A few customers using data 'like' a commercial server is not an issue, it's if word got out that you didn't need to pay for a dedicated line and hosting companies came flocking to your residential lines, there would be an issue.
The ToS is to scare off companies from making blatant abuse of their networks, but a few residential customers doing it is not an issue. Most ISPs can handle a few outliers, what they can't handle is an over-all shift of their entire user base. Regular users who host high data servers at home are outliers in a residential setting, but high usage users are the norm in hosting companies. You don't want to advertise yourself as easily abused.
Your analogy breaks down in that most ISPs over-charge for their services. It's more like you pay $10mil/year for a 10 mile stretch of I-80 that should be all yours, but you're not getting it. Dedicated bandwidth is only $0.45/mbit, $45/month should get you 100mbit of symmetrical dedicated bandwidth, plus line costs.
The routers aren't, but the fiber is. Core routers are not meant to be past 50% utilization. Once 95th percentile reaches 50%, the router/link needs to be upgraded. This keeps the core from having congestion. The core can handle anything you throw at it and you'll pay fairly for using it.
100gb trunk is slow, 10tb-100tb is the new hotness. Take 100-1000 100gb links and multiplex them over a single fiber using DWMD. 1pb/s is just over the horizon, already a working prototype.
Direct peering doesn't favor one over the other, it makes it cheaper for the ISP. An ISP's trunk should never be congested and should be connected to a Tier 1. If both of these is true, then you're not perfering anyone over anyone else. The default state of the Internet is for an ISP to use a Tier 1 as their default. Any peering being done is to reduce costs. Increased performance is an indirect result of reduced costs.
The biggest issue with peering is no perfering one service over another, it's peering then letting the link get congested. Letting your trunk get congested will make many many people mad, but letting a specific peered link get congested rarely result in every one of your customers getting up-in-arms.
You're arguing in favor of a 1 to 1 contention ratio. You can get such a connection today if you'd like it, you'll just have to pay a lot more for it.
I already have that and I pay $100 for 50/50. I get those speeds to every IX in the USA and Europe at all times of the day. I get less than 1ms std-dev of jitter from Chicago to LA during 8p-11p, ditto to Dallas and NYC, and about 3ms of jitter to almost all of Europe(London, Paris, Munich IXs) along with my 50/50. It's quite normal for me to be seeding 30mb/s to a single IP in the faster cities in Europe, that have 100mb/s connections as standard. I average 10GB-15GB/hour seeding during peak hours, and I can still play video games with sub 10ms pings and I don't even use QOS or traffic shaping.
I can even stream 4k YouTube from Europe Datacenters without buffering.
What does my trace route looks like? My ISP, Level 3, Level 3, Level 3, Level 3, Level 3, IX, Destination.
This would be a really bad way to design a network--it would result in building for tremendous overcapacity.
Most of the Internet is built this way already. The Internet backbone is mostly idle and under-utilized. About 80% of the fiber that was installed for the backbone has gone unused as technology keeps pushing data transfers faster and faster.
I got a 50mb connection and got 48mb-50mb to all of those servers. I also did "speedtest.net" and got 38mb-45mb to London, Paris, and Germany. Your ISP may want some better routes.
And your ISP's shit-bag provider should be providing full speed on their network also, and so and and so forth. While a single server with a 1gb connection can only handle at most 10x connections at 100mb/s, but as long as that connection is not at full utilization, you should get it.
Nutshell. While your ISP can't control anything beyond their edge, your ISP or any of its links should NEVER be the reason, and your ISP should make sure the same is also true for anyone they link with. The core network should never be a limitation and only the end-points should be.
According to their page, in order to access someone else's folder, you must have a "secret". The owner of a folder can generate read+write or read-only secrets, but other's folders are non-readable by default. Or so it looks. Haven't used it.
Capitalism is driven by greed with the goal of obtaining all money and power. The only way to keep it on a leash is lots of regulations, which no one likes and complains it's not a free market, or few regulations and it runs rampant. Capitalism is doomed to decay into an extreme, unless there is a way to punish people for being jerks.
