|
Nitr0 posted:Because NZ is maybe 700,000 square km and Canada is 10 million square km. That would be a valid point if the government wasn't paying for all the infrastructure to low-density areas in Canada. Really, the companies are only responsible for the network they have in densely populated areas. They made the exact same arguments when they held their cell phone monopolies and it was just as bullshit then as it is now.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
And Australia is 7.6 million square KM, also much of it uninhabited. What's your point, Nitr0?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:Because NZ is maybe 700,000 square km and Canada is 10 million square km. Yes because Canada has a very even distribution of population so it would be impossible to service everyone. Won't someone think of the poor oligopolies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:Because NZ is maybe 700,000 square km and Canada is 10 million square km. This is a stupid argument that the ISPs and Telcos always pull. (Along with Population density 3 people per square km!  )Most of the land mass of Canada is uninhabited. It doesn't have cell towers and copper in the ground. When you calculate the density of inhabited areas, it ends up being closer to 100 people per square km, pretty close to most other industrialised nations.  All that white space? Nobody lives there. They don't have to build out that area. Saying that the poor telcos have to deal with 10m. km2 of land is ignorance in its finest. less than three fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:The problem is you have absolutely no oversight into these networks so for you to sit there and say "Well the solution is simple, just build the network up" isn't a solution since you don't have any idea what it takes or what upgrades are required to deliver 25Mb/s unmetered to everyone like some people in here are demanding they get. You can be sure if everyone started running through hundreds of GB per month (which with current internet trends is getting to be pretty easy) you will see your congestion issues pop up really quickly. CONGESTION ISN'T CAUSED BY THE AMOUNT OF BANDWIDTH YOU USE, IT'S CAUSED BY THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE USING CONNECTIONS AT THE SAME TIME. That was the ENTIRE purpose of my little demonstration thing with the one guy who's always on and the 49 other people who are only on an hour a day! If he downloaded at full 5 megabits per second all the time except for the hour each day the other people were on, he could blow through 1.5 terabytes without causing any congestion. It's the 66 gigabytes he uses AT THE SAME TIME EVERYONE ELSE IS TRYING TO GET ON, that CAUSES the congestion! You can't fix congestion by instituting caps! It does nothing! And apparently the actual cost of delivering that guy 1.5 terabytes of data is something around $15 on the current system, but with the planned overages they'd charge him $1500 at least. It's a blatant loving cashgrab. Nitr0 posted:I agree the networks need to be overhauled to meet current and future demands. There needs to be some sort of government oversight to determine if these problems exist or if they're all made up by the large companies to make more money. They are ripping you off! Are there not people who just a few months ago had no caps and were easily going over a terabyte a month? Did a moose come and eat all the bandwidth between November and January? And it doesn't make any sense that Canada can't deliver reasonable internet service to its population when 85% of the country is either in a strip within 100 miles of the US border or in the Edmonton-Calgary corridor and the one or two other major cities and suburban areas not falling into the aforementioned two categories. "Well we can't give Bob the fuckin Fur Trapper in the Yukon DSL so hey you can only have 25 gb of transfer a month in Windsor, while the dude across the border in Detroit has a rarely-enforced 250 GB cap at worst" is the kind of argument you're making here, and it's basically bullshit. I don't see Verizon telling its FIOS customers to only use 100 GB of data a month because hey, some bumfuck towns in Nebraska are hard to reach!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 19:49
|
|
|
Aqualung posted:That would be a valid point if the government wasn't paying for all the infrastructure to low-density areas in Canada. Really, the companies are only responsible for the network they have in densely populated areas. less than three posted:http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...asBoGqw&cad=rja It's not that much money that the government is throwing in. Especially through rural canada where it costs the most to deploy high speed internet. You guys are so blind with rage. Can you just relax and accept that maybe the huge companies aren't spewing complete bullshit? Maybe some of their points are valid?  This is one province. 500million for one province. If you are going to sit here and spout the same old bullshit over and over again without even acknowledging that there may be some validity in caps then I'm just going to quit posting. Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:If you are going to sit here and spout the same old bullshit over and over again without even acknowledging that there may be some validity in caps then I'm just going to quit posting. Go ahead, because you still don't seem to understand that transfer caps don't relieve congestion. If it was really about congestion they'd be throttling connections instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:02
|
|
|
Bell's congestion data sent to the CRTC: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k5aGxDTUeMJNOM62DzzWNiZBI9J01C0558Gz2PEKRKk/edit?hl=en_GB https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yKG-oGyXcvCRLyjZEsJBJFI7e5mKkTwgqinmK78SNw8/edit?hl=en_GB Mean DSLAM traffic is running at 30% of capacity, 5.2% are 'congested' which Bell considers 61% usage.   
