dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5
share rss forum feed


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

1 edit
reply to JohnInSJ

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

said by JohnInSJ:

said by sturmvogel:

Truth in advertising.
What planet do you live on? Do you like it there?

Sprint wireless unlimited* data plan: 5GB cap.

AT&T Unlimited* uverse: sliding cap based on speed. Less then Comcast's - doesn't point out in big bold letters that your speed is limited if you happen to be watching HDTV...

Wonder what the verizon FiOS caps will be once everyone runs over there

Comcast buries their cap in their AUP just like everyone else.

Sprint CLEARLY (but in small print) states the 5 GB limitation in their latest advertisements.

I live on Earth. The Mars outpost is not ready yet, but I hear that Verizon will provide FiOS there (no caps).
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA

1 recommendation

Sprint *now* clearly says it, but there are many people who signed 1 and 2 year contracts when it was unstated, and now are stuck. Welcome to comcast!

AT&T said no caps on uverse, *EVER*, and hey presto now they are going to caps.

Verizon says no caps, *EVER*, on FiOS. Bets, anyone?

Anyway, at this point clearly you know about comcast's caps. I assume you've leaving for an uncapped provider?



sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

said by JohnInSJ:

Sprint *now* clearly says it, but there are many people who signed 1 and 2 year contracts when it was unstated, and now are stuck. Welcome to comcast!

AT&T said no caps on uverse, *EVER*, and hey presto now they are going to caps.

Verizon says no caps, *EVER*, on FiOS. Bets, anyone?

Anyway, at this point clearly you know about comcast's caps. I assume you've leaving for an uncapped provider?
I believe it was wrong to imply that the service was unlimited and turns out that it is. It seems that you agree on that when it comes to Sprint. Sprint now clearly states it. Comcast still does not. So why is still Sprint still seen by you as the worse of the two ?
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA

Because 5gb is pretty darn easy to use even at EVDO speeds, while 250gb is a lot more realistic, even at 12/2 speeds.

Plus, I and everyone else here knows full well what the comcast cap is. Seriously.



sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

1 edit

said by JohnInSJ:

Because 5gb is pretty darn easy to use even at EVDO speeds, while 250gb is a lot more realistic, even at 12/2 speeds.

Plus, I and everyone else here knows full well what the comcast cap is. Seriously.
We are talking about advertising to the public, not what we know on DSLReports.

If the public would know what we know, the situation would be different.

I can reach the 250 GB cap using my connection 3.5 hrs a day at SIX megabit speed. I would say that is darn easy, too.

--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA

It's right there in the AUP.

You check a box when you sign up for service that says

"I have reviewed the AUP and agree"

So, uh, again, where is the secret? They also don't advertise that you cannot run a server on the residential service. Is that a problem for you too?



sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

said by JohnInSJ:

It's right there in the AUP.

You check a box when you sign up for service that says

"I have reviewed the AUP and agree"

So, uh, again, where is the secret? They also don't advertise that you cannot run a server on the residential service. Is that a problem for you too?
Is the AUP presented in the advertisements ? No.

If you try to pick strawman arguments, I have a problem with rabbits running across fields toward north east on Fridays at 9 AM. I am sure you could paint that as me having an unsubstantiated gripe against CC advertisements.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA

1 edit

I don't find it a strawman argument. Buyer beware, but we can disagree on this. The only people who would even understand what "your usage is soft-capped at 250GB a month" *means* already do know it, the other 99% would never hit that cap anyway.

I'm sure you disagree with that too



sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

3 edits

said by JohnInSJ:

I don't find it a strawman argument. Buyer beware, but we can disagree on this. The only people who would even understand what "your usage is soft-capped at 250GB a month" *means* already do know it, the other 99% would never hit that cap anyway.

I'm sure you disagree with that too
You said that a list of providers ALL hide the caps in the AUP. I stated that one in the list did not.

You pointed that the caps were stated in the AUP that almost nobody reads and immediately shifted to an unrelated clause that would be easier to knock down than the original argument, weakening the stance of the interlocutor. Classic strawman argument.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Now, let's use you 99%/1% argument on something else, like medication. Firm A markets drug A1. 99% of patients will not have ill effects, 1% might/will. Should the disclaimer be presented ONLY to doctors, since the public would not understand it 99% and only 1% might suffer ? I am sure the FDA would like to hear about that.
After all, if the patient signs / check the AUP all is just fine, no ?

That is what regulation does. It helps information and safety for ALL regarding the products they use/have purchased. I am sure many firms would maybe like regulations to be different, but it makes it better for us all.

--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA

quote:
You said that a list of providers ALL hide the caps in the AUP
No, I said the CAP was IN the AUP, not HIDDEN THERE.

You agree to the AUP when you sign up. You say "Yes, I READ IT, I UNDERSTAND IT, I AGREE TO BE BOUND BY IT."

It is common practice to put all manner of things in the AUP that are not mentioned in any advertisement.

