dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1733
share rss forum feed


Gaff
Just like the gypsy woman said

join:1999-09-05
North TX, US
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

Excellent news

I'm very happy with my AT&T DSL service but that would not have stopped me jumping ship either back to cable or to another DSL company if these caps were implemented.

80GB/month on the Elite plan? Someone is clearly stuck in a timewarp leading to a decade ago if they think that's a suitable amount, and ideally there should be no caps at all.

According to my router logs I have used over 80GB/month in 5 of the last 10 months, as my DSL connection is powering 3 Internet-enabled devices (2 PCs and a PS3).

I'm very glad to hear that these trials failed.
--
My PC Gaming Blog
»thegaffadin.blogspot.com


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Now only if Comcast would learn something here.


Gaff
Just like the gypsy woman said

join:1999-09-05
North TX, US
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
I'm not a fan of caps by any means but at least Comcast has theirs at 250GB a month. I've not even come close to that in a heavy usage month.

That's not to say others won't though, since what is typical for me is not going to be typical for everyone else.

That's the issue with caps, they are a one-size-fits-all bandaid.
--
My PC Gaming Blog
»thegaffadin.blogspot.com


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by Gaff:

I'm not a fan of caps by any means but at least Comcast has theirs at 250GB a month. I've not even come close to that in a heavy usage month.
Well when it first came out 250 seemed reasonable and is for the vast majority. However....

A) Nearly 18 months later and the cap is the same. I think most people that accepted caps assumed they'd eventually go up. So far no dice

B) With Docsis 3.0 the need for caps especially one as low as 250 GB a month isn't necessary. 250 GB is equivalent to 800 kbps. A Docsis 3.0 system can't handle more than 800 kbps per customer?


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream
Something tells me that this meter that Comcast has been working on for so long will throw a curve ball in the situation.

I predict Comcast to slowly move people to usage based tiers. Think about it, why work on the meter so hard when only %1 of the customer base is supposely taxing Comcast's network? Wasn't that the argument about imposing caps?

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 edit
reply to r81984
said by r81984:

Now only if Comcast would learn something here.
I think that the comcast caps are "reasonable".. it allows them to define their usage to their customer base.. it's reasonable for the current time.. it gives them a change to keep a control on the network for ALL users to be able to access it with out any kinda of interruption.. and, as they continue to build out their network and get more capacity, I'm sure you will start to see those caps grow as well.

As it's been said, 90-something percent (I think it's 90% of all users) don't come near 250gb per month anyway. If they had a 100gb cap, I think they'd be pissing off a LOT of customers.

The one thing I always had a problem with ATT or even Verizon even thinking about caps is that they own a lot of their own lines that carry the data. And for that, they'd be double dipping... unlike cable that largely either has to lease lines OR buy it from other providers.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

1 recommendation

said by fiberguy:

said by r81984:

Now only if Comcast would learn something here.
I think that the comcast caps are "reasonable".. it allows them to define their usage to their customer base.. it's reasonable for the current time.. it gives them a change to keep a control on the network for ALL users to be able to access it with out any kinda of interruption.. and, as they continue to build out their network and get more capacity, I'm sure you will start to see those caps grow as well.

As it's been said, 90-something percent (I think it's 90% of all users) don't come near 250gb per month anyway. If they had a 100gb cap, I think they'd be pissing off a LOT of customers.

The one thing I always had a problem with ATT or even Verizon even thinking about caps is that they own a lot of their own lines that carry the data. And for that, they'd be double dipping... unlike cable that largely either has to lease lines OR buy it from other providers.
As someone already pointed out, the number hasn't gone up in 18 months. In other areas where ISPs instituted caps, like Canada and Australia, the values have actually gone down.

The reality is caps don't manage congestion. They're simply a means of an ISP to control their users so they don't have to worry about video competition.

davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3

1 edit
reply to 88615298
Lets say you want 100 liters of juice transferred from London, England to New York City. In 1960 I could ship it by propeller driven DC-6 and get it to you in say 12 hours. That was the DOCSIS 2.0 speed. In 1970 I could ship that same 100 liters of juice by turbofan 707-320 in say 6 hours. That was the DOCSIS 3.0 speed. I did not agree to give you more juice (GB of data) for the same price, just to get the amount you bought to you faster. Comcast is giving you the same amount of data transfer (250GB of juice) but at a faster rate. Comcast is setting up their network at this time to handle faster shipments of the same amount of data. When they are all done with all of the upgrades related to the DOCSIS 3.0 upgrade, I bet they will increase the cap for the same inflation adjusted price, because then all their customers can use the same Terms of Service, because all their customers will be DOCSIS 3.0. You will get more juice for the same inflation adjusted price. And you will get it at a faster rate than before. To the marketing and legal guys this would be the way to go. Big splashy ad campaign about the increase in the data rate and the cap with a single legal change to the TOS.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

said by davidhoffman:

Lets say you want 100 liters of juice transferred from London, England to New York City. In 1960 I could ship it by propeller driven DC-6 and get it to you in say 12 hours. That was the DOCSIS 2.0 speed. In 1970 I could ship that same 100 liters of juice by turbofan 707-320 in say 6 hours. That was the DOCSIS 3.0 speed. I did not agree to give you more juice (GB of data) for the same price, just to get the amount you bought to you faster. Comcast is giving you the same amount of data transfer (250GB of juice) but at a faster rate.
Actually Comast used to give customers an UNLIMITED amount of juice until 18 months ago.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to sonicmerlin
First, I don't care about OTHER countries like Canada or Australia... I only care about the topic at hand with the provider at hand. And, in the case of Comcast, they've certainly showed to be different in the case of caps over all other AMERICAN ISPs who cam up with lower caps.

Second, I don't believe Comcast came up with caps 18 months ago; it's been less than that.

Third, YES - and try to get this one through your head.. caps, while they may be used to discourage certain uses, ALSO do help with network management.

For the longest time, they tried to manage their network with a different method and it was based PER-NODE.. not company wide. Customers didn't like that some high users were being booted so they forced the hand of the company to set caps.. and they did. To be honest, 250gb is perfectly fine for today's users.

However, if you have people wanting and pushing to use more, and you're network isn't ready to handle that (the last mile) then you have to still manage it. Setting a cap or expected use limit or what ever you can paint/call it, IS also network management. You can apply any theory you want to a cap and many of them can be right, but just because you have it stuck in your mind that it's JUST about competition doesn't make it so.. The fact remains that the internet content can outgrow a network MUCH faster than the network can keep up with upgrades... and THAT is a fact. So yes, caps, in this case, are PART of network management. Der!

How can a cap NOT manage network congestion if you have people, and there are, that are running their connection way beyond a typical residential user.. and that user is slowing down a node for other users? Tell me how that can't be network management?

My statement before stands... comcast has YET to push their caps down - it's not to say they are not going to either.. but who are you to sit there and say they're likely to lower the caps? Again, I could care less about Australia where the country has a data crunch as it is and always has. I could care less about Canada.. again, different country, different way of life, and different make-up of their networks... AT&T just announced they're scrapping their caps. Comcast is increasing capacity.. I certainly can see that they're likely to reduce them. All you're doing is second guessing and ASSuming things right now and while you can, that's fine.. but don't sit there acting like some sort of analyst in the all knowing position as just like MANY people here - you're probably wrong too.

The fact is that if the internet is going to be taking over so much of what we do, and everything starts to shift over towards it, we're BOUND to see a change in the way people buy it just as we are seeing the way people consume it. Do you REALLY think that any MSO, be it cable, phone, etc.) is going to simply dwindle down other products and revenue as one service dominates and decimates the other? no.. think about it. Yes, I WILL say that the internet cost WILL go up. They STILL have to maintain a business model and need X amount of $ to run it.. and when video starts to take a dive due to the internet, yes, the internet will either be priced higher, OR will get treated like electricity and gas and you'll pay for what you use... HOW you use it, in the future, is up to you.. Some people will pay more, some people may pay less... but caps, as you say are ALSO a way to manage a network that isn't ready for what people want to throw at it.. you can't deny it.. well, you can, but you'd be wrong if you're saying its "just to control video competition"...

If you're going to make a post, take some time to think about EVERY aspect of something, not just your own view.


technologiq

join:2000-08-08
Reno, NV

1 edit
said by fiberguy See ProfileTo be honest, 250gb is perfectly fine for today's users. [/BQUOTE :

I have 3 kids with laptops, 2 xboxes, watch streaming Netflix and DirecTV on Demand and frequently use more than the caps allow.

Whats your math for determining that 250gb is perfectly fine for todays usage? Just your own opinion? Perhaps you should read the last sentence in your post again.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
You missed the entire point.. I don't need to give you the math.. I'm not the only one saying it. As of right now, who has the highest cap? Comcast. Who has the lowest caps? TWC and until yesterday, ATT.

If 99% of all users are under 250gb right now and most of them hardly come anywhere NEAR that amount.. what more "math" do you need?

My last sentence was just fine.. I AM taking everyone into account.. is 99% of the people not significant?

If you're using more than 250 gb, why don't you take the advice of many other and go business class.. it's usually $10 or $20 more.. but, in the eye of the ISP, and in this case, I'm going to agree with them, I think when they are trying to establish "residential use" for $42 a month, and 99% of their users are at or well under 250gb, I think that's pretty much a great definition of "residential use"... if you need more, that's your concern.. maybe you need to make adjustments to your use, or consider other options.. maybe a slower DSL connection that doesn't have those "caps"...

One thing people need to get through their heads is that just becuase YOU want something and you scream loud enough, you're not always going to get it "your way".. it's not Burger King after all.. as of right now, if you need more than 250, want fast speeds that cable offers, then you're going to have to make choices for yourself.