dslreports logo
 story category
The Bandwidth Hog Does Not Exist
One blogger offers an invitation for ISPs to prove otherwise

For years, ISP lobbyists and their hired mouthpieces have pushed the bogus concept of the "Exaflood", or the idea that bandwidth demand is growing so quickly, ISPs can't possibly keep up unless they get X. Usually X in this equation is fewer consumer protections, no price caps, the right to charge incredibly high overage fees, not having to pay taxes -- etc. You get the point. Real science from outside lobbyist land, however, repeatedly shows that bandwidth demands can be met in both the core and the last mile with only reasonable network upgrades.

While network congestion certainly is real, it is also frequently used to justify anti-competitive behavior -- be it Bell Canada's decision to throttle wholesale competitors so they can't offer superior service to consumers, or AT&T and Time Warner Cable's desire to impose high overages on their users despite already making an incredible profit under the flat-rate pricing model. During these arguments, consumers who dare actually use the company's product (as it's advertised to them) are demonized as "bandwidth hogs."

Techdirt directs our attention to two posts over at Fiber Evolution and DadaMotive, exploring how even the concept of a bandwidth hog is somewhat disingenuous. Herman Wagter, who has worked on Amsterdam's FTTH efforts (covered here by us, but also see this interesting interview with him) goes so far as to argue the bandwidth hog doesn't really even exist. Wagter's fundamental argument is that bandwidth hogs aren't real; what's real are chokepoints and network designs that companies are hiding from sight. Adds Fiber Evolution (run by Yankee Group analyst Benoit Felten):

quote:
Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, the way that telcos identify the Bandwidth Hogs is not by monitoring if they cause unfair traffic congestion for other users. No, they just measure the total data downloaded per user, list the top 5% and call them hogs. For those service providers with data caps, these are usually set around 50 Gbyte and go up to 150 Gbyte a month. This is therefore a good indication of the level of bandwidth at which you start being considered a "hog". But wait: 50 Gbyte a month is… 150 kbps average (0,15 Mbps), 150 Gbyte a month is 450 kbps on average. If you have a 10 Mbps link, that’s only 1,5 % or 4,5 % of its maximum advertised speed!....

The fact is that what most telcos call hogs are simply people who overall and on average download more than others. Blaming them for network congestion is actually an admission that telcos are uncomfortable with the 'all you can eat' broadband schemes that they themselves introduced on the market to get people to subscribe. In other words, the marketing push to get people to subscribe to broadband worked, but now the telcos see a missed opportunity at price discrimination
Of course you can already hear all of the ISP lobbyists, paid think tankers and loyal policy soldiers getting upset, given the concept of the bandwidth hog sits at the foundation of more than a few card castles (especially their efforts at deregulation and desire for high per GB overage fees). As such, Felten offers them an opportunity:
quote:
I will specify on this blog a standard dataset that would enable me to do an in-depth data analysis into network usage by individual users. Any telco willing to actually understand what's happening there and to answer the question on the existence of hogs once and for all can extract that data and send it over to me, I will analyse it for free, on my spare time. All I ask is that they let me publish the results of said research (even though their names need not be mentioned if they don't wish it to be). Of course, if I find myself to be wrong and if indeed I manage to identify users that systematically degrade the experience for other users, I will say so publicly. If, as I suspect, there are no such users, I will also say so publicly. The data will back either of these assertions.
One thing lacking in every Exaflood debate or congestion claim has been hard, raw data provided by the ISPs for independent analysis. By and large, the Exaflood, network neutrality and bandwidth hog discussions have been dominated by think tankers who make a living massaging statistics to suit the message, and focus on dressing up lobbying and public relations so it looks like real science. Here then, lies a very interesting opportunity surely an ISP wants to jump at.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next
russotto
join:2000-10-05
West Orange, NJ

1 recommendation

russotto

Member

Same as usual...

The ISP marketing departments want to promise extremely fast connections in order to sign people up, in the hope they'll sign up nothing but grannies who check their text-only email once a day, but then the ISP businesspeople don't want to pay the bill when people actually try to use those fast connections, so they figure they'll screw anyone who actually tries to use what they were promised. Including the grannies sending around home movies of their grandkids...

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

1 recommendation

en102

Member

Re: Same as usual...

True... but there's more to it.

1. ISPs (like many other companies) want to make bandwidth a commodity. By doing so, they have a means to make more profit

2. Usage in ISPs (like wireless, landline, insurance, etc.) are sold on a probability/statistics model, where they can draw a line and know where their usage vs. capacity is.

I.E. I'm sure that most ISP already know what the 'average' user uses for bandwidth, speed, time of day, etc. Whether they use all of that data is unknown, as is what the 'typical' or average user really consumes. Bean counters can use this to make pricing adjustments.

I DO suspect that the 'average' user is not typically the 'average' user. With a company having ~ 18 million users, there's a real good possibility that MANY of them are WAAYY low on usage, which would fall into the statement allowing companies to make a standard tier of 10GB/month. A form of median or weighted average may be more accurate. Unfortunately, even if the cost of doubling capacity may not be double in cost, it will end up costing the consumer double due to item #1.
Chubbysumo
join:2009-12-01
Duluth, MN
Ubee E31U2V1
(Software) pfSense
Netgear WNR3500L

Chubbysumo to russotto

Member

to russotto
ISPs don't pay for service from t1 and t2 providers by the speed, they pay by the data used and transferred. Therefore, i propose that we end users pay in the same fashion. The people who download a lot pay a lot, and the people who download a little pay a little. Do away with the speed caps and let us make you ISP's upgrade your networks to handle the ever growing need of HSI residential services and the demands of the customers, other than business customers, and the needs and requirements that come along with it.

keyboard5684
Sam
join:2001-08-01
Pittsburgh, PA

keyboard5684

Member

Re: Same as usual...

That is not true.
ISPs, the two that I worked for, pay for the pipe size.
They did not pay for data used.

Usually, depending on the ISP, this would be a peer agreement with some and a pipe to the rest. So an ISP may have a contract with one company because the amount of data back and forth is the same therefore there is no sense in charging each other. For the rest of the internet, they buy a pipe according to the peak data usage of their customers. Say an OC12... it makes no sense to "pay by the data used and transferred" because you have to have an available connection (pipe) that can handle that much data anyway.

The deal with low cost internet access is this, they oversell that pipe. If consumers want to have Gigabit speeds to their homes and use it 24/7 then the ISP needs to have a dedicated GB pipe to the internet just for them. Guess how much that costs?

Yes, it is oversold so the ISP can make a profit. Yes, their are users that do use less and some that use more. And yes, the ISP is a company that needs to make money in order to grow, pay for employees, maintenance, basically what any other company does.

I have seen that a very small percentage does make up for a large amount of usage. During peak times (say Monday from 4pm until 10pm) these users really cut into the available bandwidth when those average users, the majority, want to use it.

I download videos, directv on demand, netflix, music, all kinds of stuff and do not go over 10 gigs a month.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: Same as usual...

It`s weird that you say that keyboard. Since a granny watching a youtube video at 7 PM is causing the same amount of congestion as a torrent user at the same time.

It`s also strange that all these major ISPs have been making billions in profits, and ISPs like Time Warner have actually been decreasing investment into their networks, and yet they apparently don`t have enough money to upgrade their networks and pay for more bandwidth.

How strange indeed.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow to Chubbysumo

Member

to Chubbysumo
Only extremely small ISPs buy service by data used. Most by it by the 95th percentile rule of peak Mbps.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bu ··· _billing

keyboard5684
Sam
join:2001-08-01
Pittsburgh, PA

keyboard5684

Member

Re: Same as usual...

Agreed. Or businesses.
Some larger businesses will buy a T1 and pay the 95th percentile.
Cheaper than a full T1 (or OC3) but provides for those unexpected bursts in bandwidth.

I have never seen an ISP that pays per data used.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to Lazlow

Member

to Lazlow
those are the ISPs that are paying for the T1s and T3s that are from the xLECs and not from Level3 or others.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow

Member

Re: Same as usual...

I assume you mean the ones that buy service by data used.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Same as usual...

now i mean flat rate per speed.

keyboard5684
Sam
join:2001-08-01
Pittsburgh, PA

keyboard5684 to hottboiinnc4

Member

to hottboiinnc4
Sprint, MCI (or whatever it is now, Verizon I guess), all the long distance carriers offer it I believe. The ILECs do as well but I personally have never seen it purchased from the ILEC.

Level 3 usually has a POP in major cities. Otherwise, you run the fiber to them if you want it. Small ISPs cannot afford that unless they get lucky and have something special in the area. Last I knew, Level3 did not do T1s... just OC3 and up.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

1 recommendation

Lazlow

Member

YEP

I have been stating for a long time that GBs/month have nothing to do with congestion. If you assume a 5Mbps service that is around 1580GB/month(@24/7 for 30 days). Now if you assume a person only download from 11pm to 7am (off peak in most areas) you could still download around 530GB/month causing no congestion. Since ISPs pay transit based on peak Mbps and their hardware costs are also based on peak Mbps, downloads made during off peak hours costs the ISP nothing extra.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

Re: YEP

The funny thing is you look back at all the posts about the recent bandwidth capping BS, you will find a lot of users on this site also believe that caps reduce congestion.
The problem is there are too many ignorant people in this world who have no idea what they are talking about.

If their networks are congested why do they keep increasing their speeds??????
banner
Premium Member
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA

1 recommendation

banner

Premium Member

Re: YEP

said by r81984:

The funny thing is you look back at all the posts about the recent bandwidth capping BS, you will find a lot of users on this site also believe that caps reduce congestion.
The problem is there are too many ignorant people in this world who have no idea what they are talking about.

If their networks are congested why do they keep increasing their speeds??????
Great point. Its as if the ISPs are slamming their own networks as unreliable. Any ISP's Bandwidth caps are great fodder for competitor's commercials.
[deliberate singular possessive]

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 recommendation

SpaethCo to r81984

MVM

to r81984
said by r81984:

If their networks are congested why do they keep increasing their speeds??????
Because overall capacity is 2-dimensional: rate and time.

Network access is about delivering information for further use, it is rendered into data you can use such as video, software updates, emails, etc. In general, the key bottleneck should be the rate of human's ability to digest the content.

The faster you get your content, the shorter the duration of your impact on the network -- and the less likely you will be using the network when others on your network segment want to.

Faster speeds actually return more capacity to the network, but only if quantity utilization doesn't increase at the same rate as the speed, otherwise you never catch up.

TuxRaiderPen
A Warm Embrace
join:2009-06-02
Outer Rim

TuxRaiderPen to Lazlow

Member

to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:

I have been stating for a long time that GBs/month have nothing to do with congestion.
Correct. Network design is finally being pointed out as a possible bottleneck which creates congestion. Take away the "greed" for thinking of imposing such low caps *cough...(Time Warner)...cough* and give real data, then maybe ISP's can have a real starting point for network management arguments.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

ISurfTooMuch to Lazlow

Member

to Lazlow
Users who actually use their purchased bandwidth can cause congestion if enough of them are using it at the same time, but that's because the ISP's aren't buying enough bandwidth to handle their customers' needs. My LAN connection at work is a perfect example. My computer is connected at 100 Mbps, but I don't get that when I surf the net. The bottleneck is that we only have purchased a 12 Mbps connection from our ISP, so that blazing fast network connection that my computer tells me I have isn't so fast when you actually want to use the Net.

And as for bottlenecks, well, I could have gigabit Ethernet if I could convince our center administrator to let me replace our switches, which are the bottleneck on our LAN. Same with the ISP's. Changing out some network gear could speed things up for users, but the ISP's will only do it if it makes financial sense to them. Imposing caps and overage fees is cheaper, easier, and more profitable.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102 to Lazlow

Member

to Lazlow
It would make more sense then to throttle peak usage or cap peak usage. Since most people actually can only use their ISP during these hours (work/school/etc.), the effect of capping would be essentially the same for MOST users.
Of course, ISPs will never sell that model, or if they did, your peak usage costs would be insanely high.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow

Member

Re: YEP

en102

But according to ISPs most users are not the problem it is the "bandwidth hogs". The reality is far from what they are claiming.

CC has been using proticol agnostic throttling during peak hours for quite a while(couple of years?).

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: YEP

Something tells me that bandwidth hogs consume 24x7 (BT, file serving, streaming, webcams, etc.) while 'most' users would be consuming the majority of the bandwidth after work/school.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow

Member

Re: YEP

Except, look at where they are placing the caps. A 5Mbps connection can download about 1580GB a month (24/7). Charter currently has a 100GB a month cap(unenforced) on the 5Mbps plan, that is a grand total of 68hrs of downloading a month(2hrs/day). With a lot of users on 20Mbps(or greater) plans (6300GB/month) the caps are nowhere near 24/7. CC and Charter have a 250GB/month on 20Mbps service, that is a grand total of 29hrs of downloading a month(under 1hr/day).
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

Re: YEP

said by Lazlow:

Except, look at where they are placing the caps. A 5Mbps connection can download about 1580GB a month (24/7).
I still think this gets back to my telephone analogy. A phone is capable of 24/7 usage. But, the phone company builds an infrastructure only capable of handling average usage (people who don't use their phones 24/7).

When the phone company implies that you can pick up the phone and make a call 24x7 they don't mean everyone can do it all at once, or that any significant percentage of customers can do it continuously. It's based upon what an average user expects (based upon average usage).

Why should average users (who use their phones 2x7) have to pay for additional infrastructure to handle those who want to use their phones 24x7?

Mark
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow

Member

Re: YEP

Then why not limit it based on what is actually causing the issue? Mbps is the limiting factor in the equation, not GB/month.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch to amigo_boy

Member

to amigo_boy
I don't think many folks would suggest that the phone system be rebuilt to handle 24/7 usage by everyone, but you also have to take into consideration how people use a technology.

For example, it really doesn't matter if I surf Web pages and check my e-mail on a 1.5 M connection or a 20 M connection. For this kind of activity, the bottleneck is most likely at the Web server anyway. However, it most certainly matters if I fire up Netflix streaming to watch a HD movie. I can sit in front of my computer and surf for two hours, or I can watch a movie for two hours, but the bandwidth consumption is going to be much different. Now, if I was the only one doing this, then it might seem unreasonable for the ISP to accommodate me, but more and more people are doing it, so the expectation is there that the ISP's have to evolve to fit usage patterns more than users have to ration their heretofore unlimited usage to protect the ISPs' profit margins.

This sort of reminds me of my effort to find a place for our office Christmas party. I called Olive Garden and Red Lobster (yeah, I know, but we were calling everybody) to ask what they could do. Could they handle a group of around 50 people? Sure. Could they present us with a limited menu so each person could be served for under $20, since staff would have their meal paid for, and we couldn't blow our budget? No problem. In fact, the Olive Garden folks already had these menus prepared for various price points. Great! So what do we need to do to get this set up? Oh, well, there's nothing to set up because, well, they don't accept reservations. We just all have to show up and hope there's room to seat all of us. Naturally, this is a huge deal-breaker for us, and I imagine it is for any organization wanting to have a Christmas party at these places. So why do they even go through all this effort to pretend they can offer this service when they have absolutely no intention of doing so?

Likewise, why offer blazing fast Internet if a customer can use all their allotted bandwidth in a matter of hours? It'd be like a steakhouse advertising a complete steak dinner, but when the diners show up, they find that their meal includes a one-ounce piece of steak, a teaspoonful of mashed potatoes, a salad consisting of one piece of lettuce and one cherry tomato, and a shot glass of water. When they complain, the manager tells them that the restaurant had to do this because of all the new customers coming in. After all, there are only so many cows and farms out there. Not only that, but all those new customers would make wait times unbearable, so a meal that can be served and eaten in under 10 minutes keeps the lines down. And besides, from the look of the patrons, they could stand to lose some weight anyway.

birdfeedr
MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI

birdfeedr

MVM

Re: YEP

said by ISurfTooMuch:

It'd be like a steakhouse advertising a complete steak dinner
Thank you for not using a car and road analogy.

