 mob (banned)On the next level..
join:2000-10-07
San Jose, CA |
mob (banned)
Member
2009-May-5 9:39 am
3GB a month, slightly more?Sure. As long as there are no driver mega patches, security updates, etc.
God forbid you need to download service packs 1-??. | |
|
 |  klipko
join:2006-06-28
Portland, OR |
klipko
Member
2009-May-5 10:26 am
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?said by mob:Sure. As long as there are no driver mega patches, security updates, etc. God forbid you need to download service packs 1-??. Exactly what I was thinking... What if you want to DL Windows 7 or try out a few Linux distros. Will Qwest label you as an abuser? | |
|
| | mob (banned)On the next level..
join:2000-10-07
San Jose, CA |
mob (banned)
Member
2009-May-5 10:50 am
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?Why can't we just pay for what we use? Why not offer transfer in 100GB blocks and say "no limit on speed or what you use it on, but once it's gone, you pay $10.00 for 100GB more transfer for the month."
That way people who don't use much bandwidth would pay less, since they would only pay for 1 block, and if you used more bandwidth, you paid more. Of course, there could need to be some form of "no limit" service that would have a cap of over 2TB or so, at a price point that is attractive, yet still obscenely profitable for the providers (since we all know that bandwidth is cheap, no matter what shills say).
That way people who try to download the entire internet will pay for what they use, and the people who don't will pay very little. | |
|
| | | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Lees Summit, MO |
me1212
Member
2009-May-5 10:53 am
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?You got a GREAT idea there. the cost of band width has gone down 18% from this time last year so I think you plan would work very well. I think there are cell phone cos that do that y would it not work for ISPs? | |
|
| | | | |
to mob
You wish, companies are trying to make MORE money, not less. | |
|
| | | | |
to mob
I have friends who run BitTorrent over Qwest and suck up a fair amount of banwidth. They haven't been shut off yet. Just sayin' | |
|
| | | | | |
Tucson
Anon
2009-May-7 12:54 am
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?Like anyone could possibly go past the cap with their crappy slow connection. | |
|
| | | | |
to mob
said by mob:Why can't we just pay for what we use? Why not offer transfer in 100GB blocks and say "no limit on speed or what you use it on, but once it's gone, you pay $10.00 for 100GB more transfer for the month." That way people who don't use much bandwidth would pay less, since they would only pay for 1 block, and if you used more bandwidth, you paid more. Of course, there could need to be some form of "no limit" service that would have a cap of over 2TB or so, at a price point that is attractive, yet still obscenely profitable for the providers (since we all know that bandwidth is cheap, no matter what shills say). That way people who try to download the entire internet will pay for what they use, and the people who don't will pay very little. Your crazy prices will make ARPU drop faster than a stock price after bankruptcy filing. How about $10 a GB? That undercuts what cellular carriers charge. We can run all of our non-SLA broadband off one 40 gigabit ethernet line at 5GB per customer per month (3 million broadband customers i guesstimate). | |
|
| | | | | |
system001
Anon
2009-May-5 3:38 pm
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?do the math at 7mbps you get 604.8 gigs a day. 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 7 mb = 604,800 mb / 1000 = 604.80 gigs. what we need to do is limit the isp's to no more than 1 million customers nation wide, and make sure that in every market there are at least 4 choices. 5 gigs a month is nothing. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-May-5 3:56 pm
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?Don't forget to convert bits to bytes  What good does limiting an ISP's customer base to 1 million do? How do you ensure "at least 4 choices" for each market? | |
|
| | | | | | | |
system001
Anon
2009-May-5 4:43 pm
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?currently the cities decide what isp's are in their city and what section of the city they are in. with fiber optics we have had the ability to carry far more than what is being allowed. The cities deliberately limit service in an area. as for the math it is correct. 60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400 seconds in a day, and at 7mb's per second that comes to 604,800 mb's a day or 604.8 gigs a day. limiting isp's to 1 million customers means that there would have to be more isp's created which equates to more competition, which equate to lower prices for faster service. | |
|
| | | | | | | openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-May-5 9:15 pm
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?said by system001 :
currently the cities decide what isp's are in their city and what section of the city they are in. Are you discussing franchise agreements for video providers? Or perhaps the use of the ROW? said by system001 :
with fiber optics we have had the ability to carry far more than what is being allowed. The cities deliberately limit service in an area. Source? I seriously doubt any city limits fiber optic throughput. said by system001 :
as for the math it is correct. 60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400 seconds in a day, and at 7mb's per second that comes to 604,800 mb's a day or 604.8 gigs a day. Correct, if you want to discuss gigabits per day as a rate. If you want to discuss quantity, you divide by 8 since there are 8 bits in a byte said by system001 :
limiting isp's to 1 million customers means that there would have to be more isp's created which equates to more competition, which equate to lower prices for faster service. No it doesn't. It means that you have less economy of scale. Limiting a service provider to x number of customers does nothing to guarantee competition. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
system001
Anon
2009-May-10 11:58 am
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?it would be nice if you had any real idea. the cities do decide what cable/internet franchises are allowed into what part of the city. fiber optics were put in place with the original promise of more competition. as for the math once again it is correct. there is no dividing by 8. with 7mb service your monthly cap is 18,144 gigs even if we did divide by 8 your monthly cap would 2,268 gigs a month not this 250 and under a lot of isp's are talking about. granted most people will never even come near this level of use. i also stated what we need to do is limit the isp's to no more than 1 million customers nation wide, and make sure that in every market there are at least 4 choices. if you are going to quote someone make sure you do not rephrase what they said. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
to system001
said by system001 :
as for the math it is correct. 60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400 seconds in a day, and at 7mb's per second that comes to 604,800 mb's a day or 604.8 gigs a day.
