dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7164
share rss forum feed


Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

1 recommendation

reply to SilverSurfer1

Re: Cable companies need to wake up

said by SilverSurfer1:

said by FFH5:

And that 250GB should be plenty. The biggest month I ever had was about 12 GB up & down combined and that was watching a few TV shows online I missed on TV and downloading one of those infamous linux distros.
Well that settles it once and for all then. You, personally, have not used over 250 gigs so that stat, of course, applies to everyone else.
Nope, just 99.9% of Comcast's users.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?


Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :

Chuck, you've got it backwards... Take it from someone who has worked/still works with enterprises that purchase transit bandwidth... Transit is the cheap bandwidth.
That's not what everyone was saying a couple years ago when the "invisible cap" originally hit.


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
Yes but with the rollout of docsis3, you can reach these caps faster than ever...costing you the consumer more than ever!

How Comcraptic!


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:1
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :

said by Nightfall:

Yea, cause we all know that measurables like that in a discussion like this are meaningless. /sarcasm
No, the sample size is what makes it meaningless. You can't use a sample from one node to represent the whole user population of a network. Nodes vary not only in size, but also in the types of users that are passed - some neighborhoods may have more light users than others.
Helps if you read my post. It was city wide, not by a node or neighborhood.


OldGrayWolf

join:2007-10-06
reply to pizz
I've monitored my bandwidth usage. I fits in the 250GB per month bandwidth.

However, I can also look at my router logs. The router logs have entries for constant port scans and messenger SPAM from malware infected computers on THEIR network. This is NOT included in the bandwidth measurement I have taken because they just bounce off my router.

If they don't exclude these unsolicited attempts to connect to my computer/network, it will distort the statistics of my bandwidth usage.

This idea is not going to work very well.

I think that companies that have TV content provided through other channels (such as Comcast/TimeWarner/et.al.) are trying to limit the adoption of Internet TV and other video Internet sources that are already available in Europe in order to maintain their revenue.


Quaoar

join:2004-08-11
Fort Collins, CO
reply to pizz
Right DSL, only if you live within the 5k feet of the local switch that gives you anything above dial-up speeds. That might be 30% of Comcast subscribers.

Q


Quaoar

join:2004-08-11
Fort Collins, CO
reply to S_engineer
Docsis 3.0 is only viable for Comcast in DIRECT competition with FIOS or similar. Most of Comcast will never see Docsis 3.0 since Verizon overlaps Comcast in only very limited areas.

Q


Quaoar

join:2004-08-11
Fort Collins, CO
reply to JamesPC
Comcast dropped the "unlimited" at least two years ago, perhaps three.

Q

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to S_engineer
As it should cost you more. If you are using that much bandwidth on a regular basis then you need to be paying for it. Plain and simple and now they are spelling out for you.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to Jeffrey
Then I guess you would need to pay the extra cost to back it up or find a better and more affordable solution.

I personally would recommend a good backup tape, raid 5 drives, or a mirrored drive setup.

rapidrick

join:1999-10-28
Bear, DE
reply to FFH5
The easiest way to ensure it doesn't catch on is to canel the service!

I would recommend it too! The charge extra, call up and cancel. Trust me, if enough people do it, this idea will get axed quick....


factchecker

@cox.net
reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:

said by factchecker :

said by Nightfall:

Yea, cause we all know that measurables like that in a discussion like this are meaningless. /sarcasm
No, the sample size is what makes it meaningless. You can't use a sample from one node to represent the whole user population of a network. Nodes vary not only in size, but also in the types of users that are passed - some neighborhoods may have more light users than others.
Helps if you read my post. It was city wide, not by a node or neighborhood.
I read your post and you stated:

He pulled up the data usage of all the homes in our area and we counted a grand total of 50 people over 100gb.
You didn't say an entire city... Your "entire area", more likely than not, does not include enough subscribers to be meaningful statistically...


factchecker

@cox.net
reply to Combat Chuck
said by Combat Chuck:

said by factchecker :

Chuck, you've got it backwards... Take it from someone who has worked/still works with enterprises that purchase transit bandwidth... Transit is the cheap bandwidth.
That's not what everyone was saying a couple years ago when the "invisible cap" originally hit.
Well, most of "everyone" back then, like now too, probably have no idea of how transit bandwidth is purchased and priced.

