nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | reply to Matt
Re: pfft...
perhaps the point might be better stated:
why bother with faster speeds when all it means is you hit the cap sooner?
having caps in place while touting faster speeds as a selling point is sort of contradictory. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| said by nasadude  :perhaps the point might be better stated: why bother with faster speeds when all it means is you hit the cap sooner? That is a non-sequitur and an equally bogus argument.
--
Linux Haters Unite! |
|
Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
| said by Matt :said by nasadude :perhaps the point might be better stated: why bother with faster speeds when all it means is you hit the cap sooner? That is a non-sequitur and an equally bogus argument. Matt those of us in multi user households see these CAPS as BOGUS..whether or not we agree with your view point is completely off point..what is ON POINT is historically bandwidth costs have GONE DOWN and fees have GONE UP. With that being said, these MSOs should be UPGRADING their INFRASTRUCTURE instead of MILKING the consumer..how's that for a valid argument??
--
»davescustompc.com |
|
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :why bother with faster speeds when all it means is you hit the cap sooner? having caps in place while touting faster speeds as a selling point is sort of contradictory. No, it's not. I'll be happy to download a file twice as fast. It doesn't mean that now I'll download TWO files instead of just one. Why would I suddenly want an extra file that I didn't care about before? The only people affected are the ones who download constantly, most of whom are doing something illegal, and Comcast doesn't want them as customers anyway. |
|
massysett
join:2006-01-04
Silver Spring, MD
| reply to Hangmn
said by Hangmn :these MSOs should be UPGRADING their INFRASTRUCTURE instead of MILKING the consumer..how's that for a valid argument?? umm, did you read the article at all? Comcast is rolling out DOCSIS 3.0, a major UPGRADE of INFRASTRUCTURE? |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to Hangmn
said by Hangmn :said by Matt :said by nasadude :perhaps the point might be better stated: why bother with faster speeds when all it means is you hit the cap sooner? That is a non-sequitur and an equally bogus argument. Matt those of us in multi user households see these CAPS as BOGUS..whether or not we agree with your view point is completely off point..what is ON POINT is historically bandwidth costs have GONE DOWN and fees have GONE UP. With that being said, these MSOs should be UPGRADING their INFRASTRUCTURE instead of MILKING the consumer..how's that for a valid argument?? I agree they should upgrade infrastructure. I just don't buy the argument that providing faster speeds immediately means you'll consume a significantly higher amount of data.
And FWIW, I am in a multi-user household.
--
Linux Haters Unite! |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
1 edit | reply to Hangmn
said by Hangmn :said by Matt :said by nasadude :perhaps the point might be better stated: why bother with faster speeds when all it means is you hit the cap sooner? That is a non-sequitur and an equally bogus argument. Matt those of us in multi user households see these CAPS as BOGUS..whether or not we agree with your view point is completely off point..what is ON POINT is historically bandwidth costs have GONE DOWN and fees have GONE UP. With that being said, these MSOs should be UPGRADING their INFRASTRUCTURE instead of MILKING the consumer..how's that for a valid argument?? Look at it this way, are your online habits (or those of the people in your house) going to somehow change just because you have a higher speed connection? Unless there is 24/7 downloading going on (P2P comes to mind), these higher speed tiers wont really impact your overall bandwidth consumption. Its not like you will physically watch more Youtube videos (or Hulu, or Netflix, or (fill in the blank)) just because you can download content quicker.
EDIT: The purpose of my post isnt to argue wether caps are good or bad. I am simply pointing out that higher speed connections dont necessarily mean you will hit those caps sooner.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
| said by wifi4milez :Look at it this way, are your online habits (or those of the people in your house) going to somehow change just because you have a higher speed connection? Unless there is 24/7 downloading going on (P2P comes to mind), these higher speed tiers wont really impact your overall bandwidth consumption. Its not like you will physically watch more Youtube videos (or Hulu, or Netflix, or (fill in the blank)) just because you can download content quicker. EDIT: The purpose of my post isnt to argue wether caps are good or bad. I am simply pointing out that higher speed connections dont necessarily mean you will hit those caps sooner. And I completely agree. However, at this stage to offer me more speed, AND at the same time institute caps just seems a bit arbitrary. I understand the need for TV CONTENT providers to LIMIT my CONTENT derived from a COMPETING medium (internet for all those having trouble following). A better go at this than offering BOTH faster speeds and BUILT in LIMITS would be to offer CONTENT we all WANT in a manner that is decided by me.
--
»davescustompc.com |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | reply to quatrix
Easy answer: watching HD instead of SD content.
Easy answer: downloading less-compressed, higher-resolution content.
Satisfied? |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by iansltx :Easy answer: watching HD instead of SD content. Easy answer: downloading less-compressed, higher-resolution content. Satisfied? And why wouldn't you do this now with your current connection? I do and I only have 15Mbps.
Having 50Mbps isn't suddenly going to change downloading, viewing, or browsing habits. It certainly will over time, but it's not like as soon as a customer upgrades to 50Mbps they're going to consume a proportionately higher amount of data.
The 250GB cap isn't chiseled in stone. It can (and likely will) be raised over time as necessary.
