 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to deadzoned
Re: So they won't need caps then right? 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. |
deadzonedPremium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | 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. |