Yes, transit WAS more expensive back when the "invisi-cap" sprang up, but that was partly because interfaces and hardware just for those transit circuits was more expensive (think about how much a router that could handle a dozen or two GigE or OC48 or OC192 interfaces cost back then compared to now). There also wasn't as much capacity on the backbone and access portions of the major carriers' networks that ISPs connect to as there is now (thanks to DWDM, etc.).

But if it was being said that transit costs were part of the reason for the "invisi-caps"... That would be true...

As for now, with most ISPs connecting to transit providers (or being their own transit providers) at, in most places, 1 and 10 Gbps, there definitely is not issue with transit. The problem is that the last mile is much harder to upgrade than a router card swap or installing a new router.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
So do we need this new policy at all? Maybe what we need -- all we need -- is something that addresses the uplink side?


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

As it should cost you more. If you are using that much bandwidth on a regular basis then you need to be paying for it. Plain and simple and now they are spelling out for you.
Maybe they should have spelled it out before. I don't know where you learned the English language from but where I grew up "unlimited" meant without limitations. An invisible cap on an "Unlimited" network constitutes breach of contract.


bent
and Inga
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:

said by Jeffrey:

I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else.
They had to quit using the phrase "One Size Fits All" because of statements like this.

A former coworker of mine now works for Charter Communications here in MN -- for grins I asked him about the node data they collect from the CMTS head-end. He showed me a sample report and I was surprised that I had to skip through a few pages before I found the first line that showed > 2GB of usage.

Statistically speaking, 250GB would easily fit 99+% of the existing user base usage.
But the basement dwellers that go over 250GB/mo are a good chunk of the population of this forum, hence the hew and cry.
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget. ··· et.shtml

"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
reply to Quaoar
said by Quaoar:

Docsis 3.0 is only viable for Comcast in DIRECT competition with FIOS or similar.
Saying this more times doesn't make it any more true.

The big gains on DOCSIS 3.0 deployments are in enabling switch digital video, allowing greater channel density without further degrading quality from compression. That you can get additional HSI bandwidth is just a nice cherry on the package.

The reason FiOS is being deployed by Verizon is that they needed a plant overhaul to be able to get into the video services distribution business. HSI gains are, again, only a side benefit.

PS: Minneapolis is a Qwest/Embarq market, and we have DOCSIS 3.0

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to EPS4
said by EPS4:

If the telcos spin this the right way, then they could manage to scare a bunch of users who would never ever hit their caps anyway to think they could get booted for downloading.
They have spined it before. The FUD about overloaded nodes during peak times. I was a DSL customer for a long time because I was scared of dialup speeds because of bad cable cos, turns out its mostly FUD and extremely rare. Even if you cut 1/2 the speed of typical cable modem, it will still be faster than DSL.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:

said by EPS4:

The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to?
Running circuits to remote terminals isn't free.
Replacing 2 line cards on 1 strand of fiber is almost free.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to JamesPC
said by JamesPC:

Great point NOCMan. There should be no limitations on a unlimited service. And if they cant offer unlimited SOMEONE WILL!
Since when is broadband run by a socialist or communist state?

Concept of capitalism guarantees there will not be true unlimited service.

Cisco and Lucent don't make unlimited speed equipment.............

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to SilverSurfer1
said by SilverSurfer1:

said by tc1uscg:

".. Naw.. just day dreaming. Martin doesn't have the balls.
Balls don't have shit to do with it what you are proposing. Someone didn't write the telco errand boy a check to ensure it. Big difference between money and balls.
A gay republican conspiracy?

