Users who Dugg This
MrGogu123abc
1573 Followers
adamcornor
162 Followers
kokorodreams
383 Followers
Sohaib Amir Malik
272 Followers
BeShirtHappy
13460 Followers
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12956 Followers
trdrstvApr 11, 2011
"Bandwidth caps seem like not a bad idea"
Really? What planet are you from? Bandwidth caps are a HORRIBLE idea. You pay for speed... you should be able to use as much bandwidth as your throughput allows.
quadeApr 11, 2011
I agree. There's no way in Hell bandwidth caps can be good for *anyone* except the ISPs' bottom lines.
tsuruchibrianApr 11, 2011
not true. see my comment below.
oldeggheadApr 11, 2011
The use of bad terminology really confuses this issue. It wasn't a "bandwidth cap" but a *throughput* cap [95gb, I believe he said it was]. And indeed he did exactly what you said: he used his bandwidth full-bore, and ran over his throughput cap.
trdrstvApr 11, 2011
ok, fine... *throughput* caps are a lousy idea.
oldeggheadApr 11, 2011
In part, you're right. As a meta-question, do you know of any other circumstances in which you can get unlimited use of a shared, limited resource with no 'cap'?
But the point is that you can't get throughput that isn't there, so if you can suck down your 500gigs a day, well, the capacity was there so what's the big deal -- you didn't take those bits of throughput from other users... except....
The problem is that one aspect of the way the Internet works is that its available-bandwidth is self-limiting [ask any gamer about how 'ping times' vary]. So what happens if the throughput-eating apps all fire up at the same time is that delays go up and *everyone's* effective bandwidth goes down which doesn't make anyone happy (a friend says his DSL line gets bad enough on busy evenings that he can't even do YouTube without stuttering). So in a funny way *bandwidth* caps make more sense: when there are lots of apps competing for bandwidth everyone goes more slowly and so it is in everyone's interest to get the non-time-sensitive apps to run at some other time.
Or, looking at it from the other side of the cable modem, it is crazy/stupid to have to have (and pay for, of course) an OC12 so that for five hours a day EVERY throughput-gobbling app can run at full speed at the same time and then have that really fat line sit largely idle for the rest of the day. From a financial standpoint, it makes a lot more sense to be able to get by with a less-fat pipe (you realize that fat pipes get expensive, yes?) that will still be fat enough to meet your customer's total *throughput* requirements, but might be a bit not-fat-enough during very busy times. From that point of view, varying bandwidth-caps make sense [and indeed, can be mitigated with money: a less-costly connection might be bandwidth limited during "prime time" (maybe you can only watch ONE HDTV feed during prime time, rather than four with another two torrents going at the same time) but can go-crazy during off hours; if you absolutely must go full-bore 24/7 they can offer you a more expensive connection and they can offer lots of other mixes].Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Apr 11, 2011
" As a meta-question, do you know of any other circumstances in which you can get unlimited use of a shared, limited resource with no 'cap'?"
First, your statement implies you think one can "use up" the internet. This is not possible. One can only use up available bandwidth.
Second, in the late 90's US telcoms knew that bandwidth was going to be an issue, and petitioned the US government for money to enhance the infrastructure. They were granted over 900 billion dollars to do so. They did not. Any problems they have keeping their users supplied are THEIR problem, and no-one elses. The end users ALREADY PAID to have this infrastructure, in the form of taxes. It's THEIRS.
" So in a funny way *bandwidth* caps make more sense: when there are lots of apps competing for bandwidth everyone goes more slowly and so it is in everyone's interest to get the non-time-sensitive apps to run at some other time."
Except that would only occur in situations where the company has 'oversold' their product. If they have connections for 40,000 residential customers, and actually have 80,000 consumers, the proper solution is to ADD MORE INFRASTRUCTURE, which they were ALREADY PAID TO DO.
oldeggheadApr 11, 2011
On (1), you're right, you can't really "use it up", but the shared limited resource is the 45Mb/sec that is available on my T3. It is a finite pie and as more and more people attempt to use it each gets a smaller and smaller piece.
Your business plan is a bit naive, IMO. The problem isn't "connections" [whatever that means in this context] but capacity. If they have an actual throughput-need that could be satisfied [on a long term basis, say by-month or something] by a T3, but for two hours a day they have bandwidth demands that would require an OC12, what, exactly, would you do? When you're not paying the bills [and expecting ridiculously low connection fees], it is easy to say "just put in the OC12 and make everyone happy", but in the real world it isn't so easy. Obviously they can't large-scale smooth their data demands, and so squeaking by with a T3 won't work... but just how big a pipe DOES make sense? And then there's the charging problem: when 20% of your customers account for 80% of your capacity needs, how do you set up both a fair charging scheme and a fair bandwidth allocation scheme?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tsuruchibrianApr 12, 2011
Even if ISP executives STOLE money from my wallet last night, it doesn't change the fact that every network has finite capacity and that SOME form of usage limits are necessary.
You need to cap bandwidth, or throughput, or some combination of those to ensure minimum quality of service regardless of how s**tty or how awesome your network is.
You could say "All Ferrari dealerships are crooks, and that's why their cars are so expensive". While they may be crooks, that is not the real reason their cars are expensive. No amount of legislation is going to make a Ferrari cost $10K.
If the ISPs scammed us. Fine, put them in jail. That doesn't solve our network quality of service problems.
Whether the bandwidth is 1 bit per second or 1 Tb per second there will always be the question of how to fairly divide whatever capacity exists.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Apr 12, 2011
"On (1), you're right, you can't really "use it up", but the shared limited resource is the 45Mb/sec that is available on my T3. It is a finite pie and as more and more people attempt to use it each gets a smaller and smaller piece."
And basic network management skills involve partitioning out your bandwidth in equal USABLE parts to each end user. Which IS covered by your contract. The question is why are YOU so certain that someone is forcing them to take on bandwidth requirements they are structurally unable to meet without destroying QoS?
"Your business plan is a bit naive, IMO. The problem isn't "connections" [whatever that means in this context] but capacity."
They WERE PAID TO EXPAND CAPACITY ALREADY. IT WAS SUBSIDIZED FIBER LAID YEARS AGO, AND NONE OF IT HAS BEEN LIT YET.
Why is this so hard to understand? They have been paid to provide an infrastructure, they instead pocketed record bonuses and ignored the situation, confident that when it came up again idiots will have forgotten that there never should have been an issue in the first place. They are trying to get paid three or four times for the same product. THAT IS FRAUD.
" And then there's the charging problem: when 20% of your customers account for 80% of your capacity needs, how do you set up both a fair charging scheme and a fair bandwidth allocation scheme?"
Network allocation and bandwidth needs are neither hard to figure, account for, or project going forward with new technologies. You are missing the true point of these attacks on bandwidth.
The reason ISP's are so pissed is because with enough bandwidth, ALL of their other money making offerings (cable, phone, pay per view, movie channels, PORN channels, ect) are totally unnecessary, and they're trying to find ways to offset the reality that their content is neither needed, nor in many cases even wanted anymore. It's THEIR business model at fault, not mine.
dauntless1Apr 12, 2011
@tsuruchi
"Even if ISP executives STOLE money from my wallet last night, it doesn't change the fact that every network has finite capacity and that SOME form of usage limits are necessary."
Really? You have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER the real capacity of a fiber network of the type they supposedly built with that money was do you?
PROTIP: even if 80% of your customers, not 5 or 10 as the ISP's say, was pirating everything they could get their hands on, they couldn't max out a fiber node. Isn't going to happen.
"If the ISPs scammed us. Fine, put them in jail. That doesn't solve our network quality of service problems."
No it doesn't. Because with the way technology is advancing, and bandwidth needs evolving daily, the ONLY thing that will solve any problem whatsoever is MORE infrastructure. We will not solve any problems by moving backwards.
tsuruchibrianApr 12, 2011
@dauntless1
"Really? You have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER the real capacity of a fiber network of the type they supposedly built with that money was do you? "
So what are you saying?
That networks ISPs have already built is capable of going MUCH faster, and that they are intentionally making it slow as part of some massive conspiracy that spans all ISPs?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Apr 12, 2011
"So what are you saying?
That networks ISPs have already built is capable of going MUCH faster, and that they are intentionally making it slow as part of some massive conspiracy that spans all ISPs?"
No, I'm saying they were paid to provide such a network, and they have not. EVERY other issue is irrelevant. The issues wouldn't even exist if the infrastructure were in the shape WE PAID for it to be.
penglustApr 11, 2011
I have to fully agree with dauntless. I would also add that IPSs are implementing throughput caps as a first step to limiting the current idea of the internet for a tiered service with extra cost items taking precidence.
I have not idea why the government is not asking for their money back. It would make a hell of dent in the deficit.
dauntless1Apr 11, 2011
Exactly. Before we go to usage based ANYTHING, every ISP who took money needs to pay it back. With interest. IMMEDIATELY.
trdrstvApr 11, 2011
"In part, you're right. As a meta-question, do you know of any other circumstances in which you can get unlimited use of a shared, limited resource with no 'cap'?"
Sure, do you have a Verizon Wireless phone? As a test, how about I call you midnight May 1st while plugged in to my charger and we never disconnect until June 1st.
"So what happens if the throughput-eating apps all fire up at the same time is that delays go up and *everyone's* effective bandwidth goes down"
Then the ISPs need to either upgrade their infrastructure, or stop over selling their bandwidth.
tsuruchibrianApr 12, 2011
Would you pay $50 for 38KBps, if it never degraded?
Well that's what pricing is going to look like if ISPs don't oversell their bandwidth, because that's what kind of speed you are going to get if every single customer leaves bittorrent on 24/7.
This is not a rhetorical question.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Apr 12, 2011
@tsuruchibrian
That's bulls**t. They didn't have any problem making profits, sometimes RECORD profits, selling exactly what they're selling right now to fewer people in the past. And, with demand for data growing, their customer base is going nowhere but up. They have plenty of profit with which to upgrade their business for future productivity, which is business management 101. The question is why YOU don't think businesses should have to adapt to modern demand realities.
tsuruchibrianApr 12, 2011
@dauntless1
Did I ever say that businesses SHOULDN'T have to upgrade their infrastructure? I have no idea where you got that from.
I have been using the internet since 1995. It's hard not to notice the 500x speed increase that has occurred gradually since then.
II don't think the telecoms making profits is proof that throughput caps are bad. What I AM saying is that WHATEVER network capacity there is, the guaranteed bandwidth will be orders of magnitude lower than the typical bandwidth, if the network is being run efficiently.
This means severely overselling or severely underselling your product depending on what numbers you use.
I am talking about the merits of throughput caps vs. bandwidth caps. I am not defending particular ISPs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Apr 12, 2011
"Did I ever say that businesses SHOULDN'T have to upgrade their infrastructure? I have no idea where you got that from."
Um, from the multiple comments where you imply that users are the problem, when in actuality the ONLY problem is the lack of proper infrastructure investment on the part of the ISPs.
tsuruchibrianApr 12, 2011
@dauntless1
"Um, from the multiple comments where you imply that users are the problem, when in actuality the ONLY problem is the lack of proper infrastructure investment on the part of the ISPs."
I think I said in almost if not every single one of my comments that I am not referring to any particular ISP. I thought I made it abundantly clear that what I am talking about is fairly dividing bandwidth and charging for subscriptions regardless of how much is available.
I said numerous times that even the ISPs were perfect they would have to either bandwidth cap, throughput cap, or some combination of those. Regardless of how much bandwidth there is, it will be finite.
I was arguing that NOT doing some form of throughput capping is inefficient use of network resources
tsuruchibrianApr 11, 2011
You are ALREADY bandwidth capped regardless of which ISP you have.
Throughput caps are not a horrible idea. There is a limited amount of bandwidth on every ISP's network regardless of how nice or evil they are.
A simple way to determine bandwidth caps would be to take the whole bandwidth available to the ISP and divide it by the number of customers. This would ensure that the maximum bandwidth is never exceeded regardless of how much bandwidth any customer uses.
However, this is extremely wasteful of bandwidth because at any given time some % of people are not using their bandwidth.
Throughput caps allow your bandwidth to be higher than it would be otherwise, by allowing the your time of high bandwidth usage to be offset by the time you are not using your bandwidth at all.
If you don't want throughput caps, then you have to accept a lower bandwidth cap. We can;t use more bandwidth than exists in the network.
