In my experience users aren't willing to pay for dedicated bandwidth.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:22 PM, manolo hernandez <mherna...@comcast.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 9/28/10 3:01 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
>> Jack,
>>
>> Apologies, I did not realize that you guys were doing so much. Please don't
>> take my last email as anything which was intended to question or insult you
>> guys. Up here (Alaska) we have about 100,000 cable subscribers along with
>> mixed Fiber/DSL/POTS access and nearly 50,000 cellular customers with high
>> speed data around our Metro network. I am an RF Engineer, however the
>> network I run is IP based (satellite) and I run in the neighborhood of
>> 250mbps forward and 30mbps return to most of the State of Alaska. I find
>> that anywhere from 40-65% of our total traffic is "questionable", which is
>> why I was asking about an ISP who liked their users downloading torrents. It
>> is very difficult to gauge a users behavior if they are on an "all out"
>> downloading binge over a weekend. Normally, a user logs in and does what
>> they need to in a relatively short amount of time (hours). In the case of
>> most providers, we oversubscribe our resources and have found this model is
>> beginning to not apply to
> user behavior changes. Long gone are the days of the user turning off their
> computers, and our customer base (rural Alaska) have few things to do besides
> use the internet. This has made a "perfect storm" of sorts, as we are now
> seeing most of our users utilizing 70%+ of their allocated (purchased)
> bandwidth 24 hours a day. The vast majority of the night use is gaming, and
> bit torrent. It makes things much more complicated when trying to give an
> experience to people..
>>
>> //warren
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:26 AM
>> To: Warren Bailey
>> Cc: Richard Barnes; NANOG
>> Subject: Re: Online games stealing your bandwidth
>>
>> On 9/28/2010 1:00 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
>>> Jack,
>>>
>>> Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but looking at your website - do you only offer
>>> dial up services? This could be the background for a statement like "a
>>> proper ISP doesn't encourage any type of traffic." We have a couple of
>>> OC-192 running to Seattle, so certain "types" of traffic can make a good
>>> day turn very badly without some traffic "management".
>>>
>>
>> BrightNet itself has ILEC's as customers. We're a turnkey glue for ILECs
>> nearby. Among other things, I provide engineering support and advise for
>> each ILEC. Each has their own levels of service, management, and
>> technologies deployed including wireless, cellular, DSL, FTTH, and
>> cable. I'm currently running around 1.2gbit between us and 4 NSP
>> transits with 3gbit available. Some of the ILECs have additional load
>> shifting with other transits. I estimate the need to go 10Gig ring or
>> split transit in less than 5 years at current growth rates, and the
>> largest problem we've run into is getting infrastructure to handle gig-e
>> speeds out of rural ILECs for the 100+ mile longhauls. I've had issues
>> with gig-e connectivity just getting out of OKC to enough NSP transits
>> and it will become more difficult/expensive when we do hit 10G.
>>
>> As it currently stands, we usually have no problems with event spikes,
>> though we sometimes have to tweek the traffic paths depending on how the
>> NSPs do. The largest issues have always been the last mile. As we
>> resolve last mile costs (which dropping 100% fiber in a rural area today
>> doesn't have the safety nets and guarantees that were provided when
>> copper was dropped in), we'll then have to tackle the longhaul
>> connectivity issues, but hopefully the cost to handle that will drop as
>> well.
>>
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
> What is keeping your company from buying more bandwidth? I find the
> excuse of over subscription to be a fail. If that's your companies
> business model then it should not be whining when people are using what
> you sell them. Provision bandwidth accordingly and stop being cheap and
> squeezing every last dime from the end user for bandwidth that can be
> had for less than the price of a burger in some places.
>
>
>
> Manny
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMokBqAAoJEOcnyWxdB1IrGBMH/RCg7zy3L171hwGuilZHRWyA
> 9B4k+DoTF0Cp8Gt30zamKly90BERKiilryyhxSpAtepUa4wQs4bOGwk5HKx06jkF
> YJokQpqmNNmY4MU/bwWtUpkjrQjYT6Dt8967iEA3SWBbqdUhRdyejFLaZbDoV43u
> 61NzEU/JGdxnRvO/MkleP95/+XPCWuQy0EIDAuwlwcWIzr/i9ra9nD5Nf6x9AE/u
> XTJoTLwY6y2xP93gTBp12MBmzf07AkPxwvpMAbcYIu+94O/twbpWysuceC3EH2bW
> cMKLPAIROxZaropgSSJYSu8hFNPWlODkOD7MHiY8Ilcv6B4v7XEa6QpCd/lfDxE=
> =ZPwF
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
