  CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | Bandwidth Hog FeedthePig.org
LOL! | |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | curious to see what the results will be. | |
|
| | Abuse Unfortunately with anything advertised or thought of as "unlimited" there will be abuse. | |
|
 | DoubleKDoublek
join:2003-03-04
Beloit, WI Reviews:
 ·Charter
| Re: Abuse Yet America is the land of the all you can eat buffet.
Golden Corral, Old Country Buffet, Ponderossa, Kfc, Pizza Hut, J.J. North's, Chuck Wagon sheesh the list goes on and on not even considering the many places still offering the Friday Night fish fry or the numerous Chinese joints.
I guess my point is if you believe for one moment that this is a customer bandwidth hog issue and not an overall network problem then you have been dining on to much sushi (sucker) and here you thought it was bluefin.
Think for yourself people. Charter told me years ago the same song and dance. Sorry about your 75% packet loss, my how competition resolved their network problems. | |
|
| | | | Re: Abuse No I think it is both actually.
The network needs to be upgraded, and low caps such as my monthly 100GB limit are a ridiculous excuse for not upgrading the network or are meant to protect video revenue.
But at the same time there are people who will always see unlimited and try to "get their money's worth." | |
|
| | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Abuse said by fifty nine:But at the same time there are people who will always see unlimited and try to "get their money's worth." whats wrong with that? if its advertised as that then it sure as hell better be that. if its not then it is billed for usage and as such it should be known that it is that way.
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Abuse said by FBGuy:said by fifty nine:But at the same time there are people who will always see unlimited and try to "get their money's worth." whats wrong with that? if its advertised as that then it sure as hell better be that. if its not then it is billed for usage and as such it should be known that it is that way. That's true, which is why a lot of ISPs are now not selling the service as unlimited, setting limits in writing and charging overages. | |
|
| | | | | | said by FBGuy:said by fifty nine:But at the same time there are people who will always see unlimited and try to "get their money's worth." whats wrong with that? if its advertised as that then it sure as hell better be that. if its not then it is billed for usage and as such it should be known that it is that way. I guess because your car's speedometer goes to 120 or 140 MPH, that you always drive that speed? Same logic.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
| | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19
2 edits | Re: Abuse usage has nothing to do with the rate. now, i can drive as many miles as i want as long as i follow the posted speed limit (mph = mbps) so your argument makes no sense. | |
|
| | | | | |  Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
·Cox HSI
| Re: Abuse said by FBGuy:usage has nothing to do with the rate. now, i can drive as many miles as i want as long as i follow the posted speed limit (mph = mbps) so your argument makes no sense. Not if you lease.  | |
|
| | | | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Abuse forget that. I own. Leasing is for suckers. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
1 edit | Re: Abuse said by FBGuy:forget that. I own. Leasing is for suckers. Unless you lease for business. Given the choice between giving money to a bank or the IRS, I choose the bank and I'm not going to depreciate some POS over 10 years. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Abuse why the bank over the IRS?
they are both just as crooked
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
1 edit | Re: Abuse said by FBGuy:why the bank over the IRS? they are both just as crooked Cause I get the car from the bank. I get nothing but an ass reaming from the IRS. They abuse their authority to scare and steal from people. Only if you have the $$$ to pay lawyers do you get a fair say in court (I know, I went through it spending $50K just to have the IRS drop their claim without prejudice a year later). | |
|
| | | | | | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Abuse you have roads that you drive on correct? police to protect you and a fire department to put out your fires.
don't say the IRS does nothing. they are a necessary evil.
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
2 edits | Re: Abuse said by FBGuy:you have roads that you drive on correct? police to protect you and a fire department to put out your fires. don't say the IRS does nothing. they are a necessary evil. I pay huge state auto license fees and massive excise taxes on fuel...plus tolls. And what percentage of my taxes you think actually go to fire production and not flushed down the bureaucratic pet project rat hole?