Sure the ISP can invest more money into bettering their network, but it's capabilities will always be finite.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
oldeggheadApr 11, 2011
I think you have the right idea but the wrong analysis. The calculation of bandwidth caps is mostly right, except that you overlook the fact that the comm links are self-limiting: if you try to demand more capacity than they have, delays appear and the effective-bandwidth for each customer goes down. The thing is that when that happens the mechanism by which the link limits the total instantaneous throughput through it isn't necessarily 'fair' [almost regardless of how you define "fairness" :o)]. Basically, everything will slow down and no one will be happy
But your statement about throughput caps is just wrong: there is, generally, plenty of throughput available, averaged over the whole day. What there is NOT enough of is throughput capacity at _specific_times_ and indeed, the very fact that the throughput-gobblers *GET* all the throughput that they do points out that those bits are there for to be used -- there just might not be enough of them during "prime time". So what you [the ISP] care about is _not_ imposing a (monthly) throughput cap [which, actually, doesn't help the ISP at all] but to provide incentives for people to use throughput at less busy times of the day (and night) and one way to do that is with tiered bandwidth caps. Throughput caps really never make sense.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tsuruchibrianApr 11, 2011
1. Whether you explicitly limit bandwidth per customer, or simply use a system which drops packets (effectively limiting bandwidth), I feel is a "difference without distinction".
2. I did not specify that throughput HAD to be measured per month, although this is generally the way it is measured. One could certainly conceive of a system with hourly throughput caps that change depending on the hour.
I was trying to illustrate the tradeoff between high instantaneous bandwidth and high continuous bandwidth.
It is true that people who leave their computers on bittorrent all day long are utilizing otherwise unused bandwidth, and there is no reason that data usage during these non peak hours shouldn't be cheaper, if we used a model that attempted to charge people based on some kind of estimation of actual cost of usage.
I think it makes sense to charge people the actual cost of their data usage, because it will incentivize more efficient bandwidth usage. In the same way that people program their appliances to use electricity at non peak hours because it's cheaper, I can imagine file sharers configuring their clients to run at full speed only on non-peak hours. The end result should theoretically be a generally more efficient network with time critical applications being more expensive but offering more reliable service, and non time critical applications used during times of otherwise low usage.
In fact rather than configuring applications to do this, maybe a smarter approach is for ISPs to support real time updates of network load/pricing and allow applications to turn on/off, throttle, etc, according to some "bandwidth management system" based on their criticality (i.e. p2p vs. youtube vs. voip/online games)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
oldeggheadApr 11, 2011
On (1) there is a BIG difference: if you limit bandwidth by dropping packets, then the 'pain' of the decreased bandwidth is "shared", whereas if you shape a particular user's line to have less bandwidth then only that user is affected. Example: imagine you signed up for service that ONLY allowed you enough bandwidth for one HTDV feed and assume [just for the moment] that the rest of the ISP's bandwidth was already committed. THEN: if I fire up a second HDTV feed, in the dropped-packet case EVERYBODY sees slightly degraded bandwidth. In the bandwidth limited case *only*I* see degraded bandwidth.
2) Most folk when they say "throughput caps' refer to the monthly caps [as per the OP, who had a 95gig/month cap] and mostly that really doesn't help. *maybe* you could somehow do real-time monitoring. Maybe even an auction if the user-side apps were smart enough: I have another 3.5 gig of bandwidth available, what will you bid me for it... Unfortunately, most data-hungry apps these days [VOIP, TV streaming, gaming] require not only throughput but also bandwidth [else delays and stuttering become a real hassle] -- p2p might be about the only common app that is throughput-hungry but not particularly bandwidth hungry :o)
It is nice, in theory, to talk about charging people what their bandwidth costs, but that's very hard to calculate. As you and I agree, 1 gig of throughput should be a lot more "expensive" at 8PM than it is at 4AM, but how to do that? Also, 5MB of steady bandwidth should be more expensive at 8PM than it is at 10AM. Monthly throughput caps certainly don't address that issue. I'm really not sure what wouldComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tsuruchibrianApr 12, 2011
1) I agree that dropping packets randomly is not fair because it advantages people who try to receive more packets. I was sort of assuming "fair" packet dropping without remembering that this requires some kind of basic per user throttling.
2) I think whatever "smart solution" we come up with, will not involve humans bidding on bits, because it's a waste of time.
I think the concept of auctions is a good one. I think ISPs could offer some kind of opt in service that "rewards" people for being frugal network users.
Something simple might be $1 off your bill for every day you manage to be under a certain throughput during peak hours, while non-peak hours incurs no penalty. Possibly additionally increasing the monthly bill to compensate.
People who use a lot of data everyday during peak hours would be paying the advertised price, while people with smart torrent applications would be getting a discount.
Nobody would pay "overage" charges. People *could* elect to refrain from bandwidth usage at critical times to receive discounts.
There is probably not a big real difference in "Lack of discounts", or "additional fees", but I think this is ultimately a perception issue that needs to be sugar coated for the masses.
I think consumers just need to become more sophisticated. They need to see "ISP X $60/month with possibility of discounts" as not necessarily worse than "ISP Y $40/month with possibility of overage charges" for their own benefit.
People already pay "variable" electricity bills based on peak hours, seasons, total usage, etc. So I believe they are capable of coming to grips with such a system. I think they ultimately understand the concept of sharing. ISPs just need to find a way to convince them that this is for the best.
At some point in time I imagine someone had to convince people that being charged per kilowatt hour was better than being charged a Watt-capped all-you-can-eat price for electricity.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Apr 11, 2011
@Tsuruchi
See my reply above.
ricksiteApr 11, 2011
If the telcos are going to play the bandwidth cap card, I think their customers should ask for credits when they don't use their allotted bandwidth.
dauntless1Apr 11, 2011
Also, the one big one that gets continually overlooked.
Every bit that comes through that pipe is my property. I better NEVER see another advertisement, tracking cookie, virus, spam message, spam e-mail, ect.
EVER.
tsuruchibrianApr 12, 2011
Makes sense to me.
If they gave you credits back each month proportional to how much you didn't use the network, would you be OK with the overages that happen in the months where you do go over, if it all evened out?
For whatever reason human psychology seems to favor "loss aversion"
(i.e. they psychologically prefer "not gaining $1" much more than "losing $1", even though by economic metrics they are equivalent.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
Would it make a difference you you if your yearly bill looked like this:
$40 * 12 = $480
or this
$60 * 12 = $720 - $240 (credits) = $480
or this
$20 * 12 = $240 + $240 (overage charges) = $480Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rblancarteApr 11, 2011
This article is exactly why bandwidth caps are NOT a good idea.
In the end, with all the content out there, bandwidth caps are pretty difficult to judge in terms of real need. Maybe you just "surf" the web. But what you don't realize is that YouTube starts to eat up your bandwidth quick. Have a netflix account? Expect to see more bandwidth go there. Etc.
This isn't like a phone where you can look at one or two bills and figure out your minute per month needs. No, it takes a lot more analysis to see what your real internet needs are. And most people don't have the knowledge to do that well.
tsuruchibrianApr 11, 2011
actually this article helps to illustrate exactly why BANDWIDTH caps (i.e. rather than throughput caps) , WOULD by really good.
If they were sufficiently bandwidth capped, there are no need for throughput caps (e.g. a 95Gb/month limit). You could not ever go over your maximum monthly throughput because your bandwidth capped limit wouldn't allow you to.
I actually think throughput caps are better than bandwidth caps because they allow your bandwidth to be higher, although they have the downside of allowing people to exceed their allotted throughput.
It seems like when most people complain about bandwidth caps they are really complaining about throughput caps, and LOW throughput caps in particular.
What if your throughput cap was not 100GB per month, but 1TB per month? or 10TB /month? Would it still bother you?
Would it bother you if you had no throughput cap at all, but your neighbor was using 10TB per month and you were only using 100GB/month but you were paying the same price?
Would it bother you if you had no throughput cap at all, but your neighbor was using 100TB per month and you were only using 100GB/month but you were paying the same price, and it was $20 more expensive to support your neighbors amount of usage?
I am not saying ISPs are not greedy. They are. But they are not greedy because they are using throughput caps. They can be just as greedy WITHOUT throughput caps by actually implementing stricter bandwidth caps. This is what ISPs do CURRENTLY.
This is not a debate about whether ISPs should cap you. This is a debate about whether ISPs should bandwidth cap you or throughput cap you. You must choose which one you would rather have. You can't have no caps. It's just impossible because their is finite network capacity.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
MSaltmarshApr 11, 2011
I'm for bandwidth cap, if they can't support the services they are selling to customers they need to upgrade their network as they are then false advertising.
Seems to me like they are wanting to charge you more for less.
The main reason why i hate and always have hated cable connections. There is no real QOS they do some throttling but each and every connection at least to the T3 should be dedicated.
Then if the customer doesn't like the speed they are receiving they upgrade and pay more for faster speeds.
To me it sounds like they are trying to have us all take random stabs at how fast we get because we are all sharing the same pipe, then charge us for how much we get. Where is the quality in that?
I don't care if it's slower i'm putting my money where my mouth is. Unlimited will get my money every time.
If that goes away in the private sector well f-em i'll just pay for the public option.
tsuruchibrianApr 11, 2011
Simple Bandwidth capping (i.e. to ensure constant bandwidth at all times) is very inefficient.
There would be tons of bandwidth wasted essentially for the reason of "Everyone might try to use the internet in the next moment all at the same time." even though we KNOW this is not going to happen.
Even during peak hours, some predictable percentage of the customers will not be online.
So how best to use this bandwidth? well it would just be stupid not to give it to people rather than wasting it.
Rather than viewing at as "sometimes your bandwidth is worse" you could view it as "sometimes your bandwidth is better". Maybe ISPs could be forced to advertise MINIMUM bandwidth instead of bandwidth during off peak hours, and people could treat an extra bandwidth as a bonus.
MSaltmarshApr 12, 2011
...OR..... the isp's could update their networks to be somewhere around europe yet alone japan.
I'm paying for a dedicated pipe, why would i want worse service then i have right now.
Everything is becoming web based, why would you want to pay more to view more pictures or movies. The bandwidth is only going to get faster and the quality is going to get better of video, pictures, music. Which we might have to pay for might not depends on who you are getting it from.
But still why pay more..?
As well it's not wasting, it's not like it's going to run out.... that just doesn't make sense.
tsuruchibrianApr 12, 2011
If ISPs updated their networks. They would have to pass those costs on to customers through higher rates.
But even if the ISPs could upgrade their networks for free, we'd be having this same discussion. Instead of throughput caps at 95GB per month we'd be talking about throughput caps of 950GB per month.
When I am talking about wasting bandwidth, I am talking about having bandwidth go unused. Like how throwing food in the trash is wasting it. The food isn't going to run out, we can always make more. It is a less efficient use of time, energy, resources to throw away food and regrow it even if you can.
Bandwidth can be used efficiently and inefficiently. Having everybody get on the internet to do their VOIP sessions with their foreign family members, and play video games, youtube, watching video on demand, and have all your bittorrent running all from 6pm -10pm, and having s**tty quality of service, while the internet goes unused during the day is inefficient.
Yes we could just pay for better equipment (and are), but regardless of how good the equipment is, there will always be more and less efficient ways of using bandwidth.
Unlike food and electricity bandwidth, internet bandwidth is elastic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand
If food becomes 100 times cheaper, we won't consume 100 times as much food.
The cheaper bandwidth becomes, the more we consume it. Our videos become higher resolution with higher frame rates. The internet starts becoming used for more things like telephone calls, and video conferencing. We start streaming entire movies via netflix in HD.
The internet has got to be more than 1000x faster than it used to be. Did that satisfy our desire for higher bandwidth? Nope.
If we get more bandwidth we will find a way to use it all and we still have the problem of how to fairly divide this resource.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
MSaltmarshApr 12, 2011
@tsuruchibrian
Actually the feds are paying them to upgrade their networks. So yeah for free.
The only loss is power, power being wasted, which could be done by using power saving tech, it powers down when it's not being used.
The next step in networks is multi-spectrum fiber running IPv6, the current way it is divided isn't what i would consider fair, but unlike some people(not saying you) i honestly wouldn't mind paying more in taxes for a baseline internet then paying more for faster.
I'm afraid at this point i don't understand your point.
