Re: Translation in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r15340601 en Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:51:39 EDT Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:51:39 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15446696 Hanko : It isn't only those who run servers that have to pay a high price for bandwidth. If you are a "Rural" customer like me who cannot get cable or DSL and Satellite is just not cutting it for VPN use you are stuck paying high prices.

I have a T1 to my house. It allows me to work from here instead of driving into downtown Seattle every day. I gladly pay the $536/month for the service. While I feel for those who complain that they are not getting all of their bandwidth from a 6/1 cable connection at $50/month I would gladly trade my monthly bill with them for the bandwidth anytime.

It is all relative on your situation.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15446696 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:48:33 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15443685 rchandra : While I'd be very appreciative of this sort of speed upgrades, wake me up please when my broadband has monthly costs more like the Asians are enjoying on a $/mbit/s basis. I have a feeling you can just call me van Winkle.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15443685 Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:31:55 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15438037 RayW :
said by huziwhatsis See Profile :

You are insane.

The entire business model of ISPs is and has been oversubscription. Reserving 1:1 bandwidth is the circuit-switch telephone model. It simply isn't affordable and is NOT what has powered the growth of the Internet.
Actually, that is true with most residential communications, computer or voice. Just try using the phone (cell *or* POTS) after an earthquake, tornado, or other major news disaster when over 30% of the people are trying to call in/out, or in some areas where a special promotion requires you to call in.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15438037 Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:12:20 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15356684 JimF :
said by G_Poobah See Profile :

The BOTTOM LINE is that 'your network cannot support the higher upstream speeds". So DON'T SELL IT LIKE THAT. Don't sell something you can't support!
Never fly an airline. They sell more seats than they have. And never buy a car with a speedometer rated 140 mph. They really don't let you go that fast.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15356684 Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:58:17 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15353999 huziwhatsis : You are insane.

The entire business model of ISPs is and has been oversubscription. Reserving 1:1 bandwidth is the circuit-switch telephone model. It simply isn't affordable and is NOT what has powered the growth of the Internet. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15353999 Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:26:35 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15344067 anon :
quote:
I've wondered about this myself. Why should it cost any more to send data then to receive it? And why can't residential users be offered symetrical connectivity?


Because then there's no incentive for hella expensive commercial connections. You can run a relatively decent web server on 1.5 mbit, or most other servers now that I think about it (except your "super elite top ftp site")

Also, if you look at commercial connections/t1/etc. they have guarenteed bandwidth. The bandwidth you get on your 7 mbit connection might be 4 mbit during peak times, might by 7 off peak, and that's in the agreement. For business customers, they had better get their full bandwidth, otherwise according to the SLA, then the telco will probably be opening their wallet.

Also, is it painfully clear to everybody else that higher capacities basically mean you can download/upload illegal things more quickly? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15344067 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:28:20 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15344316 Deathsadvoca : true the AUP doesnt guarantee bandwidth. The ONLY thing that i ask of my isp is that they DO NOT RESTRICT WHAT PORTS OR WHAT DATA i send on my line. if the bandwidth to max out my connection is available and not being used by anyone else on the same co then i damn well expect to be able to use it on any port. i dont want a connection where port 80, and 8080 are the only 2 ports that can use maximum bandwidth.

As long as an isp make a good attempt to get the amount of bandwidth that every user needs to his/her home then i am happy with it (i can see comcast or sbc trying to "low ball" the number so they only buy 45 mbit to support 1000+subs).

Does anyone know what the current user to bandwidth ratio that major companies use? it would be interesting to find out that information, like 15 users @ 5 mbit : 1 isp connection @ 5 mbit.

i dont have rcn cable so does anyone know if them limiting bandwidth to certain applications is justified? or are they just trying to lower there cost? a justification would be your bandwidth drops significantly during peak hours or ur max bandwidth cannot be obtained during off hours.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15344316 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:50:52 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15342806 koitsu :
said by sporkme See Profile :

Damn! If you're paying $400 for a server and 512Kb/s of usage, I've got a bridge to sell you. :)
Actually the bandwidth isn't that bad -- it's the 14U of rack space and power which is. :-)
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. In memory of 2005...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15342806 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:06:16 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15342616 sporkme :
said by koitsu See Profile :

US$40 6/1 cable versus US$400 512/512 co-location.
Damn! If you're paying $400 for a server and 512Kb/s of usage, I've got a bridge to sell you. :)
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15342616 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:35:30 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15342288 sycocowz : In all fairness, RCN has given a number of free speed increases over the years.
Used to be 1500/800, then they made a $10/m extra 3000/800 tier
then they bumped the 1.5s to 3 and the 3s to 5
then they bumped the 3s to 5 and the 5s to 7
then they bumped the 5s to 7 and the 7s to 10
(all for free)
They're going to be rolling out a 20/2 tier soon, it's still uncertain whether it will be another free upgrade or cost more. We can only hope. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15342288 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:51:51 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15342186 Ebolla : you do... that is why speeds are UP TO xMb/xMb.. no company as far as i know has anything in writing that says all speeds are guaranteed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15342186 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:37:05 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15342121 BosstonesOwn :
said by HMS1 See Profile :

All your points are reasonable. If it were just a matter of policies or business decisions on the part of the ISPs you would be right on target.

There are other factors to be taken into consideration tho:


    • There are technical reasons that cable, in current form, can't handle upstream nearly as well as downstream. I don't recall the explanation (maybe someone will fill in this part), but it has to do with it being designed years ago when it was all about delivering TV with little need for up.

    •It's way expensive to improve the "last mile" infrastructure. In the long run, hopefully we'll have fiber and big, symmetrical bandwidth. But it takes investment by either the providers or government. The providers need a good ROI to do it, and we don't have a political climate for government to do it. And either way it takes time.

    •Competition theoretically would improve things, but in most cities there is a cable monopoly (maybe even legally forced) and a telco oligopoly at best. Also this factor is in tension with the "last mile problem" - practically speaking, only one entity can own each connection from the individual residences or businesses to the central office (or whatever it's called).

Consumer connections are mostly asymmetrical in nature. So uploading in general usually takes the beating.

It costs more to send traffic then to receive because of the peering agreements made by isp's to tier 1's and some tier 2's.

If I told you give me 10 k a month and id carry 100 mbit both ways to another peer you would say hell no thats to high my customers don't use that. I say ok then we will give you 45 mbit for 5 k.

Now downloading is mostly used and is burst type traffic. Meaning it is not sustained , it is only sustained by the server sending the content. So more can be downloaded without worries of sustaining. And to be clear downloading does include web surfing.

Uploads are more sustained. Usually since the servers are sending out to more then 1 downloader at a time. It's all relative. And since the transport is all bunched together your server may be on your backbone and helping saturate the upload you want so bad.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15342121 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:27:51 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15342018 JamesPC : They already throttle my upload speed to 47kb/sec, in SoCal.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15342018 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:14:23 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341951 gheezer : Read the AUP and ToS, As a residential customer, you're paying for a connection, not guaranteed bandwidth.

Guaranteed badnwidth costs you between 600 and 1000 bux a month.

Keep blabbing about that which you know nothing...
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341951 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:04:04 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341942 HMS1 : All your points are reasonable. If it were just a matter of policies or business decisions on the part of the ISPs you would be right on target.

There are other factors to be taken into consideration tho:


    • There are technical reasons that cable, in current form, can't handle upstream nearly as well as downstream. I don't recall the explanation (maybe someone will fill in this part), but it has to do with it being designed years ago when it was all about delivering TV with little need for up.

    •It's way expensive to improve the "last mile" infrastructure. In the long run, hopefully we'll have fiber and big, symmetrical bandwidth. But it takes investment by either the providers or government. The providers need a good ROI to do it, and we don't have a political climate for government to do it. And either way it takes time.