The steakhouse analogy is making me hungry just thinking about it. Gotta download something.
danknight
join:2001-07-27
Methuen, MA

danknight to amigo_boy

Member

to amigo_boy
Thats the Erlang formula (Google it) Basically some guy in the1920s calculated telephone usage in order to determine total capacity needed. Basically the average home telephone (available 24/7) was only used for 3 or 4 2 minute calls (pulling number out of my *ss for example) s it was only in use 6 or 8 minutes a day on average. In the mid 90s when everyone 'Discovered' the Internet and got a 2nd phone line and started making 3 HOUR 'calls' it totally screwed up the the formula and caused serious congestion and the inability to make phone calls. There wasn't enough switch capacity (trunks) to support this kind of usage. But telephone calls are (mostly this is changing) Switched circuits (a dedicated path between two phones) TCP/Ip is not.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

2 edits

1 recommendation

amigo_boy

Member

Redefinition of terms

Bandwidth is a perishable commodity. Anyone who falls outside the bell curve (the average) is undesirable. Those who use far less than the average are leaving perishable product unused. Those who use far more cause more perishable product to be provided (which the vast majority within the bell curve don't need).

A "hog" might be needlessly pejorative. But, they pose greater costs to those who provide perishable commodities.

The thing I think is funny is how those opposed to caps make up these arguments about how they're not "hogs." But, when faced with metered billing they complain about that (presumably because they don't want to pay for their non-average usage).

Mark

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

2 edits

r81984

Premium Member

Re: Refinition of terms

said by amigo_boy:

Bandwidth is a perishable commodity.
HUH?
Their costs are fixed based on their network. Usage or bandwidth does not change the cost of the network.
If you utilize your connection more than others you are not costing the ISP any more money.

There is no such thing as average usage as a whole.
Each user may have an average usage because they always do the same activities, but between people you can't use an average because there are people that might only use their connection for email and those that work over the internet.
It is really stupid to just group a bunch of people who use the internet for different activities and average their usage as some kind of metric.

That would be looking at everyone that drives into the city of chicago at work, coming up with an average number of miles driven by each worker, and then capping all those that drive to a certain number of miles and justify it by saying the average is under the cap. (if you can't understand this I can try to explain it with tubes)

It just makes no sense.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

1 edit

1 recommendation

amigo_boy

Member

Re: Refinition of terms

said by r81984:

Usage or bandwidth does not change the cost of the network.
It's like a telephone system. They have to provide enough capacity to meet demand. They define demand by average usage patterns. The telephone company tells me that I should expect to pick up a telephone and get a dial tone at any time. But, that doesn't mean everyone in the country can pick up their telephone at exactly the same moment and get a dial tone. To provide that kind of capacity they would have to invest more in the telephone network. Therefore, usage does change the cost of the network. Those who use the phone more than others increase the capacity necessary. Capacity which, if idle (but present to meet the needs of heavier users) is perishable.

Mark

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx

Member

Re: Refinition of terms

Umm, wow, you are a real luddite if you think the telephone is ANYTHING like the internet. A telephone is a SWITCHED NETWORK. That means, when you pick up the phone, you are tying up that entire channel, a backbone channel, and the remote terminals channel for the entire time. The internet is a PACKET NETWORK, which is fundamentally different. When you make a VoIP call, you send a packet out to the cloud, which routes it over available bandwidth, and reconstitutes it at the remote end. The BIG difference is a SWITCHED network can only support the limited number of ports it has. A PACKET network can support FAR MORE, since an unused packet can be used by anyone else. Do you honestly think you cell phone tower with a T-1 can only support 24 calls at once? No, it can support 200+ calls over the same T-1, because not everyone is sending data at the same time.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

Re: Refinition of terms

said by karlmarx:

Umm, wow, you are a real luddite if you think the telephone is ANYTHING like the internet.
It's the same principle. The internet isn't so unique that there are no parallels to other limited services which face disparate demand, users with greater and lessor requirements, etc.

Mark

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Transmaster to karlmarx

Member

to karlmarx
What is really interesting is to watch how packets are routed. The fastest route is not alway the shortest.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984 to amigo_boy

Premium Member

to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:
said by r81984:

Usage or bandwidth does not change the cost of the network.
It's like a telephone system. They have to provide enough capacity to meet demand. They define demand by average usage patterns. The telephone company tells me that I should expect to pick up a telephone and get a dial tone at any time. But, that doesn't mean everyone in the country can pick up their telephone at exactly the same moment and get a dial tone. To provide that kind of capacity they would have to invest more in the telephone network. Therefore, usage does change the cost of the network. Those who use the phone more than others increase the capacity necessary. Capacity which, if idle (but present to meet the needs of heavier users) is perishable.

Mark
Again you make no sense.
People use the phone for different things, again you can't just take the average by lumping together those that use it only for an emergency and those that have a lot of people to talk to. If there are a lot more that hardly use their connection then those that do use it will be screwed based on a stupid metric like that.

In the case of the phone system to allow more users they can either A compress the audio which means each user can have a lower speed connection or B decrease each users bitrate which also means they can use a slower connection or C make the network as a whole faster to allow more capacity. Limiting how many minutes each user can use will not allow you to squeeze more users in the same network.
These ISPs keep increasing the speeds so obviously they do not have capacity issues on the back end. Caps will not allow more users on the network only either decreasing everyone's speed or increasing the speed of the network as a whole will increase its capacity.
A cap will not change the capacity of the network and will not allow for more users.

•••••••

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to amigo_boy

Premium Member

to amigo_boy
That's not really an accurate analogy. The PSTN works as direct connections. When on POTS if you pick up the phone and call someone, you're taking up the entire connection. Think it of it this way, imagine it as a "lane" on a highway, except you're the ONLY vehicle in the entire lane for it's entire length--- IE a private lane all to yourself.

