Kill the bandwidth hogs

STaN

What is the best way to kill bandwidth hogs as theyve been put.

Eircom's solution was the cap.

What are the others?

Throttle down dowloads after 5mins to a quarter speed?

Throttle down dowloads after they have reached 10gb?

Lemming

I would consider throttling back to 56k levels after 10gb to be a decent response.

Not only are you culling someone's abililty to soak up bandwidth, but you are also reminding them of what the alternative is.

I remember reading about some ISP doing this (where and who and the url escapes me at this point)

SkepticOne

If I got the chance, I would advise an ISP to initially not put any measure in place. Rather monitor the situation, find out the extent of the problem that the 'hogs' are causing before taking any action. Throttling would certainly be a better solution than capping, but the amount of download before the throttling kicks in should depend on usage patterns.

<edit: this is assuming that nothing can be done to increase the incoming bandwidth for whatever reason>

dahamsta

Throttle down dowloads after they have reached 10gb?

I think this is a good solution, although it should be "traffic", not downloads. This will stop give the filesharers a kick in the pants too.

adam

segadreamcast

Throttle down dowloads after 5mins to a quarter speed?

When you're playing a PC game aren't you technically downloading all the time more or less :P? As much as I'd love to hinder PC gamers, this would effectively destroy any point of them having broadband if all gaming were to be brought to a sudden slowdown in five minutes :P.

I think slowing to 56k after 10GB would be quite a good idea actually...

saik

why cant they just provide the bandwidth they advertise. i dont believe in abusing a service you pay for.

m1ke

I heard somewhere there is a per-day cap of 1gb, after which you pay for each megabyte. It sounds perfectly fair to me. If anyone knows who does it mention it. I think it might be BT?

Anyone who requires more then 1gb a day, everyday, should just purchase the uncapped version. Anyone who occasionally needs more then 1gb can either take the cost hit that day or wait until the next day to finish the file transfers. I don't think throttling is a good thing because sometimes a situation might arise where you need to break quotas and accept the price.

Overall, i'd admit that capping is acceptable. Unrestricted access to 512dsl theoretically could soak up around 5gigs a day X 30 - 150gigs of data in a month which is unfair. What we need is IOFFL to lobby for a fair cap on dsl which would be about 15gigs a month or the 1 gig a day model. The caps will need to be increased every year as things advance too.

Boston

Your working off the persumptions that there is even a need for a download cap, or that a cap really has anything to do with the service you get.

Its all about cutting costs and maximising profits. If The isp can convince yo uthat capping everybody at 4 gigs will improve your connection, then they will do that, if they can convince you a 10 gig cap will do the same then they will do that.

To be honous, do you really think me downloading 3 gbs of what ever between 10pm sunday night and saturday morning will have any effect on your speed. No not really.

And this is the problem with caps. You want something that works, Cap unpeak downloads and leave off peak downloads uncapped. usually the isp has over capacity at that stage anyway so your speed isn't going to be affected to a great deal. But they wont do that because the caps have sweat fa to do with improving the service to the consumer, and everything to do with making more money for the isp. That is why i hate it when i see so much miss guided hostility directed towards people who download allot.

Just my opinion but there it goes

SkepticOne

Someone posted a while back of an ISP that implemented a throttle on a rolling period of time. If during, I think, a 48 hour period, you went above a certain amount, your bandwidth would be throttled back to 128k or something until a certain further period expired.

PiE

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Someone posted a while back of an ISP that implemented a throttle on a rolling period of time. If during, I think, a 48 hour period, you went above a certain amount, your bandwidth would be throttled back to 128k or something until a certain further period expired.

That'd be a good solution, it would deter the non-stop downloaders while allowing for the occasional huge download.

Having said that, I'm still of the same opinion of Saik & Boston. If they can't provide enough bandwidth its not the customers who should be punished.

Boston

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Someone posted a while back of an ISP that implemented a throttle on a rolling period of time. If during, I think, a 48 hour period, you went above a certain amount, your bandwidth would be throttled back to 128k or something until a certain further period expired.

I know of several services but in europe and america that go to 56k speeds during peak time, for everyone, its no solution, all people do is transfer their downloading habits.

Broadband.ie have a nice solution of knocking back the residential speed during the day, to provide companies with a better service. Thus so called bandwidth hogs dont bog down the network during the day, and when the speed comes back up offpeak they can download what ever they want, since off peak the isp has over capacity. To me thats a fair solution. I mean if you want reliable speed your should go out and get a leased line or something similiarly priced

hmmm

I like the idea of throttling. We want to avoid a situation where we make people worry about using the internet by the fear that they could run up big bills, as that would just be repeating the current modem issue.

I don't see why throttling should be 56k either - 128k should be reasonable.

Rags

What is the best way to kill bandwidth hogs as theyve been put.

Eircom's solution was the cap

I think your misguided my friend, the reason behind the cap was nothing to do with killing bandwidth hogs, it is there to make more money nothing else. There is no need for any caps at all in this country as there is such a low uptake of dsl. Most european countrys have unlimited usage and time online and thats what we should expect not this useless 4gb caps from eircom :rolleyes:

MagicBusDriver

There is no need for caps ever with DSL. Satillite providers have caps because of the high cost of bandwidth. There is no reason why the ISP/telco cannot upgrade connections when required.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by PiE
Having said that, I'm still of the same opinion of Saik & Boston. If they can't provide enough bandwidth its not the customers who should be punished.

On some of the cable systems in the states where they offer a couple of megs/sec bandwidth, they can get away with no cap or throttle whatsoever. This is because light users don't mind the slow down at peak evening times because they still have enough for most broadband uses. As long as people have enough they don't complain. This is the ultimate solution, but I don't see it happening for a while in Ireland.

Eircom's proposed "mass market" service will have a wholesale component and ISPs will be required to link into that (if it actually occurs). I'm hoping that if this happens, then a number of ISPs will enter the market and some of these will opt for, if necessary, non-intrusive methods of sharing bandwidth. I like Boston's idea of treating night time useage differently than peak peak time, this would encourage people to schedule their downloads at night.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Rags
I think your misguided my friend, the reason behind the cap was nothing to do with killing bandwidth hogs, it is there to make more money nothing else. There is no need for any caps at all in this country as there is such a low uptake of dsl. Most european countrys have unlimited usage and time online and thats what we should expect not this useless 4gb caps from eircom :rolleyes:

Well, certainly that sort of cap is too low. Although it would have the effect of killing bandwidth hogs, it is not the primary reason.

yellum

Originally posted by STaN
What is the best way to kill bandwidth hogs as theyve been put.

Eircom's solution was the cap.

What are the others?

Throttle down dowloads after 5mins to a quarter speed?

Throttle down dowloads after they have reached 10gb?

Bandwidth hogs in relation to what service ?

Surely if you are paying for bandwidth you are entitled to use it ? ISPs going after people that are utilizing 100% of the service they are paying for sounds very sinister to me.

Is this even an IOFFL issue ?

When you're done with the bandwidth "hogs" who's next in your sights ? Or will other services be withdrawn ?

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

Celt

Since 26/08/2002 I have downloaded 76.11GB and uploaded 38.25GB.

I never leave my pc on just to dl/ul, I dont run any kind of server.

How am I hogging bandwidth? The service I use is advertised 512/128 unlimited, surely I am only getting EXACTLY what I paid for?

STaN

i believe that the 512/128 service is a maximum limit on your connection and is not a dedicated rate. The reality for a particular exchange is that it may have a 10mb connection to a trunk network, and if it reaches its 50:1 (the contention) capacity which would mean 750 people on that particular exchange meaning 750 people will be sharing that 10mb pipe. 7.5mb of it for downloads 2.5mb of it for uploads. In turn only 15 people could download at maximum speed at any one time. And hence those 15 reduce the shared speed to the rest of the subscribers.

I have heard of ISPs having a clause of "service within reason" whereby people abusing the service get disconnected or throttled.

The fact is that if you want a unlimited pipe for constant downloading or constant video streaming, a leased line is what its there for. And the reason they are so expensive? Becuase bandwidth is expensive and you pay for it. That is why DSL is contented, to share out that cost, and to share out the benefits. But people could potentially hijack an exchange and reduce the service level for everyone, a situation seen on some UK cable networks. Thats how i see it anyway.

KdjaCL

Ffs so you accept that this is the Broadband service we should have???

this thread should be deleted i dloaded 81gb in one month on basic DSL ,should i be punished??
I pay €109 for that privlege so i should be hindered because some new users fear their precious bandwidth will be hurt by me and others who feel we should NOT have a cap in the 1st place and Eircoms lack of enforcing this cap led us to absolutley massacre it

Hmm this thread kinda goes against the idea of having broadband.

KdjaC

pete

I'm still not convinced that download caps don't have more to do with market segmentation & price differentiation than any hard and fast relationship to the cost of bandwidth.

I don't have anything to back this up, of course - but i don't see anyone backing up "bandwidth is expensive" claims either, soo....

pete

Originally posted by KdjaC
I pay €109 for that privlege so i should be hindered because some new users fear their precious bandwidth will be hurt by me and others who feel we should NOT have a cap in the 1st place and Eircoms lack of enforcing this cap led us to absolutley massacre it

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how things pan out when there's no longer damn all people actually using the service.

saik

stan

why cant they just provide the bandwidth they advertise. i dont believe in abusing a service you pay for.

STaN

why cant they just provide the bandwidth they advertise. i dont believe in abusing a service you pay for.

because their not advertising a dedicated rate. their advertising the maximum.

and i suppose that going into a leased line vs dsl topic is another day's work.

this thread should be deleted i dloaded 81gb in one month on basic DSL ,should i be punished??

I think is a valuable discussion on caps and/or throttling and/or any other methods which ISPs could use to give every 1 a fair service.

(all dsl services have a clause for a cap except the high end offerings from eircom and esat have them, and VIA's service is only available to exisiting customers)

Dustaz

Originally posted by KdjaC

this thread should be deleted i dloaded 81gb in one month on basic DSL ,should i be punished??

I pay €109 for that privlege so i should be hindered because some new users fear their precious bandwidth will be hurt by me and others who feel we should NOT have a cap in the 1st place and Eircoms lack of enforcing this cap led us to absolutley massacre it

Er, i also pay €109 for this privilege. I dont go anywhere near that limit.
If my service started to suffer the way some services in America and England suffer (notably cable services), i would be LIVID that i was not getting what i paid for.

Hmm this thread kinda goes against the idea of having broadband.

The name Broadband means Large Bandwith, not Constant Traffic. The idea of having broadband is speed and the fact that it is always on, NOT the ability to download the entire internet.


The bottom line imo, is the cost of bandwith not network congestion. If everyone downloaded as much as kdjac did a month, then eircom would probably be making a loss on the service.

Heres food for thought. In portugal cable companys only charged for international bandwith - all traffic within the country cost them very little and it was unlimited. All international traffic over a gig was metered at a reasonable rate (cant remember the figures, and i have no idea if they still operate like this)

gurramok

Also a cap(especially a restricted one) is a dis-incentive to taking up broadband in the first place.
People will just judge a product on its cap and is it worth the expense for them.
Migrating up from dial-up is not worth the expense when for example 4 gb can be downloaded over 56k/isdn for greater value of price albeit at slower pace.
Throttling is probably the best way to stop real 24/7 bandwidth hogs plus the idea of unrestrictive overnight download as suggested would be sensible.

The name Broadband means Large Bandwith, not Constant Traffic. The idea of having broadband is speed and the fact that it is always on, NOT the ability to download the entire internet

But, speed to do what when its restricted and your data watching?
Bandwidth is just a name then when it can't be utilised and is heavily restrictive.
Always on can be achieved through flat-rate 56k/isdn.

Celt

Originally posted by STaN

The fact is that if you want a unlimited pipe for constant downloading or constant video streaming, a leased line is what its there for. And the reason they are so expensive? Becuase bandwidth is expensive and you pay for it. That is why DSL is contented, to share out that cost, and to share out the benefits. But people could potentially hijack an exchange and reduce the service level for everyone, a situation seen on some UK cable networks. Thats how i see it anyway.

A leased line isn't there for unlimited download/upload cap.
I'll rephrase, I have 512/128 (maximum) unlimited service.
Yes, unlimited.

Krouc

Eircom only placed the cap to make money. On a 56k you could break the 3gb cap. Eircom - As much as we can as quick as we can.
As for slowing someones connection to 128,56k or what ever does sound ok but I am sorry in Ireland, thats bull****.

Where I am now I have downloded as much as I want, gb's a day (I'm making up for years of Eircons 56k)!

I look at it like this;

houston has a population of over 5 million, more than Ireland. Roadrunner Cable (timeWarner) Does not impose any cap on downloads. From what I have seen they are the biggest supplier of Broadband here. I am here three months and I have not had a single outage (DEF: Outage: something I saw a lot of when I worked for a certain ISP) If eircon advertise a service such as it is then there should be no cap or speed restrictions. I can understand what ppl are saying about hogs but I think as ppl come to have broadband for a while the hogging will stop. This is just a way from the to pocket some more of your money so that ppl like alfie can have the afterlife he is living.

With a country the size of Ireland and the amount of the ppl that will actually be hogs is really small and from my experience of users calling tech support they wouldnt know how fast it was going if it ran over them. They use it for email and very little surfing. You may say this is because of the cost, but no, ppl just dont know.

I think this is being given too much screening. Bandwidth does cost money as does retiring CEO and Eircon seem to spend on the latter.

A while ago I posted about the 3gb cap and how sad it really was. I downloads RedHat 8's iso's and all combined they were over 3gb's. I think its a good example of how daft the cap is.

At the end of it all with a country the size of Ireland and with the amount of ppl actually going to take up DSL and then for the amount of them to actually be hogs! ffs Its a money spinner and if an ISP can offer a flat rate service to these ppl, its a bit sad. what it looks like s the attempt by Eircom to recoup some of the money its going to lose because the introduction of flate rate.

Hogs will die off but I just cant see how it should be this big of an issue.


$39 a month,
Krouc

Rags

The bottom line imo, is the cost of bandwith not network congestion. If everyone downloaded as much as kdjac did a month, then eircom would probably be making a loss on the service.

Now I definetly know your taking the piss, eircom losing money on internet products? What dream world are you living in

As its been said , dsl doesnt need a cap , ONLY satelite and cable internet have grounds to agrue that there should be one, with regards to the talk about throttling, thats only done on satelite and cable.

Moriarty

Originally posted by STaN
because their not advertising a dedicated rate. their advertising the maximum.

You didnt answer the question . Everyone accepts there is contention at the local exchange. Which is what your talking about above. What people are complaining about is an isp sticking a cap onto a supposedly 'unmetered, always-on, broadband connection'. With your frame of mind, if an isp says there are 'bandwidth hogs' maxing out their current upstream pipe they are fully in their right to sit there without upgrading their upstream service and blame any problems on the evil excessive users.

When you pay your monthly subscription, your not just paying for the hardware the isp has to provide, you are also paying for your bandwidth. Having a further charge on an essential part of the service - which you have already paid towards - is just trying to milk the market for everything its worth.

Saying all that, there is also the other side of the coin where somone has downloads queued so that they are maxing out their connection 24x7. In this case, the ISP has a case as it is excessive useage of the service. The isp shouldnt have to pay for you to have an effective leased line.

So, where do you come down between the two sides? I think a reasonable cap would be about 8 full hours of continous useage per day; ~2gig on a 512k connection. Above that cap, you pay 10% over the cost price that the isp gets their bandwidth for (which is pretty damn cheap).

SkepticOne

Originally posted by pete
I'm still not convinced that download caps don't have more to do with market segmentation & price differentiation than any hard and fast relationship to the cost of bandwidth.

I don't have anything to back this up, of course - but i don't see anyone backing up "bandwidth is expensive" claims either, soo....

I believe that in the case of Eircom this is so. For example, the 'multi' package is 1mb/s 24:1 (with 6gig cap) and the 'enhanced' package is also 1 mb/sec 24:1 but without the cap. There are differences in the terms and conditions as well, for example, the 'enhanced' package allows unlimited users.

Yet the cost to Eircom (per user) is the same. Same backhaul, same equipment in the exchanges. The reason can only be that they have decided to cripple the 'multi' in order to get money out of people whose budget can only stretch that far.

If the cap on 'multi' was in order to create a better service for the majority of users, then why don't they apply the same logic to 'enhanced'?

This example would seem to show that Eircom regard the use of the cap as a means of making the service less attractive.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

longword

Originally posted by Lemming
I would consider throttling back to 56k levels after 10gb to be a decent response.

I remember reading about some ISP doing this (where and who and the url escapes me at this point)

skynet.be and telenet.be (DSL and cable respectively) do that. skynet have a simple monthly cap. Come the end of the month, if you're out of bandwidth you're out of luck. Telenet do it a bit smarter, spreading the cap out on a daily basis. If you use over 300MB the first day, you'll find yourself on a go-slow until day 2. But if you use less than 300MB that balance carries over to tomorrow's cap. It's not based on calendar months, but rather it's a sliding window over the past 30 days. Very fair and you don't wind up with usage spike early in the month and underuse of capacity towards the end of the month.

Paying for excess downstream use is not only wrong in principal for a flat-rate service IMHO, but it has one really nasty little problem: If someone doesn't like you and finds out your IP address, they can flood you to their heart's content and you get to pick up the bill. Even using a single channel ISDN line, that's a 500 euro bill.

dahamsta

houston has a population of over 5 million, more than Ireland. Roadrunner Cable (timeWarner) Does not impose any cap on downloads.