The IRS is evil. They are the devil who hate puppies and their moms. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Abuse do you think the IRS chooses who gets the money?
i think not. they just do as the law makes them. don't rip on the messenger.
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
1 edit | Re: Abuse F-them. They abuse their authority and misapply the law to fleece people who can't defend themselves from the unlimited resources of the Federal Government. I know, I spent $50K defending myself from them just to have them drop their claim without prejudice a year later when I insisted on going to court. That is $50K I will never see again because the IRS tried to misapply the law (they tried to call archived engineering tool samples "inventory") and if I didn't have the resources to fight as most people don't those bloodsuckers they would have succeeded. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Abuse said by Z80A:F-them. They abuse their authority and misapply the law to fleece people who can't defend themselves from the unlimited resources of the Federal Government. I know, I spent $50K defending myself from them just to have them drop their claim without prejudice a year later when I insisted on going to court. That is $50K I will never see again because the IRS tried to misapply the law and if I didn't have the resources to fight as most people don't those bloodsuckers they would have succeeded. and you don't think a bank could do the same?
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
4 edits | Re: Abuse Nope. They don't have the power to seize MY property, fine and jail me. They show me a contract, I read and either agree or not. Black and white. I will NEVER have to drop money on lawyers defending myself, my personal property, my business and my very freedom against a bank inventing laws regarding a car lease I have with them. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | said by FBGuy:usage has nothing to do with the rate. now, i can drive as many miles as i want as long as i follow the posted speed limit (mph = mbps) so your argument makes no sense. And neither does yours. The equivalent of speed limits for an ISP is a cap. You can only use your speed up to the cap they set. | |
|
| | | | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Abuse most ISPs do not publish said caps. | |
|
| | | | | | |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by fAcEtIOUs:said by FBGuy:usage has nothing to do with the rate. now, i can drive as many miles as i want as long as i follow the posted speed limit (mph = mbps) so your argument makes no sense. And neither does yours. The equivalent of speed limits for an ISP is a cap. You can only use your speed up to the cap they set. Speed Limits say how FAST I can go not how FAR. A CAP for a car would be a regulator that stops the car from running once the odometer reaches a designated reading or placing a limit on how much gas you can place in the car (ie: How often you can fill the gas tank). | |
|
| | | | | | |  badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | said by fAcEtIOUs:And neither does yours. The equivalent of speed limits for an ISP is a cap. You can only use your speed up to the cap they set. No, the equivalent of a speed limit is throttling. The equivalent of a cap is a wall in the middle of the freeway. | |
|
| | | | | | | |  Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| Re: Abuse said by badtrip:said by fAcEtIOUs:And neither does yours. The equivalent of speed limits for an ISP is a cap. You can only use your speed up to the cap they set. No, the equivalent of a speed limit is throttling. The equivalent of a cap is a wall in the middle of the freeway. A positively brilliant comparison.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·Charter
·Clearwire Wireless
| said by fAcEtIOUs:said by FBGuy:said by fifty nine:But at the same time there are people who will always see unlimited and try to "get their money's worth." whats wrong with that? if its advertised as that then it sure as hell better be that. if its not then it is billed for usage and as such it should be known that it is that way. I guess because your car's speedometer goes to 120 or 140 MPH, that you always drive that speed? Same logic. You could if laws didn't set the speed. That you can travel. If a company sells a product as unlimited, the it's false advertising if it isn't. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Abuse said by Metatron2008:You could if laws didn't set the speed. That you can travel. If a company sells a product as unlimited, the it's false advertising if it isn't. Most ISPs don't advertise their service as unlimited anymore.
