brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to d4m1r
Re: How does TSI offer unlimited? said by d4m1r:...Given the current capacity costs they have to pay, until the CRTC decision comes out? Are they not on the hook for a lot of money if a subscriber downloads/uploads 5TB of stuff for example? I know this is why Start doesn't offer an unlimited Cable package at the moment, not until the CRTC decision at least...
TSI does not pay for traffic transferred but the capacity so the comment does not really make sense. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
 ·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by brad:said by d4m1r:...Given the current capacity costs they have to pay, until the CRTC decision comes out? Are they not on the hook for a lot of money if a subscriber downloads/uploads 5TB of stuff for example? I know this is why Start doesn't offer an unlimited Cable package at the moment, not until the CRTC decision at least...
TSI does not pay for traffic transferred but the capacity so the comment does not really make sense. Good point.....It harder to think of an applicable example for capacity :P
If 50% of unlimited customers were maxing out their connection throughout the day, including at peak times like 6pm? That doesn't exactly roll off the tongue 
--
www.613websites.com ● Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting
|
|
|
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to brad
said by brad:said by d4m1r:...Given the current capacity costs they have to pay, until the CRTC decision comes out? Are they not on the hook for a lot of money if a subscriber downloads/uploads 5TB of stuff for example? I know this is why Start doesn't offer an unlimited Cable package at the moment, not until the CRTC decision at least...
TSI does not pay for traffic transferred but the capacity so the comment does not really make sense. It does because they're related numbers. Capping a user brings down their average usage, and averaged over the entire user base that reduces their capacity requirements. A user downloading 5TB is averaging 16Mb/s, that's an awful lot of capacity required for one user. Someone doing 5TB/month on the 18Mb/s cable service would have to be doing that at basically all hours of the day, including peak.
I'm not arguing TekSavvy pays by the GB, I know exactly how they pay for both aggregation and transit capacity. But to suggest the amount transferred doesn't affect their capacity is taking that difference too far.
--
Taylor Byrnes |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by Taylortbb:It does because they're related numbers. Capping a user brings down their average usage, and averaged over the entire user base that reduces their capacity requirements. A user downloading 5TB is averaging 16Mb/s, that's an awful lot of capacity required for one user. Someone doing 5TB/month on the 18Mb/s cable service would have to be doing that at basically all hours of the day, including peak.
I'm not arguing TekSavvy pays by the GB, I know exactly how they pay for both aggregation and transit capacity. But to suggest the amount transferred doesn't affect their capacity is taking that difference too far.
Not really, and then you throw out a number like 5TB which isn't representative of 99% of the unlimited users. Find me someone doing 5TB on an 18Mb connection.. you can count the users on one hand. They're not the issue in the bigger picture with how few of them there are. When it comes to peak hours congestion it is the regular users with the higher speed tiers peaking their connections for relatively short periods of time but at the peak hours and the aggregate sum of those users consumes all of the capacity. |
|
| reply to Taylortbb
said by Taylortbb:said by brad:said by d4m1r:...Given the current capacity costs they have to pay, until the CRTC decision comes out? Are they not on the hook for a lot of money if a subscriber downloads/uploads 5TB of stuff for example? I know this is why Start doesn't offer an unlimited Cable package at the moment, not until the CRTC decision at least...
TSI does not pay for traffic transferred but the capacity so the comment does not really make sense. It does because they're related numbers. Capping a user brings down their average usage, and averaged over the entire user base that reduces their capacity requirements. A user downloading 5TB is averaging 16Mb/s, that's an awful lot of capacity required for one user. Someone doing 5TB/month on the 18Mb/s cable service would have to be doing that at basically all hours of the day, including peak. I'm not arguing TekSavvy pays by the GB, I know exactly how they pay for both aggregation and transit capacity. But to suggest the amount transferred doesn't affect their capacity is taking that difference too far. No. Capping a user brings up his bill. It does sweet f-all to the network itself.
--
My blog. Wanna Git My Ball on Blogspot. |
|
