Downloaded this month?

Moriarty

Uh huh

As far as I can gather, eircom run at least one PVC per service type per exchange, they don't lump them all together.

OfflerCrocGod

Moriarty wrote:

I don't think so Ei2JC. Are you just guessing or do you know something I don't?

That's pretty meagre, BT have 4Mb which is enough for 8 people without a problem (I think it's gone up to 10Mb) - they connect 400 people onto that though.This article explains it nicely.

Many people assume that because 50 users are sharing bandwidth, that means there are 50 users connected to a single 512Kb backhaul (50:1 account type).

This is not true. If it were like this, then there is a very extreme chance of one single user using the full potential of the connection in one go, leaving others chewing dust and crawling.

Instead, BT provide 4Mb/s backhauls as standard. As noted above, the size and type will depend on the exchange. ...

So it depends on whether the backhaul can support the number of people, or not. Since €ircon don't want to spend any money upgrading the backhauls to faster speeds we will be stuck with these crappy speeds and caps for ever :mad: Another thing I don't understand is why is off-peak included in the cap calculation.....who needs full speed at 4 in the morning! - it really should be a free for all after peak times. Bulldog does something like that.

Moriarty

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

That's pretty meagre, BT have 4Mb which is enough for 8 people without a problem (I think it's gone up to 10Mb) - they connect 400 people onto that though.This article explains it nicely.

uh? That's what I've been telling you all along. Eircom do the same thing.

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

So it depends on whether the backhaul can support the number of people, or not.

Not really. Backhaul out of the exchange is not a limiting factor. There's enough to go around.

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Since €ircon don't want to spend any money upgrading the backhauls to faster speeds we will be stuck with these crappy speeds and caps for ever :mad:

The caps and low bandwidth rates have very little to do with the capacity of eircoms network. It's a way to squeeze more money out of people for as low a quality of service as they can get away with providing.

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Another thing I don't understand is why is off-peak included in the cap calculation.....who needs full speed at 4 in the morning! - it really should be a free for all after peak times.

Just because you don't want a decent speed at 4 in the morning doesn't mean that everyone else is the same. I doubt peak times see the most bandwidth use in any case, I suspect peak useage hits around 8-9pm on weekdays when everyone goes on the net at home.

OfflerCrocGod

Moriarty wrote:

uh? That's what I've been telling you all along. Eircom do the same thing.

If you say so but to me it sounded different, you made it sound as if there were 48 people bundled together and they all shared a single 512kb line

Moriarty wrote:

Leeroy is right. Backhaul that you're so fond of is irrelevant. What's relevant is the contention ratio - 48:1. 48 customers per 512kbit segment of bandwidth.

Which is not what is going on at all it's the backhaul that's contended with our speeds blocked at a maximum speed of 512kb so if the one of the 'channels' on the backhaul is being used to its full speed by some one then I can always go onto another 'channel' on the backhaul and still get my full speed. The more 'channels' the backhaul supports the higher the speed each person can have or the lower the contention or the more people the exchange can support. The telecom operator need only buy as much backhaul as they need. So you have a 10Mb line which is the equivalent of 20 'channels' there can be 10 data hogs and 150 light browsers on at the same time and no one will notice the contention, the hogs get full speed on 10 channels the browsers get the other 10 channels to share. So the backhaul is broken up into segments and you get to use them in a FIFO manner

Moriarty wrote:

Not really. Backhaul out of the exchange is not a limiting factor. There's enough to go around. The caps and low bandwidth rates have very little to do with the capacity of eircoms network. It's a way to squeeze more money out of people for as low a quality of service as they can get away with providing.

I was talking about a real telecoms operator not our mickey mouse one. I do think though that there is an actual reason for this, if I remember correctly when I was looking over the conditions of the contract for IOL they pledged a certain speed line - at the minimum I would always get 256kbps speeds and the max is 512kbps (even with contention). So as more users are connected to the exchange the service promise gets closer and closer to being broken which means the capacity of the exchange has to be upgraded.....which costs so that's a big no-no to the great mickey mouse. Caps are just a way of making the backhaul stretch further by penalising the people who actually thought broadband actually meant broadband, but I agree that there is bandwidth there and that it is going idle I never though anything other then that since Day 1. There's probably a lot of unused bandwidth just sitting around on most €ircon exchanges. As I said already though if you increase the backhaul you can improve ratios and/or download speeds or remove caps because big data users are only ever using one 'channel' at a time. If you increase speeds without increasing the backhaul though you are in trouble. Taking my above^^ example at 1Mbps instead of 512kbps the 10 data hogs are all of a sudden using all 10 channels of the 10 Mbps line and not just half of them. So they and the browsers will start to get affected by the contention and their speeds will start to go down.

Moriarty wrote:

Just because you don't want a decent speed at 4 in the morning doesn't mean that everyone else is the same. I doubt peak times see the most bandwidth use in any case, I suspect peak useage hits around 8-9pm on weekdays when everyone goes on the net at home.

At 4 in the morning there will be fewer people online to contend with and many of the channels that I speak of will be lying idle - utterly unused. At which stage you may as well let people use it without worring about the cap, there will only be a few residents who will keep their computers on 24/7. As for usuage I was taking into account the whole business + home users market - after all we are all connected to the same exchanges. Your average home owner will not rival a company's usage, us here on Boards are not the norm.

Moriarty

You're just confusing yourself croc.

Paragraphs are also a beautiful thing.

smileyrecords

17/10/2004 23/10/2004 3.62 GB 83.43 MB 3.70 GB N/A 
24/10/2004 30/10/2004 10.35 GB 336.73 MB 10.68 GB N/A 
31/10/2004 06/11/2004 12.43 GB 248.96 MB 12.67 GB N/A 
07/11/2004 13/11/2004 7.76 GB 332.30 MB 8.09 GB N/A 
14/11/2004 20/11/2004 14.17 GB 681.94 MB 14.84 GB N/A 
21/11/2004 27/11/2004 8.97 GB 612.09 MB 9.57 GB N/A 
28/11/2004 04/12/2004 22.90 GB 3.52 GB 26.42 GB 10 min 49 sec 
05/12/2004 11/12/2004 6.66 GB 150.97 MB 6.81 GB N/A 

according to du meter,

Data downloaded since 22/10/2004 11:48
Downloaded 86.8GB
Uploaded 5.91GB
Both Directions 92.85GB

NOW HOWS A WAREZ MONKEY

oh and it didnt cost me anything god bless wifi

Moriarty

Wow, you're so great. I wish I could be just like you.

smileyrecords

NOW HOWS A WAREZ MONKEY

i was being sarcastic....

its hard not to download when u can get this speed

OfflerCrocGod

Moriarty wrote:

You're just confusing yourself croc.

Paragraphs are also a beautiful thing.

You're confusing me.

Explaining what you're on about is also a beautiful thing.

<edit> if there is a problem with what I wrote then say so, or even if you don't understand something.