TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to Rothan Tik
Re: ehhh
said by Rothan Tik  :we've recently had problems with this on campus. Because the sysAdmins can't detect this end to end.. our whole network ends up getting slowed down by overusage. Well, just tell your sysadmins what everyone here is always saying - {sarcasm} just add bandwidth, it doesn't cost anything. After all no one should abridge the rights of copyright infringers to have their free music and videos.{/sarcasm}
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Your use of the [sarcasm] tag confuses me. From what he's describing, the problem is they don't have enough bandwidth to provide everyone the capacity wanted. The solution is to add more bandwidth. Just because it costs money doesn't mean it's the wrong solution. Spend 10 minutes reading about how internet 2 does it. They've even show that the correct thing to do is to add bandwidth, not filters, not QOS.
Look at the internet 2. Most of it has has been upgraded to 100Gbps over the last year. And in 2004, they had just finished upgrading from 2.5Gbps to 10Gbps. And in 2001 they had upgraded from 622Mbps to 2.5Gbps. So, from 1999 (when it effectively started) to today, they've increased their capabilities by a factor of 180! That's 180 times faster than what it was 7 years ago. Has your university kept up too?
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| At UofB, we had this issue too, unrestricted P2P file trading killed local routers and switches, it was never bandwidth, it was local switches CPU and backplane.....adding bandwidth doesn't fix it, adding a 1/2 million dollar carrier class switch for each dorm with over 2000 residents was the only way to fix it.
And it would come at the parents and students expense.
And still...95% of P2P traffic is illegal file sharing.
Adding local resources to appease illegal file sharing is akin to supporting theft...and the parents and students will foot the bill?
I don't see that happening.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| reply to TKJunkMail
Uhm, no offense but children should be studying than actually wasting time downloading torrents for there pleasure. Instead of doing traffic shaping why not cap each room to 1.5/384 speeds or the systems capacity and when the system detects that other members are not using the connection those caps slowly raise to probably 3.0/768. That's another solution than just buying new equipment all together.
I see no sarcasm when you bash other people's opinions simply because you don't agree with them. Bit Torrent IS NOT used for just free music and videos, please be aware that it can be used for many thing's and any types of files which can actually take load off networks if people seed.
If 15 students at the university are seeding a file for there biological study and have high quality PNG's that take over 500MB student's in the university can simply download the torrent and all users who have the file can seed to them locally on the network without having to put any strain on the pipe to the internet.
SO BT might be actually yet another solution if it where implemented locally and professors and students can upload there work to it and share it among other people on a local based only network.
There is no reason to traffic shape the network when you can simply have some type of dynamic limit set on the network where if Room A is not using there internet connection it's shared with the rest of the university and if Room B is sucking up all the bandwidth the dynamic caps can take effect by limiting it to make sure the network stays at a level which it can be operational. Then when doing this is no longer useful you upgrade your network and increase pipe speed.
By the way before someone brings up the net neutrality discussion, this is a university who has ever right to change there line policies since it's there network and the only thing you are there for is to study. Not to fool around watching anime all day.
While a home user pays for his/her connection that he agrees for at a certain speed and can use it how he wants. It's the telco's network but it's your money and I see no reason for them to give me degraded service just because they think Sussi who pays an extra $5 cripple my traffic because she is playing X Box Live. In the solution I just given it would keep Sussi using just a limited amount of bandwidth without degrading the rest of the users on the network.
On a ISP network they have seriously fat pipe's but when they oversell that's when the problems occur. If they cannot keep up with demand simply upgrade there network, why though? Because your contract with the ISP is to offer you that so called capped/unlimited usage pipe, and the customer wants that type of service. If your not using your bandwidth I see no reason why the ISP's should be mad because it's like giving them a free meal. Yet your connection should never exceed a amount of GB's per month and that's your paid bandwidth they simply want to traffic shape to limit how much bandwidth you use each month so they can get more free meals. |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| Most ISP's actually don't have seriously fat pipes. They have DS3's, OC3's and OC12's from the likes of verizon and SBC which carry their customers traffic out to the public internet exchange point.
DS3 = 45MB/s not fat at all
OC3 = 155MB/s - Getting there, but still, only 50% more than fastethernet.
OC12 = 655MB/s - a little over half a gig link. Still not seriously fat but this is reasonable to an ISP with a market of 8,000 or so - and it costs about $50,000 just to set it up, and another $20,000 a month in recurring fees.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | Those are fat pipe's in a consumer's perspective. But let's do calculations.
8,000 considering the average price for DSL is 49.95 a month.
