dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

Hazelwood, MO


I do think it is interesting that they have 1TB limits and their limits grow with speeds. Mediacom must have one of the most robust networks out there to blow Comcast and them out of the water with cap support.

I also find it interesting that such slow speeds have any cap at all. How many with such slow speed "abuse" a network? How in the world could someone with such slow speed abuse a node at all that would cause everyone on the node to suffer thus requiring bandwidth control (assuming they dont pay for more)?

Lastly, I find it very humorous that only 2% of their user's exceed the caps (which caps we dont know) and yet they need to cap all users as a result.

How many users per node exceed this cap?
How is having a cap going to stop congestion?
How is having a cap that allows them to continue on, just pay more, going to stop congestion?


Re: Interesting

Because it's never been, and never will be about congestion.

Feel sorry for poor Mediacom. Mediacom isn't making enough money!

bye bye twc. hello Comcast.
Astoria, NY
·Time Warner Cable
Their doing this, because they can. It's a 2 part thing.

Most MSOs do this sort of thing because they want you to subscribe to their TV services and other services, provided by them. I remember before the netflix days and other online services like them.. Internet was marketed with the 'unlimited' tag. Once the boom of online tv, music etc.. came into play, MSOs started to enforce caps of all sorts.

Many years ago i can understand that node congestion was an issue, due to the equipment not being easily available due to the tech. But as time progressed and better tech came into the market place, and vendors supplying said equipment at huge mark-downs.. Congestion was a non-issue. Now don't get me wrong, some MSOs and other internet providers, didn't have the money allocation like a Comcast, Time Warner Cable etc..

But as of now in 2012. The 'congestion' boogeyman is simply more than what i described above, or a pure-cash grab. 50gb for 10 bucks is simply absurd - putting caps on lower speeds, is just insane. Whenever a company states 'only 1-2% of the subs are the abusers'. Wouldn't you think that the other 99-98% don't need to be told 'here's a cap, even though you don't download as much, but just incase you do, we can charge you!' nonsense.

defending something like this, makes me believe this:
You're an owner of stock in said company.

A worker, either an exec, management or a low line worker. that has no choice, but to tout the company line.

Or just being a flag waving, fanboy.

Or just want to be opposite because it's fun to do so.

As for the family of 4-6 comments. Do you really think it's putting a strain on the network in 2012 for the big players? If you do believe this, you fell for the marketing of absurd.

posted in another thread in regarding caps. My problem has always been, why does 1 apple have to spoil the bunch. Maybe instead of lumping everyone together, how about you take care of those 1-2% of the users causing said 'problems'.
Fantasy football is Dungeons & Dragons for the guys who beat up kids that played D&D.

Chesterfield, MO

Re: Interesting

Why do they need to take care of the 2% users? What if you kicked them off the network? Would 2% make any difference at peak periods? Would having their usage disappear allow slower backbone interconnects and would peering arrangements suddenly get cheaper?

IMO -- this is for when the 2% grows to 5, 10, 20 or even 40% of the subscriber base. Provider's are in a panic because they want to take a break and let the infrastructure rot instead of maintaining it so profits can rise. Meanwhile, the average worker's benefits are gutted causing their discretionary salary to actually decrease. Hey Johnny! You had a good year. Here's a 2.5% increase. Thanks the effort. Oh by the way, the medical premiums will be increased by 10% next year and the deductible is going up another $1,000. The employees also voted to end the Christmas party, we're installing mag-stripe readers on the coffee machines and you'll have to empty your own trash. Keep up the good work! There's management written all over you! Now get your ass back to work and answer those phones with a smile!

If I was in the 2%, wouldn't this plan be a good thing for me? Instead of being capped at 250 GB per month, I now can choose from one of 3 packages with higher monthly allowances or another one that is exactly the same as my old cap. The upshot is that I never get capped. Granted I would have to pay for what I use above my monthly allowance, but they just removed the ceiling on my online activity (rather than shutting me down until next month).

West Tenness

Re: Interesting

said by Rolla:

If I was in the 2%, wouldn't this plan be a good thing for me?

of course because 98% of that 2% uses less than 999 GB.