Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 149

And even if everyone's usage suffers during periods of high congestion, nobody suffers during periods of lower congestion, so it is genuinely possible for companies to offer unlimited packages if they wanted.

Whereas, with properly implemented QoS, as we have here, nobody's usage suffers during periods of high or low congestion.

I'm done trying to educate you, though; you simply do not want to learn, because to do so would require you to admit you were wrong. Peruse my posting history and see what that looks like.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 149

What you seem to be missing is that deprioritization of users who have already downloaded more than some threshold in the current billing cycle is still a *limit* on the level of service that those heavy users pay for.

I'm not missing that at all, actually. As I've stated previously, deprioritization increases the overall available bandwidth by eliminating retransmits caused be contention; that is, it stops people from having to talk over each other and repeat themselves, so everyone can talk, hear, and be heard. Without it, when there is congestion, throughout quickly approaches zero, for everyone; with it, everyone gets their data.

It's a logical fact that some (and I mean explicitly some, not all) users must be deprioritized when there is contention over limited available bandwidth (e.g. congestion) in order for the network to remain usable. If you deprioritize every user equally, you may as well have done nothing, the contention remains, and nobody can use the resource.

You suggest that deprioritization increases your ability to use the service, but it does so by explicitly *limiting* the amount that you are allowed to use the service without deprioritization.

And, without it, you're limited to only being able to use the service in the absence of contention over bandwidth.

That is a limit. Properly implemented QoS, which is what T-Mobile has here, is a workaround for that limit.

You very clearly aren't capable of understanding this. Again, I don't fault you for that, it's not something that's obvious (or, really, believable) unless you've actually seen it in action as I have. I'd say we should just agree to disagree, but I can't do that with someone whose opinion is based on a factually incorrect understanding.

It appears we're at an impasse, here.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 149

What you're missing, the point I'm really trying to drive home, is that deprioritizing heavier users increases available bandwidth for everyone, even the heavy users . This is true because it frees up bandwidth that would be wasted by the contention it prevents.

A limit, in the context of a service, is something that reduces your ability to utilize the service. This increases your ability to do so, regardless of which side of the queue you are on, ergo not a limit.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 149

You're always affected by the contention control, you never transfer so much as a single byte without it. You benefit from it when you're not the one being deprioritized, by being placed ahead of those who are; and you benefit from it when you are being deprioritized, by actually having available bandwidth due to the contention control being implemented in the first place.

I'll repeat: contention control actually effectively increases the limit of overall available bandwidth (e.g. you get faster speeds no matter which side of the priority queue you're on) by preventing people from talking over each other and causing massive floods of retransmitted packets.

I would agree with you if anyone were receiving worse service as a result, but the reality is quite the opposite.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can word that, but I feel as though I'm just repeating myself at this point. Since I'm already repeating myself:

If you've never implemented proper QoS on a congested network and seen the immediate impact it had on the traffic flow, this isn't something that is obvious to most people, so i fully understand how you might think it's a limit of sorts, but the reality is that it enables all users to effectively get their data instead of flooding the data with retransmitted packets as everyone attempts to talk over everyone else.

It's literally the opposite of a limit; it enables everyone to use more data. Period.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 149

when they do, in fact, set some limit on how much someone can actually utilize

Funny, I routinely hit 50+GB and have never run into an imposed limit. The limit is that of the network itself, a physical one, minus everyone else's traffic. Implementing some form of contention control ensures that I'm consistently able to access what many people refuse to accept as a scarce resource.

It's not like wireline or fiber, where you just run more cables and everything is good; wireless bandwidth is, really and truly, a scarce resource. Network management is not limiting usage, it's enabling it. That some ISPs *cough*Comcast*cough*AT&T*cough*Time Warner*cough* implement usage limits and hard throttling and call it network management does not make it so.

The reality is that T-Mobile queues the packets of heavier users behind those of lighter users, but it does not drop or refuse those packets (not that would be a limit), and it does deliver them before connections time out (save for network issues, where they would time out regardless of priority).

I get what you're saying, though. I do. It's just logically impossible. You want everyone to be deprioritized equally when there's congestion and, well, if everyone starts out at the highest priority and they, simultaneously, all drop to the lowest priority, they're all still the same priority, there is no hierarchy, everyone's still equal, there's still contention and everyone is still trying to talk over everyone else and the network is still completely unusable.

I'm sure there are providers who do this. Go find one, switch to them, and tell me you still want that.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 149

So you'd rather have contention prevent anyone from using the service, rather than network management that allows everyone to use it?

From your previous posts, it seems as though you think there's a speed limit or throttle placed on users exceeding 26GB when this is, in fact, not the case.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 149

Right... You're missing the point entirely.

The only limit to T-mobile's unlimited 4g (not the tiered plans for which they do state limits) is their network capacity. They prioritize based on usage, but that's not a limit, it's prioritization and, in fact, it improves network performance, even for the deprioritized users, by reducing competition for a scarce resource when there's not enough to go around, allowing lighter users to finish their downloads faster and get off the network sooner.

There is no speed limit here, nor a time or usage limit.

Consider this: If they didn't have the deprioritization policy, excessive congestion on a given tower would result in a completely unusable connection for everyone. Giving a subset of users priority to allow them to get off the network sooner avoids that; it effectively increases the speed limit for everyone by more efficiently utilizing the available bandwidth, which is limited by physics.

If you've never implemented proper QoS on a congested network and seen the immediate impact it had on the traffic flow, this isn't something that is obvious to most people, so i fully understand how you might think it's a limit of sorts, but the reality is that it enables all users to effectively get their data instead of flooding the data with retransmitted packets as everyone attempts to talk over everyone else.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 149

You keep saying "throttle". I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously when you keep referring to prioritization/deprioritization as throttling, as they're two distinctly different actions. That said, I'll do my best.

It is absolutely no different than an electric company raising rates at certain times of day to discourage people from using too much electricity.

Actually, it's entirely different. If an electric company reduced the availability of power to heavy users when local load was high, well, that'd be no different. In fact, that's precisely what many electric companies are beginning to do with things like HVAC cutoff devices and it's a damned sight better than what some (including my local utility, PG&E) have been doing for years with structured rolling blackouts independent of individual usage.

To flip it around, what you describe is exactly what HughesNet does for their satellite internet service. You pay for between 5GB and 50GB of data each month, which can be utilized 24hr/day, but they make the hours of 2AM to 8AM effectively cheaper by giving you a 50GB bucket of data that is only available during those hours.

If you think T-Mobile and HughesNet are doing the same thing, you're too hopelessly far gone to be saved.

Comment Re:Were they not completely transparent? (Score 1) 149

People are complaining that the unlimited 4g plan is throttled after 26GB. People are wrong, though, because it is not throttled after 26GB, just deprioritized. What that means is simple: if bandwidth is available, you get it; if it's not, other people have dibs.

The end result is that lighter users get off of congested towers faster and free up bandwidth for heavier users, rendering everyone's connections faster.

The $48mil fine is the result of idiots not knowing the difference between throttling and deprioritization.

I say this as a T-Mo user who tops 35GB each and every month. No, it is not a throttle; if it was, I'd be throttled at least 25% of the time but, as I'm typically not on overcrowded towers, I've never actually been impacted by the deprioritization. Not once since they implemented it years ago. If they were throttling, I'd be complaining; since they're actually protecting my available bandwidth, I'm not.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 149

The maximum speed allowed by a congested link (this is deprioritization, which has no effect when bandwidth is available; it's not throttling, which would take effect even if you were the only user) approaches zero as more users hop on at the same priority level, for every user.

Deprioritizing the heavier users increases speeds for everyone by allowing the lighter users to finish their downloads faster and get off the network, freeing up bandwidth for the heavier users.

Comment Re:A speed limit (Score 1) 149

Well, in this case the deprioritization (read: not throttling) isn't a limit imposed by the provider, it's a method of minimizing the number of people affected by the physical limits of the network by deciding who bears the brunt of that impact.

And the end result is less network congestion and better speeds for everyone on the network. Yes, that includes the heavy users who get deprioritized, as it allows the lighter users to finish their downloads and get off the network faster.

Slashdot Top Deals

Optimization hinders evolution.