BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to zod5000
Re: Whats the point of ultrafast internet with such small caps.
Not to mention that Docsis 3.0 was suppose to eliminate the need for caps. That's like taking a 2 lane road with no shoulders and turning it into a 6 lane highway with full shoulders but still insisting the speed limit needs to be 30 MPH. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by BF69  :Not to mention that Docsis 3.0 was suppose to eliminate the need for caps. It was? |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by openbox9 :said by BF69 :Not to mention that Docsis 3.0 was suppose to eliminate the need for caps. It was? yep. ISPs have said 2 things
A) caps are needed because of "congestion"
B) those moving to docsis 3.0 brag about how it will relieve congestion.
So I'm just using their own words. So you make a case for caps because of congestion and you now have docsis 3.0 you can't claim congestion when you've stated your advantage over your competition is that your network will be less congested because of docsis 3.0 |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | So, ISPs haven't said that DOCSIS 3 will eliminate caps, you're attempting to use deductive reasoning. |
|
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | reply to BF69
Well cablevision uses docsis 3 and has a 101/15 tier with no caps or throttling at all.
Their 38/5 boost package has no caps or throttling either. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :So, ISPs haven't said that DOCSIS 3 will eliminate caps, you're attempting to use deductive reasoning. I didn't say they said they would get rid of caps. But it is only comon sense that if the reason for caps is congestion and you claim congrestion will no longer be an issue because of docsis 3.0, then you no longer need caps. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by BF69 :B) those moving to docsis 3.0 brag about how it will relieve congestion. said by BF69 :if the reason for caps is congestion and you claim congrestion will no longer be an issue because of docsis 3.0, then you no longer need caps. "Relieve" congestion and "no longer an issue" are two very different things. |
|
MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :So, ISPs haven't said that DOCSIS 3 will eliminate caps, you're attempting to use deductive reasoning. Better deductive reasoning, than no reasoning at all as the cable companies are prone to doing. |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :Not to mention that Docsis 3.0 was suppose to eliminate the need for caps. That's like taking a 2 lane road with no shoulders and turning it into a 6 lane highway with full shoulders but still insisting the speed limit needs to be 30 MPH. Access speeds and congestion are two completely different issues. Increase speeds without a proportional increase in trunking capacity and higher speeds make congestion more likely, not less. |
|
cpsycho
join:2008-06-03
Orangeville, ON | there rogers goes again selling what the possibly can not offer? |
|
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :So, ISPs haven't said that DOCSIS 3 will eliminate caps, you're attempting to use deductive reasoning. Listen, Board of Directors of any such Cable Co. No matter how much you try and push your 'plan', and how much you withold 'services', you'll never win in highly competitive markerts, why? Because your services are a thing of ancient times, and smart CONSUMERS - will always look for the best deal possible.
Please Cable Co's - keep electing your inept exec's who are inept to the strategery of internet growth. Keep allowing sites like this one, and others! To pick apart your, monopolistic feces.
I'd love to pay an 99.95 monthly fee with a 100gb cap. I mean hey, paying an extra 100 bucks a month for a cap, appeals to me so directly - you fucking inept cocks.
Cap my internet usage please in the USA! So i can save my family another useless 50 bucks a month.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen. |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| reply to openbox9
Well if you followed the CRTC proceedings yesterday, Cogeco which is 30% owned by Rogers admitted that there was no need for throttling 95% of the time. They were unable to provide a reason for doing so.
"Congestion" is FUD much like the dribble that you are spouting. It amounts to a cash grab. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Where have I said anything about how much or how often Cogeco/Rogers experiences congestion? I don't have access to their network, nor do I know any of their network engineers. I responded to a post that claimed DOCSIS 3 is supposed to eliminate the need for caps. I asked the question of where the ISPs claimed as such. BTW, even though 5% congestion (how is that FUD?) is relatively small, it still highlights the need for some sort of management of the network. Maybe not as aggressive as some of the ISPs have been, but the need exists. |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | well if you took statistics 101 you'd quickly realize that the 5% represents a normal distibution. For the 5% that over use you'd have a corresponding 5% that probably haven't figured out how to plug in their modem. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | And how does that alleviate the 5% of time that congestion exists? |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| I'll say it again,
These are normal usage patterns. Any network that is experiencing congestion was not provisioned properly (i.e. did not invest at the rate of depreciation which is a tax deduction). So not only are they ripping on the customer they are ripping on the tax system. All of this was covered in the CRTC hearings.
You can find yourself a great summary on »www.michaelgeist.ca/
These are the statements of a world renowned traffic analyst (who claims that traffic is leveling off and not as exponential as once thought) and also directly from companies who are in the business. Please shut your FUD hole.
I'll elaborate a scenario that maybe you'll understand. In 1999, everyone thought that Nortel was going to take over the world looking at current growth patterns. Evidenced by the $120 stock price. Today the stock is 10cents. Why is that? because a current trend may not translate into tomorrow's trend. |
|
Roop
join:2003-11-15
Ottawa, ON | reply to BF69
what's with Americans and their analogies? |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | reply to backness
That's what I thought.... are you still reading?
Clown. |
|
