page: 1 · 2  |
 brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | Wow How can consumers value from these statistics? | |
|  | 
Jim Gurd
Premium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI | Re: Wow And how much of that bandwidth is spam? | |
| | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Wow said by Jim Gurd  :And how much of that bandwidth is spam? Spam is an infitesimal amount of consumed bandwidth. It is a huge part of email traffic, but email traffic is a very small part of overall ISP traffic.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | | 
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| Re: Wow said by TK Junk Mail :said by Jim Gurd :And how much of that bandwidth is spam? Spam is an infitesimal amount of consumed bandwidth. It is a huge part of email traffic, but email traffic is a very small part of overall ISP traffic. True, but think about the fact that most spam is now sent from 0\/\/n3d or trojaned PC boxes running windows - the owner of the PC does not even now their machine is spewing spam.
I think in *SOME* cases, some of these "hogs" could actually be zombied PC's, spewing spam as fast as the outgoing pipe will allow.
Are they using much more upstream than downstream? If so, they might be zombies. | |
| | | newyorkslick
join:2001-12-19
Rosedale, NY | I don't think very much. Even though there is a crapload of
spam, BT downloads makes up most of it, and I can assume 1/3rd of those BT downloads are porn. | |
| | | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Wow said by newyorkslick :I don't think very much. Even though there is a crapload of spam, BT downloads makes up most of it, and I can assume 1/3rd of those BT downloads are porn. Given that porn has driven the growth of the Internet even since the beginning (whether people want to acknowledge it or not), it wouldn't be surprising that at least 1/3 of the hogged bandwidth was porn.
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis | |
| | 
BIGMIKE
"I do not know with what weapons World W
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA | Bandwidth hogs = JOB SECURITY | |
| | 
kyramilan
join:2006-11-26
Pensacola, FL | 5% of users (aka "bandwidth hogs") generate 45.3% of traffic (which are mainly porn downloads). So 5% are basically perverts and the 40% lite users have girlfriends? Yep!  | |
| | | BVT
join:2004-10-25
Mount Juliet, TN | Re: Wow Any real man can juggle a porn habit and a girlfriend or wife. | |
| | | | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Wow said by BVT :Any real man can juggle a porn habit and a girlfriend or wife. What's a lot tougher is juggling a porn habit and a girlfriend and a wife.
--
Go Colts | |
| | bbskeptic
join:2005-09-12
Burlington, VT | It's all BitTorrent and P2P apps. | |
| 
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK
edit:
January 29th, @01:52PM
| and 100% of this survey is stupid Who cares? I find it offending that people who actually USE what they pay for are considered "hogs"
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" | |
| |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: and 100% of this survey is stupid said by inteller :Who cares? I find it offending that people who actually USE what they pay for are considered "hogs" How about the people who design and manage ISP networks. They care a great deal about this info because it has a direct effect on their design changes and on infrastructure expenditures.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | |
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | Re: and 100% of this survey is stupid They should just be happy not all their customers are "bandwidth hogs"
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" | |
| | | | Tikker_LoS
join:2004-04-29
Regina, SK
·SaskTel Saskatchewan
| Re: and 100% of this survey is stupid said by inteller :They should just be happy not all their customers are "bandwidth hogs" ok, sparky!
having an idea of the profile of your customers lets you build out your network accordingly | |
| | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: and 100% of this survey is stupid said by Tikker_LoS :said by inteller :They should just be happy not all their customers are "bandwidth hogs" ok, sparky! having an idea of the profile of your customers lets you build out your network accordingly And letting your customers continue developing their customer profiles to continue developing your network stinks, right?
It stink being in a business where customers can't be pegged to a static demand...makes sense that the industry keeps consolidating and migrating toward a TV model! | |
| | | | |
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| said by Tikker_LoS :said by inteller :They should just be happy not all their customers are "bandwidth hogs" ok, sparky! having an idea of the profile of your customers lets you build out your network accordingly BS holdover idea from telco style engineering.
Problem is, ISP's think they can oversubscribe an IP data network the way you can with a circuit switched telco network.
Wrongo. (at least IMO)
With IP data networks, given how cheap the darn hardware is (specifically high end ethernet swicthes that do layer 3 at wire speed) one can and IMO SHOULD assume 100 utilization for each and every user, and design accordingly.
Ya, you CAN oversubscribe, and MOST users (ie: people that think the web and the internet are the same thing) won't notice much of an issue.
But when my ISP starts telling me a 10% packet loss is "normal and acceptable" - then I gotta big problem with their design.
If the networks *I* designed at $dayjob had even 1/10th of 1 percent packet loss, I'd be called to the carpet pretty quickly.
Just my 2 cents. | |
| | | | arck1969
join:2006-11-27
Apple Valley, CA | Imagine using what you pay for, and being punished for it. Now that is business. | |
| | | | 
Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
| said by inteller :They should just be happy not all their customers are "bandwidth hogs" Consumer-grade networks are designed and more importantly, sold, based on every customer NOT being a bandwidth hog. If every customer used 100% of their service 24/7/365, we wouldn't be paying $20/month for DSL or $40/month for cable. It's no different than the dial-up days when there was a 20-25% rule on number of incoming phone lines vs number of customers.
--
This is my .sig. I like it bold. | |
| | | | | 
TechSponge
join:2001-05-14
Hillside, NJ
| Re: and 100% of this survey is stupid Thanks for that Tidbit...I was waiting for you to come along.
You are correct...we wouldn't be paying $20/month for DSL or $40/month for cable or what I pay for their "business versions" of $120/mo and $140/mo. It would be more like $8/mo, $15/mo, $65/mo, and $73/mo Respectively. Think about it.
Also begs the question. If I am a TV Sub where TV is delivered via IP. Am I going to be considered a Bandwidth Hog if I leave 2 or 3 TV's on 20 hrs a day, but only use Internet data for Email and Web purchases? | |
| | | | | | Tikker_LoS
join:2004-04-29
Regina, SK
·SaskTel Saskatchewan
| Re: and 100% of this survey is stupid said by TechSponge : If I am a TV Sub where TV is delivered via IP. Am I going to be considered a Bandwidth Hog if I leave 2 or 3 TV's on 20 hrs a day, but only use Internet data for Email and Web purchases? nope
the bandwidth that ISP's generally care about is the stuff clogging the big transit pipes between providers
the stuff that just flows on their own self contained network is just the cost of hardware (not hardware, plus transfer fees, plus redundant external links, etc etc)
there's generally lots of bandwidth on an ISP's network, it's just the pipes that link the ISP's together that has the bottleneck AND the highest cost to maintain | |
| | | | | | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | Re: and 100% of this survey is stupid don't forget only a foolish isp would think that the number of "hogs" is not going to increase.
These stats are meaningless | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Tell us why the customer cares about how the business model is developed?
Last time I checked, Frito Lay didn't tell me that I had to buy two bags of chips because they priced it at 99 cents per "Big Bag" if I buy 2, with the presumption that I'd buy 2
bags.
Bringing it back to DSL...last I heard from Ed Whitacre,
us DSL customers are only buying bandwidth to the terminal.
(too lazy too find the quote, but DSL subs can certainly
check their contracts with their telephone company ISP
affiliate).
In summary, why does anyone care about the business plan?
I was educated to believe competitive markets meet the need of customers, never heard of customers caring about the the business plans of the competitors. | |
| | | | | |
Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
| Re: and 100% of this survey is stupid said by xsiddalx :Tell us why the customer cares about how the business model is developed? Part of their business plan includes "how much will we charge customers and still make a profit ?". If they designed their model based on each customer using 100% of their plan's ratings, 24/7/365, the network guys would have to build a much larger network. That costs more... The accounting people say "we need to make a min "X" % profit, per customer, per month". The sales/marketing people say "50% of our customers are willing to pay no more than "A" dollars per month. 40% will pay "B" dollars per month. 10% will pay "C" dollars per month." If they run the numbers and can't make the req'd profit, they walk away and not offer the service.
