dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4193
share rss forum feed


Oink

@videotron.ca

Study: Bandwidth hogs aren't responsible for peak congestion

Study: Bandwidth hogs aren't responsible for peak network congestion
»boingboing.net/2011/11/30/study-···ent.html

They found that there is indeed a set of users who download a whole lot: “The top 1% of data consumers…account for 20% of the overall consumption.” But half of these “Very Heavy consumers” are doing so on plans that give them only 3Mbps, as opposed to the highest tier of this particular ISP, which is 6Mbps. So, even with their heavy consumption, their bandwidth usage is already limited. Further, if you look at who is using the most bandwidth during peak hours, 85.3% of the bandwidth is being used by those are not Very Heavy users.

Here’s the point. ISP assumes that Very Heavy users (= “data hogs” = “people who use the bandwidth they’re paying for”) are responsible for clogging the digital arteries. So, the ISPs measure data consumption in order to preserve bandwidth. But, according to Benoît and Herman’s data, the vast bulk of bandwidth during the times when bandwidth is scarce (= peak hours) is not taken up by the Very Heavy users. Thus, punishing people for downloading too much inhibits the wrong people. Data consumption is not a good measure of critical broadband usage.

Put differently: “42% of all customers (and nearly 48% of active customers) are amongst the top 10% of bandwidth users at one point or another during peak hours.” The problem therefore is not “data hogs.” It’s people going about their normal business of using the Net during the most convenient hours.


The rest of the article is behind a paywall, linked to on boingboing.

But is this something we didn't know as Bell and the CRTC insisted it's all due to bandwidth hogs while Bell could only deliver an average of 2.5 meg internet to people?


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

Nah...

Angelo has hired lobbysists to publish this skewed study in order to rebuild his reputation and kill the myth that he is singlehandledly reponsible for all the congestion in Canada



lifestronaut
Premium
join:2011-03-23
Montreal, QC

So how many concurrent Linux ISO downloads does it take to be considered a "bandwidth hog"?



Oink

@videotron.ca

The Executive summary of this report can be found here:
»www.fiberevolution.com/2011/11/d···ers.html

It says a bit more.

If you are extremely rich and want to pay ~1000$ for 804KB (the size of the report), or if you can write it off on your taxes, you can buy it here:
»www.diffractionanalysis.com/blog···eck.html

JF, get CNOC or TSI to buy it for you and fill us in.


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

With capacity based billing, this report is less important now. The capacity planning has shiften to indie ISPs and you then have a choice of different style of offerings.

Some ISPs may introduce prime-time UBB and unlimited off peak for instance. If this fits your usage patters, then go for it.



Oink

@videotron.ca

said by jfmezei:

1. With capacity based billing, this report is less important now. The capacity planning has shiften to indie ISPs and you then have a choice of different style of offerings.

2. Some ISPs may introduce prime-time UBB and unlimited off peak for instance. If this fits your usage patters, then go for it.

1. I don't think it's less important at all. Matter of fact it's very relevant to today and the the situation all of us (ISP's based on the current CRTC ruling, and us as users) are in.

In terms of "capacity", as you put it, let us refer to this quote from the research:
"ISPs hoping to alleviate congestion were unlikely to work because the ISPs’ worldview confused data consumption and bandwidth usage, i.e. how much data was downloaded over a whole period with how much bandwidth capacity was used at any given point in time."

Now lets say that TSI and Acanac charge more at Peak time (Time of Use) given that we all know that the average 5-meg service is actually about 3 meg.

This is what this study is arguing. ISP's shouldn't just arbitrarily charge more at peak time because the average user doesn't even have 5-meg.

So what happens is those with sub-par service (which is 50% of the population) end up paying more for nothing.

If these ISP's are going to charge people more or throttle them, like Acanac stated they would, then those who have sub-par (under 5-meg) need to be isolated and protected from vulture like fee's and should not carry the weight in any way with extra fee's or a throttle.

Your next point....

2. I predicted this a year ago. Recall »CNOC: Playing With Money

The only one who seemed to clue in was Gorilla George.

ITTech

join:2011-11-30
L3J3W2

2 edits
reply to Oink

This report was commissioned by those that insist on having unlimited bandwidth. The fact is, there are bandwidth hogs and they are responsible for peak congestion. I am in and out of a data center and have watched the traffic patterns. Daytime everything is OK. From about 5pm - 11pm daily, there is a HUGE spike. One company I monitored saw their pipe go from 50% to more than 80% usage in minutes. WE looked at deep packet inspection data for a two week period and were able to identify the spikes as coming primarily from torrent users. Part of the spike was from gamers however during the evening hours, we observed that nearly 80% of the overall traffic was generated from torrents. Overall, the two weeks of stats PROVE that an average of 72% of the traffic - volume and capacity, were being consumed by less than 8% of the customer base and that entire group were running torrents. We have advised this indie ISP that unless they want to spend megadollars in upgrading their infrastructure, they begin to use common traffic management processes ASAP! The pipe is still being monitored, the outcome will also determine what bandwidth cap would be fair so that the 92% of normal users that are not abusive will not see an increase in their Internet costs. The majority of their customers should not subsidize the 8% that use torrent that are hogging the pipeline. In the new year, the hogs will be targeted and start to pay for their share of the bandwidth. In other words, the 8% can expect to see bills reflecting 72% of the infrastructure costs. That's only fair to everyone.



Calimera

@nrc.gc.ca

I don't agree with your logic ITTech. If an ISP sells an unlimited package I fail to see abusive behavior of someone actually using it.
Imagine when you go in a restaurant where you can eat as much as you want. Not every person is going to eat the same yet they pay the same price. Love it or hate it but if you offer unlimited you cannot blame the users of taking advantage of it!


eheyl

join:2008-03-23
Kitchener, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

I'm running a business. I pay for unlimited so that I don't have to constantly monitor bandwidth for things like video submission and so on. On either Bell or Rogers, I actually had to stop servicing clients until the next month. With Teksavvy, I can continually work. I have Netflix, and NO cable. Does this make me a bandwidth hog? I don't think so. I'm using what I'm paying for. And I have every right to run my business MY way, and work when and how much I choose. Having an arbitrary cap thanks to big telcos insistence on focusing on those that may just check email, is like them essentially telling me how and when I can run my business. I don't think so!



Anon1

@tdbank.ca
reply to Calimera

I am admittedly a bandwidth hog, I use in excess of 250gb a month. I am one of the remaining grandfathered Bell customers that still has their unlimited account.

I am currently paying about $80 a month for 6mb DSL with an unlimited cap... (price goes up $5 every 6 months) I figure at that price Bell is making a lot of money on me. The rental modem was paid for a long time ago, so that money is pure profit for Bell, and I make less than 1 tech support call a year, so I don't really cost them any money there either.

I actually restrict most of my traffic to after 10pm...and I don't use bit torrent at all. Based on that I don't believe that I'm really causing much network congestion.

If Bell and Rogers were really concerned about traffic causing network congestion then they should use the carrot instead of the stick, and turn off the usage monitoring between 11pm and 8am. That would be incentive for high usage customers to change their traffic patters.

I plan to stick with Bell until the indie ISP's figure out their new unlimited pricing based on the latest UBB ruling...

Truthfully I think that low usage caps are Rogers and Bell's way of keeping their internet business from canibalizing their home phone, cable, satellite, and IPTV business' as a lot of people would probably just stream TV and movies, and use IP Phones and cut the cord otherwise.

I was actually considering moving to Rogers Ultimate, at 50% off for the first 6 months I'd be saving money, and gaining a lot of speed, and in less than a year Bell will be charging me over $90 a month... however Rogers ultimate is still only 250gb... if they moved it up to 400gb for the same price I would jump over in a heartbeat.



Chuckstruck

@teksavvy.com
reply to Oink

Especially when you're throttled down to 30 kilobytes per second 24/7 even on http.


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
reply to Anon1

A bandwidth hog is defined by his avatar. You're not a hog unless your avatar depicts a bandwidth hog

It all depends however how much bandwidth an ISP allocates per user on average. If you put 2500 users on a gigE, it means you give each user an average of 400 kbps.

My guess is that an ISP expects each users to be using their link at maximum speed for short burts with much idle time in between which ends up averaged to 400kbps. If you download at max speed for longer periods, then you become a hog.

And looking back, if an ISP assumes 400kbps per customer on average, and you do nothing but upload at 800kbps constantly, while you may not consider yourself a bandwidth hog because you neer download at max speed, you are still using more than 400kbps on average.

I think the whole concept is very fuzzy and varies from ISP to ISP depending on how many Angelos they have and whether they also have lots of aunts and grand mothers.


singerie3

join:2008-10-12
Saint-Constant, QC
reply to Oink

i consider myself a bandwidth hog .... but i don't mind to slow/stop my usenet linux iso during peak hour.



Ott_Cable

@teksavvy.com
reply to jfmezei

>Angelos they have and whether they also have lots of aunts and grand mothers.

Angelo and his large extended family having a picnic. As young Angelo slows down for a break, his aunt pinches his face and said "You're so skinny. Here! Eats some more!".

I can see how growing up like that would make Angelo a bandwidth hog.


Vomio

join:2008-04-01
reply to Oink

More coverage:
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···tion.ars



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

1 edit

Why is my Internet bandwidth usage so high?

 
Here is Cogeco's take on this :

»www.cogeco.ca/web/on/en/resident···p?id=102

But they don't even include "Your name might be ANGELO" as a possible reason.

BTW, there are other interesting bits of propaganda and truth on their Internet FAQ page :

(Scroll down to the Internet Usage section)

»www.cogeco.ca/web/on/en/resident···rnet.php

The CRTC and UBB are mentioned.



ktownhero

@teksavvy.com

""
Why charge for extra usage?

Every year, more and more bandwidth is being eaten up by consumers accessing information, downloading or streaming music and video content or playing online games. In fact, Internet traffic continues to grow every year in Canada. So, despite the fact that every year Cogeco invests significantly in its Internet network capacity in order to meet the growing traffic demands of its high-speed Internet customers, just like other Canadian Internet service providers, Cogeco still needs to manage its Internet traffic to ensure fair usage of the bandwidth among its end-user customers.

