dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
| Unlimited...
Most(if not all) ISPs advertise - Unlimited Internet Access, not Unlimited use.
In other words, you can be connected to the network forever if you wish, not download the planet.
Can anyone show me where it says, on *ANY* ad, where an ISP states Unlimited data transfers for residential services?
I have nothing to ever worry about myself, I don't light up a newsreader and try to download everything in alt.binaries.dvd. LOL!
Of course, YMMV,
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX
| Charge by the Gigabyte
The idea of "unlimited broadband" is going to eventually go away, IMO. Either the ISPs will be forced by government action to change their advertising to reflect reality, or else, more likely, they'll start charging by the gig.
--
Those who complain the loudest about their loss of rights under the Patriot Act seem to be the first ones to try to take away others rights under the Second Amendment. |
|
Loker
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Fargo, ND
clubs:
| reply to dadkins
Re: Unlimited...
sometimes my bandwidth usage can get excessive (I think I was over 200 GB's one month) and I have yet to have any issues with Comcast....
--
"While preceding your entrance with a grenade is a good tactic inQuake, it can lead to problems if attempted at work." -- C Hacking |
|
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß
1 edit | reply to dadkins
I would disagree, unlimited access is unlimited use. If you cap someones ability to download you are effectively stopping their use of the Internet.
How can one use the Internet if you can't "download" a web page. The page is viewed on your PC but much of the content id downloaded to your PC in the form of temp files, graphics, and all the neat little html junk.
How can one transfer e-mail if one can not download or upload the mail file?
Really they should just get rid of the word unlimited...it is a throw back to the days when you paid for hours in the old AOL dial up sense. |
|
justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
2 edits | reply to qdemn7
Re: Charge by the Gigabyte
Charging by gigabyte wont work well... who gets charged when your Internet connection gets flooded with unsolicited network traffic? (Ping flood, tons of spam, etc.)
Actually, in the case of spam, you'd have a much better case for (financial damages) to go after spammers, so maybe that would be a good thing. |
|
Derfel
join:2004-06-06
Winnipeg, MB
·MTS
| Transfer the idea...
Take this idea, that 5% of the ISP's users are "bandwidth hogs", and move it to the realm of cycling.
Say that 5% of the population "cycle" more than 45% of the total cycling mileage for a given city. Should they be punished? Made to pay more taxes for sidewalk/bike trail repair? Or did they choose to use the available "trail service" as supplied by the municipality for their own uses? Should the people who only cycle on Sunday afternoons for leisure be refunded part of their taxes because they do not contribute as much to trail wear and tear as those who commute to work by bike?
It's so odd that ISP's like to whine when people use their product as advertised. If they wanted people to just email and check their stocks, why not just advertise their service as such, rather than using music and movie downloads in their ads? |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
| Ellacoya Poster Child
Plusnet are a huge throttler of their customers, they are literally the Ellacoya poster child. Big use of the Ellacoya API and advanced subscriber management, however they have lacked investment in bandwidth so heavily that even priority traffic on their network sometimes doesn't have enough bandwith to go unimpeded.
The actual average usage is higher for most ISPs than Plusnet, they just throttle the hell out of their customers.
That said I do agree with them. As average data usage goes up unless either prices go up or cost of providing the services goes down accordingly then those currently providing the totally unlimited services will have to rethink. |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to justbits
Re: Charge by the Gigabyte
Cable networks average about 1GB a month simply in ARP traffic...and that is counted as bandwidth consumption. I believe it was Comcast that brought that to the fore several years back.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs: | Easy to not count, also cable networks can have no downstream ARP broadcasts at all now using readily available features and can instead consult DHCP servers to obtain MAC / IP translations. |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
| I measured my use last month
I consider myself a heavy non-business, non-ftp, non-site host, non-uploader/downloader of torrents.
But I stream Sat. Radio for hours and watch streaming video from network TV (can watch a 1 hour show in 42 minutes). I download/watch legal free movies/laugh at Youtube and I intend to watch up to 18 hours of Netflix movies a month (streaming)
I seem to keep my use about 50GB per month (not including Netflix), but I see more people moving toward my number with VOIP and Video on Demand, Video conferencing and more.
