[Snap] will snap join the other ISPs and do unlimited?

Forums › 2degrees (including Slingshot, Orcon, Flip, Stuff Fibre, MyRepublic, 2talk and Vocus) › [Snap] will snap join the other ISPs and do unlimited?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

1392 posts

Uber Geek

#1042695 12-May-2014 22:07

cjmchch:
I come back to what I said earlier - is the speed at which you are going to watch your program going to be different if you are on a 100Mbit data pack than it would if you were on 100Mbit unlimited. It will be identical! Your PERFORMANCE will not change at any given point no matter what plan you're on.

I think it's reasonable to expect usage-based billing to give better experience than unmetered.

mercutio

1392 posts

Uber Geek

#1042697 12-May-2014 22:10

cjmchch:
Getting back to my original comment which was talking about people wanting Data packs instead of unlimited, my whole point is that if I am on a 100Mbit 550Gb plan and you are on a 100Mbit Unlimited plan, which one of us is going to be a burden on the performance of the 'pipe' - neither, as we are both downloading at the same time, at the same rate, from the same pipe. Sure the pressure has dropped but if it was two data pack people and no unlimited users then the same problem exists. So people saying they would rather have data packs than suffer performance issues are plain and simply misguided. The issue of performance is all to do with the number of customers and the speed rather than the data allocation!

The problem is you are thikning that an unlimited user will use the same as an unmetered plan. Take water for example - people are much more likely to fix leaky taps when they get huge water bills. That guy that said about turning his set top box off when he wasn't using it, well if he was on unlimited he may just leave it on wasting bandwidth.

Sure some people may not use more bandwidth than they need to. But there's enough people that waste bandwidth that it helps.

eXDee

4032 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1042699 12-May-2014 22:11

Are we the same burden though? Me as a data cap customer, with a set allocation, is likely concerned about using up my data cap, so im going to use my connection less. You as an unlimited on the other hand can use it to your hearts content without a concern 24/7.

If we're both data cap customers, are we not both concerned about using up our cap and therefore placing less burden on the pipe, as we're using it less? The chance of us downloading at the same time is lower.

cjmchch

264 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1042707 12-May-2014 22:37

eXDee: Are we the same burden though? Me as a data cap customer, with a set allocation, is likely concerned about using up my data cap, so im going to use my connection less. You as an unlimited on the other hand can use it to your hearts content without a concern 24/7.

If we're both data cap customers, are we not both concerned about using up our cap and therefore placing less burden on the pipe, as we're using it less? The chance of us downloading at the same time is lower.

I said earlier that unlimited plans are not necessarily going to be good, my comment was purely regarding data packages instead of unlimited so at to ensure good performance. My argument has been, and continues to be as none of you have yet proven otherwise, that performance of a 100mbit data packaged connection will be no different than a 100mbit unlimited package. The affect of both connections at any given time of usage will be identical on the network, if they were both running at the same speed. Sure Unlimited has the option of running 24/7, but so too does data pack, until his quota runs out or he buys more. Absolutely no difference whatsover to the PERFORMANCE of the connection.

If you go back to the likes of Telecom etc...do you think they shaped and restricted customers on unlimited plans because of the speeds they were transferring data at - no - they slowed them down so they couldn't download as much data. Up until that point the performance of the connection exactly the same as the person next door with his 1Gb per month. It'll be exactly the same as what SNAP will do, restrict their speed so the data doesn't flow, nothing to do with the download speeds they have.

Anyway...nothing like a good discussion

hio77

12999 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lizard Networks

#1042709 12-May-2014 22:40

im liking the waterpipe argument, its a very good one, ill have to use it at some point.

cjmchch:
If you go back to the likes of Telecom etc...do you think they shaped and restricted customers on unlimited plans because of the speeds they were transferring data at - no - they slowed them down so they couldn't download as much data. Up until that point the performance of the connection exactly the same as the person next door with his 1Gb per month. It'll be exactly the same as what SNAP will do, restrict their speed so the data doesn't flow, nothing to do with the download speeds they have.

would slowing down someone not come under the word, performance. however?

cjmchch:
Anyway...nothing like a good discussion

absolutely agree.

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

sidefx

3711 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1042719 12-May-2014 23:53

cjmchch:My argument has been, and continues to be as none of you have yet proven otherwise, that performance of a 100mbit data packaged connection will be no different than a 100mbit unlimited package.

Assuming the ISP don't have separate "bandwidth pools" for capped vs uncapped, then you are right. But how is that a good thing?? A small percentage of uncapped users could run their lines at max capacity 24/7 and potentially affect EVERYONE's performance. Do you think ISPs have enough capacity that all users can max out their lines 24/7? What percentage do you think can?

The alternative seems to be that the ISP offers seperate "bandwidth pools" - then uncapped users can max out their lines, and potentially all suffer reduced throughput, without affecting capped plans in a separate pool. I'd still prefer snap doesn't go down this route since I'd prefer them to just concentrate on providing EVERYONE with the best performance possible, without trying to divvy bandwidth into different pools.

