From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-21-ewr.dyndns.com (mxout-114-ewr.mailhop.org [216.146.33.114]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF6C2E0079 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:58:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from scan-21-ewr.mailhop.org (scan-21-ewr.local [10.0.141.243]) by mail-21-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798011948 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 02:57:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 66.111.4.25 Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mail-21-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F3361259 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 02:57:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.42]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D711220331 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:57:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from web3.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.213]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:57:37 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=message-id:from:to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:references:subject:in-reply-to:date; s=smtpout; bh=P0qIw6QdPTlxJLR6KXJdxvpeDEY=; b=s3G4IeGj7t9gpvwOrFJU4v1dB+bIXO6yIJAFSf/rMqST0UcFyWQUhi9q8Zp/UcLIAgeIsn5+i0g+PtvGM+T8TzRvaYX08cg975mfUATQVrQajjO6qoyaz/ZN2t+Bjize56ARLxJ6WOlvneWUHsqvb32cXH/AcKhFQkA70F9mOn4= Received: by web3.messagingengine.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id B5E285531F2; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:57:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1298948257.12452.1424819733@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Sasl-Enc: 9TJSeGBPajnmvYBq+Rr+xxiXjjME8GxBP50znZBf6FnV 1298948257 From: "Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface References: <1298930176.15371.51.camel@amd.pacdat.net> In-Reply-To: <1298930176.15371.51.camel@amd.pacdat.net> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:57:37 -0300 Subject: Re: [Bloat] Usage Based Billing - It's All About Perceived Congestion X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 02:58:21 -0000 On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:56 -0800, "richard" wrote: > As some have remarked, UBB, especially here and now in Canada, is one > response to what we're dealing with in bufferbloat. It is not always bufferbloat that is the driving cause for UBB. In Brazil, UBB is often used to help heavily oversubscribed networks (usually by the DOCSIS networks and 3G networks) escape consumer wrath. UBB is not the only "bandwidth usage deterrent" employed here by the large broadband ISPs. Cutting down service to as low as 100kbit/s downstream and 30kbit/s upstream when the consumer goes over a monthly quota, limiting concurrent tcp sessions, and extremely severe shaping of P2P traffic are used as alternatives to UBB. Without UBB or other "bandwidth usage deterrents", the users will notice more readily that they are allotted far less than the bandwidth required to get 100% of the nominal throughput they paid for, as there just isn't enough bandwidth in the access, backhaul and even backbone networks, let alone peering and transit links. The broadband service contracts _do_ often make it clear you only are guaranteed 10% (yes, that's right, ten percent) of the maximum throughput, and also about TCP concurrent flow limits and UBB, but people will only take notice of that if they're subject to such ridiculous service levels constantly. And I very much doubt UBB is strongly related to oversubscribing just in Brazil. We need to be careful to not make bufferbloat the network bogeyman, doing so can only backfire in the long run. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh