My Response to AT&T Data Caps

[iCyborg]

I'll repost my earlier scenario which demonstrates as such.

First we start with the assumption that data caps are being put into place to better user experience. But we know that Internet usage throughout the day is not constant, but rather has peak times and lull times. We also know that there are heavy users who use are constantly downloading so they are using their Internet during the peak times and during the lull times. During peak times, you have the average users competing for bandwidth with the heavy users, so every one has an equal share of the available bandwidth. Now if we assume 2% of users are heavy users, then the math is the following:

b = available bandwidth
u = total number of users using the Internet at one time

With heavy downloaders and average users using the Internet at peak times, each user gets:

b / u

If we assume that the heavy downloaders don't use the Internet during the peak times (remember data caps supposedly improve overall user experience), then each user gets:

b / 0.98u

The percentage improvement for the average user if all heavy downloaders stopped using the Internet during peak times:

(b / .98u - b / u) / (b / u)
=(1/.98 - 1)(b/u) / (b/u)
=1/.98 - 1
=.0204
=2.04%

So the average user will see ~2% more available bandwidth if all the heavy downloaders stopped using the Internet during peak times.

This is a flawed analysis because it assumes
1) the same probability that you will be sharing bandwidth with a light user and a heavy user. Heavy users are much more likely to be using the net than light users (more so off peak hours, but during them as well).
2) everybody is using his/her connection to capacity all the time. I watch video streaming from certain TV channels, and it uses ~1mbps, probably 99% of the time I'm not using much more than that (I have a 10mbps link). Heavy users downloading shit ton of torrents and stuff simultaneously generally try to d/l to capacity.

Say there are 10 peak hours, a light user might be using it actively for say 4 hours, and probably <5% of the available bandwith on average (email and web pages are downloaded a lot faster than you can read them e.g.). A heavy user will be on for all of those 10 hours using 80%+ of his bandwith.
Now do an analysis for this, much more realistic, case...

 

[tonygeor]

Get a new service provider and donate to organizations who lobby in your behalf

 

[her209]

This is a flawed analysis because it assumes
1) the same probability that you will be sharing bandwidth with a light user and a heavy user. Heavy users are much more likely to be using the net than light users (more so off peak hours, but during them as well).
2) everybody is using his/her connection to capacity all the time. I watch video streaming from certain TV channels, and it uses ~1mbps, probably 99% of the time I'm not using much more than that (I have a 10mbps link). Heavy users downloading shit ton of torrents and stuff simultaneously generally try to d/l to capacity.

Say there are 10 peak hours, a light user might be using it actively for say 4 hours, and probably <5% of the available bandwith on average (email and web pages are downloaded a lot faster than you can read them e.g.). A heavy user will be on for all of those 10 hours using 80%+ of his bandwith.
Now do an analysis for this, much more realistic, case...

During peak hours, you're not going to get anywhere near the speed that was advertised to you. Forgetaboutit. The lines are WAY oversubscribed. The light user, by your definition, someone who checks their e-mail and only looks at web pages, won't see an improvement because they don't use their connection to the fullest. But light users are also a minority. I would venture to say they are single digit as a percentage of the user base. And most of those folks are typically on slower connections like 768kbps DSL or even dial-up. The average user downloads multiple YouTube videos, watches Hulu, uses Netflix, views high-resolution digital pictures posted by their family and friends, etc. So it is very possible that the average user is using whatever bandwidth they can get during peak hours. The constant downloader has to "compete" with those users. You know, those users who are supposed get an improved Internet experience with data caps.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Doesn't ATT&T state that 2&#37; of their users consume 60% of the bandwidth?

There's got to be a way (with math) to show that the 2% aren't ruining the experience for the other 98%.

If 90% of their users are just using email... sure...

Emailers 1 (GB/month) x 0.90 = 0.90 Bandwith/user
Lightusers 6 (GB/month) x 0.08 = 0.48 Bandwith/user
Torrenters 100 (GB/month) x 0.02 = 2.00 Bandwith/user

Total bandwidth used = 3.38 GB of which the torrenters consume ~60%

(2/3.38 = 59.2%)

 

[iCyborg]

During peak hours, you're not going to get anywhere near the speed that was advertised to you. Forgetaboutit.

No, you do get what was advertised to you. You just need to read the fine letters to see what exactly was advertised. There's always a legal disclaimer that the speed is not guaranteed. If you want guaranteed speeds, there are T1/T3 lines etc, for a different price of course.
It makes sense too, it's better to have it like this, than to give everybody 768kbps and have the network utilization <1% just to be sure you can still provide the full speed in case absolutely everybody wanted to use it 100% at the exact same moment.
Anyway, my ISP has caps and I experience no significant loss of speed during peak hours. If you do, perhaps we have a correlation here?
I don't mind the caps, and 250GB is definitely very reasonable. I mind caps like 25GB and ridiculous charges after going over it like $2/GB.

The light user, by your definition, someone who checks their e-mail and only looks at web pages, won't see an improvement because they don't use their connection to the fullest. But light users are also a minority. I would venture to say they are single digit as a percentage of the user base. And most of those folks are typically on slower connections like 768kbps DSL or even dial-up. The average user downloads multiple YouTube videos, watches Hulu, uses Netflix, views high-resolution digital pictures posted by their family and friends, etc. So it is very possible that the average user is using whatever bandwidth they can get during peak hours. The constant downloader has to "compete" with those users. You know, those users who are supposed get an improved Internet experience with data caps.

I'm equating an average user with a light user here. According to AT&T the average user uses 18GB/mth, this is fairly light IMO. It's not clear whether this 18GB is median or mean, but it's pretty obvious that mean>median here, so the number of such users is at least 50%, definitely not single digit...

And the important word is on average. Someone who watches HD video streaming for 5+ hours on average every day is definitely not an average user. 18GB/30 means 600MB/day on average. Some days this might be 3GB, some others a few dozen MBs or even 0, but unless everybody decided to download Windows service pack at the exact same time, there will be a lot less overlap between them. And you will "compete" with someone who keeps his PC 24/7 dowloading stuff on p2p much more likely at any given time.

 

[Udgnim]

stealing someone else's post on a different forum

I can understand why they're doing it. They're trying to move the biggest users onto other networks. Most people who are going to hit the 150GB or 250GB caps are going to be savvy enough to switch. This probably forces the heaviest users off their network in areas they can switch, cleaning up their network at peak times. While it costs them virtually 0 to provide that data service to the heavy users, they're probably losing customers in those market because of how crappy their DSL / cable services are. This keeps them from having to upgrade the networks, which actually is expensive.

makes sense to me

 

[Nebor]

stealing someone else's post on a different forum



makes sense to me

And I don't see anything wrong with that. People act like they have some innate right to internet access. CHEAP internet access at that. With which they can do whatever they want!