Bandwidth usage question

[Kicking Ass and Taking Names]

In a couple of months, a local cable provider will install fiber down
our road in a rural Virgina county and, a month or so after that,
we'll have access to bundled phone-teevee-Internet. Neighboring
communities that already have been turned up report excellent,
uninterrupted service for all three services. Internet speeds are 10
meg down, 1.5-2 meg up, 24/7.

Currently, I use Verizon National Broadband. On my account are:

-- iPhone 4S
-- Pantech modem for 'net access
-- Verizon Jetpack for 'net access

I am paying Verizon for 10 gigs per month, and it's not cheap.

When the fiber gets here, the only data service I'll need from
Verizon is my iPhone. All I do with the iPhone is:
-- phone calls, 1-2 per day
-- texts to/from various people; approx 200 per month
-- occasionally send/receive a photo; maybe 8-10 a month
-- check weather report using TWC app daily
-- check email using the iPhone mail app 1-2 times a week
-- use Safari browser 3-4 times a week for various reasons
-- use medical apps to check drug info (I'm an EMT)

My account has unlimited text and phone calls on the iPhone.

So -- the question is: When the fiber gets here, I won't need the
Verizon national broadband wireless service with its 10 gig per month
limit. However, the iPhone requires some bandwidth. How much data
should I put on my account for the iPhone? Will 1 gig per month
handle my iPhone data usage?

Thanks.



*************

"Gun control" means hitting the
Republikan you're aiming at.

[nospam]

In article <ve9ij816h958ntspi...@6ax.com>, Kicking Ass

and Taking Names <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> When the fiber gets here, the only data service I'll need from
> Verizon is my iPhone. All I do with the iPhone is:
> -- phone calls, 1-2 per day
> -- texts to/from various people; approx 200 per month
> -- occasionally send/receive a photo; maybe 8-10 a month
> -- check weather report using TWC app daily
> -- check email using the iPhone mail app 1-2 times a week
> -- use Safari browser 3-4 times a week for various reasons
> -- use medical apps to check drug info (I'm an EMT)
>
> My account has unlimited text and phone calls on the iPhone.
>
> So -- the question is: When the fiber gets here, I won't need the
> Verizon national broadband wireless service with its 10 gig per month
> limit. However, the iPhone requires some bandwidth. How much data
> should I put on my account for the iPhone? Will 1 gig per month
> handle my iPhone data usage?

probably more than enough. try it for a month or two and see.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.03.07 18:56 , Kicking Ass and Taking Names wrote:

> So -- the question is: When the fiber gets here, I won't need the
> Verizon national broadband wireless service with its 10 gig per month
> limit. However, the iPhone requires some bandwidth. How much data
> should I put on my account for the iPhone? Will 1 gig per month
> handle my iPhone data usage?

Do your bills indicate past _roaming_ usage (away from home).

Reality is (at least for my use) with a 500 MB plan for my iPhone that
I've never gone over 200 or so on Cell/3G. Equal amount via the WiFi
but that accrues to the internet count - not the wireless.

Everyone's reality is different. But I'd expect that 1 GB / month is an
ample starting point. Probably 500 MB is.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

[Savageduck]

On 2013-03-07 15:56:36 -0800, Kicking Ass and Taking Names

I am in rural California, and Charter Cable ran 14 miles of fiber optic
cable out to our development West of Paso Robles California, sometime
around 1998-99. All I can say is the speeds I have been seeing have
been getting progressively better over the years.

I also use Verizon with a data package. As to which data bundle you
will need, only you will know what you will need when you are away from
your home base.
In my case my data intensive use of my iPhone 4S and iPad is usually at
home using my own Wi-Fi network, fed by Charter Cable's fiber optic
service. So for this past billing period my iPhone usage has been 8.5MB
sent & 90.7MB received. This is typical for me unless I am on a trip
away from home, or have some specific business I have to conduct away
from my Wi-Fi network.

So my suggestion is, if you are otherwise happy with Verizon, get a
voice, text, and a 1 or 2GB data package should more than meet your
needs. Then use your new and speedy fiber optic service for the bulk of
your online data needs.

BTW: as a drug reference app and drug interaction reference I have
"Micromedex" apps installed.
< http://healthcare.thomsonreuters.com/micromedexMobile/ >
<
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/micromedex-drug-information/id390211464?mt=8
>

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Pat]

You didn't mention whether most of your iPhone usage is from home.
When you have your fiber installed, you will have (or, at least, can
easily have) your own wi-fi hot spot. You can use your phone for data
functions (browsing) all you want without using any of your data
bandwidth. That is my situation. I have the lowest data plan AT&T
offers, but since most of my usage is from home or other wi-fi enabled
locations, I don't even come close to the plans limit.

Pat

[Opple Ipad]

On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:56:36 -0500, Kicking Ass and Taking Names
<PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>

>In a couple of months, a local cable provider will install fiber down
>our road in a rural Virgina county and, a month or so after that,
>we'll have access to bundled phone-teevee-Internet. Neighboring
>communities that already have been turned up report excellent,
>uninterrupted service for all three services. Internet speeds are 10
>meg down, 1.5-2 meg up, 24/7.

I get 50 Mbps down usually testing at 48 to 49 Mbps.

But I would love to have Google Fiber. And no I do not care that the
other internet providers are lying and saying that the customers don't
want it. Nor do I care that it is testing at 700 to 800 Mbps rather
than the promised 1 Tbps. It's still the fastest speeds available on
the planet for home use.

>
>Currently, I use Verizon National Broadband. On my account are:
>
>-- iPhone 4S
>-- Pantech modem for 'net access
>-- Verizon Jetpack for 'net access
>

I have unlimited data with sprint, it's not an issue for me.

>I am paying Verizon for 10 gigs per month, and it's not cheap.

I stream movies, music etc. No where near what I need.

>
>When the fiber gets here, the only data service I'll need from
>Verizon is my iPhone. All I do with the iPhone is:
>-- phone calls, 1-2 per day
>-- texts to/from various people; approx 200 per month
>-- occasionally send/receive a photo; maybe 8-10 a month
>-- check weather report using TWC app daily
>-- check email using the iPhone mail app 1-2 times a week
>-- use Safari browser 3-4 times a week for various reasons
>-- use medical apps to check drug info (I'm an EMT)
>
>My account has unlimited text and phone calls on the iPhone.
>
>So -- the question is: When the fiber gets here, I won't need the
>Verizon national broadband wireless service with its 10 gig per month
>limit. However, the iPhone requires some bandwidth. How much data
>should I put on my account for the iPhone? Will 1 gig per month
>handle my iPhone data usage?
>
>Thanks.
>
>

If you can do most of your data transfer via wifi, then you should
have more than enough. But you won't be using your phones full
potential.

>
>*************
>
>"Gun control" means hitting the
>Republikan you're aiming at.

Actually Gun Control simply means, disarming law abiding citizens so
that only the criminals will remain armed.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.03.31 13:24 , Opple Ipad wrote:

> But I would love to have Google Fiber. And no I do not care that the
> other internet providers are lying and saying that the customers don't
> want it. Nor do I care that it is testing at 700 to 800 Mbps rather
> than the promised 1 Tbps. It's still the fastest speeds available on
> the planet for home use.

If it's testing at 700 to 800 then the limit is likely the home user's
network. Gigabit ethernet tops out at about 800 Mb/s of user data in
practice.

So even if the fibre can deliver 1 Tb/s the bottleneck is the user's
network.

[Opple0p�ad]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:30:09 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 2013.03.31 13:24 , Opple Ipad wrote:
>
>> But I would love to have Google Fiber. And no I do not care that the
>> other internet providers are lying and saying that the customers don't
>> want it. Nor do I care that it is testing at 700 to 800 Mbps rather
>> than the promised 1 Tbps. It's still the fastest speeds available on
>> the planet for home use.
>
>If it's testing at 700 to 800 then the limit is likely the home user's
>network. Gigabit ethernet tops out at about 800 Mb/s of user data in
>practice.
>
>So even if the fibre can deliver 1 Tb/s the bottleneck is the user's
>network.

Only if the user is plugging his own router into the network and not
the one provided by google.

[Tom Stiller]

In article <uorgl898nnmca02bu...@4ax.com>,

Opple Ipad <Op...@Opple.com> wrote:

> But I would love to have Google Fiber. And no I do not care that the
> other internet providers are lying and saying that the customers don't
> want it. Nor do I care that it is testing at 700 to 800 Mbps rather
> than the promised 1 Tbps. It's still the fastest speeds available on
> the planet for home use.

I hope that the 1 Tbps is a typo and you meant 1 Gbps; otherwise 800
Mbps is only .08% of capacity, pretty poor performance.

--
PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

[Alan Browne]

First off I meant to write 1 Gb/s.

Secondly it doesn't matter what router it is, a 1 "Gb/s" bandwidth
doesn't deliver 1 Gb/s to the user. There is overhead and at least 2
bits per 8 bits added for error-detection/correction. So in terms of
"user" data, it can't be more than 800 Mb/s.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-19 11:09, Alan Browne wrote:

> doesn't deliver 1 Gb/s to the user. There is overhead and at least 2
> bits per 8 bits added for error-detection/correction. So in terms of
> "user" data, it can't be more than 800 Mb/s.

GPON isn't serial communications :-) No parity and stop bits needed :-)

There is overhead in the protocols though.

1460 bytes payload
40 byte TCP and IP headers
18 bytes Ethernet header

sent to the ONT: 1518 bytes, of which 1460 is your content, so 97.3%
efficiency at that level.

Once it gets into the ONT, there is additional overhead on the fibre
because packet is encrypted, with ONT source and OLT destination etc
added. But I do not know what that overhead is.

Note that current GPON systems operate at just over 2gbps on the shared
fibre.

[Opple0påad]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:49:34 -0400, Tom Stiller
<tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <uorgl898nnmca02bu...@4ax.com>,
> Opple Ipad <Op...@Opple.com> wrote:
>
>> But I would love to have Google Fiber. And no I do not care that the
>> other internet providers are lying and saying that the customers don't
>> want it. Nor do I care that it is testing at 700 to 800 Mbps rather
>> than the promised 1 Tbps. It's still the fastest speeds available on
>> the planet for home use.
>
>I hope that the 1 Tbps is a typo and you meant 1 Gbps; otherwise 800
>Mbps is only .08% of capacity, pretty poor performance.

I run a speed test from my PC to my ISPs test server I always get the
max speeds. If I test that speed on other sites the speeds will vary.
Google is providing 1 "Gbps" speeds, (Yea the typo was mine).
Currently google fiber is only available in select locations in one
state in the USA. But they are getting ready to expand into Austin
Texas.

That's a Gbps up and a Gbps down. Currently I get 5 Mbps up and 50
Mbps down.

When they expand their bandwidth across networks will improve. What I
like is their business model to force down competitor prices while
forcing them to increase speeds to compete.

Googles current pricing plan:
Gigabit +TV Gigabit Internet Only Free Internet
$120/Month $70/Month $300 construction fee
(both) or $25 a month for 12 month
$300 construction fee waived No further fees Guaranteed for
least 7 years. Breaks down to
about $42 a year for 5Mbps.


Free access for schools, libraries, hospitals and other public
institutions.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.19 14:14 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 13-05-19 11:09, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> doesn't deliver 1 Gb/s to the user. There is overhead and at least 2
>> bits per 8 bits added for error-detection/correction. So in terms of
>> "user" data, it can't be more than 800 Mb/s.
>
> GPON isn't serial communications :-) No parity and stop bits needed :-)

I would be very surprised that it isn't serial and very surprised that
there is no error correction overhead.

>
> There is overhead in the protocols though.
>
> 1460 bytes payload
> 40 byte TCP and IP headers
> 18 bytes Ethernet header
>
> sent to the ONT: 1518 bytes, of which 1460 is your content, so 97.3%
> efficiency at that level.
>
> Once it gets into the ONT, there is additional overhead on the fibre
> because packet is encrypted, with ONT source and OLT destination etc
> added. But I do not know what that overhead is.
>
> Note that current GPON systems operate at just over 2gbps on the shared
> fibre.

Anywhere from your computer to the home gateway will be over gigabit
Ethernet and that will throttle the exchange.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-19 15:21, Alan Browne wrote:

> I would be very surprised that it isn't serial and very surprised that
> there is no error correction overhead.

No parity and stop bits in ethernet.
The ethernet 18 byte overhead does contain a CRC check (error detection,
not correction).

the TCP (or is it IP) also contain a CRC checksum.

> Anywhere from your computer to the home gateway will be over gigabit
> Ethernet and that will throttle the exchange.

There are lots of points where a data transfer gets throttled. Sending 1
packet at 1gbps is easy. It will find a small spot on the carrier and
flow at full speed. But constant sendig of packets will likely result in
congestion at one point and they won't be able to flow at 1gbps average
throughput.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.19 15:31 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 13-05-19 15:21, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> I would be very surprised that it isn't serial and very surprised that
>> there is no error correction overhead.
>
> No parity and stop bits in ethernet.
> The ethernet 18 byte overhead does contain a CRC check (error detection,
> not correction).

You're ignoring the physical layer on gigabit ethernet which encodes 8
bits as 10 in order to make a signal that is electrically equal
probability of a 0 or 1 at any given time (regardless of content). At
these frequencies (128 Mhz) you can't have a random bit stream and clock
properly at the receiving end). Same provides (I believe) up to a
couple bits worth of error correction per byte but not for all errors.

> the TCP (or is it IP) also contain a CRC checksum.
>
>> Anywhere from your computer to the home gateway will be over gigabit
>> Ethernet and that will throttle the exchange.
>
> There are lots of points where a data transfer gets throttled. Sending 1
> packet at 1gbps is easy. It will find a small spot on the carrier and
> flow at full speed. But constant sendig of packets will likely result in
> congestion at one point and they won't be able to flow at 1gbps average
> throughput.

None moreso than the ethernet cable between the computer and the
gateway, so the speed of the packet hitting the house is meaningless -
the gateway will signal a 'wait' in the other direction until it has
buffer space available for the next largest possible packet.

[David Empson]

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2013.05.19 15:31 , JF Mezei wrote:
> > On 13-05-19 15:21, Alan Browne wrote:
> >
> >> I would be very surprised that it isn't serial and very surprised that
> >> there is no error correction overhead.
> >
> > No parity and stop bits in ethernet.
> > The ethernet 18 byte overhead does contain a CRC check (error detection,
> > not correction).
>
> You're ignoring the physical layer on gigabit ethernet which encodes 8
> bits as 10 in order to make a signal that is electrically equal
> probability of a 0 or 1 at any given time (regardless of content).

That isn't relevant when calculating the throughput of Ethernet, because
the nominal speed of Ethernet variant (e.g. 100 Mbit/s) refers to the
end-user bits, not the physical symbols.

For example, 100Base-TX physically uses 4B5B encoding clocked at 125 MHz
to give the end user 100 Mbit/s, and 1000Base-T uses PAM-5 encoding at
the same 125 MHz over four pairs to give the end user 1000 MBit/s.

The nominal speed is limited by Ethernet framing overhead, which is in
the order of 38 bytes (preamble, start, destination, source, frame
type/length, CRC and gap) with the user payload being up to 1500 bytes
(or 9000 bytes for jumbo frames on Gigabit Ethernet).

Therefore the theoretical maximum throughput of 1000Base-T is about 975
Mbit/s using 1500 byte frames, or about 996 Mbit/s using 9000 byte
frames.

> > the TCP (or is it IP) also contain a CRC checksum.

TCP and UDP have a simple checksum (not CRC) at the packet level. IP has
another one for its header fields but not for the frame body.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Alan Browne]

Thanks for the clarification. However I've yet to hear of anyone
_getting_ 1 Gb/s on a gigabit ethernet network. Most claims seem to lie
in the 700 - 800 Mb/s region.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-05-19 23:03, Lewis wrote:

> Google has tested their Kansas City infrastructure at speeds in excess
> of 940 Mb/s.

Since the optical carriers runs at over 2gbps ( I think 2.3 but forgot
the exact number). it is quite easy for them to supply a full 1gbps to 2
homes. At that point, performance of the ONT and whatever consumer
router comes into play.

To give you an example, the modem Bell Canada uses for both its VDSL2
and FTTH deployments is a Sagemcom 2864 made especially for Bell. When
you use the trick to bypass the router so it acts as a bridge, it can't
do more than 33mbps on the few areas where Bell canada has 50mbps DSL.

Consumer routers are not designed to handle 1gbps throughput.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.19 22:55 , Lewis wrote:

> I pay $122/m for 25/5 from Comcast business. For that, I'd get 1000/1000
> *and* TV from Google.
>
> It's *almost* worth living in KC or Austin.

I recall reading that KC has seen an influx of young entrepreneurs (of
the internet kind) ever since Google rolled out Gb there. So almost for
you is certain for others.