MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
| reply to LowRider
Re: So Charter is going to go to metered service huh?
said by LowRider  :said by MacLeech :said by BF69 SO : downloading 1 HD movie is already putting you in the top 5% supposedly. I really doubt that. Where did you ever get that figure from? That 5GB a month made you a top 5% user. there i corrected you on what he really said That "correction" doesn't change the premise of the statement.
Where did he get the idea that using more than 5 GB per month puts a user in the top 5%? He doesn't believe it, but who does he think said or believes that? |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by MacLeech :That "correction" doesn't change the premise of the statement. Where did he get the idea that using more than 5 GB per month puts a user in the top 5%? He doesn't believe it, but who does he think said or believes that? You don't pay attention much do you?
said by Lazlow :If you go through the TW metered threads one of them gives that stats that 95% of their customers are using less than 5gb. It is not my number it is theirs. I agree the number sounds fishy because I do not personally know of anyone who uses less then 50GB per month (Including my 72 year old widow neighbor lady that I set up linux for) and yes I have checked those #s as well as my own. I did find the quote right out of their memo that said 5% of the users were using 50% of the total bandwidth. Which would (if true) put the 5GB number in the right ballpark. |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
1 edit | said by BF69 :said by MacLeech :That "correction" doesn't change the premise of the statement. Where did he get the idea that using more than 5 GB per month puts a user in the top 5%? He doesn't believe it, but who does he think said or believes that? You don't pay attention much do you? said by Lazlow :If you go through the TW metered threads one of them gives that stats that 95% of their customers are using less than 5gb. It is not my number it is theirs. I agree the number sounds fishy because I do not personally know of anyone who uses less then 50GB per month (Including my 72 year old widow neighbor lady that I set up linux for) and yes I have checked those #s as well as my own. I did find the quote right out of their memo that said 5% of the users were using 50% of the total bandwidth. Which would (if true) put the 5GB number in the right ballpark. Thank you for pointing out where you got that idea from, that's what I was asking for.
TWC spokesholes never said using more than 5 GB per month put a user in the top 5% of bandwidth users, so I was wondering where that came from. I see Lazlow seems to have made it up.
Thanks, I'll leave now. |
|
useless
join:2006-07-16
1 edit | said by MacLeech :TWC spokesholes never said using more than 5 GB per month put a user in the top 5% of bandwidth users, so I was wondering where that came from. I see Lazlow seems to have made it up. Thanks, I'll leave now. rofl!!!
Cheap shot, and gone!
Pretty accurate BTW. ( Lazlow's number )
Check this blog out, »blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=914
has links to the EFF site, where they recommend metered service.
»www.eff.org/wp/packet-forgery-is···t-affair
Very interesting read concerning all of this. You might not e that the entire thing is based around Comcast and their actions, which have a direct correlation to any type of metered service. |
|
sadbuttrue
@charter.com
| reply to MacLeech
said by MacLeech :said by BF69 :said by MacLeech :That "correction" doesn't change the premise of the statement. Where did he get the idea that using more than 5 GB per month puts a user in the top 5%? He doesn't believe it, but who does he think said or believes that? You don't pay attention much do you? said by Lazlow :If you go through the TW metered threads one of them gives that stats that 95% of their customers are using less than 5gb. It is not my number it is theirs. I agree the number sounds fishy because I do not personally know of anyone who uses less then 50GB per month (Including my 72 year old widow neighbor lady that I set up linux for) and yes I have checked those #s as well as my own. I did find the quote right out of their memo that said 5% of the users were using 50% of the total bandwidth. Which would (if true) put the 5GB number in the right ballpark. Thank you for pointing out where you got that idea from, that's what I was asking for. TWC spokesholes never said using more than 5 GB per month put a user in the top 5% of bandwidth users, so I was wondering where that came from. I see Lazlow seems to have made it up. Thanks, I'll leave now. haha. ownage. nice MacLeech  |
|
useless
join:2006-07-16
| reply to useless
Just realized none of you will read that, but you might read this.
