dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1976
share rss forum feed

SkyNetCanada

join:2009-05-30
Sainte-Rose, QC

FibreMedia.ca - Residential Gigabit Internet

Fibre Media Inc., is pleased to announce its residential Gigabit internet service.

Thursday 15th of August 2013.

For immediate release.

Fibre Media Inc. is excited to now offer symmetrical Gigabit internet services for $89/m to residential customers looking for the ultimate experience of the internet. This service includes unlimited monthly bandwidth with a speed cap dependent on data amount transferred during the month. Fibre Media Inc. offers this service to Multi-Dwelling units located within the Montreal downtown core and must be in close proximity to its fiber back-haul. In order to obtain these service within an MDU, building management must be in agreement with the terms of connecting the building to the ultra high speed fiber infrastructure. A minimum number of 5 tenants per building that wish to acquire service is required in order for the building to be eligible to connect to the UHSFI.

Inquiries to the residential Gigabit internet service must be made via the contact us form located on the Fibre Media Inc. website.
Due to the high call volume anticipated for this new and exciting service, all requests must be made via email.

despe666

join:2009-06-20
Montreal, QC
Damn... Guess I'm moving downtown next year! :-o


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to SkyNetCanada
said by SkyNetCanada:

This service includes unlimited monthly bandwidth with a speed cap dependent on data amount transferred during the month.

I've seen some pretty fancy double-talk in my time, but this right here takes the cakes. The incumbents would be envious.

In other words, you never know what you will get. What kind of cap? What do you consider "fair usage?" If someone is constantly going over this magic number every month, will they be terminated?

You would be better of saying, if you download more than X amount, then your speed will be cut by X%. The way you have it worded makes it look like you are hiding something.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
Instead of some arbitrary speed cap based on usage so far in the month, they should use weighed QoS like WRED. If they split usage in four QoS bins based on usage, it could go something like:
- 0-100GB are weighed at 25
- 100-200GB are weighed at 15
- 200-500GB are weighed at 7
- 500+GB are weighed at 3

So when the network is congested, people who are still under 100GB are given 8X the priority of people who went over 500GB but if nobody at those higher priorities is using the bandwidth, it remains available to heavier users.

SkyNetCanada

join:2009-05-30
Sainte-Rose, QC
Interesting.. We are simply saying that if a user goes over X usage in the month, there speed gets reduced for the remainder of the month. That cap will be anywhere from 500GB to a 1TB.

Nitra

join:2011-09-15
Montreal
WTB this in Verdun

despe666

join:2009-06-20
Montreal, QC
reply to SkyNetCanada
How much do you plan on reducing the speed though? Are we talking in the ballpark of 50% or something crazy like 0.5-1Mbit/s?

SkyNetCanada

join:2009-05-30
Sainte-Rose, QC
Probably something like 5-10Mbps. Not set in stone yet.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to SkyNetCanada
said by SkyNetCanada:

Interesting.. We are simply saying that if a user goes over X usage in the month, there speed gets reduced for the remainder of the month. That cap will be anywhere from 500GB to a 1TB.

That's a big difference. 500 GB/1TB......for that kind of speed 500GB is low, IMHO....

said by SkyNetCanada:

Probably something like 5-10Mbps. Not set in stone yet.

Reducing by 5-10Mbps or down to 5-10Mbps???? If it's down to 5-10 Mbps, that's a little crazy.

InvalidError

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

Reducing by 5-10Mbps or down to 5-10Mbps???? If it's down to 5-10 Mbps, that's a little crazy.

Down by 10Mbps from 1Gbps (990Mbps) would be completely insignificant... even a 100Mbps reduction (900Mbps) would be hardly noticeable since the remote servers would rarely be anywhere near that fast and likely neither would the end-user router - the popular N66U and the newer AC66U are only good for ~800Mbps WAN-to-LAN.

So I think he really meant down to 10Mbps.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
said by InvalidError:

said by rednekcowboy:

Reducing by 5-10Mbps or down to 5-10Mbps???? If it's down to 5-10 Mbps, that's a little crazy.

Down by 10Mbps from 1Gbps (990Mbps) would be completely insignificant... even a 100Mbps reduction (900Mbps) would be hardly noticeable since the remote servers would rarely be anywhere near that fast and likely neither would the end-user router - the popular N66U and the newer AC66U are only good for ~800Mbps WAN-to-LAN.

So I think he really meant down to 10Mbps.

So if you download more than 500GB in a month on a 1Gbps link, they're going to throttle you down to 10mbps? I think I'd rather go with Bhell or Robbers if that's the case. That's just insane.

SkyNetCanada

join:2009-05-30
Sainte-Rose, QC
Well, perhaps we can charge you for going over your cap instead. Maybe we will allow a new user to chose overages vs speed cap. That could be an option

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
I would prefer a fair bandwidth-sharing system where for each bracket of usage you climb through, your traffic priority goes down.

This way, you can let your network load go to 100%, light users still get very good speeds during peak hours (the numbers I posted earlier would give light users a 8:1 advantage but they can always be changed for a wider gap like 63:1) while heavy users do not need to worry about caps and should still get great speeds off-peak.

This does mean having to deal with the extra complexity of setting up Ethernet CoS tagging at both the subscriber and transit edges but it also removes most of the need to worry about capacity management beyond making sure you have enough to provide reasonable speed to your moderate subscribers in 1st and 2nd priority classes.

If (very) heavy subscribers want to stay in higher priority tiers until they reach higher caps or avoid dropping into 2nd/3rd/4th/5th priority tiers altogether, you can always charge extra for that and the prices could go something like $400/$200/$75/$25.


jmck
formerly 'shaded'

join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Start Communicat..
they don't want people seeding torrents 24/7 and running seedboxes for their friends or hosting a rack full of servers in your home. 500GB cap is good considering TPIA cable providers are doing 300-400GB caps and the cost is cheaper than Start's 150/10 cable service with a 400GB cap.

sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too.

34764170

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

they don't want people seeding torrents 24/7 and running seedboxes for their friends or hosting a rack full of servers in your home. 500GB cap is good considering TPIA cable providers are doing 300-400GB caps and the cost is cheaper than Start's 150/10 cable service with a 400GB cap.

sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too.

500GB is a complete joke for a GigE connection, but personally I wouldn't have an issue even if the connection was dropped down to 500Mbps. I can still transfer a hell of a lot at that speed and that's still many many times faster than anything the incumbents offer.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to jmck
said by jmck:

they don't want people seeding torrents 24/7 and running seedboxes for their friends or hosting a rack full of servers in your home. 500GB cap is good considering TPIA cable providers are doing 300-400GB caps and the cost is cheaper than Start's 150/10 cable service with a 400GB cap.

sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too.

My 30/10 connection has a 500GB cap. You can go with Acanac/Distributel here and get unlimited for about half of the cost of this. Granted they're not even close to the same speed, but really, what would you want this kind of speed for? The webpages you surf can only load so fast.

With around 13 devices (computers, laptops, gaming consoles, netflix, cell phones, ipods) we are close to our cap every month. A 500 GB cap on a GigE connection is completely unreasonable, as brad said and throttling it down to 10 Mbps would make it completely unusable for some.

A fair use policy is good if implemented correctly. Cut the speed by 25 or 50% for heavy users once they start getting close to 1TB and you can also have rules stating what users are allowed to do and what they aren't. Obviously you don't want users setting up a small server farm of seedboxes running 24/7 so put that in your TOS.

There is a way to do it, and do it fairly without crippling connections/making your prices go through the roof. However calling a GigE connection with a 500GB cap that is throttled down to a crippling 10Mbps is nowhere in the neighborhood of unlimited and extremely misleading.


jmck
formerly 'shaded'

join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Start Communicat..
reply to 34764170
said by 34764170:

said by jmck:

they don't want people seeding torrents 24/7 and running seedboxes for their friends or hosting a rack full of servers in your home. 500GB cap is good considering TPIA cable providers are doing 300-400GB caps and the cost is cheaper than Start's 150/10 cable service with a 400GB cap.

sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too.

500GB is a complete joke for a GigE connection, but personally I wouldn't have an issue even if the connection was dropped down to 500Mbps. I can still transfer a hell of a lot at that speed and that's still many many times faster than anything the incumbents offer.

it's not a joke really. the speed of the connection shouldn't affect what you need, it's just faster to get what you want when you want it. it's also extremely amazing for sharing and sending large files to people.

it's almost ridiculous that you think it costs them nothing from transit providers to provide a constant gigabit per second. i know you and most of us here likely wouldn't use it, but there's always that jack ass that ruins it for the others, so limits have to be set.

furthermore i don't think simply being reduced to 500Mbit and not have a cap is anything realistic to them in terms of cost.

anyways, compare this to 150/10 cable service and caps or even 250/250 and 175/175 FTTH services from Bell/Rogers and it's insanely better, not only the top speed (4-5 times faster) but the overall monthly costs and increased caps.

is there room for a more expensive package from them with double the cap? sure but they're just launching now.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
said by jmck:

said by 34764170:

said by jmck:

they don't want people seeding torrents 24/7 and running seedboxes for their friends or hosting a rack full of servers in your home. 500GB cap is good considering TPIA cable providers are doing 300-400GB caps and the cost is cheaper than Start's 150/10 cable service with a 400GB cap.

sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too.

500GB is a complete joke for a GigE connection, but personally I wouldn't have an issue even if the connection was dropped down to 500Mbps. I can still transfer a hell of a lot at that speed and that's still many many times faster than anything the incumbents offer.

it's not a joke really. the speed of the connection shouldn't affect what you need, it's just faster to get what you want when you want it. it's also extremely amazing for sharing and sending large files to people.

it's almost ridiculous that you think it costs them nothing from transit providers to provide a constant gigabit per second. i know you and most of us here likely wouldn't use it, but there's always that jack ass that ruins it for the others, so limits have to be set.

furthermore i don't think simply being reduced to 500Mbit and not have a cap is anything realistic to them in terms of cost.

anyways, compare this to 150/10 cable service and caps or even 250/250 and 175/175 FTTH services from Bell/Rogers and it's insanely better, not only the top speed (4-5 times faster) but the overall monthly costs and increased caps.

is there room for a more expensive package from them with double the cap? sure but they're just launching now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going on the attack here (even though it may seem that way). I think it's awesome that someone is offering this package, however there has to be a better way to implement it.

As I said above, crippling the connection is not the way to go about doing this. 10Mbps would be unusable for some people and makes this offering a "no-go" for many right off the hop.

I know transit costs are not cheap, however there are different ways of implementing things. Say you blow through your cap in the first week, cut the speed in half. If you blow through more, cut it in half again. If the user continually presents a problem, that user gets terminated. All this can be laid out in the TOS.

To go from 1000Mbps to 10Mbps in 1 shot is way too drastic.

InvalidError

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

I know transit costs are not cheap, however there are different ways of implementing things. Say you blow through your cap in the first week, cut the speed in half. If you blow through more, cut it in half again.

Trying to guarantee any particular speed at any usage levels at such high speeds is nearly impossible. I doubt they have the intention of providing anywhere near full 1Gbps during peak hours so for the cap to have any effect on peak-hours traffic, the speed limit approach would have to limit speed to a fraction of their performance target for light users. This is most likely where their 10Mbps choice came from.

With my Ethernet CoS/WRED proposition, whatever bandwidth is available gets dynamically distributed based on load and priority. If the weighs are at 9:1 and you have 100 low-usage subscribers attempting to use full speed and 100 heavy users attempting to do the same on 10Gbps worth of available transit, the heavy subscribers would end up with ~10Mbps each while the light users would get ~90Mbps. If the combined total bandwidth from light users is only 6Gbps, heavy subscribers would get ~40Mbps instead. No bandwidth goes to waste due to under-used links from speed caps. Light users still get much better experience than heavy users, heavy users still get to have high speeds when light users are under-using transit and once CoS-tagging/WRED are setup, the network takes care of itself on a PHB basis so the only thing left to worry about is physical upgrades to keep worst-case light-user speeds above the minimum target.

DeViLzzz

join:2004-07-29
Sarnia, ON
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to SkyNetCanada
I don't care what speeds they offer as usage won't be appropriately matched with it anyway. The internet is not as fun an experience and not as useful to consumers because there is a price put on it like everything in life. Commerce needs to die. NWO

34764170

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

it's not a joke really. the speed of the connection shouldn't affect what you need, it's just faster to get what you want when you want it. it's also extremely amazing for sharing and sending large files to people.

it's almost ridiculous that you think it costs them nothing from transit providers to provide a constant gigabit per second. i know you and most of us here likely wouldn't use it, but there's always that jack ass that ruins it for the others, so limits have to be set.

furthermore i don't think simply being reduced to 500Mbit and not have a cap is anything realistic to them in terms of cost.

anyways, compare this to 150/10 cable service and caps or even 250/250 and 175/175 FTTH services from Bell/Rogers and it's insanely better, not only the top speed (4-5 times faster) but the overall monthly costs and increased caps.

is there room for a more expensive package from them with double the cap? sure but they're just launching now.

It is a joke, period. I don't care about a GigE connection that is that crippled. I'd rather have a 200Mbps connection with no cap over a crippled ass GigE connection.

No one is expecting a GigE connection with sustained throughput. Only you are thinking like this.

Except it is realistic. Stop drinking the kool-aid of the incumbent carriers who act as if their networks are built of gold and covered in diamonds.

It isn't insanely better to me when its taking a step backwards. The monthly costs and caps are not better. I don't care about being on a connection with a link speed of GigE. That's only for bragging rights; e-penis +1.


jmck
formerly 'shaded'

join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Start Communicat..
so stay with Rogers or Bell then? i don't know what to say. some people want the massively fast upload, and some people want to be able to get all their cloud data at a moment's notice when restoring a system.

so it's not for you, great. move along or rather stay with what you have and be happy. i'm sure they'll be tweaking and making changes going forward, no reason to get all butt-hurt because of it.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit
said by jmck:

so stay with Rogers or Bell then? i don't know what to say. some people want the massively fast upload, and some people want to be able to get all their cloud data at a moment's notice when restoring a system.

so it's not for you, great. move along or rather stay with what you have and be happy. i'm sure they'll be tweaking and making changes going forward, no reason to get all butt-hurt because of it.

I don't even live in Montreal so it doesn't matter. But they should be offering other options other than just a burstable GigE connection and a small cap.

I wasn't getting butt hurt. You're interpreting what I am saying.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to jmck
said by jmck:

so stay with Rogers or Bell then? i don't know what to say. some people want the massively fast upload, and some people want to be able to get all their cloud data at a moment's notice when restoring a system.

so it's not for you, great. move along or rather stay with what you have and be happy. i'm sure they'll be tweaking and making changes going forward, no reason to get all butt-hurt because of it.

No one is getting all butt hurt at all, with the exception of maybe you. We are all having an intelligent discussion about a system not yet set in stone and I would imagine part of the reasan Skynet started this thread is for some feedback.

I even said that I'm happy that someone is providing this option, however I don't agree with severely crippling a connection, to the point that it's almost unusable, because someone is a heavy user. If you are that concerned with it, don't offer that high of a speed, increase the cap and then deal with the heavy users through traffic shaping, but again not down to 10 Mbps. Be reasonable about it and if someone is constantly over-using then terminate them.

Going from a GigE connection down to 10mbps for using 500GB worth of data really is laughable, or at least it would be if it wasn't seriously being discussed.

