A ratio is a ratio. End of.

If 500:10 is not the same as 50:1 then some other factor is not being stated. The ratios being compared are not of the same thing.

Contention ratios of the kind that were raised at the start of the discussion are only really applicable to fixed speed connections anyway, which is why they were ditched when ADSL Max came along. Arcane technical figures used in complex network builds, which is what the 500:10 may be about, are a different thing altogether.

I have never seen a contention ratio quoted on any type of internet service that doesnt end in :1.

The old 20:1 and 50:1 products did not have 20 and 50 people respectively sharing pipes equal to one customer's bandwidth. So BT werent following your idea either.

One such service I use is a 10:1 service and it has 100 100mbit customers sharing a 1gbit pipe.

My "arcane" was me thinking along the lines that if they supplied 10Gbps using 10 1Gbps pipes switched or load balanced or whatever for 500 leased or backhaul lines, as opposed to one 10Gbps pipe, the network architects may describe the former as 500:10 and the latter as 50:1. Purely for clarity at the design stage as to what kit is to be installed.

Both end up as 50:1 as far as their usage is concerned.

Edited by RobertoS (Fri 18-Jul-14 21:38:27)

I think it's funny this site really is full of BT fanboys.

Hearing statements like no contention on infinitii is quite funny.

There is absolutely no way BT have 1:1 bandwidth for every user. I've worked in the industry for a long time and even if the cabinet itself does not have contention the internet connections supplying the exchange or the network will certainly be running under heavy contention. Its just how the industry is able to provide low cost product to guys like you. Just because your not noticing the contention it does not mean it's not there A well setup network will be running at a very heavy contention ratio but will not be noticeable due to the usage patterns of the average user and also very effective and good queuing technology and algorithms. Things are changing though and with more content now available it's becoming harder and harder for network providers to manage contention and hence the lack of unlimited products these days bye.

In reply to a post by lektroluxe:

I think it's funny this site really is full of BT fanboys.

Shame your first and probably only post instantly devalues itself in the opening statement. It's your own time you're wasting.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

My "arcane" was me thinking along the lines that if they supplied 10Gbps using 10 1Gbps pipes switched or load balanced or whatever for 500 leased or backhaul lines, as opposed to one 10Gbps pipe, the network architects may describe the former as 500:10 and the latter as 50:1. Purely for clarity at the design stage as to what kit is to be installed.

Both end up as 50:1 as far as their usage is concerned.

I have never seen a contention ratio on a network design, nor have I ever seen anyone care about whether a link is a single link or a few aggregated.

When aggregating together multiple links they are just rated as the sum of the bandwidth, not dealt with separately as they are bonded at layer 2.

In the case of some core links, deeper in the network and not using layer 2 bonding, a contention ratio is impossible to calculate and more to the point isn't cared about as while a group of links may be shared between 2 devices they are handling traffic going to different places and are considered as completely discrete links to be managed, and if required upgraded, separately.

Edited by deleted (Fri 18-Jul-14 22:31:47)

In reply to a post by MHC:

I have, many times and still do see it in regular usage.

10 groups of 50 users each after 1 resource is truly 50:1 but if there are 10 resources available for 500 users it would be quoted as 500:10

I can't say I have ever seen that as far as data networks go. Ratios are always quoted as lowest common denominators and regardless we aren't talking about admission control, where I could perhaps understand that, but bandwidth.

Maybe in specialist communcations systems such things are used but I can't say I've ever seen a contention ratio that didn't end in :1 used across Sky, Easynet or ntl.

Oohhhhh ROFLMAO.

Do you really mean to say you registered on this site to come in with that contribution? Accompanied by a childish insult?

Have you read the thread in full, or just the last half dozen posts?

The original point about contention was a rebuttal of the opening paragraph of the opening post. Which was:-

I've had Infinity on Business Broadband for a few months and was told that there would be a contention rate of 20 (50 on residential).

I correctly stated that those ratios went out of the window with the introduction of ADSL Max.

At no point has anyone suggested there is no contention on normal ADSLx or FTTx. The four or five people discussing contention are merely taking about the way it is expressed, with a couple accepting 500:10 as a valid description and a couple of others maintaining that is not a valid observable description. Only possibly a description at the design stage of a network. That figure is being used purely for convenience. Not as a statement of any particular real life value.

I assure you we are all well aware that ISP MSIL and internal networks are designed/budgeted at a few hundred Mbps per customer, that value varying hugely between ISPs.

As for

Things are changing though and with more content now available it's becoming harder and harder for network providers to manage contention and hence the lack of unlimited products these days

exactly the opposite is happening. All major providers now provide true unlimited download, as opposed to the "unlimited" of a few years ago that had FUPs and the like of 100GB or less.

All the major producers are also pushing hard to sell content-heavy services, witness Sky and BT Sport, Cloud storage and services and so on.

BT:- 1 x ADSLx 10GB, 2 x ADSLx unlimited, 1 x FTTC 20GB, 2 x FTTC unlimited.
Sky:- 1 x ADSLx 2GB, 1 X ADSLx unlimited, 2 x FTTC unlimited.
TalkTalk:- 3 x ADSLx unlimited, 3 x FTTC unlimited.
Plusnet:- 1 x ADSLx unlimited, 2 x FTTC unlimited.

Others that spring immediately to mind:- Zen, vivaciti, aquiss. Perhaps xilo and Freeola.

Contrary to there being a lack of unlimited products these days, there are many. Three years ago there were very few. I wonder if any have yet started budgeting at over 1kB per customer?

All I was doing was trying to imagine a scenario in which 500:10 was correct where 50:1 wasn't . As you say in your post after the one I'm replying to, and I've already said, a ratio is a ratio. It ends in 1, and if it the figures come out at 7:5 it is shown as 1.4:1 .

Given the identity of the person who avers such figures are used, I tend to believe him. What I suggested was where I thought he may encounter it, but it was just a guess. It is certainly in some arcane environment.

My logic is 50:1 is the same as 500:10
There is equal likelihood in both cases
50:1 is a 2% chance

500:10 is still a 2% chance

Similar 5000:100 is still the same probability.

It's the same as 1/4 is also 2/8 is also 4/16 is also 25/100. They're all the same.

So in summary with my logic I believe your view on this That said I do appreciate what you have to say as a general rule.
Just my two cents. & whoever said we are all BT fanboys made me laugh.