how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
788 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Caps should be proportional to Speed If they want to have caps (something I do not agree with since they should provide what you are paying for and being offered) it should be based on the speed tier you are being sold. If Tier A has twice the Speed as Tier B, it should also have AT LEAST twice the cap since that gives you the same FULL SPEED download time. If they feel that 5GB is "fair" at their lowest tier (I think it is WAY too low for anything past dial-up) then the higher tiers should have LARGER caps no smaller than the ratio of the tier speeds (It is OK to give better than proportional cap to higher tiers so that the user gets something more than just speed for the extra money). | |
|  xQuestx
join:2001-05-15
Bar Harbor, ME | Re: Caps should be proportional to Speed 5gb's is a joke this day an age, netflix on the 360 I bet would eat that up fast. | |
| |  Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 | Re: Caps should be proportional to Speed i am all ready at 73.0GB down 21.5GB up and it's only the 17th | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·Comcast Digital ..
| Verizon Wireless gives you a 5GB cap on their wireless internet plan. Go figure with Frontears - Leaving their customers crying for better service.
--
Satan is always busy. He makes bad things look good and good things look bad! Watch that Devil. | |
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| But the people who whine about whiners will say that their usage hasn't gone up as their speeds have. I call BS, but they insist...
I'm currently on a 512/??? connection over wireless right now. It's really hard to get above about 20GB per month on it due to lousy connection quality. The cap is 25GB, though they apparently don't enforce it too much.
back in Colorado on cable, I routinely use 80GB+ per month, with spikes up to maybe 120-150GB. If I used online backup, I'd probably be pushing 300GB per month. If there was no cap on a 22/5 plan, I'd probably push 300-400GB per month.
That said, speed-proportional caps should be the way to go... | |
| | RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: Caps should be proportional to Speed said by iansltx:But the people who whine about whiners will say that their usage hasn't gone up as their speeds have. I call BS, but they insist... Your Speed Tier says that you can download at the Tier's Speed Limit for up-to X minutes (until you reach that Tier's Download Cap [I am ignoring the contribution of uploading to the Cap to keep it simple]).
When you get a faster tier, you can download faster [which is what you are paying for]. While this does not mean that your usage will increase, it does mean that it CAN (since you get the old amount of work done faster, you have the ability to do extra work in the same amount of time you devoted to the old tier).
I'm currently on a 512/??? connection over wireless right now. It's really hard to get above about 20GB per month on it due to lousy connection quality. The cap is 25GB, though they apparently don't enforce it too much.
back in Colorado on cable, I routinely use 80GB+ per month, with spikes up to maybe 120-150GB. If I used online backup, I'd probably be pushing 300GB per month. If there was no cap on a 22/5 plan, I'd probably push 300-400GB per month.
I forget whose "Law" it was but there is one about work expanding to fill the time available (or something on that order).
That said, speed-proportional caps should be the way to go...
Which is basically what I was stating. If the ISP CLAIMS that there is a need to cap usage, they should not talk out of both sides of their mouth by setting Caps that do not take the tier's speed limits into account. The simplest way to insure "fair" caps is to set them based on usage TIME not VOLUME (even though you state them in Volume not Time terms since it is easier to measure). When we used Dial-Up (back in the early days), you WERE monitored/charged by TIME since the modem bank was a valuable resource. Now it is usage of the bandwidth not how long you stay connected (since there is minimal cost to maintain an idle connection). | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Caps should be proportional to Speed Agreed. Also, people who tend to use more bits tend to want a faster connection...
Me, I'd be great with a bill-per-GB system akin to what electric companies do. But tiered caps based on speed is econd-best. OTOH that presents the problem of users who are for some reason in a low top speed area, like lots of Frontier's customers and, say, Chart's customers with the new 60/5 tier... | |
| | | | RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: Caps should be proportional to Speed said by iansltx:Agreed. Also, people who tend to use more bits tend to want a faster connection... Me, I'd be great with a bill-per-GB system akin to what electric companies do. But tiered caps based on speed is second-best. OTOH that presents the problem of users who are for some reason in a low top speed area, like lots of Frontier's customers and, say, Chart's customers with the new 60/5 tier... The bill-per-GB gives a variable bill each month. It also needs to include a minimal access fee or some allowed usage before you pay for your usage (which is basically what is being proposed with the CAP&OVERAGE System). If they want to go with OVERAGE, there should be ROLL-OVER credits for under usage. Since they are selling me xGB a month and fining me when I go over, I am entitled to apply that sold & paid for amounts that I did not use to pay for my Overages. Also, if there are separate caps at different tier levels, there should be a cap on the overage charges when there is a more expensive tier with a higher cap. IOW: When I go over, my Overage Charges should not exceed the cost of the higher tier until I exceed that tier's usage cap (even though I am only getting the lower tier's speed limit).
To use some made up numbers for the last scheme, If I pay $1 a GB for overage and the difference in Caps between my tier and the next one, is 25GB (with the cost being $10), I should get the first 25GB of overage for $10 once I exceed 10GB of overage and only then have to resume paying at the $1/GB rate for overage. | |
|
| |
|
