Quote:
|
Originally Posted by erol
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?
|
My apologies, the network stats must be lying.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by erol
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.
|
The same can be said of the telephone network. I guess that low user tariff must be nonsense. Costs may be equal, but why shouldn't those that use the available facilities more pay more? Those whose usage forces upgrades well before they would normally be required (as occured in Coventry thanks to extreme upstream use new equipment had to be fitted well before would be expected going by normal measures of expected use) but it's ok for those who weren't using much to pay for this along with those who were uploading/downloading 24x7?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by erol
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.
|
Transit bandwidth is the main incremental cost. That of course and upgrades forced through people raping their connections which wouldn't normally be required.
There are a few problems here Erol. First one is that allowing a network to reach 100% utilisation at any point is a very bad idea. You constantly go on about congestion and utilisation. Would you be happy with using your connection for a couple of hours in the evening and getting a nice slow service due to people constantly soaking up bandwidth? As I showed you on graphs from Plusnet difference in load isn't that great between peak time load and offpeak load. This is simply due to people who use their connection all the time queueing up the downloads on the peer to peer. Therefore it's safe to assume that at least 50% of the usage in peak times is due to said users, so your arguments about them not causing congestion over what would be seen is nonsense. It does cost companies more as they have to provide over and above expected bandwidth requirements due to these users, though of course your Gran should pay just as much for this as Mr Warez Monkey.
If people want connections to use uncontended they can bloody well pay for what they are using. Compare the cost difference between 5:1 contended service and 20:1 and try telling me people using their connections 1:1 shouldn't pay more. They should pay more, both for the data transfer and a higher proportion of the fixed costs.
And no this is nothing to do with my internet service, I always get the bandwidth I pay for, and I want it to stay that way. Those people using the bandwidth 24/7 are slowing down the progress towards higher speed connections now. Have you not thought that a good reason for not providing higher speed services is that as soon as you do warez monkeys start leeching 20, 40, 50GB a day on them, messing up contention and indeed costing money due to large use of transit bandwidth, and forcing of upgrades well before expected?
If we want faster and more competitively priced connections for all of us those patterns of use absolutely must be addressed. bredbandsbolaget.se addresses it with traffic shaping but their network is under the cosh quite badly at peak times - this cannot be allowed to happen with cable as it would result in packet loss and other issues up to and including modems falling offline.
This is ok though, I'm sure the people wouldn't mind this so long as Mr Warez Monkey down the road can leech his 1.5 Terabytes of warez a month and send his 750GB out (assuming 5Mbit / 2.5Mbit connection, won't happen for a while though
).
I would quite like to see 2 things you hate,
capping of usage, tiered depending on how much you pay, followed by x pence per gig after this is exceeded.
I know you'll absolutely disagree but please no more horrible analogies