8000 * 49.95 = $399600 - 50,000 = 349600 - 20,000 = $329600
So $329600 in profits |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| don't forget, building costs, utilities, air conditioning in summer, heat in winter, local infrastructure, right of way fees to place various boxes and nodes in various neighborhoods and also...salaries. This gear doesn't run itself...
329K aint going far....not far at all
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| I already know that they need to pay there staff and also pay for network repairs and maintaince but that's still considered a very high number and how much does that really go into network upgrades, if I can give you more accurate number's I will but frankly considering they reach that much profit from one line alone and after that the 50,000 installation does not apply. So more profit, but let's not forget the USF tax, is that also going to employee's as well and network repairs or exactly for what it's suppose to be used for? Expansion.
Considering this is just one line I would really like to read a financial report from a telco, would be very interesting on how exactly money is spent and where it goes. |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| Total profit after operating costs are deducted would be WELL BELOW the 329K you quoted. Most likely closer to 50K in real profit.
Even less in out of the way corners of America, where that pipe is likely to be even more expensive.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | 50K you say? How many of these lines do they have???
10? 50? 100?
(Michieru takes out his calculator..)
Let's see 50K x 10 = 500000
Let's see 50K x 50 = 2500000
Let's see 50K x 100 = 5000000 |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| You think they're paying minimum wage? No No No...at least 4 employees who would make between 40k and 65K a year. These are the people who keep the CO or head end running.
A couple pole climbers, a networking engineer and a technician. By golly, that's 120K to 150K right there...
Plus clerical and management.
Franchise fees, contractors, backup emergency power, insurance costs, ready spares in case of hardware failure..vehicles, gasoline, vehicle maintenance...
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| Here dude this is what you said to me:
"Total profit after operating costs are deducted"
Operating costs would include those pole climbers, network engineers and technicians, franchise fees, contractors, backup emergency power, insurance costs, ready spares of hardware, vehicles, management, gasoline, and vehicle maintenance all fall under the category of "operating costs".
So you might want to recalculate those numbers but then that would not make any sense so there actually going in debts according to you by a few 120 to 150K per line yet they still find to get money from somewhere to pay for these lobbylist and lawyer fee's.
Let's say they earn 5,000K in profits per line still the profits are high in number because they have millions not thousands of customers so there line numbers are huge so I believe the 5K to 100 lines is closely to there profits.
Which would total of about 500000. But that's where a monopoly comes into play not for low employee wages but because they own most of the network and even backbones costs rise but so does profit.
But how much of this profit actually does go to network expansion. Or network upgrades at that. Like I said instead of making up numbers from what your telling me I rather see a financial report of there actual total cost to give out real numbers not by someone who they contracted but from a 3rd party which plays as a neutral player and just gives the facts. |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY | They're not seeing 329K a month in profit...which is what I believed that you had said.
Cash flow is lucrative, but operating costs are also very high.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| I only based that on the numbers you gave me, also I am aware that cash flow is unbalanced and that all that profit does go into paying company debts that's why I said in my last post, "cost rise but so does profit"
Even if there not seeing 329K a month per line profits it's somewhere in that range or else they would be going in debt because of the high wages they provide there employee's and with all those operating costs.
But as I said earlier without real numbers this all could be wrong and my actions are being speculative based on the data you gave me. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah :From what he's describing, the problem is they don't have enough bandwidth to provide everyone the capacity wanted. The solution is to add more bandwidth. Just because it costs money doesn't mean it's the wrong solution. But back in reality world, the right solution isn't the one that technically might solve the problem but is prohibitively expensive; it's the one that can be achieved with the resources available. You can't ignore the real world constraints just because you don't like that they exist.
Why do you think people are buying gasoline hybrids but not electric, hydrogen, and CNG based vehicles? I'll give you a hint, it's not because a gasoline hybrid is the least polluting or uses the cheapest fuel.
--
He that winna lout an lift a preen wull nivver be warth a groat. |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY | reply to Michieru2
Those numbers are in the ballpark |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to gheezer
According to VERIZON's Income statement here are their last 4 years of PROFITS.
2005 - 7,397,000,000
2004 - 7,831,000,000
2003 - 3,077,000,000
2002 - 4,079,000,000
That's INCLUDING all the sketchy accounting tricks they throw in.
Their TOTAL assets = $168,130,000,000 w/ $16B in current assets (liquid).
Their OPERATING cash flow for 2005 was $22,012,000,000.
I think they're doing just fine. |
|
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY | Verizon's a tier 1 carrier, they're 100 times the size of the average ISP.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! |
|