Not anymore. New tech in the past 3 years that is no commercial available. 400 1gb port chassis with 4x100gb uplinks and 37tb/s-100tb/s core routers with 100gb ports and DWMD-Ethernet multiplexers that take 10gb and 100gb Ethernet ports and can mutiplex up to 16tb/s of any combination of 10gb and 100gb links over a single fiber with a max range of 700km over common fiber and no repeaters or re-generators.
Newer tech coming down the pipeline has routers with 1pb/s of routing with 1tb/s ports and DWMD-multiplexers that can move 850tb/s down a single fiber.
You still think we have a bandwidth issue? Yes, this will take many years to get phased in, but it is here and ready.
You pay 10% the price because you don't get an SLA, not because of the bandwidth. Dedicated bandwidth to-and-from nearly any city in the world is under $1/mbit. If you used your 15mb connection 24/7 and had fully dedicated bandwidth to anywhere in the world, it'd run you about $7.5/month. How much are you paying? More than $7.5 I bet.
#1 Cost for a dedicated business line is the SLA
#2 Cost is the physical line, it must be maintained
#3 Cost, which represents less than 1% of the total cost, is the bandwidth.
1 and 2 are both relatively fixed costs, which is why 10x the bandwidth only costs 2x the price. Something along the lines of 10mb for $1000, 100mb for $2000, and 1000mb for $4000. Once you start to get into the 10gb and 100gb+ speeds, bandwidth is crazy cheap, with a current min of about $0.4/mbit. But this price drops about 50% every year.
We've deleted nothing, as the vast sea of comments complaining about the beta in every story should attest to. All submissions are still around, too, though they eventually drop out of the firehose like any other submission does. If you want a simple test, bookmark the URL whenever you submit something.
I suppose it wouldn't be a redesign without conspiracy theories, though.
A 10gb port that can support about 2,500 users's bandwidth for Netflix? Say it isn't so! Making $250k/month of revenue from those users, they don't deserve spending $10k once.
Because you aren't buying a fixed bandwidth allocation from your ISP
I do and it's cheaper than the competition. 30mb/30mb for $60/month with an SLA on the GPON unit to make sure you get 30/30 even if the entire "node" is fully loaded. EVERY customer gets this. I have a higher tier, but not their highest 200/200.
You want to know how the Internet works? Tier 1 backbone providers won't allow peering ports to go over 50% utilization. If they do, then the port needs to get upgraded, typically in less than a month. Congestion is unacceptable.
My ISP subscribes to this same ideal. They advertise tiers as dedicated bandwidth for ALL users. They are a residential service, so there are some hick-ups because of missconfigurations or they are changing things around, but I've called in and reported that my ping was over 20ms when I normally got 8ms during peak hours, and they had me talking to an engineer and got the problem fixed.
If you can show that you are regularly getting congestion in any amount, they will have you talking to an engineer to get it fixed.
What about seeding P2P? "We are selling you unlimited dedicated bandwidth, as long as it's not illegal and you're not running commercial servers, transfer all you want". What if it becomes an issue, will there be data caps? "If we implement data caps, we will change the ToS, but there is no indication that we will". What about throttling? "We will not use throttling or QoS and we don't need to because we designed our network to supply dedicated bandwidth. We used throttling in the past, but it was not worth the management overhead and customer support calls".
I was messing with my DNS settings the other month and got forwarded to an EU YouTube datacenter in Germany. I was streaming 4k videos at 45mb/s from 4,300 miles away(direct flight distance) during peak hours. Verizon customers are getting issues trying to stream YouTube from local CDNs.
What crappy ISP do you go through that doesn't deliver what they sell you?
Do you really want your voip call to break up because the line is slammed with my linux ISO download?
This should not happen in the first place, QoS or not. Any fixed-line ISP in a city should never, outside of sporadic events like a DDOS, have congestion on their network. If they do, they should be sued for false advertisement.
Slashdot Mirror
maximum price(maximize profit) != fair price
minimum price(just enough to cover costs) != fair price
Best price = somewhere between minimum and maximum
Maximum may be great for that single instance, but it bad for the overall economy.
A few customers using data 'like' a commercial server is not an issue, it's if word got out that you didn't need to pay for a dedicated line and hosting companies came flocking to your residential lines, there would be an issue.
The ToS is to scare off companies from making blatant abuse of their networks, but a few residential customers doing it is not an issue. Most ISPs can handle a few outliers, what they can't handle is an over-all shift of their entire user base. Regular users who host high data servers at home are outliers in a residential setting, but high usage users are the norm in hosting companies. You don't want to advertise yourself as easily abused.
Your analogy breaks down in that most ISPs over-charge for their services. It's more like you pay $10mil/year for a 10 mile stretch of I-80 that should be all yours, but you're not getting it. Dedicated bandwidth is only $0.45/mbit, $45/month should get you 100mbit of symmetrical dedicated bandwidth, plus line costs.
The routers aren't, but the fiber is. Core routers are not meant to be past 50% utilization. Once 95th percentile reaches 50%, the router/link needs to be upgraded. This keeps the core from having congestion. The core can handle anything you throw at it and you'll pay fairly for using it.
We pay over $5,000 per month for a 100mb/100mb connection because we're in BFE
Ouch.. wtf... Around here, Level 3 sells 1gb dedicated links for $6k/month.
100gb trunk is slow, 10tb-100tb is the new hotness. Take 100-1000 100gb links and multiplex them over a single fiber using DWMD. 1pb/s is just over the horizon, already a working prototype.
Depends. I get exactly what I pay for. 50/50. I get it everywhere it counts and at all times.
Direct peering doesn't favor one over the other, it makes it cheaper for the ISP. An ISP's trunk should never be congested and should be connected to a Tier 1. If both of these is true, then you're not perfering anyone over anyone else. The default state of the Internet is for an ISP to use a Tier 1 as their default. Any peering being done is to reduce costs. Increased performance is an indirect result of reduced costs.
The biggest issue with peering is no perfering one service over another, it's peering then letting the link get congested. Letting your trunk get congested will make many many people mad, but letting a specific peered link get congested rarely result in every one of your customers getting up-in-arms.
You're arguing in favor of a 1 to 1 contention ratio. You can get such a connection today if you'd like it, you'll just have to pay a lot more for it.
I already have that and I pay $100 for 50/50. I get those speeds to every IX in the USA and Europe at all times of the day. I get less than 1ms std-dev of jitter from Chicago to LA during 8p-11p, ditto to Dallas and NYC, and about 3ms of jitter to almost all of Europe(London, Paris, Munich IXs) along with my 50/50. It's quite normal for me to be seeding 30mb/s to a single IP in the faster cities in Europe, that have 100mb/s connections as standard. I average 10GB-15GB/hour seeding during peak hours, and I can still play video games with sub 10ms pings and I don't even use QOS or traffic shaping.
I can even stream 4k YouTube from Europe Datacenters without buffering.
What does my trace route looks like? My ISP, Level 3, Level 3, Level 3, Level 3, Level 3, IX, Destination.
This would be a really bad way to design a network--it would result in building for tremendous overcapacity.
Most of the Internet is built this way already. The Internet backbone is mostly idle and under-utilized. About 80% of the fiber that was installed for the backbone has gone unused as technology keeps pushing data transfers faster and faster.
I got a 50mb connection and got 48mb-50mb to all of those servers. I also did "speedtest.net" and got 38mb-45mb to London, Paris, and Germany. Your ISP may want some better routes.
And your ISP's shit-bag provider should be providing full speed on their network also, and so and and so forth. While a single server with a 1gb connection can only handle at most 10x connections at 100mb/s, but as long as that connection is not at full utilization, you should get it.
Nutshell. While your ISP can't control anything beyond their edge, your ISP or any of its links should NEVER be the reason, and your ISP should make sure the same is also true for anyone they link with. The core network should never be a limitation and only the end-points should be.
According to their page, in order to access someone else's folder, you must have a "secret". The owner of a folder can generate read+write or read-only secrets, but other's folders are non-readable by default. Or so it looks. Haven't used it.
There is no analog, it's all quantum.
Yet, lets pay $15 for an antenna and another $40 to convert it to RCA for my decrepit TV. Or wait! I have fiber internet, how do I use that?
Capitalism is driven by greed with the goal of obtaining all money and power. The only way to keep it on a leash is lots of regulations, which no one likes and complains it's not a free market, or few regulations and it runs rampant. Capitalism is doomed to decay into an extreme, unless there is a way to punish people for being jerks.
