|
to Sunny
Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion hereon 3rd page a guy said somehting about TXT masaging instead a internet use LOL.
1st off the ratio of profit is INSANE 1KB = 1 page of text teh size of a 15" monitor
whats that on your tiny little iphone 5 pages? and they want what 60 cents? for 1 KB 1000 KB = 1 MEG = 600$ 1000 MEG = 1GB , 600,000 $ per GB of text WOA sign me up to the shareholder program profits are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA upppppppppppppppppppppp |
|
JohkalCool Cat MVM join:2002-11-13 Pennsyltucky 1 edit
1 recommendation |
Johkal
MVM
2008-Aug-31 7:07 pm
said by chronoss20081:on 3rd page a guy said somehting about TXT masaging instead a internet use LOL. If you are referring to me, wow, did you mis-quote that one. What do I do with my internet access:Pay bills through my bank Buy items from retailers E-mailSurf Help on BBR What would I do if I didn't have internet access:Write checks to pay bills Go to the retailer's stores Use a phone to call the people, write letters, TXT MSGRead a book, take a walk, swim, visit more friends, etc As for helping with BBR; oh well, you're on your own |
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
|
to Sunny
Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion hereand who uses bit torrent the most by country? Considering hte USA wants to shove DMCA facisim at canada? » www.google.com/insights/ ··· =&cmpt=q |
|
SunnyRuns from Clowns
join:2001-08-19
1 recommendation |
Sunny
2008-Aug-31 7:53 pm
chronoss20081 , to whom are you speaking? |
|
|
funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
to chronoss20081
I don't think that Google Insights page does what you're thinking it does. |
|
pianotechPianotech Premium Member join:2002-12-30 New Castle, PA
1 recommendation |
to Alcohol
said by Alcohol:said by dadkins:said by pianotech:Wow, 350 MB/hour....every hour... DAMN! That a whole lot of por... "Research Videos". It's really not if you have multiple computers. 350mb an hour is peanuts in 2008. I would have been happy with it 6 years ago but not today. 350 megabytes/hour, 24/7 is peanuts?? 8 gigs/day is peanuts?? What am I missing? |
|
|
to fonzbear2000
which countries have slower bandwidth or greater caps then the U.S. besides sub-Saharan africa or maybe Syria or north korea? |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ 1 edit |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Aug-31 11:32 pm
said by anonn :
which countries have slower bandwidth or greater caps then the U.S. besides sub-Saharan africa or maybe Syria or north korea? Canada has tighter caps Australia has slower bandwidth & tighter caps |
|
GotNoRiceInternet Cynic join:2001-12-04 Lakeport, CA |
to Sunny
Is it ever specified anywhere whether the 250g limit applies to Comcast business internet accounts also?
Could a residential subscriber possibly upgrade their service for ~$40 more a month to business class service and be okay downloading more? |
|
funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA 1 edit |
to Sunny
Interesting 2001 Story: Comcast to Tier Speeds, Limit BandwidthUsers: AT&T Comcast needs to change broadband business policies Bob Brewin » www.computerworld.com/ac ··· Id=66850(related DSLR thread at » Monthly Download rate limits as well) December 20, 2001 (Computerworld) Unless AT&T Broadband and Comcast Corp. change their policies toward business broadband users, the merger of the two companies will result in the creation of an even larger entity typified by a user-hostile approach to remote workers and small businesses, according to analysts and users. While AT&T Comcast Corp. is being hyped as a competitive alternative to local telephone companies for high-speed data services, Mark Kersey, an analyst at ARS Inc. in La Jolla, Calif., said the companies' policies will force users to choose "between the lesser of two evils [for broadband] -- the phone company or the cable company. You get to decide which is less evil." AT&T Corp. agreed to merge its cable television and broadband unit with Comcast Corp. in a $72 billion deal, creating a new company called AT&T Comcast Corp. (see story). Philadelphia-based Comcast has a policy in place that forbids the use of virtual private network (VPN) clients over a residential connection, while AT&T this month instituted a 1.5M bit/sec. cap on download speeds when it shifted users to its own network from the bankrupt At Home Corp. VPNs provide remote workers with a protected tunnel to corporate servers through the Internet, guarding data against penetration by hackers. Sarah Eder, a spokeswoman for Englewood Cliffs, Colo.-based AT&T Broadband, said the company eventually intends to introduce tiered packages that will provide higher speeds at higher prices, though she declined to disclose the pricing.
Eder added that the company intends to sharply limit the amount of data a user can download in a month without paying a higher fee. "We're in the a la carte business now," Eder said, adding that AT&T Broadband can no longer support At Home's "all you can eat" policies that led to abuse of the system. "One percent of our users in places like Silicon Valley account for 30% of our traffic," Eder said.Comcast offers a telecommuter service that supports VPNs but charges $95 a month, compared with $39.95 a month for residential service. The company's Business Communications subsidiary also offers a range of corporate broadband services priced from $150 to $695 a month depending on the length of the contact and speeds, with a 2M bit/sec. connection downstream and 512K bit/sec. upstream service commanding the top price. "Those prices will have to come down" if the new AT&T Comcast wants to make inroads in the corporate broadband market, Kersey said. Peter Gnas, network administrator at Wixon Fontarome Inc., a St. Francis, Wis.-based bread-mix maker that recently switched its field sales force from dial-up to broadband to support bandwidth-hungry XML applications, views the VPN ban as equivalent to "charging people extra for speaking another language on the telephone. I'm disturbed they charge extra for services like VPN." Microsoft Corp. will own 115 million shares of the new AT&T Comcast through conversion of AT&T shares into new stock, and Gnas finds the existing Comcast VPN ban puzzling, since Microsoft "has built VPN support into Windows XP." Kersey suggested that Microsoft's holdings in AT&T Comcast and its desire to penetrate homes with broadband to support new Microsoft-driven appliances could lead to a re-evaluation of the VPN policy. "It would seem to me that Bill Gates would like to see the lowest-priced broadband possible," Kersey said. Gnas added that if cable companies want to charge extra for "business class services" then they should follow up with business class service to the customer, including quality-of-service guarantees and "real support, rather than the usual less-than-quality support." Eric Hoyt, a structural engineer at Weidlinger Associates Inc., an engineering firm in New York, said the cable companies have targeted the wrong people with their restrictions on business users. Stress on a cable broadband network doesn't come from business users but from people who are "downloading music and movies." In Hoyt's view, charging extra for VPN service "is like charging you more for gasoline depending on what kind of car you drive." Jack Nilles, president of JALA International Inc., a management consulting firm in Los Angeles that specializes in telecommuting, doesn't have much hope of AT&T Comcast providing better service for business users based on his recent experience with AT&T Broadband over VPN support. Due to lack of commitment to customer support, Nilles said he advised a large client to opt for telco Digital Subscriber Line service rather than cable. "Cable companies have always had user-hostile policies," Nilles said. -- Robb Topolski (robb@funchords.com) Hillsboro, Oregon USA » www.funchords.com/ |
|
Alcohol Premium Member join:2003-05-26 Climax, MI |
to pianotech
Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion hereThe latest technology? Here's my computers usage on my Optimum Online connection.
|
|
pianotechPianotech Premium Member join:2002-12-30 New Castle, PA
1 recommendation |
And all that bandwidth is comprised of what? Just curious. |
|
Alcohol Premium Member join:2003-05-26 Climax, MI |
Alcohol
Premium Member
2008-Sep-1 10:53 am
720p shows and DVD-R movies.
I don't consider myself an abuser. I did not sit on my computer thinking of ways to increase my monthly bw. I merely downloaded what i wanted, and now i have to limit that because i switched from cablevision to comcast. If only ool was available in this area. |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Sep-1 11:04 am
said by Alcohol:720p shows and DVD-R movies. And the massive uploads? |
|
Alcohol Premium Member join:2003-05-26 Climax, MI |
Alcohol
Premium Member
2008-Sep-1 11:33 am
said by FFH5:said by Alcohol:720p shows and DVD-R movies. And the massive uploads? Torrents. I can stop the uploading, but i'll still need to cut back on downloading. Which is unacceptable in this day and age. |
|
|
prisazu to Sunny
Anon
2008-Sep-1 11:35 am
to Sunny
I am in 100% agreement that it's Comcasts way to stick it to P2P when the FCC said no. Also look at the true comment regarding Video over IP. Look at the latest fiber provider and their video services. Can you imagine what would happen when they start to offer video subscriptions over the Cable company's coax? With the QAM technology used by cable and currently used by the fiber provider, there are limits. The fiber provider is already using IP for some of it's video. They will go 100% at some point. The cable companies must do something. Like gasp for air. |
|
joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday join:2001-09-07 Sudbury, MA 552.8 23.8
1 edit |
With regard to a meter. I am on a Mac, and » freespace.virgin.net/jer ··· ies.htmlAppears to be good to track on a single computer basis, I'm sure there are others for PCs. It's a start. For PCs - » sourceforge.net/projects ··· eemeter/Joe |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA 1 edit
1 recommendation |
to Alcohol
Yet you have moved more bits in any two month period than I have moved in two years. I still haven't cleared the backlog of shows waiting to be watched! |
|
|
Buroz to Sunny
Anon
2008-Sep-1 11:38 pm
to Sunny
Finally. I'm glad that they told what the real limit is going to be. I think that the 250GB per month is fair enough for me. My average usage is less than half of that, that's for sure. But if you compare this step to others countries IPS's policies that's a step back! Most providers initially start with a traffic/per money policy, and just after they improved their network to the extent were they can offer unlimited internet services of whatever the network overload can be, just after that, they introduce unlimited services with the future increment of speeds that they can offer. This cap can only mean that they basically were offering something that they couldn't deliver. In Russian Federation's (I can speak up for it because I know some people out there) capital for instance in a last four or three years ISPs improved their network to the extent where they can offer up to 50mbits connections to their residents. Most people just don't use that much and I don't even know how much would it cost, but a 10mbit connection is like 34 bucks a month and where you're talking about Russia there is meant to be a lot of young people who in here are so called "abusers" of the network, those who are using not less than 60% of their bandwidth connection potential. The most interesting part of it is that no one freaks out about it b e c a u s e they build or upgraded network first and only then introduced whatever they are capable to deliver without making a step back! Same thing implies to Japan.