Comcast advertises "unlimited" but it isn't, bc they forge RSTs, which throttle bit torrent seeding. They do this via packet sniffing all traffic, sending the RST to the source. accomplished by putting these at certain agg points on the network.
If they lose their court case, they may have stop the RST or advertise a metered service, or some other type of internet that is "unlimited except for seeding"
Hopefully you see what I am getting at here.
Basically if you have Comcast you have a type of metered service already. |
|
useless
join:2006-07-16 | reply to sadbuttrue
said by sadbuttrue :haha. ownage. nice MacLeech If ignorance is bliss, yes its ownage. but of a different kind. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to MacLeech
MacLeech
This topic had me very concerned so I read everything I could find on the internet about it. That involved reading information from a variety of websites. If I did not make it clear before, I admit I cannot find where I originally saw the numbers (a point which I thought I had already made clear). After reading 40-50 threads on the topic it can be difficult to remember where one particular piece of information came from. The fact that Useless (who handles this exact type of thing for Charter) confirms that the information is in the right ballpark, leaves me with no compelling reason to spend hours trying to track down the exact source of the information. If this offends you just ignore my posts. If it really offends you, search through ALL the threads about metered service on the internet. |
|
DemonChicken
join:2006-10-15
Boon, MI | What is the proposed GB cap, and how much does it cost if you go over? I don't want t scour the thread to try to find that info. |
|
LowRider
join:2006-06-23
Dallas, GA
 ·Charter Pipeline
1 edit | said by DemonChicken :What is the proposed GB cap, and how much does it cost if you go over? I don't want t scour the thread to try to find that info. i don't believe Charter has said, and even mentioned if they will go to this. i could be wrong, cause i think this whole thread started from an article that mentioned Charter in it but there was no confirmation from Charter on the subject.
|
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
3 edits | said by LowRider :said by DemonChicken :What is the proposed GB cap, and how much does it cost if you go over? I don't want t scour the thread to try to find that info. i don't believe Charter has said, and even mentioned if they will go to this. i could be wrong, cause i think this whole thread started from an article that mentioned Charter in it but there was no confirmation from Charter on the subject. I quoted a pretty higher up person at CHARTER.
"Eventually, we will go usage-based," predicted Marwan Fawaz, CTO of Charter Communications Inc., last month at the CableNEXT conference in Santa Clara. "
the one good thing about a cap is that at least it will be known. because we all know that the cable companies do in fact have caps now that are invisible and we have no idea what the cap is and most people don't know how much they are using, even if they did state what the cap was.
If your connection all of a sudden goes to shit now they can just say it's a technical problem, not that you violated any invisble cap since they deny having one the first place. In which it may every well be a technical issue and not an overage one, but you'll never know since they supposedly don't have caps now, but they do. |
|
useless
join:2006-07-16 | doesnt get much higher than that.
 |
|
WyckedKnight
We the corporations by the corporations
join:2004-07-12
Van Nuys, CA | reply to BF69
The thing about hidden caps, from my understanding is that they are illegal. Thus why the FCC is investigating Comcast for those invisible caps. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by WyckedKnight :The thing about hidden caps, from my understanding is that they are illegal. Thus why the FCC is investigating Comcast for those invisible caps. They are investigating Comcast for BitTorrent throttling not invisible caps. And throttling bittorrent is not against the law. HOW Comcast is doing is, potentially.
Show me a link where invisible caps are illegal. |
|
WyckedKnight
We the corporations by the corporations
join:2004-07-12
Van Nuys, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to BF69
I do apologise i miss read the section about Comcast..
info i was read was from the lionk post in the first thread of this topic. here's the link i read from.
»www.lightreading.com/document.as···site=cdn
Was also told some time back that invisable capping was illegal though, but i didn't trust that source as well. |
|
useless
join:2006-07-16
| reply to BF69
In court, it does not have to be clear. If Comcast uses a "Unlimited Internet " advertising campaign, the TOS can state differently and it is possible they lose in court. If the TOS does not mention the Bittorrent throttling or invisible caps, then they have a bigger problem (potentially).
When there is a court battle that is "people" vs " big company" the people have a pretty good shot. Basically it is what everyone is waiting for.
Both invisible caps and Bittorrent throttling are types of metered service in my opinion. |
|
MrMike
Premium
join:2008-02-02
clubs:
4 edits | reply to UneedTinFoil
said by UneedTinFoil : If they implement such a service, they already have it covered in their TOS: » www.charter.com/Visitors/Policies.aspx12. NO EXCESSIVE USE OF BANDWIDTH If Charter determines, in Charter’s sole discretion, that Customer is using an excessive amount of bandwidth over the Charter network infrastructure for Internet access or other functions using public network resources, Charter may adjust, suspend or terminate Customer's account at any time and without notice, or require Customer to upgrade Customer’s service level and pay additional fees in accordance with Charter's then-current, applicable, published rates for such Service. They already cap my service with this policy. Of course there is not a description of what they consider excessive amount of bandwidth or who makes this determination. I get capped all the time. I pay for 5 meg service and do not get it due to this loophole agreement. I guess, 1 too many views of YouTube videos.
I haven't determined if it is just a tech making this descision or if it is just an automated process. I am betting on the tech, due to my bandwidth going down, but not going back to its "paid for" state until I call and complain.
But it gets worse. They disguise this capping with bandwidth test sites that use http protocol resulting in higher throughput. If I use a java or flash based test, it reflects a more accurate bandwidth. Tell me if I am wrong on this, as I go by feel rather than knowledge.
Do not consider this post as flaming Charter. Its just business. I should get what I pay for and should be treated as a customer rather than a violater of TOS.
Never received a notification of a supposed violation, so I guess it does not happen. Oops, it states I do not have to be notified either. I do however notice a lack of bandwidth. I realize I do not help the situation being an avid online gamer, a YouTube fan, rerun watcher of My Name is Earl from NBC. Anyway, lemme know what ya think of my rant if you want, or not. Thanks for reading this.
I know my reference to capped is incorrect, I mean reduction in bandwidth. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by MrMike :said by UneedTinFoil : If they implement such a service, they already have it covered in their TOS: » www.charter.com/Visitors/Policies.aspx12. NO EXCESSIVE USE OF BANDWIDTH If Charter determines, in Charter’s sole discretion, that Customer is using an excessive amount of bandwidth over the Charter network infrastructure for Internet access or other functions using public network resources, Charter may adjust, suspend or terminate Customer's account at any time and without notice, or require Customer to upgrade Customer’s service level and pay additional fees in accordance with Charter's then-current, applicable, published rates for such Service. They already cap my service with this policy. Of course there is not a description of what they consider excessive amount of bandwidth or who makes this determination. I get capped all the time. I pay for 5 meg service and do not get it due to this loophole agreement. I guess, 1 too many views of YouTube videos. I haven't determined if it is just a tech making this descision or if it is just an automated process. I am betting on the tech, due to my bandwidth going down, but not going back to its "paid for" state until I call and complain. Never received a notification of a supposed violation, so I guess it does not happen. Oops, it states I do not have to be notified either. I do however notice a lack of bandwidth. I realize I do not help the situation being an avid online gamer, a YouTube fan, rerun watcher of My Name is Earl from NBC. Anyway, lemme know what ya think of my rant if you want, or not. Thanks for reading this. I know my reference to capped is incorrect, I mean reduction in bandwidth. This is exactly the one area I which I said a cap( one that is known ) would be a good thing. Right now you're getting capped. Well maybe. Even you youself are not sure and Charter isn't going to tell you. In a metered system they'd HAVE to tell you, and they HAVE to provide you with the tools to determine how much you have used. |
|
liarliar
@charter.com
|  reply to MrMike
said by MrMike :They already cap my service with this policy. Of course there is not a description of what they consider excessive amount of bandwidth or who makes this determination. I get capped all the time. I pay for 5 meg service and do not get it due to this loophole agreement. I guess, 1 too many views of YouTube videos. I haven't determined if it is just a tech making this descision or if it is just an automated process. I am betting on the tech, due to my bandwidth going down, but not going back to its "paid for" state until I call and complain. But it gets worse. They disguise this capping with bandwidth test sites that use http protocol resulting in higher throughput. If I use a java or flash based test, it reflects a more accurate bandwidth. Tell me if I am wrong on this, as I go by feel rather than knowledge. Do not consider this post as flaming Charter. Its just business. I should get what I pay for and should be treated as a customer rather than a violater of TOS. Never received a notification of a supposed violation, so I guess it does not happen. Oops, it states I do not have to be notified either. I do however notice a lack of bandwidth. I realize I do not help the situation being an avid online gamer, a YouTube fan, rerun watcher of My Name is Earl from NBC. Anyway, lemme know what ya think of my rant if you want, or not. Thanks for reading this. I know my reference to capped is incorrect, I mean reduction in bandwidth. I usually just blindly believe what I read on the Internet, but please give some proof  |
|
MrMike
Premium
join:2008-02-02
clubs:
3 edits | reply to BF69
Courtesy of Speedtest(dot)net
Date IP Address Download Upload Latency Server Distance Share
2/3/2008 8:56 PM GMT xx.xx.xxx.xxx 4764 kb/s 475 kb/s 103 ms Clifton, NJ ~ 600 mi Open
2/3/2008 8:55 PM GMT xx.xx.xxx.xxx 4801 kb/s 484 kb/s 66 ms New York, NY ~ 650 mi Open
2/2/2008 10:15 PM GMT xx.xx.xxx.xxx 4799 kb/s 480 kb/s 34 ms Stanton, MI ~ 50 mi Open
2/2/2008 5:27 PM GMT xx.xx.xxx.xxx 4862 kb/s 486 kb/s 37 ms Stanton, MI ~ 50 mi Open
2/2/2008 4:24 PM GMT xx.xx.xxx.xxx 5028 kb/s 487 kb/s 35 ms Stanton, MI ~ 50 mi Open
Courtesy of DSLreports(dot)com
Share your test history with others: »/testhistory/1525750/84e10
03-02-2008 03:59 PM f-speed 2019 Kbps 474 Kbps Speakeasy (New York NY) charter.com
03-02-2008 03:58 PM f-speed 4345 Kbps 474 Kbps NAC (Parsippany NJ) charter.com
03-02-2008 11:14 AM f-speed 2308 Kbps 480 Kbps Speakeasy (New York NY) charter.com
03-02-2008 11:13 AM f-speed 2574 Kbps 472 Kbps NAC (Parsippany NJ) charter.com
03-02-2008 11:11 AM j-speed 1422 Kbps 479 Kbps New Jersey, USA charter.com
03-02-2008 10:19 AM f-speed 4339 Kbps 478 Kbps Speakeasy (New York NY) charter.com
03-02-2008 10:15 AM Line quality 0% loss latency 45.6ms
03-02-2008 09:24 AM f-speed 2550 Kbps 473 Kbps Sprint (Chicago IL) charter.com
02-02-2008 05:09 PM f-speed 2374 Kbps 478 Kbps Sprint (Chicago IL) charter.com
02-02-2008 02:15 PM Line quality 0% loss latency 46.0ms
02-02-2008 01:53 PM f-speed 2467 Kbps 472 Kbps Speakeasy (New York NY) charter.com
02-02-2008 12:59 PM j-speed 856 Kbps 486 Kbps New Jersey, USA charter.com
Funny thing about this is, look at my time and date for the rant and then the time and date for the bandwidth test.
Granted, it isn't "proof" and I am not saying it is anything more than a coincidence. Ironic though. |
|