Do you agree with that?


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

1 edit

said by JohnInSJ:

quote:
You said that a list of providers ALL hide the caps in the AUP
No, I said the CAP was IN the AUP, not HIDDEN THERE.

You agree to the AUP when you sign up. You say "Yes, I READ IT, I UNDERSTAND IT, I AGREE TO BE BOUND BY IT."

It is common practice to put all manner of things in the AUP that are not mentioned in any advertisement.

Do you agree with that?
You actually said: "Comcast buries their cap in their AUP just like everyone else". So, yes, it IS in the AUP. Why did you use the word "buries" ? My English is weak, I understood that as an attempt to hide something, maybe because it could have an explosive result ?

Remember, the discussion was about the fact that not all the providers in the list you mentioned do not list the cap limit in the advertisements.

I do not like this common practice, especially when it concerns such important clauses that include termination of the account.

The fact that it is "common" does not make it right. The fact that one ISP is coming clean about it shows they believe it is important and they deserve praise for their honesty.

And we can discuss a bit about the AUP that you agree to. You do realize hat they say they could change without notice the AUP at any time ? That time could be in extreme cases the time in between you read it and you click on the checkbox. Do you still believe it is a valid agreement ?
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA

said by sturmvogel:

Remember, the discussion was about the fact that not all the providers in the list you mentioned do not list the cap limit in the advertisements.
No, that's YOUR argument.
I'm trying to show you how that is an unrealistic, one would say naive belief, not supported at all in real life. Legally, they're covered*. That's real life.

*note that they legally had to disclose the cap, not advertise it. You would think they'd have been forced to advertise it since the lawyers were all warmed up on the runway and everything.
quote:
You do realize hat they say they could change without notice the AUP at any time?
Yes, because I read them. In fact, as a business user I read and signed a legally binding contract for three years of service. The contract had 1 sentence that said basically signing the contract means I read and agree to the AUP. Which I did.

The logic is simple. You're buying a service. Either buy it or don't.

I notice you still have yet to answer my simple yes/no question. I'd like you to try and answer that for me, please.


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

Which one ?

"You agree to the AUP when you sign up. You say "Yes, I READ IT, I UNDERSTAND IT, I AGREE TO BE BOUND BY IT."

Yes.

"It is common practice to put all manner of things in the AUP that are not mentioned in any advertisement."

It is common practice. I consider it dishonest if not clearly disclosed on advertisements on important clauses.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.



JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA

1 edit

1 recommendation

Edit..

So, you agree but don't like it.

Cool. Change the laws and get back to me.



sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

1 recommendation

said by JohnInSJ:

Edit..

So, you agree but don't like it.

Cool. Change the laws and get back to me.
Will do.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

1 edit

said by sturmvogel:

said by JohnInSJ:

... Change the laws and get back to me.
Will do.
speaking of laws
We need to make a law that internet service be la cart (and that caps on hard wired connections be illegal

and while we're at it make it so that they can't require an SMC gateway to get statics (very narrow law but come on)


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
reply to JohnInSJ

said by JohnInSJ:

Verizon says no caps, *EVER*, on FiOS.
I need a source for this one, too. What I've heard from Verizon has always been couched in the "for now" and "no plans" present. They've always and intentionally left the future unclear.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ...


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA

Ok, maybe that is too strong.

This is what I read

»/faq/13323

As usual... no caps, until they decide to add them via their "we can change the AUP"



IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
reply to funchords

That's still one better than having no clear indication from Comcast that the cap will ever be raised....

Resolutions on cameras and thus the size of the photo files/movies are constantly increasing... That's just one thing that's going to make users more likely to hit the cap.

This is aside from the newly available channels of HD content: iTunes/Netflix Streaming, etc.

Like it or not... the solution is metered billing, just like any other utility that delivers a quantifiable service: Power, Water, Gas.

If you're a usage hog, you pay for what you use. And the provider is able to collect based on that usage and invest in itself so that it can provide an adequate level of service to all.

Comcast, as a de facto monopoly in the cable space, has no interest in investing in itself to support this kind of use the way that the market wants it to. Instead of having a model that would derive revenue from so called "excessive use" or even higher level usage levels through alternative media sources (iTunes/Apple TV, Netflix Streaming, etc), they'd rather use the 250 GB cap to prevent and squash those alternative media sources from taking a foothold and threatening their Cable TV business.

You don't see Verizon doing this with DSL.
You don't see Verizon doing this with Fios.

Comcast is using the Cap to protect their cable division from competition.

Those higher speed Docsis 3.0 tiers are still capped! That's ridiculous, and it shows that that Docsis 3.0 isn't changing a damn thing.

Getting these Docsis 3.0 tiers is like buying a Ferrari with a 1 gallon gas tank. It's incredibly expensive too... and are you really going to notice the "speed" over 250GB of usage? I, for one, highly doubt it. You'll just get to your Cap, the same as everyone else.

