mrbueno
join:2002-08-03
US
| reply to twizlar
Re: If you can't live with it depart with it
I own smaller ISPs. I can assure you, many of us do this.
Users at some point have to realize that prices are low and margins are lower. Many of us don't want to play the transfer cap game, so throttling high demand users is a solution.
When business has bent over backwards for the last 12 years to drop the price of consumer bandwidth it has cost us in the realm of profit margins. Many broadband ISPs are taking a $200 to $400 loss on the front end hoping to see profit in 12 to 24 months.
DS-3's are not $19.95 per month. Sorry. Low prices are due to the high over-subscription rates we have been able to maintain as users went from occasional web surfing on dial-up to occasional video watching on broadband. Now the trends have changed to many people running dedicated servers (bittorrent or otherwise). This low price Internet ideal that people are holding on to is almost impossible to maintain when I go from a 20:1 subscription rate down to 5:1. Essentially the overhead in this case has increased nearly four times. Those aren't hard numbers, but you get the idea.
You are not paying for a dedicated and unlimited connection. If you are being told otherwise, then they should change their marketing.
We have a policy of letting people know exactly what is and is not allowed on our network. If they don't like that, they can go deal with someone who will lie to them. It won't be me. |
|
twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
| I should have said ALOT of the smaller ISPs HERE do not throttle. There is a big difference between capping certain users or having upfront caps to providing a service and blanket throttling protocols and services simply because your infrastructure or pricing model doesn't cover it. Don't be shady and say up front you have an alloted amount per month etc. There is no REAL reason to throttle for a company like rogers except that their infrastructure can't handle it. They ALREADY have KNOWN monthly caps so using the excuse that bandwidth is expensive isn't really a valid one when everyone is capped the same. They simply don't want to pay for needed upgrades on their crowded network. There are alot of differences between having an unlimited connection and being able to use your connection to its ability anytime you want. Why should I pay for 6mbit cable if I can only ever use half or so of that at any given time because their network is so poor. This has nothing to do with a need for unlimited/dedicated bandwidth. I should be able to get ~95% of my throughput whenever I need it for a download or service.
--
AMD Athlon64 4000+ @ 2723mhz - mountaincable.net wireless Intarweb |Ipods SUCK |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | There's also a difference between throttling some to manage capacity, and throttling in order to avoid spending money on necessary upgrades in the face of video demand. |
|
twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON | Deffinately. |
|
mrbueno
join:2002-08-03
US
| reply to Karl Bode
You guys have missed my point and here in lies the problem with the modern consumer mentality and businesses desire to market to it. Bit Torrent is a dedicated server, kazaa, limewire, bearshare, these are server apps. The current system they have was never meant for this.
They should do the smart thing and create a new system to accomodate these new consumer desires and charge accordingly. |
|
