dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
31
This is a sub-selection from wow

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5 to en102

Premium Member

to en102

Re: wow

said by en102:

You bet..have to make money where possible, and have your cake + eat it too.
You and the previous 2 posters are wrong. The caps will rise. You can bet on it.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

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.
Expand your moderator at work

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

1 recommendation

FFH5 to en102

Premium Member

to en102

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.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

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.
reelbigfish
join:2002-06-06
Boston, MA

1 recommendation

reelbigfish to Anon

Member

to Anon
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.
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA

cornelius785 to en102

Member

to en102
'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

en102

Member

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.
en102

1 edit

en102 to reelbigfish

Member

to reelbigfish
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.

EG
The wings of love
Premium Member
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ

EG to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Any tangible evidence ???

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
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.

CColon
join:2008-04-20
Philadelphia, PA

CColon to en102

Member

to en102
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.
This is a sub-selection from wow