O Canada! > Canadian > Canadian Broadband > Using the Internet's about to get more expensive

I've come across many people that don't even know the internet can go faster. Probably won't even notice the UBB much or just chalk it up to the price of everything going up.

The majority of people I know use under 60GB, CURRENTLY.

If a good-sized GAS ISP provisions 12 Gig connections per 40,000 customers, how much bandwidth is allocated per customer on average?

What is that number stated as an over-subscription ratio?

How do cable and DSL networks differ in engineered over-subscription ratios?

Geo

A few questions for the group :

What percentage of Bell's total DSL customer base is served by the Indie GAS ISP's ?
A number we keep hearing for all Indie ISPs' end users combined is 5% of all end users, but I do not know whether that proportion holds true within each incumbent ISP's client base, such as Bell's GAS division compared to all of Bell's DSL subscribers.

Is Bell introducing UBB only to screw the Indie's, or is the bigger issue (from Bell's perspective) keeping a usage lid on Bell's own customers ?
Could be Yes to Both, and if so, it WOULD conform to the generally accepted definition of Capitalism, and we CAN say for whatever it's worth, that Bell is, if nothing else, a devout corporate capitalist.

The GAS pricing tariff was originally based on a cost analysis provided by Bell, which included an average utilization per port of xxxKbits per second. What was X ? (I stumbled across this once, can't find it again)
Just the other day, YOU quoted some rather conservative sounding numbers in another thread regarding acceptable oversubscription ratios, but you said they were from elsewhere than a Bell tariff. - I dunno, myself.

If a good-sized GAS ISP provisions 12 Gig connections per 40,000 customers, how much bandwidth is allocated per customer on average ?
If 12 gigE is 12 Gigabits, and that was what you meant, then 12 gigE would be 12x1024x1024x1024 = 12,884,901,888 bits per second, then divided by 40,000 subscribers = 322,123 bits/s = 40,265 bytes/s = about 40 Kbytes/s, FULLY over-subscribed (less PPPoE overhead) - i.e. EVERYONE should be able to sustain that level of Download CONTINUOUSLY, and if Bell's gigE links support the same speed of Upload, then that figure theoretically could also apply to THAT, subject to the constraints mentioned in the answer to the next question.

What is that number stated as an over-subscription ratio ?
The answer to THIS one would depend upon what speed tier we wished to use as an example.

If we chose 5Mbit/800Kbit (which is the currently highest tariffed GAS tier, AFAIK), then Downstream of 5Mbit/s = 5x1024x1024 = 5,242,880 Mbit/sec (less PPPoE overhead)

If we divide that figure by the 322,123 Mbit/s obtained earlier, we would have an oversubscription ratio of (wait for it....) 16.28

Upstream performance might be limited, dependent upon the amount of technology which Bell chose to implement in the last few miles of the overall network for that purpose.

How do cable and DSL networks differ in engineered over-subscription ratios ?
Do not know, but I DO know that their topology is different, so bottlenecks could occur at different points, due to loading on any segments below such points in the topology.

Last but not least, what happens to a network as described above when streaming video such as NetFlix becomes the norm instead of broadcast TV ?
Much of the same stuff which many of us are starting to bitch about recently, BUT, it would NOT suddenly begin at 4:30 PM or 6 PM, IMNSHO.

I know the answer to a some of these, no idea on the rest. It would be fascinating to fill in the blanks as every ISP I know is spending a LOT of time thinking about the issue these days...

Geo

A few questions for the group:

What percentage of Bell's total DSL customer base is served by the Indie GAS ISP's ?
A number we keep hearing for all Indie ISPs' end users combined is 5% of all end users, but I do not know whether that proportion holds true within each incumbent ISP's client base, such as Bell's GAS division compared to all of Bell's DSL subscribers.

Is Bell introducing UBB only to screw the Indie's, or is the bigger issue (from Bell's perspective) keeping a usage lid on Bell's own customers ?
Could be Yes to Both, and if so, it WOULD conform to the generally accepted definition of Capitalism, and we CAN say for whatever it's worth, that Bell is, if nothing else, a devout corporate capitalist.

The GAS pricing tariff was originally based on a cost analysis provided by Bell, which included an average utilization per port of xxxKbits per second. What was X ? (I stumbled across this once, can't find it again)
Just the other day, YOU quoted some rather conservative sounding numbers in another thread regarding acceptable oversubscription ratios, but you said they were from elsewhere than a Bell tariff. - I dunno, myself.

