«

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:56:48 +1300, Earl Grey wrote:

> Does anyone in this country really call their parents "Mom and
> Pop ?

Naw. Nahbody tahwks laake theyt herrre in Noo Zeeland.


Ruidh Bhab et Criem

--
Jeffrey Jaffe, Novell CTO: "What many people are discovering is that the
Linux desktop works just fine."

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:04:43 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>> Its an irritating Americanism...
>
> You mean "USianism"?

He means "Americanism" - meaning anything crass and boorish that emanates
from the US of A.


Ruidh Bhab et Criem

--
Jeffrey Jaffe, Novell CTO: "What many people are discovering is that the
Linux desktop works just fine."

Ruidh Bhab et Criem wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:16:31 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>>> You pay for a connection. The fact that the ISP is ripping people off by
>>> having seriously "over subscribed" the available bandwidth causing
>>> people to not get what they've paid for only shows that the ISP has no
>>> interest in delivering a high quality service.
>>>
>> That's like saying that if 100 cars per minute pass along a motorway
>> that the motorway should be 100 cars wide because they all might come
>> along at the same time.
>
> No.
>
> It's like saying "we sell you the ability to drive 100 cars per minute
> through our tunnel at any time you wish. We also are selling everybody
> else the same ability to drive 100 cars per minute through our tunnel at
> on the same terms as you."
>
You persist in leaving out a bit. A network company makes the assumption
that not everyone will drive their 300 cars through the tunnel at the
same time. It's a legitimate assumption born out of their collecting
statistics over time.
>
> Well hit me over the head wtih a 4x2, but that means the tunnel should be
> CAPABLE of delivering what has been sold. And that means if 300 persons
> have been sold the means to drive 100 cars per minute through that
> tunnel at any time they wish, then 300 persons should be able to avail
> themselves of that capability as per the terms of the sale agreement,
> namely "at any time you wish", and that tunnel should, therefore, be
> capable of meeting that requirement.
>
So the tunnel has to be 300 cars wide....
>
> The problem is, that Telecom thinks that providing a network with only 1/4
> or even less (1:150 contention) capacity to meet the contracted bandwidth
> requirements is actually acceptable - which it clearly is not!!
>
There are two factors to network usage - bandwidth (the width of the
tunnel) and the traffic (the number of cars per second going into the
tunnel). If the tunnel is 10 cars wide then 10 people can insert a car
each second. If there are 100 users of the tunnel, and the insertion
rate is 10 cars/second on average then on average some cars will be
slightly delayed, but on average it will work.

If now someone tries to put in a car per second, there will be more
serious contention. On average 1 out of 10 cars will be delayed. If two
people put in one car a second then 1 in 5 cars will be delayed.

Cheers,

Cliff

Enkidu wrote:

> If now someone tries to put in a car per second, there will be more
> serious contention. On average 1 out of 10 cars will be delayed. If two
> people put in one car a second then 1 in 5 cars will be delayed.

What contention ratio would be ideal to meet consumer needs and network
economics?

150:1 seems to be bad
64:1 is workable
32:1 is probably about right (?)
16:1 or better is great but expensive for the ISP

Also on the limit for effective consumer bandwidth, the limit seems to
be about 100M to the service delivery point. 1Gbps to the consumer is
pointless unless you are delivering to a network engineer

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:50:25 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

> Ruidh Bhab et Criem wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:20:32 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>>
>>> No. They guarantee you a certain bandwidth, but *not* all the time.
>>
>> So, of what use is a "guarantee" for a certain sized pipe if they turn
>> around and only actually provide a very much smaller pipe for much of the
>> time?
>>
> They don't. They provide a full sized pipe, but not 100% of the time.
> That's different.

So what do they "guarantee" if they then say "but not all the time"?

When precicely is this data transfer rate "guaranteed" to happen?

The pipe might be capable of delivering full speed DSL, but if the ISP
only ever permits 1/10th of the data transfer speed that the pipe is
capable of providing then what point is there in having a full speed DSL
pipe?


Aquilegia Alyssum

--
"The only way Vista client and Longhorn server would make sense
would be if [the] company was doing a 'forklift upgrade' on its
entire client-server infrastructure."

In message <>, Ruidh Bhab et Criem
wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:04:43 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>>> Its an irritating Americanism...
>>
>> You mean "USianism"?
>
> He means "Americanism" - meaning anything crass and boorish that emanates
> from the US of A.

The US of A is not A.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:11:05 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>> He means "Americanism" - meaning anything crass and boorish that emanates
>> from the US of A.
>
> The US of A is not A.

"America" |= "North America"

"America" |= "South America"

"America" = common abrieviation of "The United States of America"


Aquilegia Alyssum

--
"The only way Vista client and Longhorn server would make sense
would be if [the] company was doing a 'forklift upgrade' on its
entire client-server infrastructure."

Aquilegia Alyssum wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:50:25 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> Ruidh Bhab et Criem wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:20:32 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>>>
>>>> No. They guarantee you a certain bandwidth, but *not* all the time.
>>> So, of what use is a "guarantee" for a certain sized pipe if they turn
>>> around and only actually provide a very much smaller pipe for much of the
>>> time?
>>>
>> They don't. They provide a full sized pipe, but not 100% of the time.
>> That's different.
>
> So what do they "guarantee" if they then say "but not all the time"?
>
Actually they don't guarantee anything.

But they allocate a certain bandwidth to each user, then they calculate
that when a user tries to receive or send data that there is a good
chance that they will be able to. When the users can send or receive
they will approach the advertised rates.
>
> When precicely is this data transfer rate "guaranteed" to happen?
>
> The pipe might be capable of delivering full speed DSL, but if the ISP
> only ever permits 1/10th of the data transfer speed that the pipe is
> capable of providing then what point is there in having a full speed DSL
> pipe?
>
No, the ISP provides the full pipe all the time. The don't 'permit'
1/10th of the data transfer speed. That is what they allocate to the
user. You don't get *a* 256kbps pipe. You get a 2560kbps pipe shared
with 10 others. That means that if everyone uses the pipe in the
traditional pattern, then everyone gets roughly the right bandwidth. If
someone leeches bandwidth, the rest of the users are compressed into the
remaining bandwidth.
>
> Aquilegia Alyssum
>
Aquilegia == Granny's Bonnets
Alyssum == Mad Wort

hmmm....

Cheers,

Cliff

T'was the Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:46:01 +1300 when I remembered Aquilegia
Alyssum <> saying something like this:

>So what do they "guarantee" if they then say "but not all the time"?

I guess it's like hot water heating power, its not all the time, but
you get enough of it to give you hot water.
--
Cheers,

Waylon Kenning.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:55:31 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

> No, the ISP provides the full pipe all the time. The don't 'permit'
> 1/10th of the data transfer speed. That is what they allocate to the
> user. You don't get *a* 256kbps pipe. You get a 2560kbps pipe shared
> with 10 others. That means that if everyone uses the pipe in the
> traditional pattern, then everyone gets roughly the right bandwidth. If
> someone leeches bandwidth, the rest of the users are compressed into the
> remaining bandwidth.

If you pay for 2560kbps then you should rightly expect to receive that
data transfer speed any and all times that you wish to transfer data.

It's not the user's fault that the ISP has badly miscalculated it's sums
based on data from the dialup era.


Aquilegia Alyssum

--
"The only way Vista client and Longhorn server would make sense
would be if [the] company was doing a 'forklift upgrade' on its
entire client-server infrastructure."