Moonlight_x
@videotron.ca
| reply to jfmezei
Re: tsi unlimited logins
said by jfmezei  :Could you guys use QoS features to give premium users better access to bandwidth and the unlimited guys lower priority ? Say you have a 100mbs link with Cogent, could you limit to say 70mbps the amount used at any point in time by the unlimited users ? There is no point: Premium accounts are routed primarily through premium backbones/exchanges like Peer1 while Unlimited subscribers are routed primarily through Cogent.
Two different service tiers, two nearly separate backbones. What makes Premium Premium is the combination of Premium uplinks and top priority on backbone capacity upgrades to maintain low latency, stable speeds and service availability/reliability.
The only QoS Premium could need is soft-realtime traffic class support for VoIP. |
|
Omr
join:2004-01-10
M1S-1B3
| reply to Angelo_
Hey Team TSI,
Going to Rocky's analogy of the Fire Hydrant ... I see what you mean but we can't neglect the faulty logic of the ISP as well. They know it harms them, but yet they continually increase the speeds. Honestly offering 16Mbps for emails is a farce, because anything else will get you over those measly monthly caps. Hey as a market I would be happy if there was a industry wide moratorium on speed increases until the Transit cost comes down to reasonable rates, because Transit is governed by Supply and Demand eventually it'll decrease to acceptable levels. With every speed increase the consumer loses out on the overall monthly data ... heck if you guys have control over Profile provisioning I suggest stay at 5Mbps until the market is really ready for a progress.
One question I have although is why are Transit fees soo high in general? Do Transit companies fix the price so as to gouge or is the data relay that expensive these days?
About the IP Transit going at $10/Mbps I saw one months ago on an Linux Journal Magazine going at $5/Mbps I doubt they peer with 151 Front St, but take a look:
»www.he.net/ip_transit.html |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
| I've never heard of Hurricane Electric Internet Services before.... Interesting.... It makes the burden not as bad if you can get that $5/Mbps fee (depending on what the commitment levels are however), then it would make things that much more affordable. On the flip side however, the 4% users as I'd identified would still be a problem.... although the non-abusers would also costs much less and as a result, that much more profitable.
...good find! Not sure on the quality, but good find!
Rocky
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
1 edit | reply to Omr
said by Omr :About the IP Transit going at $10/Mbps I saw one months ago on an Linux Journal Magazine going at $5/Mbps The $5/Mbps special they are running is $5000 for a full GigE, and you have to be transiting IPv6. For IPv4 only it's $7000 for a GigE for new customers. Standard rates apply after the initial circuit.
-Eric |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| said by espaeth :said by Omr :About the IP Transit going at $10/Mbps I saw one months ago on an Linux Journal Magazine going at $5/Mbps The $5/Mbps special they are running is $5000 for a full GigE, and you have to be transiting IPv6. For IPv4 only it's $7000 for a GigE for new customers. Standard rates apply after the initial circuit. -Eric "IPv6 and IPv4 on the same connection - included at no extra charge."
So you don't have to move entirely to IPv6, just support it.
TekSavvy is already a multi-gigabit ISP, so it's not like it's a huge insanely big commit for them...
Here's the important part, though:
"Hurricane Electric IP Transit service is available in colocation facilities such as Equinix, Switch and Data, Telehouse, Interxion, etc. and cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Fremont, Palo Alto, San Jose, Dallas, Chicago, Ashburn, London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Frankfurt."
The closest is Chicago, IIRC, as that's where most traffic enters the US. So TekSavvy would have to pay for a point-to-point line to Chicago on top of everything else. If we can use Bell's non-transit GigE pricing for wholesalers as a rough estimate (I can't recall, it was either $1300 or $1800, and I have no better frame of reference), then the total cost would still be lower than cogent, but no longer dramatically so. |
|
Black Moon
join:2005-02-01
Scarborough, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :As for lowering profiles, are you kidding me? I'd rather have a cap (and DO have a cap) than be limited in my transfer speeds. I want to be able to download fast when I need to download, not be limited to some slow speed to prevent higher usage. Your proposal doesn't make sense; it solves the same problem as caps by taking away the choice that caps give; WHEN to use your bandwidth. But that is just your personal opinion. Contrary to you, I don't want to constantly have to monitor my usage and worry if I go over the cap. I don't care if I download that DVD in 1 hour or 2 hours, as long as I get it.
And seriously, when can you ever pull 500K/sec? Almost never. So once you get to about 16Mbps, you expect to download at 1.5Mbyte/sec? Forget it. It's not gonna happen. |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | When I was at Apple's WWDC I was downloading at about 5 MByte/s from usenet. So yes, there's some places that can definitely handle it. This was over 802.11n as well. Their backbone was through AT&T |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to Black Moon
My personal opinion? I really don't think many people here would rather have a 1mbit connection instead of a 100GB cap on a 5mbit connection. It's a really bizarre thing to want.
