Talk:Burstable billing

message: I tried to extend a bit, clean up and also added the critics. I'll put it on my watchlist. --Illtillwillkillbill 17:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I am going to remove the weasel words template. Could someone post some more details of their complaint here around weasel words. Unless it is very serious why not just discuss it on the talk page rather then marking up the article itself? Augustz 16:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: The Sentence "Critics of the 95th percentile billing method usually advocate the use of a flat rate system, billing per byte of data transferred, or using the average throughput rather than the 95th percentile." suggests, that "billing per byte of data transferred" and "using the average throughput rather than the 95th percentile" are different things. They are not, right? --84.61.140.24 03:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average = Traffic 

message: So the example graph has a max Inbound of 6,28 Mbit/s. 95% of that would be 5,966 Mbit/s, but the 95e line is at 2,62 Mbit/s? -- Thomas  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.120.44 (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem in understanding 

message: In response to the above poster. It is NOT 95 percent of your max usage, it is a 95th percentile of all the samples collected for the timeframe in questions. So, lets say you want the 95th percentile for a 100 minute timeframe (1 hour and 40 minutes). With a 5 minute sample interval you would collect 20 samples during this time. Here the fictitious values you got for those 20 samples:
Sample 01: 3,00 Mbit/s | Sample 02: 5,00 Mbit/s | Sample 03: 9,00 Mbit/s | Sample 04: 4,00 Mbit/s | Sample 05: 4,00 Mbit/s  
Sample 06: 4,00 Mbit/s | Sample 07: 5,00 Mbit/s | Sample 08: 5,00 Mbit/s | Sample 09: 6,00 Mbit/s | Sample 10: 7,00 Mbit/s
Sample 11: 2,00 Mbit/s | Sample 12: 2,00 Mbit/s | Sample 13: 1,00 Mbit/s | Sample 14: 2,00 Mbit/s | Sample 15: 5,00 Mbit/s
Sample 16: 5,00 Mbit/s | Sample 17: 3,00 Mbit/s | Sample 18: 3,00 Mbit/s | Sample 19: 2,00 Mbit/s | Sample 20: 5,00 Mbit/s
The above is just an example.  A standard month has 8640 samples if taken every 5 minutes for 30 days. Here the results with the different approaches:
Wrong: 95 percent of the max usage would be: 9 Mbit/s - 5% --> 8.55 Mbit/s
Wrong: 95 percent of the average usage: 82 Mbit/s / 20 --> 4.1 Mbit/s
Right: 95th percentile (sort from high to low, remove 5 percent of samples): 5% of 20 samples is one sample. Highest sample goes (9 Mbit/s) away. Next sample is billed by: 7 Mbit/s
The 95% percent of the max usage wouldn't be fair for a normal business customers who has a large spike. The 95% of the average usage isn't fair for a ISP when the customer is a normal business customer with a bell shape usage during the day and next to nothing during the night. The 95th percentile is a middle ground, removing spikes in the usage but gets closer to what the customer is actually using on a regular basis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.196.176.95 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem in understanding explained 

message: The "Criticism for end user billing" section includes:
If a website used 2Mbps for 5% of the time and not a single byte for the remainder of the month, the site would be billed as if they had sent 2Mbps for the entire month. It would then be actually cheaper to continually send data in hopes of reducing the 95th percentile (where 95% of the peaks fall).
Which is simply incorrect.
It would be true to say that the site would be billed the same as if they were to use 2Mbps for the entire month. 
87.194.211.97 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in "Criticism for end user billing" 

message: There was only one reference, last retrieved in 2006, to an ISP industry magazine (I'm not sure, as it doesn't exist online anymore). Anyway, that is now a victim of link rot. 
 
This article needs some attention, particularly without any references. It is being used for citation purposes in research, which is how I found it. That makes me uneasy, in the sense that it either needs to have at least one valid reference, or be merged, or deleted. 
It isn't Wikipedia's fault that people are submitting research papers to the ACM using Wikipedia articles for references, I am not saying that at all! They should have checked the references in the article just like I did, as it was published in 2012, and the single valid reference was retrieved back in 2006. But I mention this to make the point that we need to be correct, although that would be true regardless of whether or not ACM papers relied on this article. (I am referring to this research paper: TailGate: handling long-tail content with a little help from friends, see reference #4, in WWW '12 Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web, ACM, April 2012. ISBN: 978-1-4503-1229-5). --FeralOink (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has no longer has any valid (inline) references 

message: I am not sure that providing links to (an incomplete) list of software packages that provide 95th percentile counting is useful. RichardLetts (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove references to software packages? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Burstable billing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720163115/http://www.isp-planet.com/news/2006/cogent_price_drop.html to http://www.isp-planet.com/news/2006/cogent_price_drop.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified