View Single Post
Old 22-02-2004, 02:09   #500
Stuartbe
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Posts: 4,984
Stuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this point
Stuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this pointStuartbe is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: 1GB Cap Letter!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by erol
The maximum amount of network _congestion_ a single user can create is < 1 users worth. The idea than an individual user can cause more than one users worth of _congestion_ is just nonsense, though one that is widely disseminated by some and believed by many.

The idea that a given user can cause more than one userâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion is just false. At times of congestion everyone using his or her connection contributes equally to congestion. How much you may have downloaded in times of no congestion has no effect on how much congestion you cause during peak periods.

A †˜heavyâà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Š¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ user during peak times creates one userââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion.
A †˜lightâà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Š¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ user during peak times creates one userââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion.
Any user during peak times creates one userâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s worth of congestion.

If the heaviest (by download volume) 5% of users were removed overnight, congestion would improve by up to 5%, but no more. If some of those 5% were heavy users that avoided heavy usage in peak periods then the benefit will be less than the 5%. If these users are then replaced by †˜lightâà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Š¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ users that use the net in peak periods only, then congestion will not improve at all.

Heavy users do NOT create congestion. Simultaneous usage creates congestion.

And one more time.

Heavy users do NOT create congestion.

Heavy users do drive the development of the internet. They drive the increasing capacity of it and they drive the increasing things that can be done with it.

Or from another angle. Let's imagine the central London road traffic charging scheme. Let's imagine that in order to reduce congestion in central London, rather than a charge, they simply banned 5% of drivers. They choose which 5% based on which drivers that do the most miles in total. They then replace this 5% with a different 5% that do less total milage but possibly more driving in Central London in peak periods. Would such a solution reduce traffic in Central London? Of corse not. Even if they did not 'replace' the 5% of removed drivers, would congestion improve by more that 5%? Of course not. So why do people believe that such a solution will help congestion on NTLs network? Why do people believe that removing 5% of users will improve congestion by > 5% ?

Heavy users do not create congestion. Simultaneous usage creates congestion.

This stuff really is not rocket science, yet the level of misunderstanding about how one users usage affects anothers on a shared medium like a packet switched network, is so widely misunderstood.
Hi Erol How are you - I thought you had gone away !
Stuartbe is offline   Reply With Quote