On 15/08/2018 09:11, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 15/Aug/18 10:00, Giles Coochey wrote:
When we get to the point of 1Gbps links I start to think of anything
higher than that is an increase in capacity and not speed, there are
not currently any consumer data transfer applications that are going
to benefit from anything faster, and I would probably propose that
for users who enjoy the convenience of Wifi and laptops over desktops
or workstations that the point where speed becomes capacity is
probably lower than 300Mbps.
Used to work at a small ISP and always avoid the use of the term
'speed', we spoke about bandwidth and capacity. When a corporate
customer phoned one day to check whether we were experiencing
problems (they were also a friend of mine by the way) and complained
of slow speed Internet, I said "Gosh, let me check.... do you know
you're right, the electrons are moving slower, and the speed of light
seems a lot lower than it was yesterdday!!".
I struggle to explain this - most customers equate bandwidth with speed.
The simplest analogy I've always offered is "with bandwidth, 2 lanes @
60km/hr only moves far fewer cars than 8 lanes @ 60km/hr". Oh, look at
that, the speed didn't change...
As you say, at a certain point (and I think waaaaaaay below 1Gbps), an
expectation of a physical increase in the speed of data transfer
becomes stable, and at that point, the extra bandwidth is allowing you
to accommodate more users, with each one being happy at the same time.
When customers expect that that taking their Enterprise service from
10Gbps to 20Gbps will dramatically improve how quickly Youtube loads,
you can understand the nightmare ISP's have to deal with. And Heaven
forbid we only extract 19.5Gbps out of that, instead of the full
20Gbps :-\...
Mark.
I've liked the number of lanes analogy and used it myself quite a few
times. We offered DDoS protection to corporate clients too, so we
analogised that as having better drivers on the road :-)
Locally, here in the UK, the regulator Ofcom, and the Advertising
Standards govt agency have come down on ISPs to clearly explain where
residential connections are contended - sadly they haven't gone as far
as explaining the notion of contention, but have just gone as far to say
that speeds^H^H^H^H^H^H bandwidth can be "up to.. x Mbps" and that
during busy periods achievable performance may be much lower.
I think minimum Service Level Agreements and credits for bad service
have also been applied.
Pricing structure has also been forced to be simpler, as connections
here are DSL, and land line rental was often omitted from advertised prices.
So, regulators and advertising standards bodies can help in ensuring
that the Marketing departments set the right expectation to the user of
what they're buying, probably making it easier on future tech support
departments, whose role previously seems to be a straight revenue
retention exercise rather than technically supporting real issues.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