less than three fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
less than three posted:Go ahead, because you still don't seem to understand that transfer caps don't relieve congestion. Right, because then instead of someone downloading 20GB @ 20Mb/s in 2.2 hours they download at 10Mb/s in 4.5 hours. How don't caps relieve congestion? If you are limited to the amount of data you can pass then you are not on the network as often. The faster they get you on and off the more speed they have to give to someone else. I would like to see statistics from the last couple of years. Streaming video in Canada wasn't nearly as prevalent in Canada in 2007 then it is in 2010/11 Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:Right, because then instead of someone downloading 20GB @ 20Mb/s in 2.2 hours they download at 10Mb/s in 4.5 hours. How don't caps relieve congestion? If you are limited to the amount of data you can pass then you are not on the network as often. The faster they get you on and off the more speed they have to give to someone else. But data caps don't really affect mb/sec speeds so I don't get what your point is with this whole line of thought. People aren't bitching that they're getting 10mbit/sec connections instead of 20mbit/sec, they're bitching that they're getting less use out of the connection that they're paying for because their bandwidth limits are going down when the average usage is going up!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:Right, because then instead of someone downloading 20GB @ 20Mb/s in 2.2 hours they download at 10Mb/s in 4.5 hours. How don't caps relieve congestion? If you are limited to the amount of data you can pass then you are not on the network as often. The faster they get you on and off the more speed they have to give to someone else. Sending half as many cars down a busy road absolutely reduces congestion and is exactly why some companies are starting to have 7-3 and 8-4 shifts, to spread things out so there isn't a clusterfuck on the road at 8:45 and 5:05 respectively.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:Right, because then instead of someone downloading 20GB @ 20Mb/s in 2.2 hours they download at 10Mb/s in 4.5 hours. How don't caps relieve congestion? Because congestion comes from everybody using the network at the same time. You can lower everybody's cap to 1GB, but it's still going to be congested at 4pm when the rush of after school traffic starts. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/business/20isp.html?_r=4&partner=rss&emc=rss “All of our economics are based on engineering for the peak hour,” said Tony Werner, the chief technical officer of Comcast. “Just because someone consumes more data doesn’t mean they drive more cost.” Comcast, the nation’s largest cable provider, has told investors that doubling the Internet capacity of a neighborhood costs an average of $6.85 a home. -- So I guess Comcast and every other ISP in the world are lying, and we should take Bell's word on the issue, even though their own data shows that they don't have any major congestion issues. univbee posted:Sending half as many cars down a busy road absolutely reduces congestion and is exactly why some companies are starting to have 7-3 and 8-4 shifts, to spread things out so there isn't a clusterfuck on the road at 8:45 and 5:05 respectively. This type of system would mean peak and off-peak data, which there has never been any mention of implementing. less than three fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:Right, because then instead of someone downloading 20GB @ 20Mb/s in 2.2 hours they download at 10Mb/s in 4.5 hours. How don't caps relieve congestion? If you are limited to the amount of data you can pass then you are not on the network as often. The faster they get you on and off the more speed they have to give to someone else. Caps don't relieve congestion because congestion is not caused by downloading a large amount. It's caused by downloading AT ALL when a lot of other people are. But of course, it actually rarely happens! Again, see my little scenario earlier, it simplifies it! The Massive Downloader Guy can easily get 1.5 terabytes of data a month as long as he wants. Since the other 49 people sharing 50 megabits total capacity all want to go at once, none of them can get near to their 5 megabit speed limit, and if the Massive Downloader guy is there at full speed already, they each get .09 megabits down, if he ain't they each get 1.02 or so down. Either way they're far congested. Even if only 11 them are on at once, it's impossible to maintain their full speed! Instituting bandwidth caps is just as moronic as trying to solve rush hour traffic by only allowing people to drive 100 miles a month before they have to pay a fee to go farther!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
less than three posted:Because congestion comes from everybody using the network at the same time. The congestion won't be as bad though since you don't have the people who are downloading all day continually using up 20Mb/s running through 800gb a month.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:If you are going to sit here and spout the same old bullshit over and over again without even acknowledging that there may be some validity in caps then I'm just going to quit posting. There is some validity in caps, the problem is pushing the 25GB cap which is less then we had a decade ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
Viktor posted:There is some validity in caps, the problem is pushing the 25GB cap which is less then we had a decade ago. I agree. Way too low. But to try an abolish caps all together is not the answer. less than three posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/business/20isp.html?_r=4&partner=rss&emc=rss Different companies, different countries, different network strategies. To simply assume that every isp is the exact same is a little naive, no? Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:I agree. Way too low. But to try an abolish caps all together is not the answer. Too bad the telco's decided that was the acceptable cap with their current infrastructure. This also throws out any faith I have they are at capacity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:I agree. Way too low. But to try an abolish caps all together is not the answer. There was nothing wrong with the previous method of soft caps, where Shaw/Telus would contact you only if congestion was a problem in your area. Works in the USA, worked here. Problem for Canadian Telecom is that there was no revenue to be made that way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
Maybe they're going to use that additional revenue to upgrade! :x
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:Maybe they're going to use that additional revenue to upgrade! :x Because three private jets per exec weren't enough! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:37
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:The congestion won't be as bad though since you don't have the people who are downloading all day continually using up 20Mb/s running through 800gb a month. 800 gigabytes per month is 2.5 megabits per second, not 20 megabits per second. 20 megabits per second is 6.2 TERABYTES. You're complaining that some guy wants to be able to run a 20 megabit connection for 1/8 of the time he's online? Complaining that someone might want to max out their internet connection a scant 3 hours a day? And if they really can't handle people doing that much traffic, they could just throttle their speeds when there is trouble (result: congestion actually solved, noone's paying extra) or they could you know not advertise speeds that are unfeasible. Viktor posted:There is some validity in caps, the problem is pushing the 25GB cap which is less then we had a decade ago. There's no validity in caps really, if what you actually want is reducing congestion. They're a great money maker though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:Maybe they're going to use that additional revenue to upgrade! :x Upgrade the cars they drive and the vacations they take.. maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:Different companies, different countries, different network strategies. To simply assume that every isp is the exact same is a little naive, no? It's not that ISPs are the exact same, it's that to take the word of Bell as absolute truth when: the data doesn't match up, no other nations have such problems, and Bell's history of bullshit towards their consumers is naive. You keep dismissing any arguments against network congestion as "Well it didn't come from Bell, so I'm going to ignore it." The CTO of Comcast is certainly qualified to be making such comments, quit acting as if Bell's PR department one day is going to go "Oh yeah. Network upgrades are so cheap, this is just a revenue grab." less than three fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
I didn't literally mean 24 hours a day...less than three posted:It's not that ISPs are the exact same, it's that to take the word of Bell as absolute truth when: the data doesn't match up, no other nations have such problems, and Bell's history of bullshit towards their consumers is naive. Yet you assume that everything Bell is saying is false. Hmm. if only there was some sort of government regulation on this sort of thing.... Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There's no validity in caps really, if what you actually want is reducing congestion. They're a great money maker though. Hence the validity in the caps! If you meter out your service two ways and have a way to force overage charges who wouldn't jump at that. The world and technology has moved past it as a way to relieve the infrastructure. If they are looking to relieve congestion it's already in place with DPI and P2P shaping. It exists on residential service, works quiet effectively, and has effect against a huge swath of the major congestion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:I didn't literally mean 24 hours a day... Hmmm, if only that government organisation wasn't filled with ex CEOs of Bell and Rogers...
