSx/OCx services? That is 100% dedicated last-mile bandwidth.

Oversubscription is what keeps high speed Internet access affordable to the masses.

Not entirely true. Competition is what keeps high speed internet access affordable to everybody. Competition breeds innovation breeds cheaper and faster connections.

With this UBB thing, there would be no competition, no incentive for innovation, no cheaper alternative, no faster alternative.

Bear in mind, telecommunications in Canada are regulated by the CRTC. They dictate tariffs and access and ultimately end user prices. This UBB thing is a decision of the CRTC. Everybody is against it. Except of course Bell the incumbent.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31

3 edits
reply to espaeth

said by espaeth:

said by kamm:

ANother full of BS astroturfer reply - wholesale bandwidth prices are ALWAYS FALLING and pipes are getting fatter and fatter.

This doesn't magically happen though. You know what, hard drives are getting cheaper and larger every day. How much did your hard drive magically increase in size last month?

It isn't cheaper for you to add more storage -- you'd have to spend cash to get more capacity -- but you'll get more storage for your dollar this time around than you did the last time you bought a hard drive. Except eventually you run out of what is feasible to put into a single box for storage and you end up buying a SAN storage array and building out the SAN infrastructure to support it, etc.

Capacity augmentation is a system-wide expense.

I remember my first 1GB drive, paid $250. Now I can buy a 2TB drive for the exact same number of dollars, $250. That's a 2,000-fold increase in capacity. And a proportionate drop in price due to inflation.

2,000-fold increase in capacity for the same price. Think about it.

Fun With Math!

$250/1GB = $250 per GB.
$250/2TB = $0.125 per GB!!!!

If instead of substituting, I'm adding, I end up paying $0.249 per GB because I paid a total $500 for 2,001GB. The same principle applies to bandwidth. As cheaper and faster alternatives are invented, the total price per Mbps drops, and the total available bandwidth increases.

But you're right, it always costs more to add stuff. But then I'm right too, it always costs less per unit.

But if I keep adding 2TB drives, I pay less and less and less per GB. Now imagine a 3ZB (ziggabyte, hugelol) drive for $50. Or a 4GB or 4GpB (googolbyte, googolplexbyte) drive.

15 years ago, 56K = $30/month
Today, 5Mbps = $30/month
100-fold increase in speed for the same price. How can this be unless wholesale bandwidth has grown cheaper?