Peope now know the caps up front yet still complain about them. | |
|
| | | | |  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | said by fAcEtIOUs:said by FBGuy:said by fifty nine:But at the same time there are people who will always see unlimited and try to "get their money's worth." whats wrong with that? if its advertised as that then it sure as hell better be that. if its not then it is billed for usage and as such it should be known that it is that way. I guess because your car's speedometer goes to 120 or 140 MPH, that you always drive that speed? Same logic. The comparison doesn't work because it isn't illegal to download at the speeds you want or even to download over a certain limit....it is illegal to drive 120/140 in well...all areas I know | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Abuse said by Van:The comparison doesn't work because it isn't illegal to download at the speeds you want or even to download over a certain limit....it is illegal to drive 120/140 in well...all areas I know The law is your TOS for the roads. Hence, equivalent. | |
|
| | | | | | | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Re: Abuse But do my TOS state I can't download a specific amount?
If it does, you are right
If it doesn't, how is it an apples-apples comparison? | |
|
| | | | | | | said by fAcEtIOUs:I guess because your car's speedometer goes to 120 or 140 MPH, that you always drive that speed? Same logic. No, but I sure as hell will try to see if it can go that fast.
--
Join SETI Now! | |
|
| | | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Abuse said by Toymaster:said by fAcEtIOUs:I guess because your car's speedometer goes to 120 or 140 MPH, that you always drive that speed? Same logic. No, but I sure as hell will try to see if it can go that fast. plus I own a car. I can do whatever I sure as hell want with it. obviously there are laws in place to punish me for certain things. but asdflkasdfklasdflkjasdfljk
WE ARE NOT TALKINGA BOUT CARS!
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps | |
|
| | | | | xirianPremium
join:2003-01-26
Beacon, NY
kudos:1 | The equivalent of a speed limit would be your speed tier, not amount of data. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Abuse said by xirian:The equivalent of a speed limit would be your speed tier, not amount of data. Actually no. The speed tier would be the governor in your car's engine that slows it down if you go beyond a certain speed. | |
|
| | | | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX | Thats a stupid analogy.
There is no sign on any highway anywhere that says "go as fast as you can." Nobody is selling usage of their streets in that way. Limits, laws and rules are clearly posted.
Not so with broadband. "unlimited bandwidth" is what is advertised and sold.
If you really want to use a highway speed analogy, probably a better one is that of a speed trap. Hide the signs, lull users into believing the speed is something it isn't, then slam them with fines for overage. | |
|
| | | | | |
See 12 replies to this post |
| | | | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by FBGuy:said by fifty nine:But at the same time there are people who will always see unlimited and try to "get their money's worth." whats wrong with that? if its advertised as that then it sure as hell better be that. if its not then it is billed for usage and as such it should be known that it is that way. I think the real issue is how far the "but it said it's unlimited" outliers fall from the norm. (Think about it as a standard deviation scatter plot).
If 90% of my customers fall within a fairly consistent pattern of usage and consumption, I can reasonably target them for my "unlimited" campaign because they'll never hit the caps. The remaining 10%, I can encourage them to find a provider who meets their definition of "unlimited."
Using the all-you-can-eat buffet as an example, it's obvious restaurant owners set their prices based upon average consumption patterns. If everyone was bulimic (binging and purging), and sat in the buffet all day, the prices would be a lot different. So, it's perfectly understandable that a buffet might ask a handful of bulimic patrons to leave after 3-4 hours.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | un-lim-it-ed
-adjective
1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.
You don't wanna provide it? don't offer it. You don't wanna use it all? don't. I expect to get what I pay for. Thank you very much.
Guess we need bandwidth-hog flu shots... | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Abuse Right. That's why a lot of ISPs no longer offer unlimited. They've learned their lesson that people will actually use the unlimited service 24x7. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Abuse said by fifty nine:Right. That's why a lot of ISPs no longer offer unlimited. They've learned their lesson that people will actually use the unlimited service 24x7. Um, if they really learned their lesson they would stop increasing speed tiers. But the reality is ISPs raking in billions in profits, facing little to no competition, and lazy and blood-suckingingly greedy, want to siphon even more money from their customers without upgrading their network. Thus the caps. | |
|
| | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| "Unlimited" was (not is; most ISPs stopped using the adjective now) used with respect to access, and was comparing the "unlimited access" in contrast with "limited access" services, such as CompuServe. I had a CompuServe account, and it was not "unlimited". It was "limited" to five hours maximum per month, at a flat rate of $9.95 a month. If I went over five hours, I paid a per minute charge (fractional minutes rounded up).
