Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| reply to nasadude
Re: pfft...
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 |
|
massysett
join:2006-01-04
Silver Spring, MD
| 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 |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| 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 |
|
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
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. |
|
