how-to block ads
|
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
1 edit | reply to G_Poobah
Re: Translation
said by G_Poobah  :#1: yah, whaever, so I used caps instead of mb.. Everyone knows what I'm talking about. Actually, when I read your post, I thought the same thing sherman10594 did. This is somewhat off-topic compared to the rest of the thread, but it's important: please learn to use proper unit designators. The difference between 1MB and 1Mb is huge.
If you need a quick lesson, just remember: data storage (i.e. hard disks, tape drives, floppies, etc.) uses _bytes_, while throughput and bandwidth (i.e. network devices, network speed, etc.) uses _bits_.
I cannot count how many times I have seen people post on forums about how they have a "1.5MB DSL connection" and are only getting "160kB/sec, WHY???".
Then again, I also say "mb" when I should be using "Mb", but I use lowercase for megabit because it's easier to (visually) distinguish the difference between mb vs. MB.
#2: If everyone used 1mb all the time, then how is that MY problem? It's the ISP's problem.. If they can't handle it, then they either a)upgrade the network or b)lower the speeds they sell (which would most likely necessitate a price cut if their was competition, cause everyone would leave). It's very simple, we the customer DO NOT EXIST to ensure the ISP makes a profit. We the customer exist to consume the product the ISP is selling us. This is where I "generally" agree with you. Of course, I'm not addicted to the amount of bandwidth I can get; I'm more interested in latency (and no, I'm not a gamer).
I agree that many ISPs are overselling their capacity, which is affecting all customers as a whole. Of course, with proper monitoring, ISPs shouldn't have a problem predicting when they're going to run out of capacity, nor have a problem detecting when they *are* out of capacity.
But I should educate you in one respect:
There is an silent war occuring between residential and commercial Internet connectivity. The amount of bandwidth a residential DSL or cable customer gets -- for the cost of US$20-60/month -- EASILY exceeds that of the cost of a commercial network connection (i.e. servers on 100mbit Ethernet in a co-lo, DS1s, DS3s, etc.). As it stands right now, *one single cable modem user* can pretty much max out many small-time co-lo customers' bandwidth.
Prices for residential DSL/cable are decreasing, while costs for server connectivity are either increasing or staying the same. There is no harmonious balance between the two any more, and that's going to ultimately affect the Internet as we know it -- hell, it already is.
So keep in mind that even though you're paying what you consider "a crapload" for something like a 6mbit/1mbit connection, there are those of us who run the servers you're downloading data from who curse you for being able to saturate what we pay 10x the amount for. US$40 6/1 cable versus US$400 512/512 co-location.
I'm not whining -- I'm just saying, please keep this in mind the next time you have the sudden desire to download tons of data from a web or FTP server somewhere. Chances are the person you're getting information from pays a crapload more than you do.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. In memory of 2005... | |
kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| I've wondered about this myself. Why should it cost any more to send data then to receive it? And why can't residential users be offered symetrical connectivity? Right now I have 7 mbits downstream and 900Kbits upstream. I pay $59.95 for this connection. I looked in to getting SDSL here via a local ISP and checked in to the cost of 1.5mbit symetrical SDSL, and as I recall it was something like $350 a month or something high like that. So for nearly 10 times the price I'm paying now, I could increase my upstream by roughly 600 kilobits or so which doesn't seem like a hell of alot since for 10 times the price I currently pay for 7 megabits downstream, I'd be cutting my downstream to nearly 5 times what it is now! And let's not forget the few areas that have up to 2mbits upstream. That's more than a T1, yet I bet if you ordered a T1 at those same locations, it'd still be $400 a month or more. Let's face it, whether we use our connection for basic web browsing, or we use our connection for high quality audio or video streaming or even p2p traffic, there are users that want to have upstream bandwidth and make use of it. So why not realize the internet isn't just a receive only medium and give those that want it more upload, and allow them to make use of it! Maybe in order to get more bandwidth, particularly in the upstream direction, we should go to a metered solution like many server data centers do, where you can use up to so much data for a set price then it'd be so much more per gigabyte over? And how do we get T1's and other types of symetrical conections to drop in price? | |
HMS1
join:2006-01-14
Austin, TX
| All your points are reasonable. If it were just a matter of policies or business decisions on the part of the ISPs you would be right on target.
