how-to block ads
|
Moonlight_x
@videotron.ca
| reply to Guspaz
Re: tsi unlimited logins
said by Guspaz  :The problem is that connection speeds are driven by competition irrespective of transit costs. High speed residential internet is also based on the premise of typically intermittent residential, not continuous bandwidth hog usage models. The simplest way for ISPs to enforce the INTERMITTENT assumption they need to make high speeds work out is to introduce caps and this is exactly what all the first-tier players are doing.
With any given cap, there is not much of a reason for ISPs to artificially limit speeds as long as their network has ample headroom to cope with the associated bandwidth spikes. | |
id24601
join:2007-09-05
| reply to Angelo_
The more I read about the way things are going, the less excited I am about future internet offerings. I was looking forward to ADSL2 and the speed upgrades it would bring but now... Given the choice of:
ADSL 3000/800 No Cap No Throttle
ADSL2 16000/800 With Caps (Throttle?)
I would stick with my good old Unlimited 3000/800. | |
Moonlight_x
@videotron.ca
| said by id24601 :I would stick with my good old Unlimited 3000/800. If all Unlimited users abused their Unlimited service to the furthest extent possible, Unlimited would be extinct within the next 2-3 months. Even TSI's Unlimited only works because of this "the vast majority of Unlimited users make reasonable use of Unlimitedness" gambit.
Proof: TSI's average for Unlimited accounts in September was only 55GB. (Read the long "If..." thread.)
You can bet TSI will start deploying counter-measures against Unlimited before the Unlimited average ever gets anywhere near 200GB/month. Unlimited ISPs can keep the Unlimited illusion alive only for as long as they do not suffer wholesale abuse/assault from it.
Nearly all things unlimited are only illusions. | |
NBomb
join:2007-01-23
Etobicoke, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Angelo_
Not that anyone really cares, but my two cents on the matter (and no, I'm not complaining about TSI, I love em):
I believe I tend to average 60~GB a month on my premium account (according to the stats tool, I went over my limit last month, probably thanks to a torrent... damn those!), and honestly I don't feel cramped for cap space. Even on an unlimited account, I doubt I'd top 150 or even 120 GB a month, I do everything I want right now and don't really reach my limit.
My point is, I don't mind caps, as long as they're somewhat in line with the speed that's being offered. What I do mind is unlimited plans being sold as such but not being provided as such (on principle). What I REALLY mind is throttling, shaping, etc, which is the main reason I left Rogers.
Sell me a speed, sell me a cap, but let me use either or both of them to the full extent possible! I'd rather have my connection cut off or throttled to 64k if I go over my cap than have my pipe strangled or have my packets screwed with over the entire month.
I'd urge you, if you end up having to cap the unlimited plan, please don't market it as unlimited anymore. Just call Premium the 'Fast Lane' (or whatever), and the pseudo-unlimited 'Big Byte Bonanza' or something. 
Cheers! | |
Angelo_
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18 | how about banana bonaza service... | |
Moonlight_x
@videotron.ca
| reply to NBomb
said by NBomb :I believe I tend to average 60~GB a month on my premium account (according to the stats tool, I went over my limit last month, probably thanks to a torrent... damn those!), and honestly I don't feel cramped for cap space. Even on an unlimited account, I doubt I'd top 150 or even 120 GB a month, I do everything I want right now and don't really reach my limit. My point is, I don't mind caps, as long as they're somewhat in line with the speed that's being offered. No problems there given that TSI has bumped Unlimited to $40/month, dropped overage charges (again, already) to $0.25/GB and increased the cap basic Premium to 200GB/month today.
As for caps being in line with speed, this is not really necessary: if you had 100Mbps service, would you really download that much more than if you had 10Mbps or even 5Mbps service?
I download less than 60GB/month worth of stuff and already do not always have time to use/try/watch/whatever everything I download... the only difference speed makes for me is reduce the amount of time I have to wait after downloads and will not have a significant direct effect on how much I will download - it might add a few GB/month at most. I like speed for the convenience of shorter wait times but that's pretty much it. | |
Omr
join:2004-01-10
M1S-1B3
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :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. Sorry for reviving an old thread I just wanted to add this little tidbit. Hurricane Electric is supposedly available through Switch and Data, which has a Data Centre at 151 Front St. I believe TekSavvy won't have to run a Point to Point but I may be wrong as I am no expert in these fields and have no real empirical data on Hurricane Electric or Switch and Data for that matter. It all depends on TSI crew contacting Hurricane Electric and doing what all business men do ... roll up the sleeves and prepare for Bare Knuckle fighting via a conference call . | |
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to Black Moon
General comment:
Some had said that increasing the DSL speeds in pointless until transit costs come down.
You forget peering. For instance, if you download a google video, or somethin from akamai, then you don't cost Teksavvy any transit since tesavvy connects to them directly via torix.
So, on such occasions, having higher speeds pays off.
And in the end, when you look at very big content like HD movies or even HD television "live" (streamed), the only way it will work is if each ISP as its own server to stream it to its own customers, or use peering with folks like google or akamai to do it "locally". Having 5000 customers all stream HD version of a LOST episode live from the abc.com servers would be ludicrous because it would no only cost Teksavvy a lot of transit, but the idea of the ABC servers able to serve all its viewers live is not feasable. Distribution of content will have to be done as locally as possible to eliminate transit costs. (or reduce it to just one stream coming in from abc to each ISP and the ISP then streaming to all the customers who want that stream. | |
Moonlight_x
@videotron.ca
| said by jfmezei :And in the end, when you look at very big content like HD movies or even HD television "live" (streamed), the only way it will work is if each ISP as its own server to stream it to its own customers, or use peering with folks like google or akamai to do it "locally". This sounds an awful lot like webcache and peercache... I'm sure many webcasters have deployed a number of such techniques with their partner ISPs sand are working on standard ways of enabling caching for streaming content.
Duplicating transit for one data stream is inefficient and everybody would gain from standardized caching technologies for it. | |
|