If a good-sized GAS ISP provisions 12 Gig connections per 40,000 customers, how much bandwidth is allocated per customer on average ?
If 12 gigE is 12 Gigabits, and that was what you meant, then 12 gigE would be 12x1024x1024x1024 = 12,884,901,888 bits per second, then divided by 40,000 subscribers = 322,123 bits/s = 40,265 bytes/s = about 40 Kbytes/s, FULLY over-subscribed (less PPPoE overhead) - i.e. EVERYONE should be able to sustain that level of Download CONTINUOUSLY, and if Bell's gigE links support the same speed of Upload, then that figure could also apply to it.

What is that number stated as an over-subscription ratio ?
If we chose 5Mbit/800Kbit (which is the currently highest tariffed GAS tier, AFAIK), then Downstream of 5Mbit/s = 5x1024x1024 = 5,242,880 Mbit/sec (less PPPoE overhead)

If we divide that figure by the 322,123 Mbit/s obtained earlier, we would have an oversubscription ratio of (wait for it....) 16.28

Upstream performance might be limited, dependent upon the amount of technology which Bell chose to implement in the last few miles of the overall network for that purpose.

How do cable and DSL networks differ in engineered over-subscription ratios ?

Do not know, but I DO know that their topology is different, so bottlenecks could occur at different points, due to loading on any segments below such points in the topology.

Last but not least, what happens to a network as described above when streaming video such as NetFlix becomes the norm instead of broadcast TV ?

Much of the same stuff which many of us are starting to bitch about recently, BUT, it would NOT suddenly begin at 4:30 PM or 6 PM, IMNSHO.

....Apologies, trying to break this up to keep it readable was tricky. I've screwed up the attribution...

[
BAM! Good questions. I have a pretty good idea what numbers Bell used. I have yet to see numbers from independant ISPs. Even ballpark figures.

12gps for 40,000 subscribers comes out to 300Kbps average. If you get an average of 1.5mbps per connection, that's a 5:1 over-subscription ratio. To hit the 60G cap means you would download ~14 hours a day at 300Kbps every day of the month.

Phil

What percentage of Bell's total DSL customer base is served by the Indie GAS ISP's ?

DAVE : A number we keep hearing for all Indie ISPs' end users combined is 5% of all end users, but I do not know whether that proportion holds true within each incumbent ISP's client base, such as Bell's GAS division compared to all of Bell's DSL subscribers.

GEO : Bell claimed that GAS ISPs use quite a lot of the network. I have problems believing that a 5% market share translates into this kind of load. It doesn't make much sense.
»netneutrality.michaelgeist.ca/cr···ven-bell

For wholesale, Bell stated that "two assertions must be corrected". First, contrary to what many have told the CRTC, retail users and wholesale GAS users share the same network. As a result of this, wholesale traffic impacts retail traffic, and vice-versa. Secondly, Bell stated that "wholesale ISPs have attempted to dismiss their impact on our retail network by pointing to their overall market share."

They argued, however, that the reality is that wholesale traffic is significant, as in the month of May 2009, wholesale GAS traffic accounted for 31% of their total GAS and retail traffic, and GAS traffic accounted for 36% of their total P2P traffic.

DAVE : Even if those numbers ARE completely accurate for the time, SO WHAT !

The REAL question to be asked is "Did those conditions REALLY cause congestion on Bell's network, or is this just some sort of pecker measuring contest, for the sake of the almighty Cash-Grab ?"

Is Bell introducing UBB only to screw the Indie's, or is the bigger issue (from Bell's perspective) keeping a usage lid on Bell's own customers ?

DAVE : Could be Yes to Both, and if so, it WOULD conform to the generally accepted definition of Capitalism, and we CAN say for whatever it's worth, that Bell is, if nothing else, a devout corporate capitalist.

GEO : My guess is yes to both. If the GAS percentage of use is in fact really is high, then the continual whining about GAS may have more basis in fact. Still have a hard time believing it.

DAVE : See my answer to your other above comment, as I reckon it applies to both.

The REAL question to be asked is "Did those conditions REALLY cause congestion on Bell's network, or is this just some sort of pecker measureing contest, for the sake of Cash-Grab ?"