LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| Re: Wow... said by dslwanter  :It's is a bunch of hord crap to offer monster speeds then expect people not to get download horny. If you're going to increase speeds you better increase that cap. Faster doesn't equal more.
--
Fighting on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Win or lose, your still Retarted! | |
|
 |
 | jca2050
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Lewisville, TX | Re: Wow... Assuming you are downloading at full speed, it will take about 11.1 hours of straight downloading to reach the cap | |
|
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Wow... Take this example:
Compare yourself as eating at a Restaurant and then at a Buffet. You order a meal from a menu or chose a buffet.
Either way, you can still only eat so much.. if you're over doing it at the buffet, that says something about your habits.
Most people don't gorge.. they simply get work done quicker or get what ever it was they were doing done quicker. | |
|
| | | 
pspcrazy
Anime Freak
join:2008-02-06
San Diego, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Wow... I hate when people use analogies for these things. There is no such as appetite in downloading. When I buy 50/10 I want to USE MORE, or else I'd stick with the slower 22/5. Most server don't even go that fast, so I'd expect no cap for that high cost top because that's the cost of business class imo. | |
|
| | | | 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: Wow... said by pspcrazy :I hate when people use analogies for these things. There is no such as appetite in downloading. When I buy 50/10 I want to USE MORE, or else I'd stick with the slower 22/5. Most server don't even go that fast, so I'd expect no cap for that high cost top because that's the cost of business class imo. Your analogy is equally as flawed. I (and most people) would purchase it to get the same amount of work done, but faster. And servers most definitely WILL go that fast, it's all about what you're doing. I can pull data from our rack to another server we have several states away at 70Mbps+, the limit of the drives in the destination server.
50Mbps isn't about using more, it's about getting your work done faster. Once people understand that, all this ruckus will die down.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: Wow... As the article stated, there are going to be points of congestion where you have users who think their internet connection is all you can eat, or users who simply don't know any better.
On the whole, people just want things done faster.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: Faster pipes = greater usage said by pandora :said by Matt :As the article stated, there are going to be points of congestion where you have users who think their internet connection is all you can eat, or users who simply don't know any better. On the whole, people just want things done faster. The point of the article is faster pipes result in more traffic. I didn't interpret it that way. But I guess you could if that's the point you're looking to make.
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Kill4Speed
join:2007-01-12
Ashburn, VA | Re: Faster pipes = greater usage any ETA on the "free" upgrade?
I'm thinking of switching to FIOS; perhaps, I can wait | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| People use analogies because sometimes telling it straight up doesn't work - or didn't you notice the numerous threads of back and forth arguments getting no-where?
My point was perfectly fine. You can only eat what you can eat. There is only so much time in a day and so much you can do.
The idea is to give people a faster speed to get on and off faster. It's people like you that still believe they are buying data transfer rather than speed and throughput.
If you hate analogies, maybe you should chose another form of communication because analogies are a fact of speaking.
So, since YOU bring it up, please tell me, why do you WANT to use more? Are you already wide open 24/7 now? If not, you already can use more and your own attempt to slam my post, and your own point, is flawed. | |
|
kevinm5
join:2008-05-27
Willows, CA | That's true but with a faster connection you'll be more likely to download more than before, especially thinks like HD video. | |
|
| 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Wow... said by kevinm5 :That's true but with a faster connection you'll be more likely to download more than before, especially thinks like HD video. Likely, perhaps.
I went from 1.5mbps 5 years ago to 16mbps now and I still average 30GB per month.
Now, if I had 5mbps upload, my overal use would likely climb.
No way in hell I would get near 250GB per month though.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | Underplay
join:2003-10-19
Tacoma, WA
| Re: Wow... This cap may seem extreme to all of you average joe's. But look at the future and you will see that 250gb is literally nothing. New technologies are coming out that use large amounts of space. Services exist like downloading games over the internet, and online hard drives. The average joe is starting to buy terabyte hard drives. I believe comcast should base there cap limit on the hard drive market.
Most of you guys that defend comcast are the perfect stereotype of the average "american consumer". I'm really tired of having ignorant people make decisions that effect everybody else just because they want to be the average goody toe shoes. I really have no idea how someone would settle for such a low cap in the beginning. if your a smart individual and know how these companies work then you will soon be paying for your service by the gigabyte. Only then will you understand what the rest of us have been telling you for years, go ahead. Be a sucker. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | Underplay
join:2003-10-19
Tacoma, WA | Re: Wow... Yes that was a bad comparison. Anyway, the point is that the low 250gb cap is shit. If comcast tried to screw us by charging us per gig then their going to get tossed in the long run. I hope they raise the limit with the new speeds. | |
|
| | | | |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: Wow... said by Underplay :Yes that was a bad comparison. Anyway, the point is that the low 250gb cap is shit. If comcast tried to screw us by charging us per gig then their going to get tossed in the long run. I hope they raise the limit with the new speeds. Look at it from the majority's point of view...
Per GB would be great for 99% of Comcast subs.
Imagine me - 30GB per month. Lower my bill to $10.00 or less? SURE!
In time, that 250GB cap will need to be raised.
ATM it is far and beyond any other service that is being capped. 
Ok by me!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | | | | | |
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by LeftOfSanity :said by dslwanter :It's is a bunch of hord crap to offer monster speeds then expect people not to get download horny. If you're going to increase speeds you better increase that cap. Faster doesn't equal more. Correct!
faster just means you're at your caps quicker!
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
|
pspcrazy
Anime Freak
join:2008-02-06
San Diego, CA | Re: Wow... Yeah I find it funny that people here even defend caps at all. It's sad to see that in the forward moving world, we're actually moving backwards. Sad that people support that AT ALL. | |
|
|
|
|
·
Re: Wow...