This pricing approach creates an incentive for customers to subscribe to the right package for their needs and control their usage. Usage-based billing is one of the tools recognized by the industry and by the CRTC to manage the growth of Internet traffic. In a nutshell, this economic measure promotes a manageable distribution of traffic on the Internet.

Also, given the different usage patterns of Internet end-users, this billing approach ensures fairness among customers. It is legitimate and fair that end-users consuming more bytes than the quantity of GB included in their packages pay more for their usage. ""

This is why I will never go back to cogeco. My family and I was with them since 2001 just after they rolled out high speed internet. After they started ubb years ago i switched me and my family members to indies. Almost everything said in that faq is pure horse shit. Its just a money grab pure and simple.

I would rather have to deal with 1.7mbit dsl w/300gb cap then give those greedy fu*ks another dime. I just hope tek can wholesale them soon or bell installs a remote in this city. Its kinda pathetic that I had better speeds 10 years ago for almost the same amount of money.



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

1 edit

said by ktownhero :

....Almost everything said in that faq is pure horse shit.

It's just a money grab pure and simple....

 
Basically true, but their excess usage rates are notably lower than B#ELL retail, and their caps are quite a bit higher.

Cogeco sees the writing on the wall, and is playing the middle ground while they can, which from a shareholder's view would be an appropriate business model, as long as the greed is not excessive.

And it's nice to get a Canadian call centre when you phone them.

I've dealt with them in the past for TV and Internet, and they have NEVER made an error on my statements.

Can we say that about B#ELL ?

Bell is both Greed AND Incompetence, combined and personified.


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

said by ktownhero :

....I just hope tek can wholesale them soon....

 
Yes, that day will bring joy to MY heart as well.

And it would not have to be tek, either.


pstewart
Premium,VIP
join:2005-10-12
Peterborough, ON
kudos:1
reply to ITTech

Re: Study: Bandwidth hogs aren't responsible for peak congestion

said by ITTech:

This report was commissioned by those that insist on having unlimited bandwidth. The fact is, there are bandwidth hogs and they are responsible for peak congestion. I am in and out of a data center and have watched the traffic patterns. Daytime everything is OK. From about 5pm - 11pm daily, there is a HUGE spike. One company I monitored saw their pipe go from 50% to more than 80% usage in minutes. WE looked at deep packet inspection data for a two week period and were able to identify the spikes as coming primarily from torrent users. Part of the spike was from gamers however during the evening hours, we observed that nearly 80% of the overall traffic was generated from torrents. Overall, the two weeks of stats PROVE that an average of 72% of the traffic - volume and capacity, were being consumed by less than 8% of the customer base and that entire group were running torrents. We have advised this indie ISP that unless they want to spend megadollars in upgrading their infrastructure, they begin to use common traffic management processes ASAP! The pipe is still being monitored, the outcome will also determine what bandwidth cap would be fair so that the 92% of normal users that are not abusive will not see an increase in their Internet costs. The majority of their customers should not subsidize the 8% that use torrent that are hogging the pipeline. In the new year, the hogs will be targeted and start to pay for their share of the bandwidth. In other words, the 8% can expect to see bills reflecting 72% of the infrastructure costs. That's only fair to everyone.

Then your DPI data collection is flawed - Torrent has died down in traffic a couple of years ago and been replaced with many other bandwidth consuming applications.

The peaks are definately in the 4PM til 10PM range (being kind of broad) but it always has been - this isn't anything new. Those peaks may have grown somewhat over time granted.


ChucksTruck

@teksavvy.com
reply to jfmezei

Hopefully they'll challenge their bullshit in court first. Canada is already the laughing stock of the internet world and i take these jokes aimed at Canadians personally.


GeoStar

join:2011-02-10
j2e6f5
reply to Oink

here is a thought , do you think this could possibly be ?

quote:
Congestion occurs when the isp tries to deep packet inspect every packet , slowing the network down so it can resell the (legally ? really ?) obtained data to advertisers to spam its own customers to maximize profits, slowing service while not improving the network hardware or software.?

Therefore the net h gg does exist in the form of fat greedy major isp s ? who have the means and the ways ?

in other words you penalize the victims.... the proof is in the non compeditive way ...?

only in kanadu you say ?
..

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

said by eheyl:

I'm running a business. I pay for unlimited so that I don't have to constantly monitor bandwidth for things like video submission and so on. On either Bell or Rogers, I actually had to stop servicing clients until the next month. With Teksavvy, I can continually work. I have Netflix, and NO cable. Does this make me a bandwidth hog? I don't think so. I'm using what I'm paying for. And I have every right to run my business MY way, and work when and how much I choose. Having an arbitrary cap thanks to big telcos insistence on focusing on those that may just check email, is like them essentially telling me how and when I can run my business. I don't think so!

Next time there is a CRTC hearing on the matter - and there WILL be at some point - you should go to Ottawa and make exactly these points in-person.