Companies like Acanac offer unlimited (albeit at a much lower speed) with a stipulation that they may have to reduce speeds during peak (where it costs the most) but even they only cut the speed in half and they have never implemented that yet.

despe666

join:2009-06-20
Montreal, QC
I guess we can just go to all the other providers that offer any kind of GigE fiber connections for 89$. Oh wait... I have no particular reason for defending Skynet, but you guys are acting like spoiled brats.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

I even said that I'm happy that someone is providing this option, however I don't agree with severely crippling a connection, to the point that it's almost unusable, because someone is a heavy user.

I don't see that much of a problem with it. If you use a residential connection much more heavily than intended to, something has to happen.

Why should a company refrain from offering high speeds to occasional/burst users just because heavy users who may have a different idea of what "normal" use is than the ISP exist?

As for what the minimum speed might be, if SkyNet gets their transit for ~$1/Mbps, has internal distribution costs of ~$1/Mbps and amortization on their fiber plant costs them ~$50/sub/month, they should be able to afford aiming for ~20Mbps.

If you look at Google Fiber, even Google does not like the fact that their RESIDENTIAL internet service is getting a lot more attention from businesses and would-be online entrepreneurs setting up shops in residential neighborhoods to abuse Google's service than the normal people Google was aiming for. How this will ultimately play out remains to be seen.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
said by InvalidError:

As for what the minimum speed might be, if SkyNet gets their transit for ~$1/Mbps, has internal distribution costs of ~$1/Mbps and amortization on their fiber plant costs them ~$50/sub/month, they should be able to afford aiming for ~20Mbps.

20Mbps wouldn't be bad. It would still allow the connection to be usable.

All you other guys getting offended, there is no need to take this so personally. We're just suggesting possible alternatives/better ways to implement this. Personally, I don't see a need for a GigE connection for personal use whatsoever other than to say you have a GigE connection, ie bragging rights.

Actually, if you really want to get into it (and I'm not talking about skynet here so don't get your panties all into a bunch):

There is no way a personal user needs this kind of speed. I run a lot of devices on my network (4 laptops, an htpc, 3 gaming consoles, 2 cell phones and 2 ipods and soon to be 2 iptv boxes and voip) and I have more than enough with my 30 Mbps connection.

If they just kept the speeds at a reasonable level, we could have caps at a reasonable level and costs would be, well, reasonable. These insane speed packages that the few use and abuse is skyrocketing the cost for the rest of us.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by rednekcowboy:

If they just kept the speeds at a reasonable level, we could have caps at a reasonable level and costs would be, well, reasonable. These insane speed packages that the few use and abuse is skyrocketing the cost for the rest of us.

Actually, lower speeds to light/moderate use subscribers may ultimately be more expensive to provide when all the GbE equipment is already there since providing lower speeds means (even more) grossly under-utilizing the equipment most of the time and increases missed opportunities to complete one usage burst before another begins.

By giving everyone Gbps access by default, this allows everyone to complete whatever they are doing as fast as available capacity will allow at any given time, which is the most efficient way to run a network when managed properly.

What is expensive is not the burst speed. It is the North American consumer's strong sense of entitlement to full-time full-speed that raises costs due to extra over-building and reduces speeds to mitigate the magnitude of that over-building. Once you get rid of that, things get much cheaper and more efficient.

Practically no speed guarantees is how ISPs all over the world manage to offer 100+Mbps service for as low as $30/month.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
said by InvalidError:

said by rednekcowboy:

If they just kept the speeds at a reasonable level, we could have caps at a reasonable level and costs would be, well, reasonable. These insane speed packages that the few use and abuse is skyrocketing the cost for the rest of us.

Actually, lower speeds to light/moderate use subscribers may ultimately be more expensive to provide when all the GbE equipment is already there since providing lower speeds means (even more) grossly under-utilizing the equipment most of the time and increases missed opportunities to complete one usage burst before another begins.

By giving everyone Gbps access by default, this allows everyone to complete whatever they are doing as fast as available capacity will allow at any given time, which is the most efficient way to run a network when managed properly.

What is expensive is not the burst speed. It is the North American consumer's strong sense of entitlement to full-time full-speed that raises costs due to extra over-building and reduces speeds to mitigate the magnitude of that over-building. Once you get rid of that, things get much cheaper and more efficient.

Practically no speed guarantees is how ISPs all over the world manage to offer 100+Mbps service for as low as $30/month.

On a hardware level, I'd have to take your word for it. I am, in no way, shape or form, a network engineer but I will say that, taking into consideration what you say, the more GigE connections you have, the more hardware and maintenance costs you will incur vs having X number of subs at smaller packages. How that translates into cost and time management costs to administer I have no idea.....

I'm talking about a billing/cap level/ratio. By offering an insane speed that no one needs with a small cap, it allows charging more for the "normal speed" packages while combining it with even lower caps.

If you provide a GigE connection with a 1Tb cap (instead of a 500GB cap) that allows for higher caps with the lower speed package. However providing a GigE connection with a 500 GB cap means that you will not get a 500Gb cap at a 30Mbps package but probably only a 100GB/less cap (theoretically) because incumbents tie caps to the speed offerings. The lower the speed, the lower the cap. So you want a high a cap as possible on the highest speed tier so that the lower speed packages also gets the advantage of a higher cap.....

But alas, we are severely derailing this thread as this part of the discussion really does not relate to what Fibremedia is offering.

InvalidError

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

On a hardware level, I'd have to take your word for it. I am, in no way, shape or form, a network engineer but I will say that, taking into consideration what you say, the more GigE connections you have, the more hardware and maintenance costs you will incur vs having X number of subs at smaller packages. How that translates into cost and time management costs to administer I have no idea.....

What is the cost difference of providing a 1Gbps ONT with a 1Gbps port on the OLT to a subscriber who wants 30Mbps vs one who wants 1Gbps? The same since it is all the same equipment anyway, just like how wholesale VDSL2 costs the same for 15/10 and 50/10 - same equipment, hardware and administrative costs regardless of speed and things are more or less the same on cable too. The ISP saves little to nothing from offering lower speed tiers there.

If the OLT has 432 ports with 2x10GbE uplinks, what is the interconnect cost difference between allowing 432 ports to run at full 1Gbps vs 30Mbps? None since the two ports are required for redundancy regardless of whether or not they are required for bandwidth. This means ~45Mbps of uplink available per port and with an utilization ratio likely much lower than 10:1, typical performance should be well over 500Mbps at this point.

Beyond that, we enter the core network where bandwidth within a given chassis is dirt-cheap so the name of the game is merely deciding the balance between available transit capacity across core routers vs potential demand from attached subscribers and minimum speed target.

So the total cost difference between providing 30Mbps over infrastructure meant to carry 1Gbps? Nearly $0 since most of the equipment is required regardless of speed until average load per subscriber exceeds 40Mbps or so at which point additional interconnects at a one-time cost of 7.5-10k$/10Gbps amortized over 5+ years and 2000+ subscribers (less than $0.50/sub/month each) would be required between OLTs and routers. Until then, the only significant capacity-bound cost is external transit.

How soon is average load likely to reach 40Mbps? Sandvine and Cisco's reports say average usage is still under 20GB/month which would be under 0.1Mbps average load; shockingly low considering how much of a vested interest they have in inflating figures as much as possible - that's less than 1Mbps even if you squeeze it in a 4h peak-hours window. Most people on DSLR likely still use less than 300GB/month and that would work out to 1Mbps average use, 6Mbps if you lump it all in a 4h window. So, average usage from average people reaching 40Mbps is not going to happen any time soon.

The reason why incumbents lump higher speeds with higher caps is because higher speeds do not really cost them anything more to provide as long as usage remains generally intermittent.