Side note:
Isn't it funny how internet use is "a problem" from 4 to midnight. It is obvious why but cell phones are free after 7 pm (business use accounts for the bulk costs). Maybe the cellphone companies will be changing that again. Back to 9 pm and no free weekends...... |
|
truocchio
join:2004-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| reply to Derfel
Re: Transfer the idea...
You cannot equate government taxation to private business practice.
I agree with the above user who said we will move to metered bandwidth eventually. It will probably look a lot like cellular plans. "X' dollars for up to "X" gigs, then "X" dollars for each additional gig. And then offer various minimums based on usage stats. Sure there are more issues with this program than cellular as justbits stated. However the ISP's will find a way to make it kinda work, while letting customer service deal with anomalies and those truly hacked/attacked.
With the advent of NetFlix downloadables and other heavy BW usage sites that are available for mass public use they will have to do something to stop the Googles/Yahoos/YouTube etc from clogging "their tubes", as one older than dirt senator put it. |
|
Derfel
join:2004-06-06
Winnipeg, MB | Simple - make broadband a utility. |
|
Nick
Purveyor of common sense
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2000-10-29
Smithtown, NY
clubs:
| reply to AnonProxy
Re: Unlimited...
said by AnonProxy  :I would disagree, unlimited access is unlimited use. If you cap someones ability to download you are effectively stopping their use of the Internet. Actually, I'll disagree with your disagreement. Nobody is stopping your ability to download/upload content. They are simply reducing your ability to do so by creating a virtual "speed limit".
Perhaps a poor analogy, but I will try anyway. You buy a german sports car. The car itself has an electronic limiter preventing you from going over 130 mph even though if the limiter is removed you can go 150mph. Nobody complains about that. Similarly, the whole speed limit thing. Posted speed limit is 55mph around me, yet people go 70 and don't get pulled over. Some people choose to push their limits and go 80 and they DO get pulled over. Internet companies are really no different, they don't say "you can download 30 gigs a month...and we'll really let you slide at 40..but once you hit 50 we shut off your internet" they say you have unlimited access (which is true) and they try to throttle people who are significantly out of the bell curve.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.
Gallery * Life * Work |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| uk has a dwindling population..
When you actually talk about the growing customer base of the Americas, and Asia.. the metrics work much better.. and technology is available to grow the internet significantly with established technologies such as fiber and concentrated switching centers. Still, providers don't really stress conservation mostly when they can get away with abusing FAP policies (fair access policies).. if they did they would give customers tools to monitor how much bandwidth they actually use per day, week, month, year, etc.. ISP'S certainly have the data-- if they want to empower customers to conserve they need to make the metrics available as an account tool..even if there isn't really a hard limit in unlimited. I doubt many would use the tool to chew up MORE bandwidth  would they?
Right now in the USA that is simply unnecessary.. as bandwidth speeds are not really where they should be.. so conservation is already built into the system.. with sub 10megabits speed caps (for the majority of customers here) and upload caps which are pitiful.. right now the costly part of metrics are the TRANSMITTAL (rather than reception), distance and time as a major factor in costs (number of hops,number packets, and speed/latency/prioritization).
Honestly, I think the UK is getting off light... other European nations are pushing ahead with massive multi-billion dollar/euro plans to light fiber across the map with oodles of bandwidth for a pittance (France, Germany, and the nordic lands-- Netherlands, Sweden, Holland, etc).. Why doesn't it cost less in the UK? Could be a reason the population is sinking..
Companies need to start to think BIG in their infrastructure plans or pack it in.. there is no such thing as TOO much bandwidth.. people want an internet to do video the same way it does voice, and web pages.. that is "instant gratification" and QOS.. this will need to make a sea change in the way the networks brought to scale. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Statistics
"The top 1% each used an average of 120.94GB, nearly double the 66.03GB used by the next percentile. The average customer used 6.19GB, although removing the heaviest 10% of users cuts that to 2.35GB."
Which average are they using for that 6.19GB/2.35GB (There are 3 types of measures called "average")?
