said by KookyMan:What I think is a real joke is the fact that they have a 250GB cap, but they keep pushing higher and higher speeds.
Sure... Fast is nice, but if you don't have the throughput to really
use it what's the point?
I did some math a little while ago, and this is kind of frightening:
Assuming a constant use of bandwidth (Yes, I know, 99.99999% of users don't constant use their full allotment, but look at the numbers)
Cap / Speed = Time to utilize the entire cap.
(250 gigabytes) / (768 kbps) = 31.6049383 days =
(250 gigabytes) / (1.5 Mbps) = 15.8024691 days = 379.259258 hours (Or 12.6 Hours / Day)
(250 gigabytes) / (6.0 Mbps) = 3.95061728 days = 94.8148147 Hours (Or 3 Hours/day of saturation)
(250 gigabytes) / (12.0 Mbps) = 1.97530864 days = 47.4074074 Hours (Or 1.6 Hours/day of saturation)
(250 gigabytes) / (18.0 Mbps) = 1.31687243 days = 31.6049383 hours (Or 1 Hour/day of saturation)
(250 gigabytes) / (24.0 Mbps) = 23.7037037 hours
(250 gigabytes) / (50.0 Mbps) = 11.3777778 hours
(250 gigabytes) / (100.0 Mbps) = 5.68888889 hours
I know it seems like a lot of numbers but for your average user, it looks like 6.0Mpbs speeds are your best friend. Some might be safe at 12, but keep in mind this only accounts for downstream, and once you pass 12Mbps, its very difficult to actually saturate your feed for your typical home user. Most servers won't provide data at that rate, and then your just paying for what you can't use. (Granted torrents and other peer to peer will saturate you, and provided you can be saturated, the above will demonstrate how long until you are at your cap.)
I think that 250gb is a absolute joke, especially considering they keep pushing faster and faster speeds.
--
I miss my dial-up modem... It was an error correcting modem... I seem to have so many typo's lately..... Thats with the assumption that people are constantly running the connection though. The "average user" (not counting anyone here on DSLR) goes to a website to read a story, email, fantasy football, whatever, and may be at one website for a period of time, thus not eating bandwidth.
Thats also under the assumption that even if people are doing significany downloading (torrents), that the connection is running at full speed all the time, which we know is rarely the case.
I am not in defense of the cap entirely though, I do agree that the 50 and 100 cap levels should be reevaluated. I think at this point though, the jusitification is that those speed levels are targeted as business', thus, capless.