Topic 'Re: Typical' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: Typical

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:03:31 EDT

Roofer posted : In Western Canada, when Shaw tried to impose overage charges, there were mass cancellations. This is the only message that you can send these companies that will work - the bottom line.

And yes, Shaw abandoned the idea.

Re: Typical

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:03:11 EDT

openbox9 posted :

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 ...that I apparently failed with. Thank you for adding a little sensibility to the discussion.

Re: Typical

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 18:50:17 EDT

anon posted : 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.

Re: Typical

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:13:03 EDT

ualdayan posted : If these guys ran 'all you can eat buffets' they'd advertise 'All you can eat $60!' (we pay a LOT more for our internet than most countries, and the whole population density argument doesn't hold water when companies aren't forced to cover rural areas and most choose not to), then tell us 'The average person only eats 2 plates of food, so now we're limiting everybody that comes in after this policy change to 2 plates, and to anybody already in here - well, we'll still give you unlimited, but we're throttling you to 1 plate per day. Effectively that makes it not so unlimited, but...we're the only all you can eat thanks to our monopolistic practices so screw all of you!'

Then once those people that used to use 3 plates are down to 2 they can announce that the average has been brought down to 1 plate so now they're adjusting everything downward again.

Re: Typical

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 11:46:46 EDT

openbox9 posted :

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?

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:41:49 EDT

Oh_No posted :

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.

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????

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:33:46 EDT

anon posted : If ATT can to It we can as well On the third and subsequent overages, the monthly allowance will be increased in installments of 50 GB at a cost of $10 per installment.

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:36:55 EDT

openbox9 posted :

said by Oh_No:

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.

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:32:18 EDT

openbox9 posted : 100 Gbps assumption is for Comcast's backbone, therefore the 17.55M subscribers across its customer base is applicable.

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:19:07 EDT

Oh_No posted :

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?

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.

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:30:51 EDT

Simba7 posted :

said by openbox9:

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

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:19:58 EDT

openbox9 posted :

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.

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:35:54 EDT

openbox9 posted :

said by ArrayList:

I only see these caps and overages as a way to increase profits for investors. The extra usage does not cost the ISP more to provide.

The capping and metering serves to generate revenue and control growth. There is a marginal cost to increasing capacity on fixed infrastructure to a certain level, at which point investment must be made to increase capacity beyond that threshold.

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:34:55 EDT

Oh_No posted :

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.

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:18:00 EDT

openbox9 posted :

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.

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:45:47 EDT

Skippy25 posted : 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.

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:22:57 EDT

ArrayList posted :

said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as typical.

How about an average user transferring an average number of bits?

I really think that if ISPs are going to make claims like this they need to completely release all of their methods for collecting the data and how they came up with these statistics. If they want to charge per byte, they should be regulated just as gasoline is regulated.

I only see these caps and overages as a way to increase profits for investors. The extra usage does not cost the ISP more to provide.

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:40:37 EDT

openbox9 posted :

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.

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:25:03 EDT

Rekrul posted :

said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

All you can do is assume the user will use the bandwidth you give them.

That's a fiscally unsustainable assumption that has never been used in telecommunications.

Yeah, that's like having a buffet and assuming that each people won't stop at half a plate of food!

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:06:35 EDT

Oh_No posted :

said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as typical.

How about an average user transferring an average number of bits?

There is no such thing as an average user as there is no control over each users usage.
Sure you can average past numbers, but that is not a valid use of statistics for saying what users will use. Every user is unique.
To base your network off past averages instead of potential peak usage is irresponsible and huge gamble.

said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

All you can do is assume the user will use the bandwidth you give them.

That's a fiscally unsustainable assumption that has never been used in telecommunications.

Lol, ISPs were greatly profitable from 1995 to 2011 with unlimited internet.
It is very sustainable unless you want to protect tv subscriptions that have nothing to do with the internet.

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:40:44 EDT

openbox9 posted :

said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as typical.

How about an average user transferring an average number of bits?

said by Oh_No:

All you can do is assume the user will use the bandwidth you give them.

That's a fiscally unsustainable assumption that has never been used in telecommunications.

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:24:48 EDT

Oh_No posted :

said by peterwolf :

So they say typical usage is 43GB a month. lol ATT says it is less then 20GB a month.

Who is to say what is typical usage?

There is no such thing as typical. Every user is unqiue and usage cannot be lump together in categories to predict the future. You will never know what a users uses until they use it.
Sometimes it could be 300GB a month and sometimes 10GB a month. All you can do is assume the user will use the bandwidth you give them.

Re: Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:19:24 EDT

flycuban posted : it's pretty much whatever their mgt. decides..

Typical

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:08:24 EDT

anon posted : So they say typical usage is 43GB a month. lol ATT says it is less then 20GB a month.

Who is to say what is typical usage?