en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TKJunkMail
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 | 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
| 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
| '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
| 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
| 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. |
|
