5 ms·

You should either guarantee a minimum speed with unlimited data or cap on maximum amount of data use can use. Throttling based on content means you were oversel

by takeda 8y ago

You should either guarantee a minimum speed with unlimited data or cap on maximum amount of data use can use. Throttling based on content means you were overselling. As an user I prefer to be in control of which applications get to use the Internet that I'm paying for.

RangerScience 8y ago
Welp. And you just totes changed my mind from the reply I just made. This is fantastically well put.
sbr464 8y ago
But from a physics/technical standpoint, a radio only has so much capacity. How would you handle the situation, if you managed a provider, and 10 people at a bar started streaming an NBA game in HD? Somethings got to give.
- skummetmaelk 8y ago
  Then this must be clearly stated in the advertisement material.
- stefan_ 8y ago
  The streams themselves give? That's why all the ISPs are throttling video, because it's adaptive to bandwidth and doesn't fail outright! Which also, of course, explains why throttling it all the time is not necessary and certainly not optimal.
- DougBTX 8y ago
  The argument would go that if the radio has total capacity x and each user is allocated capacity y, then only x / y users should be allowed to join the service, otherwise it is "over selling". It is a super straight forward model, but obviously much more expensive to provide. I imagine most users would be happy to pay 1/10 of the cost to get a service that might drop to 10% performance in the worst case, as long as it doesn't happen too frequently.
  - sbr464 8y ago
    I agree, definitely. It was an interesting experiment, and the realities of the then current wireless tech were so limiting, it was eye-opening to be on the provider side for once.
    - kakarot 8y ago
      Then we shouldn't have done things like spend millions pushing 4G only to bait and switch with 4G LTE once everyone had upgraded. We shouldn't claim certain capabilities that simply aren't there. The worst thing you can do for a bad product is good marketing, and that's exactly what these ISPs are doing.
      - DougBTX 8y ago
        Personally I’ve had a great experience with 4G LTE, but it is going to depend on lots of factors, including the ISP.
        sbr464 8y ago
        Curious, regarding monthly download caps, has anyone found a solution to using a 4G LTE connection for frequent Netflix consumption? It currently burns through too many gigs to be a cable internet replacement. I was looking for a solution for doing longer term domestic (US) travel.
        berbec 8y ago
        Some providers, T-Mobile I know, offer to bypass the data cap for certain services. The drop the quality to 480p, but that's not a huge deal on my 5" screen.
        kakarot 8y ago
        Seconding T-mobile. Pretty much every major media provider is zero-rated and they welcome suggestions for new additions, so it's actually pretty fair as far as zero-rating goes. Just about the only thing you're out of luck on is if you A) use a VPN or B) stream from a private server.
buboard 8y ago
And add that , if you are in a sparsely used area, you can achieve even better rates? In the end it's just easier to say that your video might be throttled
mehrdadn 8y ago
> guarantee a minimum speed with unlimited data How in the world would you guarantee that when you might not receive a strong/clear enough signal?
- close04 8y ago
  You don't have to guarantee a minimum speed but you have to advertise the relevant parameters that you can reach at least a certain percentage of the time. Saying just "up to" should only be allowed if you also use it for the pricing and the clients pay what they can. Saying "unlimited" should be allowed only with the dictionary definition. And all "limiting" conditions should be advertised the same way as the main offer, not small font on a buried page. So the offer could look like this: "Up to 50Mbps, with 20Mbps offered at least 50% of the time between 06:00 and 22:00. Limited to 200GB/mo after which the speed is dropped to 1Mbps." Also throttling and prioritizing types of traffic makes sense when you reach capacity. But if you suddenly find more capacity for someone paying extra by throttling others more or throttle indiscriminately and lift the limits for a price then you are not doing network management, you are are squeezing for money. And this should also be clearly stated when advertised and while doing the throttling. As a customer paying the requested price I want some SLAs. I want to know what to expect for the service and be compensated for not getting it. I want to know realtime if my traffic or service is being throttled or not when I use it.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    > You don't have to guarantee a minimum speed but you have to advertise the relevant parameters that you can reach at least a certain percentage of the time. But this still suffers from exactly the same problem, just in a statistical way. i.e., what if someone's frequently in a place that has poor signal? How are you going to predict what percentage of the time they'll be in such a situation?
    - close04 8y ago
      Then you compensate that person for not being able to provide the service. Just as you'd expect in any other case when a service is not delivered. And if we're being honest, that's not actually the reason most of us get throttled. Most of the time it's not even network management, it's just a money grab. I don't intend to go into the technicalities because they're irrelevant. The point is they should offer a quality level at least "statistically".
Tsagadai 8y ago
All ISPs, as a rule, oversell. They oversell at a ratio of usage in part due to how networks are structured (8-10 times bottleneck bandwidth is seen as "good" service, source: I am in the industry). There are bottlenecks in almost every network. The problem is when they oversell at an unacceptable limit for regular usage. Bottlenecks can be mitigated but that costs money and like almost every rent seeking business there is no incentive to spend any money or invest until there is risk of a losing enough users to be unprofitable. The economics of ISPs suck which means ISPs will suck pretty much as a rule.

by takeda 8y ago

RangerScience 8y ago

Welp. And you just totes changed my mind from the reply I just made. This is fantastically well put.

sbr464 8y ago

But from a physics/technical standpoint, a radio only has so much capacity. How would you handle the situation, if you managed a provider, and 10 people at a bar started streaming an NBA game in HD? Somethings got to give.

skummetmaelk 8y ago
Then this must be clearly stated in the advertisement material.
stefan_ 8y ago
The streams themselves give? That's why all the ISPs are throttling video, because it's adaptive to bandwidth and doesn't fail outright! Which also, of course, explains why throttling it all the time is not necessary and certainly not optimal.
DougBTX 8y ago
The argument would go that if the radio has total capacity x and each user is allocated capacity y, then only x / y users should be allowed to join the service, otherwise it is "over selling". It is a super straight forward model, but obviously much more expensive to provide. I imagine most users would be happy to pay 1/10 of the cost to get a service that might drop to 10% performance in the worst case, as long as it doesn't happen too frequently.
- sbr464 8y ago
  I agree, definitely. It was an interesting experiment, and the realities of the then current wireless tech were so limiting, it was eye-opening to be on the provider side for once.
  - kakarot 8y ago
    Then we shouldn't have done things like spend millions pushing 4G only to bait and switch with 4G LTE once everyone had upgraded. We shouldn't claim certain capabilities that simply aren't there. The worst thing you can do for a bad product is good marketing, and that's exactly what these ISPs are doing.
    - DougBTX 8y ago
      Personally I’ve had a great experience with 4G LTE, but it is going to depend on lots of factors, including the ISP.
      - sbr464 8y ago
        Curious, regarding monthly download caps, has anyone found a solution to using a 4G LTE connection for frequent Netflix consumption? It currently burns through too many gigs to be a cable internet replacement. I was looking for a solution for doing longer term domestic (US) travel.
        berbec 8y ago
        Some providers, T-Mobile I know, offer to bypass the data cap for certain services. The drop the quality to 480p, but that's not a huge deal on my 5" screen.
        kakarot 8y ago
        Seconding T-mobile. Pretty much every major media provider is zero-rated and they welcome suggestions for new additions, so it's actually pretty fair as far as zero-rating goes. Just about the only thing you're out of luck on is if you A) use a VPN or B) stream from a private server.

buboard 8y ago

And add that , if you are in a sparsely used area, you can achieve even better rates? In the end it's just easier to say that your video might be throttled

mehrdadn 8y ago

> guarantee a minimum speed with unlimited data How in the world would you guarantee that when you might not receive a strong/clear enough signal?

close04 8y ago
You don't have to guarantee a minimum speed but you have to advertise the relevant parameters that you can reach at least a certain percentage of the time. Saying just "up to" should only be allowed if you also use it for the pricing and the clients pay what they can. Saying "unlimited" should be allowed only with the dictionary definition. And all "limiting" conditions should be advertised the same way as the main offer, not small font on a buried page. So the offer could look like this: "Up to 50Mbps, with 20Mbps offered at least 50% of the time between 06:00 and 22:00. Limited to 200GB/mo after which the speed is dropped to 1Mbps." Also throttling and prioritizing types of traffic makes sense when you reach capacity. But if you suddenly find more capacity for someone paying extra by throttling others more or throttle indiscriminately and lift the limits for a price then you are not doing network management, you are are squeezing for money. And this should also be clearly stated when advertised and while doing the throttling. As a customer paying the requested price I want some SLAs. I want to know what to expect for the service and be compensated for not getting it. I want to know realtime if my traffic or service is being throttled or not when I use it.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > You don't have to guarantee a minimum speed but you have to advertise the relevant parameters that you can reach at least a certain percentage of the time. But this still suffers from exactly the same problem, just in a statistical way. i.e., what if someone's frequently in a place that has poor signal? How are you going to predict what percentage of the time they'll be in such a situation?
  - close04 8y ago
    Then you compensate that person for not being able to provide the service. Just as you'd expect in any other case when a service is not delivered. And if we're being honest, that's not actually the reason most of us get throttled. Most of the time it's not even network management, it's just a money grab. I don't intend to go into the technicalities because they're irrelevant. The point is they should offer a quality level at least "statistically".

Tsagadai 8y ago

All ISPs, as a rule, oversell. They oversell at a ratio of usage in part due to how networks are structured (8-10 times bottleneck bandwidth is seen as "good" service, source: I am in the industry). There are bottlenecks in almost every network. The problem is when they oversell at an unacceptable limit for regular usage. Bottlenecks can be mitigated but that costs money and like almost every rent seeking business there is no incentive to spend any money or invest until there is risk of a losing enough users to be unprofitable. The economics of ISPs suck which means ISPs will suck pretty much as a rule.