[130114] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Online games stealing your bandwidth
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason Iannone)
Tue Sep 28 15:51:29 2010
In-Reply-To: <4CA2406A.6080702@comcast.net>
From: Jason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:49:33 -0600
To: manolo hernandez <mhernand1@comcast.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In my experience users aren't willing to pay for dedicated bandwidth.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:22 PM, manolo hernandez <mhernand1@comcast.net> w=
rote:
> -----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 do=
n'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 w=
ith mixed Fiber/DSL/POTS access and nearly 50,000 cellular customers with h=
igh speed data around our Metro network. I am an RF Engineer, however the n=
etwork I run is IP based (satellite) and I run in the neighborhood of 250mb=
ps forward and 30mbps return to most of the State of Alaska. I find that an=
ywhere from 40-65% of our total traffic is "questionable", which is why I w=
as asking about an ISP who liked their users downloading torrents. It is ve=
ry difficult to gauge a users behavior if they are on an "all out" download=
ing 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 provid=
ers, 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 the=
ir computers, and our customer base (rural Alaska) have few things to do be=
sides 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, an=
d bit torrent. It makes things much more complicated when trying to give an=
experience to people..
>>
>> //warren
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates@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 o=
ffer 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 t=
urn 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=3D
> =3DZPwF
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
