http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-agree-for-the-most-part-21782142 en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:15:12 EDT Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:15:12 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-agree-for-the-most-part-21785315
If R0CKY's customers use more bandwidth, R0CKY has to buy more GigE connections from Bell. So all arguments for throttling just fall out the window!

R0CKY's ISP has standard 200GB caps on regular accounts, with their "Unlimited" tier intended for users who use 300GB+ of bandwidth. Why shouldn't somebody think 300-500GB is OK when that's what their ISP is selling them?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-agree-for-the-most-part-21785315 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:29:22 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-agree-for-the-most-part-21783051
Those who pay for unlimited service are not the issue as to the person above, it's the clowns out there that can't follow a simple rule that is clearly stated to them yet, whine and moan the topic of caps, etc. come up. When an IPS says 100GB/month cap, I fail to see the logic in someone thinking 300-500GB is ok.... really what the hell?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-agree-for-the-most-part-21783051 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:08:30 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-agree-for-the-most-part-21782929
The DSL service in this area is no better and it doesn't look like they'll be installing fiber within the 5 years.

I have no other ISP choice here so I'm screwed. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-agree-for-the-most-part-21782929 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:49:14 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-agree-for-the-most-part-21782287 said by grabeck:

That throttling should be in place, however, not in it's current state.

If I understand correctly, ISP's are worried about abuse. If that is the case there is NO reason why a customer like myself should be throttled.

I have a 100GB monthly cap with Shaw. On average I use 20-40GB of that bandwidth... far less the 50%. Yet, I know I'm throttled on my on-line gaming experience as well as any torrents I may pull down. Unacceptable in my opinion.

We as customers should not have any bandwidth restrictions UNTIL we are above or "abuse" what we pay for. If I were to use over 100GB of bandwidth in a month, that yes, I would expect to be throttled to no end for "abusing" Shaw's network. Until I hit that number however, any type of tampering with my allotted bandwidth is just bad business.
Nobody should be throttled. If they are it should be to the providers discretion. Not the big company do it to all the smaller companies without telling them.

I have unlimited, no caps, and reach over 500Gigs per month.

Even if there was "better" throttling practices involved, then you SHOULD be the one who is throttled since you barely use up much download for the month, and as long as you can play games.

I on the other hand want to use all my bandwidth all month because thats what I paid for and expect. And I do get that now thank goodness NOT throttled.

The way it always should be. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-agree-for-the-most-part-21782287 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:08:28 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-agree-for-the-most-part-21782282
...all in the name of network management? On something I paid in full for!? Unlike DSL connections we're not paying for "up to" services... we're paying for an aggregation of services, which some, apparently had no intentions on delivering.

This is all one big bad dream right now!
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.

Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-I-agree-for-the-most-part-21782282 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:07:48 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/I-agree-for-the-most-part-21782142
If I understand correctly, ISP's are worried about abuse. If that is the case there is NO reason why a customer like myself should be throttled.

I have a 100GB monthly cap with Shaw. On average I use 20-40GB of that bandwidth... far less the 50%. Yet, I know I'm throttled on my on-line gaming experience as well as any torrents I may pull down. Unacceptable in my opinion.

We as customers should not have any bandwidth restrictions UNTIL we are above or "abuse" what we pay for. If I were to use over 100GB of bandwidth in a month, that yes, I would expect to be throttled to no end for "abusing" Shaw's network. Until I hit that number however, any type of tampering with my allotted bandwidth is just bad business.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/I-agree-for-the-most-part-21782142 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:43:27 EDT