how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 DanHoModerhatedPremium
join:2002-05-20
Seattle, WA | reply to wings10
Re: 250GB sounds low said by wings10:If your downloading that much your doing something illegal IMO. Well that is just plain stupid. Between my Xbox 360 and Wii (downloading demos, tv shows, movies), VOIP, DirecTV on Demand, and Netflix streaming I can easily get over 250GB a month. Do you see me doing anything illegal in any of those things?
--
Over-moderation at its finest... | |
| Regardless of whether or not what you're doing is illegal, you're still causing the same amount of congestion on Comcast's network as someone who downloads 250GB of illegal content per month. | |
quatrixPremium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
kudos:2 | reply to DanHo
You're in the minority. My guess is that at least 90% of people who exceed 250 GB are doing something they shouldn't. | |
DanHoModerhatedPremium
join:2002-05-20
Seattle, WA | And 90% of statistics can be made to say whatever you want when you don't have any data to back it up. /sarcasm
--
Over-moderation at its finest... | |
 TransitManPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-05
Dayton, OH
kudos:1
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to quatrix
said by quatrix:You're in the minority. My guess is that at least 90% of people who exceed 250 GB are doing something they shouldn't. You might want to rethink this line.
It should actually be 5% -10%, if that, of those who exceed the 250GB cap are doing something illegal. The rest of folks who do, might, may or will exceed that limit would be like the poster DanHo  , who may have 4 or more people online gaming, watching YouTube, watching Hulu, Veoh, or other online legal activity.
Sometimes one has to think on how many in a family are online and using it legally before bitching about caps, limits and the like.
And the ISP's need to rethink the caps very hard. They're assuming (not a good thing as it makes an ass out of you and me) that a family actively online would be able to live with caps lower than 250GB (TWC's 5GB - 40GB caps). Someone in the Glass House on the Glass Throne is not seeing the real world as it is today, but is seeing the world as it once was under all the archaic limits and high usage fees that have gone the way of the doo-doo bird of yesteryear. They're thinking that the consumer will roll over and pay through the nose just because. Guess again!!
--
PROUD TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE CRUNCHENSTEIN ASSOCIATION AND THE HOST OF CRUNCHENSTEIN #2 | |
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to FoodForThought
No, because if you time your large downloads right and do them in the off-peak time, you can avoid congesting Comcast's network. Note that general caps would hit either way- even the satellite FAP systems loosen up in the middle of the night when bandwidth is least used. | |
| reply to quatrix
said by quatrix:You're in the minority. My guess is that at least 90% of people who exceed 250 GB are doing something they shouldn't. And how does this one sound -- sorry, I'm in a wierd mood --
"At least 90% of the people who exceed 70MPH on the highway are doing something they shouldn't."
It's about exceeding 250 gigs, right?
ANYONE who drives faster than 70 (except police, fire trucks, ambulances, etc...) is doing something illegal. Right?
So, therefore, everyone who exceeds 250 gigs is doing something wrong (insofar as they are exceeding 250 gigs).
See, it's so beautiful -- Everyone/anyone who exceeds 250 gigs is doing something wrong. It's 100%, not 90%.
I think it's beautiful. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to DanHo
Are you doing anything illegal? no.. not at all, but, what you are doing, like others, is joining in a mistake, at this time. The internet is NOT a tv connection. While some are offering services to make it so, ..doesn't.
The internet is not ready to have all this stuff tossed it's way. We have satellite, cable, and phone offerings for video right now. People who want to turn the internet into a video stream as a form of cable are going to learn the hard way that it's not the way to go.
And, still, DirecTV on Demand.. what a joke of a service.. If DirecTV wants to offer a so called OnDemand, they should never have gotten out of the data business in the first place.. instead, they are doing exactly what SBC was screaming about... getting rich off the backs of the ISPs.
This move to cap was only inevitable. | |
| reply to DanHo
I'm a pretty frequent downloader from Xbox Live - having over 95% of the XBLA games and regularly downloading movies and tv shows (in high defintion). If that even gets close to 1/10th of the cap in a month, then that simply means you are downloading the same thing several times. It says a lot about a person who can "easily get over 250GB a mont" by downloading movies from XBL, DireTV on demand and Netflix, and having time to watch them AND has time to make over 6500 posts to DSLR. You are one serious movie buff!