Even after switching from CompuServe to Astragate, there was still a "limitation"; Astragate reserved the right to terminate a connection after two hours, if the modem bank was swamped. Neither CompuServe, nor Astragate, advertised their services as "unlimited". They had limits on access.
HSI offered an "always on" connection at a flat monthly rate; "unlimited hours" as it were.
"Unlimited", as an adjective, is meaningless by itself. An adjective provides a description of an object; in this case "unlimited access" vs. "limited access". It was a selling point to attract users from limited dial access services.
Nobody was, or is, paying for "unlimited bandwidth".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
|  bionicRodFunkier than a mohair disco ball.Premium
join:2009-07-06
united state
·CenturyLink
·Mediacom
| said by fifty nine:Unfortunately with anything advertised or thought of as "unlimited" there will be abuse. Advertising something as 'unlimited' implies that abuse is impossible. Have ALL YOU WANT, for this price. You can't take to much. If you can, it would be limited. | |
|
| |
See 12 replies to this post |
|
| |
| SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL | If it's advertised and truly "unlimited", then explain how it can be abused? It's rather paradoxical to think you can suck down more than unlimited anything. | |
|
|
|
See 74 replies to this post |
|
1 edit |  Those analyzing data have mind made up - why bother?
1) an ISP taking part can select the node that is being analyzed for bandwidth hogs. If they feel there are bandwidth hogs, they can select the node in their system that definitely will be the worst case scenario. And since they will supply the data, they can do their own analysis ahead of submitting it.
2) the people laying out this challenge already have made up their mind - they already stated that there are no bandwidth hogs. Why would anyone in their right mind expect their analysis to come to any other conclusion than the one they already have made.
Statistics can be used to justify any pre-determined conclusion. So what we get is an ISP whose analysis will defend their opinion. And a group with a preset conclusion whose study will back their point. So, WHY BOTHER?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
|
| FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: All lawmakers can hear are the rustle of Lobbyist Dollars. said by Mr Matt: Sausage: A product made from pig parts, that if you knew what it contained, you would not eat it. OH YES I WOULD!
--
sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps | |
|
Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Oh, they exist, but I don't think in the numbers they claim »Comcast, Cox, Trot Out Their Worst 'Bandwidth Hogs'
There is no doubt there are some "hogs" out there...using 600GB+ per month. But I personally thing they are so rare that they don't matter is the scheme of things.
IOW, there are hogs, but they are an endangered species worthy of protection | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
Reviews:
·Cybersurf Intern..
| Bandwidth hogs The issue is that they collect data at nodes which are shared with those who already pay for service for those business lines which are meant to be paying for and using massive amounts of data.
The reality is... even if they gave us the data showing us heavy users. We wont know if they have already paid for that bandwidth.
Their assertions there are bandwidth hogs by default cannot proven either way as you have to cross reference what their bundle is vs what they use.
The overall issue is that their bundles are created such that you basically get 1-2 days worth of usage from your internet before you have to pay more money. The price of that not being in any advertisement or anything. At best it's in the small text. Usually the pricing for this extra bandwidth is absurd to say the least. With some ISPs charging somewhere around 5 cents per extra megabyte. Which has absolutely no baring on the actual cost of that product for them to deliver. It absolutely doesnt cost 5 cents per megabtye. Infact I would say it's absolutely unreasonable with 5 cents per gigabyte.
The reality is. We could go after these ISPs for price gouging... and easily win... but the final result would be that the ISP's costs just got high enough to justify those costs. Net change... nothing.
what needs to be done is create wholesale services on that making them sell for the reasonable prices. Then you just fixed the issue. The issue in Canada right now though is that our regulators are basically trying to eliminate the wholesellers. The ISP's then get to gouge the shit out of us. | |
|
approval from:
The1TheOnly 
| Oink, Im a pig, not a hog. :) I've only DLed like 20TBs of data over the years with my cantenna pointed towards my neighbors houses. I wouldnt even think about oinking till I get past the 100TB mark. Without me, all that bandwidth everybody gets would simply be going to waste. I cant stand waste. | |
|
 The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
·Windstream
| people need education on this matter... Instead of throwing out opinions and what have you, I think some of us need to go back and learn the topology of a network, and get into the gritty details, including myself. It's all good and well that we can say caps are bad, and we know that companies make a ton on flat rate, but I would rather see an educated argument against caps with cited sources and independent data from, say, a dsl, cable, and ftth provider. I think there's more too this than people would like to know. | |
|
| | | Re: people need education on this matter... This will never happen. The ISP's refuse to divulge realistic data metrics. If they did, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, IMO.
BTW, I like Windstream here in NC so far, you? | |
|
| | | said by The Limit:I think there's more too this than people would like to know. Especially true for people who believe there actually are such things as bandwidth "hogs".  (I'm assuming, though, you really meant to say type, "...more to this that people would like to know.")
Actually, people just need to use common sense: everyone has the same right to use their paid-for bandwidth/Internet access/connection as everyone else. No matter how much bandwidth you've used before or haven't used before some point in time, at every point in time your right to use--or not use--your bandwidth remains the same as everyone else's. One customer's packets have the same value as any other customer's packets; everyone gets a time slice whether they use it or not--first in, first out... that's how networks work. | |
|
| | Using your connection to full potential is a hog? So your a bandwidth hog if you use your unlimited connection to it's full potential?
I read some of the post saying they don't advertise unlimited anymore. But I bet most of the pages that advertise the service makes no mention of a limit. So what do you think? I would guess unlimited cause they used to advertise unlimited all the time. If there is a limit I believe they should clearly make it understood.
Unlimited means no limits. The arguement saying the unlimited is limited by what most users would normally use is wrong. Unlimited does not have any meaning saying the limit is compared to other users.
Some people need to stop trying to tell everyone else that unlimited is limited by the use of standard user cause that isn't unlimited. Someone already posted the definition of unlimited. Do you want to argue that the dictionary left out your definition of unlimited. | |
|
 TSWYOPremium
join:2003-05-03
Cheyenne, WY
·Optimum Online
·Bresnan Online
1 edit | Its "Up to" They did away with unlimited and put "up to" in the fine print. I have read my providers TOS to find out what "up to" means... It is not defined. I then called them to see what my guaranteed level of service is... They don’t have one, the rep just laughed. I am now on a letter writing campaign to my AG.
I get "up to" 8Mbps... Bresnan can only deliver 2.5Mbps of that "up to" 8Mbps. Why should I pay full price if I can only receive a fraction? | |
|
 jsz0Premium
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT | Bandwidth Hogs exist Bandwidth hogs definitely exist. I see it all the time. The issue is if ISPs will start moving the goal posts and start using metered billing and caps to impose predatory pricing on average users. My guess is they most definitely will if the systems are put into place and unregulated. It will start with bandwidth hogs but before long it will hit slightly above average users. This is the point where caps & metering start to stifle innovation because a large number of users fear a big monthly bill and simply opt not to use as many online services.