The one that everyone thinks of as "average" is the total of all usage divided by the number of users. There is also the usage value that half of the users exceed and half are less than. The third is the usage value that the largest number of users measure.
By not identifying your methodology, you can give any impression you want by choosing the method that gives the best number for your purpose (Check out the classic book on this topic - "How to Lie with Statistics" by Huff). I'd be interested in seeing the actual numbers/graph (a graph is mentioned in the article but not included).
No matter what you measure you are going to have those who use the most. The question is if that usage is "excessive" or just is portrayed as such due to being the largest values. |
|
operagost
join:1999-08-02
Spring City, PA
| reply to Nick
Re: Unlimited...
Number 1, you're talking about VOLUME and not SPEED. If we were using a closer analogy, they would throttle your connection speed down as you neared the limit. In addition, on highways we have speed limit signs so you always know what speed is allowed. ISPs would rather let the fiction of unlimited internet continue to encourage sales while setting secret limits. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
2 edits | reply to AnonProxy
I'm connected ATM, I have been connected for nearly 4 years(barring computer restarts).
To me, that is Unlimited *ACCESS*.
I don't download every single file I see... there's no point in it!
Unlimited Use is just that, lighting up mega-downloads and running 24/7.
No one advertises that, sure as hell not Comcast!
Email?
If you are sending out email at a constant 384-768k(2mbps?), I sure as shit hope they terminate you!
I hate spammers!
If you are downloading hundreds of GB per month, then you are likely degrading the network for everyone.
I hope they actually cut your coax! Sorry!
I pay for Speed and 24/7 Access. I get both!
I am not paying for terabytes of data transfers.
That would cost a hell of alot more than $52.95 per month!
Everything here works "As Advertised". Connection is always up, always fast when I need it, and I always have access to it.
THAT is Unlimited Access.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
Homebrew1994
Betzwood Basement Brewery
join:2001-11-15
King Of Prussia, PA
| reply to RARPSL
Re: Statistics
said by RARPSL :Which average are they using for that 6.19GB/2.35GB (There are 3 types of measures called "average")? The one that everyone thinks of as "average" is the total of all usage divided by the number of users. There is also the usage value that half of the users exceed and half are less than. The third is the usage value that the largest number of users measure. No, Only the Mean Value is the Average.
The point where 50% of the values lie above and 50% below is the Median.
The point where the largest occurrence of values occur is the Mode.
Median and Mode are not substitutes for Average.
--
My other cyber-pasttime, Where's George
Miserable Failure |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
2 edits | reply to dadkins
Re: Unlimited...
I think a lot fewer people would have problems with the limited "unlimited" service if ISPs openly advertised their caps and explained their processes for throttling. The unscrupulous act of allowing customers to believe the facade of unlimited access data transfer and then smacking them down with caps and/or throttling tends to leave really bad tastes in consumers' mouths. Personally, I'm all for a 100/100 connection to the Internet if I know that I can download whatever and however much as I want up to a predefined and advertised cap (e.g. 50GB/mth, 100GB/mth, etc.). If I go over the cap, throttle me, disconnect me, or charge me more as long as I know in advance. Hell, bill me at the 95th percentile that most ISPs themselves are billed at. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to Derfel
Re: Transfer the idea...
said by Derfel :Take this idea, that 5% of the ISP's users are "bandwidth hogs", and move it to the realm of cycling. Say that 5% of the population "cycle" more than 45% of the total cycling mileage for a given city. Should they be punished? Made to pay more taxes for sidewalk/bike trail repair? Or did they choose to use the available "trail service" as supplied by the municipality for their own uses? Should the people who only cycle on Sunday afternoons for leisure be refunded part of their taxes because they do not contribute as much to trail wear and tear as those who commute to work by bike? It's so odd that ISP's like to whine when people use their product as advertised. If they wanted people to just email and check their stocks, why not just advertise their service as such, rather than using music and movie downloads in their ads? If those 5% of the people take up 90% of the sidewalk 24 hours a day causing normal users to have to stop or slow down to avoid them, then yes they should be taxed more.
--
Use the OS tool for the job. |
|
