how-to block ads
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: wow You bet..have to make money where possible, and have your cake + eat it too.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|  | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: wow I don't disagree that caps will rise... however, I do suspect that the caps/filtering will be such that Comcast will still throttle or cap you for what they deem excessive, and not what _is_ excessive.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: wow said by en102  :I don't disagree that caps will rise... however, I do suspect that the caps/filtering will be such that Comcast will still throttle or cap you for what they deem excessive I agree with that. There will always be those who see it as a challenge to eat up every last bite of bandwidth whether they will ever watch anything that they actually download. And for people like that caps are necessary.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: wow True: Malicious traffic (open relays, hosting newsgroups, botnets, etc. ) and general hackers can be dealt with.
However, if I decide to stream HD video, lets say 8 hours / day, I should not be deemed and excessive user. For reasons like this, I'm still on DSL. No CAPS, no filters (smtp is currently filtered, but can be removed by request), and very little jitter.
In fact, DSL-Extreme doesn't care if I run servers off my connection.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| Re: wow 'excessive' bandwidth usage should be based on past history and current network load. it should not depend on what the data being transmitted is (game server data, p2p, youtube, etc.), only that it is data. i'd probably consider you an excessive bandwidth user for those 8 hours, assuming it is fairly often and network load is high. i'd have no problem limiting your connection during peak network usage (say ~90% utilization of network capacity) to allow for others that may need to do just sporadic downloading for small files.
in the end, it is not fair to those that don't do huge amounts of downloading or uploading all the time be penalized with a slower connection, packet dropping, or unstable pings because a few that saturate their connection all the time. ideally, caps should do this, but in reality probably not so much. | |
| | | | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: wow Well, lets say that there's a new company out there, pushing HD IPTV . All I need is an Internet connection. Now should my TV service over the Internet be capped because I don't want to pay for Comcast TV service ?
I've downloaded a few Linux DVD ISO images, on DSL, and have never had any issues (we're talking many GB here). If I'm paying for a 6Mbps line, I should be able to use it.
The cable model is based on high speed bursts, not sustained high end downloads / uploads due to the shared nature. They shouldn't oversell a node. Comcast even described this in their FCC statement yesterday. What sort of sucks is that its on a node by node basis where the issue occurs. You could be on a node with no traffic and consume almost as much as possible, while being on a node with a few high consumption neighbors, your status would degrade.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | | | | 
CColon
join:2008-04-20
Philadelphia, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| Re: wow You fail to realize that along with the faster and bigger bus uplinks they are deploying from Nortel DOCSIS 3.0 allows them to bond frequencies to allow for the rise of caps. In 4 years of working for comcast in NJ, DE, and PA I have seen one customer get "the call" for excessive use, and he was later prosecuted for software pirating. | |
| | | | | reelbigfish
join:2002-06-06
Boston, MA
·Comcast
 ·Comcast Digital Vo..
| Re: wow The reason for the caps is that bandwidth is currently limited and they are trying to preserve good performance for the majority of their users. Once the bottle neck is gone, the caps will rise in step with that. Comcast is out to make money, but when they no longer have a reason to have such low caps, they will go up.
And just because someone says something good about a company doesn't mean they are a shill. | |
| | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Re: wow I don't have any real issues with CAPS/throttling, as long as
A) I know the actual limit of MY usage before being capped/throttled.
B) My consumption limit isn't based on a neighborhood usage., but my usage.
C) All the cards are on the table BEFORE I sign up for service.
I've been thinking about migrating to Cable (TW here) for a package deal, or even AT&T, however, I use this line for business, and I don't want some corp. bean counter deciding for me that I can't run certain apps, or that I can't use a specific amount of bandwidth per month, or specific time of day.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | 
EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ | Re: wow Any tangible evidence ??? | |
| | 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| I CHALLENGE your assertion. If right now, they 'kick' someone for over 200GB of usage on a 6/768 connection, and now they offer 50/50 connections, do you really thing they won't bounce you until you hit 1.8TB of data? I mean, if they increased the caps as much as they increased the speeds, I sure as hell wouldn't bother to buy the higher speed, I'd stick with my 6/768 connection an use 1.5TB per month safely. Caps, and they DO exist, will most certainly NOT go up.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: wow Who says I need any more bandwidth ? I just don't need what I have capped/filtered/throttled
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | 
BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Night-Owl
join:2007-01-11
| Re: wow said by en102 :Who says I need any more bandwidth ? I just don't need what I have capped/filtered/throttled Or passed on to any agency for "snoopage" purposes, including but not limited to NSA, CIA, RIAA, MPAA, FBI, AAA, DHS, FEMA, EU, ABC, 123, Do, Ra, Me.  | |
| | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: wow That's why I'm not on AT&T... but DSL-Extreme 
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
1 edit | Re: wow Who installed the switches and maintaines them for DSL Extreme? And where are they located? 
Who's network does it go through?
Im kind of in the same situation, my packets go through ATT network and they could look if they wanted. I have no doubt about that.
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day! | |
| | | | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: wow True - everything goes through AT&T CO.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | dlewis23
join:2005-04-18
Boca Raton, FL
| I do..... And so does any other web 2.0 developer.
We are tried of having to compress and lower the quality of our stuff so people with slow connections don't have to wait 10 minutes for the web app to load.
Once this, or even 10mbps starts to become the norm, you are going too see a exposition in the quality of the way websites look. | |
| | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: wow Agreed.. here's the 'issue'
A) DSL = lower bit rate, but typically you will hit your max w/o issue (eg. ADSL 6-7Mbps, VDSL at 10Mbps). Typically a better QoS on DSL, IMO.
B) Cable 6-25Mbps, slow downs during peak usage, but for bursty transmissions, and less distance limitations, Cable works well.
Think of DSL as token ring, and Cable as ethernet with a hub (not switch).
Unless I'm mistaken HD uncompressed is 19.2Mbps, and unless there's a queuing mechanism, I don't think you'll be having decently streamed HD over the internet for a while w/o buffering
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | | |
|
