[erol]

Originally Posted by ianathuth

Erol, if you wish to use analogies, please use ones that are realistic and comparable.

I must say that is pretty rich comming from the person that introduced a _gunman_ into the train analogy !

Originally Posted by ianathuth

I am not so het up over the situation and if you think that the "mythical" 5% is not correct then what would your percentage be. It would seem logical to anyone that has an iota of commonsense and has followed these forums over the past year that a very small percentage of users consume a very large percentage of bandwidth and that they are primarily file traders using p2p or newsgroups.

You are _still_ confusing the usage of BW with the cause of congestion. I am not in the business of 'making up' figures, just countering the telcos 'made up' figures. So the reason you do not move to an ISP that would block P2P traffic and give you the connection you 'want' is that you are not the bothered really ? Strange thats not the impression I got.

Originally Posted by ianathuth

Your statement of "What has any of the above got to do with my disagreement that 5% of BB users do (or even physical can) create 60-80% of the congestion in peak periods ?" is posing a question that was not the initial subject of the thread. 5% of users CAN consume 60-80% of the bandwidth and this is very easily proved, just think about it for a moment and then tell me how they can't.

You still do not get it. Just because (if it is ture) 5 % use 60%-80% of the total bandwidth, that does NOT mean that they are responsible for the same % of _congestion_ in peak periods. Just because my 5% of beer drinkers might consume 60-80% of the total beer serverd in 24hrs, it does not mean they are responsible for 60-80% of the bar congestion. When they are in the bar during peak periods they cause _exactly_ one person's worth of congestion per person, anything more is _physically_ impossible. Just because a driver might do 1000's of miles on the roads, when there is congestion, they cause _exactly_ one cars worth of congestion, anything more is _physically impossible_. Yet if an BB users consumes 'higher than average' bandwidth, then when they are usinf it during busy periods, they somehow cause way more congestion that one connection can, at least according to you and telco propaganda. This is simply as _physicaly impossible_ as my two analogies and is at the root of my problems with statements that '5% are responsible for 60-80% of CONGESTION'. Just not possible. That's logic.

Originally Posted by ianathuth

Your solutions are theoretically correct, but practically have NTL for one got the financial resources to properly scale their resources and what should be the "price". If I or you had the solution to the problems we would be the ones getting £3,500 per day, not Barclay.

You are priceless. So NTL have got themselves into a total mess finacialy, wiped out 1000s of original shareholder money through bad management, strategic incompetence and acquisitional follies, so we can't expect them to scale their networks properly. And the man most responsible for this state of affairs ? Yep you got, it's the same BK, that you seem to think must have all the answers because he is paid £3500 per day ! Priceless.

I think that is about all for me on this thread now. I have done my best to explain why one person can cause no more than one person's amount of congestion (something so eveidently self obvious to me that I sometimes despair for others). I am obviously getting no where and to be honest I am not sure I can 'keep on' without slipping into the 'personal' which is something I do not want to do.

So thanks for the discussion so far. I like to say it's been fun but I try and avoid lying as much as I can. I'll just leave you with one final analogy from my part of the world.

You can lead a camel to water but you can't make him drink, bacause 5 camels have somehow expanded their body size, through some mytstical process, that allows them to take up all the space round the water that can normaly accomodate 50-100 camels simultaneously.