Bandwidth hogs - are they real?

[OverKill69]

Corporates pay top $$$ for "guaranteed bandwidth"

I have a friend who works for a company that does a lot of transactional work via their VPN and over email/web.
100+ employees, all with workstations doing their thing.
They have multiple 2mb/s guaranteed lines (i think 2 megs down 1 meg up)
each with different breakouts for the very likely situation where one ISP goes down.
So, they have GUARANTEED 100% speed up and down.

Now...

I have a 4mb/s line (Nornal DSL), so I pay Telkom about R400 a month...

These guys pay R3000+ for each of their lines.

If they run their lines at max speed (which they can 100% of the time) will they be called BANDWIDTH HOGS?
I run my line at max speed... am I a bandwidth hog?

We're both paying right?

 

[nictron]

While I don't totally disagree, you do realise that proper streaming video eats bandwidth? And before you suggest that I'm being silly about how many folks use it for streaming content, you do realise that TV's are now being sold with LAN ports to connect to internet directly precisely for this?

With the emergence of IPTV I can only agree with you. Which adds to my argument above that the cable companies are protecting their market by not allowing internet/IPTV.

They are however hiding behind Piracy, and those that do pirate just fuel their motivation

This is why I don't understand why Telkom did not use their broadcast license to introduce these options. They could justify upgrading or even building a new network precisely for that purpose of IPTV.

 

[Kosmik]

With the emergence of IPTV I can only agree with you. Which adds to my argument above that the cable companies are protecting their market by not allowing internet/IPTV.

They are however hiding behind Piracy, and those that do pirate just fuel their motivation

This is why I don't understand why Telkom did not use their broadcast license to introduce these options. They could justify upgrading or even building a new network precisely for that purpose of IPTV.

Telkom Media, company flopped though.

 

[Tns]

there are many snouts in the bandwidth trough
the SA consumers' is not one of them

well said!

 

[jucedupp]

The incorrect use of the term 'bandwidth' continues to be perpetuated by those in the business who should know better. When we really do want to address bandwidth issues, then confusion arises.

That is most accurate. And this very confusion is the tool that "data provisioners" use, BECAUSE it allows this entire dog-wagging fake industry called "data provisioning" to exist in the first place. Because if you tell Joe Bloggs that he has to "share" the "bandwidth" he "understands" why he should pay to "get more." It adds a level of middlemen who should not be there.

It's like getting shiny apples from the farmer, then giving the apples to someone who dulls them and then buffs them again, saying "We are the very important apple shiny-makers, without us you would not have shiny apples." They then sell those apples, plus apple buffing fee, to the small traders, who then sells the shiny-dull-shiny apple to you.

Joe Bloggs can never get "more bandwidth", even if he pays a million bucks a day. Bandwidth in it's true meaning is finite. It is shared, by definition. I cannot get more than I pay for. Unless I can hack my ISP's routers. Data is not finite. Which would you rather be selling? The finite thing that you would then have to provide more of if people pay more? Or the infinite thing that costs you nothing?

The slow ones get two guesses. It's my random act of kindness for today.

 

[sin_x]

I've been told that the IPTV example isnt really relevant, so I figured I'd put out a bit of a demonstration.

What follows is something being trialed on a multicast basis on our network at the moment, and I need to state that this could disappear at any time, its not considered stable yet, but I am curious to get some feedback on what the experience is like when watching it.

If you open vlc and tell it to open researchchannel.tenet.ac.za:8989 using HTTP protocol (the url unfortunately won't work in a webbrowser) you should get a live stream of what is known as the Research Channel, which is an Academic broadcast from the University of Washington.

(This is obviously NOT a multicast stream, its being fed by multicast, and then converted to a unicast HTTP stream so its accessible for non-multicast enabled users)

I need to stress, you will need a 4mbit DSL minimum for this to work, with virtually nothing else on the line at the time.

If you DO decide to test out the stream, please drop me a note and give me comments on stability, video quality etc.

I don't think it is relevant because the current adsl network was never intended to do continuous live streaming. The point I was trying to make is that if you did 800G per month on the current network, then yes, you would be considered a hog. If you did 800G per month on a "built-for-IPTV" network, using a "geared for IPTV" account, then you would not be considered a bandwidth hog.

Consider this example:
IF you go to wimpy, and purchase a R9.95 bottomless coke, is it really feasible for you to drink all of the coke that the wimpy has in stock, simply because you paid for a bottomless coke? What about the other customers that want coke as well? Sure, it might technically be within your rights to do so, but are you now expecting that every wimpy in the country keeps millions of kilolitres of coke in stock, just in case?

To everyone else, networks are oversold for a reason. If you wanted 1:1 contention at current prices, you would probably only get it at 64kbps. That is the unfortunate truth. The ISPs are not out to screw everyone, they are just trying to run a business.

It is not as simple as some on this forum have made it out to be...

 

[Nutty Grandad]

I don't think it is relevant because the current adsl network was never intended to do continuous live streaming. The point I was trying to make is that if you did 800G per month on the current network, then yes, you would be considered a hog. If you did 800G per month on a "built-for-IPTV" network, using a "geared for IPTV" account, then you would not be considered a bandwidth hog.

Consider this example:
IF you go to wimpy, and purchase a R9.95 bottomless coke, is it really feasible for you to drink all of the coke that the wimpy has in stock, simply because you paid for a bottomless coke? What about the other customers that want coke as well? Sure, it might technically be within your rights to do so, but are you now expecting that every wimpy in the country keeps millions of kilolitres of coke in stock, just in case?

To everyone else, networks are oversold for a reason. If you wanted 1:1 contention at current prices, you would probably only get it at 64kbps. That is the unfortunate truth. The ISPs are not out to screw everyone, they are just trying to run a business.

It is not as simple as some on this forum have made it out to be...

Question:
How do the many small EU countries get it right then at offering uncapped with amazing speeds at around R300 a month?

Once again I mention Romania...I think every kid on the block has downloaded every available piece of software, MP3 and DVD that you can find on the Net!
When my Romanian Son-in Law came to visit he brought with him 900G of MP3 being only a fraction of what he has! I asked him on Skype last night about "Hogs" and he said "What is that?"!!!He then laughed hysterically when I told him and once again he rubbed it into my face of how badly SCREWED we are in South Africa!!

If small countries like Namibia and Romania can get it right, why cant we?

 

[sin_x]

Question:
How do the many small EU countries get it right then at offering uncapped with amazing speeds at around R300 a month?

Once again I mention Romania...I think every kid on the block has downloaded every available piece of software, MP3 and DVD that you can find on the Net!
When my Romanian Son-in Law came to visit he brought with him 900G of MP3 being only a fraction of what he has! I asked him on Skype last night about "Hogs" and he said "What is that?"!!!He then laughed hysterically when I told him and once he again rubbed it into my face just exactly how badly SCREWED we are in South Africa!!

If small countries like Namibia and Romania can get it right, why cant we?

Simple question, simple answer: Other countries can offer uncapped because they have superior networks. They have superior telecoms bodies. They have more local content, and don't need as much international as we do.
They are simply further along the timeline than we are. There are many reasons, but the main one is that they are not south africa. We have our own problems to deal with.
Things are changing, albeit slowly, but we will get there.

What I don't like is people getting onto forums and demanding uncapped without understanding the technicalities behind it. It is not as simple as just purchasing some more equipment, or upgrading a line, or just dropping caps altogether.

Comparing south africa to countries like the US is absolutely ludicrous. It's like saying: "Well, america has decent hospitals, so why can't we have a luxury, state-of-the-art hospital in soweto?". Because we are not there yet....

In addition to that, who is going to pay for all these massive network upgrades that are being called for? Margins on adsl are slim, and building your own network requires massive capital. If it was easy and cheap, everyone would have their own network.

Lastly, you demand uncapped so that you can download illegal content? (900GB of mp3's surely contains some illegal content) Perhaps if we didn't all think like that, things might actually change. Would you go the traffic department and demand bigger roads so that you can drive at 250km/h?

 

[Nutty Grandad]

Would you go the traffic department and demand bigger roads so that you can drive at 250km/h?

hehe... in Germany you can! And yes they do demand more autobahns for their Mercs, Porche, Feraris etc!

But getting back to facts...
I understand where you are coming from, but in all due respect, South Africans are paying the MOST for the LEAST! Pro rata, if we were to be billed for the trype of connections we have correctly, we should be paying a pittance compared to what we do now!
The GRIPE is that we ARE being screwed for having to pay heavily for antequated systems and networks, when in fact that money could easily be spent in bringing us on a par with the USA for example, but generally it is the typical South African GREED that prevents this!

Yet again I mention ROMANIA...My God, if THEY can afford it anyone can!!!!!

 

[sin_x]

I understand where you are coming from, but in all due respect, South Africans are paying the MOST for the LEAST!

When compared to established networks in first world countries. (mostly. exclude romania )

when in fact that money could easily be spent in bringing us on a par with the USA

What money?
So you are suggesting that you continue to pay the same amount into some sort of escrow account, while not receiving any internet service, just so that you can one day use the money to build better network?

This is my point. The money you pay now goes to maintenance of the current network, as well as investment in new infrastructure and technology. But it takes time. If you want it to happen faster, you would have to pay more.
Don't get me wrong, I wish we had the kind of infrastructure that is available in EU and US, but we don't! Simply demanding that we get the same kind of service is unrealistic at this point, and is not going to magically make it happen. We need to stop comparing ourselves to developed countries, and take stock of the reality of our country.

Again, we will get there. It just takes time.

 

[porchrat]

Simple question, simple answer: Other countries can offer uncapped because they have superior networks. They have superior telecoms bodies. They have more local content, and don't need as much international as we do.
They are simply further along the timeline than we are. There are many reasons, but the main one is that they are not south africa. We have our own problems to deal with.
Things are changing, albeit slowly, but we will get there.

As far as I can recall South Afirca adopted ADSL in the early 90's, pretty close to when everyone else did in the international community, how exactly are they "further along the timeline" than we are?

...

Comparing south africa to countries like the US is absolutely ludicrous. It's like saying: "Well, america has decent hospitals, so why can't we have a luxury, state-of-the-art hospital in soweto?". Because we are not there yet....

He isn't comparing us to the USA he is comparing us to Namibia and Romania.

In addition to that, who is going to pay for all these massive network upgrades that are being called for? Margins on adsl are slim, and building your own network requires massive capital. If it was easy and cheap, everyone would have their own network.

Margins on ADSL are slim? How much does Telkom net in a year again?

You don't think they could at least spend some of that money to upgrade us?

Lastly, you demand uncapped so that you can download illegal content? (900GB of mp3's surely contains some illegal content) Perhaps if we didn't all think like that, things might actually change. Would you go the traffic department and demand bigger roads so that you can drive at 250km/h?

What people do with their internet connection is their business. You can't claim that that is all he would do with his connection. What of businesses that would in a normal environment use the internet to transfer huge amounts of data from one point to another?

A company I used to work for transfers their data via the post or couriers like DHL once a month because the internet connection required to transfer that data would be very very expensive.

 

[sin_x]

As far as I can recall South Afirca adopted ADSL in the early 90's, pretty close to when everyone else did in the international community, how exactly are they "further along the timeline" than we are?

Yes, it was adopted in SA, a country with limited financial resources compared to the EU and US. Again, you are comparing SA to first world countries. They are further along the timeline because they have better regulatory bodies, as I said. I am not saying that telkom and icasa are innocent, BUT, it is our reality. Those countries also had more capital to invest.

Margins on ADSL are slim? How much does Telkom net in a year again?

Sure, telkom makes an absolute killing, but not an ADSL. Why don't you tell me what portion of their profit is generated from ADSL? I'm also pretty certain that at least a small portion of their overall profit is used to improve networks.

