dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1
share rss forum feed
« "Steep Overages"?Fuck »
This is a sub-selection from Typical

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Oh_No

Re: Typical

said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as an average user as there is no control over each users usage.

Huh?
said by Oh_No:

To base your network off past averages instead of potential peak usage is irresponsible and huge gamble.

How do you get to an estimate of potential peak usage? Please don't suggest totalling max advertised connection speeds for all customers.
said by Oh_No:

Lol, ISPs were greatly profitable from 1995 to 2011 with unlimited internet.

But that's not what we're discussing. Your assumption implies that if an ISP has 1,000 customers for a single node, each subscribing to a tier advertising max throughput of 10 Mbps, then that ISP must plan for 10 Gbps of throughput. That is unsupportable.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Though his argument is crazy in one respect, even you would have to admit that they use the maximum potential bandwidth usage and utilization charts when they determine upgrade paths and such.

"All networks are built and upgraded" with X% of peak utilization in mind. I use the "" loosely as it is clear with monopolistic/duopolistic ISP's they don't necessarily use it to build or upgrade, just to restrict and monetize.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

said by Skippy25:

even you would have to admit that they use the maximum potential bandwidth usage and utilization charts when they determine upgrade paths and such.

Of course. That's the basis for capacity planning capital expenditure decisions.


Oh_No
Trogglus normalus

join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as an average user as there is no control over each users usage.

Huh?

Huh? I guess you don't know how statistics work.
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

To base your network off past averages instead of potential peak usage is irresponsible and huge gamble.

How do you get to an estimate of potential peak usage? Please don't suggest totalling max advertised connection speeds for all customers.

Estimate?? It is a hard caculation based on the speed you give each customer.
In cases where networks cannot handle 50 mbps sustained due to being over sold, the ISP should not sell 50 mbps. They should sell 5 mbps (or whatever the network can handle) but with a "speed boost up to 50 mbps". Just offering 50 mbps (even with BS small print) is very misleading if the network cannot handle it.
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

Lol, ISPs were greatly profitable from 1995 to 2011 with unlimited internet.

But that's not what we're discussing. Your assumption implies that if an ISP has 1,000 customers for a single node, each subscribing to a tier advertising max throughput of 10 Mbps, then that ISP must plan for 10 Gbps of throughput. That is unsupportable.

It is very supportable to offer what your network can handle instead of lying.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

said by Oh_No:

Huh? I guess you don't know how statistics work.

Are you seriously suggesting that an average doesn't exist? And you're questioning my statistical knowledge?
said by Oh_No:

Estimate?? It is a hard caculation based on the speed you give each customer.

That is simply not feasible.
said by Oh_No:

It is very supportable to offer what your network can handle instead of lying.

Using Comcast and it's 17.55M HSI subs as an example, if Comcast were to maintain a capacity of 100 Gbps, the company would only be able to offer a maximum speed tier of ~5.7 kbps based on your logic. Are you ready for that?


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

said by openbox9:

Using Comcast and it's 17.55M HSI subs as an example, if Comcast were to maintain a capacity of 100 Gbps, the company would only be able to offer a maximum speed tier of ~5.7 kbps based on your logic. Are you ready for that?

..if the 17.55M subscribers were in the same area.


Oh_No
Trogglus normalus

join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

Huh? I guess you don't know how statistics work.

Are you seriously suggesting that an average doesn't exist? And you're questioning my statistical knowledge?

Yes the average in the way that you and ISPs are trying to use doesn't exist. You cant predict the future off a simple average.
Yes I am clearly questioning your statistical knowledge as you dont seem to understand this.
A customer's usage is not "in control".
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

Estimate?? It is a hard caculation based on the speed you give each customer.

That is simply not feasible.

Yes it is.
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

It is very supportable to offer what your network can handle instead of lying.

Using Comcast and it's 17.55M HSI subs as an example, if Comcast were to maintain a capacity of 100 Gbps, the company would only be able to offer a maximum speed tier of ~5.7 kbps based on your logic. Are you ready for that?

Comcast 100 Gbps for 17.55M?? LOL, you are damn funny.
Yes I am ready for them to build a network that can handle the subscriptions.
FYI, caps and usage billing do nothing to prevent congestion at peak times.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Simba7

100 Gbps assumption is for Comcast's backbone, therefore the 17.55M subscribers across its customer base is applicable.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Oh_No

said by Oh_No:

Yes the average in the way that you and ISPs are trying to use doesn't exist. You cant predict the future off a simple average.
Yes I am clearly questioning your statistical knowledge as you dont seem to understand this.
A customer's usage is not "in control".

I don't know how much sillier this conversation can get.
said by Oh_No:

Comcast 100 Gbps for 17.55M?? LOL, you are damn funny.

Do the math, it's not very funny.
said by Oh_No:

Yes I am ready for them to build a network that can handle the subscriptions.

Consumers aren't willing/able to pay that bill.
said by Oh_No:

FYI, caps and usage billing do nothing to prevent congestion at peak times.

Never suggested that they do.


Oh_No
Trogglus normalus

join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL

said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

Yes the average in the way that you and ISPs are trying to use doesn't exist. You cant predict the future off a simple average.
Yes I am clearly questioning your statistical knowledge as you dont seem to understand this.
A customer's usage is not "in control".

I don't know how much sillier this conversation can get.

Well if you keep making stupid statements it will keep getting worse.
Really you need to do some statistics reading and learn what "in control" means before you say there is a real average that can be used for any reasonable prediction.
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

Comcast 100 Gbps for 17.55M?? LOL, you are damn funny.

Do the math, it's not very funny.
said by Oh_No:

Yes I am ready for them to build a network that can handle the subscriptions.

Consumers aren't willing/able to pay that bill.

People have been paying for that from about 1995 to about 2011 and ISPs were very, very profitable. It is nothing new to have an unlimited connection and a network that can handle the users at peak times.
said by openbox9:

[

said by Oh_No:

FYI, caps and usage billing do nothing to prevent congestion at peak times.

Never suggested that they do.

Then why are you defending caps????

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

1 edit

said by Oh_No:

Well if you keep making stupid statements it will keep getting worse.
Really you need to do some statistics reading and learn what "in control" means before you say there is a real average that can be used for any reasonable prediction.

There's obviously a communications breakdown between the two of us. First, average is average. It's not difficult to calculate. Second, I did not suggest any predictable utility with a simple average.
said by Oh_No:

People have been paying for that from about 1995 to about 2011

No they have not. Everything is oversold, has been from the beginning, and will continue to be. Your issue now appears to be with capping, which is not how I read your previous posts.
said by Oh_No:

Then why are you defending caps????

When did I defend caps in response to managing congestion?


powerob

@comcast.net

While it is true that all networks are oversold (and always will be), it's not as bad as you think it is.

100Gbps is not a lot of aggregate backbone capacity anymore. It's not atypical for even a mid-sized hosting provider (e.g. FDC Servers) to purchase multiple 10Gbps links. While there are a lot of ways to measure aggregate bandwidth in a complex routed network, it's fair to say that Comcast's customers can pull well more than 100Gbps total from the network, especially if you include CDNs that peer directly with Comcast.

You are right in that Oh_No is completely unrealistic in believing that a consumer-level broadband network could be provided without any over-subscription. If we assume that the average provisioned bandwidth is 15Mbps, then Comcast would need over 250 Tbps of aggregate bandwidth, which is well beyond the capabilities of even the largest broadband providers today.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

said by powerob :

it's fair to say that Comcast's customers can pull well more than 100Gbps total from the network, especially if you include CDNs that peer directly with Comcast.

I don't know Comcast's bandwidth capacity or peering arrangements, nor do I really care. It was a purely hypothetical suggestion to make a point with Oh_No See Profile...that I apparently failed with. Thank you for adding a little sensibility to the discussion.