Again, economies of scale come into play here. Certainly Houston is about the same size as Ireland, but Roadrunner operates nationwide, not just in Houston. Not only do they have their own fibre around the country - which is where most of their traffic stays anyway - their bandwidth buying power is enormous compared to Eircom.

adam

longword

Originally posted by daveirl
All I want to know is why people are accepting a cap at all. The whole idea of a lobby group is that you try to get as much as you can.

People are accepting a cap, at a reasonable level, to ensure that the contention ratio doesn't bite too hard. What you're paying for is not a 512k leased line. It's shared with between 20 and 50 other users. The performance of your service depends on what the other 19-49 users are doing. If one or two of them choose to max out their line 24/7, you will be very unhappy and screaming to high heaven that you're not getting what you paid for.

dahamsta

The whole idea of a lobby group is that you try to get as much as you can.

I signed up to IrelandOffline to get what I deserve, not as much as I can. So, although I certainly agree that IrelandOffline should be aiming higher in order to settle at that level...

Surely IOFFL should be aiming for an uncapped service.

...in my opinion IrelandOffline should be aiming for product diversity. We should have both.

adam

sceptre

Originally posted by Lemming
I remember reading about some ISP doing this (where and who and the url escapes me at this point)

One of the Aussie ISPs throttles users back to 28k (no, there isn't a 1 missing there) when the monthly limit is exceeded. Just enough to pick up mail.

dahamsta

One of the Aussie ISPs throttles users back to 28k (no, there isn't a 1 missing there) when the monthly limit is exceeded. Just enough to pick up mail.

Bit excessive that, people should still be able to surf at least. Someone else suggested 128k, but you can still suck down fairly hefty downloads with that if you're a persistant little piggy. 64k strikes me as a fair balance.

adam

Moriarty

One has to remember that australia is pretty bandwidth starved when it comes to international connectivity. Europe and the US have no such problems (infact its more the opposite..).

SkepticOne

Originally posted by yellum
When you're done with the bandwidth "hogs" who's next in your sights ? Or will other services be withdrawn ?

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

LOL. sorry, but it's funny in this context.

longword

Originally posted by Moriarty
One has to remember that australia is pretty bandwidth starved when it comes to international connectivity. Europe and the US have no such problems (infact its more the opposite..).

Ireland isn't necessarily a part of Europe in this context.

pete

Originally posted by daveirl
All I want to know is why people are accepting a cap at all. The whole idea of a lobby group is that you try to get as much as you can.

Surely IOFFL should be aiming for an uncapped service. If people accept a capped service then that's their business but the group's policy should be to try and get as much as possible.

Do you want to be represented by powerful, respected lobby group or a bunch of cranks? (see: Greenpeace / Consumer Association vs IFA / SFA / NTDU etc)

pete

Originally posted by SkepticOne
If the cap on 'multi' was in order to create a better service for the majority of users, then why don't they apply the same logic to 'enhanced'?

This example would seem to show that Eircom regard the use of the cap as a means of making the service less attractive.

I would have said that the cap is there to assist in incentivising (read: fleece) those who need the higher performing service...

But, yes.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by pete
I would have said that the cap is there to assist in incentivising (read: fleece) those who need the higher performing service...

But, yes.

Yes. Other side of the coin. Point is to make one look worse than the other even though it costs the same to make both.

It is like when the 'Baby Belling' cooker was brought out first, it had two rings at the top. Belling got the idea to sell a cheaper one where you could only operate one ring at a time. This actually had an extra switch built in so it cost more to make than the one that allowed both rings to be operated at the same time.

This is why the cap in Eircom's case is more to do with extracting as much money as possible from as many as possible.

pete

I agree... the problem is that unlike your cooker example - which has a clearly identifiable, tangible thing you can point your finger at at shout "Come see the violence inherent in the system!" or equivalent at - we're up against this oft-repeated mantra of "ah yes, but bandwidth is expensive" - I mean I'm not saying it's not expensive (i have no idea how much it is - funnily enough it doesn't seem to be a cost factor in either my 56k eircom line here, or our 512k nevada telecom line in work), it's just that I just haven't seen anything concrete that can be held up as a valid reason for 3/4/6gb caps (other than allowing eircom to do better average usage levels / probable capacity analysis to go for higher contention ratios).....