So what I propose is the FCC mandate that ISPs provide the FCC with detailed usage records on a regular basis. The FCC should aggregate all this information and set a reasonable standard for caps & metering that is constantly being updated to reflect real usage trends. So for example if the national average today is 100GB/month the minimum usage to hit *any* cap should be high enough that the average customer doesn't have to worry about it. Maybe 3-4x the average. A year from now the average may be 120GB/month so the cap cutoff with scale at the same ratio. This will ensure ISPs have to continue investing in infrastructure and cannot use caps as a money making / cost cutting scheme however they can continue to bill extremely high usage customers to provide better service to the average customers. | |
|
| Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Bandwidth Hogs exist said by jsz0:So what I propose is the FCC mandate that ISPs provide the FCC with detailed usage records on a regular basis. The FCC should aggregate all this information and set a reasonable standard for caps & metering that is constantly being updated to reflect real usage trends. That's a pretty good idea. But, the data should include congestion, peak and non-peak usage, and policies which the ISP uses to shape usage (protocol-specific throttling, caps, non-peak incentives for heavy users, etc.).
My concern is that a regulatory agency should establish targets based upon customer demand. Usage may not reflect demand if it is shaped by ISP policies. If a lot of P2P traffic is throttled, maybe that should be a factor when setting an ISPs targets. If a lot of usage occurs during non-peak due to ISP incentives, maybe that should be considered (as if it wouldn't occur absent incentives, and therefore there is a higher daytime usage demand that is distorted by the ISP's policies).
I'm with you that there should be better regulation and transparency. I think ISPs are more like public utilities than other consumer activities (like the local pizza shop). But, I wouldn't want a regulatory agency setting targets without a really complete picture of customer demand. Usage is multi-dimensional (tier pricing, time of day, protocol, policy enabled/sniffled.). If the agency looked at it too narrowly the ISP could shape usage to affect future target requirements.
It could be done. Our problem is that US politics is dominated by liberals who see everything too simply (naively). And, conservatives who believe "government doesn't work" (and do everything in their power to prove their point). There's no middle ground for sensible, intelligent, realistic governance. Just one side saying "it's not that complicated." And, another side saying "see, we told you government can't do anything right."
Mark | |
|
| | Think: packets Here's an analogy. (/disclaimer)
A library has a book. It may have several copies of that book. Every member of the library has the same right to go and check-out that book. If all copies are out when you want it, then you can add your name to the request list; as copies are returned the library will go down the list to notify members that it's available for check-out. (Book "hogs" are those members who don't return their book on time for others to check-out. ) This applies to all books in the library stacks. This applies equally to all members--every one of them has the same right, a right to use or not to use. Just because someone got there first, it's not their fault or a violation of another member's right to check out the book; it's just first come, first serve... just like every [typical] network. Just because some members check-out more books than some other members, it doesn't make them "hogs"--they just read more, which they have every right to do... constantly.
If you have a problem with this very real-world scenario, then you must think that first come, first serve (aka FIFO) shouldn't apply to you... that you deserve higher consideration than others. And, if so, then... get over it. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
emptywigHuh? What?Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX | Please work on the grammar! It is developers, not developer's.
It is "there are no names," not "there's no names."
But I thank you for using ISPs instead of the ubiquitous (and incorrect) ISP's.
Otherwise, keep up the good work!
Pedantically yours,
wig
--
Please keep your f---ing religion to yourself. | |
|
| |
| | "Bandwidth Hog"... Really?? Ok sure, they're out there... But are just a fraction of people who are on the internet... As i've read in other posts, for the bandwidth hogs, I simply see it as they're using up the bandwidth of another internet user that lets say, only checks email and so on. There are so few bandwidth hogs if you look at the total picture, I really don't see how it's making a negative impact. Seems to me like all the bandwidth averages out... And this is yet just another way for companies to make more money, and penalize everyone for something that such a small percentage of people do. | |
|
|
|
Karl you do a great job here ... But
The bandwidth hog is simply more ISP Sausage. Sausage: A product made from pig parts, that if you knew what it contained, you would not eat it. Unfortunately whatever the results of any study regarding bandwidth hogs it will be drowned out by the rustle of lobbyist dollars. As long as the government sock puppets are trolling around for campaign contributions from big corporate, American Citizens have little hope for legislation protecting them from fraudulent claims and abuse by big corporate. 