dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
13648

adsldude

join:2000-11-10
Colorado

adsldude to AthlGrond

to AthlGrond

Re: Heads up on EUP

said by AthlGrond:

What do you think of my theory of this being related to Qwest's increased deployment of remote terminals? (I see RTs as being very cable internet like in their shortcomings, thus the cable company like restrictions on usage.)
I can only speculate why Qwest has waited until now to begin enforcing an unwritten bandwidth usage cap. Whatever the reason, it's certainly ROI driven.

Think about the changes each of us has gone through in our bandwidth usage since Qwest engineered their residential ADSL network probably over 10 years ago. We download music, movies, software (entire operating systems) and what we don't download we stream. Who would have thought we would be where we are so quickly?

I've got to think Qwest is struggling with expanding their unregulated offerings quickly enough to make up for lost revenues in the regulated side of their business.

woodward
XMission Internet
join:2000-12-28
Salt Lake City, UT

woodward to adsldude

Member

to adsldude
said by adsldude:

It's even later than that. The traffic is aggregated from the Qwest COs over the Qwest backbone to the router interface(s) for the respective ISP.
Not exactly. We purchase the ATM transport for DSL ingress/egress to our network, currently in the form of several OC3's. In fact, they make a hell of a lot of money off of us on those pipes. But they do have to carry is past the DSLAM, just not all the way to the ISP.

adsldude

join:2000-11-10
Colorado

adsldude

said by woodward:

said by adsldude:

It's even later than that. The traffic is aggregated from the Qwest COs over the Qwest backbone to the router interface(s) for the respective ISP.
Not exactly. We purchase the ATM transport for DSL ingress/egress to our network, currently in the form of several OC3's. In fact, they make a hell of a lot of money off of us on those pipes. But they do have to carry is past the DSLAM, just not all the way to the ISP.
I never meant to imply Qwest carried the traffic to the router on your premise. They have to carry the traffic to the routers on the far end of your OC3s. The original question implied that each ISP would need to have physical connectivity to every CO served which is not the case.

woodward
XMission Internet
join:2000-12-28
Salt Lake City, UT

woodward

Member

said by adsldude:

I never meant to imply Qwest carried the traffic to the router on your premise. They have to carry the traffic to the routers on the far end of your OC3s. The original question implied that each ISP would need to have physical connectivity to every CO served which is not the case.
Sure, I understand, but "router interfaces of the ISP" strongly suggested that Qwest carries all that data straight to the ISP's DSLAM/gateway. NormanS asked if we operated our own ATM network from DSLAM to Internet, and the answer should be "about 50/50, and Qwest banks a load of cash on my half."

adsldude

join:2000-11-10
Colorado

adsldude

said by woodward:

...NormanS asked if we operated our own ATM network from DSLAM to Internet, and the answer should be "about 50/50, and Qwest banks a load of cash on my half."
Am I right in assuming you could purchase Internet connectivity from Qwest or any other provider (e.g. Level3). Is that what you mean by 50-50? You've chosen to use Qwest on the Internet side of your network for half of your connectivity.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA

NormanS to questionable1

MVM

to questionable1
However, you are bound by the Qwest AUP/TOS. So your decision is to risk a TOS violation in the course of your employment. I don't see any way around that. Other than finding an ISP with a more liberal AUP/TOS.

woodward
XMission Internet
join:2000-12-28
Salt Lake City, UT

1 edit

woodward to adsldude

Member

to adsldude
said by adsldude:

Am I right in assuming you could purchase Internet connectivity from Qwest or any other provider (e.g. Level3). Is that what you mean by 50-50? You've chosen to use Qwest on the Internet side of your network for half of your connectivity.
Well, by 50-50 I mean that the full path between DSLAM and XMission core DSL router is half owned by Qwest, and half by XMission through the OC3s we purchase exclusively for the purposes of carrying DSL subscriber's traffic via ATM into our network (the "first hop" if you will).

Yes, we also purchase upstream lines from carriers (none from Qwest at the moment). Those are mostly gig-e, and unrelated to the OC3s we are required to buy as Megahosts.

I think we're getting into semantics.

DSL Modem -> DSLAM -> ATM cloud -> Megahost OC3s -> XMission core -> Upstream Carriers (XO, ATT, nLayer, UUnet, peers) -> Internet

We pay for everything past the ATM cloud. If I understand the new Acceptable Use Policy, Qwest is claiming the ability to regulate based on the data from modem -> Megahost, which we don't own.