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
So maybe the problem is with the government and not totally the isp's? gasp...
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:I didn't literally mean 24 hours a day... Well what's wrong with using your internet connection to its fullest for 3 hours a day? IS 2 hours wrong too? 1 hour? 15 minutes? 20 megabits down for 15 minutes a day for 30 days = 66 gigabytes a month. If you never use any transfer at all outside those 15 minutes a day. If it's only possible to handle that service for 15 minutes a day, why bother selling it at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
The problem clearly lies with both ISPs and the government. There's more than enough blame to go around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:So maybe the problem is with the government and not totally the isp's? gasp... You do realize we're equally blaming the CRTC and the ISPs in this thread, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:So maybe the problem is with the government and not totally the isp's? gasp... Keep moving those goalposts buddy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
 Nitr0 - a week ago posted:I would much rather the CBC focus on the actual issues by doing some research instead of talking to joe schmoe from the internet (no offense) and finding that 90% of the fiber in the ground today is owned by Telus and Bell paid for by the government and other than a few stipulations they are in complete control of all internet here. The CRTC needs to allow more access to that fiber but Telus and Bell will complain up and down that it's not possible and they would have to spend over a billion dollars to upgrade. Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:
Nah you don't even need to do that. Judging from the other example all you need to do is separate Bell into a wholesale and retail division, wholesale division that can't provide services to customers directly but are allowed to provide bandwidth to every ISP at the same price including their own retail division. This stops them from pricing everyone out of the competition as their own retail division will also suffer from the same crappy pricing. Same thing can be done with infrastructure upgrades and build outs, the government can help by subsidizing part of the build so it will give an incentive for the ISP to upgrade, at the same time maintaining an open access by doing the wholesale/retail separation so the prices for every other ISP remain identical and competitive. Right now they are just giving some money for the build out and then let the monopoly milk all its worth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Stop believing the lie that they HAVE bandwidth problems! Where's the proof they have any kind of need for upgrades? (You're entirely right about how UBB does jack-poo poo for congestion, though. In fact, it would make congestion WORSE, since it discourages people from taking the effort to download things in the middle of the night when congestion is minimal.) Also, Nitr0, all you're doing is making the case for either tight regulation or nationalization. Saying "Bell and Telus own the backbones" just raises the question of why the gently caress we're allowing a pair of private corporations to exploit this monopoly, especially in light of the massive public funding they've enjoyed to BUILD these networks. But that doesn't change the fact that fishmech is absolutely right about UBB and congestion. Edit: Nitr0 posted:Different companies, different countries, different network strategies. To simply assume that every isp is the exact same is a little naive, no? (NO, it's NOT different, it's the same bloody business using the same bloody techniques.) Nomenklatura fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jan 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Nomenklatura posted:Also, Nitr0, all you're doing is making the case for either tight regulation or nationalization. Saying "Bell and Telus own the backbones" just raises the question of why the gently caress we're allowing a pair of private corporations to exploit this monopoly, especially in light of the massive public funding they've enjoyed to BUILD these networks. Good question. Perhaps you should talk to your MP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
Do people watch George Strombo still? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rUsRCyS6PU He made a nice plea last night apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
A nice link from Cisco that I grabbed from another ISP forum I frequent. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/Cisco_VNI_Usage_WP.html 31% increase in traffic over the last year... drat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
Another thing to note is that a lot of traffic that used to be people grabbing movies and music off P2P services is now quasilegal or fully legal videos on youtube and legal streaming from all sorts of providers. A thread a few months ago showed the change in proportions very well, can't remember it though. A lot of that can conceivably be blamed on attempts to make it harder to use illegal p2p transfers like throttling torrents and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 00:20
|
|
|
 Since when did youtube start with this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
Years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2011 00:39
|
|