dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1880
share rss forum feed


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Why we have caps

How quickly people forget.

»news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10004508-38.html

Comcast decided to throttle/filter bittorrent which was hammering their network. Bittorrent is one of the highest users of bandwidth.

FCC said that was illegal, and you have to disclose how you manage your network, and it must be fair.

No problem, 250GB cap for all... up front, disclosed, fair.

I think the crowd here won't be happy until they get the most speed available, unlimited bandwidth with no conditions at all for a rock bottom price.


JasonOD

@comcast.net
Except, they were kicking people off anyway before that- roughly the top 1,000 hogs a month I think. Now they cap, but offer no overages. Leaving stockholders and customers that would prefer that option scratching their heads.


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to fifty nine
you're getting actions and reactions mixed

the 250GB cap is due to the FL attorney general ordering them to state what they called high usage as they were already booting people for using to much, but the cap is soft and they still really only go after people that are causing issues not just over the cap

the bittorrent issue was, bad network managment and an FCC order which held almost no weight but they changed their managment to a protocol agnostic one

also comcast doesn't have overages


Heathcliffe

@bell.ca
reply to fifty nine

Which ISP do you work for?

said by fifty nine:

...I think the crowd here won't be happy until they get the most speed available, unlimited bandwidth with no conditions at all for a rock bottom price.

Lets' cut the industry mouthpiece crap. Right now, the average used car dealer is more honest and credible than most ISP's (most of whom resemble the sleaziest sleazy of marketing outfits).

The majority of people want honest ISP's that spec prices, speeds, data volumes, limitations et al. in honest, clear and unambiguous terms and stand by those terms, such that they (the customer) knows what the are getting and for how much.

End of.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to fifty nine

Re: Why we have caps

said by fifty nine:

How quickly people forget.

»news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10004508-38.html

Comcast decided to throttle/filter bittorrent which was hammering their network. Bittorrent is one of the highest users of bandwidth.

FCC said that was illegal, and you have to disclose how you manage your network, and it must be fair.

No problem, 250GB cap for all... up front, disclosed, fair.

I think the crowd here won't be happy until they get the most speed available, unlimited bandwidth with no conditions at all for a rock bottom price.

I have to agree here. I used to be the infrastructure manager for a college and to see our fast connection get taken down to its knees by 3-4 systems running bittorrent was just a little intimidating at the time. This was years ago, and lessons were learned. Students complained about the capping that was going on, but we weren't data capping, just doing smart QOS. Something else that was frowned upon by the students.

I am just fine with the 250GB cap. I don't see how Comcast is using this as another revenue stream. They aren't making any money off it. If anything, they are losing money because people would leave if they didn't like it.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net

boombie

join:2000-12-01
Milwaukee, WI
But they are making money off it, People that go over their 250gb cap are switching to "business class" at a higher price.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

How quickly people forget.

»news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10004508-38.html

Comcast decided to throttle/filter bittorrent which was hammering their network. Bittorrent is one of the highest users of bandwidth.

FCC said that was illegal, and you have to disclose how you manage your network, and it must be fair.

No problem, 250GB cap for all... up front, disclosed, fair.

I think the crowd here won't be happy until they get the most speed available, unlimited bandwidth with no conditions at all for a rock bottom price.

How quickly you begin to shill:

According to Sandvine, even when averaged over the entire day, Netflix accounted for 22.2 percent of North American data traffic. Thats more than even more than BitTorrent, which accounted for 21.6 percent of traffic, and had long been the single largest component of data traffic on broadband networks.

»gigaom.com/broadband/netflix-p2p-traffic/

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:

I have to agree here. I used to be the infrastructure manager for a college and to see our fast connection get taken down to its knees by 3-4 systems running bittorrent was just a little intimidating at the time. This was years ago, and lessons were learned. Students complained about the capping that was going on, but we weren't data capping, just doing smart QOS. Something else that was frowned upon by the students.

I am just fine with the 250GB cap. I don't see how Comcast is using this as another revenue stream. They aren't making any money off it. If anything, they are losing money because people would leave if they didn't like it.

How many years ago was that? Bandwidth costs decrease 50% every year or two. You think Comcast's network is close to being "taken down to its knees"?


David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·magicjack.com
·Google Voice
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:


I think the crowd here won't be happy until they get the most speed available, unlimited bandwidth with no conditions at all for a rock bottom price.

Unfortunately, I agree.

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

1 recommendation

reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:

I have to agree here. I used to be the infrastructure manager for a college and to see our fast connection get taken down to its knees by 3-4 systems running bittorrent was just a little intimidating at the time. This was years ago, and lessons were learned. Students complained about the capping that was going on, but we weren't data capping, just doing smart QOS. Something else that was frowned upon by the students.

