|reply to Skippy25 |
Re: Wireless Data Caps and Data Prices....
said by Skippy25:I will show you several, but I don't think any amount of facts or data will change your mind (but they may help others)
OK, show me a single diagram, chart or graph that shows a single large ISP's network is being ran to full capacity over any kind of extended time before and/or after the implementation of caps. How about a single region or area? Not just a node, as that is poor network management period.
The reason there is no impact is because networks are spending billions to upgrade and keep ahead of the curve so they have good customer experience and good FCC reporting... If you want a graph of how upgrades keep up with growth, look at the YoY bandwidth usage in FCC MBA
and look at how often providers give the advertised speeds.
said by Skippy25:I think the public data speaks for itself.
Can you do it? No because they want to claim they are being saturated by so few people but want us to take their word for it without providing a single bit of evidence of such.
said by Skippy25:That is a ridiculous statement and shows your lack of network knowledge. If a network was at 80% on AVERAGE it would be 100% for many hours per day causing major customer impact.
Also, a network that is not at a consistent 75-85% utilization average is a wasted network that was a waste of money to put in.
When networks reach 70-80% at PEAK, it trigger upgrades = more $$!! or they cannot deliver the advertised speed 100% of the time.
Users which drive the peak more than others trigger upgrades quicker than others. Let me say that again. Users which drive the peak trigger upgrades.
said by Skippy25:All networks have spectrum issues. Capacity on cable triggers a node split as there is not enough spectrum for data... Capacity on wireless triggers a tower split... Capacity on DSL triggers a DSLAM split.. Capacity on FTTH triggers a OTN split. Capacity is very similar across technologies.
Wireless is a whole other ball of wax and really not even worth discussing. Spectrum is the issue, back haul is a minor inconvenience that they should easily be on top of to feed their towers.
said by Skippy25:The facts and data does not agree with your opinions and rhetoric.
Bottom line is that CAPS do not prevent high utilization and arent truly designed to do such on a wired network.
EDIT: I've debated with people like this before and it is like debating a religious zealot. One can provide facts and data all day long, but there is no way they will believe that dinosaurs were real. On top of that, zealots don't have to provide any data themselves, just just throw insults, corner cases and opinionated declarations that others are wrong and they are right. Sound familiar?
|reply to 28619103 |
None of your charts have *anything* to do with network utilization/saturation and traffic congestion. Do you realize how ridiculous your argument is? Bandwidth costs have dropped year over year according to moore's law, and is just dirt cheap. Just look at the bandwidth costs associated with renting a 3rd party server. And costs just keep dropping. Caps on wireline are utterly unjustified.