80% DOCSIS 3.0 Coverage By 2013? > So they won't need caps then right?

So they won't need caps then right?

We have DOCSIS3 and our cable provider caps at 100GB. Over that you pay.

Of course, Prolog/Penteledata have been known to be pretty greedy and have had low caps ever since so this is no surprise.

If Embarq would get off their butts and offer me more than 5m down and 896 up I'd jump ship in a heartbeat.

So embarq has no caps? It may be slower, but for no caps It would be worth it were I in your shoes. you could always see if you could get some bonded DSL lines from them.

reply to BF69
Right...
As much as that may be true. There are a few reasons that caps will be implemented:

1. Profit - This is a way to make more money off your package w/o increasing the monthly price at the sticker level.

2. Control - This can/will keep traffic in check for the average user, as unlimited is now 'gone'. Methods such as this can also keep costs in check by adjusting overage charges as needed (there is no contract on cable).

3. Easy method to get less profitable customers off the base tiers and have them spend money. Eg. On a 3Mbps connection, I can still use +1TB/month if needed. Putting a paltry 40GB cap on a 3Mbps connection will have most customers jumping to higher connections just to avoid overage charges.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

reply to me1212

Guilty until proven innocent huh? Sounds about right in this day and age of teh "BANDWIDTH APOCALYPSE!!!!!!!!" I sure wish they would catch these mysterious 1 percenters that we keep hearing so much about that are destroying the Internet as we know it.

Typically, a business will increase capacity to meet new demands. Not so with the major isp's though, as they have decided to limit all customers instead. All of this, and none of them have provided any specific data to back up their claims of bandwidth congestion. We must take them for their word and trust them. At the same time, ironically enough, we are seeing an explosion in competitive tv services that utilize a broadband connection. Weird huh? I'm sure there is nothing to that other than bad timing though. The cable and phone companies have always shown themselves to be trustworthy and completely concerned about their customers, so I am not worried.

reply to Matt
Yes, that may be true, but with VoIP, and gaming(online), downloadable content for games, and legal movie/tv watching sites[hulu(I don't know if everything is legal there, butI know some is)/netflix come to mind] like this: Its the middle of summer vacation. The dad hooked the PC up to the new plasma/lcd TV, and they have a netflix subcription, he and the mom go to watch an HD movie. Then the mon's friend calls(on VoIP) and they chat for an hour or so. They have 3 kids one gets on the 360 to play halo3 online, the second goes to watch hulu(the "D" doesn't matter as he will be on for a few hours) and goes to itune to get a new song or 2 while its buffering, the third gets on a web cam with a friend, or plays brawl online. and due to the fact that its summer vacation the kids will be doing this most evern day for a while.

I could get by with 250g a month with CC, but the throtling is what I cannot stand, if it makes VoIP unuseable, what if I have to call 911? They won't be able to understand me! then I die! Thats why I would rather have a slow speed with at least 250g per month and no throtle than one with a throtle. I would rather have unlimited incase I NEEDED it, butI could do just fine with 250-300 a month. I am most likly in the "vast vast" part you talked about. I too hope that as time goes on the caps will increase to accomadate the increased need(and by then it WILL be NEED). and for thoes who NEED no caps I heop they can afford T1.

reply to deadzoned
How about Guilty by Experience?

I was a warez kiddie back in the day, probably before you were born, when HS-Link was popular because it allowed you to upload and download at the same time to save on long distance charges.

My behavior has changed as I've gotten older, but the only thing I don't do now is download music, movies, and warez illegally ... and my usage sits around 60GB a month. That's with Netflix streaming, 3 computers in the house, streaming movies outbound with Orb, XBox gaming, 100% teleworking, two iPhones on WiFi, XM Radio streaming for 8+ hours a day, and a PBX based VoIP phone.

60GB.

While I agree that caps are probably a preemptive shot at competing video services, as it stands right now, it's much ado about nothing. If you remove illegal BitTorrent and NNTP traffic, you simply don't have enough hours in the day to hit some of the proposed caps.

reply to Matt

reply to Matt

damn low, as low as 20GB. TWC/AT&T territories are truly in broadband hell.

reply to Matt

reply to me1212

reply to vinnie97

reply to fifty nine
I also do Hulu and other streams via PlayOn. So what is your monthly usage? It sounds to me like you're right in line with mine. Unless you're paying for overages every month above and beyond the 100GB maximum you're allowed on the highest tier, you're no where near the the usage of the group I am referring to.

I'm averaging about 80-85 gig per month, and that's only because I watch my usage and download/upload my big files at the office. If I used netflix HD more I would probably be over the cap.

Mind you, my work often involves uploading large log files (hundreds of megs most time) to tech support.

I did a workaround by using an X session on my work desktop PC but it's a PITA. It would be a whole lot easier if I didn't have caps to worry about.

Caps could hurt with VoIP,if you hit your cap(and its not a soft one) you could really die, if all you can aford its voip, and no cell. 250-300g you be more than enough for me, and I would fell safer with a cap that high cause I use VoIP. I would have all I need for legal sites like hule and veoh(I think they have some not legal suff, but I know they also have legal stuff, ie nick[the tv station] uploads stuff there) legal youtube stuff(chad vader) brawl and PBR on the wii, and have enough left over to safly use the phone.

reply to Matt
None of that matters. As streaming services become more and more plentiful and prevalent, consumption is naturally going to go up.

It's a major preemptive strike against competing services but in reality it's also just the excuse they were looking for to do what they have desperately wanted to do for a long time now - take total control of the pipes so they can dictate how we use them.

Sadly, they are being less than truthful, and characterizing it as a fight against bandwidth congestion. None of them have provided any hard evidence to support this so-called "Bandwidth Apocalypse" that they keep screaming about.