 MacLeechThe one and onlyPremium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
kudos:3
4 edits | reply to en102
NTT customers are being robbed of 97% of uplink capacity. If the connection is 100mbit symmetric, why is the cap for only 3% of the total bandwidth that could possibly be moved with that connection in a month?
100 mbps x 60 sec/min x 60 min/hr x 24 hr/day x 30 day/mth / 8 bits/byte= 32,400,000 MB/month or or 32,400 GB/month or 32.4 TB/month.
.930 TB / 32.4 TB x 100% = 2.87% of possible upload capacity is allowed usage.
Why are they limiting it to only 3% of total capacity?
People on this SITE are usually PISSED if they are presented with a plan that only allows use of "their" connection at 3% of capacity.
Imagine how much uproar there would be if a U.S. provider capped their users at 9 GB/month on their 1 Mbps upload (3% of 324 GB/month) or 180 GB on their 20Mbps upload connection (3% of 6480 GB/month). |
|
 RallyBah HumbugPremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY | People are pissed due to low caps, that are already on a lower tier of service. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to MacLeech
Personally, I don't know of too many 'residential' uses yet that would consume 32.4TB/month or even 1TB/month.
In the case of caps, 1TB download is more than any cap listed in the U.S.... and those caps are typically on the download side.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
MacLeechThe one and onlyPremium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
kudos:3
1 edit | said by en102:Personally, I don't know of too many 'residential' uses yet that would consume 32.4TB/month or even 1TB/month. Then again we don't live in Japan where 100 mbps connections are often portrayed as being "common" by people here in the US.
For people in Japan with such connections, what is typical bandwidth usage? There must be some demand for those sorts of connections to offer that sort of speed. What would those who demand such connections say about being limited to that max speed 3% of the time?
Are we biased to think 930 GB is alot because the connections we use in the US are so much slower than 100 mbps that the thought of reaching such a limit is almost impossible for us?
Is using only 3% of your upload capacity high or low? Is being able to max out your upload speed for only 22 hours in a month "fair"?
As others have pointed out in other threads discussing caps:
"What's the point of such speed when it means you'll reach you caps that much faster?"
"Why are the selling such high speeds if they cap you within a day's use?"
What is the REAL reason behind the caps? What part of the NTT infrastructure is straining under such a load? |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | I agree.. many may have built in applications (HD video conferencing, utility monitoring) and things that won't exist here for some time... is any of that traffic BT ?
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
RallyBah HumbugPremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY | reply to MacLeech
It's not straining under load, its to put a stop-wrench into the BitTorrent and P2P uploaders/hosters. 30gb a day just for upload is a very generous. Its the first step in a right direction of curtailing the abusive illegal sharing going on. |
|
| reply to en102
Hmm. I download HD movies on occasion, and I don't what compression method they're using, but they've not exceed 200MB per. That means 5 movies and they're up to a GB.
If someone is uploading a terabyte of information because they're using fully uncompressed HD, sounds like that person needs to start considering compression. I don't think there's a logical, realistic need to do otherwise. If you want files that big and pristine quality, burn a DVD and send it via mail. |
|
|
|
MacLeechThe one and onlyPremium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
kudos:3
4 edits | reply to Rally
Capacity chart |
said by Rally: 30gb a day just for upload is a very generous. 30 GB a day is generous for us mortals with upload connections limited to under 5 mbps. At 5 mbps it would take over 17 days at max upload speed to hit the 930 GB/month) cap... for those with 100 mbps upload speeds their users can hit the cap in 22 hours at full speed.
Since most of us don't even have 5 mbps upload, we're more like 768 kbps average, that 930 GB limit is impossible to reach, we could only get 250 GB out of a 768 kbps upload. So would that make us a good judge of "generous" limits?
The closest comparison most of mortals could make is how 6 GB upload caps look using a dialup connection. It would take over 17 days to reach that. Yet if we had 768 kbps upload we'd hit it in under 22 hours.
So if US broadband users with an upload of 768 kbps think 6 GB upload caps are absurd and overly restrictive, shouldn't 930 GB caps be considered absurd and overly restrictive for those with 100 mbps connections?
930 GB is about 3% of the max possible with 100 mbps. 6 GB is a little less 3% of the max possible with 768 kbps.
Get it? Those caps aren't nearly as generous as you think. |
|
approval from:
MacLeech 
| reply to ReVeLaTeD
said by ReVeLaTeD:Hmm. I download HD movies on occasion, and I don't what compression method they're using, but they've not exceed 200MB per. That means 5 movies and they're up to a GB. 200MB??? That will get you about 6-7 minutes of 720p video using x264. A SD DVD rip is 700MB, an average 720p movies is 4.3GB, and a 1080p movie is 8+GB. |
|
