Online games stealing your bandwidth

Tue Sep 28 19:49:33 UTC 2010

In my experience users aren't willing to pay for dedicated bandwidth.

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:22 PM, manolo hernandez <mhernand1 at comcast.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 9/28/10 3:01 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
>> Jack,
>>
>> Apologies, I did not realize that you guys were doing so much. Please don't take my last email as anything which was intended to question or insult you guys. Up here (Alaska) we have about 100,000 cable subscribers along with mixed Fiber/DSL/POTS access and nearly 50,000 cellular customers with high speed data around our Metro network. I am an RF Engineer, however the network I run is IP based (satellite) and I run in the neighborhood of 250mbps forward and 30mbps return to most of the State of Alaska. I find that anywhere from 40-65% of our total traffic is "questionable", which is why I was asking about an ISP who liked their users downloading torrents. It is very difficult to gauge a users behavior if they are on an "all out" downloading binge over a weekend. Normally, a user logs in and does what they need to in a relatively short amount of time (hours). In the case of most providers, we oversubscribe our resources and have found this model is beginning to not apply to
> user behavior changes. Long gone are the days of the user turning off their computers, and our customer base (rural Alaska) have few things to do besides use the internet. This has made a "perfect storm" of sorts, as we are now seeing most of our users utilizing 70%+ of their allocated (purchased) bandwidth 24 hours a day. The vast majority of the night use is gaming, and bit torrent. It makes things much more complicated when trying to give an experience to people..
>>
>> //warren
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates at brightok.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:26 AM
>> To: Warren Bailey
>> Cc: Richard Barnes; NANOG
>> Subject: Re: Online games stealing your bandwidth
>>
>> On 9/28/2010 1:00 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
>>> Jack,
>>>
>>> Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but looking at your website - do you only offer dial up services? This could be the background for a statement like "a proper ISP doesn't encourage any type of traffic." We have a couple of OC-192 running to Seattle, so certain "types" of traffic can make a good day turn very badly without some traffic "management".
>>>
>>
>> BrightNet itself has ILEC's as customers. We're a turnkey glue for ILECs
>> nearby. Among other things, I provide engineering support and advise for
>> each ILEC. Each has their own levels of service, management, and
>> technologies deployed including wireless, cellular, DSL, FTTH, and
>> cable. I'm currently running around 1.2gbit between us and 4 NSP
>> transits with 3gbit available. Some of the ILECs have additional load
>> shifting with other transits. I estimate the need to go 10Gig ring or
>> split transit in less than 5 years at current growth rates, and the
>> largest problem we've run into is getting infrastructure to handle gig-e
>> speeds out of rural ILECs for the 100+ mile longhauls. I've had issues
>> with gig-e connectivity just getting out of OKC to enough NSP transits
>> and it will become more difficult/expensive when we do hit 10G.
>>
>> As it currently stands, we usually have no problems with event spikes,
>> though we sometimes have to tweek the traffic paths depending on how the
>> NSPs do. The largest issues have always been the last mile. As we
>> resolve last mile costs (which dropping 100% fiber in a rural area today
>> doesn't have the safety nets and guarantees that were provided when
>> copper was dropped in), we'll then have to tackle the longhaul
>> connectivity issues, but hopefully the cost to handle that will drop as
>> well.
>>
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
> What is keeping your company from buying more bandwidth? I find the
> excuse of over subscription to be a fail. If that's your companies
> business model then it should not be whining when people are using what
> you sell them. Provision bandwidth accordingly and stop being cheap and
> squeezing every last dime from the end user for bandwidth that can be
> had for less than the price of a burger in some places.
>
>
>
> Manny
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMokBqAAoJEOcnyWxdB1IrGBMH/RCg7zy3L171hwGuilZHRWyA
> 9B4k+DoTF0Cp8Gt30zamKly90BERKiilryyhxSpAtepUa4wQs4bOGwk5HKx06jkF
> YJokQpqmNNmY4MU/bwWtUpkjrQjYT6Dt8967iEA3SWBbqdUhRdyejFLaZbDoV43u
> 61NzEU/JGdxnRvO/MkleP95/+XPCWuQy0EIDAuwlwcWIzr/i9ra9nD5Nf6x9AE/u
> XTJoTLwY6y2xP93gTBp12MBmzf07AkPxwvpMAbcYIu+94O/twbpWysuceC3EH2bW
> cMKLPAIROxZaropgSSJYSu8hFNPWlODkOD7MHiY8Ilcv6B4v7XEa6QpCd/lfDxE=
> =ZPwF
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>