You must work for Verizon Wireless. » www.verizonmath.com604.8 gigs of WHAT per day? Bits or bytes? If you started out with units in BITs (7 megaBIT connection), you end up with a value of 604.8 gigaBITs, not gigaBYTES. If you want to convert it to bytes, you have to divide by 8 because a bit and a byte are different units! | |
|
| | | | | | | | mdrift
join:2003-08-15
Spokane, WA |
mdrift
Member
2009-May-10 6:13 am
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?said by cyclone_z:said by system001 :
as for the math it is correct. 60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400 seconds in a day, and at 7mb's per second that comes to 604,800 mb's a day or 604.8 gigs a day.
You must work for Verizon Wireless. » www.verizonmath.com604.8 gigs of WHAT per day? Bits or bytes? If you started out with units in BITs (7 megaBIT connection), you end up with a value of 604.8 gigaBITs, not gigaBYTES. If you want to convert it to bytes, you have to divide by 8 because a bit and a byte are different units! Correct, but irregardless converting to bytes still shows that false notion of 1-3 GBytes of data transfer being normal. It's absurd. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
system001 to cyclone_z
Anon
2009-May-10 11:56 am
to cyclone_z
broadband services work with bytes not bits. there is no conversion. the isp's flat out state your service will be 4, 6, 7, 12, 20, 50 MEGABYTES PER SECOND. not once do they ever mention bits. this is the type of confusion isp's love so they can cheat you out of promised bandwidth. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?said by system001 :
broadband services work with bytes not bits. there is no conversion. the isp's flat out state your service will be 4, 6, 7, 12, 20, 50 MEGABYTES PER SECOND. not once do they ever mention bits. this is the type of confusion isp's love so they can cheat you out of promised bandwidth.
i don't know if you're saying they can't be converted or that ISPs are advertising speeds in bytes, but that's also not true. Megabits per second is abbreviated as Mbps. If you're talking megabytes per second, usually that's MBps, however, megabytes per second is a very uncommon measurement of transfer speed. Transfer speeds have always been measured in bits, not bytes. Go read the wikipedia article here and you will see only bits/second measured; never bytes. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSL | |
|
| | | | | mdrift
join:2003-08-15
Spokane, WA |
to system001
said by system001 :
do the math at 7mbps you get 604.8 gigs a day. 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 7 mb = 604,800 mb / 1000 = 604.80 gigs. what we need to do is limit the isp's to no more than 1 million customers nation wide, and make sure that in every market there are at least 4 choices. 5 gigs a month is nothing.
I agree. The problem is each Telco has a regional monopoly. You just gotta love Reagan deregulation. Instead of one monstrosity each region has a single monstrosity--and that's called Capitalism? | |
|
| | | | | | | |
system001
Anon
2009-May-10 10:27 am
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?deregulation is the problem. when most industries started to be deregulated i was 14 and i told my parents that they were not going to pay the price for it, but rather i was 20 to 30 years down the road. well it is 30 years now and the mess we are in is because of greedy unregulated businesses. | |
|
| | | | |
to mob
You mean like the early days of dialup, where you had to constantly worry about how much you were on, and how high your next bill was going to be?
Thanks, but no thanks. | |
|
| | |  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russe
MVM
join:2008-01-16
Gilbert, AZ |
to mob
said by mob:Why can't we just pay for what we use? Why not offer transfer in 100GB blocks and say "no limit on speed or what you use it on, but once it's gone, you pay $10.00 for 100GB more transfer for the month." because peak demand and 95th percentile billing rule out this as a viable option. isps who purchase their bandwidth don't pay in overall consumption, they pay based on peak demand. the reason large users are being booted is because they are (often incorrectly) assumed to be sucking the most bandwidth at all hours and causing peak bandwidth shortages. the issue here is not the method of metered billing being used, its a matter of finding a way to balance the oversubscription and upgrades with the maximum possible roi and still making sure the customer's experience is satisfactory. most isps haven't found this balance yet. until then, stories, speculation, and armchair quarterbacking abound... q. | |
|
| |  Chris 313Because It's Geekier
Premium Member
join:2004-07-18
Houma, LA ·AT&T FTTP
 ·Comcast XFINITY
|
to klipko
said by klipko:said by mob:Sure. As long as there are no driver mega patches, security updates, etc. God forbid you need to download service packs 1-??. Exactly what I was thinking... What if you want to DL Windows 7 or try out a few Linux distros. Will Qwest label you as an abuser? No kidding. I'm doing Hulu and I'll do 3GB in one DAY! I've not even gotten to the Win7 RC yet. With crap like this, it makes Comcast's 250GB a month seem very generous, don't it? | |
|
| | | dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit |
dynodb
Premium Member
2009-May-5 3:15 pm
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?Again- 3GB IS NOT A CAP.
They're saying that's about what the "average" user consumed, at least back in 2007.
I don't know if or when they'll announce exactly what they consider "excessive", but I do know that it's currently measured in hundreds of GB, not a few.
Go browse the Qwest forum- just try and find someone that got a letter for "excessive use" in the past year. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?said by dynodb:Again- 3GB IS NOT A CAP. They're saying that's about what the "average" user consumed, at least back in 2007. That 3 GB is NOT a cap is obvious to anyone has reading comprehension skills. From the replies I can tell that many lack those skills. My guess is that the person who sent this to consumerist is maxing out the connection day and night. | |
|
| | | | mdrift
join:2003-08-15
Spokane, WA |
to dynodb
said by dynodb:Again- 3GB IS NOT A CAP. They're saying that's about what the "average" user consumed, at least back in 2007. I don't know if or when they'll announce exactly what they consider "excessive", but I do know that it's currently measured in hundreds of GB, not a few. Go browse the Qwest forum- just try and find someone that got a letter for "excessive use" in the past year. Who cares what the average consumer consumed per month back in 2007, unless they want to suddenly surmount a heavy toll on what the consumer will consume going forward with HD Video. Qwest has been a train wreck for over a decade. Instead of building and partnering with companies that will drive business in the Consumer space, lobby to open up markets to offer real competition they are protecting their legally sanctioned portion of the pie. Unfortunately for Qwest, it's not a big portion. If they honestly think mid-to-large cities are going to wait till 2011/2012 for 20Mbps they are sorely mistaken. | |
|
| | | | | | |
system001
Anon
2009-May-10 10:31 am
Re: 3GB a month, slightly more?you got that right. i have qwest, and my area is most likely less than 6 months away from having fiso. in this economy i will drop qwest in a heartbeat and dear them to even try to come after me for breaking my contract. i only went with qwest/directv simply on the tv side a better lineup than comcast, and on the internet side qwest 7mb service is as fast as comcast so called 12mb service. then even after the promo rates are over my monthly bill will be 12 dollars less than i was paying with comcast. | |
|
| |
BSThis is BS that any ISP is going to put in a monthly CAP for anything. Also I love how they put in there that their 1 - 3GB cap is slightly under what business do!! I'm sorry, I am an IT Director at a small company (35 Desktops) and we use tons more bandwidth then lets say 5GB/month.
Just our website alone (which is everyone's home page) does about 8GB's a month! So I think it is BS and hope that Qwest goes down hard for this!!!
That's my comment, and I am sticking to it! | |
|
| | |
Re: BSI average about 10gb per day with 1.5mbps DSL
20gb per day with 3.0mbps
40gb per day with 6.0mbps
Even at 1.5mbit on DSL my consumption is about 300gb per month... I'm not a youtube yunkie which in my opinion is low quality, crappy video
Broadband is meant to be used as much as possible.
