Theme

Welcome · log in · join	food

	All Forums		Hot Topics		Gallery

The 'Bandwidth Hog' is a Myth → Re: Why we have caps

uniqs
99

« Not To Be Confused Between Data Volume And Bandwidth • So True »

This is a sub-selection from Why we have caps

Nightfall My Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI	Nightfall to fifty nine MVM 2011-Nov-30 3:50 pm to fifty nine Re: Why we have caps said by fifty nine: How quickly people forget. »news.cnet.com/8301-13578 ··· -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.
	actions · 2011-Nov-30 3:50 pm ·
boombie join:2000-12-01 Milwaukee, WI	boombie Member 2011-Nov-30 5:34 pm But they are making money off it, People that go over their 250gb cap are switching to "business class" at a higher price.
	actions · 2011-Nov-30 5:34 pm ·
sonicmerlin join:2009-05-24 Cleveland, OH	sonicmerlin to Nightfall Member 2011-Nov-30 6:19 pm 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"?
	actions · 2011-Nov-30 6:19 pm ·
Rekrul join:2007-04-21 Milford, CT 1 recommendation	Rekrul to Nightfall Member 2011-Nov-30 9:28 pm 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?
	actions · 2011-Nov-30 9:28 pm ·
Nightfall My Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI	Nightfall to sonicmerlin MVM 2011-Dec-1 12:00 am 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.
	actions · 2011-Dec-1 12:00 am ·
Nightfall	Nightfall to Rekrul MVM 2011-Dec-1 12:06 am 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.
	actions · 2011-Dec-1 12:06 am ·
IdaTarbell @comcast.net	IdaTarbell to Nightfall Anon 2011-Dec-1 10:27 pm 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?
	actions · 2011-Dec-1 10:27 pm ·

« Not To Be Confused Between Data Volume And Bandwidth • So True »

This is a sub-selection from Why we have caps