dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
9
lilstone87
join:2009-04-09
Chesapeake, VA

lilstone87 to ikyuaoki

Member

to ikyuaoki

Re: [NV] Received email of a Cox Data Usage Notification

Also you shouldn't be forced to have two of the same internet plan's, to have double the bandwidth limit monthly. I understand business class internet having high ETF for breaking contract. But who's to say just because a customer uses more then "X" set monthly limit, needs faster response time to home side issue's, or static IP's etc. You can't force customer's into business class tier's like this, because really your to the point "business" means nothing as for the type of tier it is. More like "bend over for more monthly bandwidth" tier.

ikyuaoki
join:2011-04-12
Wichita, KS

ikyuaoki

Member

the customers could be forced into the business class or pay more for additional type of tier, if customer finds too annoying what ISP purpose to have right to tell to warn the customer to limit the data consumed use, if customer do not follow the protocol rules then the ISP could terminate the customer account anytime as customer will be kicked off the network for overconsumed use.
lilstone87
join:2009-04-09
Chesapeake, VA

lilstone87

Member

said by ikyuaoki:

the customers could be forced into the business class or pay more for additional type of tier, if customer finds too annoying what ISP purpose to have right to tell to warn the customer to limit the data consumed use, if customer do not follow the protocol rules then the ISP could terminate the customer account anytime as customer will be kicked off the network for overconsumed use.

What I am getting at is, I am a ultimate tier customer. I have a 400gb monthly limit, and there is no higher residential tier. So only choice left is business class internet. I have been close to my cap a couple times, and if I do ever go over by a bit. I will not be happy if cox starts to make a fuss about it, and I will let them know I am not happy. I understand enforcing a policy to protect other customer's, but to enforce it just because he went over is sad. I have no issue when action is taken due to a customer being a bandwidth hog, and it's affecting other customers in there local area.

ikyuaoki
join:2011-04-12
Wichita, KS

1 edit

ikyuaoki

Member

There you go, you are on this 400gb monthly limit, you could simple additional another ultimate tier for adding to your cap monthly limit is scaled up to 800gb.

that is pure and simple what'll you pay more for this.

1x ultimate tier cost is 100 dollars per month

2x ultimate tier cost is 200 dollars per month

that is simple what you will pay more if you choose to have 2x tiers just like me
Rob_
Premium Member
join:2008-07-16
Mary Esther, FL

Rob_

Premium Member

Why don't you just get business class? It must be nice to be able to shell out that kind of money for an internet connection.

-Rob

ikyuaoki
join:2011-04-12
Wichita, KS

1 edit

ikyuaoki

Member

I am not going to be on the business class because it cost more and lower speeds than what i have on the residental.

and also the policy can be change anytime that is subject to the change conditions in matters.

I'll stick with residental where there's no contract for me. in other words for business class it requires you be on the contract locked and if you wish to break the contract then it will gonna cost you more so expensive.

I am satified with 2x premier tier right now what i am paying a 130 dollars a month as well as i gets the cap monthly is 500gb.
Rakeesh
join:2011-10-30
Phoenix, AZ

4 edits

Rakeesh to lilstone87

Member

to lilstone87
said by lilstone87:

What I am getting at is, I am a ultimate tier customer. I have a 400gb monthly limit, and there is no higher residential tier. So only choice left is business class internet. I have been close to my cap a couple times, and if I do ever go over by a bit. I will not be happy if cox starts to make a fuss about it, and I will let them know I am not happy. I understand enforcing a policy to protect other customer's, but to enforce it just because he went over is sad. I have no issue when action is taken due to a customer being a bandwidth hog, and it's affecting other customers in there local area.

If you don't enforce it, heavy users might get too comfortable just filling up their pipe willy nilly. The idea behind the cap is to keep it so that they'll be conscious about downloading that 42GB blu-ray rip of the dark knight. If they do this too much, they can impact the performance of other users. Ideally your ISP wants to provide their customers with full bandwidth 24/7.

In my opinion, there is a better solution to the cap, but it would probably require an investment in additional hardware (possibly even additional CPE hardware, e.g. a new cable modem) and maybe some statisticians to develop a proper algorithm. If you get a heavy user who frequently uses up a lot of data, then you throttle them *only* during peak hours, and at a statistically appropriate amount based on how congested the node is (not some arbitrary amount, e.g. none of the "we'll drop you by half" BS that some providers do) and QoS them at all other times, also separating bulk transfers from burst transfers. This makes it so that they have no cap, but they're going to see reduced download speeds at certain times of the day and week, and they are last in line to have their packets delivered. Ideally this should be done with no noticeable increase in packet delay (aka latency, ping times.)

