dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
33
« Gad No!
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from The 10TB thing is getting old

Mr Guy
@charter.com

Mr Guy to karlmarx

Anon

to karlmarx

Re: The 10TB thing is getting old

said by karlmarx:

And yet comcast, which considers using 1mb/sec 7x24 considers that to be 'excessive' (1mb/sec = 320GB/month).

Devil's advocate. Any reason why you need a 1 Mbps connection running 24/7?

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 recommendations

DataRiker

Premium Member

said by Mr Guy :

said by karlmarx:

And yet comcast, which considers using 1mb/sec 7x24 considers that to be 'excessive' (1mb/sec = 320GB/month).

Devil's advocate. Any reason why you need a 1 Mbps connection running 24/7?

Because he wants to?

Devil's advocate. Why on earth are you concerned?

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx to Mr Guy

Member

to Mr Guy
Well, let's see, I PAY for 105mb/sec.. so, using 1mb/sec would be using 0.96% (less than 1%) of the speed I pay for. Does that seem right?
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to Mr Guy

Member

to Mr Guy
If people were only sustaining an average of 1mbit/s it wouldn't be an issue.

Comcast has a shared last mile, so they need to plan around the peak hour bitrate. Someone using 320GB/mo is doubtless streaming video, so they've got a 95th percentile number of at least 3mbit/s (720p Netflix stream), perhaps a lot more if some of that usage is downloading rather than streaming, or concurrent streaming.

It would make a lot more sense for ISPs to bill on bitrate rather than consumed bytes, using a scheme like 95th percentile billing, but the issue would be explaining how that works to John Q. Public. People barely understand demand billing when the electric company does it, and a kilowatt is a significantly easier concept (10 100 watt light bulbs) to grasp than a megabit.

At the end of the day, the user with a higher peak bitrate costs more to support than a comparable user with a lower peak bittrate. There are four ways to deal with this:

1. Keep unlimited, but raise EVERYONE's rate to afford the CapEx for network expansion.

2. Cap total bandwidth consumed per month.

3. Bill based on average/peak bitrate, with burstable billing.

4. Plan your network around 1:1 contention and sell slower connections that can run at 100% 24/7.

1 and 4 are non-starters. 3 would make more sense from a technical and revenue standpoint but is difficult to explain to the public. So we're left with 2.
Crookshanks

Crookshanks to karlmarx

Member

to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:

Well, let's see, I PAY for up to 105mb/sec.

Fixed it for you.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

5 recommendations

DataRiker

Premium Member

said by Crookshanks:

said by karlmarx:

Well, let's see, I PAY for up to 105mb/sec.

Fixed it for you.

So less than 1% transfer seems excessive to you.

Do you ever laugh at yourself trying to defend this stuff?
DataRiker

2 recommendations

DataRiker to Crookshanks

Premium Member

to Crookshanks
This whole post is a bunch of FUD, designed to scare.

ISP's could simply throttle users past 10 TB's. Problem solved. But that isn't greedy enough.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

2 recommendations

Crookshanks to DataRiker

Member

to DataRiker
I've repeatedly explained the technical justification for such policies and the reasons why they're far from ideal (burstable billing is better) but better than nothing.

Don't blame me if you can't read my posts or the marketing material from ISPs that clearly states they're selling an "up to" connection, not a dedicated one with 1:1 contention.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

5 recommendations

DataRiker

Premium Member

Nobody expects 1:1 contention. Nobody expects the network to never slow down.

Caps have nothing to do with this. Its forced artificial scarcity.

Mr Guy
@charter.com

Mr Guy to DataRiker

Anon

to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

Because he wants to?

Just because one WANTS to do something doesn't mean they SHOULD

Devil's advocate. Why on earth are you concerned?

I ask because I want to. Also you need to learn the definition of devil's advocate. Why are YOU concerned about my asking?
Mr Guy

Mr Guy to DataRiker

Anon

to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

said by Crookshanks:

said by karlmarx:

Well, let's see, I PAY for up to 105mb/sec.

Fixed it for you.

So less than 1% transfer seems excessive to you.

Do you ever laugh at yourself trying to defend this stuff?

OK so They should lower the speed to 10 Mbps. then he's getting 10%. happy now? No one is running a LEGAL connection full throttle 24/7.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 recommendations

DataRiker to Mr Guy

Premium Member

to Mr Guy
I am concerned anytime somebody implies using less than 1% of something they paid for is unusual and needs explaining

Feel better?

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx to Crookshanks

Member

to Crookshanks
Hmmm.. you're logic escapes me..
They charge the HIGHER rates for faster speeds, which is why they need to spend capital. They only SPEND money on capital to PROVIDE higher speeds... And yet, their capital expenditures are only 15% of their revenue, while their MARGIN is 40%. Logically, they want to KEEP spending on Cap Ex, since it gives them a 300% return on investment.. So, option 1, raising RATES only makes sense if they keep raising speeds.