    •Competition theoretically would improve things, but in most cities there is a cable monopoly (maybe even legally forced) and a telco oligopoly at best. Also this factor is in tension with the "last mile problem" - practically speaking, only one entity can own each connection from the individual residences or businesses to the central office (or whatever it's called).
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341942 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:03:08 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341548 anon : Then they need to PROVIDE the service I PAID for!!!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341548 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:49:46 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341718 kd6cae : I've wondered about this myself. Why should it cost any more to send data then to receive it? And why can't residential users be offered symetrical connectivity? Right now I have 7 mbits downstream and 900Kbits upstream. I pay $59.95 for this connection. I looked in to getting SDSL here via a local ISP and checked in to the cost of 1.5mbit symetrical SDSL, and as I recall it was something like $350 a month or something high like that. So for nearly 10 times the price I'm paying now, I could increase my upstream by roughly 600 kilobits or so which doesn't seem like a hell of alot since for 10 times the price I currently pay for 7 megabits downstream, I'd be cutting my downstream to nearly 5 times what it is now! And let's not forget the few areas that have up to 2mbits upstream. That's more than a T1, yet I bet if you ordered a T1 at those same locations, it'd still be $400 a month or more. Let's face it, whether we use our connection for basic web browsing, or we use our connection for high quality audio or video streaming or even p2p traffic, there are users that want to have upstream bandwidth and make use of it. So why not realize the internet isn't just a receive only medium and give those that want it more upload, and allow them to make use of it! Maybe in order to get more bandwidth, particularly in the upstream direction, we should go to a metered solution like many server data centers do, where you can use up to so much data for a set price then it'd be so much more per gigabyte over? And how do we get T1's and other types of symetrical conections to drop in price?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341718 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:35:08 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341465 sherman10570 : #2: You're right, it is not your problem. If you don't like their service, they don't pay for it. It's that simple. Put up or shut up. Customers like you (ones that use more capacity than others) lose money for the providers.

#3: As soon as you pay for their service, you agree to their terms of service. Again, if you don't like it, don't subscribe. It's their network and they can do what they want, the government can't say shit.

- Sherman]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341465 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:00:44 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341260 anon : "Hypocritical liar" - LOL

As opposed to just a liar?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341260 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:57:16 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341435 gheezer :
said by achuchma See Profile :

That was a well thought out, very concise, and accurate point, Sherman.

Sadly, don't expect it to be understood by many ANY folks here... :huh:
There, fixed that for ya!
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341435 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:56:01 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341142 koitsu :
said by G_Poobah See Profile :

#1: yah, whaever, so I used caps instead of mb.. Everyone knows what I'm talking about.
Actually, when I read your post, I thought the same thing sherman10594 did. This is somewhat off-topic compared to the rest of the thread, but it's important: please learn to use proper unit designators. The difference between 1MB and 1Mb is huge.

If you need a quick lesson, just remember: data storage (i.e. hard disks, tape drives, floppies, etc.) uses _bytes_, while throughput and bandwidth (i.e. network devices, network speed, etc.) uses _bits_.

I cannot count how many times I have seen people post on forums about how they have a "1.5MB DSL connection" and are only getting "160kB/sec, WHY???".

Then again, I also say "mb" when I should be using "Mb", but I use lowercase for megabit because it's easier to (visually) distinguish the difference between mb vs. MB.

#2: If everyone used 1mb all the time, then how is that MY problem? It's the ISP's problem.. If they can't handle it, then they either a)upgrade the network or b)lower the speeds they sell (which would most likely necessitate a price cut if their was competition, cause everyone would leave). It's very simple, we the customer DO NOT EXIST to ensure the ISP makes a profit. We the customer exist to consume the product the ISP is selling us.
This is where I "generally" agree with you. Of course, I'm not addicted to the amount of bandwidth I can get; I'm more interested in latency (and no, I'm not a gamer).

I agree that many ISPs are overselling their capacity, which is affecting all customers as a whole. Of course, with proper monitoring, ISPs shouldn't have a problem predicting when they're going to run out of capacity, nor have a problem detecting when they *are* out of capacity.

But I should educate you in one respect:

There is an silent war occuring between residential and commercial Internet connectivity. The amount of bandwidth a residential DSL or cable customer gets -- for the cost of US$20-60/month -- EASILY exceeds that of the cost of a commercial network connection (i.e. servers on 100mbit Ethernet in a co-lo, DS1s, DS3s, etc.). As it stands right now, *one single cable modem user* can pretty much max out many small-time co-lo customers' bandwidth.

Prices for residential DSL/cable are decreasing, while costs for server connectivity are either increasing or staying the same. There is no harmonious balance between the two any more, and that's going to ultimately affect the Internet as we know it -- hell, it already is.

