Re: Don't go cheap on me now
said by Nightfall:
I don't go over the 250gb level and I am on the Blast tier, so bandwidth isn't the issue for me,
350gb is not enough. Should be at least 400gb or 500gb.
Re: Don't go cheap on me now Private enterprise wanting a return on their investment? Say it isn't so!
You can combine my usage totals for the last six months and they don't add up to 300GB, let alone 600GB, so I'm hard pressed to feel any sympathy at all for the people who will be impacted by these caps.
600GB / 30 days = 20GB/day = 1.8mbit/s, sustained, 24/7
In actuality, someone who wants to use 600GB/mo will burden the network even more, the 95th percentile for such a user would likely be in the double digits of mbit/s.
A connection capable of supporting that would have cost thousands of dollars a decade ago (a dedicated connection STILL commands that kind of money) and here we have people bellyaching about connections that cost a fraction of that.
Re: Don't go cheap on me now SHHHHHH! that kind of talk on here won't be tolerated and you'll be flagged and your comments will be removed. Karl and his fan boys what tolerate it.
| || You've gotta be kidding me.|
If that's the case, let's go back to the days of charging multiple dollars per gigabyte on a HDD.
Lets go back to the days of charging .25c per megabyte on mobile data plans.
After all, that was acceptable a decade ago right?
If it's not that much of a problem, then I'll pm you my address, phone number, and send you a round-trip plane ticket so you can come down and have Comcast change my service to the 105 tier at your cost.
After all, it's not that much money right?
If Comcast wants to sell me a 25Mb/s line, then I take that as the ability to use up to 25Mb/s however I see fit as much as I see fit. The onus is not on me to support that bandwidth. I'm paying for it. The onus is on Comcast to support it.
If Comcast can't support ONE user using 25Mb/s a month, then they're overselling their services; and if that's the case, caps are not the answer... a more robust backend and last-mile is.
BTW: I'm having a hard time believing Comcast for anything right now when they state that using the Xbox 360 for Xfinity TV on Demand does not count against you. How that doesn't fly in the face of our non-existent net neutrality rules that aren't enforced by the FCC blows my mind.
Re: Don't go cheap on me now You seriously expect a connection with a 1 to 1 contention ratio at residential pricing? Good luck with that. As I said, dedicated connections that provide the type of bandwidth you desire still cost thousands of dollars.
Bellyache all you want, you're squarely in the minority, and nobody outside of that minority takes you seriously. A 250GB cap is a non-issue for the overwhelming majority of internet users, 600GB even less so, so I'm not seeing the problem. Next you'll whine about supposed regulatory capture, but good luck convincing the FCC or anybody else about the unfairness of a policy that impacts a miniscule slice of the internet population.
Usage totals/95th percentile from my last three DSL billing periods:
7/15: 22.93GB down/5.84GB up, 0.22mbit/s
8/15: 26.79GB down/9.54GB up, 0.32mbit/s
9/15: 18.92GB down/3.32GB up, 0.28mbit/s
Yeah, it's totally fair to expect me to pay the same as you, when you intend to use hundreds of gigabytes, while regularly imposing a megabit load measured in the double digits. 8-)
Re: Don't go cheap on me now
said by Nightfall:Well, I got my start in the ISP business, so I do have that perspective to take into account. On the other side of things, I've on the customer side of business connections ranging from T-1s to gigabit MAE connections, and of course my own experience with residential connectivity.
Especially those who have done no research on where we have come from and where we are now.
Speaking personally, and going from memory, my own connectivity to the internet has gone something like this:
1996: 14.4kbit/s - dialup - $20/mo
1998: 36.6kbit/s - dialup - $20/mo
1999: 256kbit/s - WISP - $40/mo
2002: 3mbit/s DS/256kbit/s US - TW cable - $35/mo
2003: 1.5mbit/s DS/384kbit/s US - Verizon DSL - $30/mo
2005: 3.0mbit/s DS/768kbit/s US - Verizon DSL - $40/mo
2009: 10mbit/s DS/1mbit/s US - TW cable - $45/mo
2011: 10mbit/s DS/1mbit/s US - Verizon DSL - $60/mo
2012: 6mbit/s DS/1mbit/s US - Frontier DSL - $60/mo
I've gone backwards at times, depending on what's available when I've moved, but the bottom line is I'm currently getting 24 times the speed of my first broadband connection, for $20/mo more, and if you take inflation into account that's really not a bad deal. $40 in 1999 is worth about $54 today, so I'm paying $6/mo more for 24 times the speed.
That's just my perspective, YMMV, but we've come a long way, and I wish people would consider that when they are inclined to complain about the state of American broadband.
Re: Caps are not an issue for me " quality TV programming is to subscribe to cable. Streaming services still don't give you access to live tv such as the Weather Channel, Fox News, local newscasts,"
Quality, Weather Channel and Fox News in the same paragraph.
Coming from a cable rip off shill.
I was stuck in bed sick last Saturday watching the Military Channel on Comcast. 5 times in a row the same shit commercial for Star Furniture, some effeminate guys being towed to buy crap furniture, some weight loss crap and hair regeneration garbage over and over again every 10 min for 5 min.
I turned the TV off. Yeah, real quality programming chock full of idiotic adds.
Maybe I should watch the Weather Channel, much better. Paying $130 / month for the cable and $100 for Internet access to be bombarded with the garbage adds is real "value".
As far as "regulated monopoly", IowaCowboy, read up on regulatory capture.
| |IowaCowboyIowa nativePremiumReviews:
Re: Caps are not an issue for me Many times it is cheaper to bundle tv, Internet, and phone. In our area, Comcast has triple play bundles starting at prices not much more than standalone Internet and they give you faster speeds with bundling. I like having a home phone (try telling a 911 dispatcher your exact location when you are in the middle of an armed home invasion or have a child that is not breathing). And in our area, if you dial 911 on a cell phone, it goes to the state police dispatch in Northampton (MA) and you have to tell them the city or town where the emergency is and they transfer you to the local dispatch AND you have to give them the exact location. With a landline, it goes to the local dispatch AND they have your exact location on their screen. When someone is in cardiac arrest, every second counts.
I wish I still lived in Iowa; Everything there from rent and groceries to Cable TV is much cheaper in Iowa (especially with an overbuilder in town).
Re: Caps are not an issue for me
said by IowaCowboy:There's a solution to home invasions that includes the numbers '911', but it has an M and a 1 in front of them.
try telling a 911 dispatcher your exact location when you are in the middle of an armed home invasion
Joking aside, you make a great case for having a landline. My POTS line is a lousy $27/mo after taxes and fees, or 90 cents a day, why would I give up that peace of mind? I call 911, they have my location instantly. Even in areas with wireless E911 they don't necessarily get an accurate location, and it may take time for the location to resolve.
said by tmc8080:You are way off on that tid bid of information, just comparing Arizona to NY. Arizona is growing 3x as fast as NY not to mention other NE states. 1.42% vs .45%
No wonder the population is moving to the eastern half of the country instead of moving west.. wher infrastructure is more developed.
By the way these companies are pack hunters, it is not a question if VZ will have caps, it is when?
Crimecast economics Let's see.
105 mbit/s extreme service is ( 1024 * 105 ) = 107520 megabits per second / 8 = 13.44 megabytes/second
Meanwhile, 1,073,741,824 bytes (1 GB) x 600 gigabytes (cap) = 644,245,094,400 bytes
And 644,245,094,400 bytes / 1024 / 1024 = 614,400 megabytes
So: 614,400 / 13.44 megabytes per second = 45714.28 seconds / 761.904 minutes / 12.698 hours
Only 12.7 hours of downloading to exhaust your entire monthly limit. Just wow. There is nothing generous about this at all. It's as offensive as before!
Oh, and just in case someone wants to bring up the MiB and GiB issue, it's 13.63 hours in that case.