Slashdot Mirror


High-Bandwidth Users Are Just Early Adopters

silverpig writes "Cisco has released a whitepaper on mobile data usage which has some interesting data in it. The top 1% of users consume 20% of the bandwidth, but that share is down from 30% previously. 'Regular' users are catching up as they watch more video. High-bandwidth users of today will be relatively average users by 2015, so network operators should look to those users for insight in designing their future networks."

33 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. But.. But... by francium+goes+boom · · Score: 5, Informative

    That means I actually have to spend money on my network!

    1. Re:But.. But... by toastar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That means I actually have to spend money on my network!

      The fact that this is a white paper by a company selling network equipment didn't set off anybody's conflict of interest meter?

    2. Re:But.. But... by DanTheStone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because there's a conflict of interest doesn't mean the data is a lie. This should be as obvious as the correlation/causation idiom.

    3. Re:But.. But... by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a difference between "conflict of interest" and "we know what we're talking about," although the two do sometimes overlap.

    4. Re:But.. But... by gknoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand, look at the infrastructure difference between the US and other countries. Sure, we have rural areas, but in urban areas we aren't getting the level of service that happens in Japan or Korea or even (I think?) some European countries. This is after having "loaned" telecom companies massive amounts of money to build infrastructure, and they (mostly) did not.

      When you consider that everyone and their mom is now using Youtube, and wanting to do video phone calls, Skype, streaming Netflix, etc, it's hard to argue with Cisco's conclusions (at least, as the summary stated them ;)). In five or ten years, demand for streaming video will likely be even higher, and that's just the most obvious one.

    5. Re:But.. But... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, but it means that there should be some verification of the results. For example, take every study ever conducted by the RIAA about file sharing. Those studies have been shown repeatedly to be bullshit.

      Of course, everything we've heard seems to support this study about bandwidth, which probably means that it's valid.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    6. Re:But.. But... by guruevi · · Score: 2

      This has always been an argument that is badly contended, the data people (Americans) use for these comparisons is definitely flawed just to keep their nationalistic pride. The reason you get those numbers is 1) you are taking Western Europe and Eastern Europe together - the latter has only in the last couple of years been able to afford to pick up the pace. The Russian Federation and China have the same issue - you're adding both poor and rich together while the US is in general considered, very rich throughout.

      This chart is more detailed: http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Images/commentarynews/broadbandspeedchart.jpg and while the density of those countries has something to do with it (Japan and some European countries) other European countries are far less dense than the US. The difference (through history) is who invested in the infrastructure.

      You also have to consider the cost. Look here: http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/01/us-broadband-still-lagging-in-speed-and-penetration.ars our average speed is 3.9Mbps and costs $40.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    7. Re:But.. But... by Eudial · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I live in Sweden. Medium sized city, pop. 70,000, population density 2,261/km2 (about 80% of the population density of Urban New York City). The apartment complex I live in was built in the '60s.

      As a private person, I pay roughly $30 (USD) a month for municipal broadband. And what do I get?
      * 10 IP addresses.
      * 100 Mbps connection, and that is up and down. Network jack in the wall that's hooked up to a switch somewhere in the building that's got a fiber connection.
      * No data transfer cap, no surcharges based on traffic, no closed ports or clauses in the terms of service that say I can't host servers or bullshit like that.

      This is not the perk of living in some a luxury apartment, but something that's fairly common.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    8. Re:But.. But... by afidel · · Score: 2

      That was the approach AT&T seemed to be following for a while =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    9. Re:But.. But... by icebike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which is more expensive. The Japanese simply used the copper wires that already ran into everyone's home (i.e. the phonelines), so it was cheap and easy for them. It won't be that easy for the americans.

      Erm, isn't that exactly what DSL is?

      With some of the newer micro head-ends, DSL can be run out of that green box at the end of the street, instead of 4 miles down the road at the nearest sub-office. You only need fiber to the neighborhood patch panel.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    10. Re:But.. But... by icebike · · Score: 2

      Key word here is "municipal".

