FIOS
join:2007-03-10
Netcong, NJ | The cap depends on how over sold the node is. Cable TV doesn't want to state a cap because it is not a fixed number. It depends on the `number of people on a node and how much those people use their connection. |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | said by FIOS:Cable TV doesn't want to state a cap because it is not a fixed number. It depends on the `number of people on a node and how much those people use their connection. Exactly. I don't know why people have such a problem understanding this simple fact even when they are told it over and over again. |
|
|
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to FIOS
They don't want to explicitly detail a cap because they enjoy their "unlimited" marketing campaign. The ISPs could (and should, imo) specify what their caps are and they should be irrelevant of number of users on a node. If you've got a node with 100 users, set the cap at 50 GB/mth (arbitrary number) and if you've got a node with 2 users, set the cap at 50 GB/mth. Remove the ambiguity and you will increase customer satisfaction. |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | reply to DMS1
said by DMS1:said by FIOS:Cable TV doesn't want to state a cap because it is not a fixed number. It depends on the `number of people on a node and how much those people use their connection. Exactly. I don't know why people have such a problem understanding this simple fact even when they are told it over and over again. Simple!
People think that for $50-$60 per month that they are entitled to T3(higher?) connectivity.
Me? I pay for speed. Speed for when I want a file, I get that file fast.
Not raw data transfer capacity. To think that, I would be stupid!
I'm not stupid though!   
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:They don't want to explicitly detail a cap because they enjoy their "unlimited" marketing campaign. The ISPs could (and should, imo) specify what their caps are and they should be irrelevant of number of users on a node. If you've got a node with 100 users, set the cap at 50 GB/mth (arbitrary number) and if you've got a node with 2 users, set the cap at 50 GB/mth. Remove the ambiguity and you will increase customer satisfaction. How would that increase customer satisfaction? Every indication is that at the moment you can comfortably get away with 200+GB per month without Comcast caring, and it is only the tiny minority of users who exceed this that ever have a problem. If Comcast was to set a hard limit it likely would be much lower than this (like the 50GB per month you suggest), and there will be a whole new lot of users who were in the 50-200GB per month range who now suffer. More pissed off users can hardly mean increased customer satisfaction. |
|
 ONiallYum, CitizenPremium
join:2002-11-18
Portland, OR | reply to DMS1
said by DMS1:said by FIOS:Cable TV doesn't want to state a cap because it is not a fixed number. It depends on the `number of people on a node and how much those people use their connection. Exactly. I don't know why people have such a problem understanding this simple fact even when they are told it over and over again. it is still a cap due to provisioning the available throughput to anything less than a 1:1 ratio for total access subscribed on the node to total access allocated on the network.
and it isn't a physical cap due to oversubscription, it is a manufactured cap to eliminate the number of high bandwidth users on those under-allocated nodes and networks.
from a business standpoint, it makes sense to keep costs lower by undersubscribing where possible. however, artificial caps should be made clear to the consumer, and consumers should have this knowledge when they sign their contract.
--
i drink with bears for weekend carnivals. |
|
1 edit | reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:They don't want to explicitly detail a cap because they enjoy their "unlimited" marketing campaign. The ISPs could (and should, imo) specify what their caps are and they should be irrelevant of number of users on a node. If you've got a node with 100 users, set the cap at 50 GB/mth (arbitrary number) and if you've got a node with 2 users, set the cap at 50 GB/mth. Remove the ambiguity and you will increase customer satisfaction. A BBR pastime, pulling numbers out of the a$$. Run a network and tell me how those numbers play out for you. Every ISP has a Terms of Service. Comcast's TOS specifically states they can term your account if your traffic is deemed excessive by THEM. A lot of ISP's do this. It doesn't matter if you agree to it or not, THEY are providing the service. YOU choose if you want to buy it.
Broadband is still a luxury, not a right. If you can't deal with the fact they don't want to help you move 200 GB+ of mp3, movies, and warez a month, cancel. Don't give me that BS about you downloading Linux ISOs. I'm sure that what most of America does with their connection too.(sarcasm) |
|
cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:They don't want to explicitly detail a cap because they enjoy their "unlimited" marketing campaign. The ISPs could (and should, imo) specify what their caps are and they should be irrelevant of number of users on a node. If you've got a node with 100 users, set the cap at 50 GB/mth (arbitrary number) and if you've got a node with 2 users, set the cap at 50 GB/mth. Remove the ambiguity and you will increase customer satisfaction. The term "Unlimited" has not been part of any Comcast marketing campaign for over 7 years.
--
www.seabee.org |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to DMS1
It would improve customer satisfaction because the customers would truly know what they are getting for $xx/mth. If not, I guess I'm the minority. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to caco
I know this article is about Comcast, but the "unlimited" statement was made in a generic capacity. There are providers that still use the terminology. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to soothsayer15
Umm, I think you misread my post. First, I stated the numbers were arbitrary. Second, I agree with you regarding ToS and the the provider's ability to discontinue serving you at their discretion. Third, (not in my post) I have run networks in the past, granted not for profit. Finally, I agree that access to the Internet is a luxury and should be treated, and priced, as such. |
|
| reply to caco
No they use that bullshit advertising on their phone service now.
I've talked to a tech and he let me know that they also call people up and tell them to "limit their usage on the phone" as well.
What goes around comes around. |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA | reply to DMS1
Fine, then tell me what the formula is, how I can check to see what the usage is on the node that my connection is on and what my usage is.
I am not terribly concerned with the Comcast cap since i am not a heavy user yet, but I am more concerned with the fact that you cannot get On Demand to work on the weekends because their head works is so jammed up with requests. Oh well that's a different thread.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is anal about letting people know what they are paying for and what they aren't. There will probably be a new Comcast page devoted to bandwidth hogs to check their usage. I hope Comcast sends a nasty letter and followup call to a lawyer. It will be funny to see how they take it. |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA | reply to CLEVELTECH
The cap on phone will probably be the magic 1500 minutes a month that VOIP systems used.
This is pulled out of my a$$.
--
Just my 2 cents...Flame Lightly... |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to openbox9
You need to go buy the bay bridge and get off that cross while you're at it.
"It would improve customer satisfaction" huh? Just because they know? Really? Damn... hey - people need the wood, ok?
The truth is - MOST PEOPLE DON'T CARE! it's a SMALL percentage that deals with this. THOSE people are the ones that care.. everyone else is using their connections as they are allowed to.
Most people don't have a clue as to what bandwidth even is. So.. with that said, and the lack of a study done on this by you.. who are you to say that it would improve ANYTHING to what the customer thinks?
The only people that care are those that want to buy a residential service and push it like a business service and cry foul when the operator of that network says "enough!!"
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to bigjimc
It's usually 5000 minutes. But even then, that 5,000 minutes is STILL NOT for home business use as some certain "techs" will still abuse.
Nothing pisses me off more than idiots who try to push the limits, abuse services, and then cry foul - as seen here on BBR and then try to rally the troops to join them in their justification of bad behaviors.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to fiberguy
Wow, who's on the cross? |
|
