dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3466
share rss forum feed


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
reply to elitefx

Re: How does TSI offer unlimited?

Wow - me thinks your tinfoil hat's on a little tight today...

The MLSE deal was to control content; and more an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of deal, then collusion, in my opinion...

Plus, you didn't actually answer my question, of what are they doing that's inept or leading to the demise of Canada's ability to conduct business. Which were your initial statements, BTW...


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2
said by LazMan:

Wow - me thinks your tinfoil hat's on a little tight today...

Insults will get you nowhere Bud. As they say " the proof is in the pudding".

We'll see who's right as time goes on................

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to Taylortbb
said by Taylortbb:

It does because they're related numbers. Capping a user brings down their average usage, and averaged over the entire user base that reduces their capacity requirements. A user downloading 5TB is averaging 16Mb/s, that's an awful lot of capacity required for one user. Someone doing 5TB/month on the 18Mb/s cable service would have to be doing that at basically all hours of the day, including peak.

I'm not arguing TekSavvy pays by the GB, I know exactly how they pay for both aggregation and transit capacity. But to suggest the amount transferred doesn't affect their capacity is taking that difference too far.

Not really, and then you throw out a number like 5TB which isn't representative of 99% of the unlimited users. Find me someone doing 5TB on an 18Mb connection.. you can count the users on one hand. They're not the issue in the bigger picture with how few of them there are. When it comes to peak hours congestion it is the regular users with the higher speed tiers peaking their connections for relatively short periods of time but at the peak hours and the aggregate sum of those users consumes all of the capacity.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elitefx
said by elitefx:

said by LazMan:

Wow - me thinks your tinfoil hat's on a little tight today...

Insults will get you nowhere Bud.

Can't help it if it is true.

shepd

join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
reply to d4m1r
The sad thing in this whole discussion is the number of bytes consumed isn't really what costs (well, it can be, but only in an ideal world where that data is consumed at a constant unvarying speed).

In fact, the highest expense for any network operator is peak usage. A user downloading at a constant 10 mbits rate is almost exactly as expensive to service as a user downloading at 10 mbits for only the peak hour of the day (and otherwise never using their service at all).

Offering a large bandwidth connection, say, 100 mbits, is just fine to that 10 mbits user, since he'll never be a further problem to you. But that some user that only maxes out their connection for an hour a day (at peak usage) just absolutely screwed you, since now you need to buy a hell of a lot of extra capacity and equipment that is mostly unused to service them.

Your typical "I download all day and night user" isn't really a big deal (in a world sans UBB) when you compare them against your average working Joe that comes home at 5:30, has supper, and then uses the internet for a couple of hours to watch HD Netflix. You can swap the times for the morning/afternoon hours if your typical customer is a business.

Oh well, guess I'm just rambling now...


DarkStar33

join:2008-03-27
Toronto, ON
reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:

Managing a network with 1.9 million end users is challenging... What exactly do you feel they are doing that is "inept" and leading to the "demise of Canada's ability to conduct business"?

Regardless of the size of your network the investment should be along the same lines. Larger networks are often more efficient per user if you do them correctly.

If you are doing it right 0.9M, 1.9M and 10.9M really is not that big of a change if you invest correctly.

Chances are Rogers technical team is 1/3 of the size it should be and network development 5-10 years behind.
--
TekSavvy Extreme Cable Pro (Toronto, ON)
»www.speedtest.net/result/1343900371.png


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
Actually, that is probably not true. It's more likely they drag their feet in upgrading network hardware to add capacity when it's needed in order to maximize profits.

Most NA carriers will upgrade hardware on their networks as late as they can while still continuing to advertise their services at speeds that are oversubscribed.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
said by TypeS:

Actually, that is probably not true. It's more likely they drag their feet in upgrading network hardware to add capacity when it's needed in order to maximize profits.

Most NA carriers will upgrade hardware on their networks as late as they can while still continuing to advertise their services at speeds that are oversubscribed.

To me that is pretty obvious.

yyzlhr

join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON
kudos:4
reply to DarkStar33
said by DarkStar33:

Chances are Rogers technical team is 1/3 of the size it should be and network development 5-10 years behind.

In North American standards, the Rogers HFC network is much more advanced than most MSOs on this side of the hemisphere.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
said by yyzlhr:

In North American standards, the Rogers HFC network is much more advanced than most MSOs on this side of the hemisphere.