You have some adorable children on your profile and you have a USMC logo as your avatar. May I suggest that you get your priorities in order? | |
rhexis
join:2002-05-18
Gilbertsville, PA | reply to DanHo
said by DanHo:said by wings10:If your downloading that much your doing something illegal IMO. Well that is just plain stupid. Between my Xbox 360 and Wii (downloading demos, tv shows, movies), VOIP, DirecTV on Demand, and Netflix streaming I can easily get over 250GB a month. Do you see me doing anything illegal in any of those things? wow do you do anything else besides watch tv and use your computer? you forgot to mention all those linux distros too. | |
fldiverPremium
join:1999-12-27
Jacksonville, FL | reply to fiberguy
Excuse me, I think you are overlooking the obvious; DTV pays a great deal of money to whatever backbone provider they use to host the service, so how is it that you feel they are doing it on the backs of ISP's? That it just an incorrect conclusion on your part. The truth is, that Comcast and other ISP's have over SOLD their capacity and as usual now they want to penalize the people who pay for the service for legitimate uses. I am sure it sticks in Comcast's crawl when their competitor can use their backbone to provide entertainment, but guess what, suck it up and deal with it, I pay Comcast for a pipe to the NET, nothing more nothing less; what I do with it (as long as it is deemed legal) is MY BUSNIESS. | |
DanHoModerhatedPremium
join:2002-05-20
Seattle, WA | reply to FoodForThought
said by FoodForThought :
Regardless of whether or not what you're doing is illegal, you're still causing the same amount of congestion on Comcast's network as someone who downloads 250GB of illegal content per month.
I don't disagree with that assessment. However, the post I referred to said that if you come close a 250GB/mo cap, you have to be doing something illegal.
--
Over-moderation at its finest... | |
DanHoModerhatedPremium
join:2002-05-20
Seattle, WA | reply to fiberguy
 Oh, brother. At this point, until the ISPs set some clear rules and boundaries regarding what I can and can't do with the internet connection that I pay for, I will continue to use services that will eat their bandwidth.
--
Over-moderation at its finest... | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by DanHo: Oh, brother. At this point, until the ISPs set some clear rules and boundaries regarding what I can and can't do with the internet connection that I pay for, I will continue to use services that will eat their bandwidth. \
... and I'm sorry to tell you, but it's that attitude that is driving this need to cap! The ISPs have to be able to manage a network. Some people think that the internet is infinite and you just turn it on and it runs like your home network.. no cost to transport. It's not true. This is one side of a multi-sided argument. "It's my connection and I'll use it how I want".. that's not to say that the provider won't counter you and say ".. and we're turning on the meeter."
At one point, my community, water was un-metered. They learned that it was time to move to the meter system. It's bound to happen.
Like I said, the internet isn't designed, right now, for everything to be thrown at it. You obviously don't recognize the balance of the internet. Content far outpaces the ability to upgrade networks. People can easily set up a server and shove something down the line faster than the lines can be upgraded or SHOULD be upgraded. People often forget that the upgrades are only going to meet what the consumer will demand... meaning, how much are you willing to pay?
I can't be any more clear, I'd guess, pure guess, that about 70% of the people on this site are clueless when it comes to reality. Its easy to want, its easy to assume, and its easy to say its so.. but it won't change what's coming.
There's not shilling, there's no paid compensation for my opinion here.. but it's reality. Those that push the envelope and try to force the hand of anyone else, be it a business, a large corporation, or another person, wind up being met with resistance or counter action. The arrogance of "it's mine and I can do what I want" argument is the very forcing of the hand that is bringing about caps. If every person felt that internet was an unlimited resource and people continue to fight network management at every turn, well, caps come and they will continue to let you use what ever you want.. be prepared to write big checks. The one fact you forgot is that you didn't purchase anything, you are renting it.
And, you wanted clear rules,.. you're getting them. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to fldiver
said by fldiver:Excuse me, I think you are overlooking the obvious; DTV pays a great deal of money to whatever backbone provider they use to host the service, so how is it that you feel they are doing it on the backs of ISP's? First off, you really don't know WHAT they are paying.. it could be a lot of money, or it may not. We do know they are paying for some sort of bandwidth, yes.
That it just an incorrect conclusion on your part. The truth is, that Comcast and other ISP's have over SOLD their capacity and as usual now they want to penalize the people who pay for the service for legitimate uses. What you don't understand is the difference between residential and business use services. If you want dedicated bandwidth to do as you please, buy business service. With that, be prepared to pay for the line and for the transport as well. (Nothing is unlimited) Residential services are always oversold - be it DSL, CABLE, or yes, even the grand old Fios. The ENTIRE INTERNET is oversold. If you built the internet at large to be able to handle use by EVERY person at the same time, all the time, you're head would spin with the bill.