So keep in mind that even though you're paying what you consider "a crapload" for something like a 6mbit/1mbit connection, there are those of us who run the servers you're downloading data from who curse you for being able to saturate what we pay 10x the amount for. US$40 6/1 cable versus US$400 512/512 co-location.

I'm not whining -- I'm just saying, please keep this in mind the next time you have the sudden desire to download tons of data from a web or FTP server somewhere. Chances are the person you're getting information from pays a crapload more than you do.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. In memory of 2005...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341142 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:08:44 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341005 G_Poobah : Wow, sherman.. you wear a special helmet, right? It shows..

#1: yah, whaever, so I used caps instead of mb.. Everyone knows what I'm talking about.

#2: If everyone used 1mb all the time, then how is that MY problem? It's the ISP's problem.. If they can't handle it, then they either a)upgrade the network or b)lower the speeds they sell (which would most likely necessitate a price cut if their was competition, cause everyone would leave). It's very simple, we the customer DO NOT EXIST to ensure the ISP makes a profit. We the customer exist to consume the product the ISP is selling us.

#3: Net Neutrality has EVERYTHING to do with the issue. Do you even know what it means? It's exactly the same as the FCC Cartertone decision, which allowed NON-ATT phones to be used on AT&T's network. Net neutrality means that RCN can't favor 'gaming' traffic over 'voip' traffic. Net neutrality means that RCN can't treat 'www' traffic any differently than it treats 'wais' traffic. Net neutrality is the ONLY THING that prevents companies from abusing their monopoly/duopoly powers over the consumer.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15341005 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:46:04 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340950 anon : thats totally irrelevant. Dont advertize a service thats unlimited and then cripple it in some way.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340950 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:35:37 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340939 G_Poobah : So, the problem is the customers are ignorant (not dumb, just don't know what the software they are running does). The big problem I have with the entire 'design' like this, is what it to stop RCN from saying 'Well, VoIP takes up too much traffic, so we're going to limit it to 50kb', or 'Too much is e-mail attachments, so we're going to limit it to 50kb'.

So, my question is very simple. If you ADVERTISE 1mb upstream, yet you don't allow 1mb upstream, doesn't that make you a hypocritcal liar? How is what RCN is doing any different than what SBC is proposing (charging more for faster speeds), except of course, RCN isn't bothering with the 'faster speeds' part, just the 'charging more' part.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340939 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:32:46 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340899 JohnA :
Just an observation, rcnman, but it seems a waste of time to answer those complaining on the news page. None of them seem to have RCN service. What a surprise.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340899 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:26:25 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340855 nozzer : Not true. The problem for cable providers is the upstream on their HFC systems. Bandwidth in the upstream direction is limited by bandwidth in the frequencies necessary to ensure reliable communication from the low powered cable modem to the node.

Jason also revealed that once they have upgraded OS's for their CMTS plant (the nodes to which each customers coax is connected) they will be able to control based upon the load on the CMTS.

noz]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340855 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:18:31 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340800 achuchma :
said by sherman10570 See Profile :

1MB = 1 Megabyte = 8 Megabits

You're only paying for _1_ megabit. Not 8. Get your own facts right.

Secondly, if every customer used their entire 1 megabit all the time, everyone's upload would feel like a 56k modem. They throttle the p2p services for a reason - to keep speeds consistent for all cusomers. Welcome to the world of residential Internet Service Providers. If you want a full megabit 24/7/365, I suggest you pay $300-400/month for a partial T1.

Thirdly, net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. This is RCN's network. "Net neutrality" as discussed recently by SBC is about traffic between major providers.

You're a dumbass.

- Sherman
That was a well thought out, very concise, and accurate point, Sherman.

Sadly, don't expect it to be understood by many folks here... :huh:
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340800 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:10:36 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340768 koitsu : The true/core problem has nothing to do with the actual ISP -- it has to do with the arrangements they have with their upstream provider (Level3, Cogent, Verio, Abovenet, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, Telia, etc. etc.).

