I have many Muslim friends and their dinner times are just like anyone else’s.. some eat formally, some don’t.. some have rules where no phones / devices allowed at dinner (like at my non-Muslim in-laws’ house) whereas others have no rules at all.
Additionally, some Muslims are having Iftar during the current restrictions by congregating with other households.. friends, family, community .. online over things like Zoom… which would raise the traffic usage. It would certainly be interesting to see what the cause of this blip is.. and once it has been worked out, it might make an interesting UKNOF presentation. ;-) Regards Denesh > On 12 May 2020, at 11:30, Giles Coochey <[email protected]> wrote: > > It would be interesting to see whether the peak moves out later and later as > the month progresses (as sunset gets later and later). > > Also the peak/dip may be more accentuated, because (as a non-Islamic > follower), my understanding is that Maghrib, the call to prayer, which > happens before Iftar (the breaking of the fast), so because of lockdown, > Maghrib might be live streamed from the Mosque (causing a rise in traffic), > and the Iftar meal will be a more formal meal than usual (phones, tablets, > TVs off during the meal.) > > Apologies if my understanding of the faith is wrong. > > Just a guess, there may be other compounding factors, certainly would be > interesting to see graphs. > > On 12/05/2020 11:16, Neil J. McRae wrote: >> All things being equal Clive I agree give or take a small plus or minus, >> but the operators have different market shares and not all of the population >> is a mobile phone subscriber or a smartphone user. I'm going to get a more >> detailed view of 9pm as the views I'm looking at are over 24 hour period and >> possible to miss something. Understanding the size of the gradient change of >> the dip would be helpful. >> >> Neil. >> >> On 12/05/2020, 11:10, "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Neil J. McRae said: >> > Giles, interesting correlation ??? would be very interesting to find >> out if this was the cause. I???d find that quite surprising if it was the >> case but very interesting. 5% of the population might fit into this bracket >> but I???d expect them to be shared between all the operators perhaps making >> the size of the population on each operator quite small, and not sure large >> enough to make such something noticeable. >> >> Actually, it should be about 5% of the population on each operator, >> assuming there's nothing (such as geographical distribution) to disturb >> the >> relationship. Yes, they have to be shared out, but so does the >> population! >> >> -- >> Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, >> Email: [email protected] | it will get its revenge. >> Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer >> Mobile: +44 7973 377646 >> > -- > Giles Coochey > >