What I'm also thinking about is that this cap should be the signal to Comcast to modify, change policies, upgrade, in other words do whatever they can to meet the certain customer's needs in Internet connection/bandwidth. I know that the country is big, but something has to be done in order to do this. Also what I hate to tell is that this probably won't happen b e c a u s e they're the second largest company and in most cities they're the only one to offer the Internet service. Which also means " there is no competitors, why should I even do this if I'm getting my profit?". =/ In other words if there would've been a company "B" in my area I would switch to their service if they would offer something more progressive and reliable (that's another issue so won't talk about this in here). |
|
funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
I'm just curious about how broadband is delivered in the Russian federation? Is it Cable, DSL, Fiber? Does the same company that provides the subscriber's line (the neighborhood access) also act as the ISP (the Internet access)? |
|
axelroseCottage Cheese is my Favorite food!! join:2005-05-25 Chattanooga, TN |
to prisazu
said by prisazu :
...Can you imagine what would happen when they start to offer video subscriptions over the Cable company's coax? With the QAM technology used by cable and currently used by the fiber provider, there are limits. The fiber provider is already using IP for some of it's video. They will go 100% at some point. The cable companies must do something. Like gasp for air. I just viewed a 9 minute youtube video, I know it's terrible quality, but it was about 20MB of transfer..How and when did we suddenly think we're privileged? to get blue-ray quality movies on demand via our cable connections? I thought this was why blockbuster was invented. I can also drive to and from my blockbuster faster than I could download the same movie on p2p. Aren't we really talking about the ability to download movies, programs and songs that we never paid for in the first place? Again, I am just asking some questions of the group. |
|
1 edit |
to funchords
said by funchords:I'm just curious about how broadband is delivered in the Russian federation? Is it Cable, DSL, Fiber? Does the same company that provides the subscriber's line (the neighborhood access) also act as the ISP (the Internet access)? In some Soviet satelites, there are small companies that get a fiber connection from a larger city provider, then daisy chain many small 100 Mbit switches house to house and so get hundreds of subscribers. One of those switches could service 30-40 subscribers within the 300 ft Ethernet limitation or with FOT's for longer runs. I had one of those switches on the side of my house, had a very good relationship with the provider since I was providing power to the switch and maintaining it when needed. Very good speeds, no caps, no filtering. Competition keeps them very customer oriented. |
|
|
to FFH5
Bandwidth limits are not just a "Step backward." They are the first of many soon to come responses to recent FCC rulings. By February 2009, the true impact of these changes will be painfully clear.
Many consumers use the internet for streaming media such as news, video, audio and voip. The ramifications of ISP's imposing usage caps on their subscribers for sites (JOOST, HULU, YOUTUBE etc.) that serve up streaming media could be disastrous. Can you say, "Nice idea while it lasted MagicJack, Skype and the rest of you broadband dependent pioneers?"
In order to build their infrastructures these ISP's drank greedily from the well of "public tax dollars" then used their muscle to drive the small local ISP's out of the market. Many of the same big ISP's still receive tax breaks today, even as more promises are broken and the public trust betrayed.
The people are always going to be fleeced by government and big business, just don't insult our intelligence by trying to convice us that it's in our best interest.
Truth is, by 2010 everyone in America could have 20-meg unlimited internet service at an affordable price. However, many areas lack access because the "big-boys" are too busy fighting over who will control the information superhighway.