What people do with their internet connection is their business. You can't claim that that is all he would do with his connection. What of businesses that would in a normal environment use the internet to transfer huge amounts of data from one point to another?

I wholeheartedly agree that it is noone elses business what you do with your internet connection. However, do NOT bitch and moan because you cannot download mp3s. If you think that strategy is going to get sympathy from telkom, then think again.
Perhaps, as I said, if we gave telkom a real reason to upgrade their infrastructure, then they would. There are plenty of reasons why people need more capacity, of course, but skim through these forums, and the one complaint that sticks out is people not being able to download tv series, mp3's, games, blah.
And if you do need to download 100GB of linux iso's in a month, then you clearly do not know what you are doing.

If your business relies heavily on internet connectivity, then do not use adsl. simple.

A company I used to work for transfers their data via the post or couriers like DHL once a month because the internet connection required to transfer that data would be very very expensive.

And so the company found an alternate way of staying in business, just like the ISPs in this country are trying to do....

 

[porchrat]

Yes, it was adopted in SA, a country with limited financial resources compared to the EU and US. Again, you are comparing SA to first world countries. They are further along the timeline because they have better regulatory bodies, as I said. I am not saying that telkom and icasa are innocent, BUT, it is our reality. Those countries also had more capital to invest.

A "timeline" is chronological in nature, not resource-centric. Unless first world countries have somehow figured out how to travel through time they are not "further along the timeline". If you meant that they have deployed more recent technologies then please state that clearly in the future.

What I am saying is that South Africa started this at the same time as other countries, we have failed to keep up and there really is no defending that. Even if we had only adopted every second or third technology I would be OK with it, but we just seem to stagnate.

Here is a definition from wikipedia if you require one.

Sure, telkom makes an absolute killing, but not an ADSL. Why don't you tell me what portion of their profit is generated from ADSL? I'm also pretty certain that at least a small portion of their overall profit is used to improve networks.

No offence, but I don't see much network improvement going on. They are just now considering moving to a maximum speed of 8mbps, a standard approved in 1998 .

Where is the ADSL2+ speed?

I wholeheartedly agree that it is noone elses business what you do with your internet connection. However, do NOT bitch and moan because you cannot download mp3s. If you think that strategy is going to get sympathy from telkom, then think again.
Perhaps, as I said, if we gave telkom a real reason to upgrade their infrastructure, then they would. There are plenty of reasons why people need more capacity, of course, but skim through these forums, and the one complaint that sticks out is people not being able to download tv series, mp3's, games, blah.
And if you do need to download 100GB of linux iso's in a month, then you clearly do not know what you are doing.

Agreed +1 for that entire section. In fact +1 000 000

If your business relies heavily on internet connectivity, then do not use adsl. simple.

I disagree, what of the small business with an in-house solution requiring large data transfers that can't afford a leased line or other more expensive solution? Is there just no future for this company in South Africa leaving no alternative but for it to move offshore?

And so the company found an alternate way of staying in business, just like the ISPs in this country are trying to do....

Shouldn't need to happen, 'nuff said.

 

[sin_x]

A "timeline" is chronological in nature, not resource-centric. Unless first world countries have somehow figured out how to travel through time they are not "further along the timeline". If you meant that they have deployed more recent technologies then please state that clearly in the future.

Ok, semantics. I think the fact that you mentioned "resource-centric" shows that you understood the point I was making.

 

[sin_x]

No offence, but I don't see much network improvement going on. They are just now considering moving to a maximum speed of 8mbps, a standard approved in 1998 .

Where is the ADSL2+ speed?

So the fact that 8mbps is under consideration does not constitute at least some improvement? These things don't happen overnight.

The fact that price per GB has fallen substantially does not constitute an improvement?

Your car does not accelerate from 0-100km/h in 0 seconds. It does take time, and resources do affect the amount of time that it takes, unfortunately.

As I have stated, we will get there...

