| reply to jjeffeory
Re: 1500/256 has 17 GB down cap & 5 GB up cap said by jjeffeory: Those caps are ridiculous for anything other than light "grandma" usage. And that statement is wrong. The caps of 17 GB down & 5 GB up would satisfy 95% of broadband users. And that group is not made up of grandmas. The 5% that have problems with those caps are VERY heavy users only.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
1 edit | said by fAcEtIOUs:said by jjeffeory: Those caps are ridiculous for anything other than light "grandma" usage. And that statement is wrong. The caps of 17 GB down & 5 GB up would satisfy 95% of broadband users. And that group is not made up of grandmas. The 5% that have problems with those caps are VERY heavy users only. In TK's world, no restrictions imposed by any* company can ever be wrong, no matter how outrageous. It is always the fault of the customer.
* - company he "invests" in, because ripping off customers is cool if making money for the shareholders. Service with a smile.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
|
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by jjeffeory: Those caps are ridiculous for anything other than light "grandma" usage. And that statement is wrong. The caps of 17 GB down & 5 GB up would satisfy 95% of broadband users. And that group is not made up of grandmas. The 5% that have problems with those caps are VERY heavy users only. DSLR forums are dominated by the 5% who would exceed any such cap. You'll never convince the "power users" here that usage-sensitive, low-cost plans have their place. You'll never win an argument that telco, cableco, and wireless entities are often unprofitable selling broadband.
I'm not in favor of caps. But if traffic shaping and throttling isn't allowed, I'm not sure whats left in the toolbox. |
|
| said by elray:DSLR forums are dominated by the 5% who would exceed any such cap. You'll never convince the "power users" here that usage-sensitive, low-cost plans have their place. You'll never win an argument that telco, cableco, and wireless entities are often unprofitable selling broadband. I'm not in favor of caps. But if traffic shaping and throttling isn't allowed, I'm not sure whats left in the toolbox. I agree that the power users won't be happy. I just expect, naively no doubt, that they will recognize that they are outside the norm and admit that others find the offered plans more than adequate.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| reply to elray
said by elray:I'm not in favor of caps. But if traffic shaping and throttling isn't allowed, I'm not sure whats left in the toolbox. Easy. Selling truthfully what will be delivered, with no smoke and mirrors high speed numbers and hidden ridiculously low caps and calling users "abusers".
If that is only what they can afford, sure, I have no problem with that, but show in ALL advertisements the clear limits, not only the ridiculously high numbers that they know cannot be supported.
We as a society should not be getting used to be lied to and take that as a normal business practice.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by jjeffeory: Those caps are ridiculous for anything other than light "grandma" usage. And that statement is wrong. The caps of 17 GB down & 5 GB up would satisfy 95% of broadband users. And that group is not made up of grandmas. The 5% that have problems with those caps are VERY heavy users only. I actually have to agree...
My household has four people on-line (each with their own machine), two of which are 20-ish females. There are always multiple machines being used. I also run my own mail server, a web server and have multiple VoIP lines. Bottom line, we use the net a lot.
Our average use (right from my wireless ISP's logs) is ~7-10GB down and ~3-4 GB up PER MONTH. Shocking !
No, we don't watch on-line movies, ect (but you probably couldn't do that on sat anyway). A 17/5 cap would probably be acceptable, if required.
(edit) That said, I had sat service once (DirecWay) - it sucked the monkey - big time...
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
'It looks just like a Telefunken U47 !' |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
1 edit | reply to sturmvogel
You got a point.
I mean seriously, why cannot they not just tell us the truth, they want to skrew us as much as they can for as much as they can. |
|
