I seem to remember seeing explanations that mobile carriers leave some data out of the calculations for billing or data cap purposes. Like DNS lookups maybe? Also retries which LTE networks have a lot of. Then there’s the zero rated data like certain video streams. And I assume VoLTE data is not counted.
To answer Nate’s question, I expect most operators would only count the delivered data, not including what gets thrown out due to rate limiting. Which seems a little unfair, it would be like a restaurant only charging you for what you ate, not what you ordered. In this case, though, it would be like the restaurant never brought everything you ordered to your table. Plus the concept that the customer “ordered” all that data isn’t quite true, he just subscribed to a service which decided to send him all that data. One philosophy I have that not everyone shares, is that you should charge for data usage or speed tier but not both. So if you’re going to use UBB, maybe your speeds should be best available, which eliminates the problem. Just deliver the excess traffic and then charge the customer for it. That’s maybe why the mobile wireless and cable companies seem to be moving away from UBB toward data “caps” and “deprioritization” (throttling) once you hit the cap. I guess another approach would be rate shaping rather than policing. Put in a really deep queue so you deliver all that data to the customer eventually, although their latency will go sky high. Most TCP senders will eventually slow down when the ACKs are coming 500 or 1000 msec delayed. I get a little tired of the bufferbloat scolds who view this as a horrible flaw of some ISPs. You’ve got to either deliver all traffic to customers without rate limits, or delay some of it, or throw some of it out. There’s really no other choice. The people who say techniques like AQM and FQ-CODEL accomplish rate limiting without excessive latency are making an assumption about TCP senders, that dropping just the right packet will alert the sender to congestion and make them behave. Maybe yes, maybe no. It’s like assuming you can say the right thing to a schoolyard bully and he won’t take your lunch money. Or that all Twitter trolls can be taken down with a clever comeback. From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 10:39 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] UBB Question, what network point do you bill on? Verizon would probably do the 600 GB, but I'm not a UBB user. If it was dropped at your head end and you didn't have to carry it through your network and by consequence the AP, I wouldn't see a problem with the 330. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 8:07 PM Nate Burke <n...@blastcomm.com <mailto:n...@blastcomm.com> > wrote: For those of you doing UBB, do you bill based off of the bits coming into your network destined for the customer, or the bits that actually reach the customer? I was just looking at a new customer who must have been re-syncing his gaming system, had his connection maxed out for about 40 hours. The CDN delivering it must have been doing that connection stuffing thing. Netflow data from the network edge showed that 30-40mb/s was destined for his IP Address, but because of bandwidth queuing, only 20mb/s was delivered to him (his package limit). How would you have billed this customer? 600GB of usage, or 330GB of usage? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
