how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | reply to S_engineer
Re: I don't get it... said by S_engineer:said by Rob:said by fiberguy:Comcast places the largest of all cap measure controls in place at 250 gb while others are placing them as low as 5gb, and people complain? Which happens to be the same people who complained about invisible caps, refusing to heed our advice that invisible caps are better than known caps. Now that they were able to complain enough and Comcast made the caps known, we all have to suffer. I disagree. The amount of people that were barking about the 'unknown cap' were so few outside of tech forums that it was contextually insignificant. Comcast used this as an excuse to implement a cap in order to continue the policy of overselling an overburdoned network. This excuse (blaming excessive piracy through torrents) is a much easier sell than going back to the share holders and saying 'we need to spend x amount of dollars to expand our infrastructure in order to accomodate the expanding network use and applications'. Look at it this way, with continued growth of applications through their network, they'll have to upgrade anyway. By implementing a cap system, they can also sell tiered usage with this as a baseline. And a question for the Jason the comcast guy....what versions of Linux is Comcast using to host sandvine? It was through their complaints, that the FCC took notice and started to investigate.
Comcast continues to upgrade their network. The caps have nothing to do with the network - it has to do with the cost of bandwidth. It's all about bandwidth. | |
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by Rob:It was through their complaints, that the FCC took notice and started to investigate. Rob, the FCC had nothing to do with the caps.
Footnote 3 in "FCC New Network Management Technique" addresses Comcast's position directly:
These congestion management practices are independent of, and should not be confused with, our recent announcement that we will amend the “excessive use” portion of our Acceptable Use Policy, effective October 1, 2008, to establish a specific monthly data usage threshold of 250 GB per account for all residential HSI customers. This excessive use threshold is designed to prevent any one residential account from consuming excessive amounts of network resources as measured over the course of a month. That cap does not address the issue of network congestion, which results from traffic levels that vary from minute to minute. We have long had an “excessive use” limit in our Acceptable Use Policy but have been criticized for failing to specify what is considered to be “excessive.” The new cap provides clarity to customers regarding the specific monthly consumption limit per account. As with the existing policy, a user who violates the excessive use policy twice within six months is subject to having his or her Internet service account terminated for one year. said by Rob:Comcast continues to upgrade their network. The caps have nothing to do with the network - it has to do with the cost of bandwidth. It's all about bandwidth. Not only do I think you're right about that, I think that the 250 GB amount is still a net money-loser for Comcast. That doesn't make the cap a good thing, I'd prefer no cap. But if they're going to have a cap, it's good to have it disclosed.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| | |
|
| There is a correlation. The lower the latency, the more bandwidth available. Or, how many transactions per second are being accomplished. Its all about response time.
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | I understand. I agree with you that the Cap and the prioritization are related in probable effect. Comcast shouldn't need both. | |
|