Now, with the internet, an IP Network, you have packets. Think of them like the cars. The lane you use can be filled with millions of packets all whizzing along at full speed. Like traffic flowing smoothly down the highway. It's really impossible for your packets to "hog" the entire lane to yourself. If there is congestion it's really because too many people are all tied into too narrow a "lane."

These analogy-examples are crude. I'm not sure I'm getting my point across.

••••••••••
MicaTurbo
join:2001-08-27
Ottawa, ON

MicaTurbo to r81984

Member

to r81984
said by r81984:

said by amigo_boy:

Bandwidth is a perishable commodity.
HUH?
Their costs are fixed based on their network. Usage or bandwidth does not change the cost of the network.
If you utilize your connection more than others you are not costing the ISP any more money.

There is no such thing as average usage as a whole.
Each user may have an average usage because they always do the same activities, but between people you can't use an average because there are people that might only use their connection for email and those that work over the internet.
It is really stupid to just group a bunch of people who use the internet for different activities and average their usage as some kind of metric.

That would be looking at everyone that drives into the city of chicago at work, coming up with an average number of miles driven by each worker, and then capping all those that drive to a certain number of miles and justify it by saying the average is under the cap. (if you can't understand this I can try to explain it with tubes)

It just makes no sense.
After reading many of those two's responses (mostly TK's) over the past few months, it's obvious there isn't any point to trying to reason with them.

My ISP has a 60gb cap. If I were to max out my internet connection from 3am-5am, I could download about 8GB worth of whatever. If I were to do that daily for 30 days, I'm looking at 240GB....180GB over my cap. Am I really a "hog" ? Am I negatively impacting grandmas ability to check her email at 4 in the morning? It's pretty clear that it's just a cash grab by the ISPs.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

Re: Refinition of terms

60gb cap, WTF?
MicaTurbo
join:2001-08-27
Ottawa, ON

MicaTurbo

Member

Re: Refinition of terms

Yup, go Rogers!
margaf
join:2000-12-22
Las Vegas, NV

margaf to r81984

Member

to r81984
C'mon, you never left your bandwidth out on the counter and had it rot? Little flies all over the place.

Perishable commodity...I only hope others got the laugh from that I did.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

meh37II
@verizon.net

meh37II to r81984

Anon

to r81984
said by r81984:

HUH?
Yeah... that was my reaction, too. Bandwidth is "perishable" in the same way that time is, but, like time, bandwidth is also infinite (until you shutdown the network [by powering down one or more critical routers and/or switches]). In other words, "There's always more where that came from"... with no additional cost to the ISP. At every point in time the available bandwidth remains constant (while the network infrastructure remains unchanged). The most that any customer can use at any point in time is limited by the ISP, and that amount is only a small percentage of the total bandwidth, and that amount--that customer "share"--has already been paid for by the customer.

Someone says "hog"? I say "well-utilized". If the ISP doesn't have the bandwidth to support the access and speeds it sells, then it should sell less access and slower speeds. Selling more bandwidth/capacity than it can support makes the speed tiers that the ISP claims to support, in a word, fraud.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5 to amigo_boy

Premium Member

to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:

Bandwidth is a perishable commodity. Anyone who falls outside the bell curve (the average) is undesirable. Those who use far less than the average are leaving perishable product unused. Those who use far more cause more perishable product to be provided (which the vast majority within the bell curve don't need).

A "hog" might be needlessly pejorative. But, they pose greater costs to those who provide perishable commodities.

The thing I think is funny is how those opposed to caps make up these arguments about how they're not "hogs." But, when faced with metered billing they complain about that (presumably because they don't want to pay for their non-average usage).

Mark
The two web pages cited by Karl debunking the idea that hogs exist is based on the premise that if a bottleneck exists, it is all the fault of the ISP. And that is because they overbook links to keep prices down.

But if ISPs have to continually upgrade bottleneck links to avoid slowdowns due to extra heavy use by some users, then the additional costs result in a higher priced service.

The question is then on how to apportion that cost. Share it all equally amongst all users? Or create a tiered price structure where the heaviest users(mustn't call them hogs now) pay more of the costs.

I go with the tiered structure based on usage. But that will cause the hogs heaviest users to squeal the loudest.

•••••••••
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude to amigo_boy

Member

to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:

...Those who use far less than the average are leaving perishable product unused. ....
gee, the ISPs don't seem to be nearly as upset with these people.

gosh, I wonder why that is?

the name of this game is money. period. If the ISPs are so concerned about "hogs" using more than their fair share, they should be concerned about people that aren't getting the full value of their connection. For some strange reason, they aren't.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

Re: Redefinition of terms

said by nasadude:

said by amigo_boy:

...Those who use far less than the average are leaving perishable product unused. ....
gee, the ISPs don't seem to be nearly as upset with these people.
Probably the better analogy would be to usage patterns, not just usage. If I spend all month reading emails, and then suddenly expect to download the entire digital content of the National Archive, I'm going to create as much capacity problem as the person who consistently uses more bandwidth. If the ISP has to meet my needs, that will require the commodity to perish for the majority of time that I don't use it.

Mark
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: Redefinition of terms

said by amigo_boy:

said by nasadude:

said by amigo_boy:

...Those who use far less than the average are leaving perishable product unused. ....
gee, the ISPs don't seem to be nearly as upset with these people.
Probably the better analogy would be to usage patterns, not just usage. If I spend all month reading emails, and then suddenly expect to download the entire digital content of the National Archive, I'm going to create as much capacity problem as the person who consistently uses more bandwidth. If the ISP has to meet my needs, that will require the commodity to perish for the majority of time that I don't use it.

Mark
Amigo, no you won`t. It will only matter if you want to proceed with your download during peak hours, and you will only be causing as much congestion as your bandwidth tier will allow. Granny watching youtube will also cause congestion.

The point is the ISPs have plenty of money to upgrade their networks. They`re not exactly scraping by. They should be using this money to upgrade their networks, as they obviously have no interest in lowering prices.
bsoft
join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO

bsoft

Member

Hogs do exist, but not as many as the ISPs want you to think

Well, first of all, I agree that the customer pulling 150GB/mo is hardly a "hog". 2 hours of HD video viewing a night (say on Netflix) can run ~230GB/mo; as (if) Internet video displaces traditional video services, we're going to see that become the norm.

That said, there are real "hogs", mostly those pirating a substantial amount of content online. There are people who will subscribe to the "Extreme 50" tier and saturate it 100% all the time with BitTorrent downloads/uploads. That's around 16 terabytes a month, mind you.

"Hogs" like the customer I'm describing are a real problem, because it's difficult (with current technology) to support any significant number of them. FTTP doesn't really solve the problem since you still have a major issue in the core network.

Ultimately, we may move to a world where a continuous 50Mbps (average) per customer is normal, but we're not there yet.

The problem is, ISPs seem to be defining "hogs" using yesterday's standards. 100GB/mo would have been insane in 2001, but it's not so insane today for anyone who uses Internet video.

ISPs need to do the necessary upgrades to support the vast majority of their users, which is an ongoing process since the "average" user continues to use more bandwidth.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: Hogs do exist, but not as many as the ISPs want you to think

I`m going to go out on a limb and say that that kind of person is a very rare sight indeed. Since their percentage is so small, and snice the ISP continues to increase their speed offerings, and since they have no real competition, I think it`s their obligation to accomodate everyone.
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

1 edit

Mr Matt

Member

Corporate porkers calling customers hogs!

The corporate porkers of greed unlimited are calling customers hogs if they make full use the services that they are paying for. That is insulting! The corporate porkers cannot find innovative features or services to add to there plate to increase revenue so they simply find innovative ways of charging customers additional fees for the services that they are already paying for. If the market for broadband service were not an oligopoly the corporate porkers would not be able to abuse their customers. If one reviews the history of the nations telephone system they will find that, customers of the infant telephone companies suffered the same type of abuse during the initial development of the nations telephone system in the 1930s. The solution was sweeping regulation of the original AT&T. Unfortunately many of our lawmakers, the corporate sock puppets, continue to bob their heads up and down in an affirmative manor as long as the campaign contribution checks keep flowing from the corporate lobbyists. Oink!

Edit 12/5: I forgot to mention those subscribing to broadband service are getting a Pig in a poke. See the Wikipedia definition:

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi ··· n_a_poke

TuxRaiderPen
A Warm Embrace
join:2009-06-02
Outer Rim

TuxRaiderPen

Member

Re: Corporate porkers calling customers hogs!

Sometimes, I really do envision them, sitting in the boardroom, oinking... Big pink faces in shiny suits. Where's that curly tail?

"Dress 'em up, they still look like pigs" (Bad think tanks and their bad data)

Anon51
@att.net

Anon51

Anon

Caps and Hogs

My Company, ( Beep,Beep ) insists on a 27% profit return. All of our ROI models have this set as the minimum. The President Glenn Brit took home $14.4 Million, This is an 8% decrease from the prior year (2008).
There has been NO improvement to the system, as we are still on Docsis 1.1. Everyone else has gone to Docsis 3.0 to meet capacity.
Now, tell me again who the hogs are?

clawface
@rr.com

clawface

Anon

Re: Caps and Hogs

There certainly have been many, many CMTS upgrades at TWC in preparation for DOCSIS 3.0, as well as swapping out low port density uBR7246's for higher port density boxes.

And DOCSIS 3.0 has certainly been launched in some markets.

Not to mention, RoadRunner isn't the only product they spend money on for improvements.

Behind the scenes improvements on video acquisition and delivery are still very important upgrades, yet the end user doesn't necessarily notice because they're still viewing channels.

If you say "there has been NO improvement to the system" then you obviously do not work in a position where you would actually know if an improvement was made or not.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: Caps and Hogs

said by clawface :

There certainly have been many, many CMTS upgrades at TWC in preparation for DOCSIS 3.0, as well as swapping out low port density uBR7246's for higher port density boxes.

And DOCSIS 3.0 has certainly been launched in some markets.

Not to mention, RoadRunner isn't the only product they spend money on for improvements.

Behind the scenes improvements on video acquisition and delivery are still very important upgrades, yet the end user doesn't necessarily notice because they're still viewing channels.

If you say "there has been NO improvement to the system" then you obviously do not work in a position where you would actually know if an improvement was made or not.
Uh, maybe because Time Warner`s actually decreased investment into their network over the last few years? Or maybe the fact that they never upgraded to DOCSIS 2.0, and that I`ve had the exact same friggin` speed for 8 or 9 years now.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Maybe not for big ISPs...

...but if you're at the mercy of one of the larger ISPs to provide you transport from the Internet to the sticks, costs can be high enough that every GB counts. When you're paying $80 per Mbit (works out to 25¢ per GB or so) someone using 100GB of data costs you $25. If you're selling internet subscriptions for $40 you're likely losing money at this point, because you're paying upkeep on equipment, purchasing equipment and paying employees. That's why my WISP back in TX has 25GB caps on their residential accounts and 35GB on their business accounts; they signed a three-year contract to get connectivity at the rock-bottom price of $200ish per Mbit. For the same price as their T3 I can currently get, thirty miles away, a gigabit connection...and use the remaining money to live in near-decadence, or at least upper-middle-class style.