 

[porchrat]

So the fact that 8mbps is under consideration does not constitute at least some improvement? These things don't happen overnight.

It is just bringing our ADSL network to the level it should be...as an ADSL network in 1998. It is not implementation of newer technology (by newer I mean 21st century technology. not necessarily brand new very expensive technologies)

The fact that price per GB has fallen substantially does not constitute an improvement?

This has nothing to do with Telkom and our network infrastructure, which is now where the real bottleneck seems to be.

Your car does not accelerate from 0-100km/h in 0 seconds. It does take time, and resources do affect the amount of time that it takes, unfortunately.

As I have stated, we will get there...

We won't get there if we don't actually upgrade to new technologies. Trying to squeeze the last drops out of a technology from last century is not a viable form of progression.

 

[sin_x]

It is just bringing our ADSL network to the level it should be...as an ADSL network in 1998. It is not implementation of newer technology (by newer I mean 21st century technology. not necessarily brand new very expensive technologies)

It was a standard in the developed world, not in south africa.

This has nothing to do with Telkom and our network infrastructure, which is now where the real bottleneck seems to be.

As well as the regulatory bodies, which have allowed telkom to become the problem.

We won't get there if we don't actually upgrade to new technologies. Trying to squeeze the last drops out of a technology from last century is not a viable form of progression.

And neither is demanding immediate upgrades viable.
SA does not yet have the infrastructure to cater for the demands that are being made. Read that again, as it the crux of the matter. Telkom is partly responsible for that, but simply pointing a finger at them does not make the problem go away.
I despise telkom, but I do not believe that they are so incompetent that they do not have at least some plan for the future. They know that as soon as proper industry competition becomes a reality, they will need something extraordinary to stay afloat.

 

[jucedupp]

I wholeheartedly agree that it is noone elses business what you do with your internet connection. However, do NOT bitch and moan because you cannot download mp3s. If you think that strategy is going to get sympathy from telkom, then think again.
Perhaps, as I said, if we gave telkom a real reason to upgrade their infrastructure, then they would. There are plenty of reasons why people need more capacity, of course, but skim through these forums, and the one complaint that sticks out is people not being able to download tv series, mp3's, games, blah.
And if you do need to download 100GB of linux iso's in a month, then you clearly do not know what you are doing.

Sin

I have carefully read all of what you have written here. And I have come to the carefully considered opinion that you are full of crap. Before you blow a gasket, let me qualify.

An ISP industry exists in this country. I mean guys like Cybesrmart, Digichilli, Webafrica, etc etc. They "resell bandwidth." Let's call them SISPS (Small ISP's)

In order for these businesses to justify their existence at all, they to offer something to clients. And also, this thing needs to make money.

Now.

These SIPS lease small "pipes" from guys with big pipes. Or that is how it should work. These sips then lease a smaller pipe (let's say a 384kbps pipe) to me for an amount, let's say R150 a month.

Let's be generous and say I get 75kbps out of that 384kbps connection. So let us say the SISP is leasing a 2048kbps pipe from someone like IS.

So let us do the sum. 2048 / 75 = 28 (more or less). But those users are not all on all the time. Also, you have all kinds of clever tricks you do to squeeze the last bit of bandwidth (wideness if you like) out of that pipe.

Now let us say I am online 24/7/30. That comes to 2 592 000 seconds per month. At 75 kbps that gives me almost 791mb per day, max. That is 23 730mb per month, or slightly over 23 GB. Now please explain to me, in the RED SAM F**K can that EVER be called hogging?

Never mind that I am still only EVER USING 75kbps of BANDWIDTH? Am I hogging my 75kbps? Sitting on it? What, Am I not entitled to? Even though I am PAYING for 384 ? HUH?

Now follows my gripe with you and the whole small ISP industry.

Somewhere along the line, some or all of you "accepted" that "this is South Africa" and that "this is how things are". Please note the apostrophes and even gooi them in the air with your fingers while you read this.

If you "small" ISP's would just simply form a "union" or "organisation," call it what you like, you could simple come together, flip Telkom, Seacom, IS and whoever else the middle finger and say "We are not paying for data anymore." Then they couldn't.

But here is the problem with that. SISP's would cease existing. Here are the whys.

1. SISP's sell data counting. That is their product. They do not sell actual connectivity, copper or anything of value. They sell something imaginary.

2. The thing that they should sell and make money out of, and which should be their reason for existing, which is service to the end user, they would not know anything about, even if it assaulted them indecently with a splintery broomstick.

3. So without "selling data" SISP's would just simply be extraneous to the whole internet game in SA.

That is why you, and a BUNCH of other guys who are connected to SISP's will fight tooth and nail, "not understand" or simply ignore any argument to the contrary. You will hammer the public, people with little technical knowledge (ie consumers), with technical jargon, "contetion ratios, backhauls" and various other blah blah blahs, simply to disguise the fact that the way the internet game in south africa is played, needs to stay the way it is, simply so that an artificial industry can keep existing. I would rather by k@k from Telkom, who have not once denied the fact that they are blatantly and unrepentantly ripping me off.

----------

This is why I am so unimpressed by all these "specials" and "price wars." They are fundamentally based on a ripoff idea. And do not come to me and tell me "It's a way to capitalise infrastructure." Bull****. Investment is capitalised by investors. From there you give a good, ethical product to end users and turn a profit. Then you repay the investment through dividends.

You do not go and hitch a lame dog between a good horse and a good cart.


And please, please for my own stupidity's sake, explain to me how a country like Namibia is a FIRST WORLD COUNTRY? Because, by your explanation, they can offer lower prices, because that is what first world countries, with
better infrastructure, can do, and what we should not be expecting here in SA?

Finally regarding your quote:

If you "wholeheartedly agree that it is noone elses business what you do with your internet connection", then it is JUST THAT. Do not tell me what I should bitch and moan about. Because I effing pay for it and I can effing do whatever I want. If I want to suck my ugly cousin's boobs down that line, it is "noone elses business." Full stop. I am so gatvol of people trying to defend this bull****!

 

[sin_x]

Sin

I have carefully read all of what you have written here. And I have come to the carefully considered opinion that you are full of crap. Before you blow a gasket, let me qualify.

Meh, I probably am full of crap, and I may be wrong. This is afterall a discussion forum.

If the "sisps" had a choice they would not be simply reselling gb's, or whatever you want to call it. They are simply making lemonade, using the vrot lemons they were given. Unfortunately, that is the reality in this country.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying that because this is sa, we should just accept it, and be submissive. What I am saying is that this is SA, take into account the challenges we face, and the reality of the country, and then build from there.

Again, things are changing, but please stop comparing this country to other countries. Namibia may well be ahead of us, but they don't have icasa, they don't have our DoC. And perhaps more relevant, Namibia has a population of 2,1 million people. Surely you have to agree that it is easier to provide for such a small number?

 

[porchrat]

It was a standard in the developed world, not in south africa.

Standards like that are to do with a certain technology, not a particular country, we already had the technology (ADSL) and Telkom chose not to up the line speeds. There was no huge (in relative terms) capital investment required.

As well as the regulatory bodies, which have allowed telkom to become the problem.

Well yes that goes without saying.

And neither is demanding immediate upgrades viable.
SA does not yet have the infrastructure to cater for the demands that are being made. Read that again, as it the crux of the matter. Telkom is partly responsible for that, but simply pointing a finger at them does not make the problem go away.

No, but breaking it up as part of a giant anti-trust suit and selling the pieces to privatised companies might make the problem go away.

Besides, this problem isn't one that has sprung up recently, it has occurred as the result of more than a decade of negligence. South African's have been complaining for ages and have been demanding upgrades for just as long, hardly what I would call "immediate".

I despise telkom, but I do not believe that they are so incompetent that they do not have at least some plan for the future. They know that as soon as proper industry competition becomes a reality, they will need something extraordinary to stay afloat.

Never underestimate Telkom's inertia.