Backbone Analysis Puts Exaflood Myth To Bed Wireless growth exploding, but wireline growth may actually be slowing... (old news - 01:07PM Tuesday Nov 25 2008) tags: business · bandwidth · Op/Ed · telco · stats · world · networking Last week we explored how companies like AT&T use cherry picked data, think tanks and policy groups like the Internet Innovation Alliance to promote the idea that we're facing a horrible bandwidth crisis (aka the "exaflood"). According to these lobbyists and PR wizards, this bandwidth apocalypse can only be avoided if you give incumbent ISPs what they want; namely lower taxes, government subsidies, less regulation (or more regulation if it helps them), and the right to implement metered billing. Be it telecom or any other field, bad ideas are usually more easily pushed forth under a climate of fear. But once again, data from outside of the world of incumbent ISP spin suggests that any future growth can easily be handled by reasonable traffic upgrades. Over the weekend the University of Minnesota's Minnesota Internet Traffic Studies (MINTS) compiled the latest set of data concerning the growth of Internet traffic from a flurry of global sources across a slew of different backbones. According to MINTS, while wireless data growth is exploding, wireline network traffic is increasing at a fairly modest clip: 50 to 60% per year. That's substantially less than last week's report by AT&T, which predicted that sustained growth of 100% or more would result in Internet "brownouts" over the next few years. "The basic, and highly debatable, assumption behind (the Nemertes data), though, is that traffic is growing at 100% per year or more, and will continue to do so for the next half a dozen years," says the report. "So far there is little evidence of that, though." In fact, the evidence indicates if anything, global traffic may be declining from the 50-60% annual growth rate. European Internet exchanges saw a decline in annual growth rate of 56% over the past year -- down from 84% the year before. TERENA, a consortium of European national research and education networks, showed a growth rate (pdf) of just 46% per year, with signs of a slowdown. Equinix reported that in the U.S., its total network access traffic grew 34% compared to the previous year, while Cogent -- who last quarter saw their first ever traffic decline, saw traffic grow 5% compared to the second quarter, and 24% compared to a year earlier. Again, there is absolutely no evidence that Internet growth is accelerating so quickly that carriers can't manage it with modest capacity improvements. Related: Wednesday Evening Links Friday Evening Links Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke Tuesday Evening Links Wednesday Evening Links The Exaflood Myth Just Won't Die Verizon App Store To Block Bandwidth-Intensive Apps DSL Vs. Carrier Pigeon

quote:

---

.. and despite heavy anti-competitive attempts by Sun, Intel, IBM, and Microsoft (among others) we are still seeing more and more Linux servers being used in enterprise environments. You can't kill good ideas.[/quote

Only because Microsoft was kept in check by the government...lest you forget Microsoft was sued by Sun over anticompetitive conduct.

quote:

---

That fee covers their content cost and their end of the distribution costs.

Again, you keep implying that your HSI usage should be able to drastically increase without there being some impact to price. It costs money to build capacity -- if you are going to be consuming a greater amounts of data requiring the buildout of additional capacity, that money needs to come from somewhere. The cost model that current HSI pricing is based on will not be valid if the push for higher consumption continues.

---

Yeah, that fee covers their distribution costs and the customers fee to the ISP covers the delivery and capacity expansion costs and proved by Verizon's $21 B customer funded expansion (all without caps and overage fees BTW).

If Verizon can manage a $21B fiber deployment project without resorting to caps and overage fees, so can Comcrap and AT&T.
reply

---

espaeth @ 25th Nov 08:31PM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

said by Dogfather :

And given the prices that cable operators like Comcast charge for their pre-DOCSIS 3 tiers ($150/mo) I think they can afford to kick down a modem.

The entry price for pre-DOCSIS 3 service for Comcast is $62.95/mo for the 22/5 tier. (the obvious qualification is that your area needs to be upgraded to get that)
reply

---

espaeth @ 25th Nov 08:45PM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

said by Dogfather :

Yeah, that fee covers their distribution costs and the customers fee to the ISP covers the delivery and capacity expansion costs and proved by Verizon's $21 B customer funded expansion (all without caps and overage fees BTW).

Verizon is currently carrying the debt of building out that network as a long term investment. Let's see how Verizon starts running things when they have to start getting serious about repaying that debt.
reply

---

fatness @ 25th Nov 09:11PM:
Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

said by TKJunkMail :

A lot of these predictions that the internet WON'T face much higher bandwidth demand is based on past statistics. But a paradigm break is in process. The past statistics can't recognize the tremendous growth of online high def video that is coming. Those predicting drastic growth may be more prescient than the statisticians looking backward.

I realize you've said that before, but it reads more like a provider's press release than empirical information.
--
goodbye dad
reply

---

TKJunkMail @ 25th Nov 09:16PM:
Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

said by fatness :

I realize you've said that before, but it reads more like a provider's press release than empirical information.

If Karl can keep posting the same story over and over, I figure I can post the same reply as well.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?
reply

---

Lazlow @ 25th Nov 09:21PM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

On the Docsis channel thing: IF they would stop advancing speeds for a while and increase load capacity (until they upgrade the system to handle the load) it will be a non issue. I am assuming that you did not intend to share the same channels between Docsis 3 and pre-Docis3 in your example(that would essentially defeat the purpose). Getting those high capacity users over to Docis 3 modems would (of course) be a priority. Getting those users off the pre-3.0 channels should open a significant enough amount of bandwidth to handle the next year or two(?). The higher end users will be motivated to switch over to 3.0 modems so that they see less congestion (self curing problem). The rest will probably see an improvement over the situation that they are in today and will slowly migrate over to the 3.0 modems (probably about the time 8 channel is coming in).

You cannot compare the prices of Docsis 2.0 modems to 3.0 modems. You need to compare apples to apples. What was the price of a 3.0 modem a year ago (still prototype?) and what is it today? Compare the price of a D3 cmts today and a D2 cmts when it was introduced. While I do not know for certain I am willing to bet that the price for the D3 CMTS in real dollars is significantly less than(but possibly the same due to the increased number of transmitters/tuners) the D2 units.
reply

---

NetAdmin @ 25th Nov 09:59PM:
Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

said by TKJunkMail :

A lot of these predictions that the internet WON'T face much higher bandwidth demand is based on past statistics.

Using proper forecast models, you can use past data to make fairly accurate forecasts. That's how planning is done on bandwidth planning. It is also how the weather is forecast.

It is true that past performance is not indicative of future performance, but without having a handle on past performance, you can't make an educated estimate of future performance.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab.
reply

---

a333 @ 25th Nov 10:33PM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

said by espaeth :

While the world mourns that users in Canada have their P2P transfers slowed down, I'm sure the other people who can actually make VoIP phone calls, play online games, and remote desktop into work without facing application-breaking latency are better off.

Uh-huh.....that like....totally explains the fact that Bell Pathetico opened up their OWN online video store barely weeks after starting wholesale throttling...yep. I see.
Doesn't take a PhD in network engineering to realize that this is just Bell's way of sabotaging it's competitors. Yep that's right...when you can't beat them, sabotage them...
reply

---

espaeth @ 25th Nov 11:07PM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

said by a333 :

Uh-huh.....that like....totally explains the fact that Bell Pathetico opened up their OWN online video store barely weeks after starting wholesale throttling...yep. I see.
Doesn't take a PhD in network engineering to realize that this is just Bell's way of sabotaging it's competitors. Yep that's right...when you can't beat them, sabotage them..

They're throttling P2P traffic, which would affect download'n'play offerings like Vuze.

They are not, however, throttling the direct streaming video competitors to their offering like Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, or the video download services from Sony PSN, or Xbox XBL.

If you want to continue arguing that Bell is trying to beat down video competition by not touching 99% of legally distributed Internet video, then I guess all logical argument is pointless.
reply

---

Lazlow @ 25th Nov 11:12PM:
Re: Methodology problem

Its funny, in one line you are saying that it cannot be done(safely) and then a couple of lines down you admit that the Japanese are already doing it. To publish this data you do not need to provide attack addresses, I guess I thought that was obvious.

As far as the public data does; there is no real way to tell how valid it is UNTIL somebody (trustworthy) gets the ISP's data.
reply

---

espaeth @ 25th Nov 11:14PM:
Re: Methodology problem

said by Lazlow :

Its funny, in one line you are saying that it cannot be done(safely) and then a couple of lines down you admit that the Japanese are already doing it. To publish this data you do not need to provide attack addresses, I guess I thought that was obvious.

You seemed to be implying the data should be supplied on an ISP by ISP basis. The data could be presented, but it would need be industry-wide and not company specific. (ie, grouping every cable operator in the country together and only reporting the summary results of the group)
reply

---

Lazlow @ 25th Nov 11:19PM:
Re: Methodology problem

I agree that it should be industry wide. But each ISP will have to supply that data. There is just no way around that. I am not convinced of the necessity of reporting it as a group. I can see labeling is as ISP A, ISP B, etc. But if you pour all the data in a pot and mix it up, you are not going to be able to draw nearly as much information from the data.
reply

---

espaeth @ 25th Nov 11:20PM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

said by Lazlow :

On the Docsis channel thing: IF they would stop advancing speeds for a while and increase load capacity (until they upgrade the system to handle the load) it will be a non issue.

It's somewhat counter intuitive, but in a statistically-muxed network increasing access speeds actually tends to improve performance across the board. The reason for that is simple: the less time it takes me to get the content I want, the faster I'm off the network, and the more "idle" time that will be available to the other users on the network.

Applications like P2P that assume that all "idle" network capacity belongs to you obviously kill any stat-mux gains of finite duration transfers.

said by Lazlow :

I am assuming that you did not intend to share the same channels between Docsis 3 and pre-Docis3 in your example(that would essentially defeat the purpose).

You don't have the luxury of *not* sharing between D3 / non-D3 modems. DOCSIS 1.1 / 2.0 modems will attach to the first channel they successfully tune to; DOCSIS 2.0 at least has the ability to be sent a channel change command so they can be distributed across the channels. Open channel space is a precious commodity for MSOs, they had to fight to make room for the 3-4 channels of DOCSIS 3 they are deploying now.
reply

---

Lazlow @ 25th Nov 11:27PM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

While I agree with the first point to a certain extent, I think it is a matter of degree. A lot of systems went from 5meg (top service) to 16meg without a similar increase in capacity increase. Jumping from 5-10 this way was "in range" but jumping on up to 16 just tipped the cart over.

With the number of analog channels that have been removed from service on most systems they could easily isolate the Docsis 3 from the pre3 channels. We both know that you can define the list of channels that the modems can select from and that you can use separate lists for 3/pre3. But they want that recovered bandwidth for HD only. Again it goes back to greed.
reply

---

espaeth @ 25th Nov 11:48PM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

said by Lazlow :

While I agree with the first point to a certain extent, I think it is a matter of degree. A lot of systems went from 5meg (top service) to 16meg without a similar increase in capacity increase. Jumping from 5-10 this way was "in range" but jumping on up to 16 just tipped the cart over.

To be fair, when Comcast started deploying Blast! on the east coast they put a lot of money into node splits to reduce subscriber density per DOCSIS channel. It's not like they just rolled out new profiles without making any changes to the infrastructure.

said by Lazlow :

With the number of analog channels that have been removed from service on most systems they could easily isolate the Docsis 3 from the pre3 channels. We both know that you can define the list of channels that the modems can select from and that you can use separate lists for 3/pre3. But they want that recovered bandwidth for HD only. Again it goes back to greed.

In order to do the most effective upgrade you do a one-for-one replacement of DOCSIS 1.1/2.0 CMTS hardware with DOCSIS 3.0. The old equipment doesn't stick around, if for no other reasons than the diagnostic capabilities of the D3.0 line cards are so much better than earlier revisions. (although the real reason tends to be space, power, fiber constraints) Since DOCSIS 3.0 requires new modems in the field, to not put your existing clients on the same channels would be pointlessly wasteful. The DOCSIS 3 modems will balance around the available channels, so if one happens to become saturated the traffic will simply be diverted to the other links -- it can route around single channel congestion.

As far as them "keeping the channels for HD" -- let's be honest here, it's not for "them," it's for the customers that call them up every day asking for more HD channels. Not to mention that a vast many customers are actually willing to pay more for more HD content. Reserving capacity for services that are profitable is what smart businesses do.
reply

---

a333 @ 25th Nov 11:53PM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

Bell's argument was that p2p users were somehow using up bandwidth that was way out of proportion for their population ("5% of their users using 90% of their bandwidth", if I remember correctly). Apparently, that is not the case, given the fact that now Bell sees fit to open their own online video store. Also, they seem to be fine with giving users free speed upgrades. Unless they have some new medium to get videos to their customers, one would only say that Bell isn't facing nearly the bandwidth crisis they're making it out to be...

And the use of the p2p protocol by itself does NOT bog down a network, unless you grossly misconfigure your client. This has been proven, and arguing over it is purely useless considering the number of debates that've taken place about it. P2P does not magically make you get 10x upload/download speeds, it just gets the file faster through its use of numerous simultaneous connections to different peers.

And BTW, in case you didn't notice, Bell pissed off a LOT of customers by their failure of a throttling scheme, as it also blocked pretty much anything encrypted, including VPN connections.
reply

---

cpsycho @ 26th Nov 01:10AM:
My View

Telcos and cables want to protect their bottom line. That means they dont want to invest in infastructure. The put it in and they thing they can hook up as meny as they want without upgrading. They are being greedy.

Rogers last year made over $400,000,000 in profits. Why would they want to dip into that to increase their networks. Awnser they dont, they want to keep their marry profit and stick as meny people on a overloaded network as they possibly can.

All the people siding with these companies have vested interest with them or are paid by them. When companies boast this kind of profit and complian they should STFU and do what they have to and upgrade. I upgrade my computer every single time I must or I fall behind because newer programs/games wont run.

Anyone buying into the belief that the cables and telcos are their friends are just brain washed.

REMEMBER $400,000,000 PROFIT POSTED BY ROGERS LAST YEAR AND THEY EXPECT MORE THIS YEAR.
reply

---

Lazlow @ 26th Nov 01:13AM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

"Since DOCSIS 3.0 requires new modems in the field,"

NO, it does not. It is backward compatible with older versions of Docsis. A Docsis 2.0 modem will function just fine on a Docsis 3.0 CMTS. No, the older modems will not be able to take advantage of the newer 3.0 features. Which gets us right back where we started from. Where I said the "power users" (or whatever term you like) will be the first to upgrade to the 3.0 standard (to gets those features) and the rest will upgrade over time (just like the migration from 1.0 to 2.0). You should still be able to split those channels (3.0 from pre3.0) so that you can increase the capacity of both the 3.0 and the pre3.0. In the end that is what will occur when they switch to 8 channel anyway.

IF you do not think that virtually everything they do is in their best interest you really need to step back. As we have seen recently (bailout anyone?) there is a huge difference between "smart" business and honest business, and you are right I think they are running the same type "smart" business as the mortgage people. You can make an honest profit without a lot of the things that go on. When they offer people (current customers not new ones) 6 month or a year special deals do you really think that they are taking a loss on those deals? No, they are just dropping their profit margin. In a lot of markets 5meg service is given on special for 6months (to existing costomers) for $15/month while the standard price is $60 (stand alone price on both).

As far as Comcast Blast deal; in a lot of markets they did just drop it in without making major changes until AFTER the congestion showed up(just check the old threads). But yes, they did split a lot of those nodes to ease the problem. Which just shows that they are capable of handling marked increases in bandwidth without resorting to caps.

In the ISPs defense, the FCC screwed the pooch on this transition. They should have made everything switch at once(free up all the old analog bandwidth). But they should have made the ISPs keep the same channel line up, only broadcasting on clear Qam(for basic). The $40 digital converters should have had a qam tuner in them as well. This would have eliminated the company owned set top boxes(that we fought so hard to get rid of the first time around) and still kept a decent basic cable lineup(in digital). To go along with that they should have made no distinction between digital/analog as far as the broadcast stations were concerned(same rebroadcast rules should apply to digital as analog).
reply

---

espaeth @ 26th Nov 01:18AM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

said by Lazlow :

"Since DOCSIS 3.0 requires new modems in the field,"

NO, it does not. It is backward compatible with older versions of Docsis.

Quit dancing on that point, you know what I mean. You're not going to get DOCSIS 3.0 speed and capacity increases without DOCSIS 3.0 endpoints.

In relation to my earlier statement, since there will be a scarce few DOCSIS 3.0 modems out on the network in the near term it makes poor sense to set aside multiple DOCSIS channels just for a handful of D3.0 customers. It makes better strategic sense to spread your existing DOCSIS 1.1 / 2.0 clients across those channels and get some use out of them.

said by Lazlow :

IF you do not think that virtually everything they do is in their best interest you really need to step back. As we have seen recently (bailout anyone?) there is a huge difference between "smart" business and honest business, and you are right I think they are running the same type "smart" business as the mortgage people.

The mortgage people couldn't do it alone. Do you honestly think not a single person who suddenly qualified for a loan even though they never qualified before and got setup with sub-prime rates didn't think something was up? The mortgage situation has two guilty parties, and while the actual mortgage brokers should have played a better "parent" role and stopped people from making bad financial choices, it still stands that we got here because a vast many people made horrible financial choices.

Residential customers have an artificially low perception of what it actually costs to operate a network infrastructure because of the "unlimited" connection pricing that is engineered such that the average subscriber has no chance of hitting anything close to "unlimited." Customers are being sold timeshares, but they think they are buying their own permanent residence. We're in this mess now because even though people keep saying there's a huge demand for bandwidth, the most popular service tier remains the absolute cheapest service that the broadband providers offer. Customers want Max(Bandwidth) for Min(Price) -- something has to give.

said by Lazlow :

You can make an honest profit without a lot of the things that go on. When they offer people (current customers not new ones) 6 month or a year special deals do you really think that they are taking a loss on those deals?

Of course they take a loss on those sales. They want to introduce you to a product at a low introductory rate so you will stay a customer going forward. This sales tactic is used universally from street drug dealers offering a free "taste" to selling game station consoles for less than the hardware manufacturing costs with the hopes of making it up in game sales after the fact. It's called a loss leader for a reason.
reply

---

Lazlow @ 26th Nov 01:29AM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

Quit trying to insinuate that the only gains that can occur on the 3.0 systems are when all the modems are 3.0. Will the maximum gain be if all the modems are 3.0? YES, but if you can move just the top 10% of the bandwidth consumption clients over to 3.0(at least if you trust the ISPs earlier statements), most of the congestion will be a non-issue(assuming you split the channels) and without resorting to caps. Bandwidth consumption will continue to increase, as it increases more and more people will switch to 3.0 modems. By the time the vast majority has switched over to 3.0, the bandwidth consumption/speed requirements will probably be high enough to require 8 channel Docsis 3.0. So at that time the 4 channels that had been dedicated to pre3.0 use can be reintegrated to the 3.0 8 channel systems.

edit about your edit. I assume you meant scarce few? That is why the ISPs should push the 3.0 modems on those customers that are using the most bandwidth.

further edit: rather than overage charges or banning a customer just require them to move to a 3.0 modem.
reply

---

espaeth @ 26th Nov 02:08AM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

said by a333 :

Bell's argument was that p2p users were somehow using up bandwidth that was way out of proportion for their population ("5% of their users using 90% of their bandwidth", if I remember correctly). Apparently, that is not the case, given the fact that now Bell sees fit to open their own online video store. Also, they seem to be fine with giving users free speed upgrades. Unless they have some new medium to get videos to their customers, one would only say that Bell isn't facing nearly the bandwidth crisis they're making it out to be...

At a high level P2P is different for one main reason: infinite duration transfers. A P2P client's work is never done; it will continue seeding your content for as long as you allow it to run approaching infinity. When you download a movie using HTTP or other streaming protocol, once you have the movie you don't transfer any more on the network. Your work is done, the network capacity you were using goes back to the idle pool for everyone else to tap into.

For fixed duration transfers, increasing the access speed actually tends to do more good than harm. If I go to grab a Linux ISO, if I can download it in 7 minutes instead of 20-25, that means that I am statistically less likely to be tying up shared capacity when someone else wants to be engaging in a large transfer. If I can download it faster it doesn't mean I'll download it a 2nd or 3rd time, it just means more idle time for the network after I get my stuff.

said by a333 :

And the use of the p2p protocol by itself does NOT bog down a network, unless you grossly misconfigure your client.

Again, it's not about speed, it's about duration.

said by a333 :

And BTW, in case you didn't notice, Bell pissed off a LOT of customers by their failure of a throttling scheme, as it also blocked pretty much anything encrypted, including VPN connections.

I agree the approach is poor, just like I think firing tear gas into a crowd is a horrible approach. At the same time though, for both events there are situations where it needs to be done. There are certain places where it is impossible to quickly build your way out of congestion -- ultimately adding capacity is the only long term solution but when things start hitting the wall there needs to be some action in the here and now. At a high level it's easy to decide priority because while latency due to congestion slows down file transfers, latency due to congestion breaks real-time applications. Clearly broken is worse than slow, and if we could get everybody to agree on that we might be able to avoid the arms race crap between P2P developers working to build in better encryption and stealth vs DPI engineers trying to stay one step ahead to keep the traffic manageable.
reply

---

Lazlow @ 26th Nov 03:02AM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

Ok, this reply goes towards that paragraph or two you added (edited into) your after my earlier reply.

A lot of those people had no experience with the system before they bought those houses and may have honestly thought that was just the way things worked. But I agree they(the borrowers) should have known better. My point is not about the borrowers but the lenders. The lenders got themselves into trouble by making loans that they knew were far to risky. But greed drove them. High risk loans have the greatest returns (assuming a significant number of them do not default, our current situation). The reason we had to bail them(the lenders) out was becuase if they went under they would take the entire financial system down with them. This is "smart" business at work, instead of honest business. There were a lot of finical institutions out there they did not make these kind of "smart" loans and they are in much better shape than the ones that did (at least before the bailout). These are the same types of "smart" business practices that a lot of the ISPs are doing.

"They want to introduce you to a product at a low introductory rate so you will stay a customer going forward. This sales tactic is used universally from street drug dealers offering a free "taste" to selling game station consoles for less than the hardware manufacturing costs with the hopes of making it up in game sales after the fact. It's called a loss leader for a reason."

That would be true IF they were only offering it to new customers or old customers using new products, but they are not(which I mentioned above). What you have described is what they USED to do. Which I agree was/is a great idea. They currently are offering some(most?) existing customers the lower rates for the same services that they are currently subscribed to. It is common enough they even have a name for it(deal hopping? something hopping at any rate, its late zzzz). This relatively new (couple or years at most?) behavior does not fit into the loss leader theory (at least as I understand it). Many people are able to jump from one special (as it expires) to the next. If the ISPs were not making money (at the special rates) they would not allow this, they could not afford to. Since they have been doing this for quite a while and continue to do so, the only logical conclusion one can reach is that they are in fact making money even on these special rates.
reply

---

fireflier @ 26th Nov 08:05AM:
Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

While it does represent a potential traffic increase--the significance of which cannot be accurately determined at this point--I don't know that (and I don't think it can be proven) the traffic increase will result in a sudden discontinuity in the slope/curve of traffic over time that would necessitate such drastic actions, e.g. things the telcos are askig for like lower taxes, subsidies, and relaxed regulations.