--
This is my .sig. I like it bold. | |
| | | | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: and 100% of this survey is stupid I completely understand what you are saying, but you didn't answer my question. Why does the customer care about any vendors business plan? I have yet to have a discussion about shopping with anyone that has ever declared "well, that's their business plan, so I'll go with the their higher price, higher restrictions, etc..".
said by Hall :said by xsiddalx :Tell us why the customer cares about how the business model is developed? Part of their business plan includes "how much will we charge customers and still make a profit ?". If they designed their model based on each customer using 100% of their plan's ratings, 24/7/365, the network guys would have to build a much larger network. That costs more... The accounting people say "we need to make a min "X" % profit, per customer, per month". The sales/marketing people say "50% of our customers are willing to pay no more than "A" dollars per month. 40% will pay "B" dollars per month. 10% will pay "C" dollars per month." If they run the numbers and can't make the req'd profit, they walk away and not offer the service. | |
| | | | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: and 100% of this survey is stupid said by xsiddalx :I completely understand what you are saying, but you didn't answer my question. Why does the customer care about any vendors business plan? I have yet to have a discussion about shopping with anyone that has ever declared "well, that's their business plan, so I'll go with the their higher price, higher restrictions, etc..". You don't worry about the business plan. You worry about whether you think the price is fair for the service rendered. If it is, you pay it. If it isn't, you take your business to a competitor offering a lower price, or you do without.
The business plan determines whether they can make a profit, or not. If they can't sell the service at a price the customer will pay, and still make money, they won't offer the service.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | |
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| said by Hall : Consumer-grade networks are designed and more importantly, sold, based on every customer NOT being a bandwidth hog. Exactly the problem, IMO.
If every customer used 100% of their service 24/7/365, we wouldn't be paying $20/month for DSL or $40/month for cable.
Initially, no. And I would have no issue with that. I spend $150 a month for my broadband connection at home for "business class" service, which still sucks performance wise, because at the edge, it shares the network with the consumer customers.
It's no different than the dial-up days when there was a 20-25% rule on number of incoming phone lines vs number of customers.
No, it IS different, beacuse people didn't leave dial up connections up all the time. Broadband, on the otherhand, IS left up all the time by most people. | |
| | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: and 100% of this survey is stupid said by sweintz :No, it IS different, beacuse people didn't leave dial up connections up all the time. Broadband, on the otherhand, IS left up all the time by most people. That doesn't mean that it is used all of that time that it is left up. I am rarely actually accessing anything on the Internet more than a couple of hours a day. Who has time to access the Internet 24/7/365? You have to eat, sleep, and procreate!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | |
Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
| said by sweintz : If every customer used 100% of their service 24/7/365, we wouldn't be paying $20/month for DSL or $40/month for cable. Initially, no. And I would have no issue with that. I got DSL not long after it first became available in my area. $50/mo was the low-end price and I wouldn't do it... Mindspring ran a promo for $40/mo and I jumped. I paid $40-50 for years and understood that early adopters pay more. Now I pay $17.99 for 2x the speed I had then.
It's no different than the dial-up days when there was a 20-25% rule on number of incoming phone lines vs number of customers. No, it IS different, beacuse people didn't leave dial up connections up all the time. Broadband, on the otherhand, IS left up all the time by most people. You took my analogy to literally. I was referring to the concept of what some call "oversubscribing". Fact is, I used a local ISP for a number of years and I was online daily, numerous times a day. In 3-4 years time, I honestly could count on one hand the number of times I got a busy signal. They used the 25% rule and it obviously worked excellent for them.
--
This is my .sig. I like it bold. | |
| | |
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN | The people who design and manage ISP networks already know that 5% of their customers generate X amount of traffic. They don't need a company who markets traffic shaping equipment to tell them that.
--
Go Colts | |
| | | | haplo2112
join:2003-05-12
Charlton, MA | Agreed. I fall under the HOG category, and resent the implication. I am only using what I am paying for, I have a 5/512 connection and I use my 56/512 connection. | |
| | | 
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
| Re: and 100% of this survey is stupid said by haplo2112 :I fall under the HOG category, and resent the implication. I am only using what I am paying for, I have a 5/512 connection and I use my 56/512 connection. Actually better for you is that the light users are subsidising your connection. You are using what you pay for + some of what they pay for. Excellent deal for you  , much better than the cost of a high bandwidth dedicated line.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
| | | 
Yauch
join:2005-06-24 | Umm...Yeah, you do realize that speed and volume are different forms of measurement right? | |
| | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by inteller :Who cares? I find it offending that people who actually USE what they pay for are considered "hogs" Actually, with most residential ISPs, you aren't paying for "bandwidth", you are paying for speed. ISPs plan network capacity on some usage averaging algorithm, and high bandwidth users knock those algorithms into the proverbial "Cocked Hat".