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to OldGrayWolf
said by OldGrayWolf:

I've monitored my bandwidth usage. I fits in the 250GB per month bandwidth.

However, I can also look at my router logs. The router logs have entries for constant port scans and messenger SPAM from malware infected computers on THEIR network. This is NOT included in the bandwidth measurement I have taken because they just bounce off my router.

If they don't exclude these unsolicited attempts to connect to my computer/network, it will distort the statistics of my bandwidth usage.

This idea is not going to work very well.
Comcast will just NAT and therefore firewall everyone and no more incoming traffic, of any kind. If you want an IP you will have to get business class.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:

said by Skippy25:

As it should cost you more. If you are using that much bandwidth on a regular basis then you need to be paying for it. Plain and simple and now they are spelling out for you.
Maybe they should have spelled it out before. I don't know where you learned the English language from but where I grew up "unlimited" meant without limitations. An invisible cap on an "Unlimited" network constitutes breach of contract.
Comcast doesn't use the word unlimited anywhere, what makes you think it is?

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to bent
said by bent:

But the basement dwellers that go over 250GB/mo are a good chunk of the population of this forum, hence the hew and cry.
Quad HD VR 3D live chat Pr0n FTW.


Why_Knot

@sbcglobal.net
reply to pizz
If Cable companies put a cap on bandwith - and charge the proposed 1.50 per 10GB - then users who use under their proposed 250GB should be allowed to roll-over their unused bandwith for lets say a year. Sort of like the phone companies do. Seems fair to me.

BosstonesOwn

join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to FFH5
Apr 21st to 28th 2008 30.78 GB 10.62 GB 41.40 GB

One week watching hulu and updating Windows and ubuntu.

They can't stop the bandwidth monster. They need to start coming up with a new method. docsis 3 can only do so much for them.

As soon as this becomes official , Im gone , just on principal.

Sell me a pipe don't try and be a controller. Once these HD video services kick off , we really need just pipes. This sounds like comcast is trying to figure out what the future holds. And throttling torrents was the better of the 2 evils. Now they are trying to find fair numbers , but I am voting with my wallet.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:1
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
reply to factchecker
said by factchecker :

I read your post and you stated:

You didn't say an entire city... Your "entire area", more likely than not, does not include enough subscribers to be meaningful statistically...
My mistake. I should have said it was the city I live in to be more specific. Thats included over 50,000 accounts. I can't remember the exact number. I think that sampling is more than meaningful.


tc1uscg

join:2005-03-09
Clinton Township, MI
reply to hottboiinnc4
said by hottboiinnc4:

The day Martin says that is the day Comcast sues him directly and not the FCC as a whole. He can't make them provide an actual speed due to they use "up to" and actually Cox has caps; nobody tried to tell them they had to provide the full speed they claim "up to".
That's my point. They claim lots of stuff. But so far, they don't seem to be in much a hurry to shut this guy down for "picking" on them. Isn't it known that Martin has a "thing" for CC (or cable in general?). With CC talking about (and in some cases enforcing) caps, is it me or are we paying the same price for "unlimited" HSI use but now, paying the same price, are about to see that become "unlimited access but limited use". Geezz sounds like Verizon just bought them out.

PatCat88.. good one


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

reply to BosstonesOwn
said by BosstonesOwn:

Apr 21st to 28th 2008 30.78 GB 10.62 GB 41.40 GB

One week watching hulu and updating Windows and ubuntu.
41.4 GB per week X 4.3 weeks a month=178 GB a month. That still leaves you 72 GB left. No worries.

As soon as this becomes official , Im gone , just on principal.
And good riddence to you then.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to S_engineer
We can play all day with what the term unlimited means in respect to your connection and the ISP's obligation to you and YOUR obligation to the ISP.

Bottom line is, as been pointed out numerous times already, they do not use the term Unlimited and haven't for quite some time.

You want unlimited bandwidth to download all the crap you want, then pony up the cash and get it or stop the whining.