There's also the equipment upgrade dilemma. If you have one heavy user using up 5% of your CMTS's capacity and 300 other users collectively using up another 75%, guess who's the hog in this situation? The "hog" is using maybe 700GB per month (who knows why) on downloads and 165GB on uploads (you know, torrents and such). The other subscribers use on average 30 GB on downloads and 8 GB on uploads. Who's the hog here?

Granted, a 40GB cap on a cable connection when you're TWC (they have at least twelve strands of fiber into my town of 10,000 people and have a nationwide backbone plus cheap bandwidth via Level3) is ridiculous. However things get more profitable when you chop off the high end of the bell curve.

•••••••
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

We are down the rabbit hole, I guess

where it's up to an ISP to "PROVE" that users are actually causing network congestion RIGHT NOW by their behavior, or else the new pricing models are UNFAIR. THERE OUGHTTA BE A LAW (or at least a regulation) !!!!!

This is just crazy talk. Look, what's happened is that the ISPs have in some sense over-subscribed their network, based on historical customer usage patterns. When a significant (yet small) number of customers start breaking those patterns by multiple orders of magnitude, the ISP has to rethink their pricing and offering model. That's all that is happening here!

It's as if you ran an airline, and 95% percent of customers who bought tickets started showing up for flights instead of 80%. You'll start having big problems. Or you run a dialup phone network, and for some reason lots of people start making calls all at the same time. You have to rethink your model.

For you all to say, simply because you are slipping through the cracks of a poorly-crafted offering, that it's WRONG for the ISPs to change, is really just raw power politics... trying to grab the goodies for a small minority at the expense of everyone else.
gorehound
join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

gorehound

Member

Consumption will suck and is BS

lying companies trying to suck as much as they can out of us consumers.
i hope this goverment does the right thing somehow and stops this type of krap from happening.

my website and all its content will be screwed when you have to watch your downloading.this will kill a lot of good things and stifle growth.
Fuck You Slime Warner and others
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

1 recommendation

iansltx

Member

Here's an alternative

Figure out what peak times are and flat-out don't count usage during non-peak times!

That's how one up-and-coming wireless ISP in Canada is doing it...I'd sign up for their service if it was available here but it isn't :/

»gorillanet.ca/
decifal7
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN

decifal7

Member

heh

Technology regression at its finest.. Video streaming services and even game streaming will be hampered on any capping restrictions and overages placed on people.. Technology is supposed to enchance and go further and further through time.. Not simply get held back just so some fat cat can put more dough in his pocket... Its like noone likes technology anymore, they just want to profit profit profit... Wheres the passion?
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow

Premium Member

If you were the pig?

If the ISP cost for upgrades are going up 50% a year and the revenues go up 3% something is going to give. There are three parts to the equation. They are speed, usage and time. If the the usage of many users is spread out over time then it does not affect the network as much as everyone using the network at the same time. The big complaint about the cable companies was in the evening the speeds dropped so the system regulated itself. Not to the satisfaction of customers but it did slow usage. If every user used the network at different times then the could download more faster. Just like rush hour traffic. If people could show up at any time as long as they put in 8 hrs or 40 hrs a week then rush hour would not be as bad.

You get what is paid for. If there is little profit or not as big as you think they were then don't expect improvements in the network.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow

Member

Re: If you were the pig?

Have you looked at these companies 10Ks? They are making a LOT of profit.

As for upgrades going up 50% a year, backup and look at Cablevision's numbers when the rest of the ISPs where trying to claim that D3 was too expensive. If I remember correctly they said the upgrade cost was between $85-$125 per customer, depending on area. Split that up over a 36 month period (it will work for a lot longer) and that works out to $2.36-3.47 a month.

anonuser101

Anon

LMAO!!!

So, when does Porkie the pig have an Iphone "LOL"!!!

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram

Premium Member

To their advantage

The funny thing in all of this, is, it seems to me, to the ISPs advantage, NOT to upgrade their last mile networks. Then they can say, look man all these %1 hogs are making it bad for all you guys, so lets charge everyone more, to make them want to use less.

Meanwhile they make no upgrades, or very little, and pocket all the profits.

Who in their right minds, can't see this?

Oh yeah, and who can be proud of their networks, when %1 of it's users can overload it? To that I say, LOL
moes
Premium Member
join:2009-11-15
Cedar City, UT

moes

Premium Member

telcos and cable people are babies

so let's see one person said they thing "tiering" would be cost effctive and everybody else say's it's not.

Ok I am going with everybody else and not the guy cheering for a tiered system (does he work for them O.o)

Ok let me give you a little example.

In the nederlands right now mostly everybody even in the outer perishes have a cable connection with 50 down and 5 up. They are not complaining about users and there bandwidth and have very high caps.

Now here in the US, we seem to have teleco's and even cable companies crying wolf because waaaa we did not upgrade our networks and now are paying for it in this boom of video and other media services.

Sure a few cable operators have upgraded and given there users docsis 3.0 speeds and those users are in love with it.

So in my final thought here.

I will not pay for a tiered system and I will not use a system that is capping users to 10gigs a month.

My normal usage as I am a gamer can get way way over 10gigs in 2 weeks if I am constantly on it and not working under a contract.

So it's time for the cable and telco operators to get off the pot and start handling there network like the professionals they are supposed to be and not the spoiled whining children they are acting like.