I need to learn punctuation.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

SkepticOne

I agree... the problem is that unlike your cooker example - which has a clearly identifiable, tangible thing you can point your finger at at shout "Come see the violence inherent in the system!" or equivalent at - we're up against this oft-repeated mantra of "ah yes, but bandwidth is expensive" - I mean I'm not saying it's not expensive (i have no idea how much it is - funnily enough it doesn't seem to be a cost factor in either my 56k eircom line here, or our 512k nevada telecom line in work), it's just that I just haven't seen anything concrete that can be held up as a valid reason for 3/4/6gb caps (other than allowing eircom to do better average usage levels / probable capacity analysis to go for higher contention ratios).....

Exactly. The bandwidth argument holds no water because it is the same bandwidth being applied to both services: 512k at a 24:1 contention ratio. However, Eircom realised that the non-capped service was more attractive to its potential marks and therefore charged more. In a non-competitive environment, a company gets to charge according to the utility or percieved attractiveness of the service rather than the underlying costs of providing that service.

The high wholesale bitstream price saw to it that for the first year of operation, there was no direct competition and therefore they could get away with this practice.

Via who are now operating using Eircom's bitstream don't use a cap, presumably to attract customers.

This new 54 euro service, provided Eircom fulfill their regulatory obligations, will also have a wholesale bistream service and this will be much lower than the current bitstream price so it should be possible for ISPs like UTV to come in and provide a service.

Therefore we should not get too worked
up about Eircom applying a cap, because we can all go over to UTV (or whoever).

The point I'm making is that some ISPs will use different techniques to share out the bandwidth. If someone actually wants a capped service (there may be legitimate reasons), then they can go over to Eircom.

longword

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Exactly. The bandwidth argument holds no water because it is the same bandwidth being applied to both [Eircom DSL and Nevada leased line] services: 512k at a 24:1 contention ratio.

Not true. If you have a 512k leased line, that's a private dedicated circuit between you and the ISP. Nobody else shares that. Needless to say that costs rather a lot more than a DSL line. On every DSL service I've ever seen, the link between the DSLAM in the exchange and the ISP is shared between many users. 50 users seems to be the going rate for most European nations, with 20:1 or thereabouts for more expensive DSL services targetted at business users.

That includes the UK where BT's 20:1 business service has prices similar to Eircom's I-Stream - 180 euro per month EX VAT for their Business 1000PLUS service which is nearly identical to the €165 ex. VAT I-Stream Enhanced. BT install for free until the end of March though you'd make back Eircom's install costs in a year. BT also supply an ADSL router.

Yes it would be nice if backhaul bandwidth was cheaper and more available. It would be nice if we had 10:1 or 5:1 contention ratios for free. It would be nice if international bandwidth was free. But life is different in the Real World. In the Real World we need caps - but we need them to be reasonable, and fairly implemented. €37 per gigabyte over the limit is just silly.

/me waits patiently for the accusations that he works for Eircom

jmcc

Originally posted by longword
Not true. If you have a 512k leased line, that's a private dedicated circuit between you and the ISP. Nobody else shares that. Needless to say that costs rather a lot more than a DSL line.

The cost of even a 128K is high and sales droids would be sent back bit by bit if dedicated bandwidth was snarfed by DSL users.

But life is different in the Real World. In the Real World we need caps - but we need them to be reasonable, and fairly implemented. €37 per gigabyte over the limit is just silly.

The main problem for ISPs/telcos is that they cannot assign a value to the actual data they are carrying. Thus the old distance based calculations don't work. It would not be improbable that a dual tiered net emerges from this until someone sorts out a valuation model. The one thing that will kill a flat rate system is bandwidth hogs troughing all the bandwidth at the expense of other users.

Regards...jmcc

leeroybrown

I agree that if someone wahts to transfer vast quantities of data in a month that they should have to pay for the privelidge, but the existing caps are rediculous.

At 4Gb a month downloading a Linux Distro would almost ensure that you'll be passing the cap. (I use Debian so it would be apt-get butif I wanted the 7 latest CD's that would be 4 Gigs ... with no source code)

The only real reason I can see for tiny caps is that they make a good selling point for unlimited services. I'm not even sure if the DSL providers will ever bother charging the extra money but they reserve the right to do so. That makes an uncapped offering more attractive to customers (in €ircoms mind anyway).

That and some people just like to be awkward.

KdjaCL

A note to those who dont have DSL you will blitz 3gb just by surfing and downloading patches and demos and a few game maps.


There shouldnt be a download cap ,i wouldnt abuse it if it wasnt there, im only abusing it as its a certain ISP and this gives a me a little payback


Kdjac