Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b
The 60 - 80% of total usage being attributable to 5% of users claim *is* true, at least 60% of an average ISPs network *is* peer to peer traffic, there is no disputing this these are facts, it's that simple.
|
Well if you say it is fact I guess it must be. Even accepting this fact what makes you think that the 60% of traffic that relates to p2p traffic is not being caused by 60% of the users of the network? Why, just because one application is popular does it have to mean that only 5% of users are using this application? You are also getting data volumes moved confused with congestion imo. How much data is moved on a network is not the same as one persons use affecting anothers. Any time a network is running at less than 100% capacity, it is actualy 'wasteful'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b
Consider that your average user probably only really uses their connection at peak times for surfing, occasional downloading, maybe some messenger / IRC chat, and compare that to someone who maxes 24/7. Approximately 1% of broadband users in the UK use their connection at as close to 100% in BOTH DIRECTIONS as they can get it.
|
Let's say that approximately 1% of road users use their cars almost 24/7, where as majority use them occasionaly. Do you then say that these 1% are responsible for 60-80% of all congestion on the roads ?? Then why do you support this argument in network use ?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b
Compare somone who uses 13GB a day to someone who averages less than 100MB a day, then tell this person who averages less than 100MB a day that their connection is more expensive so that Johnny 'Warez Hub' Smith can trade the latest moviez, gamez, appz + mp3z with his mates, and see if they don't mind.
When someone can tell me they don't mind this and prove I'm talking nonsense THEN I'll shut up. Personally like so much else in life you should get what you pay for, and pay for what you get. P2P traffic is the most expensive, providing bandwidth at local level isn't that cheap either, upgrading networks to cope with Captain Warez Hub costs.
|
The cost of providing the network to mr '13GB a day' and to mr '<100MB a day' are almost identical. They both have to have the roads dug up and cable laid. They both have to have UBR's and POP's etc etc etc. As the cost of providing the network to them is almost identical then it is perfectly fair that they pay the same price. There is some incremental cost (ie cost that relates to the _usage_ of a connection) but these are marginal comapred to the cost of putting the network in and running, which is EQUAL for both users.
Costs that are incremental should be paid for on a 'pay for what you use' basis. Costs that are fixed whould be paid for on a 'fixed fee' basis. The reality is with BB almost all of the costs are fixed - hence flat rate pricing. It's simple really.