Anyone who only consume 1 to 3 GB is not a broadband user but a minority who is a dialup user and do not use broadband for video... | |
|
| | |
to sphinxguy18
So uhm did you read the story or follow along like a lemming?
"Qwest goes on to insist that most customers consume "1-3 Gigabytes per month," a number that is "slightly higher for business customers."
No where did they say anything about a 3GB Cap. Just that anything over 3GB is considered excessive usage compared to other customers. | |
|
| | | |
Re: BSGee I was able to read his message and understand what he meant without finding a new to be an jerk.
Maybe you should work on your comprehension and being able to read between the lines before responding. | |
|
 hayabusa3303Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC |
my godQwest must be F* crazy.
Im guessing my theory was correct about these ISP smoking blunts.
Whats next qwest bail out money? after you kick about everyone off your network. | |
|
|
•••••••••••••••••••••• |
 snipper_cr
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL |
SAT?Doesnt Satellite have higher FAPs than this? This is crazy. I stayed in dorms last year where we were given 2GB a DAY. With the advent and push for internet TV, even 1 person in a family watching ONE show is going to go over that pretty quickly. I hate to see an average 4 person family consisting of your typical gamer, researcher, downloader and casual user. | |
|
| |
Online TV viewing?"Online TV video streaming of 1,000-3,000 30-minute shows each month"
Really, so you can get 1,000 - 3,000 30-Minute HD shows streamed and stay under the 3GB limit.. really? | |
|
|  Hpower
join:2000-06-08
Canyon Country, CA |
Hpower
Member
2009-May-5 11:13 am
Re: Online TV viewing?lol that's exactly what I been thinking. What the heck kind of videos would one watch to reach 3GB videos of 3000 30-mintue shows? Ones that have no video but audio? I'd think more of a 300GB usage with 3000 30 minute tv shows. Retarded quest. That must either be incorrect or they really are smoking something really strong. | |
|
| |
Observer
Anon
2009-May-5 9:53 am
Incorrect news titleKarl, I am no fan of caps but your title is misleading. Qwest said "most customers consume 1-3 Gigabytes per month" - it did not say that 3 Gigabytes is excessive.
To guesstimate what they consider excessive, let's assume Qwest considers a "typically sized" Mp3 file to be 3 megabytes.
Then they say that downloading "40,000 to 80,000 typically sized MP3 music downloads in one month" is excessive.
40,000 * 3 megabytes = 120, 000 megabytes = 117.1875 gigabytes.
117 gigabytes != 3 gigabytes | |
|
| amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America |
amungus
Premium Member
2009-May-5 10:19 am
Re: Incorrect news titleWondered when somebody'd do that math...
Good point.
I thought it was a little misleading here too, although, to be fair, the quote about "most users" is absurd.
Maybe my use of anywhere from 25-125GB/month is normal.
Crooks, all of 'em. Agree that, although "caps" in general are silly, at LEAST Comcast has stepped up with a somewhat realistic stance on them.
You'd think that the phone companies would have NO such thing, esp. since, um, they already own a frak-ton of lines.
For years I've always thought they'd be the LAST ones to even consider such a thing. | |
|
| |  IowaMan
Premium Member
join:2008-08-21
Grinnell, IA |
IowaMan
Premium Member
2009-May-5 10:59 am
Re: Incorrect news titleYou'd think they would get there Math straight because depending on how you number crunch they = different amounts of bandwidth
Gosh why can't companies cap reasonably like 500 GB?
Just this month and last between my 3 computers is about 15 GB | |
|
 beck
MVM
join:2002-01-29
On The Road |
beck
MVM
2009-May-5 10:04 am
HmmmmWell, I had Qwest for 5 months over the winter and did about 10-11 gig a month. That was without the backup they are now advertising. I wasn't doing anything excessive, and I don't believe that I'm actually a heavy internet user either.
When I was using Verizon Wireless EVDO, I had to be SO careful not to go over the 5 gig cap. | |
|
R62006
join:2006-05-03
Las Vegas, NV |
R62006
Member
2009-May-5 10:07 am
QworseSetting CAPS on a DSL line WOW these companies are all about GREED for real. | |
|
| | |
Re: Qworsesaid by R62006:Setting CAPS on a DSL line WOW these companies are all about GREED for real. » www.qwest.com/wholesale/ ··· ory.htmlqwest is not even a competition to ATT, TW, and Comcast. When ATT impose cap it is much more serious cause a lot more ppl are affected by it if att and tw impose caps why would qwest not impose cap as well it seem like a disease spreading around not to mention surewest and verizon maybe imposing cap as well if they see how much money others can squeeze out of their user without having to provide more to all of us. most of us are paying more for faster tier so to pay for usage as well is as silly as for paying for gasoline or electricity. i would drop to the lowest tier and if they still charge more for usage i will just cancel service.  a lose lose situation for all company... charge by the byte is internet robbery. these thieve love to steal from the poor but hopefully if we all cry foul they would be stopped before they even begin to start charging by the byte. | |
|
 tfrionliTom F.