When you hit your provider's maximum bandwidth capacity, you kill the Internet for your neighbors. That's when your provider steps in with those Ellacoya boxes, and the like.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| 
notasdumbasyou
@comcast.net | Yeah, right SPAM = infinitesimal bandwidth usage Yeah those 100,000 SPAMS per hour per SPAMMER don't use any real bandwidth. And I won't cum in your mouth either...
Ferchrissake some people should BUY a clue. | |
| amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| I love the picture So, 5% of people actually use their connections to the max? Wow, that's a smaller amount than I thought.
I consider myself a light user these days, but from time to time I like to download large amounts of data, and it better darn well get there at top speed. Vongo, for instance, was able to download at about 1.1MB (yes, MegaBytes) per second on Cox's "normal" tier (now 7Mbps here I believe...).
As more people are using the 'net for more than email/text based communication, ISP's should plan for more users being "hogs" than they are now.
Gaming, yeah, that's not going to take a huge amount of data transfer. Video, gaming, voice (phone and in game chat), music, VPN, are all going to drive the next level of use. I'd bet these numbers are going to be flipped in 5-7 years time.
Better be ready.
Think 10 years from now with everything wanting a slice of connectivity, IPV6 enabling a plethora of otherwise "dumb" things being connected to the web, average households using WAY more things that rely on a fast and reliable connection.
...Who will "hogs" be then? You'd be abnormal at that point if you were NOT using enough of your connection. | |
| 
thender
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| Consider these people. "Oh, cool, I can get TV, internet, and phone in one package, and play youtube videos. Let's do it!"
Then they wind up watching three youtube videos a week, checking their email once a day, and IMing.
Why should power users suffer because statistics claim most people who use broadband would be fine on dialup? | |
|
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | easy ISP budget equation... buy as much bandwidth as you can afford. you can never have enough.
let some other fool pay for and read these statistics.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" | |
| | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: easy ISP budget equation... said by inteller :buy as much bandwidth as you can afford. you can never have enough. let some other fool pay for and read these statistics. No, the easy ISP budget equation would be to crack down on or terminate service for a very small minority of "bandwidth hogs" in order to avoid very expensive bandwidth upgrades.
If it came between a choice of spending a lot of money to upgrade or reducing bandwidth demands by around 30% by means of either losing or angering some 3% of their users, which do you think they'd do?
Like it or not it probably makes sense from an ISP / broadband provider perspective to avoid millions (or billions) of dollars in upgrades simply to provide bandwidth for 5% of their customers if they can avoid it. | |
| | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | Re: easy ISP budget equation... uhh thats 1 of 20 customers dude... | |
| | | 
aSic
Slutpuppy
Premium
join:2001-05-17
Wakulla, FL
clubs:
| said by dynodb :No, the easy ISP budget equation would be to crack down on or terminate service for a very small minority of "bandwidth hogs" in order to avoid very expensive bandwidth upgrades. If it came between a choice of spending a lot of money to upgrade or reducing bandwidth demands by around 30% by means of either losing or angering some 3% of their users, which do you think they'd do? Like it or not it probably makes sense from an ISP / broadband provider perspective to avoid millions (or billions) of dollars in upgrades simply to provide bandwidth for 5% of their customers if they can avoid it. Thoughts like this are why the FCC considers 200kbps to be "broadband". Thoughts like this are also why 4mbit cable links in the US run $50+ where 20-100mbit links run ~$20 elsewhere in the world. Thoughts like this are why we (the US) are at the bottom of the list for broadband penetration/average speeds.
Granted, this is the downside of living in a capitalist society, but hey... I just wish the providers would be a little less greedy. 
"Hogs" are a fact of life. This fact was made well known back in the dialup days when PPP and Trumpet Winsock were the new thing. If providers just built more robust networks with this fact in mind, rather than "acting surprised" (this "study" for example) when the hogs appear, the world of broadband would be much better for everyone.