Very little power is used to power the current networking we are using and over time it will only become more and more efficient.
You seem to be suggesting it needs to be more efficiently used but what for? It isn't hurting my bottom line? And quite frankly it isn't hurting the isp's bottom line either.
They already get away with a lot of stuff other markets are regulated against, and they really don't offer a service that i think is worth what they are charging.....
dauntless1Apr 12, 2011
"Bandwidth can be used efficiently and inefficiently. Having everybody get on the internet to do their VOIP sessions with their foreign family members, and play video games, youtube, watching video on demand, and have all your bittorrent running all from 6pm -10pm, and having s**tty quality of service, while the internet goes unused during the day is inefficient."
YOU'RE RIGHT! I should quit my job so I can be at home during the day, using internet when I'm told, to measure up to some meaningless and useless metric of efficiency that doesn't even APPLY to the situation at hand. BRILLIANT!!!
tsuruchibrianApr 12, 2011
@MSaltmarsh
I am NOT defending ISPs actions. I am saying that throughput caps are a more efficient than bandwidth caps.
I am trying to convince people that just because the ISPs are doing throughput caps that it automatically means they are bad.
Nazis did rocket science. That doesn't mean rocket science is bad.
I am saying that throughput caps if done correctly make networks more efficient. They help to prioritize traffic.
So forget about ISPs for a second. Lets say the government was running the internet. They can pay for whatever upgrades the people want. Whatever network resources we have, we should not waste by having simple bandwidth caps that ensure everybody gets 1Mpbs (or whatever bandwidth) all the time. This is inefficient because 90% of the time the network is not at full capacity.
Ideally we WANT people doing bittorrent in off peak hours at BLAZING speeds, because otherwise this bandwidth is just wasted.
The cost of new equipment is now coming out of tax money. So any wasteful use of new infrastructure is coming out of our (tax payer pockets). Whatever amount of capacity we have it we should use it intelligently.
@dauntless1
"YOU'RE RIGHT! I should quit my job so I can be at home during the day, using internet when I'm told, to measure up to some meaningless and useless metric of efficiency that doesn't even APPLY to the situation at hand. BRILLIANT!!!"
You're an idiot. Read what I actually said.
People using bittorrent do not need to be at home to use their internet. Just like people don;t need to be at home to have their appliances use electricity during off peak hours.
Stuff that doesn't NEED to happen during peak hours (i.e. stuff you don;t need to be at home for), should be happening during off peak hours, because it is more efficient.
MSaltmarshApr 12, 2011
@tsuruchibrian
“I am NOT defending ISPs actions. I am saying that throughput caps are a more efficient than bandwidth caps.”
OK..
“I am trying to convince people that just because the ISPs are doing throughput caps that it automatically means they are bad.”
I don’t think that because ISPs are doing something it makes it automatically bad and most of the commenters I have read on here that expressed why they are against the caps also have well thought out reasoning.
“Nazis did rocket science. That doesn't mean rocket science is bad.”
Couldn’t decide if I wanted to say it was an apples to oranges comparison or just say, “Who said Nazis where bad?” lol either way.
“I am saying that throughput caps if done correctly make networks more efficient. They help to prioritize traffic.”
No QoS or dedicated lines make networks efficient.
“So forget about ISPs for a second. Lets say the government was running the internet. They can pay for whatever upgrades the people want. Whatever network resources we have, we should not waste by having simple bandwidth caps that ensure everybody gets 1Mpbs (or whatever bandwidth) all the time. This is inefficient because 90% of the time the network is not at full capacity.”
I’m not sure how I missed this before, but I think I finally understand what you are talking about.
Network efficacy works like this. You want to have your network utilization around 30% that would be ideal. But realistically the less that is utilized the better. The main reasoning behind this is if you hook two routers together on let’s say a 10baseT network. Those two routers will always be talking to each other, always. Now add two computers on either side of the network and have them just hook up no file transfer nothing else. Now all 4 devices will constantly be talking, stack that up to say 20 devices, hell all of the 20 workstations could be powered off but their NICs would still be talking to the rest of the network. At that point you are talking about maybe 8% to 10% utilization of the network. Now have them all transfer files to simulate say 90% like you’re talking about. The first thing you will notice is the number of dropped packets sky rocket, meaning it will take longer to transfer a file, and files that do get transferred will be way more likely to be corrupt, connections will be lost etc etc. You don’t want to ever, EVER have a network used at that rate because it then becomes inefficient to actually communicate across the network, speeds slow, packets drop, files corrupt. Basically what you are suggesting is to put the whole network in an environment rich with network collisions. That’s just using ipv4 no other protocols which more than likely will exist in the real world. It’s not wasteful at all you just have it backwards and I do see what you are saying. If ipv4 was the only protocol used and everything was statically assigned and there was no dns and if the routers/switches/hubs/wireless all did perfect communication and never dropped packets and if network collisions never happened I would agree with you 100%.
I’m really sorry if had realized what you were meaning I could have explained this to you a while ago, do you understand now?
tsuruchibrianApr 12, 2011
1. "No QoS or dedicated lines make networks efficient."
Throughput caps are a form of QoS. Just like bandwidth caps are a form of QoS. So yes I am talking about QoS.
2. "Now have them all transfer files to simulate say 90% like you’re talking about. The first thing you will notice is the number of dropped packets sky rocket, meaning it will take longer to transfer a file, and files that do get transferred will be way more likely to be corrupt, connections will be lost etc etc."
I think you are talking about situation with all computers running some kind of ethernet protocol on the same collision domain. The solution to this problem hasn't changed in decades. Limit the number of hosts on the same collision domain (preferably to 2) or increase bandwidth so the individual comms take less time (reducing the probability of collisions).
I am not saying we need to try for 100% network utilization to the point that we have 100% dropped packets. This is basically 0% utilization because no data is actually getting through. In any network there will be an optimum throughput (effective maximum throughput). TCP/IP does a great job of keeping network utilization close to this optimum level. TCP also does error checking and retransmission, so even with very high amounts of dropped packets, file transfers usually are not corrupted.
Also, usually when packets are dropped due to congestion, it is because packet queues in routers and switches become full, not from ethernet style collisions. Only network hubs have collisions. Switches separate each link (2 hosts) to it's own collision domain.
