site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
AuthorAll Replies


DJMASACRE

join:2008-05-27
Nepean, ON

1 edit

reply to grabeck

Re: I agree for the most part...

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.

Sunday, 12-Feb 11:16:21 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online! © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics