swhitney2003
I can't drive 55.
Premium
join:2003-06-13
NH
clubs: 
1 edit | Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? No, that is for their 10mbps/512kbps service. I believe the 50mbps was going to be 10GB
Edit: in the picture of this article the 20mbps service allots 3GB. | |
|
 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? said by swhitney2003  :No, that is for their 10mbps/512kbps service. I believe the 50mbps was going to be 10GB Oh QQ, I'll hit that in a single day! I do 2 quadrillion GB a month! This isn't fair! I pay (really, my parents do) for unlimited usage and I should have the ability to download the full capacity of anything *I* want, anytime *I* want to! If it cripples my node because I want to run uTorrent at 6000 simultaneous connections I don't care! They should upgrade the node just for me! Where does my $45 a month go?!?
After a single Blu-Ray rip, er, I mean Linux download and all my WoW updates, anime, Windows Updates, and DDoS traffic I'm screwed!!11 I don't want to pay for all teh spam and unsolicited traffic that is sent to my cable modem!!1 | |
|
 |
swhitney2003
I can't drive 55.
Premium
join:2003-06-13
NH
clubs: | Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? I'm going to assume sarcasm here. | |
|
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? I think that's probably correct. Lets put Matt on a business tier or cancel his service, clearly that makes more sense than implementing a system that punishes use of alternative video delivery.  | |
|
| | | beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? Punishes alternative video deliver, how? | |
|
| | | | devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
3 edits | Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? That's the FUD talking. I use Internet video everyday with Fancast, Hulu,, Netflix kids with online games, YouTube and Slingbox. Never come close to caps. The world will end with CAPs is just plain rhetoric.
CAP usage is better explained in this editorial by Justin(the owner of DSLReports). | |
|
| | | | | JazzJRabbit
join:2003-09-27
Wheaton, IL
 ·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? said by devnuller :That's the FUD talking. I use Internet video everyday with Fancast, Hulu,, Netflix kids with online games, YouTube and Slingbox. Never come close to caps. The world will end with CAPs is just plain rhetoric. CAP usage is better explained in this editorial by Justin(the owner of DSLReports). From what I read Netflix HD streaming requires 8-10MBit bandwidth. So if throttling like this was implemented by US ISPs and you were on 20MB tier, then you'd be throttled even before you finished watching your movie. | |
|
| | | | | | devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
| Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? said by JazzJRabbit :From what I read Netflix HD streaming requires 8-10MBit bandwidth. So if throttling like this was implemented by US ISPs and you were on 20MB tier, then you'd be throttled even before you finished watching your movie. You are confusing speed (20Mb per second) with usage (250,000M per month). This is a common mistake. | |
|
| | | | | | | 
meh37
@verizon.net
| Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? said by devnuller :said by JazzJRabbit :From what I read Netflix HD streaming requires 8-10MBit bandwidth. So if throttling like this was implemented by US ISPs and you were on 20MB tier, then you'd be throttled even before you finished watching your movie. You are confusing speed (20Mb per second) with usage (250,000M per month). This is a common mistake. Speed + time = usage
Usage, of course, varies relative to how much time you spend "speeding". (Or were you just trying to be funny?) | |
|
| | | | | | | | devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
1 edit | Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? said by meh37 :
Speed + time = usage
Usage, of course, varies relative to how much time you spend "speeding". (Or were you just trying to be funny?)
I think it is actually a sum of instances around speed * time = usage. And no, I was trying to clarify a misconception. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
meh37
@verizon.net
| Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? Well, regardless, users seldom attain the rated speed, so using the rated speed to "compute" usage is always a best case scenario (or worst case if you have ridiculously low caps). Of course, if ISPs simply performed the function for which customers contract with them--namely, providing access to the Internet; then those customers wouldn't have to deal with stupid issues caused by greedy ISPs. | |
|
| | | | | | | JazzJRabbit
join:2003-09-27
Wheaton, IL
·WOW Internet and C..
| said by devnuller :said by JazzJRabbit :From what I read Netflix HD streaming requires 8-10MBit bandwidth. So if throttling like this was implemented by US ISPs and you were on 20MB tier, then you'd be throttled even before you finished watching your movie. You are confusing speed (20Mb per second) with usage (250,000M per month). This is a common mistake. I'm assuming you're talking about comcast since you mentioned 250GB cap.
I said if US ISPs followed Virgin throttling approach then you would be throttled before you could even watch one HD movie from netflix. | |
|
| | | | | | | | beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? Jazz that is absolutely BS | |
|
| | | | | | | | beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | And not to mention the article states they are moving AWAY from the throttling system and just going after bittorrent specifically.... | |
|
| | | | | | beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | And you read this where exactly? | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? Thanks. Google is easy, getting CORRECT information only a little more difficult. Try here: »www.netflix.com/WiMessage?msg=59
You'll need to login.
Basically it says a 5mbps or higher is fine. Not to mention why would netflix release technology that only, say, 1% of people can get?
So at 5mbps you could watch 24/7 on virgin if you had a 20mbps package right? Because if they throttle you to 25% you still have 5mbps. And the 50mbps plan you'd still have plenty of headroom. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | I didn't know it was that hard to google in this day and age Me thinks you're talking to an industry insider who's pretending to be "new" to this whole idea... | |
|
| | | | | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by JazzJRabbit :said by devnuller :That's the FUD talking. I use Internet video everyday with Fancast, Hulu,, Netflix kids with online games, YouTube and Slingbox. Never come close to caps. The world will end with CAPs is just plain rhetoric. CAP usage is better explained in this editorial by Justin(the owner of DSLReports). From what I read Netflix HD streaming requires 8-10MBit bandwidth. So if throttling like this was implemented by US ISPs and you were on 20MB tier, then you'd be throttled even before you finished watching your movie. The total size of a Netflix HD movie is about 6GB. The rate at which it downloads doesn't matter as it doesn't use 8-10Mbps for the entire time the movie runs. | |
|
| | | | | davidbrown
join:2005-05-31
Toronto, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| said by devnuller :That's the FUD talking. I use Internet video everyday with Fancast, Hulu,, Netflix kids with online games, YouTube and Slingbox. Never come close to caps. The world will end with CAPs is just plain rhetoric. CAP usage is better explained in this editorial by Justin(the owner of DSLReports). I agree with much of what he said but it does miss one important fact.
In the states were there are many different providers this is quite likely to happen but thats just the states.
In say Canada where we truly only have two providers this isn't likely to happen.
They work together rather then compete to keep ripping off the buyers and it had remained this way from the beginning.
For a health market with fair usage to emerge competition is needed and using Canada as a example this simply does not exist in a lot of places.
Tell this changes people wont get a fair deal. | |
|
| | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | Punishes alternative video deliver, how? Monthly caps as low as 5GB are currently being trialed by companies like Time Warner Cable and Frontier. I'll let you do the math for a household full of users. Meanwhile, BitTorrent throttling (like Bell Canada's) doesn't just target P2P piracy, it targets alternative BitTorrent delivery systems that will increasingly compete with Cable or telcoTV.
Higher caps that are clear, and only reached by a vast minority of extremely high-consumption customers are fine. As is smart network management. The problem is that what constitutes excessive use is arbitrary, raw core network congestion data is not published by ISPs, and it will be very easy to abuse systems "for the good of the network" in order to protect TV revenues.
I suppose those who think that's "FUD" (97% of the time that's coming from people in the industry whose wallets or portfolios benefit from metered billing or anti-competitive behavior) can bookmark this post and come back to it in four years to tell me I was wrong. | |
|
| | | | | beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? But this article has nothing to do with a 5GB cap. | |
|
| | | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
1 edit | Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? No, but Virgin is going to start targeting BitTorrent specifically. Do you see any anti-competitive implications of a cable TV company suddenly throttling a protocol that delivers competition via peer to peer networks? | |
|
| | | | | | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? said by Karl Bode :No, but Virgin is going to start targeting BitTorrent specifically. Do you see any anti-competitive implications of a cable TV company suddenly throttling a protocol that delivers competition via peer to peer networks? Clearly, you're mistaken. There's absolutely no reason for a corporation to cripple an up-and-coming competitor. Why, I don't believe that has ever happened in this history of our great company, errr, country. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | Karl if they targeted, say netflix, or itunes, etc...then I'd agree with you. But they don't. Calling bittorrent "competition" to cable tv as a video distribution method is ridiculous. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? Calling bittorrent "competition" to cable tv as a video distribution method is ridiculous. Oh, glad we've got that straightened out then, Mark Cuban. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? Nice, admin resorting to name calling. I guess if you are going to call me a name, might as well be a rich guy 
Cuban is on record regarding Bittorrent? I did not state that the INTERNET is not viable competetion...strictly Bittorrent. Show me some data proving otherwise. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? Oh, so it has to be viable competition or using your dominant market position to crush delivery doesn't count?
Just because you don't think Vuze is a legitimate competitor (I could be wrong, but I'm guessing you're playing dumb but work at a carrier), doesn't magically make it not a competitor. Caps and P2P protocol throttling aren't about killing the competitors of today, they're about killing the competitors of tomorrow.
BitTorrent certainly isn't a current serious competitor for live TV, nor is it currently eating away at any decent share (online video entire ate about 2% of all TV ad revenue in '07), but it is a competitor all the same. Should we get semantic, BitTorrent piracy is a competitor as well, as it sets market expectation (which unfortunately for industry folks is free, and easy). | |
|
| | | | | | | | | beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? I don't work at a carrier or anywhere in the communications business. But this article is about attacking bittorrent directly as opposed to their old method of attacking all heavy users. From the outside looking in, attacking all heavy users would seem to be more of an anti-competetive practice (although I don't think it is) than strictly throttling bittorrent. This frees up all the netflix, hulu, itunes, etc. arguments. Now they just go after bittorrent directly, which is quite insignificant in the "legitimate" online video marketplace.
In fact, it could be construed that they are attacking bittorrent usage to make the netflix streaming experience better for the rest of their customers....although I doubt that as well | |
|
| | | | | devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
4 edits | Karl, I actually agree with much of what you said in that post. The only thing I challenge are changes around the delivery systems. Current video delivery is predictable and has clear economics around it. If it is live/linear or VoD across cable or fiber, people know how to predict, build and charge for it to run a business.
Even alternative Internet video today via CDN or hosters is pretty clear and mostly has solid economics if the proper payment systems are in place (they pay someone) for transit delivery and no one exploits the peering infrastructure.
Where it breaks down is with P2P. Shifting all the costs of video delivery to the consumer based infrastructure (and in turn consumers) does not have clear economics behind it. Some call it "free", others call it "helps the ISP", and others see it as the "holy grail" of CDN. The problem is, none of those people pay the bill in a P2P delivery world.
You know who REALLY wants unlimited???? Content companies that want to use your and my bandwidth for "free"
It's not as simple as "stick it to the man". Find me a real study that shows P2P is cheaper OVER ALL and not just for the content owners. Look into this a little bit more as it is a real technical and business issue.
[EDIT: These statements are not meant to support protocol based throttling. Which I personally do not] | |
|
| |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by swhitney2003 :I'm going to assume sarcasm here. Definitely. I was preempting all the nonsense that was sure to follow. (and perhaps has outside of this thread)
I don't think you should be able to max out your line 24x7x365 and not expect some type of throttling. However, I also feel that every US Corporation instituting caps (excluding Comcast) has has set them way to low and should raise their caps in line with Comcast's 250GB, as well as lower their per GB overage charges.
If it were my decision, I would like to see a monthly usage cap, but with no throttling done until that cap is reached and no per Mbps limit either. Give me a fire hose and lower the water pressure after I've used my 250 gallons. I can understand why removing the per Mbps cap isn't really possible with the current systems in use and would probably wind up being an especially bad idea -- I can see Little Johnny Pirate deciding to save his 250GB for December 31st so he can utilize 250GB on December 31st and another 250GB on January 1st, thus crippling his node for 48 hours. | |
|
| | |
swhitney2003
I can't drive 55.
Premium
join:2003-06-13
NH
clubs: | Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds? Maybe a rolling usage would be better? 250GB within the past 30 days instead of by bill period? That way you cannot just pound the node for 48 hours straight. Just a thought, implementing it and the money to do that... I am clueless. | |
|
| beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | Perfect post! | |
|
|
|
|
·