3. "If ipv4 was the only protocol used and everything was statically assigned and there was no dns and if the routers/switches/hubs/wireless all did perfect communication and never dropped packets and if network collisions never happened I would agree with you 100%."
Networking is layered. IPv4 (internet protocol v4) is the "network layer". Dns runs "on top of IP" The DNS queries and responses are all going to and from IP address using the IPV4 protocol.
Delaing with dropped packets is a part of the design of the internet. It is not the end of the world. Analyzing dropped packets is how TCP/IP throttling works. Even in a PERFECTLY working network, there will be lots of dropped packets. TCP/IP will gradually increase datarate until a loss event, and reduce data rate in a mechanism called additive increase multiplicative decrease. And it repeats this process over and over again. This allows TCP/IP connections to increase and decrease data rate as network conditions change.
4. I don't need you to "explain" to me how networks work. I am already fairly knowledgable on the subject. If you want to have a discussion thats fine.
tsuruchibrianApr 12, 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model
There is a table that describes which protocols are in which layer. Some people say there is 5 layer... some people say there is 7, but Layers 1- 4 are always the same. I for example never learned about presentation layer and session layer. All that stuff was lumped into the Application layer when I was first learning this back in like 2000.
And everything layer 5 and above is encapsulated in a layer 4 wrapper (tcp or udp), which is then encapsulated in a layer 3 (IP) wrapper then a layer 2 wrapper (ethernet, wifi), then it goes out on the physical layer (cat, fiber, wireless, etc) (layer 1).
Almost ALL traffic in the internet is IP traffic. There is some other stuff out there like ICMP, but IP traffic has got to be like 99.9% of traffic.
MSaltmarshApr 13, 2011
@tsuruchibrian
Sweet i was hoping i was wrong about your knowledge base, now that we can drop all the nonsense of layman's terms. You must understand i do fall back on "traditional" methods as solutions as they currently work.
It sounds to me that you have possibly a well thought out theory.
Please explain from a technological standpoint why is data usage QoS is more efficient then the current methodologies? How exactly are we wasting bandwidth when networks could be upgraded and will eventually have to be upgraded anyway because of latency issues. Couldn't the same effect be achieved by using a power saving methodology? As the only analog world loss i can think of would be power.
I'm very sorry if i came across as insulting that was not my intentions. :D
tsuruchibrianApr 13, 2011
I actually have a few different ideas that I think might work well seperately or together.
Small interval Throughput capping (maybye hourly?):
We need to incentivize people to use bandwidth during off peak hours where possible. The easiest way to do this is cost (similar to electrical grid). This might be very unpopular because people don;t like the idea of paying more for data at peak hours. But logically this would be the same as paying less for data at off peak hours, which I assume people would favor.
Monthly throughput caps as they are implemented now are stupid.
But If for some reason we wanted to keep monthly caps we could do this....
Your throughput cap, lets say 95Gb like the article, could be made to only affect your bandwidth during peak hours. There is no reason to charge people for going over. You can just throttle their speed and/or give them an option to pay extra to raise their cap. But there is no reason to enforce this cap during off peak hours. Having this kind of policy would incentivize people to do all their massive bittorrent traffic off peak (and currrent clients support this feature). "Data hogs" could turn off bittorrent from 6pm to 10pm and not affect their monthly throughput cap. This turns a monthly throughput cap into a monthly peak hour throughput cap.
If we are willing to ditch monthly throughput caps...
We can do hourly caps which would have different limits for peak and off peak hours. Imagine instead of being able to download 1Gb per hour, you had the option of downloading 1Gb in 1 minute, but were then forced to wait for an hour before downloading again. This may seem bad at first, but really it's better in every way. You can download things almost instantly if you want, OR you can spread it out over the whole hour. In either case you are still using 1 Gb per hour, but if we use throughput caps, you now have the option of downloading your 1Gb per hour all in the 1st minute. As long as not everybody tries to do a burst transfer at the same time, it will work. Not every application will benefit from this ability, but many will. 1Gb is just an example. THis number could be anything.
Really smart traffic management:
Once we get over our fear of per bit pricing (due to lower overall cost), we could have a base price like $5/month and then pay per bit after that, but the price of bits will be based on network congestion. Network conditions could reported to all consumers electronically via some new protocol that applications could monitor. You could give your OS specific rules like (try to stay under $30/$20/$10 / month) and it could schedule things when network usage is lower on something like a per minute basis. When the network is running under capacity, going full speed could be free.
The whole time price/bit should be dropping as technology improves. So even though it sounds like you are paying more, it CAN actually be more affordable if you use it right, or it can be blazing fast if you are willing to pay more money. These decisions could be made on the fly (not per month). So maybe you really want to watch a new movie during peak hours and you don't care about price, well then you can pay the $2 for a super fast transfer during peak hours and then go back to being ultra conservative and pay $7 for the month or something like that.
Nobody really likes the idea of having to download things like movies during off peak hours, but they wouldn't have to. They would have the option of saving a couple bucks every day by scheduling a download before going to school or work, and allowing to happen sometime during the day. Ultimately this will bring down prices that CAN be charged consumers (I make no guarantee that ISPs will actually do this).
Ideally we want to have uniform usage over the whole day. This is probably unrealistic, but the closer we get to that, the better everyone's internet experience will be and for less money.
ISPs:
You might say ISPs will never go for this, they only care about money. I am a computer science guy. If ISPs are so bad, voters should vote for government installed fiber optic, and then they can be their own ISP. Thats not a computer science problem and it's not as interesting to me. I suspect ISPs will certainly greedy will want to make their customers happy if it doesn't cost them that much more money, so I think parts of my plans should become desirable for ISPs.
penglustApr 11, 2011
I'd go one further. It can be argued that in today's world you cannot be competitive without network access. Just like roads the "information highway" provides basic infrastructure for pretty much all transactions in the modern world. I believe very much it should be under the control of the federal government with a line to every house in America.
Many countries now have this and their connects are orders of magnitude better that ours.
MSaltmarshApr 12, 2011
Yeah it is becoming one of those things where the telecoms might need to hand the networks back over to the govt so it can actually be upgraded, not this downgrade nonsense the private sector is talking about.
Or at least regulated, to push innovation.