Yes, it really is that simple. FiOs can't make it here to DC soon enough, and it's music to my ears that the system is being built right now.
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army



JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA

1 recommendation

said by IPPlanMan:

Comcast, as a de facto monopoly in the cable space, has no interest in investing in itself to support this kind of use the way that the market wants it to.
You keep making this claim - but there's nothing to support it. Download 500GB of linux ISOs. Be a primary torrent seed for every linux distro and serve out several TB of ISOs. You'll negatively impact the node just the same as you would for any other use, and get flagged just the same. Heck, back up several TB of disk to the internet 24/7.

Comcast could give a rat's behind what you use the pipe for, so long as you're not blowing the node.

As has been pointed out before DSL and FiOS don't have that particular congestion issue. They'll run into upstream issues and the caps will come there just as soon as everyone hops on and starts blowing their cost models out of the water too.

Yes, it's really that simple.


IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

3 edits

said by JohnInSJ:

said by IPPlanMan:

Comcast, as a de facto monopoly in the cable space, has no interest in investing in itself to support this kind of use the way that the market wants it to.
You keep making this claim - but there's nothing to support it.
I can absolutely provide support for this:

1) The Slingbox iPhone application has just been submitted to the Apple iTunes app store, and when it is released, expect a huge jump in upstreaming traffic. (which counts towards the cap by the way.)
2) Netflix Streaming and Apple TV/iTunes downloads are extremely popular.
3) Need I also mention Hulu?
4) What about video conferencing?
5) What about Remote Access like Go to My PC, etc.?

Comcast is unwilling to provide market level support for market channels such as these that do not enable it to recoup actual revenue, and it's because they charge a flat rate. I've mentioned these, and more are popping up all the time.

Apparently, Comcast can only be "profitable" if you use less than 250 GB per month of bandwidth.

Of course, this stupid cap doesn't seem to be keeping Comcast from bumping the download speeds up over 20MB up to 50MB.... How utterly pointless that is given the cap.
And since they're selling you a speed that is up to 20+ or 50MB, they honestly don't care if it actually reaches that or not. They only care that you don't use it more than 250GB per cycle. Figure that one out...

Metered billing... that's the answer that Comcast doesn't want to hear.
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

Its real simple
there is a management infastructure that likely has some High up exec that sees that people are being cut off for high usage and that the FL attorney gen is pressing charges

so he says to him self ok if we say a number for how much they can use then we might not have to pay the FL attorney gen

next he says well my harddrive is 250GB so I don't think people will use more than that in a month

then he tells all to put in this cap and ticks off people

I think this is what happened



IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

1 edit

said by DarkLogix:

Its real simple
...
Sounds entirely possible to me...

And we all know that hard drives haven't grown at all in size or come down in cost in the last 6 months...

Think that will ever happen with Comcast? I doubt it...

Every day that goes by, 250 GB gets you less and less of the internet...
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

Ya you can buy a 2tb drive for like $300 now
but many new computers are still sold with 80 and 160 gb drives
so some exec likely thinks he has a big 250gb drive and thinks thats plenty

as for me just pay for a busi account with statics and your set



joetaxpayer
I'M Here Till Thursday

join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA

said by DarkLogix:

Ya you can buy a 2tb drive for like $300 now.
I've seen 1.5TB seagate drives for $119. I'd think new PCs are shipping with 1TB drives. Can you even buy a 250GB any more? What do they cost? $15?


sturmvogel
Obama '08

join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

said by joetaxpayer:

said by DarkLogix:

Ya you can buy a 2tb drive for like $300 now.
I've seen 1.5TB seagate drives for $119. I'd think new PCs are shipping with 1TB drives. Can you even buy a 250GB any more? What do they cost? $15?
Using 1.5 TB drives ? Hmmm, how many pictures and emails could that store ? What an "abuse", everyone knows that the "median" drive capacity is 40 GB, right ?

/sarcasm (just trying to be Comcastic)
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.


EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9

1 recommendation

I don't think that the capacity of one's HD is really a factor here.. ?

Expand your moderator at work


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to joetaxpayer

Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here

said by joetaxpayer:

said by DarkLogix:

Ya you can buy a 2tb drive for like $300 now.
I've seen 1.5TB seagate drives for $119. I'd think new PCs are shipping with 1TB drives. Can you even buy a 250GB any more? What do they cost? $15?
at work we just bought a brand new computer with a 160gb drive (and added a 2nd drive for cloning)(uesr gets alot of dead drives)
it was also available with 80, 250, 320, 500
and laptops tend to still have smaller drives

sure most of us when we build a computer would but a 1.5 or a 2 TB but at a business we spend more for server storage not end-user storage (because more data thats on the server in raid and backed up daily the less that can be lost)

I don't think a 40gb can be bought anymore bust as for 250gb
»www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi···hInDesc=


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to EG

said by EG:

I don't think that the capacity of one's HD is really a factor here.. ?
ya but uper managment types don't think like normal people