I look forward to the day when forward-thinking developers include Wireless Cloud Networks their plans for those sprawling new subdivisions that are popping up all over America. |
|
SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN 1 edit |
said by stinger6:Bandwidth limits are not just a "Step backward." They are the first of many soon to come responses to recent FCC rulings. By February 2009, the true impact of these changes will be painfully clear. Will it be like Y2k? Should we start buying bottled water and canned goods now? The limits of the infrastructure that are the driver behind identifying the cap have always existed; the only difference is that now providers are deciding to stop pretending that they don't exist. said by stinger6:Many consumers use the internet for streaming media such as news, video, audio and voip. The ramifications of ISP's imposing usage caps on their subscribers for sites (JOOST, HULU, YOUTUBE etc.) that serve up streaming media could be disastrous. Disasterous? Let's put some perspective on this. According to the New York Times there are about 237 million Internet users in North America. In a report published by Comscore in July, the statistics show that in May 2008: * 74 percent of the total U.S. Internet audience viewed online video. * The average online video viewer watched 228 minutes of video. * 82.2 million viewers watched 4.1 billion videos on YouTube.com (50.4 videos per viewer). * 54.8 million viewers watched 703 million videos on MySpace.com (12.8 videos per viewer). * 6.8 million viewers watched 88 million videos on Hulu.com (13.0 videos per viewer). * The duration of the average online video was 2.7 minutes.
So yes, lots of people on the Internet are watching video. The vast majority of it is short MySpace or YouTube videos (as noted by the average duration of 2.7 minutes of each video). The average viewer is watching just under 4 hours of online video per month, in contrast to 5 hours of traditional TV per viewer per day according to Nielson Media. As for "many" viewers of services like Hulu. They've only had 6.8 million viewers, and there's about 237 North American Internet users. So even if you assume it was just North American viewers surfing Hulu, that's just under 3% of the US/Canada Internet community making it over there to watch videos. Considering Hulu is accessible to the world, the US/Can numbers are actually even lower. I'm not saying this to minimize the importance of online video, but rather to put your assessment of the impact on society as a whole in perspective. If you stopped random people on the street, the overwhelming majority couldn't tell you what service Hulu offers. said by stinger6:Can you say, "Nice idea while it lasted MagicJack, Skype and the rest of you broadband dependent pioneers?" VoIP providers like MagicJack and Skype will do just fine. A G711 RTP stream with overhead is only 80kbps, so if you called someone stayed connected 24x7 for an entire 30 days you'd only have racked up just under 52GB of total transfer if you factor in upstream and downstream audio. said by stinger6:In order to build their infrastructures these ISP's drank greedily from the well of "public tax dollars" then used their muscle to drive the small local ISP's out of the market. What subsidies did the cable companies get to roll infrastructure to deliver cable TV? How about for the HFC plant? Sources? said by stinger6:The people are always going to be fleeced by government and big business, just don't insult our intelligence by trying to convice us that it's in our best interest. I don't think anyone is naive enough to suggest their isn't a non-trivial corruption component to any large business. That said, not every action taken by business is corrupt. said by stinger6:Truth is, by 2010 everyone in America could have 20-meg unlimited internet service at an affordable price. Using what access technology? |
|
funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
said by SpaethCo:said by stinger6:In order to build their infrastructures these ISP's drank greedily from the well of "public tax dollars" then used their muscle to drive the small local ISP's out of the market. What subsidies did the cable companies get to roll infrastructure to deliver cable TV? How about for the HFC plant? Sources? I'm not sure this qualifies, but in my hometown, they were given access to the utility easements and an exclusive franchise, but it wasn't a total handout as they also gave free cable to some public buildings and created some public access channels. They've now stopped giving free cable to public buildings and stopped their support for public access channels, but they're still in the easements and they're still the only game in town. I'm not saying that it was a mistake, it did get the system in and we've had quite a few upgrades. But it does cross significant private and public property. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to stinger6
said by stinger6:In order to build their infrastructures these ISP's drank greedily from the well of "public tax dollars"... I am not aware that any tax dollars were handed out to any companies. |
|
NormanS |
to funchords
WRT the easements, around here, they were already provided to electric and telephone. It isn't like Comcast is getting a free ride. PG&E owns the poles, and was given the primary easement access. I am reasonably certain that PG&E collects from AT&T (telephone) and Comcast for hanging their wires from the PG&E poles. The electric utility easement was there, anyway, and I still don't fully understand how access to that easement is a "subsidy". |
|
funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
Yeah, I'm not sure it is either.
I can't remember who my cable provider was in SoCal, but when the Orange County Tax authority started charging them property tax for the public land that they crossed, they just turned around and added it to our bills as a line item. And while they were trying to embarass the county Assessor, they reminded me that they are essentially getting a free ride across significant property for their "private" company.
But that's how we do things -- we like these public-private partnerships. But when we do them, it creates mutual interests, making the results neither completely public nor completely private. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
Aerial utilities in this neighborhood mostly cross private property. A lot of neighborhoods built between 1955 and 1975, or so, have all overhead utilities mostly crossing private property. I believe this was a government requirement to reduce the "ugly" in utility poles alongside of streets.
Subsequent to 1975, or so, the governments required buried utilities, which puts them back in the public rights of way (under the streets). But buried utilities are costlier to install, and taxing the utilities on top of forcing them to use a more expensive installation method...I suspect that the utilities get a quid-pro-quo from the government agencies: "We'll bury the lines, if you don't tax us". |
|