 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to en102
Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone.
Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone |
|
|
|
| What about those of us that stream netflix, download linux distros and/or movies from Itunes? We can easily consume as much or more bandwidth than a 'pirate' can, especially in a household. |
|
 hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greedPremium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
kudos:1 | reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone. Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone perhaps cable ISPs need to upgrade their network.
Docsis 1 and 2, pffftt!. LOL
--
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. |
|
 AlcoholPremium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone. Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone How is this going to be rough for everyone? |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | If caps become commonplace then you can kiss the online backup industry goodbye. A lot of people have digital media collections that exceed 250G. |
|
AlcoholPremium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Yes, but how is that rough for everyone? baineschile  talks about how this won't affect a lot of people because according to him 250gb is more than substantial for an average user. Read his reply a few posts down.
said by baineschile:Downloading an unbox movie - 3gigs VOiP 1 hour chat - 30Mb/hr (approx) Surfing Clips - 250-500Mb an hour (1024x768 max) So, if you download 2 movies a day (180 gigs/mo), chat on the phone 2 hours a day (about 4 gigs/mo) and surf for video clips 3 hours a day (about 40 gigs/mo), you are still using less than the cap 224gigs. But cmon, who does all that? said by baineschile:You would be incorrect. No normal residential person can come up with a 100% legal excuse to use more than 250 gigs/mo I'm a little confused why baineschile thinks this will be rough for everyone when according to him "no normal residential person" will ever trigger it. |
|
| reply to baineschile
I hope they throttle you back to beyond the stone age  so I can still download all my distros |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to aciddrink
said by aciddrink:What about those of us that stream netflix, download linux distros and/or movies from Itunes? We can easily consume as much or more bandwidth than a 'pirate' can, especially in a household. Yea, and why would Comcast want to make that easy for you to do? Then you'll buy less PPV movies, premium mvie channels, etc., from them.
This policy makes business sense from Comcasts POV. They provide HSI to compete with DSL, NOT to cannabalize their high-margin TV offerings. So as long as you get an "above DSL" experience, you should be happy, right?
This is just like Frontier's cap - obviously, the only "appropriate" use for HSI is browsing, email, etc.: anything that doesn't threaten their other businesses. |
|
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone. Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone You have nobody to blame but yourself.
Everyone uses the internet the same way, whether your downloading " pirated " software, or watching a youtube video. its no better on your traffic consumption . |
|
 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to aciddrink
Thats why some ISPs want to basically charge twice for the same bandwidth.
Welcome to my all you can eat buffet! Oh goodness, you're eating too fast! Obviously the food my suppliers send me is too tasty, I'll have to start billing them as well! Despite the fact that without those suppliers my business would have nothing to offer. |
|
approval from:
fAcEtIOUs
| reply to Alcohol
I support the whole "all you can eat buffet" style internet, but the problem is the people that spend all day at the buffet, and eat 75 lobster tails. That has driven up the cost of business for EVERYONE, now comcast has to implement technology to govern all of this, which will of course, come with costs. |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | said by baineschile1 :
I support the whole "all you can eat buffet" style internet, but the problem is the people that spend all day at the buffet, and eat 75 lobster tails. That has driven up the cost of business for EVERYONE, now comcast has to implement technology to govern all of this, which will of course, come with costs.
Sounds good, but its just not true. |
|
thumbs down from:
fAcEtIOUs
| reply to baineschile1
A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed. Comcast should spend more money on upgrading their network instead of their corporate headquarters... it's not like they aren't making plenty of profit off of their customers. |
|
AlcoholPremium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to baineschile1
However don't you think this is a step in the wrong direction? Everyone knows American broadband is no way as advanced as the worlds, and instead of changing that we're putting limits on our outdated technology so we don't have to upgrade.
Way to go Comcast. |
|
| reply to baineschile
said by en102:DSL = VERY stable. On a 3Mbps DSL line, I will hit max 99% of the time, and latency will not change Cable = Faster (6Mbps/512kbps), however, speeds will vary, as will latency. I think the main point here is that phone companies don't oversell their bandwidth, which is why they are stable and Cable is not.
--
OASAASLLS |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to NOCMan
said by NOCMan:If caps become commonplace then you can kiss the online backup industry goodbye. A lot of people have digital media collections that exceed 250G. This can be addressed by having a sane backup strategy -- like a full backup to a USB drive kept offsite followed up with automated daily incremental backups to an on-line backup provider. |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | How long of a cable do you use to connect to your offsite disk? That's the whole point of online backup. You NEVER have your backup media on the site!
And are ISPs counting their own data backup services in the caps?
cw |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by wentlanc:How long of a cable do you use to connect to your offsite disk? That's the whole point of online backup. You NEVER have your backup media on the site! The problem with doing your whole system is that online backups come with real limitations when it comes to time. With 6/1 cable service, assuming you upload at the full 1mbps constantly, it would take you almost 23 days of uploading 24x7 to push 250GB to your upstream backup provider. Heck, even if you had a FiOS 20/20 connection and you could push 20mbps constantly it would take you 27 hours.
Most incidents of data loss aren't of the "my house burned down" variety. Most of the time it's things like accidental deletion, hard drive failure, or other equipment failure that leads to drive corruption. Having some repository of the data locally helps you expedite restores in that event.
You don't need a long cable, you just need 2 USB drives. You keep one drive in an offsite location (ie, I keep mine in my desk drawer at work). Keep the other drive hooked up to your computer for backups. Start off by doing a full backup using a program like TrueImage so that you can do a bare-metal restore to a full functioning system image. Once that backup is complete, take the drive to your off-site location and copy all of the backup files over.
Then take the backup drive home again, and setup backup software to do incremental file-level backups on a daily basis to the same USB drive. Configure your computer to archive just the incremental files to your on-line data backup provider.
If you have a local failure (ie, hard drive failure), you can restore directly from the USB drive very rapidly because you can move data at 10-20MB/sec (80-160mbps). Then in the rare case if you have a full catastrophic failure, you can go to your offsite location to grab the full backup, and proceed with downloading all of the incremental updates you had online. Overall you could probably still be up and running again within a day.
I use a system similar to this for my personal backups -- on average I only make a full backup about twice a year and rely on incremental backups for the duration in between. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to meh37
said by meh37 :
A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed.
Awesome! I hope you don't mind that I stole this.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
1 edit | said by funchords:said by meh37 :
A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed.
Awesome! I hope you don't mind that I stole this. And with that statement you become one of those perverting the whole idea of net neutrality from its original meaning - an ISP discriminating against 3rd party companies to give preference to their own products.
Your definition of net neutrality tries to say an ISP has no right to manage its network at all, except by endlessly expanding capacity to satisfy the needs of the most rapacious users.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