As for when can I pull 500KB/s... Umm, how about almost every decently sized file I download over HTTP (be it my server or elsewhere) or BitTorrent? Why isn't 1.5MB/s going to happen? I don't see why it'd be a problem. My server has a 100mbit NIC, the BitTorrent swarms I usually frequent have a surplus of seeders, and I pull HTTP files in from multiple sources.
No offense, but your laziness would undo a decade of progress in internet connection speeds. If you're that desperate to get a slower connection, it's trivial to limit your connection to 1mbit on your router (if it's something like a WRT54G) or in Windows/Linux. |
|
neko
All Hail Canada
Premium
join:2006-08-11
canada
·Callcentric
·Cogeco Cable
·Future Nine Corpor..
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Black Moon
said by Black Moon :And seriously, when can you ever pull 500K/sec? Almost never. So once you get to about 16Mbps, you expect to download at 1.5Mbyte/sec? Forget it. It's not gonna happen. I'm with Guspaz on this. It's trivial to pull over 500KB/s from just about any source like torrents, http, FTP, IRC, etc. I don't know why you think it's not possible. |
|
Moonlight_x
@videotron.ca
| reply to Black Moon
said by Black Moon :And seriously, when can you ever pull 500K/sec? Almost never. So once you get to about 16Mbps, you expect to download at 1.5Mbyte/sec? Forget it. It's not gonna happen. With my current cable ISP, my torrents regularly hit 700-750KB/s on my 7Mbps service and HTTP downloads from major sites (like ATI's driver download servers and kernel.org) even reach close to 800KB/s. My friends who were on the 10Mbps plan from the same cable ISP regularly hit around 1MB/s.
I will be taking Bell up on its no-contract three $20/month Total+ 16Mbps service to test my line later this month and you bet I will be expecting to see 1.4-1.5MB/s if they deliver 16Mbps sync. Of course, because Bell is now throttling torrents, that might not happen.
When I sign up with TSI after the Bell testing, I will be expecting 5Mbps sync and 400-500KB/s out of my Premium account. If the Bell test-run says my line is bad and Bell fails to fix it in due time, I will scrap my DSL plans and remain on cable for another year.
BTW, unlimited 1Mbps = 270GB/month... that in itself is a sort of cap. Would you prefer to have 1Mbps unlimited or 10Mbps with a 250GB cap? I would prefer 10Mbps capped. |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| 1mbit is 270GB/mth assuming you download at max speed 24/7.
If you download at max speed a few hours a day at 1mbit (when you want to download something), your usage will be far lower.
Of course, with such a slow speed, downloading the things you want might have to be queued up so far in advance that you really are downloading at full speed for extended periods of time. Downloading a high-definition movie on 1 mbit would take about 12-24 hours depending on if it's a DVD5 or DVD9 sized encode. So if you want to do something like, say, download Alien and Aliens in high def, well, your connection is out of commission (downloading at full speed) for up to two days.
That's not a situation I'd like to be in. |
|
TSI Gabe
Premium,VIP
join:2007-01-03
Chatham, ON
| said by Guspaz :download Alien and Aliens in high def Is that a new movie?  |
|
Angelo_
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18 | Gabe stop using the Juniper router's to download your movie's |
|
Black Moon
join:2005-02-01
Scarborough, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :No offense, but your laziness would undo a decade of progress in internet connection speeds. If you're that desperate to get a slower connection, it's trivial to limit your connection to 1mbit on your router (if it's something like a WRT54G) or in Windows/Linux. And that is about to catch up with us right now, isn't it?
As for limiting the connection speed, most of the time my download with BT is the same as my upload, so I already rarely do above 70K/sec. |
|
Black Moon
join:2005-02-01
Scarborough, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Moonlight_x
said by Moonlight_x :
BTW, unlimited 1Mbps = 270GB/month... that in itself is a sort of cap. Would you prefer to have 1Mbps unlimited or 10Mbps with a 250GB cap? I would prefer 10Mbps capped.
The former, because I CANNOT go over the cap (assuming it's around 300) and needn't worry about having to pay more if I do.
You all might favour insane speeds with low to medium caps. I do not. Different strokes. |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
1 edit | reply to Black Moon
Catch up with us? No, I'm on Premium, not unlimited. When I need to use my connection, it's available, and it's fast.
You're looking at your own usage and proposing a solution that would work for you, but not necessarily everybody else.
EDIT: If your BitTorrent download speeds are limited to the same as your upstream, and you're uploading at 70 KB/s without using QoS, that'd be because you should be limiting your BitTorrent upload speeds to 50 or 60 KB/s, not because the swarm can't perform any better. 70KB/s is too close to your maximum possible upstream (especially considering overhead involved with BitTorrent), and that is impacting your downstream speeds. |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| reply to Black Moon
said by Black Moon :said by Moonlight_x :
BTW, unlimited 1Mbps = 270GB/month... that in itself is a sort of cap. Would you prefer to have 1Mbps unlimited or 10Mbps with a 250GB cap? I would prefer 10Mbps capped.
The former, because I CANNOT go over the cap (assuming it's around 300) and needn't worry about having to pay more if I do. You all might favour insane speeds with low to medium caps. I do not. Different strokes. Again, if that's your concern, then don't screw over the rest of us; take your 5mbit connection with 300GB cap and limit it to 1mbit at your router. There, you don't have to worry any more, and the rest of us can enjoy non-crippled speeds. |
|
Omr
join:2004-01-10
M1S-1B3
| reply to Angelo_
My way of observing this issue would be to not see new speed increases until the Transit fees are at an acceptable level which over time they should go down (unless it is an industry like oil), but it shouldn't be like oil as this is a digital resource and technology should in the future reduce the Transit fees.
Lets not go backwards at the same time. If right now 5Mbps is the norm and widely available then 5Mbps should be good. Since right now Bell is pumping out 7Mbps then it won't be fair for those that tasted 7Mbps to be slowed down again ... so stop it where it is now 5-7Mbps and the ISP's should stop pushing out what they can't afford or support. I know the speeds they can support, but it is not right when the speed increases come with more caveats and restrictions ... I and no one else asked for it. If ISP's told users that if they stuck to old speeds of 3Mbps they would get Unlimited/ Un-Throttled/ Uncapped service as opposed to a 5Mbps upgrade that restricts you at every turn it would be obvious what users would of chosen. I and no one else want to be part of ISP's marketing games to show off who has the bigger dick, when truly offering a crappier service. Sadly I and others see ISP's repeat the same mistakes over and over again now upgrading to 7Mbps and 16mbps for services which honestly are so crippled. Those that say NNTP is an option, well be aware that with NNTP you would still pass most of those measly data caps and in the future it will be the next protocol to throttle after BT and it will happen. The onus is on the ISP as they control the flow of water, and that is the hardest thing to predict in this business "Who would eat the most out of an all you can eat buffet?". |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| The problem is that connection speeds are driven by competition irrespective of transit costs. If Videotron raises speeds and Bell doesn't, then Videotron will get more customers than Bell. Any such agreement would have to be an industry-wide thing between the major players (Bell, Videotron, Rogers, etc) to stop the current connection speed "arms race".
Don't worry, one day, TekSavvy will be a tier 1 ISP, and won't have to worry about transit costs :P |
|
Black Moon
join:2005-02-01
Scarborough, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :Again, if that's your concern, then don't screw over the rest of us; take your 5mbit connection with 300GB cap and limit it to 1mbit at your router. There, you don't have to worry any more, and the rest of us can enjoy non-crippled speeds. I'm not fucking with the rest of you. I'm just giving an alternative to the current situation. Most places in the world have different internet packages priced at different speeds; usually faster is more expensive. Why isn't that the case here? What happens here is that the 'up to' phrase is used and many people pay for 'up to' 5 Mbps but only get 3 or 2 or even less. Better to have a guaranteed speed and pay for that only. It also increases consumer satisfaction without them being tricked by a sneaky 'up to'.
Anyway, if you want a fast connection, that's fine, and you can pay whatever price the market sets. But I think that in the long run it is better if there are several speed profiles at different prices for those of us who don't give a damn about speed but do worry about going over the cap.
It's easy to say to limit the speed at the router, but most people don't have a clue about how to do this. Having different profiles can also defend them from having high costs associated with going over the cap. Additionally, why would I do that if I'm paying for (up to) 5 Mbps, being able to get 5 Mbps it but don't use it? It doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying that I would ALWAYS want 1 Mbps connection (since I can do do sometimes download at fast speed, and it can be an advantage), but, if I had to choose between a 5 Mbps package capped at 300 GB or a 1 Mbps package capped at the same, I'd choose the former.
Granted, that choice isn't here today, but maybe it might be prudent to have that choice in the future.
Anyway, TSI is still unlimited so this is a non-issue and I won't debate this any further. I agree to disagree,
Thanks for the BT tip. The 70K/sec is a maximum that I set in Azureus. I use the auto-speed plugin to adjust as necessary. I usually download at about 450K/sec on a well-seeded torrent with a large swarm (such as TV shows0 but most of the stuff I download with BT has small swarms and a low seed2peer ratio, so that usually limits the download speed to be approximately the same as the upload speed. |
|
