Greetings, i have a Question - Does bitco not install at all if there are trees around the property, i have them coming to my place next thursday for a LOS, i know where there tower is but am blocked by trees. Do they take the signal from a higher point of veiw than that of my roof or is it if they cannot see the tower from my roof they abandon the client?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Are you keeping your Prime subscription?
BitCo Consumer Review
- Thread starter Murmaider
- Start date
JohnJuniorV3
Expert Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,524
- Reaction score
- 166
Seems BitCo is popular.. My neighbour must have installed recently 
as I see another "BitCo Home" flying around 
as I see another "BitCo Home" flying around 
Pitbull
Verboten
They do get on the roof, Highest point I think. That being said, if the tree is going to be a problem, trim it a little before the LOS?
If it's the highest point then I'm safe. The tower is walking distance from my place but I'm on the first floor with apartments above and below me. If they try to install where my DSTV dish is or thereabouts it's definitely not gonna work.
They're coming tomorrow, holding thumbs.
They're coming tomorrow, holding thumbs.
Pitbull
Verboten
Just from my experience it was the highest point. I suppose it's situation dependant?
So i have looked at the elevations and i am at the same elevation as the tower, the tower is 1.8km away from my house, there is a slight dip between myself and the tower. hmmm, Who has a chainsaw, need to trim some trees quickly, Very Quickly, anybody with a bulldozer?
I suppose if you can put it somewhere else and get the signal. But if they can put it on the roof and give me internets, why not?
StormHorse
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2008
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 0
Sorry I'm a little confused now, when I spoke to one of your reps directly they explained to me that streaming is unaffected by the FUP yet (and please correct me if i'm wrong here) you state that streaming as with all services that pass through the core will count towards the FUP limit.
I have this on black and white if it matters.
CriticalConsumer
Senior Member
So i have looked at the elevations and i am at the same elevation as the tower, the tower is 1.8km away from my house, there is a slight dip between myself and the tower. hmmm, Who has a chainsaw, need to trim some trees quickly, Very Quickly, anybody with a bulldozer?
And how did your chainsaw / bulldozer massacre go?
Are you going to haz the internetz?
Retic
Active Member
As I See it.. and I stand Corrected..
They cant Really Differentiate between traffic.. You do however get flagged FOR FUP as soon as you constantly Use your LIMIT for one Hour. Streaming shouldn't use 100% of your capacity.. However in saying that.. I do recall reading that they still add this up..
Their Fup possibly does a random Sample of your Usage every hour. that sample then gets totaled.. and as soon as you reach the threshold they FUP you.. also if the random sample is low it Deducts that from your Total.. or Something Like that..
This is Difficult to prove.. It will also mean that on some Days you will be able to stream longer then others.
Just a Guesstimate on my Part.. don't take it as fact. but that's how i would do it if i was tasked to limit Traffic based on Usage.. it would be the Most fair.. way.. unfortunately the good users get caught in the Net as well...
jcheek
Expert Member
As a potential future BitCo customer - new high site and LOS permitting - I’ve been following the spirited FUP debate with interest.
With an uncapped product, I think most of us appreciate the need for a Fair Usage Policy, particularly on a wireless system. Unlike most other uncapped products, BitCo has done something unusual and decided to base the FUP on line utilisation over time (eg 100% utilisation for 1 hour), rather than an absolute quantity of data (eg 100GB per month). On that basis, you can ask yourself :
- Should 100% utilisation of peak speed for 24 hours constitute “unfair usage” ? Almost certainly.
- How about 100% utilisation for 1 hour ? I would think it should not.
- How about 100% utilisation for 4 hours ? Perhaps.
There are two points I’d like to make by way of my 2c worth :
Firstly, I think what is missing from BitCo is a clear, unambiguous statement of what the current FUP actually is. We all get the general idea about the “leaky bucket principle” and we know that 100% utilisation for one hour will trigger throttling under the current FUP. But what is needed is a clear description of how the FUP works, with proper, quantitative limits stated.
Personally I would think that a “moving average” or “moving window” type measurement is most suitable, and I would guess that an averaging period of something like 4 hours would be reasonable.
I don’t know whether BitCo counts both upstream and downstream traffic as contributing to the total line utilisation. I would think that they do, but in order to make the following example simpler, I’ll assume that only downlink traffic is counted.
So for example, a “proper” FUP statement might read something like this :
“Throttling will be applied when the subscriber’s average downlink data rate, as measured over the preceding 4-hour period, exceeds 80% of the maximum line speed. The subscriber will then be throttled to half the maximum line speed until such time as the 4-hour moving average drops below 80% of the maximum line speed again.”
Then there is the question of the actual throttling threshold, given as 80% in the example above. Well that’s BitCo’s call, but we should all realise that whatever number is chosen, determines what the service actually is. If the threshold is (say) 80% average utilisation of a 5Mbps downlink, then the line would be able to sustain 4Mbps indefinitely without triggering the FUP. That is then NOT a “5Mbps service”, but rather a 4Mbps service with the ability to peak at 5Mbps.
With a FUP like the above, a subscriber would (for instance) be able to use the "5Mbps" line at 4Mbps for 1 hour, then 2 Mbps for 1h, then stream a movie at 5Mbps for 2 hours, and still be just under the 80% throttling limit : the “moving average” utilisation over that 4-hour period is exactly 4Mbps.
All of this is given from a customer perspective, and just one (potential) customer at that. The actual averaging period and utilisation threshold is for BitCo to make a call on, based on technical considerations.
Secondly, I think that trying to guarantee (or even quantify) a connection’s performance in terms of whether or not it can “stream” is asking for trouble - the data rates required for video streaming are simply too variable to serve as an absolute measure.
Consider that the data rate required for streaming video depends on a number of factors, namely : resolution, colour depth, frame rate, encoding algorithm, quality setting, fixed or adaptive encoding, type of video container, etc. There is also the question of whether the quoted bit rate is video only, or whether it includes audio, and if it does include audio, is it low quality monaural audio, high quality stereo, full 5.1 surround, etc ?
To illustrate the variability, consider that streaming "typical" HD AV (1920x1080) content could demand anything from 6Mbps (YouTube HD clip) to 15Mbps (Sky Sports HD), as discussed in this article.
So, whether or not a customer is "able to stream” over a BitCo connection at any given time, is not an absolute Yes/No, but rather is determined by :
- The actual bitrate of the media stream
- The type of BitCo connection in use (2down/1up, 5down/1up, or 10down/2up on the "Home" packages)
- The guaranteed performance of that line, as per a stated FUP like the above
- The total traffic (all users and all sessions) being carried by the connection
- The current throttling status
With an uncapped product, I think most of us appreciate the need for a Fair Usage Policy, particularly on a wireless system. Unlike most other uncapped products, BitCo has done something unusual and decided to base the FUP on line utilisation over time (eg 100% utilisation for 1 hour), rather than an absolute quantity of data (eg 100GB per month). On that basis, you can ask yourself :
- Should 100% utilisation of peak speed for 24 hours constitute “unfair usage” ? Almost certainly.
- How about 100% utilisation for 1 hour ? I would think it should not.
- How about 100% utilisation for 4 hours ? Perhaps.
There are two points I’d like to make by way of my 2c worth :
Firstly, I think what is missing from BitCo is a clear, unambiguous statement of what the current FUP actually is. We all get the general idea about the “leaky bucket principle” and we know that 100% utilisation for one hour will trigger throttling under the current FUP. But what is needed is a clear description of how the FUP works, with proper, quantitative limits stated.
Personally I would think that a “moving average” or “moving window” type measurement is most suitable, and I would guess that an averaging period of something like 4 hours would be reasonable.
I don’t know whether BitCo counts both upstream and downstream traffic as contributing to the total line utilisation. I would think that they do, but in order to make the following example simpler, I’ll assume that only downlink traffic is counted.
So for example, a “proper” FUP statement might read something like this :
“Throttling will be applied when the subscriber’s average downlink data rate, as measured over the preceding 4-hour period, exceeds 80% of the maximum line speed. The subscriber will then be throttled to half the maximum line speed until such time as the 4-hour moving average drops below 80% of the maximum line speed again.”
Then there is the question of the actual throttling threshold, given as 80% in the example above. Well that’s BitCo’s call, but we should all realise that whatever number is chosen, determines what the service actually is. If the threshold is (say) 80% average utilisation of a 5Mbps downlink, then the line would be able to sustain 4Mbps indefinitely without triggering the FUP. That is then NOT a “5Mbps service”, but rather a 4Mbps service with the ability to peak at 5Mbps.
With a FUP like the above, a subscriber would (for instance) be able to use the "5Mbps" line at 4Mbps for 1 hour, then 2 Mbps for 1h, then stream a movie at 5Mbps for 2 hours, and still be just under the 80% throttling limit : the “moving average” utilisation over that 4-hour period is exactly 4Mbps.
All of this is given from a customer perspective, and just one (potential) customer at that. The actual averaging period and utilisation threshold is for BitCo to make a call on, based on technical considerations.
Secondly, I think that trying to guarantee (or even quantify) a connection’s performance in terms of whether or not it can “stream” is asking for trouble - the data rates required for video streaming are simply too variable to serve as an absolute measure.
Consider that the data rate required for streaming video depends on a number of factors, namely : resolution, colour depth, frame rate, encoding algorithm, quality setting, fixed or adaptive encoding, type of video container, etc. There is also the question of whether the quoted bit rate is video only, or whether it includes audio, and if it does include audio, is it low quality monaural audio, high quality stereo, full 5.1 surround, etc ?
To illustrate the variability, consider that streaming "typical" HD AV (1920x1080) content could demand anything from 6Mbps (YouTube HD clip) to 15Mbps (Sky Sports HD), as discussed in this article.
So, whether or not a customer is "able to stream” over a BitCo connection at any given time, is not an absolute Yes/No, but rather is determined by :
- The actual bitrate of the media stream
- The type of BitCo connection in use (2down/1up, 5down/1up, or 10down/2up on the "Home" packages)
- The guaranteed performance of that line, as per a stated FUP like the above
- The total traffic (all users and all sessions) being carried by the connection
- The current throttling status
Last edited:
Pitbull
Verboten
Sorry wasn't going to quote all of that again.
I just want to ask you guys the following:
We all knew about the FUP being 1 hour max 1 hour throttled at 1/2 speed when we signed up. This was never up for debate. We asked if this can be relaxed a bit and Bitco tried something else which I think most of us are happy with. At no time did they need to do this as we knew exactly what we got ourselves into. However, with the change to the FUP something else had to be tied down a bit, enter the torrent restrictions during business hours.
I get what everyone is saying and I honestly feel that the only people who have been giving and trying to accommodate everyone is Bitco. We have some very high expectations and even though we knew about the leaking bucket system Bitco was open to be approached and amend it accordingly.
Let's not try rock the boat here I think. We can agree we knew about the line speed and leaking bucket system from the start. I personally would like to thank Bitco for being so approachable and taking our requests and suggestions to heart for the FUP. Who knows, going forward me might see more FUP changes in our favour. But I don't want this turned to a point were they shut the door on us and say, you signed for the FUP, live with it.
Hope you get what I'm saying.
Retic
Active Member
That is Definitely a far more Sensible approach jcheek
Also Pitbull you make a Definitive point.. South african ISPs Readily Go out of their way for customers.. and I agree that Bitco is a Shining example of a company that is actually trying.. and Not just forcing us to accept.
Also Pitbull you make a Definitive point.. South african ISPs Readily Go out of their way for customers.. and I agree that Bitco is a Shining example of a company that is actually trying.. and Not just forcing us to accept.
Last edited:
Agree 100% Pitbull. I initially took the 5Mbps option as I wanted to see what it was all about, and to test out the service for a couple months. I don't download much, and if I do I schedule it for after hours as the throttle really wouldn't worry me then. I ended up upgrading to the 10Mbps package because the link has been rock solid and a pleasure to use. Bar a couple issues with the helpdesk, my whole experience has been positive. A plus is that when the 10Mbps package is throttled I am still able to stream HD content. On any other SP, once I have hit the FUP, that is it for the rest of the month! In my experience the links become totally useless until you start a new month. I can live with being half speed for a couple hours here and there.
unfortunately i will most probably get locked up if i had to try and do something like that, i have a clear veiw of someones tower, looks like it is approximately 4kms from my place, how can i find out who has the links on the tower to contact them for wisp?
jcheek
Expert Member
I get you, completely. The fact that BitCo is prepared to enter into debate - much less contemplate change - is a refreshing change from your average ISP.
In fact, my second point was aimed more at the subscriber base : Some of BitCo's existing customers certainly do have very high (perhaps unreasonable) expectations of an internet connection, especially at this price point (Home packages). Having an expectation that one "should be able to stream HD video uninterrupted" is not necessarily reasonable, or even practical, at this price point.
With my first point I was not suggesting that the current FUP should be amended, necessarily. I'm just hoping for more clarity on what it actually is. Whilst we know that using 100% capacity for 1 hour will trigger throttling, I have the perception (from previous statements made) that using something less than 100% for longer than 1 hour can also trigger throttling.
Last edited:
Pitbull
Verboten
Apologies, wasn't questioning your context or taking on your post. I had something to add and just quoted you as touching on the subject. You make valid points here. As of late I have just been seeing too many posts attacking the FUP which we all agreed to and people trying to force Bitco's hand. I don't think that is fair. They have gone out of their way to accommodate us and don't want certain users now to spoil it for all of us. I dread the day Bitco says: You signed for it, live with it. And it seems like some users are trying to push the envelope a bit here. Just my personal opinion and I would like my voice be heard too, no matter how small
.If you have valid connection issues and packet loss issues I agree it needs to be forced. But this FUP issue I think is a little uncalled for. I do support communication and suggestions on it as that has been the driving force behind the FUP changes. Not the "You guys advertised this and I'm getting this". That is not the way to approach this in my view.
jcheek
Expert Member
Understood, and not taken as such, sir
In turn, I was just adding support for your viewpoint.