join:2001-06-21
Kings Park, NY |
comparative perspectiveLet's say for the sake of argument you go to the supermarket to buy a 1/2 gallon of milk. If I go there, I expect to be able to get my one item in a timely fashion. I don't want to wait for 1 hour to get the milk. I run in, run out. So what the Providers have created is the express lane. ahhhhhh! ingenious..... an express lane.. I just want the 1/2 gal of milk. so, I get in, out quick.
If I am going to buy 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of milk I would expect to wait at least five minutes more.
Does anyone know what I'm talking about? | |
|
|
•••••• |
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Lees Summit, MO ·Google Fiber
1 edit |
me1212
Member
2009-May-5 10:31 am
DO they have any data?If not how can they say that 3Gb is normal? What about windows updates? So if I were a qwest costumer and my pc got a virus and I have to take it in/get a new one I can sue them right if their cap locked me out right? I bet a lot of people use more than 3GB. I thought broad band was to use more and do more and get America ahead, do these ISPs want America to die? Well at least some ISPs(comcast) have un capped business packages, I think all should that way if you were willing to pay more you could get un caped. | |
|
 kingdome74Let's Go Orange
Premium Member
join:2002-03-27
Syracuse, NY |
Email today from TWI received an email this morning from Time Warner encouraging me to download movies from a paid site... this from the same company that wants to put a 5 GB cap on it customers. These ISP's just don't get it. If you run your mouth about all this speed don't be surprised when people turn on their computers and actually use it. | |
|
| |
| |
It's not all us though....Hey Quest,
Until you start blocking all of the advertisements/spam/malware and other junk running through my "tube" that is adding to my cap (and that I did not authorize to run across my line you need to shut the fuck up. MMMMMkay? It was you (and other companies like you) that wanted advertisements out the ass on everything so pucker up buttercup and start kissing my ass. | |
|
| |
jefash
Anon
2009-May-5 10:41 am
hmmmif most people only use 1-3gb a month as they stated, why do the need to cap , i mean, if usage is soo low for the majority, wouldnt it just average out with the small amount of abusers? | |
|
2 edits |
1000 30 minute tv shows500 hours of TV at low quality 100KB/sec.
That's 6MBytes per minute.
That's 360MBytes per hour.
That's 180GBytes per month (500 hours).
Netflix HD is 3.5mbits per second.
Over 350KBytes per second.
21MBytes per minute.
1.26GBytes per hour.
630GB per month (500 hours).
I could live with a cap in the range 180-630GB per month. Seems like their cap may be better than Comcast's! | |
|
| MikroTik CCR1036-8G-2S+
MikroTik hAP AC
|
Re: 1000 30 minute tv showsWhenever I watch Netflix HD my consumption spikes to 8.5Mb/s then after a couple minutes it settles down somewhere in the 6-7Mb/s range for the remainder of the video. I have yet to query my switch at intervals more than 5 minutes while watching a video, but it is on my to do list still. | |
|
| | | |
Re: 1000 30 minute tv showsYes, if fills its buffer s fast as it can then stops completely. After some time it download at full speed again until the buffer is full. If you monitor per second you see this. Per minute, maybe. At 5 minutes, you would see an average. | |
|
DampierPhillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY |
The Changing Definition of "Acceptable"I am not ready to say Qwest is throttling YouTube, as the linked article seems to suggest. YouTube server issues are notoriously common. When you end up on a bad or congested one, rebuffers are extremely common. This can happen to a server a few times a week and then suddenly just go away. I also don't see the benefit of throttling YouTube, when other applications have far bigger implications for a broadband provider, and nobody seems to be suggesting those are also throttled.
The hidden cap weasel language remains the real issue here, and it sounds like a template Frontier used to define their "acceptable use." When and how they enforce it is kept in their pocket, to be brought forth when "conditions" are right.
Frontier doesn't even monitor what its customers are doing at the moment, but the legal language is there in case they decide to start.
Overall, the issue here boils down to what defines average use of the Internet. Providers want to use a definition of a customer averaging 40+ years of age using their connection for e-mail and occasional web browsing. They don't want to define it in the 16-35 demographic, which are likely to be the most aggressive consumers of bandwidth, particularly multimedia. This is the same group, incidentally, that is responsible for the decline in importance for even owning a television set. These folks belong to an on-demand culture that wants access on their terms, and look to online resources to get it. That threatens just about every aspect of the current business model for cable television and broadband, which is ultimately why we are going through all this. | |
|
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
1 edit |
Was it Road Dope, or Smok'n Dope Online TV video streaming of 1,000-3,000 30-minute shows each month ??????? What kind of dope where they on when they came up with these figures. I down load a lot of TV 99% from Great Britain. I might do as many as 5 per day if a whole mini series is posted at once, I usually is one every couple of days. An HD program is usally about 1.5 gigs. A SD show is about 700 megs. I have never had any hate mail from Qwest. I quess it is time to put a counter on again to see just how much stuff I do down load. Can anyone suggest a good one that is free | |
|
 danawhitakerSpace...The Final Frontier
Premium Member
join:2002-03-02
Thorndale, ON |
Anyone got links?Can someone find the links to further discussions about the Qwest EUP policies since that original or just read the full original thread? I know it was disclosed eventually that you actually have to seriously abuse - we're talking in the 500 gig range - to draw their ire. Unless, perhaps, you live in areas with major congestion. It's possible I suppose that they've ramped those invisible caps down in the wake of Comcast and Time Warner's plans. Still, the 1-3 GB was never a hard cap and merely an estimate of what "average" users do in a month. I don't know who these people are, but I'd like to meet them. Given the highly-visual and ad-laden webpages of today, there's no way even casual users ultimately fall into this. Even my aunt, who is 65 and doesn't know what illegal downloads are uses streaming videos and web radio.
Yes, the way they detail it in their EUP is ridiculous and outdated, and the amounts they specify are completely outdated. 1-3 gigs? Yeah, per DAY maybe. And that might just be coming from one computer in a house. Start adding in more computers and more users and those numbers look asinine.
I live in Qwest territory. I won't even consider going back til my neighborhood can get better than 1.5 (which can't even be had stable enough to train as better than 1/3 of that). | |
|
| | |
viperlmw
Premium Member
2009-May-5 12:12 pm
Re: Anyone got links?said by danawhitaker:Can someone find the links to further discussions about the Qwest EUP policies since that original or just read the full original thread? I know it was disclosed eventually that you actually have to seriously abuse - we're talking in the 500 gig range - to draw their ire. What danawhitaker said. | |
|
| |
BlueEos
Anon
2009-May-5 11:29 am
Excess charge and I'm out of here!First of all, I'm probably no where near the 3GB limit as I'm not a movie/video/music streamer. As to how I would be able to keep track of my broadband usage, I haven't a clue.
However, IF Qwest ever comes around and says I'm using TOO much, I'm out of here and back to cable.
Anyone know of a utility that keeps track of usage on a home network with 4 computers accessing the internet at various times? I'm using the Qwest 3347 modem/router. | |
|
| |
Mark1962
Anon
2009-May-5 11:38 am
This is SO WRONG...... 3 GB is **RIDICULOUSLY** low data cap. It points out Qwest's network weakness... a little too much money on executive compensation and way to little in network upgrade capex, guys! This looks REALLY weak.
We need to bring back appropriate government regulation to these companies that were granted unfair competitive positions in the early days (free land, right of ways, etc) in exchange for appropriate government regulation.
Aside from pushing for greater regulation (all we need to do is highlight this type of customer disregard and arrogance (not making limits explicit, etc)), we need to resist this type of ridiculously low cap by cutting services from such companies as much as possible. Money Talks, BS Walks. Also, flood their customer call lines with complaints. If you are a customer, do everything you can to increase their support cost. | |
|
| dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN |
dynodb
Premium Member
2009-May-5 3:28 pm
Re: This is SO WRONG...said by Mark1962 :
... 3 GB is **RIDICULOUSLY** low data cap. RTFA. 3GB/month is not the cap. It's not even remotely close. | |
|
| |
no_one
Anon
2009-May-5 11:51 am
Youtube slow not QwestThe invisible cap is way, way over 3gig. Plus unless you break a law I believe it is a three strike policy. So you get warning letters etc., not a hard shutoff.
Oh, google Youtube, they are just slow sometimes with all providers. | |
|
|
|
·
·