If providers dont want to deal with hogs, thats fine, terminate them... but at least try to strike a balance by spending the "extra" on building out to cover more users that otherwise would be doomed to dialup forever..
Then again... capitalist society.. yadda yadda...
/end lack of sugar induced semi off-topic rant. Now back to your regularly scheduled news topic...
--
Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say. | |
| | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: easy ISP budget equation... Hogs are sort of defined by the business model...
When mom is calling aunti em for three hours a day..is she a "hog", or is the telco providing that service have a good business model...or poor if they wish to charge by the minute?
Residential bandwidth is quickly becoming the old fashioned telephone service, however, the telcos are gaining the cost reductions of packet switched services. Similar things are happening with the Cable Companies. Both are afaid of being disintermediated! | |
| | | | rayeger
join:2003-07-05
Warren, OH | I wonder.... How much internet traffic would be attributed to file sharing? But the figure they have come up with makes sense, with all the gaming and VOIP traffic that is going on now. | |
| | Jamuka
join:2005-06-06
| Re: I wonder.... Yea but what's interesting is that fact that they consider online gaming being a bandwidth hog. That may be true, but what do you expect? What else do they think people are going to do with their connections? Just email and pay $40-$50 a month for that? That's what we were doing 8-10 years ago. Different ballgame today. They better think ahead to the future because its only going to get worse. Do you hear me now Comcast? Fiber looks to be the future that can handle the bandwith. | |
| | | 
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | Re: I wonder.... fiber is great but can the isp's push the faster internet to everyone? can we look at it as if we are using a lot of bandwidth and it takes a shorter amount of time to transfer files then the bandwidth will be freed up quicker. | |
| | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: I wonder.... said by jgkolt :fiber is great but can the isp's push the faster internet to everyone? can we look at it as if we are using a lot of bandwidth and it takes a shorter amount of time to transfer files then the bandwidth will be freed up quicker. Not here, Qwest is the limiting factor for many of us. Xmission is providing faster service for those with UTOPIA (or, I am told, who are in one of the few Qwest 'Cherry' districts).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | 
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse Connect
·Teliax VOIP
·Speed Factory
 ·Cingular Wireless
| said by rayeger :How much internet traffic would be attributed to file sharing? But the figure they have come up with makes sense, with all the gaming and VOIP traffic that is going on now. Another report I saw on the Ellacoya data over on Light Reading said that HTTP (standard Web browsing, YouTube, etc.) was ~39% of traffic (with YouTube alone being ~2% of all Internet traffic), P2P was ~37%, and everything else (email, IM, gaming, VoIP, etc.) was the remaining ~24%.
-SC
--
said to me: "it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones"  | |
| | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by rayeger :How much internet traffic would be attributed to file sharing? But the figure they have come up with makes sense, with all the gaming and VOIP traffic that is going on now. Everything we do is file sharing.
I just participated in a "file" your shared and am sharing my file with you (with your copyrighted file).
Googleanalytics constantly shares files with most folks and most folks share their google cookie their random sites.
Every internet session generally includes file sharing for most folks. | |
| 
NJChris
PS3 Xbox ID Zzaz
Premium
join:2000-02-08
Pompton Lakes, NJ | % of bandwidth? But how much % of available bandwidth is taken up by that 5%? Just because they use 45.3% of the traffic doesnt mean they are maxing out their connections.
--
I know you're talking, but all I hear is Blah Blah Blah... | |
| | 
Kfedka
Premium
join:2005-05-06
Spokane, WA | Re: % of bandwidth? Well I know that I am one of those 5% "hogs" P2P all the way! | |
| | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: % of bandwidth? said by Kfedka :Well I know that I am one of those 5% "hogs" P2P all the way! Don't be surprised in a few years or sooner if ISPs go the satelite ISP way and cap you at 20 GB or less then throttle your bandwidth down to dail-up speed for the rest of the month. How's that sound? Or how about charging you for every GB you used over a certain amount? because that is where it's heading if you "bandwidth hogs" don't stop it.
Quit stealing shit. Get a job and PAY for stuff you should be paying for. If you |
|
|
|
5% of ISP Users Generate 45.3% of Traffic
