dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
331
share rss forum feed


anonnymiss

@comcast.net

Um

2 people sharing 1 line to the internet, whether it's a cable line, or a fiber line, or whatever. Doesn't matter where they are sharing, everyone shares somewhere. 100% of the internet is tree/branch somewhere.

User 1 uses bittorrent and opens 99 connections to his home computer. User 2 opens 1 connection to youtube.

User 1 gets 99% of the total bandwidth. User 2 gets 1%.

Tell me again how User 1 isn't "hogging" the entire line?

Yeah, it's a myth. And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a racecar too.



OWS123

@lstn.net

said by anonnymiss :

User 1 gets 99% of the total bandwidth. User 2 gets 1%.

Tell me again how User 1 isn't "hogging" the entire line?

How can you claim such statements like that when internet packages offered to users are just a fraction of bulk bandwidth available from the ISP?

User 1 isn't hogging the line. It's the ISP fault for overselling its capacity which could only accommodate 1 user.

It gets all clogged up as soon as ONLY 1 user starts occupying?

Don't you think the ISP is selfish for trying to oversell beyond what its network could handle?

Your example is just an example of a 1:2 contention. In the real world, greedy ISPs could oversell their lines by several folds.

If you ask me, the users are the victims of the ISP's greed. As an ISP you're responsible to furnish a fair deal to your customers.If you expect users to fit in your bandwidth saving idea then you deserve a bad rating for being dishonest.

To me, the reason why they started the bright idea of volume capping was because they wanted to increase contention in order to rake in more profits.

sparks

join:2001-07-08
Little Rock, AR

2 edits

well I can give you my side of it and please let me know how far off I am.

when dsl and comcast were first starting everyone was happy to NOT have to mess with dialup. As time went by everyone was content and the isp's saw drops in their cost and making more each year.
Then here comes cell phones and the idiots that don't mind paying $200 a month to use their iphones and overages out the ass etc.

Yep the morons spending $2000 + a year to use a phone is killing any thought of a smart consumer.
Maybe they just checked the facts and learned that America is now 24th in the world in education.
DUMB ASSES FOLLOW LIKE SHEEP

I really think that they said hey we make more with these idiots so lets do the same with our internet services. Rape them more and more and watch them pay more and more. WEEEEEEE this is fun

what all of the isp's want is $1 a meg for internet service and they will be happy.
NO MORE CAPS, NO MORE OVERAGES this way we have handled all the problems and again everyone is happy.

Hey lets do that first on the phones then move it to the internet.
YEP we don't have to upgrade, overselling and slow speeds are fine and again the co makes billions and the customer gets F'd ..

have a problem, spend a little in washington and make it illegal to bitch.
Wait they already did that.

Don't you think the ISP is selfish for trying to oversell beyond what its network could handle?
TRUE -- check all the forms and I can't do anything in the evening.


jskiles16

join:2012-01-07
Orlando, FL
reply to anonnymiss

The situation you've just described has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This article is a discussion regarding data consumption caps not bandwidth caps. They are not in any way related.

User 1 would never get 99% of the total bandwidth available because Comcast does not offer packages and services that enable that capability. There's a reason that each user has tiered packages of 10/15/20/25/30 mbps bandwidths.

Limiting the consumption of monthly data to 250 GB does absolutely nothing to stop bandwidth consumption during peak hours and in fact penalizes users who consume data outside of peak hours (thus not contributing to congestion).