The CAP. Why it is there + how it might be got rid of. Please read.

PiE

That's all very well Dev, but isn't this thread about what we can do to ensure that everyone that takes up the current offer gets a fair deal?

DeVore

Ok then I can end this thread pretty fast.

What you, I and I imagine UTV can about the current contention problems:

---

Start Solution

---

---

End Solution

---

DeV.

Gavin

Originally posted by SkepticOne

quote:

---

another idea for reduction of bandwidth wastage: set up filesharing programs for people on the same exchange/backbone. this should mean that while people are downloading whatever game mod or movie, it could come in at the 4mb/sec at which ADSL connects to the exchange, without using any actual internet bandwidth.

---

Interesting, but not in the power of UTV or other bitstream based providers.

Is this not the guts of what flav was proposing... ?

That being we have huge bandwidth internally(in ireland) between exchanges. Why not simply make this available(cost is negligible), increase the dsl connection rate for end user and, there is effectively a high speed 'local' connection in ireland. Users have large bandwith to their home and large bandwidth to services within ireland. The internationl links then become the point of congestion. ( which is not absolutely necessary, seeing as the consumers needs could be satisfied with the services made available right here in ireland, due to providers/consumers having access to large bandwidth)

howinever, that's slightly ot.

Gav

spongebob

Eircom own customers get treated the exact same way as all the others. They'll never go along with that will they?

The only fair solution (and it makes for a larger variety of Tariffs and Packages) is to allow the Wholesale Customer (UTV/IOL/Netsource) to control the QoS on the DSLAM Port. Funny how Eircoms wholesale decides the QoS for their customer, the competing carrier.

M

sceptre

Originally posted by marclar
another idea for reduction of bandwidth wastage: set up filesharing programs for people on the same exchange/backbone. this should mean that while people are downloading whatever game mod or movie, it could come in at the 4mb/sec at which ADSL connects to the exchange, without using any actual internet bandwidth

Not going to happen. Unlike the US there are no safe harbour provisions for ISPs (if Napster had been an ISP and had limited its file-sharing service to its subscribers it couldn't have been shut down). Also we've no fair use exceptions (like they have in the US) so that mp3 you just made is illegal in the UK and Ireland, which isn't too much of a problem until you start sharing it using a centralised file-sharing service in a country that has enforceable laws against it. Hence any file-sharing service from Eircom would be facilitating copyright infringement, which has lots of nice new penalties under the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act. If Eircom ever officially set up a file-sharing service they'll be in the High Court within days (and for a change it won't be them initiating the case)

If you are actually just talking about game mods (as opposed to <cough>"game mods"</cough>), see below

it would also help if eircom or whoever set up servers with games patches or whatever on their own backbone as well.

It would. It would even help them if they decided to pocket the difference and not pass on the savings to the consumer (as they'd make a little more money out of it). Would require brains to be turned on in eircomland though.

drjolt

Originally posted by DeVore
Ok then I can end this thread pretty fast.

What you, I and I imagine UTV can about the current contention problems:

I'm sorry, you must be confusing this with some thread about changing contention ratios. Talking about ways an ISP can deal with customer bandwidth usage over here.

DeVore

Originally posted by drjolt
I'm sorry, you must be confusing this with some thread about changing contention ratios. Talking about ways an ISP can deal with customer bandwidth usage over here.

EH?

*boggle*


If the bandwidth wasnt contended YOU WOULDNT HAVE TO DEAL WITH USAGE.


Contention causes the phenomena of "hogging"... hogging causes light users to get a crap deal, ISPs have to introduce caps to try and make it fair again.


One group here is trying to find a way to fit the camel through the eye of the needle while Flav and I are suggesting widening the needle's eye to begin with.


I swear if I have to mash my head on the keyboard once more today I'll have QWERTY on my forehead...

Accept the cap today... and fight to have it removed.

DeV.

drjolt

Originally posted by DeVore
If the bandwidth wasnt contended YOU WOULDNT HAVE TO DEAL WITH USAGE.

ISP bandwidth is always contended. Feel free to refute this point with examples.

NeoSlicerZ

/me waits for the boards.ie ISP's offering :-)

qwertyup

I know that my actual knowledge in this area is not much better than naught, but I'm always willing to learn, so please point out the flaws in this post. Just try not to ridicule it too much :P

Anyway, I was thinking about the contention issue, and this is what I'd like to see in a perfect world (admittedly a perfect world where 512K was shared with 48 people for €50 a month).

Basically, that usage pattterns be monitored. On a weekly basis, users would be allocated a rating from one to five.

1 -> Very Heavy Usage
2 -> Heavy Usage
3 -> Moderate Usage
4 -> Light Usage
5 -> Very Light Usage

These ratings would be based upon the hours spent uploading/downloading during the previous week, as opposed to the volume of data transfered.

Anyway, the way it would work is that the total available bandwidth usage would be divided up between the users in a manner somewhat similar to the idea behind weighted means.

As in, with 4 users on with a rating of 1, 22 at 3, and 4 at 5 you would have 512/((4*1) + (22*3) + (4*5)) as your base unit, in this case 5.68

This value would then be multiplied by your usage value to determine what portion of the bandwidth you get. Basically the idea would be to deprioritise the downloaders in favour of the light browsers.

Since the light and moderate users will only require the service for a reletively small amount of time, the service would still work at high speeds for the heavy users, but only at lull periods.

Its not like it will ever happen here, and its probably not in anyway feasible. It's just that it is the kind of solution which I would like to see.

PiE

One thing about drjolt's suggestion about splitting the line into 48 sections, 1 for each online person etc. What about the people who just leave their "always on" connection well... always on?

If they leave the connection idling, using say 0.1k/s, they still get the share that the rest of the people who are downloading get even though they don't need it. So that's a fair chunk of bandwidth going to waste, no?

Moriarty

Once the connection is established theres no traffic over it until something needs it Pie. The link lies idle until something uses it, there isnt a constant trickle whenever its switched on.

Señor Juárez

PiE, that is the whole idea behind contention, and what we have been talking about in this whole thread...

PiE

Nnnnnno... don't think yiz are getting what I'm saying.

The way it is now (from what I understand anyway), is that there's one queue in which all of the users use. That way one person can hog most of the bandwidth.

What drjolt suggested was splitting the line up into seperate queues so that nobody can hog all the bandwidth if others are online.

If 1 person is online, they get 100% of the bandwidth, 2 people each get 50%, 4 people get 25% etc etc.

Now if 10 people are idling on the system with ONE queue for all, then it won't make much difference.

However, the way that I understand it is that if 10 people are idling on the system with 48 queues, each one will be allocated their fair share of the bandwidth even though they're not using it. Hence the reason why this system hasn't been implemented on a widespread scale before... maybe?

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong but thats just the way I'm reading it.

Moriarty

The 'queues' arent allocated to people who are "online", theyre allocated to packets that want to get out to the internet. Your connection can be active and have no 'queue' allocated to you if you arent using the connection at that exact moment in time. The number of queues will change from second to second as people start and finish downloads, open and finish downloading from web sites etc.

SkepticOne

Responses so far seem to be mainly discussing technical means of sharing bandwidth. I don't think most of them are available for UTVip to implement. Most of them don't deal fully with the problem.

For example, DrJolt's idea, although it prevents programs like Kazaa grabbing more bandwidth than otherwise, because it works on a moment by moment basis, it can't distinguish between 'bursty' use like web browsing, and downloading a DivX. For this, you would need to keep a history of activity and lower the priority of queues with sustained heavy activity. This would give a better experience to those browsing the web and gamers at peak time.

Obviously if you are up front about the fact that the service will slow down at peak time significantly, then fine, you are being honest. However, you really want to prevent this slow down.

Can we assume for the purposes of the discussion that such methods are not available through the RADSL bitstream product?

In my original post, I suggested out that caps are a fairly crude way of regulating bandwidth use since they put off the light users and encourage the heavy users to maximise their usage up to that point. The lack of light users + behavior of heavy users, means that this cap then needs to be set fairly low.

It seems to me that the only alternative to setting a cap, is the enforcement of a fair use policy with the criteria for curbing heavy use ultimately at the ISPs discretion.

The downside of this is lack of transparancy. Although, this may seem a huge problem, it is the way 'uncapped' isps operate in other parts of the world. If you don't use the service with consideration, then you get a warning and either get your bandwidth throttled or you get kicked.

There's nothing wrong with either approach in my mind. I just think it would be good to have an 'uncapped' DSL provider in Ireland with affordable rates. Because UTV have established a certain relationship with boards users here, this 'uncapped' but with AUP approach is more likely to work.

Obviously, UTV and other ISPs should still try for a better deal from their supplier. This would lessen the need to curb or kick people.

My only worry (and I think this is why UTV dsl is uncapped in the North, yet they are proposing caps in the South) is that UTV are concerned about people protesting on this and the bb forum.

So to be safe, the ISP is up front about exactly how much you can download, keeps the cap simple so that people can understand and keeps the cap low so that everyone gets the speed they expect. No one gets to complain. But is it what we want?

That is why I wanted to gauge peoples opinion here. Also, in answering, please consider not just what *you* want but also what might be good for the country. My fear is that once caps get established, they are here to stay.

drjolt

Originally posted by SkepticOne
For example, DrJolt's idea, although it prevents programs like Kazaa grabbing more bandwidth than otherwise, because it works on a moment by moment basis, it can't distinguish between 'bursty' use like web browsing, and downloading a DivX.

It doesn't need to. It's able to react to bursty traffic, so you'd get your web browsing or email bandwidth when you needed it. The problem with having any system where the traffic is kept track of over a period of time is that once you build that infrastructure, the simplest way to use it is to enforce a simplistic cap. If you just use throttling/queueing, you can save that whole cost of maintaining the database of how much traffic users have used in the current month/week/day.

(That's it for me on this subject)

SkepticOne

Originally posted by drjolt
It doesn't need to. It's able to react to bursty traffic, so you'd get your web browsing or email bandwidth when you needed it. The problem with having any system where the traffic is kept track of over a period of time is that once you build that infrastructure,

If it doesn't distinguish and give priority to bursty traffic, then it doesn't go far enough. It is a solution to a lesser problem. Yes, bandwidth is divided fairly at a given moment in time, but it doesn't take into account the fact that bursty usage is less of a problem for other users.

IMO, to prevent slow down of light users, bursty applications and the downloading of short video clips should be given extra priority than those downloading large movies. I agree that it is more complex than a simple cap. Really need to open up a new thread on this.

flav0rflav

Who wants a 15 GB cap, always on, for ~30 euro a month?

Would all those people step to the side and wait for flat-rate dialup at the end of the month. The rest of us want broadband.

---

Fair caps can be approached using drjolt's router round robin scheduling per ip address. But for it to be perfectly fair, it needs extra info about the grouping of the ip addresses, ie. which 48 user dslam group the ip is coming from.

Caps are only being mentioned because eircom have banjaxed the contention. Contention ratios are based on probability and statistics. As everyone knows probabilities only pan out in the large scale, not the small scale. Eircom have applied contention at the lowest level possible, right at the dslam. Why? Take your pick between incompetency and business strategy.

There are no caps in the north or in the UK (in general) as BT have correctly applied contention at the ISP handover point.

USER | - telephone line- | DSLAM | - eircom - | ROUTER_H | - isp - | ROUTER_I | - internet cloud - (warez monkey)

ROUTER_H (handover) is the first thing under control of the ISP. In the UK there is effectively no contention up to this point, and the ISP can choose how big a connection the want there, depending on number of users and the quality of the service they want to provide for whatever cost, based on business strategy. They will make similar decissions about the ROUTER_I (internet) point. The ROUTER_I bandwidth is the expensive link. This is how nildram are able to offer a better service in the UK than others. They have fast ethernet and gig ethernet at the handover and in their internal network (where the game servers are).

You want to apply the 48:1 (20:1 or whatever) at the highest point possible, therefore gathering as many users together to share as much of the expensive resource as possible. Which, according to the probabilities means you get very little real reduction in service.

Here, in eircom controlled Ireland, the DSLAM is where the contention is, 48 users on one 512k VC (from info gleaned from them). Sent over a 2.4G fibre payed for by the gov, back to Dublin. At the moment, I don't believe there are actually enough people hooked up with broadband to actually be having a significant problem with this. Netsource were/are actually having a problem at their handover point.

Fair scheduling will in the worst case give a service worse than dialup (48users). In the best case it'll give regular broadband (1user). In the intermediate it will solve the problem where if I go on and do 20 downloads at the same time I get more bandwidth.

But I don't want a service that is worse than dialup and more expensive. What is broadband about? It's not just about how much you can download or how quick pages pop up. Thats just slightly faster diakup. Broadband is a step, enabling all new services, if implemented correctly.

Who is the wallet inspector? eircom.

Who do you want to be socially responsible for their internet usage? Male teenagers, dressed in black, disliking their parents, prawning and warezing, playing FPSs, calling themselves 'evil', etc.

flav0rflav

Have UTV actually said anything about why they have a cap in the south but not up north?

SkepticOne

Originally posted by flav0rflav
Have UTV actually said anything about why they have a cap in the south but not up north?

They said it would have to become mainstream before caps could be introduced.

spongebob

Originally posted by flav0rflav


But I don't want a service that is worse than dialup and more expensive. What is broadband about? It's not just about how much you can download or how quick pages pop up. Thats just slightly faster diakup. Broadband is a step, enabling all new services, if implemented correctly.

Who is the wallet inspector? eircom.

Who do you want to be socially responsible for their internet usage? Male teenagers, dressed in black, disliking their parents, prawning and warezing, playing FPSs, calling themselves 'evil', etc.

l33T XplnAshUn Flav

Comreg, in their desperation to get any kind of wholesale product on the market, have left Eircom to run a very invidious wholesale model ....which is what many of us agree upon.

Eircom can deal with their own hogs by reallocating them to less Contended VLAN/PVC entities on the back end router/dslam port aggregation and thereby make the 'Other' ISP's appear bad in certain instances.

The NATURE of the WHOLESALE agreement itself is anti-competitive. Its time Comreg woke up to that.

As Flav pointed out there, an Eircom PVC gives 512k (with 48 users sharing it) over to an ISP as a job lot.

In the UK an equivalent BT PVC would hand over 48x512k and let the Downstream ISP mamage the contention rules themselves.

In other words, the downstream ISP has 48 times more bandwidth to play with at the handover point than an Irish ISP.

M

SkepticOne

Originally posted by flav0rflav Who do you want to be socially responsible for their internet usage? Male teenagers, dressed in black, disliking their parents, prawning and warezing, playing FPSs, calling themselves 'evil', etc. [/B]

Exactly the same problem in Britain with these people on 50:1 contentions. The contention point may be moved up from the DSLAM level, which makes the slow down more gradual and consistant, but the same sort of slowdown occurs. That is the nature of a 50:1 contention. What happens, is if they persist, they are booted from the service. Even so, you still get slow downs in the evenings.

The main advantage, as you point out, is that they can implement DrJolt's type of bandwidth control.

The 50:1 contention has not been calculated on statistics based on usage patterns. This sort of thing may occur in corporate bandwidth where usage is carefully monitored and adjusted, but not in residential broadband.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Muck
As Flav pointed out there, an Eircom PVC gives 512k (with 48 users sharing it) over to an ISP as a job lot.

What Eircom should be made do is decouple pricing for DSLAM ports from pricing for the transport to those ports. That way, if an ISP wanted to provide more bandwidth to a DSLAM they could do so without being forced to rent more ports. Of course it is not in their interest to do this and if they did, they would load all the costs onto the transport element.

As you also point out, ComReg are under pressure to release even anti-competitive wholesale products. If they didn't they would be crucified.

That is why, ultimately, the only solution is competing infrastructure.

Right now, though, UTV and associated RADSL ISPs are forced to work with whatever Eircom gives them.

Hyzepher

HI

I have a theory on this but I need one question asked before I comment.

The 48:1 contention. Is the sharing of the line between 48 users always the same 48 users or is the 48:1 based on who is online at that point. i.e. if I have BB do I share my connection with the same 47 other users or is it done dynamically?

Hyzepher

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Hyzepher
The 48:1 contention. Is the sharing of the line between 48 users always the same 48 users or is the 48:1 based on who is online at that point. i.e. if I have BB do I share my connection with the same 47 other users or is it done dynamically?

It just means there is 512k for every 48 users but not any particular 48. If there is a large number of users, they will share a larger amount of bandwidth but it will be done on the basis of the 48:1 ratio. It does not matter whether someone is online or not either.

Hyzepher

Originally posted by SkepticOne
It just means there is 512k for every 48 users but not any particular 48. If there is a large number of users, they will share a larger amount of bandwidth but it will be done on the basis of the 48:1 ratio. It does not matter whether someone is online or not either.

Sorry - still dont follow - if I have a 48:1 contention and I am the only user online in my pool of 48 - do I get all the bandwidth or am I pooled with 47 'online' users?

Hyzepher

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Hyzepher
Sorry - still dont follow - if I have a 48:1 contention and I am the only user online in my pool of 48 - do I get all the bandwidth or am I pooled with 47 'online' users?

Yes, you get the bandwidth that they would otherwise be using. An offline user would be treated the same as an online user not currently downloading. It is not a particular 47 however. It depends on how many are in the pool so to speak. If there were 96 (48x2) users, then theoretically they would be sharing 1024k (512k x 2) and so on.

flav0rflav

Originally posted by SkepticOne
It is not a particular 47 however. It depends on how many are in the pool so to speak. If there were 96 (48x2) users, then theoretically they would be sharing 1024k (512k x 2) and so on.

The contention at the DSLAM is with the same specific users, the other people in your area going to the same exchange as you. That is why it is a problem.

The contention at the handover point is what you describe.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by flav0rflav
The contention at the DSLAM is with the same specific users, the other people in your area going to the same exchange as you. That is why it is a problem.

But not with a specific other 47 users, in general. This is what I was trying to explain. I will post up some basic links later if you are still having difficulty.