      What part of your taxes goes to support that?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    11. Re:But.. But... by icebike · · Score: 2

      I demand no such thing, but neither do I accept the fact that out of pocket costs can be reported without
      some reference to tax supported infrastructure.

      But hey, thanks for the gratuitous swipe at my country.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    12. Re:But.. But... by guyminuslife · · Score: 2

      It does, but on the other hand, Cisco has a pretty strong incentive to make accurate predictions here, for its own benefit. It's better for them to know what the actual market trends are so they can plan for them, than it is to make up wishful numbers. If publishing the white paper helps drum up sales, so be it.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    13. Re:But.. But... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Judging by the number of times he's posted exactly that same comment, one per unique post.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:But.. But... by icebike · · Score: 2

      Ok, WHAT PERCENTAGE of your rent goes to that?

      Subtract that part from your rent, and add it to your Broadband bill.

      To the extent that the city buildings do not break even with rents and require municipal subsidies, subtract that same PERCENTAGE of the subsidy and add that to your Broadband bill.

      Then since your municipality does not pay property taxes to itself, or anyone else, find that same percent of the taxes that a private landlord would pay on a similar building, and add that to your broadband bill.

      You can quickly see the tax payer is paying some (probably large) portion of your broadband bill, as well as your rent.

      Now, I'm fine with that, if that's the system you voted for. I'm not trying to make a political argument here.

      But its not a reasonable comparison to come quoting prices that are tax payer subsidized in comparison to service in the US where the such is not subsidized, but rather taxed all up and down the line. Your 100Meg service would cost well in excess of $150/month IF you could even get it in a residential building.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    15. Re:But.. But... by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Key word here is "municipal".

      What part of your taxes goes to support that?

      Municipal does not mean "runs on tax dollars".

      Municipal means community (local government) run, there are a crapload of lgov services in Oz that run at a profit, it's used to pay for other services like sanitation.

      What is the difference between a for profit government run lemonade stand and a for profit corporate run stand? The government run stand does not need to increase it's profit from last year.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. Wait a second.... by Immostlyharmless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought those heavy users were all supposed to be pirates?....now they say they are early adopters, does this mean we're all going to turn into pirates? Best get out my peg leg and shine it up....

    1. Re:Wait a second.... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Hmm, no piracy here. Enough Netflix, Hulu and ps3 demo downloads(Most are over a GB) and you too can be a heavy user

    2. Re:Wait a second.... by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Yup, and playing decent online games, many people who play MMOs of different flavors face GB+ patches once a year, voice comms which is a pretty constant data stream, and the data for the game, which can be quite large.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. This is a real shocker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An IT infrastructure company came out with a report stating that operators should beef up their infrastructure.

  4. Future Networks by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 2

    I think the network operators and ISP's solution to those high bandwidth users is to cap bandwidth, shape traffic, enforce download/upload caps - pretty much anything short of actually spending money on designing a future network.

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
  5. Does this translate to land-based broadband? by Thruen · · Score: 2

    I'm wondering if this means the same is true for all broadband. Obviously there will always be heavier users, and I think everyone here knows they need to worry more about upgrading infrastructure and less about how to limit users to make it work as it is, but could they realistically NEED to increase their capacity within the next few years to avoid having their pipes always clogged by what's become regular usage?

  6. The ISPs know this all too well by swordgeek · · Score: 3, Informative

    In Canada, we are facing a fight over Usage-Based-Billing, and whether the federal government can effectively force it on ISPs. The idea isn't actually terrible per se, but the way they're trying to implement it certainly is.
    One thing that has come up time and time again is that it's to protect the consumer from the excess of the 1% of extreme consumers. They're often implicitly labelled as pirates by the ISPs, but in fact are the vanguard.
    An excellent article in the Globe and Mail had this to say on the matter:

    The knowledge that penalties await heavy Internet usage does something quite terrible: discourage desirable behaviour. Most of Bell’s arguments for treating consumers as wrongdoers rely on the villainization of “bandwidth hogs” who use up everyone else’s bandwidth and generally bring misery to the land. But there are better words for big users of the Internet: “pioneers” and “innovators.” A nation that spends its time worrying about bandwidth caps is not a nation that leads.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  7. Ahead of the curve by RobertB-DC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The cell phone companies are way ahead of the curve on this one. They've been working on ways to screw us over for years now... and the more you know about making the sausage (from sites like HoFo), the more you know how bad you're getting it. Especially in the US.

