CC in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19338277 en Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:34:48 EDT Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:34:48 EDT Re: CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19347729 quetwo : Your one of the lucky ones... In my non-competitve market, we have the 6MB plan, with 8MB bursting. In reality, however, I get 2MB/256kb. It's still better than SBC.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19347729 Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:23:34 EDT Re: CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19346092 tschmidt :
said by jester121 See Profile :

That argument is so tired.
I don't understand. Which argument are you referring to and why is it irrelevant?

/tom]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19346092 Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:55:19 EDT Re: CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19344700 anon :
said by tschmidt See Profile :

Usage caps are entirely different issue. Residential ISPs made certain assumptions about typical broadband customer usage. They assumed customers would not use the service heavily allowing them to purchase/rent less back-haul capacity keeping prices low. They assumed a "data consumption" model not a server model where customers both download and upload data.

Unfortunately for ISPs usage has often been different then anticipated causing congestion and impacting broadband profitability. This is especially a problem for Cable due to technical issues.

Charging by usage and imposing usage caps would not be a problem if service had not been advertised as "unlimited." Users rightfully claim service was marketed as unlimited that is how they ought to be able to use it. ISPs on the other hand are struggling to keep up and tweak a business model that does not reflect how customers actually use broadband.

/Tom

Well put.

To call a customer who expects to get what he paid for an abuser is customer abuse by Comcast.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19344700 Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:41:07 EDT Re: CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19341619 jester121 : That argument is so tired.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19341619 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:25:29 EDT Re: CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19341607 jester121 : That, plus allowing me 20+ Mbps download speeds (bursting of course) for the same low price. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19341607 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:24:12 EDT Re: CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19340303 tschmidt :
said by TraumaJunkie See Profile :

If forced to carry whatever traffic (regardless of the additional congestion placed on the network that affects all users) I hope Comcast and all ISPs get what's coming...just cancel the accounts of the abusers
I think you are conflating two very different issues: Network Neutrality and usage caps.

Network Neutrality is about having a transparent network where providers are prevented from entering into business arraignments where they are able to provide preferential service to business partners. This does not preclude the ISP from offering different levels of service directly to customers.

Usage caps are entirely different issue. Residential ISPs made certain assumptions about typical broadband customer usage. They assumed customers would not use the service heavily allowing them to purchase/rent less back-haul capacity keeping prices low. They assumed a "data consumption" model not a server model where customers both download and upload data.

Unfortunately for ISPs usage has often been different then anticipated causing congestion and impacting broadband profitability. This is especially a problem for Cable due to technical issues.

Charging by usage and imposing usage caps would not be a problem if service had not been advertised as "unlimited." Users rightfully claim service was marketed as unlimited that is how they ought to be able to use it. ISPs on the other hand are struggling to keep up and tweak a business model that does not reflect how customers actually use broadband.

/Tom
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19340303 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:29:57 EDT Re: CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19339599 espaeth :
said by OB1CAN0B :

They never punish the abuser, they just punish everyone. It's like being in kindergarden you're whole life.
Heavy P2P users make up a small minority (less than 10%) of an ISPs subscriber pool. So if by "everyone" you really mean "the 10% of users who have unrealistic expectations of a $40/mo connection", then I agree. Carrying the kindergarten analogy forward, these users also scream "It's MINE! I want it! MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE" about their connection just like that kid in your class that couldn't get the concept of sharing crayons.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19339599 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:26:51 EDT Re: CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338751 quetwo : Probably spent all their money implementing packet shaping/blocking technologies ;P]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338751 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:21:32 EDT Re: CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338494 openbox9 : Warning letters and cancellations for account abusers isn't punishment?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338494 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:17:35 EDT Re: CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338469 anon : They never punish the abuser, they just punish everyone. It's like being in kindergarden you're whole life. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338469 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:10:50 EDT Re: CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338415 TraumaJunkie :
said by ztmike See Profile :

I hope that Comcast gets whats coming to them.
I do too! If forced to carry whatever traffic (regardless of the additional congestion placed on the network that affects all users) I hope Comcast and all ISPs get what's coming...just cancel the accounts of the abusers and, since many areas only have one or two broadband choices, these "power users" will finally STFU and build their own network. I mean, to listen to them (and probably people such as yourself) building a network costs no more than next year's tax refund. One, ISPs who have invested the money in providing more access to more people should not have to let anyone abuse the network when that abuse affects others and two if the govt. gets involved you better believe it will get worse (remember, the govt. passed all these laws that the RIAA is using to go after those BitTorrent, P2P, ec networks...how much $$$ do you think they will drop in the politicians pockets to require that all ISPs, once monitored by the govt., watch not only volume but look at EXACTLY WHAT is being sent across the lines and make the report available?). Be careful what you ask for, you just may get it!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338415 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:59:17 EDT Re: CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338305 drmorley :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by ztmike See Profile :

I hope that Comcast gets whats coming to them.
Higher profits?
Not this past quarter.

»finance.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=CMCSA]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338305 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:25:54 EDT Re: CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338296 alalper : Can I have some of what you're smoking? :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338296 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:23:39 EDT Re: CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338287 TKJunkMail :
said by ztmike See Profile :

I hope that Comcast gets whats coming to them.
Higher profits?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338287 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:21:18 EDT CC http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338277 ztmike : I hope that Comcast gets whats coming to them. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19338277 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:18:08 EDT