(edit) Yes, this means that we pay twice for all the data a DSL subscriber consumes.

dispatcher21
911 Where is your emergency?
join:2004-01-22
united state

dispatcher21 to Bill5309

Member

to Bill5309
What I dont understand is how they can put a cap on business dsl. Didnt Hawg say he was on a business account? A business account costs more than a residential account, what is that extra cost going towards if they can still cap you? The idea of a capped business line to me is absurd...its a business account!!
Hdawg25
join:2008-01-07

Hdawg25 to Bill5309

Member

to Bill5309
I was pretty much told by the security group and business sales that as far as bandwidth usage goes there is not any difference between residential and business dsl. I was told by an actual business salesperson as opposed to the 800 front line sales that once you get into Frame Relay then they don't really care what your usage is although that was the sales pitch that was used to get me over to business dsl as well. When I asked the security group what the benefit was for me being on business dsl over residential dsl as I am paying close to triple the cost, they were unable to give me an answer. I am assuming that it is extra email accounts and web space. I was told to take my issue up with the loyalty group to switch back to residential, who in turn told me that I needed to go back to the business group to do a cancel order then work with residential to do a new order then take up any credits for the difference from the past few months with the credit group but no guarantees. The frustrating thing is like I said previously, the Loyalty group insisted repeatedly that business AND residential were unlimited, no caps and tried telling me to disregard the letters. Even the security group told me to disregard the first letter. All of the groups that I have spoken with have said they were sending off emails about my case and the conflicting information, of course no group is able to verify that another group has done this and more or less has called me a liar when I mention what another group has said. The whole is experience is very frustrating and at this point I am not sure what to do since as far as I understand any DSL provider in the area is simply reselling Qwest DSL. I do know that I will not recommend Qwest anymore to people. I have in the recent past convinced about 6-8 people to move over to Qwest and all of them are doing multibundles.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am more than willing to pull back on my usage if Qwest would simply state what the limit is and also provide a way to track what the account usage is but at this point there is no real way to know when you are approaching the limit or have gone over it until you receive a letter. I have hobbled together a method using a couple of bandwidth usage tools but I am still going off of what I think the limit is and not any hard numbers.

Hdawg
Hdawg25

Hdawg25 to dispatcher21

Member

to dispatcher21
Dispatcher21 to answer your question, I was told by the Corporate Business Salesman that I spoke with, I am giving him that title since I didn't actually get it due to him selling frame relay that business class dsl isn't a true business account because it isn't setup for a large amount of traffic.

Hdawg

toby
Troy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA

toby to adsldude

Member

to adsldude
said by adsldude:

I've got to think Qwest is struggling with expanding their unregulated offerings quickly enough to make up for lost revenues in the regulated side of their business.
I doubt that they are losing anything since they just raised basic POTS by over a dollar and caller id by $1.50.
Caller ID now costs around $7.50 per month, for something that might cost them around $0.0001. = profit.

msj
Premium Member
join:2004-05-21
Fort Collins, CO

msj to Hdawg25

Premium Member

to Hdawg25
said by Hdawg25:

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am more than willing to pull back on my usage if Qwest would simply state what the limit is and also provide a way to track what the account usage is but at this point there is no real way to know when you are approaching the limit or have gone over it until you receive a letter. I have hobbled together a method using a couple of bandwidth usage tools but I am still going off of what I think the limit is and not any hard numbers.

Hdawg
I agree that it is ridiculous that Qwest doesn't share what the the true rules are (and even keeps their own employees in the dark).

Anyway, I have one suggestion that might solve your problem and be a lot cheaper than frame relay. Since you were willing to pay more for a business DSL line, perhaps a solution might be to drop the business DSL and go to 2,3 or even 4 residential DSL connections. Then the interesting problem becomes figuring out how to load balance your connections so that your bandwidth usage stays somewhat balanced across your various DSL connections. This may be very easy or very hard, depending on how you use your connection and also how techno savvy you are.

Note, you can't distribute the packets of a single tcp or udp connection over your various DSL lines without the support of your ISP on the other end. But you can make sure that different tcp/udp connections go out over different DSL lines. There are commercial routers that should be able to handle this (Cisco makes rack routers that you can plug multiple DSL modem cards into), but they are going to be pricey (but only a one time cost). A cheaper solution would be to use a dedicated linux box as a router, but that is going to require some reasonably sophisticated networking knowledge on your part.
questionable1
join:2005-10-18
Phoenix, AZ

questionable1 to NormanS

Member

to NormanS
There is no other Provider in my area that doesn't use Qwest and offers VDSL and QWEST Choice TV.

And i refuse to go to COX Cable as they just raised there rates yet again in my area.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

I am not sure that Cox has a more liberal bandwidth policy, anyway. And give what woodward See Profile, the 'XMission Broadband guy is saying about Qwest application of policy, it sounds like it sucks to be in Qwest territory.
NormanS

NormanS to woodward

MVM

to woodward
said by woodward:

Well, by 50-50 I mean that the full path between DSLAM and XMission core DSL router is half owned by Qwest, and half by XMission through the OC3s we purchase exclusively for the purposes of carrying DSL subscriber's traffic via ATM into our network (the "first hop" if you will).

Yes, we also purchase upstream lines from carriers (none from Qwest at the moment). Those are mostly gig-e, and unrelated to the OC3s we are required to buy as Megahosts.

I think we're getting into semantics.

DSL Modem -> DSLAM -> ATM cloud -> Megahost OC3s -> XMission core -> Upstream Carriers (XO, ATT, nLayer, UUnet, peers) -> Internet
Interesting. As I understand the way things work in my region, ATTIS transit carries the data from the DSLAM to the aggregation router (IP gateway, and first IP hop) on their ATM network; but, if I were to get DSL Extreme, or Speakeasy, ATTIS transit would not touch the data at all. I think this means that AT&T isn't paying for the bandwidth cost of the data past the CLEC ATM cloud?

Anyway, DSLX claims that any DRM management that ATTIS might apply to data on their transit network will not apply to data carried by DSLX.

Sorry, but I have never actually explored this aspect of DSL transport before.
questionable1
join:2005-10-18
Phoenix, AZ

questionable1 to NormanS

Member

to NormanS
you are right on the fact that COX has a stricter policy

I guess i'm just like MSJ. I want a way to track my usage so that if i do get close i can change my practices
Hdawg25
join:2008-01-07

Hdawg25 to Bill5309

Member

to Bill5309
Woodward (Xmission) am I right in assuming that even if I switch to another provider say like Xmission, then the usage policy from Qwest still applies? Or...is it up to each provider to set their policy. I am not looking to be an abuser as Qwest is labeling the powerusers but simply looking for a provider that will outright state what the max limit is. I would love to also have a way to know through an ISP provided tool where I am at on usage so that I can stay within policy.

BTW I talked to Qwest again a bit ago and the previous numbers I received were high according to today's conversation. I am now being told that the limit is around 350gig.

Thanks,

Hdawg

no_one
@DNVR.QWEST.NET

no_one

Anon

The work from home power users do not need the SLA or special circuits like a T1 just a business class DSL with some extra but not extravagant extra cost.
My feeling is you tick off the high need home user you also tick off their company they work for. Medium to large business is a very lucrative target for competition. An end home user tells their management or is management they have been capped then maybe the business needs change and go to another provider. Lose a little on the outside res to keep a very lucrative business account. Those res DSL do connect to very fast business circuits.
That lowly business DSL line may be used at home by someone who can help or cancel themselves T3 plus data circuits and who knows how many business pots line at the home company. Be very careful Qwest on enforcement. A lowly teenager or RIAA and bit torrent ok. Still step lightly as parents may have influence. But someone who proves they work from home in a higher paying job. Go for it.
Hdawg25
join:2008-01-07

Hdawg25 to Bill5309

Member

to Bill5309
I think what Qwest should do is obviously fully state the EUP clearly with actual numbers and provide a way for users to track their usage but also offer a tiered plan such as:

Basic DSL - 100gb or even 50 gb usage/month = $26
Silver DSL - 200gb usage = $35
Gold DSL = 300gb usage = $45
Platinum DSL = 500gb usage =$60

Then state something along the lines of if you are approaching a TB of usage then you need to be looking at the Frame Relay option. They could even do something where if your usage over two months equates to the next tier then they will roll you up after they send you a letter.

I think most users would agree to a plan such as above and Qwest could snare a lot of users from other providers and come out looking on top. Hell I was willing to pay triple what I was paying for residential in order to be able to download more and I am sure other users would be willing to pay more as well.

I think at a minimum that Qwest needs to come clean and be open with their users and not try and keep them in the dark and punish them for violating T&C's that they won't disclose.

