Are you abusing your ADSL line?

[Spamtheman]

Most of my comments are with reference to peer-to-peer software that is run within SAIX's network (between ADSL users, I think DC++ and torrents where the example given). Most ISP's are actually just reselling SAIX accounts which leaves those clients on Telkom's network where the costs are fairly minimal.

ISP's that are providing their own ADSL solutions (IS and UUNET) do have a problem with local traffic however. Due to the high speed of the ADSL links and the vast number of capped users who will be running peer-to-peer software the potential for some frightening local bandwidth bills exist. I am aware that they are paying some awfull fee for access to the ATM network as well as having to pay for any traffic then heading back into the SAIX network.

Perhaps I should have made a better distinction between Telkom and SAIX when referring to networks. Unless I am mistaken UUNET has their own "VLAN" (for lack of the correct term) running on the ATM network, so for example if there was a direct session between two UUNET ADSL clients UUNET would not pay for that traffic (any more than they already have for access to the ATM network). However if a UUNET ADSL customer where to establish a session with a SAIX ADSL customer that traffic would actually go through their peering link for which they are charged?

These things have to be shaped and limited, it's just good network practice, regardless of whether you like it or not

I call bull**** on that, shaping is a last resort to control traffic on an oversaturated link. QoS is fine, everyone can agree that certain types of traffic are more latency or bandwidth dependant than others but shaping is usually a reference to limiting based on protocol. Surely the customer is the one who decides what traffic they would like to send, not the ISP. While I can accept that Joe's VoIP traffic is more latency dependant than my torrent download, don't tell me I can only download a torrent at 50% of the speed available to other protocols.

 

[warichard]

We have indeed seen usage in excess of 200GB (combined down and up), and at least a couple of high load users in excess of 100GB, that's a lot of money for UUNet which they have to try and make back.

 

[Spamtheman]

We have indeed seen usage in excess of 200GB (combined down and up), and at least a couple of high load users in excess of 100GB, that's a lot of money for UUNet which they have to try and make back.

That certainly would cost a bundle. Could you answer my question regarding traffic within virtual circuits (I think that's the right term)?

 

[warichard]

Unfortunately I'm not sure with regards to UUNet's setup on Telkom's ATM network.

 

[Spamtheman]

In fact as far as I'm aware with peering agreements both parties agree to split the cost of the link between the two. They shouldn't even be charged for traffic. I would imagine that in the case of people transmitting 200 GBytes of data, most of that would be international, not local.

If I'm incorrect in either of those two points please let me know, if I'm not then there is no real harm in transferring 200 GBytes of data in a month locally is there? The only issue may be that the peering link capacity may need to be upgraded.

 

[warichard]

It's not a peering link issue, it's the link between the ATM network and UUNet's network that they pay fully for (ie. the link over which all ADSL traffic traverses to get to UUNet's network).

It basically goes like this:

You->Telkom's ATM cloud->UUNet->Everywhere else (International & Local).

It's the ATM cloud->UUNet portion that UUNet has to pay for (as well as the international traffic and peering links for national traffic), it's also where the bottleneck lies (as it's a link that ALL their traffic *has* to go through before it hits their network). SAIX has a similar thing, instead of Telkom's ATM cloud->UUNet, replace UUNet with SAIX. The thing is the connection between SAIX and the ATM network is substantially larger than that between UUNet and the ATM network, and they can really upgrade on demand.

 

[Spamtheman]

Yes but surely that is a fixed cost, irrespective of the volume of traffic being carried over that link. That was the way it was explained to me by UUNET. If that is not the case then fine, you would have a reason for complaining, but I'd fire whoever negotiated that contract. So if the peering link is not the issue and the cost for the ATM link is fixed then the volume of local traffic is irrelevant.

 

[onionpeel]

While the bandwidth available internal to Telkom's ATM network is not unlimited it is easily upgradeable and it remains a fixed cost for maintenance, the usage of the network does not impact on those maintenance costs.

While attending to the symptom of a problem is fine, it is far cheaper, quicker, more effective & easier to address the cause of the problem... by making some software configuration changes on the network.

That statement is rather inflammatory, let's rather call them users who's opinion on fair usage differs from yours. What was it, "Play the ball, not the man"

As I mentioned, apply the 'reasonable man' rule and it will be as obvious as the gaping hole in the Stormer's defence, that they actually are abusing the free portion of the service.

Quote:
There are people/businesses who will think nothing of raping the our oceans just because they have a licence to use a fishing boat.

How many times must it be explained to you that local bandwidth is not a finite resource like fresh water or fish?

Local bandwidth is finite. If local bandwidth was infinite, then there would be no need to replace copper cable with fibre optic or even lay more cabling. You must tell us where where this infinite bandwidth is. I bet you are going to tell me it's for free too!

It's starting to sound like this is more of a moral issue to you than a technical one. If someone wants to get smashed at a pub that is surely their own business, if you don't like drunk people stop hanging out at pubs (now that is a proper analogy).

Yes, it's getting there, but in particular, it's about responsible behaviour and realising that you do no operate in a isolation. Carry on as you please, but within acceptable limits.

So because you have a requirement for international bandwidth throughout the month and are therefore unable to maximise the usage of your line you would like everyone else to be restricted in a similar fashion?

Well it's too late now. Think about it.

 

[Karnaugh]

if I have a 64k leased line and download 20gig - is it abuse?
if I have a 128k leased line and download 40gig - is it abuse?

No, because you are physicaly paying for uncontended bandwith end-to-end, this is why its much more expensive. If you were paying for a 50% capacity leased line, and you downloaded 20gig, your ISP would most likely bill you accordingly.

 

[w1z4rd]

I know IS and SAIX had a peering agreement which telkom then broke (I think they saw profits dissapearing), so telkom then demanded IS pay for more bandwidth for the peering.

I got a letter about it

 

[brucel]

I say no such thing, if you have paid for a service, so no abusing.

 

[Noble_Nanobot]

Abuse is whats happening to us the consumers ....if I buy 3GB why the heck shape it... heartless bastards!

 

[brucel]

I agree should be no shaping; caps, but hell if Telkom have anything to do with that shall lock us down, keep hold on it.

 

[Robin Hood]

...to all the abusers....lol

 

[froot]

...to all the abusers....lol
View attachment 65041

Thread necro!!

 

[GreyBush]

With talk about capped accounts being restricted for local access as well, I wonder what has brought this on.
I saw on a forum a couple of days ago, somebody hinted that there are home users downloading 100GB per month. Surely that kind of usage warrants a leased line rather than ADSL? 100GB must be classified as abuse for a home any home user, running maximum upstream and downstream for 24x7. And yes, there is an impact on network resources, despite what some people may think. I must say, that these few who do this kind of thing may have hurt the others who keep their usage within reasonable limits, albeit high.
An analogy could be drawn along similar lines to the Cape water crisis of recent months.

i think ppl who say they download 100gb are liars where local can you run maximum upstream we have no p2p network so when you capped only local how are these getting to 100gb?

Hahahaha 2005 was a different time.

 

[Robin Hood]

...just HAD to put it on

 

[Bursty-dude]

I pay for an 84Gb Capped ADSL line from Afrihost, I got another 84Gb for mahala as a "mystery prize" bringing my monthly allocated data to 168Gb. I have downloaded 17Gb today so far, so will that count as abuse? Not a chance in hell.