Evening all. Times are BST. I have been told I can't share graphs. However, allowing for the granularity of the various reporting systems the dips do appear to be slipping later in the day, which might fit with the sunset theory. Though given previous comments I'm not completely convinced. My first thought was, is it TV schedule-related? But since it's only started recently and does seem to be shifting I think that's unlikely.
@Keith Mitchell<mailto:[email protected]> yes, we see dips in queries being handled by our resolvers as well. @Denesh Bhabuta<mailto:[email protected]> when we find out I'll let you know 😉 ________________________________ From: uknof <[email protected]> on behalf of Neil J. McRae <[email protected]> Sent: 12 May 2020 16:51 To: Keith Mitchell <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [uknof] 9pm data dip I assumed this was a new thing and thus thought it couldn't be something on TV. On 12/05/2020, 14:58, "uknof on behalf of Keith Mitchell" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Could it simply be people switching to/from some popular nightly item on linear broadcast TV from/to whatever streaming they were consuming ? Noting the "Coronation Street kettle" effect of years gone by, if the power utilities publish real-time consumption stats with enough time resolution that may also be interesting to examine. Having a look at what DNS queries are being sent to ISP resolvers around that time may also yield insights. Keith On 5/12/20 6:16 AM, 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. > On 12/05/2020, 11:10, "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email protected]> > wrote: >> 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! This e-mail message (including any attachment) is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the author only. Furthermore, this message (including any attachment) does not create any legally binding rights or obligations whatsoever, which may only be created by the exchange of hard copy documents signed by a duly authorised representative of Hutchison 3G UK Limited. Hutchison 3G UK Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 3885486. Registered Office Star House, 20 Grenfell Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 1EH
