I'd just like to point out that a lot of people are in fact using their 
upstream capability, and the operators always throw a fit and try to cut off 
specific applications to force it back into the idle state.  For example P2P 
things like torrents and most recently the open NTP and DNS servers.  How about 
SMTP?  Not sure about you guys but my local broadband ISP has cut me off and 
told me that my 'unlimited internet' is in fact limited.  The reality is that 
those people who are not using it (99.8%?) are just being ripped off - paying 
for something they were told they need, thinking that it's there when they want 
it, then getting cut off when they actually try to use it.

It's not like whining about it here will change anything, but the prices are 
severely distorted.  Triple play packages are designed to force people to pay 
for stuff they don't need or want - distorting the price of a service hoping to 
recover it elsewhere, then if the gamble doesn't pan out, the customer loses 
again.  The whole model is based on people buying stuff that they won't 
actually come to collect, so then you can sell it an infinite number of times.  
The people who do try to collect what was sold to them literally end up getting 
called names and cut off - terms like "excessive bandwidth user" and "network 
abuser" are used to describe paying customers.  With regard to the peering 
disputes, it's hardly surprising that their business partners are treated with 
the same attitude as their customers.  Besides, if you cut off the customers 
and peers who are causing that saturation, then the existing peering links can 
support an infinite number of idle subscribers.  The next phase is 
usage-based-billing which is kind of like having to pay a fine for using it, so 
they can artificially push the price point lower and hopefully get some more 
idle customers.  That will help get the demand down and keep the infrastructure 
nice and idle.  When you're paying for every cat video maybe you realize you 
can live without it instead.

Everyone has been trained so well, they don't even flinch anymore when they 
hear about "over subscription", and they apologize for the people who are doing 
it to them.  The restaurant analogy is incorrect - you can go to the restaurant 
next door if a place is busy, thus they have pressure to increase their 
capacity if they want to sell more meals.  With broadband you can't go anywhere 
else, (for most people) there's only one restaurant, and there's a week long 
waiting list.  If you don't like it, you're probably an abuser or excessive 
eater anyway.

-Laszlo


On May 16, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Scott Helms <khe...@zcorum.com> wrote:

> Michael,
> 
> No, its not too much to ask and any end user who has that kind of
> requirement can order a business service to get symmetrical service but the
> reality is that symmetrical service costs more and the vast majority of
> customers don't use the upstream capacity they have today.  I have personal
> insight into about half a million devices and the percentage of people who
> bump up against their upstream rate is less than 0.2%.  I have the ability
> to get data on another 10 million and the last time I checked their rates
> were similar.
> 
> This kind of question has been asked of operators since long before cable
> companies could offer internet service.  What happens if everyone in an
> area use their telephone (cellular or land line) at the same time?  A fast
> busy or recorded "All circuits are busy message."  Over subscription is a
> fact of economics in virtually everything we do.  By this logic restaurants
> should be massively over built so that there is never a waiting line,
> highways should always be a speed limit ride, and all of these things would
> cost much more money than they do today.
> 
> 
> Scott Helms
> Vice President of Technology
> ZCorum
> (678) 507-5000
> --------------------------------
> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
> --------------------------------
> 
> 
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> 
>> Scott Helms wrote:
>> 
>>> Mark,
>>> 
>>> Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the
>>> popularity of OTT video.
>>> 
>> 
>> Until my other half decides to upload a video.
>> 
>> Is it too much to ask for a bucket of bits that I can use in whichever
>> direction happens
>> to be needed at the moment?
>> 
>> Mike
>> 

Reply via email to