There are other factors to be taken into consideration tho:
• There are technical reasons that cable, in current form, can't handle upstream nearly as well as downstream. I don't recall the explanation (maybe someone will fill in this part), but it has to do with it being designed years ago when it was all about delivering TV with little need for up.
•It's way expensive to improve the "last mile" infrastructure. In the long run, hopefully we'll have fiber and big, symmetrical bandwidth. But it takes investment by either the providers or government. The providers need a good ROI to do it, and we don't have a political climate for government to do it. And either way it takes time.
•Competition theoretically would improve things, but in most cities there is a cable monopoly (maybe even legally forced) and a telco oligopoly at best. Also this factor is in tension with the "last mile problem" - practically speaking, only one entity can own each connection from the individual residences or businesses to the central office (or whatever it's called).
| |
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by HMS1 :All your points are reasonable. If it were just a matter of policies or business decisions on the part of the ISPs you would be right on target. There are other factors to be taken into consideration tho:
• There are technical reasons that cable, in current form, can't handle upstream nearly as well as downstream. I don't recall the explanation (maybe someone will fill in this part), but it has to do with it being designed years ago when it was all about delivering TV with little need for up.
•It's way expensive to improve the "last mile" infrastructure. In the long run, hopefully we'll have fiber and big, symmetrical bandwidth. But it takes investment by either the providers or government. The providers need a good ROI to do it, and we don't have a political climate for government to do it. And either way it takes time.
•Competition theoretically would improve things, but in most cities there is a cable monopoly (maybe even legally forced) and a telco oligopoly at best. Also this factor is in tension with the "last mile problem" - practically speaking, only one entity can own each connection from the individual residences or businesses to the central office (or whatever it's called).
Consumer connections are mostly asymmetrical in nature. So uploading in general usually takes the beating.
It costs more to send traffic then to receive because of the peering agreements made by isp's to tier 1's and some tier 2's.
If I told you give me 10 k a month and id carry 100 mbit both ways to another peer you would say hell no thats to high my customers don't use that. I say ok then we will give you 45 mbit for 5 k.
Now downloading is mostly used and is burst type traffic. Meaning it is not sustained , it is only sustained by the server sending the content. So more can be downloaded without worries of sustaining. And to be clear downloading does include web surfing.
Uploads are more sustained. Usually since the servers are sending out to more then 1 downloader at a time. It's all relative. And since the transport is all bunched together your server may be on your backbone and helping saturate the upload you want so bad.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to koitsu
said by koitsu : US$40 6/1 cable versus US$400 512/512 co-location. Damn! If you're paying $400 for a server and 512Kb/s of usage, I've got a bridge to sell you. 
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity | |
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| said by sporkme :Damn! If you're paying $400 for a server and 512Kb/s of usage, I've got a bridge to sell you. Actually the bandwidth isn't that bad -- it's the 14U of rack space and power which is.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. In memory of 2005... | |
mwa423
@wideopenwest.com
| reply to kd6cae
quote:
I've wondered about this myself. Why should it cost any more to send data then to receive it? And why can't residential users be offered symetrical connectivity?
Because then there's no incentive for hella expensive commercial connections. You can run a relatively decent web server on 1.5 mbit, or most other servers now that I think about it (except your "super elite top ftp site")
Also, if you look at commercial connections/t1/etc. they have guarenteed bandwidth. The bandwidth you get on your 7 mbit connection might be 4 mbit during peak times, might by 7 off peak, and that's in the agreement. For business customers, they had better get their full bandwidth, otherwise according to the SLA, then the telco will probably be opening their wallet.
Also, is it painfully clear to everybody else that higher capacities basically mean you can download/upload illegal things more quickly? | |
Hanko
join:2001-12-28
Eatonville, WA
| reply to sporkme
It isn't only those who run servers that have to pay a high price for bandwidth. If you are a "Rural" customer like me who cannot get cable or DSL and Satellite is just not cutting it for VPN use you are stuck paying high prices.
I have a T1 to my house. It allows me to work from here instead of driving into downtown Seattle every day. I gladly pay the $536/month for the service. While I feel for those who complain that they are not getting all of their bandwidth from a 6/1 cable connection at $50/month I would gladly trade my monthly bill with them for the bandwidth anytime.
It is all relative on your situation. | |
|