I'd say something like a policy whereby if they hit their monthly cap, then for that month and the next month they will be put into this category of customer, and notified of it. If they hit the cap again in the next month, they stay on it, and be notified of it.

This would allow them to be cap free, without harming other customers.

I'd be fine with being subject to such a policy myself, provided there is no observable increase in packet delay, and the throttling does a statistically intelligent and reasonable decrease rather than an arbitrary one.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman

Premium Member

I know of no way to to do your idea without increasing ping times. You are asking someone to interfere with the travel of something, without affecting its travel time. You cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time. If you want to get the attention of an excessive user, a big significant reduction in download and upload speeds, with huge ping time increase, will do it in many cases. Since many of the worst offenders are gamers, a huge increase in latency, each time they are playing, will help remind them to be more responsible in the future. If you leave them with the regular latency, they will not care much about reduced upload and download speeds, unless it is a very large decrease.

Your idea of rapid analysis for QoS is already available in the network gear supplied by Sandvine and others. The ISP has to spend enough on the network equipment to give enough headroom to do the analysis more frequently. Uh oh! ISPs today are not spending enough on network upgrades to provide decent subscriber experiences. Why would they spend an a large amount to rapidly, and with great finesse, provide QoS? It is easier and less costly to reduce speeds in big percentages for set time periods to reduce congestion or punish excessive users.

Years ago, researchers in Texas established through scientific analysis that all these fancy usage control schemes were inferior to upgrading the network continuously. They showed that, over a time period of a few decades, you could spend the same amount to do two different schemes. One was monitoring, restricting, punishing, and limiting users. The other was to continuously improve the network using upgrades in fiber optic, coaxial cable, and Ethernet networking technologies. One provided limited increases in network usability, but huge profits to sellers of punishment technology. The other provided statistically significant yearly increases in network usability and profits to those advancing network technology. Guess which scheme most ISPs decided to use? Guess which scheme appeals most to Wall Street?
Rakeesh
join:2011-10-30
Phoenix, AZ

4 edits

Rakeesh

Member

said by davidhoffman:

I know of no way to to do your idea without increasing ping times. You are asking someone to interfere with the travel of something, without affecting its travel time.

Of course you'll effect it, the question is by how much, hence why I say noticeable. An IPv6 solution would be to tell the MTU Path Discovery that it has a smaller MTU than it really does (fragmentation isn't allowed in IPv6 - the stack has to probe the path and figure out the optimal MTU to the destination before opening a socket.) Smaller packets can be throttled with less delay. There is the issue of decreasing the MTU of a socket already opened, however those can just be handled with normal delay, and all new ones get a smaller MTU. If a gamer runs into problems with that, simply reconnecting to the server will fix it.

Combined with QoS and tiering, you could give real-time applications low latency while throttling. I already have low latency without throttling my usenet downloads (which completely saturate my downstream bandwidth) thanks to the amazing QoS capabilities of tomato firmware. Companies like Cox already have DPI in place from the days when they used to insert the reset flag into TCP packets of edonkey filesharers, so I'm sure it could be put to work here.
said by davidhoffman:

scientific analysis that all these fancy usage control schemes were inferior to upgrading the network continuously

What kind of networks did they look at? Not all technologies are created equal, and I am dubious that they could have examined all scenarios.

Anyways you work under the assumption that there's some guy sitting behind a big desk plotting his next dastardly deed to hurt broadband deployments. Maybe there's a real Professor Chaos or Dr. Evil out there who are evil just for the sake of being evil, but chances are none of them are running a broadband provider. If the later was still profitable, I'm sure they'd go for it to outpace the competition. Any idiot will tell you that stagnation leads to bankruptcy.

The fact is, no matter how much you increase the available bandwidth in the network, you'll still end up with people who treat their pipe as if they are running a cloud service on a last mile connection. You will have to deal with them one way or another. I'm sure even your scientists in Texas would agree that last mile connections aren't ideal for cloud services, and that these guys will have to be dealt with one way or another.