--
Linux Haters Unite! |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| reply to iansltx
said by iansltx :Easy answer: watching HD instead of SD content. Easy answer: downloading less-compressed, higher-resolution content. Satisfied? I disagree. Right now I "only" have 5Mbps/512k, and whenever possible I download HD content. In fact, I watch movies on my PS3 (via the PS3 store) specifically because some are offered in HD. My viewing habits are not going to change simply because I have a faster download speed, that doesnt make sense. As I said before, this will only immediately impact people that "queue up" content via P2P.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to Matt
I hope the cap will be raised...
I have 8 Mbps here. I do HD stuff but would do more if I had a faster connection.
Speaking of faster connections, 50 Mbps service has enough of a price differential that only power users will buy that tier. Or not...they aren't going to buy something where cost-per-GB is over 50 cents. If you have that fat of a pipe and are paying that much, by golly you're going to use it.
Granted, I probably wouldn't use much more on a 12/2 connection than I am right now on 8/2 service. But I'd certainly use more on a 22/5 connection (photo uploads, backup, etc.) and I'd use the heck out of a 50/10 line, with what I'd pay for it...
If D3 ever comes out here though, I'll probably not stick on my current service tier. It'll either be an upgrade to 22/5 or a downgrade to 12/2. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by iansltx :If D3 ever comes out here though, I'll probably not stick on my current service tier. It'll either be an upgrade to 22/5 or a downgrade to 12/2. D3 being Diablo 3?
--
Linux Haters Unite! |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to Hangmn
this will be a research mechanism for Comcast regarding caps if nothing else. If the roll out of DOCSIS 3 means the MAJORITY of customers are hitting caps sooner, theres always the possibility of Comcast raising caps. This of course would happen if there was a major public outcry.
However the opposite may also true. Another likely scenario is that after the roll out happens, Comcast builds a new median baseline based on usage, and further lowers the caps to that point. This will screw the power user .
we'll see
--
"For duty and humanity!"
- Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress |
|
ualdayan
join:2004-07-17
Antioch, TN | reply to Matt
Considering what this thread is about I'd assume when he says D3 he means Docsis 3.0 |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to wifi4milez
Let me restate: if I can stream content, I'll stream the highest quality content my connection allows. There are plenty of free, legal places to do that. Granted, 've downloaded HD shows over a 512 kbps wireless connection, but not very many. In some sense, more speed does equate to more consumption.
Another example: video chat. If the connection is good enough to support it on both ends I'll use it, more if the quality is better. The quality is better when more bandwidth is used. Granted, there's a bigger difference between 512k and 8M than between 8M and 12, 16 or even 22 in terms of the magnitude of the upgrade, but the fact remains that, if the connection allows it, people will use the cloud more as it becomes closer to the speed of their home network.
Example 3: backup. Not good over a 512k upload connection. Better on a 2M connection. On a conection with 5 Mbit upload speeds I'd not think twice about backing up all my stuff to the cloud, and using it as a repository for photos and videos (note: videos, not movies...I have my own content). If I had 20/20 FiOS we're talking on-network-class speeds, and I'd be using a netbook more often.
A megabit or two may not make a difference, but significant increases in speeds, particularly on uploads (because they're rather slow right now) present new internet opportunities, and thus more 'net usage.
If you don't agree, have a Videotron account. 50 Mbit downloads, lowish cap. As Bill Gates once said, 640k oughta be enough for anybody. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to massysett
said by massysett :said by Hangmn :these MSOs should be UPGRADING their INFRASTRUCTURE instead of MILKING the consumer..how's that for a valid argument?? umm, did you read the article at all? Comcast is rolling out DOCSIS 3.0, a major UPGRADE of INFRASTRUCTURE? Yes and Docsis 3.0 is supposed to eliminate the congestion issues that Comcast cites as a reason for caps, so why sill have caps in those areas? |
|
dfxmatt
join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
1 edit | reply to Matt
Re: pfft...
I'd say your response is bogus, 100%.
If you look at internet usage with higher speeds (just wait for a study) you'll see higher internet usage. That is just a synonymous phrasing. Otherwise you're living an equivalent of the "640k ought to be good enough for everybody" translated to internet usage caps.
Give people faster internet and they'll watch more, do more, aka use more bandwidth. Otherwise you could try to make a claim that people who had dialup use the same internet bandwidth as they do now, which is a complete lie.
Thus, comcast is going to face cap issues much faster than before, accelerated by the fact that they're doing it in their largest markets first for obvious competitive reasons.
As far as changing habits, here's a simple example. People who are not "omg p2p" and do things like listen to internet radio while browsing the web in multi user households, will now all be able to do so while doing other things at the same time. This does tend to increase with more bandwidth availability, and does tend to use a ton of bandwidth in general. |
|
dfxmatt
join:2007-08-21
Evanston, IL
| reply to Matt
saying that they'll raise their cap is like ...bleh, I forgot the whole phrase. It's like asking someone to do something they can't, basically.
I wouldn't be surprised if irregardless of all logic and sanity that comcast tries to stick by this 250GB cap for 5-10 years.
Also, about the HD content, on the current connection at 10mb downstream, you cannot watch HD content. 15, is different but still not always sufficient. |
|