    Just a few days ago, I got a text message from T-Mobile saying, "Texas Recovery Fee now included on monthly bill." Oh for crying out loud. Does the grocery store charge me a "Municipal Services Recovery Fee" to get back the cost of their food service license? Even the tire store doesn't charge the "tire disposal fee" if I tell them to load 'em up in the back seat. I'd drop 'em in a minute if it weren't for two things: 1) Everyone else is just as bad or worse, and 2) T-Mo makes it easy and *cheaper* to stay *out* of a contract, which actually makes me *more* likely to stay.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:Ahead of the curve by characterZer0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Some states (NY for example) make the tire stores charge the tire disposal fee even if you keep the old tires.

      I make sure I get my money's worth by taking the used tires and leaving them at the side of the freeway.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:Ahead of the curve by ls671 · · Score: 2

      Well, there seems to be obvious logic behind this. If you are getting charged anyway, you won't be tempted to "keep the old tires" and then to dump them in the woods...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re:Ahead of the curve by Moridin42 · · Score: 2

      What's the obvious logic? You may as well take the tires, and do something with them that will probably leave them in some form of litter. After all, you've paid for their disposal. You may as well take them and get some entertainment or other temporary use out of them, too. Instead of just leaving them with the store to be disposed of.

      Thats sorta what not requiring the fee to be paid does.. Yes, if the fee isn't required, you could walk out with the tires and the money and still do the same thing. But that means that it has to be worth the fee+entertainment-effort before you'll do it.

      when the fee is required regardless, you're out the money either way. In effect, it is no longer part of your decision making process. You can either leave the tires, expend no effort, and get no entertainment. Or you can take the tires and do something stupid but fun with them and then leave them. More than likely guilt free, too. Since you "paid" for their disposal. They're just not being disposed of from the store.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
  8. IPv4 by Piata · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're talking about the same companies that knew IPv4 addresses were rapidly depleting for years and are just now taking steps to implement IPv6. Their main concern is minimizing expenses while maximizing profit. The less your average user uses, the more users they can squeeze onto the same pipe. I'm pretty sure most ISPs would love it if everyone bought an $80 data plan and only used it to check their email. There's no room for long term planning when you have shareholders that expect constant short term growth.

    1. Re:IPv4 by C_amiga_fan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>>Their main concern is minimizing expenses while maximizing profit.

      It is a logical choice.
      - The longer you wait, the cheaper upgrading becomes. Upgrade to a 3000 megahertz single core P4 five years ago and spend $1500. Make the same upgrade today and spend $150. The same decreasing cost applies to upgrades in Servers and DSL or cable or fiber lines.

      --
      FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
    2. Re:IPv4 by hedwards · · Score: 2

      No, it's not logical, this isn't equivalent. The cost of implementation goes up a lot just before a critical switch over date appears. Consultants don't become more numerous just because there's a date coming up that requires their services. Ultimately, it costs a lot of money to try and make these sorts of switches overnight, and you do pay a premium for doing so.

  9. Re:Extra extra! by airfoobar · · Score: 2

    That's true, but do their conclusions sound wrong to you? Of course more people are learning to use the net to watch movies and download music (legally and illegally), that's normal, isn't it? Eventually, the majority of people will be doing that, I think, unless limits are imposed on the market (e.g. some anti-competitive, fucked up notion of 'net neutrality', metered billing or what have you, that ISPs lobbied for to limit the need for infrastructure investment).

  10. FUD is much cheaper by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just call them "bandwidth hogs," oversell your capacity, and blame your connectivity problems on the people using most of the flow they paid for.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  11. Re:One heavy is diffrent from another heavy by Retardical_Sam · · Score: 2

    Warning - above goo.gl link is goatse.