I mean can you imagine an ISP trying to tell a major corporation that they are limited not only in their speeds but their data transfer amount LOL that's not going to happen.
ryokuchaaApr 12, 2011
I think what you were trying to say is, maybe I am not sure. But bandwidth caps are useless if it is all about their networks ability to handle their users.
Peak usage happens from between 6pm-10pm, not all day long. Having a cap is not going to change the amount of congestion during peak times. Upgrading your connection will amount to nothing, as the congestion is not happing at the users end, but at the providers end.
If providers really wanted to cut down on congestion during peak hours, there are plenty of more viable options out there then just throwing up a Cap and overages, which by doing just this they prove it has nothing to do with their QoS and everything to do with profits.
MSaltmarshApr 12, 2011
Yep, for example i have a VDSL2 connection i am paying for 12mb/s down and i always do 12mb/s down. When i had cable i was paying for 10mb/s down but around peek hours i did more around 1.5. The ISP told me that it was because of more users using the pipe and they provided speeds up to 10mb/s.
I know ISP's are hurting right now because they are losing users and they didn't lower prices to keep them, and in some cases, who knows how many for sure, people just lost their houses.
I know they are trying to convert people over to the methods they are doing with cell phones, but hopefully the feds will step in again, like with text messages, and say they can't provide service in that manner as it really doesn't cost them much of anything. I know because i could get unlimited everything on cricket for example on the phone for way cheaper then every other cell service provider.
How can they do it and survive?
I don't know maybe i'm missing something.
penglustApr 11, 2011
My neighbor using more bandwidth than I bothers me not in the least. That is what the internet is all about. Even asking the question violates his privacy.
tsuruchibrianApr 11, 2011
1. Do you care about your bandwidth?
2. Do you care about how much your internet access costs?
penglustApr 11, 2011
Yes and yes. I pay more to ensure this. If you are paying for a particular quality of service and you are not getting it it is not the fault of others on the network. It is the fault of the ISP. Start bitching to them.
I have been to a number of countries where bandwidth was simply not an issue. And they are paying much less (or nothing at all) than I am for their connections.
We have a government sponsored monopoly in most areas of this country and the ISPs are not providing a good product.
tsuruchibrianApr 12, 2011
ALL ISPs have caps. It is only a question of whether those caps are reasonable. I guarantee you there is no country in the world with infinite bandwidth.
When you say there are countries where "bandwidth is not an issue", what does that mean?
Does that mean I can download a 50Gb movie in 1 second?
Does that mean I can download 50Gb movies in 1 second, every second I am a customer?
No! Why not? Because regardless of how good or bad the ISP is, it is necessary to cap usage somehow to guarantee quality of service for everyone else.
The bandwidth and/or throughput caps are necessary. the only question is which kinds of caps are better, and what reasonable limits are.
When people hear "bandwidth cap" they immediately assume this is a cap they WILL be exceeding or trying to careful avoid.
Capping throughput on high usage customers frees bandwidth for other customers, regardless of whether the network is well maintained or badly maintained.
Even if ISPs were not greedy at all, they would still have to do this. The only question is how it can be done fairly and efficiently.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
penglustApr 12, 2011
My download speeds, as far as I can tell, are never regulated by my link to my provider. I have downloaded new Linux releases from Ubuntu, Suse and Redhat all at the same time. Starting and stoping one or the other makes no difference in the speed of any one of them.
As for you question about 50 Gig in a second. That is just plain silly. The net just does not work that way.
tsuruchibrianApr 12, 2011
@penglust
"My download speeds, as far as I can tell, are never regulated by my link to my provider. I have downloaded new Linux releases from Ubuntu, Suse and Redhat all at the same time. Starting and stoping one or the other makes no difference in the speed of any one of them."
the fact that those file servers are ALSO regulating your bandwidth TO THEM does not mean your ISP is NOT regulating your bandwidth.
Have you ever downloaded a new ubuntu release on bittorrent? If not, try it, and you will discover your ISP imposed download bandwidth cap.
"As for you question about 50 Gig in a second. That is just plain silly. The net just does not work that way."
50GB/s is speed. It is a speed that consumer grade internet access will one day meet and then exceed.
There was a time when 1200 BITS per second was considered fast and someone might consider the idea of downloading 50KB / second silly.
The fact that you are happy with your internet speed does not mean you are not capped.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
penglustApr 12, 2011
Of course they are limiting my band width. I contract for 10 Mbit per second. Just tested with their site and I was getting about 9.5. I am entirely satisfied with that. I can stream a number of things at the same time with the full speed the site I am getting if from allows. Why would I want more.
Yes speeds will grow. But I was satisfied the day I got my 300 baud modem with the data I could download at the time. There is more data today and I pay, actually a lot less per byte, for a line that will handle today's data. I cannot say I have been disappointed with 10 Mbit / sec. At my firewall box I can monitor the constant data throughput from the line into my house and have seen it maxed at close to 10 almost exclusively when I am running the speed to provider test.
I do thing that at $50 per month it is a little steep but I am willing pay for it because I enjoy the results.
I was not willing to pay $110 per month for cable TV that I barely used. It was a crappy service that left me channel surfing and turning the damned thing off in 10 minutes.
By the same token I hate my cell provider. To get a certain amount of service we pay $85.00 per month for a plan that allows us 800 minutes per month. We use less than 100 but there does not seem to be a better solution. I looked into getting smart phones. I was simply astounded at what it would have costed every month. For me it is just not worth the price either.
I am old enough I remember my parents complaining about the party line (telephone). But that is exactly how the cable internet companies work. As long as there were only a couple of people on the line then time sharing was OK. Get too many and nobody was satisfied. There is more than enough backbone fibre for most traffic. It is mostly that last mile to the house from you provider that sucks.
Again, if you are not happy with your internet provider and there is no other then start complaining. Only you and all the other customers can make a difference.
tsuruchibrianApr 12, 2011
@penglust
Ok let me give you an example of what I am talking about.
you have 10Mbps and are happy with it.
For the sake of simplicity lets say you and I are the ISPs only customers. We both agreed to 10Mpbs service from the ISP.
Lets say the ISP is good and they have 20Mbps to accommodate both of us perfectly.