In these scenarios, the ISP is bound by their agreement to only utilise a certain percentage of traffic (and if they exceed that amount, they are billed for extra usage -- and this isn't cheap, as it adds up quickly). The funniest thing is that many of these providers sell "solutions" which involve non-symmetric measurements for bandwidth usage. In English: they expect you to use only 20% of your upstream, while it's fine to use 90% of your downstream. Remember, this is applying to large pipes such as OC48s.

Commercial connectivity (i.e. non-residential) is a purely symmetrical medium and always has been. That DS1 you buy gets you 1.5mbit up AND 1.5mbit down -- symmetrically (some people call this "3.0mbit" but that's generally incorrect).

There is absolutely NO REASON OR JUSTIFICATION behind differentiating between the direction of traffic flow. Downstream, upstream, it's all the same. So who's really to blame?

Marketing/sales.

The instant these jhonkas figured out that different kinds-of services utilise bandwith differently, they jumped at the chance to create -- financially -- a difference between a standard 45mbit DS3 and a 95th percentile DS3, a utilisation-based DS3, or any other sort-of non-symmetric method. For example, web server farms will be *sending* lots of traffic, but usually won't be downloading much -- in this situation, a customer may want to buy a package that has a lot of upstream capability but only pays for, say, 512kbit of downstream traffic. So in the case one of the administrators downloads a 650MB ISO from that server farm, well, they'll get billed extra.

It's all about marketing. And let me tell you -- it didn't used to be this way. When you purchased a pipe, you got exactly what speed the physical pipe was -- and you got to use as much of that pipe as you wanted (i.e. 100% in both directions). Now, marketing has created little stipulations and other madness to try and "save people money" when the actual goal is to hope they exceed limits which results in the seller *making* more money.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. In memory of 2005...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340768 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:05:46 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340748 rcnman :
said by moko See Profile :

I agree 100%........what if 90% of our upload was sending doc's,would they throttle that?.....we should use OUR speed[what we pay for]for what ever we want to.
The main issue here is the default behavior of these P2P programs, Where the case is now a multitude of customers boot up their P.C.'s and don't realize that the P2P program they downloaded is now running wide open and sharing files. Because of the masses the few people who do focus on seeding / uploading get grouped into the masses.

Because of our high upstream abilities and soon to come enhancements to that product offering we are not out to support the peer 2 peer community alone. RCN is not eliminating the ability for customers to participate, but is instead insuring a fair share to the community.

And as noted in the discussions we are in the learning process and the final rollout will hopefully have a configuration that will work for everyone.

We would be foolish to think this isn't going to cause some issues, and I know there are people out there who have strong religion when it comes to managing bandwidth. But in the end the goal here is to manage items in order to provide the best service possible and communicate that with our user base.

-Jason
--
Jason Nealis, Director, Operations RCN]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340748 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:03:01 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340680 sherman10570 : 1MB = 1 Megabyte = 8 Megabits

You're only paying for _1_ megabit. Not 8. Get your own facts right.

Secondly, if every customer used their entire 1 megabit all the time, everyone's upload would feel like a 56k modem. They throttle the p2p services for a reason - to keep speeds consistent for all cusomers. Welcome to the world of residential Internet Service Providers. If you want a full megabit 24/7/365, I suggest you pay $300-400/month for a partial T1.

Thirdly, net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. This is RCN's network. "Net neutrality" as discussed recently by SBC is about traffic between major providers.

- Sherman ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340680 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:50:57 EDT Re: Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340601 moko : I agree 100%........what if 90% of our upload was sending doc's,would they throttle that?.....we should use OUR speed[what we pay for]for what ever we want to.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340601 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:37:26 EDT Translation http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340581 G_Poobah : What he means to say is..

"We are offering higher speeds for more money (but read the fine print), but like SBC, we decide what you can use it for". So why the HELL are you selling it? What if everyone suddenly used all their downstream? Would you magically throttle those too? Of course. The BOTTOM LINE is that 'your network cannot support the higher upstream speeds". So DON'T SELL IT LIKE THAT. Don't sell something you can't support!

Yet another argument for the net neutrality clause. If I PAY for 1MB upstream, then I expect I can USE 1MB upstream. What if it was all SSL encrypted traffic? Would you throttle that? What if it was all e-mail traffic? would you throttle that? Time for the FCC to step in and lay down the smack.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15340581 Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:32:40 EDT