Someone is working on hyper-sonic(relative to water) torpedoes. That's going to suck since your "eyes" under water is sonar.
Providing 1:1 network capacity is impossible
Not anymore. New tech in the past 3 years that is no commercial available. 400 1gb port chassis with 4x100gb uplinks and 37tb/s-100tb/s core routers with 100gb ports and DWMD-Ethernet multiplexers that take 10gb and 100gb Ethernet ports and can mutiplex up to 16tb/s of any combination of 10gb and 100gb links over a single fiber with a max range of 700km over common fiber and no repeaters or re-generators.
Newer tech coming down the pipeline has routers with 1pb/s of routing with 1tb/s ports and DWMD-multiplexers that can move 850tb/s down a single fiber.
You still think we have a bandwidth issue? Yes, this will take many years to get phased in, but it is here and ready.
They already do traffic shape per customer, it's called provisioning. Unfortunately, most ISPs over-provision.
You pay 10% the price because you don't get an SLA, not because of the bandwidth. Dedicated bandwidth to-and-from nearly any city in the world is under $1/mbit. If you used your 15mb connection 24/7 and had fully dedicated bandwidth to anywhere in the world, it'd run you about $7.5/month. How much are you paying? More than $7.5 I bet.
#1 Cost for a dedicated business line is the SLA
#2 Cost is the physical line, it must be maintained
#3 Cost, which represents less than 1% of the total cost, is the bandwidth.
1 and 2 are both relatively fixed costs, which is why 10x the bandwidth only costs 2x the price. Something along the lines of 10mb for $1000, 100mb for $2000, and 1000mb for $4000. Once you start to get into the 10gb and 100gb+ speeds, bandwidth is crazy cheap, with a current min of about $0.4/mbit. But this price drops about 50% every year.
We've deleted nothing, as the vast sea of comments complaining about the beta in every story should attest to. All submissions are still around, too, though they eventually drop out of the firehose like any other submission does. If you want a simple test, bookmark the URL whenever you submit something.
I suppose it wouldn't be a redesign without conspiracy theories, though.
Your facts will never persuade us!
A 10gb port that can support about 2,500 users's bandwidth for Netflix? Say it isn't so! Making $250k/month of revenue from those users, they don't deserve spending $10k once.
ISP near or at capacity during peak usage
This shouldn't happen. They should be fined for not delivering. At least fixed line ISPs.
Because you aren't buying a fixed bandwidth allocation from your ISP
I do and it's cheaper than the competition. 30mb/30mb for $60/month with an SLA on the GPON unit to make sure you get 30/30 even if the entire "node" is fully loaded. EVERY customer gets this. I have a higher tier, but not their highest 200/200.
You want to know how the Internet works? Tier 1 backbone providers won't allow peering ports to go over 50% utilization. If they do, then the port needs to get upgraded, typically in less than a month. Congestion is unacceptable.
My ISP subscribes to this same ideal. They advertise tiers as dedicated bandwidth for ALL users. They are a residential service, so there are some hick-ups because of missconfigurations or they are changing things around, but I've called in and reported that my ping was over 20ms when I normally got 8ms during peak hours, and they had me talking to an engineer and got the problem fixed.
If you can show that you are regularly getting congestion in any amount, they will have you talking to an engineer to get it fixed.
What about seeding P2P? "We are selling you unlimited dedicated bandwidth, as long as it's not illegal and you're not running commercial servers, transfer all you want". What if it becomes an issue, will there be data caps? "If we implement data caps, we will change the ToS, but there is no indication that we will". What about throttling? "We will not use throttling or QoS and we don't need to because we designed our network to supply dedicated bandwidth. We used throttling in the past, but it was not worth the management overhead and customer support calls".
I was messing with my DNS settings the other month and got forwarded to an EU YouTube datacenter in Germany. I was streaming 4k videos at 45mb/s from 4,300 miles away(direct flight distance) during peak hours. Verizon customers are getting issues trying to stream YouTube from local CDNs.
What crappy ISP do you go through that doesn't deliver what they sell you?
Do you really want your voip call to break up because the line is slammed with my linux ISO download?
This should not happen in the first place, QoS or not. Any fixed-line ISP in a city should never, outside of sporadic events like a DDOS, have congestion on their network. If they do, they should be sued for false advertisement.