North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

  • From: Sean Donelan
  • Date: Mon Jan 08 02:40:12 2007


On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
Setting aside the issue of what particular ISPs today have to pay, the real cost of sending data, best-effort over an existing network which has spare capacity and which is already supported and managed is surely zero.

As long as the additional traffic doesn't exceed the existing capacity.


But what happens when 5% of the paying subscribers use 95% of the existing capacity, and then the other 95% of the subscribers complain about poor performance? What is the real cost to the ISP needing to upgrade the
network to handle the additional traffic being generated by 5% of the
subscribers when there isn't "spare" capacity?


If I acquire content while I'm sleeping, during a low dip in my ISP's usage profile, the chances good that are nobody incurs more costs that month than if I had decided not to acquire it. (For example, you might imagine an RSS feed with BitTorrent enclosures, which requires no human presence to trigger the downloads.)

The reason why many universities buy rate-shaping devices is dorm users don't restrain their application usage to only off-peak hours, which may or may not be related to sleeping hours. If peer-to-peer applications restrained their network usage during periods of peak network usage so it didn't result in complaints from other users, it would probably have a better reputation.


If I acquire content the same time as many other people, since what I'm watching is some coordinated, streaming event, then it seems far more likely that the popularity of the content will lead to network congestion, or push up a peak on an interface somewhere which will lead to a requirement for a circuit upgrade, or affect a 95%ile transit cost, or something.

Depends on when and where the replication of the content is taking place.


Broadcasting is a very efficient way to distribute the same content to large numbers of people, even when some people may watch it later. You can broadcast either streaming or file downloads. You can also unicast either streaming or file downloads. Unicast tends to be less efficient to distribute the same content to large numbers of people. Then there is lots of events in the middle. Some content is only of interest to a some people.

Streaming vs download and broadcast vs unicast. There are lots of combinations. One way is not necessarily the best way for every
situation. Sometimes store-and-forward e-mail is useful, other times
instant messenger communications is useful. Things may change over time. For example, USENET has mostly stopped being a widely flooded through every ISP and large institution, and is now accessed on demand by users from a few large aggregators.


Distribution methods aren't mutually exclusive.

If asynchronous delivery of content is as free as I think it is, and synchronous delivery of content is as expensive as I suspect it might be, it follows that there ought to be more of the former than the latter going on.

If it turned out that there was several orders of magnitude more content being shifted around the Internet in a "download when you are able; watch later" fashion than there is content being streamed to viewers in real-time I would be thoroughly unsurprised.

If you limit yourself to the Internet, you exclude a lot of content
being shifted around and consumed in the world. The World Cup or Superbowl are still much bigger events than Internet-only events. Broadcast
television shows with even bottom ratings are still more popular than most Internet content. The Internet is good for narrowcasting, but its
still working on mass audience events.


"Asynchronous receivers" are more expensive and usually more complicated
than "synchronous receivers." Not everyone owns a computer or spends a
several hundred dollars for a DVR. If you already own a computer, you might consider it "free." But how many people want to buy a computer for each television set? In the USA, Congress debated whether it should
spend $40 per digital receiver so people wouldn't lose their over the air broadcasting.


Gadgets that interest 5% of the population versus reaching 95% of the population may have different trade-offs.