Rogers/Shaw and Videotron are doing a pretty good job at downstream speeds but Rogers and more so Shaw are quite weak for upstream speeds. Comcast is the only US MSO that over all is doing a better job. One area they're ahead of everyone else is the push to move customers to their IPTV based infrastructure and according to them their time line is to migrate within the next 3 years. I think that is pretty darn optimistic but we'll see.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to d4m1r
We've discussed this ad nauseam.

Capacity is not usage. TSI does not pay for nor is supplied with usage, but for and with capacity.

Maxing out a connection cannot be done if a link through which this connection goes through is already saturated, i.e., 100% capacity. If that's the case, once this connection starts transferring data, then all connections going through this link will be slower proportionately, including this connection.

However, with load balancing over several links, a connection can max out, on the condition that at least one of the links has enough capacity to allow this connection to max out. If all links are already saturated, no maxing out this connection either.

The above is just the math. There's more to it than that. Increasing latency at the link will naturally reduce speed of all connections going through this link. Throttling individual connections maintains latency, but with the obvious reduction in speed of all connections being throttled. Then there's protocols which allow both latency at the link, and throttling at the connections, all simultaneously depending on protocol, i.e., UDP, HTTP, FTP, etc.

Considering all the above, TSI does pretty well with the 2-8am free period for DSL, and the various price tiers. I hardly ever see any reduction in speed or latency at any time of the day. I have DSL16.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to d4m1r
Forgot to add.

The very nature of a network had already been figured out right from the getgo by the engineers who invented the damn thing. If you've ever heard of "burstable" (a link which can increase speed on demand from say 100Mbps to 1Gps), there's your lesson in networking 101. In fact, Videotron offers this kind of thing on retail.

Usage has never been and will never be a factor in networking. Capacity is where it's at.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to Taylortbb
said by Taylortbb:

said by 34764170:

said by d4m1r:

...Given the current capacity costs they have to pay, until the CRTC decision comes out? Are they not on the hook for a lot of money if a subscriber downloads/uploads 5TB of stuff for example? I know this is why Start doesn't offer an unlimited Cable package at the moment, not until the CRTC decision at least...

TSI does not pay for traffic transferred but the capacity so the comment does not really make sense.

It does because they're related numbers. Capping a user brings down their average usage, and averaged over the entire user base that reduces their capacity requirements. A user downloading 5TB is averaging 16Mb/s, that's an awful lot of capacity required for one user. Someone doing 5TB/month on the 18Mb/s cable service would have to be doing that at basically all hours of the day, including peak.

I'm not arguing TekSavvy pays by the GB, I know exactly how they pay for both aggregation and transit capacity. But to suggest the amount transferred doesn't affect their capacity is taking that difference too far.

No. Capping a user brings up his bill. It does sweet f-all to the network itself.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.

JonyBelGeul
Premium
join:2008-07-31
reply to d4m1r
One last thing.

About that burstable bit. It used to be done, but I doubt any of the big incumbents do it anymore. Why? It just makes no sense anymore. It used to be that fast links were expensive. Now, they're literally dirt cheap. It's probably more expensive now to implement a burstable link than a faster constant speed link. So how much capacity do the incumbents really have?

Gobs.

Don't believe me? Do the math. 1+ million users. We're talking about the risk of bringing an entire network to its knees just with the latest Yootoob fad 5 minutes after the news reel, which also goes through the same network. Gobs I tell you.

2,300$ for 100Mbps? You gotta be s**tting me.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to funny0
said by funny0:

prove this every part you say
i call foul

Prove it your own damned self. I'm just repeating what the CEO of the company has said in public.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
reply to d4m1r
I remember tek also saying they hope the unlimited folks who they don't make any of little money off will bring their friends and the like to the serve and they can make money that way.

pablo
MVM
join:2003-06-23
kudos:1
reply to d4m1r
said by d4m1r:

So am I missing something, or is TSI not taking a financial risk on ALL cable subscribers on the Rogers network currently as they are all technically unlimited?

Hi,

I am on unlimited,two bonded DSL lines, and my usage for the past three months break down as follows:

o Nov, 2012: Peak: 119.31 GiB
o Dec, 2012: Peak: 197.45 GiB
o Jan, 2013: Peak: 109.88 GIB

Some months I use more, some I less. I don't have to go full-throttle just because it's there ... if someone else needs that bandwidth, go for it.