Your assumptions are wrong.
I am sure it sticks in Comcast's crawl when their competitor can use their backbone to provide entertainment, but guess what, suck it up and deal with it, I pay Comcast for a pipe to the NET, nothing more nothing less; what I do with it (as long as it is deemed legal) is MY BUSNIESS.
Um, again, you're wrong. What you do with the pipe is partially their business - read your AUP. And you are right.. it IS sticking with ISPs (You single out Comcast, who by the way, of all plans out there to cap, so far, has been the most generous..)but, as I've said before, what do you think will happen? CAPS!
While DTV may pay an alleged huge sum of money for data, it doesn't mean you do. You also forget that you pay for speeds to the internet, you do not pay for transport. Your line is rated/priced for residential use. SOME people believe that residential use is to download torrents 24/7, too. At present, 24/7 use is NOT typical residential use.
Take that term to court.. typical residential use. A test will be placed on that claim that 24/7 torrent is typical use. A study will be done, a large amount of people will be shown they don't use 24/7 service as residential use, and your claim is invalidated.
What you think in your mind as right, I'm sorry to say, isn't. MANY of the arguments here, are not. You guys also forget that companies, as much as you want to hate them into non-existence (which won't happen) HAVE RIGHTS! Why do I stand by them a lot of the time? .. because the reality is that there is a balance in the market place that exists between consumer and provider. While the consumer may want want want, they never want to give in return and their desires, if they got their way, would put businesses out of, well, business.
People HAVE to be realistic. What's the alternative? Socialism. ... and I will defend against that. The sad truth is that people simply don't think! | |
fldiverPremium
join:1999-12-27
Jacksonville, FL
1 edit | You certainly do praddle on a lot; I did say legal so unlike some others I actually have read the AUP with Comcast; and regardless of what DTV pays, they pay something, do not think for a minute that Comcast doesn't pay pennies per MB in backbone charges.
Moving on, nothing worth reading here  | | |
|
fldiverPremium
join:1999-12-27
Jacksonville, FL | reply to fiberguy
I am glad no one is paying you for your opinion, I for one would request a refund.. | |
DanHoModerhatedPremium
join:2002-05-20
Seattle, WA | reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:... and I'm sorry to tell you, but it's that attitude that is driving this need to cap! The ISPs have to be able to manage a network. Some people think that the internet is infinite and you just turn it on and it runs like your home network.. no cost to transport. It's not true. This is one side of a multi-sided argument. "It's my connection and I'll use it how I want".. that's not to say that the provider won't counter you and say ".. and we're turning on the meeter." At one point, my community, water was un-metered. They learned that it was time to move to the meter system. It's bound to happen. Like I said, the internet isn't designed, right now, for everything to be thrown at it. You obviously don't recognize the balance of the internet. Content far outpaces the ability to upgrade networks. People can easily set up a server and shove something down the line faster than the lines can be upgraded or SHOULD be upgraded. People often forget that the upgrades are only going to meet what the consumer will demand... meaning, how much are you willing to pay? I can't be any more clear, I'd guess, pure guess, that about 70% of the people on this site are clueless when it comes to reality. Its easy to want, its easy to assume, and its easy to say its so.. but it won't change what's coming. There's not shilling, there's no paid compensation for my opinion here.. but it's reality. Those that push the envelope and try to force the hand of anyone else, be it a business, a large corporation, or another person, wind up being met with resistance or counter action. The arrogance of "it's mine and I can do what I want" argument is the very forcing of the hand that is bringing about caps. If every person felt that internet was an unlimited resource and people continue to fight network management at every turn, well, caps come and they will continue to let you use what ever you want.. be prepared to write big checks. The one fact you forgot is that you didn't purchase anything, you are renting it. And, you wanted clear rules,.. you're getting them. Where have I complained about the need for caps? You assume and your assumption is wrong.
I responded to wings10 's comment regarding that if you are using that much you must be doing something illegal. All I said was I can use around 250GB/mo doing nothing illegal. Then you went on you tirade about network management. I don't use 250GB/mo every month. I gave one example that where I had.
If the ISPs want to implement caps, go ahead. They will need to give consumers a way to monitor usage or they will have some nice lawsuits on their hands.
As usual, you are attacking the wrong person for something that you failed to comprehend. This is the end of my conversation regarding this.
--
Over-moderation at its finest... | |
|
