dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
534243

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

1 recommendation

dadkins to pianotech

MVM

to pianotech

Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here

said by pianotech:

Wow, 350 MB/hour....every hour...
DAMN! That a whole lot of por... "Research Videos".

pianotech
Pianotech
Premium Member
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA

pianotech

Premium Member

said by dadkins:

said by pianotech:

Wow, 350 MB/hour....every hour...
DAMN! That a whole lot of por... "Research Videos".
Haha! Yeah, that's for sure!
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

AVonGauss to dadkins

Premium Member

to dadkins
said by dadkins:

If internet is not a utility, and you want it, what does that make it?

NOTHING that is a utility is being forced on anyone - not power, not water, and not phone.

Other items are not utilities and overall, the majority of people do not have - like internet.
Cable TV is a luxury.
Sat TV is a luxury.
Internet is a luxury - usually carried over cable(a luxury in itself) or copper(phone lines - also a luxury) - right?


Your afore mentioned espresso, that is a luxury. Internet access or a telephone affects your ability to obtain or maintain employment, ability to effectively participate in educational services such as college or even to a lesser degree grammar school for starters. To answer your question as to what does that make it? For many today and for many more each day, it is called a necessity Dadkins.

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

1 recommendation

dadkins

MVM

said by AVonGauss:
said by dadkins:

If internet is not a utility, and you want it, what does that make it?

NOTHING that is a utility is being forced on anyone - not power, not water, and not phone.

Other items are not utilities and overall, the majority of people do not have - like internet.
Cable TV is a luxury.
Sat TV is a luxury.
Internet is a luxury - usually carried over cable(a luxury in itself) or copper(phone lines - also a luxury) - right?


Your afore mentioned espresso, that is a luxury. Internet access or a telephone affects your ability to obtain or maintain employment, ability to effectively participate in educational services such as college or even to a lesser degree grammar school for starters. To answer your question as to what does that make it? For many today and for many more each day, it is called a necessity Dadkins.
Espresso - uses electricity - a utility.
Internet - a luxury.

Employment can be done by commuting and *going to work*.
College, that building we went to - I walked into?
Grammar school? In the '60s No, internet was not around, sorry!
Ya know, kids do still get taken to school everyday during the school year.

Internet is not a utility friend, no matter that you want it to be or you as an individual claims it to be. Sorry.

Maybe some time in the future, but not at present.

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

1 edit

funchords

MVM

...more fun with math...

Here's how long it will take you, uploading and downloading at full speed, to reach a 250 GB cap.

Tier.... Full-speed
up/dn... hours
50/5.... 10.1
16/2.... 30.9
8/2..... 55.6
6/1..... 79.4
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 edit

AVonGauss to dadkins

Premium Member

to dadkins
said by dadkins:

Espresso - uses electricity - a utility.
Sorry, no.
said by dadkins:

Employment can be done by commuting and *going to work*.
It sounds like you haven't applied for a job recently, if that is the case, then good for you. For others, many are told to go enter an application online - some employers provide a terminal at their location, some do not.
said by dadkins:

College, that building we went to - I walked into?
Grammar school? In the '60s No, internet was not around, sorry!

Ya know, kids do still get taken to school everyday during the school year.
I'm glad you mentioned the 60s, it saves me from pointing out the obvious, it's been a while since you were in school, eh?
said by dadkins:

Internet is not a utility friend, no matter that you want it to be or you as an individual claims it to be. Sorry.

Maybe some time in the future, but not at present.
If you're going to keep posting, the least you could do is also read the other posts. As I reminded you just a few posts up, I have never said Internet access is a "utility" or even ever stated that it should be provided through a public utility. That is a much more complex issue.

What I have said is Internet access for you may be a luxury, just as you (and for that matter myself) may consider espresso a necessity. For many others, affordable and reliable Internet access is more of a necessity, not a luxury. Its not a case of "utility" or bust...

Alcohol
Premium Member
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI

Alcohol to dadkins

Premium Member

to dadkins
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.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

2 recommendations

FFH5 to funchords

Premium Member

to funchords
said by funchords:

...more fun with math...

Here's how long it will take you, uploading and downloading at full speed, to reach a 250 GB cap.

Tier.... Full-speed
up/dn... hours
50/5.... 10.1
16/2.... 30.9
8/2..... 55.6
6/1..... 79.4

Speed and volume are 2 different things. Calculations like the above are totally irrelevant to a discussion of "bytes transferred" caps.

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

1 recommendation

dadkins to AVonGauss

MVM

to AVonGauss
Tell me pal, how the hell do you make Espresso without electricity?

Quit jumping around please.
The debate is whether internet is a utility or a luxury.
At this point in time, it is still a luxury.
Sorry if that turns your crank, but it's just the way things are.

Everything you listed above can be done without the luxury of the internet.

Say you are starting out - you don't have a phone... you apply for a job... are you screwed? No!
You go back to the place of possible employment and follow up.
No telephone, no internet.
You get the job, you go to work! No internet necessary.
You decide to go to college after work to better yourself, then instead of going home, you go to that big campus with "College" emblazend on it and go to class.
No internet, perhaps computers, but internet is not usually used in class(the IT dept usually blocks it).

Good grief pal, people EVERYDAY go to school, college and work without that thar interwebs.
How is that possible? Maybe because it is not a "necessity".

Anything else I can help you with today?
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

3 edits

1 recommendation

AVonGauss

Premium Member

said by dadkins:

Anything else I can help you with today?
No Dadkins, I don't believe you could. For what its worth, earlier espresso machines did not use electricity, that is a more recent change.

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

1 recommendation

dadkins

MVM

said by AVonGauss:
said by dadkins:

Anything else I can help you with today?
No Dadkins, I don't believe you could.
Anytime, just ask!
Me or someone else, here in The Comcast Forum, will try to help out.

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

funchords to netcool

MVM

to netcool
said by netcool :
said by funchords:

If it turns out that your sense on this is right, My God! What an overreaction this all has been!
An overreaction on who's part? The small faction of people who made a stink about getting kicked off or Comcast itself?
YES! If you're right, then everyone is overreacting.

Think about it. If warnings and disconnections really only happen 0.01% of the time (1 per 10,000 customers), then Comcast has shot itself in the foot and got a lot of people excited over nothing. If true, then it doesn't have a 250 GB cap!

If the only people that get a call are people who Comcast can demonstrate are operating their Internet connection in a way that unduly impacts others, then there is no bandwidth cap. The bandwidth measure is just an "early indicator" not unlike possible other indicators of accounts with atypical patterns that would tell an investigator who might be a likely source for user-to-user interference.

I don't think you're pulling my leg, but I do think that you've got the wrong impression about what has been going on -- especially recently.

Big case in point: Dave Winer ... this is the guy who, without exaggeration, is deserving of the most credit for everything we now call "Web 2.0." He's not some kiddie with a BitTorrent fetish. I find it unlikely that he was doing something nefarious. It is most likely that he rang the invisible bell simply by transferring podcasts from one server to another.
fezz7834673
Premium Member
join:2008-08-31
Portland, OR

fezz7834673 to Alcohol

Premium Member

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.
Amen to that.

CapitalistOinker
@comcast.net

-1 recommendation

CapitalistOinker to FFH5

Anon

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

blah blah blah .... snip ...

Socialism here we come.
Megadittos! Only privileged children of the wealthy deserve internet access. To ensure an ample supply of servants, it is imperative that we keep at least half the population poor, dumb and broke.

From the Landover Baptist Church Store:

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

dadkins to Alcohol

MVM

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.
I have three online right now... albeit I'm the only user for them.
One is a download computer for - those things, one is a media server, this one is what I spend most of the day on.

Pounding poor Comcast into the weeds with a crippling ~35GB per month.
From a "Per User" POV, I have no issue.
If there were someone on all three... 3 x 35 = OMG! 105GB?
If you and your's have a combined use that exceeds 250GB, perhaps a second account is in order.
No matter what you or I want to happen, things look to be on a downward spiral, huh?

Just be glad we didn't get Rogers-ified at 60(?)Gb per month.
I wouldn't have a problem but MANY would.

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

funchords to chronoss20081

MVM

to chronoss20081

Re: Just Remember 2 megabit unlimited - 250GB

said by chronoss20081:

Juse Remember 2 megabit unlimited - 250GB
Maybe in Canada -- but in the US, it's about 750 kilobit/s to reach 250 GB/mo.

It must have something to do with our currency devaluation.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo to funchords

MVM

to funchords

Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here

said by funchords:

YES! If you're right, then everyone is overreacting.

Think about it. If warnings and disconnections really only happen 0.01% of the time (1 per 10,000 customers), then Comcast has shot itself in the foot and got a lot of people excited over nothing. If true, then it doesn't have a 250 GB cap!
Wait -- there's a lot of things you can blame on Comcast, but the mass panic has been incited by the media like your friends at Free Press and a certain news reporter here on this forum. You've taken a handful of cases, given them a nationwide megaphone, allowed them to make wild claims, and are surprised there's been a reaction? When people get caught by exception, they get angry about it -- and that's the message you're pushing forward. When was the last time you heard someone talk about getting a speeding ticket where they didn't talk about how they were unfairly picked out by the cop? Most of us don't take responsibility or blame very well, so when you have an out like Comcast having some questionable practices, it's going to be in our nature to shine as much of the spotlight on that as possible.

Writing articles about how the infrastructure actually works is boring. Nobody wants to hear that your local cable/DSL/FTTH segment can't move an unlimited number of bits every month, and due to the shared nature of it all every bit you use on the wire is a bit that your neighbors can't use. You get more press coverage if you talk about how big bad Comcast is screwing the average little user. The only problem here is, the users you're holding up as examples aren't average users.
said by funchords:

Big case in point: Dave Winer ... this is the guy who, without exaggeration, is deserving of the most credit for everything we now call "Web 2.0."
Exactly. Nobody represents the average broadband user more than Dave.

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

funchords to dolphins

MVM

to dolphins
said by dolphins:

Forgive me if this has been asked already, I just don't have time to read all the threads on this subject at this moment.

My son has Playstation-3 and plays online every day plus we have 2 computers. Of course all 3 are routed from a single modem (IP address). I'm not sure how much bandwidth the 2 computers use (normal usage) but I imagine the PS3 uses quite a bit.

Does this setup sound like it would go over the cap?
I would be very surprised if it got close.
funchords

funchords to dadkins

MVM

to dadkins
said by dadkins:

Maybe someday, but not at this point in time.
When? What would be the differentiating line for you? (Just curious.)
funchords

1 edit

funchords to SpaethCo

MVM

to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:

Wait -- there's a lot of things you can blame on Comcast, but the mass panic has been incited by the media like your friends at Free Press and a certain news reporter here on this forum.
Free Press had nothing to do with this. They got phone calls in response to this story. It looks like this story was a response to the Florida AG, who apparently was working on this in a cave somewhere.
said by SpaethCo:

When people get caught by exception, they get angry about it -- and that's the message you're pushing forward. When was the last time you heard someone talk about getting a speeding ticket where they didn't talk about how they were unfairly picked out by the cop?
That's not the same. In this case, the cop is giving out SUSPENSIONS for running cars off the road based soley on the output of a radar gun.
said by SpaethCo:

the users you're holding up as examples aren't average users.
No, they aren't average users. They are exceptional users of bandwidth, and I've only held up two specific users as examples -- one is Dave Winer, and the other one's story is still being written and -- like Dave -- he was using his bandwidth in a completely non-nefarious way.

(The disclosure of the invisible cap actually is a better thing for users like these, because now they can know something before making a purchase decision. No cap would be best, however.)

joetaxpayer
I'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA

joetaxpayer to Sunny

Member

to Sunny
Has Comcast specifically stated they won't provide a meter? Seems that when most users see they've used 4GB by mid month, the anxiety and anger will quickly pass.

Joe
MrSpock29
join:2008-02-09
Hammonton, NJ

MrSpock29 to SpaethCo

Member

to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:

said by funchords:

YES! If you're right, then everyone is overreacting.

Think about it. If warnings and disconnections really only happen 0.01% of the time (1 per 10,000 customers), then Comcast has shot itself in the foot and got a lot of people excited over nothing. If true, then it doesn't have a 250 GB cap!
Wait -- there's a lot of things you can blame on Comcast, but the mass panic has been incited by the media like your friends at Free Press and a certain news reporter here on this forum. You've taken a handful of cases, given them a nationwide megaphone, allowed them to make wild claims, and are surprised there's been a reaction? When people get caught by exception, they get angry about it -- and that's the message you're pushing forward. When was the last time you heard someone talk about getting a speeding ticket where they didn't talk about how they were unfairly picked out by the cop? Most of us don't take responsibility or blame very well, so when you have an out like Comcast having some questionable practices, it's going to be in our nature to shine as much of the spotlight on that as possible.

Writing articles about how the infrastructure actually works is boring. Nobody wants to hear that your local cable/DSL/FTTH segment can't move an unlimited number of bits every month, and due to the shared nature of it all every bit you use on the wire is a bit that your neighbors can't use. You get more press coverage if you talk about how big bad Comcast is screwing the average little user. The only problem here is, the users you're holding up as examples aren't average users.
said by funchords:

Big case in point: Dave Winer ... this is the guy who, without exaggeration, is deserving of the most credit for everything we now call "Web 2.0."
Exactly. Nobody represents the average broadband user more than Dave.
Comcast gets the reaction they do because of their actions, it is not fair to blame that on everyone else. If they were so concerned about that, they should have thought of that before they handled things as poorly as they have. Lying about throttling when they had been caught is just one example.
I don't consider it a handful of cases, it's been going on for years and has been a cumulative situation. 1+1 only equals 2, but do it long enough, and eventually the numbers get pretty big.
Think about how different things MIGHT have been had they admitted to throttling when caught, and come up with a better defense, reaction, and solution. Same thing with the caps. Telling people there are none and then saying there are but we can't tell you because it changes every month doesn't fly. Yes, that's what was said to me, in the span of 2 different questions.

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

funchords to dadkins

MVM

to dadkins
said by dadkins:

Can you, or anyone else, show me where the Government has classified internet as a utility?
I'm not sure that's a great standard, either, because there are several Governments. Many cities utility districts offer broadband, so at some point they answered this question positively. So if that's the standard, then it becomes whether or not it is a utility specifically "here" or "there." This is beginning to sound like a semantics argument that itself doesn't make a difference how it is settled.

Utility. Okay - now what?
Not a utility. Okay - now what?
funchords

1 recommendation

funchords to pianotech

MVM

to pianotech
said by pianotech:
quote:
The Amish are a small community.
You obviously are not from Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania is a small community.

(please ignore the fact that I'm in Oregon.)
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

AVonGauss to joetaxpayer

Premium Member

to joetaxpayer
said by joetaxpayer:

Has Comcast specifically stated they won't provide a meter? Seems that when most users see they've used 4GB by mid month, the anxiety and anger will quickly pass.

Joe
No, they have not stated they won't provide a utility or access to the measurement from their system. I haven't seen anything official, but most informal communications I have seen state Comcast has received the feedback and are considering options.

Personally, I don't think a customer side utility is really all that helpful unless it is in the router itself that is directly attached to the modem. Even in that case, the customer really needs access to the numbers on the Comcast system in my opinion. Not that they are charging you per amount used, but the number that really matters is the number measured by the ISP equipment. It's obviously there, customers just need a way to access it - such as through the account management page that already exists.

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

funchords to pianotech

MVM

to pianotech
said by pianotech:

But we are getting way off course. I still have not heard a good reason why net users shouldn't be charged according to the bandwidth they use.
These are good reasons, but (which is more to your point) they aren't absolute reasons.

1. Many customers don't want to be billed by the byte.

2. A company in the business of delivering video for a flat fee stifles competition when it charges by the byte.

3. The growth rate of individual bandwidth consumption is slowing year after year. So after several years of successfully offing unlimited bandwidth, why the need to switch now unless the service providers are failing to keep up with the times?

4. By-the-byte billing is going backward on the technological scale of evolution.
funchords

funchords to Johkal

MVM

to Johkal
said by Johkal:

Here's a article that is a good read:

»www.networkworld.com/col ··· son.html
That's probably usefully illustrative of the baggage that comes along with the designation of "utility" for some people. It was also written in 2006 and is more of an Op/Ed.

I bet if we went back to the 1930s, we'd see many of these same arguments taking place on the Letters-to-the-editor pages of the local newspapers.

Johkal
Cool Cat
MVM
join:2002-11-13
Pennsyltucky

2 edits

1 recommendation

Johkal

MVM

I don't consider a 2 year article not relevant. Take the article as is, I didn't obviously write it.

Never-the-less, the debate of whether or not the internet is a utility remains an opinion.

The fact is, I challenge anyone to prove the Federal Government states the internet is a utility. The burden of proof is on those who consider it a utility to prove it.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo to funchords

MVM

to funchords
said by funchords:

No, they aren't average users. They are exceptional users of bandwidth, and I've only publicly held up two specific users as examples to members of the press -- one is Dave Winer, and the other one's story is still being written and -- like Dave -- he was using his bandwidth in a completely non-nefarious way.
This is a discussion of straight quantity -- who cares what they're using the bandwidth for? It's not like the bits don't get counted on the wire if they're using their bandwidth to save kittens.
said by funchords:

No cap would be best, however.
Face it, the only way we're going back to no caps is if there is usage based billing, or we have speed downgrades. Every broadband ISP that advertises 'unlimited' service is lying. They don't have the bandwidth to deliver 100% use to every subscriber simultaneously, and if everybody started having usage patterns of the people you are describing they would go out of business because their infrastructure costs would be greater than their subscriber revenue.

futureshok
@comcast.net

futureshok to fonzbear2000

Anon

to fonzbear2000
How long until 250 is 200? Then 175, then 150 GB/month.

They will continue to chip away until the digital video customers services are no longer affected by internet traffic to the point of calling for service.
After all they are a television provider first and foremost. ISP is just extra gravy for them and not the number one priority.