Option 2: That is a money grab. Hell, even the ISP's themselves have stated it has NOTHING TO DO WITH CONGESTION and NOTHING TO DO WITH FAIRNESS and NOTHING TO DO WITH COST OF SERVICE. It's an attempt to MONETIZE something they ALREADY have a 40% margin on. It's greed, nothing less.

Option 3: I used 95% percentile when I used T-3's back in 2000 from UUNet. Worked great, as we HAD 45MB/sec, but we usually only ended up in the 10mb/sec tier, which was more than affordable.. But, too complex for the morons, so we can pass on that.

Option 4: Umm, that's never going to happen. I stream Aereo at 3mb/sec when I watch TV. A 1:1 contention is unrealistic, because I could NEVER use 100% of my pipe 100% of the time.

As to your argument that the user with the higher peak rate costs more, I AGREE with you, 100%.. BUT, that user is ALREADY paying MORE for a faster pipe. It has NOTHING to do with the number of bytes they use, but they CAN use more because they PAY for more. That's why you pay a LOT more for a 100mb connection vs a 5mb connection..
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to DataRiker

Member

to DataRiker
Ah, yes, traffic shaping. I guess that would be solution #5. Verizon Wireless went this way with their EVDO network.

Calling my post FUD is amusing though. Who am I trying to scare? The DSL-R crowd that won't support anything short of "Unlimited 1:1 contention for $20/mo!" regardless of the source?

ISPs are going to deal with bandwidth usage regardless of any amount of bellyaching from you and your crowd. Frankly I wish they would find a better way than raw bandwidth caps, but that's probably the safest way in our litigious society. Traffic shaping and burstable billing would get them sued. Caps and overages are easier to explain and justify from a contract law perspective. So that's what we're left with.

By the by, if you think 10TB should be the throttle point for DOCSIS networks you don't know a lot about contention and shared last miles. That's nearly 10% of an DOCSIS 3 node with eight bonded channels, in reality a lot more because such usage wouldn't be neatly averaged out.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 recommendation

DataRiker to Mr Guy

Premium Member

to Mr Guy
said by Mr Guy :

No one is running a LEGAL connection full throttle 24/7.

I do. And on a daily basis.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to DataRiker

Premium Member

to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

This whole post is a bunch of FUD, designed to scare.

ISP's could simply throttle users past 10 TB's. Problem solved. But that isn't greedy enough.

And cutting them off entirely and making $0 is somehow greedier?

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker to Crookshanks

Premium Member

to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:

Calling my post FUD is amusing though. Who am I trying to scare? The DSL-R crowd that won't support anything short of "Unlimited 1:1 contention for $20/mo!" regardless of the source?

BS.

I just said I favor throttles.
DataRiker

DataRiker to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco
The goal seems to be to push them to medium business class.

Most user will either A - use less data, or B - jump to business class. Rarely will a user cancel after a warning.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to karlmarx

Member

to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:

Hmmm.. you're logic escapes me..

Your grammar escapes me. :P
said by karlmarx:

That's why you pay a LOT more for a 100mb connection vs a 5mb connection..

And it's still a shared connection that can't support that user running at that bitrate or even a sizable fraction thereof 24/7/365. That's the part of this that you all refuse to grasp.

I worked for a WISP clear back in the late 90s/early 2000s. We sold connections that promised 256kbit/s but were actually capable of speeds up to 5mbit/s to 6mbit/s. We only promised 256kbit/s because we didn't want to oversell, but we never artificially limited people to that speed or otherwise interfered with them.

Guess what happened? Kazaa and Limewire came out, and we now had a handful (less than 10) of script kiddies eating more peak hour bandwidth than the rest of our userbase, numbering in the hundreds. Accounts paying us $40/mo were now sucking down the entirety of our internet links, which cost thousands of dollars a month, degrading service for EVERYBODY, from our dial-up customers to their fellow wireless users.

The economics today are different, as is the driver of bandwidth consumption (video vs. p2p), but the underlying problem remains the same. Residential accounts are not sold with 1:1 contention, nor are the last mile networks engineered to support such usage. 5% of the user base consumes an inordinate amount of bandwidth compared to the other 95%, yet gets up in arms if they're asked to pay more for the privilege.

Keep tilting at windmills. The ISPs are going to deal with this problem no matter how much people around here bitch about it. The death of cable television is only going to increase costs further, as the MSOs lose a source of revenue that helped pay for the HFC network. You'll get what you all want, a pure IP based video delivery system, but you're going to pay for the privilege.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

You could have easily just shaped the P2P traffic at peak times. Even the cheapest enterprise gear can do this in real time.

Problem solved.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

And cutting them off entirely and making $0 is somehow greedier?

Verizon wouldn't have cut those users off unless they were losing money on them. Which is their prerogative. I don't blame them one point.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

No, they felt they had a chance to further monetize them.

Which is fine. Put the caps in print.