AnonDOG
@kaballero.com

1 recommendation

AnonDOG

Anon

... Does not Exist ....

I am not even going to READ any of this:

Check out the statistics:

STDDEV: 6,673,317,202 bytes
Observe that the standard deviation of usage for PPPoE users on this network is 6 GIGS.

TOTAL USERS: 1328
Observe that the total number of PPPoE users on this network is 1328 users.

USERS BELOW AVERAGE: 1003
Observe that the number of users who are below the average bandwidth usage is 1003/1328 of the users.

USERS ABOVE AVERAGE: 324
Observe that the number of users who are above the average bandwidth usage are 324/1328 of the users.

MEDIAN USER: 1004 of 1328
Observe that the median user in this network is number 1004 of 1328 users.

TOTAL USED: 4,376,569,950,209
Observe that the TOTAL bandwidth used by ALL of these users is 4,376 gigs this month.

Now observe the number one users on this network:

kbean used 87,058,300,814 bytes of bandwidth for a total usage of 0.0198 (1.98 percent) of the total bandwidth used on this network this month. That is much better than last month when the heaviest user used 260 gigs of bandwidth.

Any idiot who suggests that bandwidth hogs don't exist, is exactly that, an idiot.
Porkroller
join:2002-01-31
Grosse Ile, MI

Porkroller

Member

Re: ... Does not Exist ....

MEDIAN USER: 1004 of 1328
Observe that the median user in this network is number 1004 of 1328 users.
No, this cannot be correct. The median is by definition is the middle value in some distribution. It divides the sample into two equal pieces. In your case, the median would be the mean of users 664 and 665 because you have an even number of users.

Maybe you meant to say tat the MEAN user is 1004 of 1328?

ogar
join:2001-12-05
Ephrata, PA

ogar

Member

60 gigs

I have 15/2 service through blue ridge and have been forced to get a second account becuase they think 60 gigs is being a hog.
250 I WISH

AnonDOG
@kaballero.com

AnonDOG

Anon

Hell yeah, lets kick the ISPs asses.

First, by definition, by math, average means average. If a network pulls X gigs per month and has Y users. The AVERAGE is X/Y gigs per month.

Some say, well ISPs dont pay for bandwidth used, they pay for pipe size. That is half true. We pay for a CIR (committed information rate). We pay for N M/Bit/Sec guaranteed. We pay for bandwidth that we DO NOT USE. What that means to ME, to an ISP, is that I am not loosing money until that PIPE is 100% full, 100% of the time. If I have a user that is pulling ten percent of that pipe, and the pipe is at 99 percent, I don't give a damn about that 10 percent user. As SOON as I go to 100 percent, the most interesting user to me is that 10 percent user, for obvious reasons.

At this ISP we have ALWAYS had a policy of allowing any user to take as much bandwidth as he can use so long as he is not the user pushing the capacity of the network above 100 percent. Sadly there are tons of people, who use the network or who have even worked on it, who think they understand bandwidth utilization, when if actual fact, they only understand that they don't want to be the one who is sucking down 2 percent of the bandwidth on a network that has 1500 users...

And they probably aren't that user. My experience tells me that the poor moron who is doing that is not particularily savy at all. He is the guy that decides to download three copies of a movie every time he wants a movie because he does not want to have to restart his download everytime the Internet farts. He is not the network savy user who is terrified that he might come up against some network cap.

Well, talking to the pseudo network savy is kind of like talking to an Obama freakin' liberal. All hysterics, and very little reason.

Why do I bother?

technologiq
EU2251
join:2000-08-08
Reno, NV

technologiq

Member

The phone line analogy....

AmigoBoy - your analogy using phone service is perfect!

Last time I checked, AT&T sells me unlimited local service. I have several CLECs providing phone service in my area that AT&T will happily allow me to talk all day long and all night long.

Never has AT&T called me and said 'sorry - you can only talk for 90 minutes and then you're done'

Back to the days when I ran a BBS. I had phone lines that I was paying $15/mo for and they were tied up all day long. Same with when I had dial up internet - it would be connected for days on end without complaint.

There is one reason, and one reason only for caps. To make money. Someone saw an opportunity and took it. I'm so tired of people advocating bandwidth caps and justifying it with network usage.

Riddle me this:

AT&T sells me a 12mbit U-Verse line for $55/mo with a 150GB cap. They charge me $1/gb overage.

Now, shouldn't it be reasonable that if I use 300GB that I pay $110/mo? Instead I would pay $205/mo.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy

Member

Re: The phone line analogy....

said by technologiq:

Last time I checked, AT&T sells me unlimited local service. I have several CLECs providing phone service in my area that AT&T will happily allow me to talk all day long and all night long.
I remember getting "all circuits are busy." Especially days such as Mother's Day.

Mark

technologiq
EU2251
join:2000-08-08
Reno, NV

technologiq

Member

Re: The phone line analogy....

But were you charged more when you got through?
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned)

Member

and this is why my 100megabit lan costsme no money at all

yea know if they build all this gably gook yack tech talk is BS

fact
BCE wanted to offer everyone 3 year ocntract for 5 megabit unlimited
why then a year latr did they breech everyone?

taped phone calls state 30gb avg user
now its 60GB
is that telling anyone something

that means if thre are 100 - 10GB users
that then means there was 100 users using 110 GB
avg 60
so lets screw half the users and cap them
then lets make htem pay for what they originally did
and if by chance bandwidth increases as much as it was and prolly will we'll user based billing them

this is easy grade 3 math people and its BAD BUSINESS
page: 1 · 2 · next