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

Lorenceo

904 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1042722 13-May-2014 00:01

cjmchch: My argument has been, and continues to be as none of you have yet proven otherwise, that performance of a 100mbit data packaged connection will be no different than a 100mbit unlimited package. The affect of both connections at any given time of usage will be identical on the network, if they were both running at the same speed.

If you are comparing between two customers, and only two customers, this may be correct. Both users downloading at 100mbit/s when Snap have ≥200mbit/s of capacity will perform exactly the same regardless of whether the users are on an unlimited or capped plan.
I do not know how much international capacity Snap has, but I don't think Snap has only two customers.
Such a hypothetical situation is not what people concerned about performance are concerned about.

Introducing an unlimited plan will change the usage habits of those on it. They'll no longer have an incentive to conserve their data caps. They'll likely no longer bother to schedule their downloads to run during off peak hours. Perhaps they'll no longer pause their video stream when they leave the computer for 10 minutes. Some may start downloading as much as they can, because they can.
These changes in user behaviour as a whole can potentially negatively impact performance. If the demand for bandwidth at a given time exceeds Snap's total capacity, performance will deteriorate.

I'm all for an unlimited plan, on the condition that performance is not affected. I don't want VOIP to drop out. I don't want games to lag. I don't want video streams to buffer. I don't want downloads to slow down.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1042759 13-May-2014 08:30

sidefx: A small percentage of uncapped users could run their lines at max capacity 24/7 and potentially affect EVERYONE's performance. Do you think ISPs have enough capacity that all users can max out their lines 24/7? What percentage do you think can?

Which is the very reason that it's now the norm to have a data cap in the US. Unfortunately small numbers of users can have a significant impact on overall network performance which has seen ISPs moving towards caps to limit this.

reven

3743 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1042761 13-May-2014 08:37

sbiddle:
sidefx: A small percentage of uncapped users could run their lines at max capacity 24/7 and potentially affect EVERYONE's performance. Do you think ISPs have enough capacity that all users can max out their lines 24/7? What percentage do you think can?

Which is the very reason that it's now the norm to have a data cap in the US. Unfortunately small numbers of users can have a significant impact on overall network performance which has seen ISPs moving towards caps to limit this.

but ISPs can monitor such users and take action.

with 5 other ISPs (telecom, vodafone, orcon, slingshot, bigpipe, maybe more?) all offering unlimited hopefully it wont be an issue with snap offering it (im sure they are taking all this into consideration).

snap have done unlimited weekends in the past to test out performance and have reported how successful they were with no performance issues.

sure your 200GB a month might be enough now, but as online services grow that 200GB wont be enough. heck titanfall was a 41GB download. sure not everyone will download that, but it will become more and more common. if you have kids chances are your kids will start getting games that way.

so IMO snap need to either offer unlimted and if some users abuse that, deal with them so it doesnt effect others, or decrease the cost of data/increase data caps. im fine with either, 1TB a month is plenty for me for the foreseeable future (depending on steam sales :P)

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1042769 13-May-2014 08:53

sbiddle:
sidefx: A small percentage of uncapped users could run their lines at max capacity 24/7 and potentially affect EVERYONE's performance. Do you think ISPs have enough capacity that all users can max out their lines 24/7? What percentage do you think can?

Which is the very reason that it's now the norm to have a data cap in the US. Unfortunately small numbers of users can have a significant impact on overall network performance which has seen ISPs moving towards caps to limit this.

In your opinion do you think telecom / vodafone subscribers on uncapped data plans will have performance issues?

I think I agree though. Artificial price limits nearly always result in shortages.

The best model would be to set the price based on saturation of the data pipes. ie, the closer to 100% network saturation the more customers pay per bit. But, it becomes unwieldly and you'd need to have some smart router software to help manage this.

NzBeagle

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1042868 13-May-2014 10:52

A timely sales phone call from Telecom today - Currently providing one of my mobile contracts.

They are wanting to offer mobile customers a deal to sign on to their broadband/landline package and promoted the unlimited package. I said that I was on one of their old packages and moved to another provider when they ditched it, how do I know that it won't happen again. The sales guy quoted a few things, including Government pressure, and their inability to provide enough bandwidth. Interestingly, he said the way they've fixed it this time is that there's a theoretical cap, so you wouldn't be able to download 5-6000GB in a month.

I think the thing for me is that when it's unlimited people start using it a lot more, their habits change, example would be when SMS first went unlimited, usage skyrocketed, and the later introduced cap of 500 per month then severely limited the few that went well over that. With home internet usage, it will be the same, people will look at how they can use more data, and why wouldn't they, it's unlimited, however, bandwidth is a finite resource, so it's inevitable that this will impact others experience. When I switched from Telecom's Go Large(?) plan to Snap, I found that pings and speeds were consistently good throughout the day, where as, immediately prior to that, they were affected during peak periods.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1042890 13-May-2014 11:04

sbiddle:
sidefx: A small percentage of uncapped users could run their lines at max capacity 24/7 and potentially affect EVERYONE's performance. Do you think ISPs have enough capacity that all users can max out their lines 24/7? What percentage do you think can?

Which is the very reason that it's now the norm to have a data cap in the US. Unfortunately small numbers of users can have a significant impact on overall network performance which has seen ISPs moving towards caps to limit this.

I disagree. I think the reason the US is moving towards caps is because every major US ISP also has a massively profitable pay TV business and they are terrified of OTT players like Netflix coming in and disrupting their business. A datacap is enough to scare a lot of people off using services like Netflix, so that's why the ISPs are doing it.

The theory that small numbers of vampires can have a significant impact on overall performance seems unlikely to be true in the case of the USA.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/30/another-study-shows-data-caps-are-likely-ineffective-address-wrong-problem/

"The guys at Diffraction Analysis examined data from “a mid-size company from North America” that was interested in understanding its consumers’ use patterns. Good for them, by the way. The data they submitted was bandwidth consumption throughout the day, with five-minute granularity. The study’s aim was to determine whether a small subset of users (the hogs) could indeed affect the quality of others’ service, and whether caps were an effective deterrent.

The conclusions, briefly stated, were that while heavy users do in fact consume far more data in aggregate than the average (288GB vs. 9.6GB in this study), their contribution to congestion during peak hours, and when the network is at 75% of its capacity or above, is in fact not much greater than the average user.

What the statistics bear out is this: during peak hours when service is most likely to be affected by overcrowding, heavy users only make up a small percentage of those consuming bandwidth – 14.3%, to be precise. And of the heavy users, only half of them were on the fastest connection, further driving home the fact that while they may consume more in total, they are not contributing more than anyone else to the actual problem, which is slowdown in peak hours.

So why the data caps? Clearly a limit of, say, 300GB a month (or lower) won’t prevent peak usage from affecting service quality. In fact, if people are limited by draconian data caps, they are likely to limit their usage to peak hours: streaming a movie in the evening, or browsing YouTube when they get home from work. This would in fact contribute even more to the problem of peak crowding."

Lorenceo

904 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1043097 13-May-2014 15:44

I agree with NonprayingMantis. The situation in the US with data caps is only happening because the ISPs there know they can get away with it.

In the US if your ISP decides to implement a data cap you can either accept it or have no internet connection at all. If you're lucky you may be able to change to another provider who is not implementing bandwidth caps, but nearly all of the big US ISPs are doing so.
Multiple companies generally do not set up infrastructure in an area if another company already has done so. In many places a big ISP will have paid for legislation to prevent other ISPs from setting up shop in a given area.
If you're lucky you may live in an area which has another type of connection available (Google Fibre, etc), but this is not very common.

The US used to be good in terms of prices and speed for internet connections. Things have stagnated over time however from lack of investment, and are now going backwards. The big companies have such political clout that it's not likely things are going to get any better before they get worse.

eXDee

4032 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1043101 13-May-2014 15:51

reven:
sbiddle:
sidefx: A small percentage of uncapped users could run their lines at max capacity 24/7 and potentially affect EVERYONE's performance. Do you think ISPs have enough capacity that all users can max out their lines 24/7? What percentage do you think can?

Which is the very reason that it's now the norm to have a data cap in the US. Unfortunately small numbers of users can have a significant impact on overall network performance which has seen ISPs moving towards caps to limit this.

but ISPs can monitor such users and take action.

with 5 other ISPs (telecom, vodafone, orcon, slingshot, bigpipe, maybe more?) all offering unlimited hopefully it wont be an issue with snap offering it (im sure they are taking all this into consideration).

snap have done unlimited weekends in the past to test out performance and have reported how successful they were with no performance issues.

sure your 200GB a month might be enough now, but as online services grow that 200GB wont be enough. heck titanfall was a 41GB download. sure not everyone will download that, but it will become more and more common. if you have kids chances are your kids will start getting games that way.

so IMO snap need to either offer unlimted and if some users abuse that, deal with them so it doesnt effect others, or decrease the cost of data/increase data caps. im fine with either, 1TB a month is plenty for me for the foreseeable future (depending on steam sales :P)

I find it likely that snap will not only get on board with an unlimited, but do a good job of managing traffic so that performance isn't compromised. They even have plenty of sample data to work from, not only on the weekends they did a while back, but also every night during the offpeak they can see how heavy downloading affects the network. Of course this doesn't include much live streaming, but im sure they have plenty enough experience to execute this well.

Its important to note that many users in this thread (such as myself) are likely not opposed to unlimited being offered, but that there are challenges involved in doing so and its all about how they execute it to keep everyone happy. Some people think that you can just open the floodgates and tell everyone to go for it, but this is not the case.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1043122 13-May-2014 16:09

Lorenceo:
In the US if your ISP decides to implement a data cap you can either accept it or have no internet connection at all. If you're lucky you may be able to change to another provider who is not implementing bandwidth caps, but nearly all of the big US ISPs are doing so.

Back in 2002 , the FCC decided the internet is not like a phone. With phones you could choose your call provider.

So, the FCC said whoever owns the cable has the sole right to supply the internet over that cable.

The idea was that this would encourage companies to build more cables into premises. Of course, this did not really happen.

US subscribers are mainly stuck due to a poor FCC decision made back in 2002.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8