dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
200

NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO

NOCMan to nasadude

Premium Member

to nasadude

Re: our competitive market

Also be interested in how this changes telecommuting. This would be a step backwards if companies just tell you to come to work rather than paying for your internet.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

said by NOCMan:

Also be interested in how this changes telecommuting. This would be a step backwards if companies just tell you to come to work rather than paying for your internet.
It wont change a damn thing. I "telecommute" from MN to CA all the time. My roommate telecommutes for work 4 days a week. I am usually in about 5 systems at one time.. this, in addition to the other 4 user's data transfers...

I come no where near 100 gb a month.. ever.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

That depends. When Intel was still on cc:Mail, I could have swore the thing xferred a gig just to retrieve a two-line message!

Actually, fiberguy, I like some of the realism in your message. People ought to arrange their backups in a bandwidth-friendly manner -- but a monthly cap doesn't necessarily drive the right behavior. Wouldn't it be best to incentive-ize the scheduling of these activities to sometime outside of Prime-Time?

I remain un-enthused about the cap. On one hand, a real cap is an improvement over the mystery cap. On the other, the notion that "nothing is changing, we're just specifying the cap now" bugs me.

I haven't worked it all out yet, but the things I'd like to see:

1. More up-front notification at time of sale (might be coming, we'll see)

2. A decent self-monitoring tool or other adequate heads-up to users who are trending dangerously.

3. A more cooperative and educational approach towards users.

4. Some alternative to the 12-month "grounding" crap. Maybe the 768/256 connection (which mathematically should never hit the cap, by the way) would work. Who the Hell does Comcast think it is to put customers on a "time-out"? If a customer won't cooperate, then refuse his business -- they're not Red Foreman and their customers aren't their kids. I'm not sure anything is operationally wrong with this, other than that the positioning of it makes me feel like they have no respect for their customers.

5. And this is a must -- the 250 GB limit must grow and be real. Cox has an old 60 GB limit that is rarely, if ever, enforced -- so it is duly and deservedly ignored. So if Comcast says 250 GB but really means 600 or 700 GB (which is probably near the right range for next year since this year seems to be 450-550 GB), then it's just more bogus Comcastic positioning.

I don't know. I just don't know. Comcast has batted around the truth so badly for so long, I can't trust any two words in a row, anymore. I really do want them to be improving, and not just giving lip service to it.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

I agree with you ..

There should be some relief for the evening hours when people sleep. Online backups and off-peak use should be no issue. Schedule backups at 12 midnight to 4am.. shouldn't impact the system, AND, they should actually count that traffic less. I don't agree with them that it's all about the cloud traffic, rather, it's a node issue and last mile issue. With that, the over night hours should be more of a hands off thing for the ISP. I don't see how that will largely affect the experience of the other users.

and second.. what would be so hard for them to send out, at your request, a daily email recap letting you know what your current use is? That's fair in my book.

Also.. I've ALWAYS been for a throttle back of the service on a monthly basis for that that use too much.. throttle them back to a 768 line.. it's still a good service speed and all.. just not the 20meg top out that some people see today. So they wait a minute or two longer for the really large files. no big woop.

Also, too, yes.. the cap should rise as they are able to do so. If it's left at 250, it WILL look bad for them.

In many systems, the caps have been different. In my area, they only triggered a cap warning IF your node was slowing down and you were above that cap. Otherwise, you could exceed it all the time and they never said a word.. it's just when your account was the one that was causing problems for others.

It will be interesting to see how things go moving forward. In the end, I don't think many will even notice. Comcast is just putting definition to the public at this time, so sure, people are going to complain.