I'm happy to 1) have TSI as my provider because their support is /still/ awesome and 2) I don't mind paying for unlimited because if I do need to download tons, I don't have to worry, 3) they support our local non-profit WISP. How cool is that?!

Cheers,
-pablo
--
openSUSE 12.2/KDE 4.x
ISP: TekSavvy Bonded DSL; backhauled via a 6KM wireless link
Assorted goodies: »pablo.blog.blueoakdb.com

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:

said by elitefx:

said by resa1983:

In well-managed networks, congestion isn't an issue.

Rogers isn't well-managed.

In times of crisis all we'll have is the Internet to conduct matters of national security and survival.

Rogers cannot be allowed to be the root cause of the demise of Canada's ability to conduct business and transmit data in a timely and effectual online world.

I'm in the business, and I think Roger's doesn't actually do too badly.

Managing a network with 1.9 million end users is challenging... What exactly do you feel they are doing that is "inept" and leading to the "demise of Canada's ability to conduct business"?

I so missed this post before. How about this:

Stating that they monitor their network, and begin upgrades before they're needed, so they're completed before congestion becomes a problem. Complete BS.

An entire POI was only being served by 3gbps - they denied upgrades to TPIA because they didn't have enough capacity for themselves, let alone TPIA due to lack of upgrades. Kitchener/Waterloo POI sometime back in 2011

Having a local node fail over & over - just doing patch jobs on the bloody thing. Refusing to do any significant work on it. I was stuck on that node until I moved. Massive congestion on this local node due to way too many houses, multiple apartment buildings, and multiple sets of row townhomes being on it - and this was before Rogers increased their speeds causing network-wide congestion.

While we're on that. Network-wide congestion from them increasing speeds to all (Retail & TPIA), then scrambling afterwards to do node splits.

Failure to abide by ITMP policy (for years on end), and getting caught red-handed multiple times.

Lack of network upgrades and relying on throttling to manage their network (ie against ITMP policy).

Leading of course to Rogers being forced to do more node splits to be able to remove throttling, to get the CRTC Enforcements Division off their ass.

Hell, and that's only the last 2 years. :\
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


MacGyver
Don't Waste Your Energy
Premium,ExMod 2003-05
join:2001-10-14
Canada
kudos:2
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:

I couldn't find numbers for Tek... Any idea how many subs they have?

I think Marc mentioned it in the 15 year anniversary celebrations: 200k

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
said by MacGyver:

said by LazMan:

I couldn't find numbers for Tek... Any idea how many subs they have?

I think Marc mentioned it in the 15 year anniversary celebrations: 200k

So about 3X what they had back when they were Bell-GAS only.


eh

@videotron.ca
reply to elitefx
said by elitefx:

In times of crisis all we'll have is the Internet to conduct matters of national security and survival.

In a crisis the internet will be down, just like Bell and Rogers cell network goes down in the smallest of situations.

I think you must be very young if you think you need the internet to survive, or think you and the ISP will even have electricity in a real crisis.

If a tiny earthquake in Gatineau can bring all cell communications to a halt in both Ottawa (nation's capital) and Gatineau, I think you will be in for a rude awaking when a real crisis does happen that is a matter of survival.

Sorry, can only roll my eyes at your comment.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:

While we're on that. Network-wide congestion from them increasing speeds to all (Retail & TPIA), then scrambling afterwards to do node splits.

They keep doing that over and over again. They roll out upgrades to alleviate congestion then roll out higher speed tiers and it's back to congestion as nodes are overloaded.

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON
reply to d4m1r
One thing that I see a lot of people overlooking here is that it isn't how much data is transferred across a connection in a month that impacts the cost in any way. What impacts the cost is the speed at which information can be transferred. Generally speaking, this is why higher transfer speeds come part and parcel with a higher price tag. Whether I transfer 100GB or 100TB in a month makes absolutely no difference in terms of the cost of operation.

The key here is supply and demand. If a provider has a demand for say 100 customers, all subscribed to a 10Mbit plan, in theory the network backbone would have to be sufficient to support the transfer of 1Gbit at a time. That being said however, there will be fluctuation in the actual usage *PER SECOND*. The problem comes in when a provider subscribes say 200 customers on a 10Mbit plan across a network that only supports a maximum global transfer rate of 1Gbit, as the network backbone itself cannot support the full transfer rate when all the users are transferring data at the same time, resulting in some users not being able to achieve the maximum speed at all times, depending on the total per second usage of all of their subscribers combined.

Again, with that being said, the total amount of data that any individual subscriber transfers in a month does *NOT* have any impact on the cost of the operation and upkeep of the network because this data is not transferred all at once, but rather across the span of say for example 30 days. The "problem" comes in whereas providers such (particularly Rogers) acquire a larger number of customers at these "faster" speeds than they have the physical per second network capacity to handle. This creates a bottleneck at "peak times" when they have the largest number of subscribers transferring data at these "faster" speeds all at the same time.

On a "properly" managed network, these instances of acquiring a greater demand per second than the network backbone can physically support would never happen as the network backbone would be expanded sufficiently to support the demand BEFORE rolling out these "higher speeds".

All of this is a concept that TekSavvy seems to understand quite well, and thus far from my experience, seems to know how to handle. When you look at the actual facts, the total amount transferred by any individual in a 1-month period has absolutely no bearing on the cost.

Just a few things to consider.


d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
Few corrections....

1) Yes, it has little to do with the amount of data transferred but it has even less to do with the speed of those transfer. It is a CAPACITY issue. I like to think of capacity as the width of the "internet tubes". Rogers need to have enough "pipes" to be able to accommodate peak usage....So while 1 user using their connection 100%, 100% of the time might not be an issue, if more and more people start doing that, congestion becomes a problem and therefore, capacity.

2) TSI is not doing a bad or good job either way because they are not responsible for designing or maintaining the overall network. That has fallen on Rogers/Bell/etc because they were first to market. As others have mentioned however, they have done a poor job of maintaining and upgraded the network because capacity is real issue as can be seen every weekday from 5pm till midnight....
--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON
said by d4m1r:

1) Yes, it has little to do with the amount of data transferred but it has even less to do with the speed of those transfer. It is a CAPACITY issue.

Funny you should say that... Capacity is measured by the overall maximum amount of throughput that the network backbone can support in a 1 second interval, so aren't you effectively saying the same thing?

funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to LazMan
said by LazMan:

said by yyzlhr:

Bell is actually Canada's largest broadband provider.

Bell at ~3 Million internet subs leads the list, followed by Rogers at 1.9 million, Shaw at 1.8 million, TELUS at 1.3 million and Videotron with 1.1 million.

I couldn't find numbers for Tek... Any idea how many subs they have?

hrmmm yet sandvine reported that in sept 2005 of the 24 million net accounts in canada 5.4 were using p2p at same time
and 4 months later that jumped to 9.8 million

your saying we dont even have that many internet users....
somehting aint right here....
even cbc reported last sept we had 21 million net users.


d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to MrMazda86
said by MrMazda86:

said by d4m1r:

1) Yes, it has little to do with the amount of data transferred but it has even less to do with the speed of those transfer. It is a CAPACITY issue.

Funny you should say that... Capacity is measured by the overall maximum amount of throughput that the network backbone can support in a 1 second interval, so aren't you effectively saying the same thing?

If you are specifying an interval, then it is now, yes.
--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to funny0
Heh, it'd be awesome if TekSavvy's website had a little box that announced a rounded ballpark figure of the number of subscribrers overall, and a pie chart showing the percent on each of their Cable & DSL services.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to funny0
said by funny0:

said by LazMan:

Bell at ~3 Million internet subs leads the list, followed by Rogers at 1.9 million, Shaw at 1.8 million, TELUS at 1.3 million and Videotron with 1.1 million.

I couldn't find numbers for Tek... Any idea how many subs they have?

hrmmm yet sandvine reported that in sept 2005 of the 24 million net accounts in canada 5.4 were using p2p at same time
and 4 months later that jumped to 9.8 million

your saying we dont even have that many internet users....
somehting aint right here....
even cbc reported last sept we had 21 million net users.

It's not as if what he listed above is all of the providers in Canada or all possible methods of accessing the Internet but is only wired broadband customers. Are you really this dense?


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
said by 34764170:

said by funny0:

somehting aint right here....

Are you really this dense?

Funny = chronoss... Search old threads on here, for the answer to your question...