Hdawg

danawhitaker
Space...The Final Frontier
Premium Member
join:2002-03-02
Thorndale, ON

danawhitaker

Premium Member

"Basic DSL - 100gb or even 50 gb usage/month = $26
Silver DSL - 200gb usage = $35
Gold DSL = 300gb usage = $45
Platinum DSL = 500gb usage =$60"

I don't like this idea. Why? Because I can't get higher speeds than 1.5/896 in order to get into the gold/platinum tier. Unless the tiers would be based solely on the usage cap and not speed. In that case, fine, I'd pay for the higher package. But I don't want to be limited to 200 gigs a month (because even on 1.5/896 this can be easily blown) just because I *can't* physically get higher speeds than I am able to when I could still easily reach the usage caps of the higher tiers.

The last time I exceeded 350 gigs was June of 2006. Sigh. I'm even more jealous of my completely uncapped Swedish and Danish friends with their 100/10mbit and 30/30mbit connections.
Hdawg25
join:2008-01-07

Hdawg25 to Bill5309

Member

to Bill5309
Dana I agree with you that it should be based on usage and not speed. I don't think the plan that I suggested would be perfect but Qwest and the other broadband providers should try to come up with something that is fair to their users and allow their users to upgrade their plan incrementally without punishing them. I understand that at the end of the day that Qwest needs to be profitable to their shareholders and I think that something along what I suggested would allow them to do it while helping out their users.

I know what you mean when you talk about Euro and Asian broadband speeds and how fast they are compared to US speeds, you even see that in the cellular world as well. I agree with an earlier post on this topic about how the EUP policies need to be updated to be more in line with actual web usage today rather than 2-3 years ago. I think the issue is only going to get worse as more networks offer streaming of their shows, more people jump on the YouTube bandwagon and NetFlix rolls out their streaming movie service.

Hdawg

Barsoap
@qwest.net

Barsoap to Bill5309

Anon

to Bill5309
Perhaps we can attempt to sift out the reason(s) why Qwest won't specifically state the limit for its unlimited service.

Some guesses of mine:

1. "Competition". Most other providers who offer unlimited service don't specifically state the limit. If any provider defines the limit, it could put them at a competitive disadvantage -- but maybe not. Some customers would perhaps value knowing what they can use without putting their account it jeopardy.

2. "To keep overall use low". Whatever the secret limit is, a provider probably couldn't support mass numbers of customers using just below the limit. Also, customers may perceive value in using as much of the limit as they can, much like cell-phone customers try to use (but not exceed) their monthly minutes allotment. So, stating a limit could perhaps encourage more customers to use more of the limit, increasing overall use of the provider.

ewth8tr
Premium Member
join:2005-04-03
Salt Lake City, UT

ewth8tr

Premium Member

3. There are different caps for CO based and RT based connections.
questionable1
join:2005-10-18
Phoenix, AZ

questionable1 to Bill5309

Member

to Bill5309
4. Different Caps Between VDSL and ADSL
5. Different Caps between VDSL and ChoiceTV users

dispatcher21
911 Where is your emergency?
join:2004-01-22
united state

dispatcher21 to Bill5309

Member

to Bill5309
So heres a questions. I just read a report that states Netflix is going to change to unlimited online viewing of movies. Now, when big compaines such as this make changes to how users access content online, will Qwest take a look at their TOS and make changes to allow for a higher cap?

adsldude

join:2000-11-10
Colorado

adsldude

said by dispatcher21:

So heres a questions. I just read a report that states Netflix is going to change to unlimited online viewing of movies. Now, when big compaines such as this make changes to how users access content online, will Qwest take a look at their TOS and make changes to allow for a higher cap?
I doubt it unless a lot of their customers increase their usage and the overall average usage per user increases. Then they have no other recourse. Currently their enforcement of caps appears to be on the top few percent of users.

no_one
@DNVR.QWEST.NET

no_one to Bill5309

Anon

to Bill5309
I hit the top minimum usage a month when we are out of town 2 weeks and the rest of the time working and have family issues. That is with servers down. Yes I run a server. Actually uses less bandwidth than if I emailed all photos to everyone. Just let them pick and chose. Plus less annoying for family and friends. They are not overwhelmed with photos and family stuff they do not care about. Of course their could be those sharing sites but mine is actually secure for family and friends. So actually talk freely and no worries about those other free sites for posting to the world. Still no where near those large limits I hear of. But watch a little more online TV if I had the time.
Like I think another poster said at one time 1-3 gigs a day is easily doable if home and needed. Then working do not push that much data. Like that poster mine is variable. Max supposed average user a month to some months push that in a day for many days.