On 5/15/21 10:38, Saku Ytti wrote:
Not sure why 76 is better than 24. Both are wrong and will cause operational confusion because people think the link is not congested. This is extremely poorly understood even by professionals, so poorly that people regularly think you can't get 100% utilisation, because you can't unless you normalise stats to L1 rate.
Because end users will demand compensation and lawyer time for only getting 195Mbps on their 200Mbps service. 195Mbps is not 200Mbps. I've seen operators over-provision services simply to quiet-down the noise, i.e., they'll provision 210Mbps for a 200Mbps service. We don't do this, but I encourage all of my competitors to do so. The example I always give is that if there were no seats on an aircraft, it'd carry significantly more people than otherwise advertised. We try hard to educate customers about how the higher layers eat away at the lower ones re: capacity, and that's just how the system works. There probably isn't a single man-made technology that offers 100% efficiency. So I'm not about to go out of business giving you the optical illusion that my corner of earth will make it so. In the end, it's easier to just let those customers go than spend human hours and money placating them. Mark.