Should all innovations be put on hold until the infrastructure is in place to perfectly support them?

Perhaps they should have waited until most of the world had paved roads before introducing the automobile? Or maybe they should have waited until every home had been wired before the telephone made its debut?

Here's a novel concept; Maybe ISPs could focus on upgrading their networks to serve their existing customers, rather than continuing to sell faster tiers of service, which by their actions, they claim they can't actually support.

said by Nightfall:

I am just fine with the 250GB cap.

And I'd be just fine with eliminating all sports on TV and 90% of "reality" shows...

said by Nightfall:

I don't see how Comcast is using this as another revenue stream. They aren't making any money off it.


What many users are thinking; "I can watch TV shows on sites like Hulu, or on the network's web site. I can watch movies on Netflix. And if I don't mind committing copyright infringement, I can download movies and TV shows from sites like The Pirate Bay. Hmm, why am I paying $50 a month for cable? Oh that's right, if me and my family start watching TV shows and movies over the net, rather than on traditional cable TV, we'll quickly run over the monthly usage cap and either have to pay more, or risk having our internet account shut off. Oh well, I guess I don't have much choice but to keep paying for cable TV. Oops, I see it's going up to $52 after the first of the year..."

said by Nightfall:

If anything, they are losing money because people would leave if they didn't like it.

And go where? The majority of people, at least in the US, only have a choice between the local cable company or the local phone company. There's no competition, specifically because of the monopoly rights granted to them by the government.

How do you vote with your wallet when your only options both impose usage caps?


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

How quickly people forget.

»news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10004508-38.html

Comcast decided to throttle/filter bittorrent which was hammering their network. Bittorrent is one of the highest users of bandwidth.

FCC said that was illegal, and you have to disclose how you manage your network, and it must be fair.

No problem, 250GB cap for all... up front, disclosed, fair.

I think the crowd here won't be happy until they get the most speed available, unlimited bandwidth with no conditions at all for a rock bottom price.

That 250GB cap does nothing but prevent people from using their connection they paid for. It is a practice of ripping off consumers.
We have had unlimited internet since 1995.
I could download more with my ATT dsl in 2000 than in 2011 with their BS caps.

The crowd here wont be happy until we get our unlimited/unrestricted internet back. ISPs can continue to charge for unlimited usage like they did from 1995 to 2011 and were greatly profitable.
It is bullshit when I only have a choice of ISPs that have caps, it is a monopoly that is limiting/restricting/destroying the internet.
Caps are what happens when every ISP now sells TV service and wants to unfairly stop competition.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:

said by Nightfall:

I have to agree here. I used to be the infrastructure manager for a college and to see our fast connection get taken down to its knees by 3-4 systems running bittorrent was just a little intimidating at the time. This was years ago, and lessons were learned. Students complained about the capping that was going on, but we weren't data capping, just doing smart QOS. Something else that was frowned upon by the students.

I am just fine with the 250GB cap. I don't see how Comcast is using this as another revenue stream. They aren't making any money off it. If anything, they are losing money because people would leave if they didn't like it.

How many years ago was that? Bandwidth costs decrease 50% every year or two. You think Comcast's network is close to being "taken down to its knees"?

I think that Comcast's network is in need of a major redesign. Times really haven't changed. If you give 100 houses 3 100 megabit connections and don't cap the lines in terms of speed, it will only take a few houses to eat all that bandwidth up.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to Rekrul
quote:
Here's a novel concept; Maybe ISPs could focus on upgrading their networks to serve their existing customers, rather than continuing to sell faster tiers of service, which by their actions, they claim they can't actually support.

You and I are in complete agreement. As you mention earlier, you have to start somewhere. They can keep increasing the speeds, but they have to start redesigning the infrastructure eventually. Rome wasn't built in a day.

quote:
What many users are thinking; "I can watch TV shows on sites like Hulu, or on the network's web site. I can watch movies on Netflix. And if I don't mind committing copyright infringement, I can download movies and TV shows from sites like The Pirate Bay. Hmm, why am I paying $50 a month for cable? Oh that's right, if me and my family start watching TV shows and movies over the net, rather than on traditional cable TV, we'll quickly run over the monthly usage cap and either have to pay more, or risk having our internet account shut off. Oh well, I guess I don't have much choice but to keep paying for cable TV. Oops, I see it's going up to $52 after the first of the year..."

Actually, this is what most BBR users are thinking. Most common consumers are not thinking of downloading movies or music over torrents. Most common users don't even consider the cap because they never hit it. My parents are major users of Netflix and watching shows over the internet using their apps on their blu-ray player. Thats about as technical as they get though.

Many highly technical people use the very same points and there is a disconnect there. You cannot compare the highly technical needs to the common user. If you do, you get to where we are today. Caps in place and technical people bitching about them.

The caps are not going away anytime soon. Unless there is a major innovation where users are using more bandwidth. The caps will rise with the masses.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to David
said by David:

said by fifty nine:


I think the crowd here won't be happy until they get the most speed available, unlimited bandwidth with no conditions at all for a rock bottom price.

Unfortunately, I agree.

I also agree. I am not happy with the profits that the ISPs are raking in and yet not spending on their infrastructure. Yet, I am also not happy with the attitude of the consumers who want something for nothing.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
said by Nightfall:

I am not happy with the profits that the ISPs are raking in and yet not spending on their infrastructure.

Isn't there a story on the front page right now about a significant increase in DOCSIS 3.0 equipment deployment? Presumably that required some investment in infrastructure...

Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
Going back to the initial run of D3 being installed one of the second tier players said that it cost them less than $100/sub to switch from D2 to D3. So relative to the profits shown, they have not made any real significant investments in their infrastructure.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:

said by Nightfall:

I am not happy with the profits that the ISPs are raking in and yet not spending on their infrastructure.

Isn't there a story on the front page right now about a significant increase in DOCSIS 3.0 equipment deployment? Presumably that required some investment in infrastructure...

With the millions in profit that Comcast is raking in, they should have started this investment a long time ago.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


Really

@verizon.net
reply to fifty nine
Are you serious? Comcast has been one of the biggest offenders when it comes to overselling an aging network, a network I might add that has more than it's fair share of problems during off peak hours let alone high demand times.

I hear almost weekly if not monthly from those I know with their service how bad it is. Between random outages, jitter, hosted email issues, terrible pricing plans, forced bundles, crappy customer service...I can go on. If there was any competition in it's truest sense, this company would be gone by now.

You keep believing their claims, some of them worded like a tragic comedy at times...and keep blaming those who have paid faithfully for services that were, shall we say, not as expected, or as marketed.

BTW, so you have a clue, it's not the bandwidth BT uses that congests horrid networks like Comcast's....it's the amount of connections....which had they not oversold their networks to the point of bursting....would not even be a problem.

So, keep defending the inferior product...that won't make you look dumb.


NetB0B

@71.153.177.x
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

I think the crowd here won't be happy until they get the most speed available, unlimited bandwidth with no conditions at all for a rock bottom price.

Of course they won't... So what? That's how business works; the buyer tries to get the most value for the lowest price and the seller tries to give the least value for the highest price. For years the ISPs established the precedent of unlimited, unmetered usage. Now that our ability to use their service has caught up with their deployed infrastructure, they're trying to leverage the value provided down instead of investing in new infrastructure.

The reason we have a valid complaint is that there is no competitive market to fairly establish that balance between highest value/lowest price and lowest value/highest price therefore the ISPs have all the negotiating power and we have almost none.


IdaTarbell

@comcast.net
reply to Nightfall
Excuse me! I cannot leave Comcast, because it is a monopoly! There is no other cable USP in all the greater Ft. Lauderdale area. Monopolies are inherently abusive -- QED! When there is no other to turn to, they will issue the worst service, the rudest and most ignorant "service" workers and reward the top management with grotesque bonuses and salaries -- all this for avoiding maintenance, refusing to upgrade and gouging the helpless consumer.
If you have not done so, I suggest you study the Progressive era of the USA, when the Standard Oil cartel was broken. Such is the situation today with telecoms -- why should they innovate, when they are monopolies?

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to Nightfall
I PAY FOR MY SERVICE. It is not "something for nothing".

It is normal to desire the most service for the cheapest price. Why is it ok for companies to gouge customers and for monopolies to flourish ?

The corporate apologists make me puke. I hope one day all of you will be rounded up and shot.

Poguemahone0

join:2010-05-27
united state
reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

I think the crowd here won't be happy until they get the most speed available, unlimited bandwidth with no conditions at all for a rock bottom price.

Can I ask you to honestly explain why this is a bad thing? Other countries are moving towards this model and they are leaps and bounds above consumer-grade broadband in the US. You pay for your internet, and unless you're doing something extremely intensive like grabbing more than 10TBs of data a month, it shouldn't be up to anyone but you to decide how you use it.

It's like the only thing you want the ISPs to do is make money and completely ignore the reason they're monoliths of industry in the first place. Less restrictions, more speed, and expanded availability at a competitive price would equal more customers and a happier consumer base. Adding more customers would boost profits in the long term and seems like a better alternative to claiming "FREE MARKET!" and doing the exact opposite of what free market actually is.