Lets say we both try to download a 60Mb file at the same time. It takes 1 minute for each of us
Now lets say you start downloading a 60Mb file and I start 30 seconds after you. The most efficient solution is to give you ALL 20Mpbs for 30 seconds, then to give me ALLl 20Mpbs for 30 seconds.
We are technically still both throughput capped at 60 Mb / minute, but our bandwidth cap is now 20Mpbs instead of 10Mbps. This has resulted in us both getting our files twice as fast, using the same bandwidth as before.
That is more efficient use of the network.
ryanwbApr 11, 2011
This is taking me back to 1994 when I had to monitor how many minutes I was online because AOL would charge $1.99 for each hour you went over your allotment
dauntless1Apr 11, 2011
Exactly. ANY usage based bulls**t is a step backwards, and never do anything but harm more than it helps.
mrfrostyukApr 11, 2011
"and set a strong 64-character password".. That's not a strong password, its epic
snowgodApr 11, 2011
I'd rather they just move to full out 95th percentile if this is the direction they want to go. This is the worst of both worlds - you have no cost savings if you use less than the cap. But you have a penalty if you go over it.
dauntless1Apr 11, 2011
That's the point. Every single bit of reasoning the ISP's have laid out for this is utter lies. It's simply a way to gouge customers for more money without the company having to earn it.
seldon21Apr 11, 2011
These bozos are still living in the world that charged for processing time and metered every phone call.
What is wrong with a company making less profit. Do they not understand that if they push the profit side they will soon find themselves without customers!
graemeeApr 11, 2011
The latest version of uTorrrent has a bandwidth cap setting to prevent this.
Make sure you let your election candidates know that you do not support UBB, it just a money grab by the ISPs who own media companies. Find out how they stand on this and vote accordingly.
mtownApr 11, 2011
Better yet, just set your Utorrent max upload speed to something like 5-10kb
ryokuchaaApr 11, 2011
First off this has nothing to do with bandwidth caps. Securing your WAP and finding out someone left a torrent uploading does not make one a "network cop". I sure hope this guy is not in IT, it took him what sounds like at least two weeks to find the problem. In reality this isn't even a problem unless there are bandwidth caps.
It shouldn't require a bandwidth cap to force people in both securing and monitoring their network usage to find problems. By the end of the story this guy seems to be making bandwidth caps turn out to be some kind of hero to the story. Like without them he couldn't have practiced simple network security and monitoring. He needed his ISP to place data restrictions on him to give him a reason to care what is going on within his own network?
But then again this guy also admits his connection was used for content piracy, anime episodes, and defends it by saying the content is very difficult to obtain through legal means. So it is acceptable for your ISP to put data caps on you and piracy is acceptable as long as the content is hard to get through legal means. A veritable wealth of information and knowledge this guys is...
rentacoprantzApr 11, 2011
Some people seem to have a way to access your network even if you use a password, it´s the company job to improve the system, and bandwith caps aren´t the best idea.
largentApr 11, 2011
Disable broadcasting. Use WPA2.
mtownApr 11, 2011
The guy says he pirates anime because the "original japanese versions are very hard to come by"?
You're kidding, right?
dusanmalApr 11, 2011
Caps and pricing by "usage" are both nonsense. When I see cable companies charging for ACCESS to say, HBO and than separately charge people watching more of HBO more money, I'd say OK. But they'll never do so. Because same as in the case of Internet, what you pay for is access. Content is created once for all and is not spent by anyone seeing it. I do not see any cries from cable companies to charge those "evil" people watching HBO 24/7 for their atrocious "usage".
For resources that are actually spent, say electricity - charging for usage is reasonable and applies.Look at your electric bill: there is typically a small fee for access to the service, followed by amount of electricity you used which now electric company need to MAKE again, because it is gone.
oldeggheadApr 11, 2011
You mean gobbling up capacity on the carrier's comm links isn't "usage"? They don't have infinite capacity, you realize, yes?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Apr 11, 2011
No idea what a network actually IS, yes?
MSaltmarshApr 11, 2011
That's really not how networks work.
All digital cable service runs over TCP-IP and they stream mpegs. Most anyway, some might have changed over to Mp4 but i'm not 100% on it.
Anyway, when you hook up a customer and they pay for bandwidth you then have to setup how much bandwidth they can use at any one and given time. If you don't allocate the correct amount and over cell the space in the pipe then yes you run out of capacity. But that isn't the fault of the consumer that is the fault of the ISP.
Like if your cable tv service starts going in and out. It's possible that your cable provider has hooked too many people to the pipe and they need to upgrade their networks.
What they are talking about doing is not upgrading the networks removing the bandwidth throttle and making it free for all. And hoping that people will be too scared to use it too often.
What will end up happening will be what happens when cable first hits an area where the people had dial up.
There are slow times of the day where you don't get anywhere near the speeds you pay for because the network is way underpowered.
Now imagine that having to wait even longer then you do now for stuff and you have to pay for how much you use.
Yeah sounds like a great deal to me.
So long story short you can't gobble up the isp's capacity.
You paid for your portion of the pipe, if you don't get it or cause others to slow down, your not getting the service you paid for. It's the ISP's fault.
kyzzyxxApr 11, 2011
"Welcome to our broadband future."
So a company does something you do not like and you continue to give them money?! You (as in, anyone who chooses to do this) have brought this onto yourselves by continuing to use a greedy service and then you whine about it and then you say 'Welcome to our broadband future' like you have no choice! Well, you DO have choices! Quit your whining and stand up with those who don't just rollover. If you want to be a slave to the rich, go ahead. But quit your god damn whining about!!!
mikelanghorstApr 11, 2011
I wouldn't consider not having an internet connection a choice. At my location it's either: Comcast, AT&T U-Verse, AT&T DSL. There's really no difference in either of them. They both have the same cap, just one will now charge you for going over, while the other will simply disconnect you.
kyzzyxxApr 11, 2011
lol.. whatever!
sucker
dauntless1Apr 11, 2011
Congratulations on having no balls, brain OR any idea what you're talking about. Good day sir.
zbeastApr 11, 2011
My plan to deal with bandwidth caps is to cut extra services.
Drop those movie channels you don't watch.
Cancel features you don't need, like voice mail, caller id, that second phone line or even your land land line. Do you really need a land line if you have a cell phone.
If you didn't know already you no longer have to have a landlines voice line with your internet connection. Save that money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.