Instead they choose to be slimy crap filled commodes.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx to Crookshanks

Member

to Crookshanks
*sigh.. When has ANYONE EVER advocated 1:1 contention for $20.00 per month. What we ARE advocating is what almost EVERY OTHER COUNTRY in the world is providing. The US is #32 in speeds now, and apart from 3rd world countries (and sorry, Australia), NO-ONE has byte caps.
Is it TOO HARD to ask that our country, which USED to be #1 in the world, can work it's way back up from #32?
Is it too much to ask for comcast to provide a service that #188 (Afghanistan-LAST PLACE @ .95/mb/sec) can provide MORE BYTES PER MONTH than COMCAST?
Why is the REST of the world FASTER/CHEAPER/UNCAPPED? That's the question we are asking
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to DataRiker

Member

to DataRiker
You find me a traffic shaping solution that could do that for an affordable price in 2001.

I'll be waiting.

We solved the problem by capping them to 256kbit/s. Which was all they were promised to begin with. Later we got a more sophisticated edge router that was able to implement the speed cap while also allowing bursts for 10-15 seconds at full speed. That was a win-win for us, because their parents (you know, the ones actually PAYING the bill) could surf without issue if the kids weren't running p2p and knew exactly whom to blame when the connection slowed to a crawl.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

Sure, but this isn't 2001

Also the economies of bandwidth are totally different on Fiber than copper or other mediums.

There is really no technical reason to cap fiber products that have speed tiers. With the speed tiers we are talking, getting close to 1:1 is not a pipe dream anymore.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks

Member

Thus rendering your one-liner completely moot.

You're right of course, it isn't 2001. Now you've got people sucking down massive amounts of bandwidth with interactive protocols like streaming video. Nobody notices if their Kazaa download takes an extra 20 minutes. They sure as hell notice when Netflix drops to SD and/or starts to pause and buffer.

Traffic shaping is an interesting solution, one that I would personally find less offensive than brute bandwidth caps, but I'm not at all convinced that people wouldn't whine and sue over it.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 recommendation

DataRiker

Premium Member

Think about what your saying for a minute. Verizon offers a 75/35 package over fiber.

The speed tier is already a sort of permanent throttle when dealing with the scales of fiber.

I don't see any needs for caps, perhaps temporary throttles. But its not really needed. 1:1 over a GPON split is doable.

But we are not even asking for dedicated. Just no blunt caps.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to karlmarx

Member

to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:

When has ANYONE EVER advocated 1:1 contention for $20.00 per month

Everybody around here wants less for more. Very few of them have any grasp of economics, have ever run a business, or even worked for a business that moves data from Point A to point B. It gets tiresome sometimes.

This whole argument started over Karl whining about Verizon cutting people off at 10 terabytes. I shouldn't have let myself get sucked into it, but I did, and here we are. Apparently you all think it's perfectly reasonable to use T3 levels of speed 24/7/365 at residential/small business pricing.

Best of luck tilting at that windmill.
said by karlmarx:

The US is #32 in speeds now, and apart from 3rd world countries (and sorry, Australia), NO-ONE has byte caps.

Canada has them too, but your point is moot even if it was accurate. The US will never be #1 when compared against densely populated countries like South Korea and especially against city-states like Singapore. The comparison is useless for anything other than bragging rights. A lot of those countries also have levels of governmental intervention in the marketplace that would never be accepted here, for better or worse.
Crookshanks

Crookshanks to DataRiker

Member

to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

But its not really needed. 1:1 over a GPON split is doable.


It's still going to be a shared connection sooner or later. Verizon doesn't have the backbone or peering arrangements to support 1:1 contention at FIOS pricing. Most of the bandwidth usage of those excessive cases was on the upstream too if I recall correctly, at levels that would start to have an impact on settlement free peering arrangements if allowed to continue unabated. Those customers were losing Verizon money and no for-profit business is obligated to provide service at a loss.

Verizon doesn't owe you a dedicated T3 at FIOS pricing levels, no matter how much you might want it.
said by DataRiker:

Just no blunt caps.

Verizon doesn't have a 'blunt' cap. They do reserve the right to terminate unprofitable users and/or users that adversely impact other customers. Every business in every industry reserves that right, from the proverbial all-you-can-eat buffet to Fortune 100 companies.

What I find funny is that you're whining about something that doesn't and won't impact you.
Crookshanks

Crookshanks to DataRiker

Member

to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

Put the caps in print.

From the Verizon Online Terms of Service, emphasis mine:
quote:
Restrictions on Use. The Service is a consumer grade service and is not designed for or intended to be used for any commercial purpose. You may not resell, re-provision or rent the Service, (either for a fee or without charge) or allow third parties to use the Service via wired, wireless or other means. For example, you may not provide Internet access to third parties through a wired or wireless connection or use the Service to facilitate public Internet access (such as through a Wi-Fi hotspot), use it for high volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute such use (commercial or non-commercial). If you subscribe to a Broadband Service, you may connect multiple computers/devices within a single home to your modem and/or router to access the Service, but only through a single Verizon-issued IP address. You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.

The people who were terminated were using their FIOS service as a video delivery system for their extended friends and family, so they were in violation of the first highlighted provisions. Even if they weren't, there's the second and third highlighted provisions. Oh, and the bit about not running servers, that's relevant too.

It's there, in plain English, in the customer agreement.
« Gad No!
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from The 10TB thing is getting old