Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ianathuth
I don't think that Erol is looking quite correctly at the ammount of congestion one user can cause. He is saying that all users online at the same time cause an equal ammount oc congestion each. His analogy of raod use is very flawed if you look at it realistically. It is not the mileage that a driver does that causes congestion on the roads, it is the type of vehicle and how it is being driven that causes congestion.
|
No it's not milage that causes congestion - exactly my point. Just as its not how much u downlaod that causes congestion. Exactly my point so why are NTL trying to solve congestion by removing or restricting user because they do 'too many miles'?
Its not your vehical type or the way you drive it that causes congestion. Its eveyone trying to use the sane road at the same time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ianathuth
If you take a UBR card that has 200 users on it you can have 190 of them online at the same time with no deterioration to any of their service if they are all just doing a little browsing and chatting. Along come the other ten users, all on 1Mb connections using p2p and having their upstreams maxed out by people downloading from them,. The result is deterioration in the service of all the users, some more than others. If ten of the original users go offline because of this congestion it will not improve matters for the 190 that are left. You can then rightly say that it is the ten 1Mb p2p users who are responsible for the congestion. Even if all the 190 original users went offline the remaining ten would suffer congestion and deterioration in service.
|
As I said before the original example made an assumption that a user was either using the connection or not and if they were all usage was equall. A gross simplification to make a point but valid none the less.
The idea that a user either only uses P2P or web and chat and email is flawed imo. There are many apps that light users use that eat bandwidth (for a short time - hence low total usage).
The point is thqat NTL are defining abuse as being total usage. What they should be doing is defining abuse as being high usage in peak periods. Thats my point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ianathuth
NTL broadband is a contended service and service levels will depend on who is online at any one time and what they are doing. A contended service relies on statistical diversity in the connected users and in what they are doing. If a number of users try to use the service like a leased line service and do their best to max out their downstream and more importantly their upstream then there is more of a chance of deterioration in service levels. In the case of p2p users who have their upstreams maxed out by people downloading from them and the card upstream becomes saturated by such use then it is mainly people that are not contributing to the finances of NTL that are causing problems for "normal" NTL users.
|
When you go online in peak hours and _use_ your connection you cause congestion. How much you may have dl in non peak times is irrelevant.
Someone who runs p2p (or any app that has a high up or down throughput) 24/7 7 days a week should be dealt with. However there ARE heavy users that do not max out their connection at all during peak hours and these are being punished by NTL equaly with those that do.
I think you are obsessed with P2P personaly. There are many many apps that cause high volume usage - up or down. NTL is promoting some of these apps via its plus product for just one example. It is just as likely to be a 'light' users that only uses the net in peak periods that causes congestion as a heavy users. What is considered 'normal' usage today is a tiny fraction of what was considered normal 5 years ago. The same will be true in 5 years time.