US Cable Support > Cox HSI > @Home needs to raise upload cap!!

@Home needs to raise upload cap!!

Sorry about your Luck. No cap here
Servers are not legal on @home and with the Code II Red Worm out messing everything up I don't think it will happen any time soon. The expense to @home would be to great, they would have to upgrade a lot of equipment. Would you pay 20-30 bucks more a month for say 512kbps up? I don't think enough people would be willing to pay..

"Servers are not legal on @home and with the Code II Red Worm out messing everything up I don't think it will happen any time soon. The expense to @home would be to great, they would have to upgrade a lot of equipment. Would you pay 20-30 bucks more a month for say 512kbps up? I don't think enough people would be willing to pay.."

Haha:)

So are you paying $20-30 more for your uncapped line???????? And you say 512, hmm looks like you are getting 1MB UL. Are you running servers??? I guess you assume you are better than the rest of us who would also love to enjoy 500+kbs UL speeds, or maybe you are more responsible than us:)

Now I can take it when some1 with 128kbs tries to argue that 128UL is ok, but some1 who is getting 1MB trying to tell the rest of us we should be happy and probably paying same if not less!!!!!:) Plz
[text was edited by author 2001-08-06 06:43:11]

reply to Anon
One of the stumbling blocks now to raise the cap is that a high cap prevents file sharing (Napster, movies, etc.) The media empire is focusing its eyes on cable providers in that if they can restrict the upload then file sharing is reduced. Their theory that is.

reply to TheGiant
How the heck are you getting those speeds?? We are in the same area!

Your download speed : 1547557 bps, or 1547 kbps.
Browsers would show : about a 188.9 k/sec transfer rate.
Your upload speed : 109439 bps, or 109 kbps
--
...And if you claim to be a wise man, it surely means that you don't know.

I think your about 1000 miles away from rooster.
[text was edited by author 2001-08-06 14:32:39]

Unless he was BS'n, 48864 is my zip code.

He is in my zip area, has been for almost 30 years.

reply to Anon
@home can split the nodes, add nodes whatever it takes to give us a higher upload but no they want to save the money and screw the customers if OOL can do it @home could. No excuses please. at least give us 384kps,better at OOL's upload cap.

reply to The Coach
Hmm... I assume that was a fictitious zip from him, then. Don't do that rooster! You got my hopes up that I was going to get better speeds! lol
--
...And if you claim to be a wise man, it surely means that you don't know.

reply to Anon
let me think here.. seeing as how this CodeRed thing is becoming a big hassle, and there are TONS of infected SERVERS on the @home network spreading this thing, raising the UL cap would only feed to the frenzy.

If this many people are running servers with a 128-256k cap, imagine if it was 512k+....
--
iTunes or noTunes!

Yup Code red is going crazy and it mostly cuz of @ Home

New Code Red Worm |||
Read about it here
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/codered.v3.html
--
Do you think the glass is half full or half empty ? It all depends on the person , and their state of mind. . ...
A+ at 14 , mouse at 14 , and I am going for C+ , Perl , and MCSE wish me luck !

reply to cubby
I agree with cubby, and I also agree with those concerned about running too many servers. But 128 kbps it RIDICULOUS, I upload files to friends and family and it almost brings back distant memories of 56k. If other companies can get by with 384 kbps limit, ATT should raise it to atleast that. I know road runner is one provider that has a 384 kbps limit and I haven't heard of any problems from them. 128 kbps is slow slow slow and if they don't raise it I'm gonna switch to DSL. If you are fed up with the slow upload cap please email ATT here: »help.broadband.att.com/emailform···duct.jsp

deekman and cubby, you guys forget that @home has a much MUCH larger user base than OOL does... when OOL gets more subscribers like @home, they will be forced to lower their UL caps as well.
--
iTunes or noTunes!

Gengar:)

Why do you keep saying this? Do you really believe that the reason @Home stays at 128UL is because they have toooo many customers? That comes close to being the most absurd thing I ever heard:)

Maybe the reason OOL or other Cable ISP's allow better UL is because they manage each individual nodes capacity far better. Managing nodes consist of splitting up as needed or NOT over selling indivual nodes! This seems more plausable to me. Your assertion is based as if all Cable users are on 1 node. Im willing to bet some OOL nodes have far more users than @Home nodes. After all OOL does support highly populated areas around NYC.

[text was edited by author 2001-08-06 22:25:26]

reply to Anon
I knew it was 128k cap when I signed up, so i cannot complain.

reply to Mrq5
Ahhh but OOL isnt national like @home is... the farther away from "home" OOL goes, the less control they will have. But no, thats not the only reason I think @home keeps their UL so low. They are trying to squeeze as many people onto a node that they can... there is far more downstream available than upstream. Therefore the low cap. There is much more downstream bandwidth to spread around.

OOLs system is much smaller than @home, so of course, its much easier to maintain it and keep it in tip top shape.

Im not necessarily justifying @homes practices (low UL cap, overselling nodes), but I cant say I can complain either, because I knew well before I signed on about the UL cap.
--
iTunes or noTunes!

At the time I signed up I knew far less about speeds than I know now and I was anxious to get rid of my 56k. I love the download speeds but I am very disappointed in the low UL cap. It's absurd that they try to oversell nodes. I email them about it and sometimes they don't respond or other times they send me an email telling me how to optimize my speed when I've already done all of that. If they don't raise the UL cap soon I'm going to switch over to DSL.

I Know @Home will have different plans, and soon you guys will be able to buy more bandwidth, But who knows how long that could take.

reply to Anon
Very good point Deekman!

Many sign up with @Home happy to get rid of any form of dialup, however later on find that 128UL really does limit their capabilities.

In regards to @Home vs OOL:

Why do you say @Home is much smaller than @Home? I think this is very misleading! Since OOL & @Home run their services locally node per node. Simply put @Home(or their local carriers) is not managing each nodes capacity as OOL. Really no way to cover this up. They are all about gaining new customers without regards to maintaining or upgrading nodes.