They've survived other internet advancements (graphic heavy pages, flash, shockwave, MP3, etc) without these conditions. As an apparent advocate of free market capitalism, you should be suggesting the telcos deal with what's coming and let the strongest and smartest survive.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com
reply

---

jmn1207 @ 26th Nov 10:03AM:
Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

said by fireflier :

They've survived other internet advancements (graphic heavy pages, flash, shockwave, MP3, etc) without these conditions. As an apparent advocate of free market capitalism, you should be suggesting the telcos deal with what's coming and let the strongest and smartest survive.

Unfortunately the strongest and biggest have decided they want to place crippling caps on our service. And in Canada, the biggest and most irritating is allowed to make sure that all competition must follow their lead in throttling.

There is no legitimate free market capitalism here. Not in the sense where it is beneficial or advantageous to the consumers.
reply

---

Dogfather @ 26th Nov 10:40AM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

Coaxial fanboys have been saying that for years and will continue saying it for years.
reply

---

anon @ 26th Nov 07:22PM:
Re: Past statistics don't always show future trends

said by TKJunkMail :

compiled the latest set of data concerning the growth of Internet traffic

A lot of these predictions that the internet WON'T face much higher bandwidth demand is based on past statistics. But a paradigm break is in process. The past statistics can't recognize the tremendous growth of online high def video that is coming. Those predicting drastic growth may be more prescient than the statisticians looking backward.

I'm with you - everyone seems to be adding broadband "On Demand" to their Direct TV, Netflix to their Xbox, etc. I see a crunch coming as soon as this holiday... it's not hard to imagine bandwidth would at least triple using these new services... people who go from minimal email and web use are now downloading multi-gig movies!
reply

---

a333 @ 26th Nov 10:25PM:
Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

I think we're essentially agreeing that p2p is a reasonably efficient protocol. As to seeding, it's only the retards that allocate 100% of their uploads to their p2p client that end up causing network slowdowns for the rest of the subscribers. As to the part about faster being better, that's EXACTLY the thing that is better about p2p: it gets users off the network faster.
My complaint is the fact that Bell discriminates p2p in PARTICULAR, although it's just a PROTOCOL... if it's capacity that's the problem, they should throttle EVERYTHING, rather than p2p. IMHO, the ideal throttling technique would be to gradually scale back anyone using full bandwidth for more than say 15 minutes, during peak hours (Of course, no throttling, and capacity upgrades would be the best solution, but that's a different topic).
What I am getting at here is that p2p just uses BANDWIDTH. Bandwidth is bandwidth, regardless of the protocol using it. I.e. Grandma Ginny checking e-mail vs Joe the Downloader torrenting his pr0n is the same at the network level, unless Joe's p2p client somehow namages to open 5000 ports or something like that... Therefore, bandwidth should be treated indiscriminately, the way Comcast is experimenting with over here in the States, with their "protocol agnostic" approach (at least, let's HOPE it works).
reply

---

BloodRoses @ 27th Nov 04:45AM:
Re: just wait

I see what you did there.

»gawker.com/380877/south-park-the···od-still
--
Faerie Blessings,
Stephanie - www.GlitterFaerie.com
reply

---

anon @ 27th Nov 09:20AM:
re: capping of downloads

DON'T Let them do it !!!!

have a look at how Australia fairs with internet and telephone plans - the prices keep going up, the limits are ridiculously low and we are supposed to be thankful it isn't worse!

The companies are just out to screw the consumer
the limits once imposed will get lower and lower to drive up profits while the "service" gets worse.
»www.bigpond.com/homepage/ = our monopolistic telco

»www.whirlpool.net.au/ - see how bad it could be ...

Again - dont do it!!
reply

---

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC