*ALL* ntl Cap Discussion Here Please. (Part 2)

[obvious]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

That's not what I said and you know it.

It would appear so

I think that's enough now - stop bickering like a couple of kids, or this is going to get closed.

[obvious]

But I'm having so much fun

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by obvious

No it was not your point. You've just done a complete U-Turn. You really dont understand averages do you?

I think I understand them more than you do. Remember where this started.

That's a bit of an insult to the model makers who are in the business. It's not about 'everyone' behaving like the model. It's a business of averages. But I guess you're right and they're wrong as usual.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by obvious

It's impossible for 1 heavy user to affect anyone elses service. It's when they are all doing it at the same time that the model fails and problems occur.

True, I was being a bit extreme using one heavy user as an example. However, if more than one person is a heavy downloader (24/7) on a particular UBR card, then everyone else on that card will get slower downloads, and to keep all the users happy, NTL would have to install more cards. I don't know the exact cost of these upgrades, but I understand it can run into thousands of pounds.

Now, NTL have to justify that expenditure to the shareholders. What would be easier to justfy? Spending a couple of thousand on the new card so that a few heavy downloaders can pay £37.99 a month each to use it? NTL may make their investment back in , what, 2 or 3 years? Or maybe getting rid of the heavy downloaders?

[Monster Jedi]

What happends if theres loads of heavy downloaders. Lets say 20% or more? Can NTL afford to loose that kind of revenue. It's not just broadband cos alot of the customers might take the tv and phone else where as well. I would if I get a phone call, I would ring up customer services and remove the lot and go else where. It might cost me more money a month. I would do it and I'm not the only one who would.

[obvious]

People who cane their connection 24*7 on a busy UBR deserve to be moderated in some way. Being a business of averages though I'd argue that if a user at one end of the bell shaped curve decides to exceed the guidelines by a large margin on a very quiet UBR, ntl should and probably would leave them be. That is unless ntl want to ring up all the low bandwidth users and encourage them to download more

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Monster Jedi

What happends if theres loads of heavy downloaders. Lets say 20% or more? Can NTL afford to loose that kind of revenue. It's not just broadband cos alot of the customers might take the tv and phone else where as well. I would if I get a phone call, I would ring up customer services and remove the lot and go else where. It might cost me more money a month. I would do it and I'm not the only one who would.

This is unlikely, as the only people in a position to really be heavy downloaders (and cause a problem) are those on the higher tiers of service, and the bulk of NTL's customers are on the lowest tier (300K/1Meg).

[obvious]

Originally Posted by Monster Jedi

What happends if theres loads of heavy downloaders. Lets say 20% or more? Can NTL afford to loose that kind of revenue. It's not just broadband cos alot of the customers might take the tv and phone else where as well. I would if I get a phone call, I would ring up customer services and remove the lot and go else where. It might cost me more money a month. I would do it and I'm not the only one who would.

ntl do face a dilemma in certain areas ie University districts where a bunch of students 'all' want to download more than the average Joe. They can add cards/resegment UBR's but there comes a point where a line has to be drawn.

At the end of the day, ntl and the industry have to hope that the cost of bandwidth provision continues to fall faster than the corresponding rise in bandwidth demand.

Demand will rise and costs will fall. That's fundamental. After Video-On-Demand becomes a commodity service then costs will continue to fall but the rate of rise in demand should decline. This is all years away though.

[Mauldor]

Hmmm confusing arguments for sure, if most of the people are on the lower tier (300K cos they will have no idea there has been a upgrade) and they also do not use the net much or go on very often, then who is this heavy downloading effecting??? other heavy downloaders?

Are we saying that the only people who are a problem is the ones who download 24/7? if that the case then no need for any caps, pure guidelines and boot them - easy as that surely...

I read and laughed about the 5-7 GIG months is the avertage user - really!!!
I did a couple of tests over the last 3 days to see if this was true...

Myself, Browsing the web, Chatting on Skype and playing Online Games, which keeps downloading maps it seems. Now my Useage a day is just a touch over 1 GIG - thats both Upload and download combined - in fact I watched PTRG without doing anything on the net whatsoever and it was creeping up....

My Nephew is on BT, he has no idea about Warez, P2P etc yet after running a Bandwidth meter program for 3 day his useage again was just about 1 GIG day (plays same games as me etc).

If people are grabbing a max of 7GIG a month, dial up would def be the easier option for them ...

[obvious]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

If you take that example a little further and try to give users the full speed they are on then the total number of simultaneously active subscribers has to be limited to 27000000/3072000 ~= 9. Any more than 9 and those 9 will be affecting the service of every user on that card. See how easy it is for only 9 users to affect around a thousand other users.

The model requires tweaking if you're not dealing with the notional 256kbps throughput. (Using the other figures in the model) - a user who downloads at 3Mbps will spend on average less than 25% of his online time actually downloading because the connection is faster than 256kbps. So this figure of 9 (which would have equated to 90 on average using that model) would actually be much higher.

[dirtydog]

Oops my usage for March went over 30GB during the night.. and there's still half the month to go :o

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by obvious

The model requires tweaking if you're not dealing with the notional 256kbps throughput. (Using the other figures in the model) - a user who downloads at 3Mbps will spend on average less than 25% of his online time actually downloading because the connection is faster than 256kbps. So this figure of 9 (which would have equated to 90 on average using that model) would actually be much higher.

That assumes that the user still downloads the same volume which is highly unlikely with the very high usage customers.

Common sense dictates that 9 users on a 3Mb connection will download 27Mbps if they are all managing to download at their maximum rate. If the UBR card only has 27Mb of downstream bandwidth available then those 9 will consume all the available bandwidth. Actually it would take less than 9 because no account has been taken for overheads and noise. So if only 9 users are consuming the entire bandwidth for the card, what about the other 1,000 that are also on that card? The answer is simply that all users will suffer degraded performance. Taking figures from earlier in the thread you could say that there are 100 x 3Mb customers on that card of which 40% are online during peak periods (some are saying that all 3Mb customers are using their connection all the time but let's forget that). Of that 40 customers 25% are downloading at the same time which means that 10 x 3Mb customers are downloading. 10 x 3Mb customers would use 30Mbps if all were getting full speed but there are only 27Mb available. So something has to give and the only thing that can happen is that those users will not get the full 3Mb. That example forgets about the other 900 customers on less than the top tier, many of which will also be online and degrading the service further. So all those members who think that they are safe because their usage does not impact on others may like to have second thoughts.

[th'engineer]

Has anyone still got a copy of the Goodland tapes on their PC

It is cap related

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by th'engineer

Has anyone still got a copy of the Goodland tapes on their PC

I might have it on an old hard drive. Will have a look when I next go into the attic but that might not be for a while.

[th'engineer]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

I might have it on an old hard drive. Will have a look when I next go into the attic but that might not be for a while.

Thanks ian think some of our new cable forum members need to listen to the idiot behind the cap

[Neil]

Originally Posted by th'engineer

Has anyone still got a copy of the Goodland tapes on their PC

It is cap related

Surely anticap.co.uk must have it?

[th'engineer]

Originally Posted by Neil

Surely anticap.co.uk must have it?

Thats an idea cant find my copy, your on form this morning

[Ignition]

*Starts reading then falls asleep - same arguments as over a year ago, at least the first thread was a little more relevant to the present rather than the same old congestion vs consumption arguments.

All we need is the crap analogies about all you can eat buffets, places on a train, etc, and we're there.

[obvious]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

That assumes that the user still downloads the same volume which is highly unlikely with the very high usage customers.
.
.
.
.
<snip>
.
.
.
.

The model doesn't apply to "High Usage" OR "Low Usage" customers. It applies to the average man (who does exist for these purposes btw). * A V E R A G E *

Oh sod it I give up.