dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5
share rss forum feed


JigglyWiggly

join:2009-07-12
Pleasanton, CA
reply to Stu Pidaso

Re: News: Internet Data Caps

You mean the few cents for cost of data transmit?
They'r backbone isn't clogged. Comcast's network is doing fine w/o any caps right now. They don't need to reimplement them.

It's just nice knowing that I can use my Internet as much as I want w/o worrying about going over my limit, especially when I have xtreme105 which should have no caps at all.



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

And when you "fill up" those 8 channels, then there is the expense of once again expanding the plant capacity, a step more expensive then all the backbone bandwidth you'll ever use.
The network is fine right now, because they are able to limit growth of demand below that of the ability to upgrade capacity.
If you want truely unlimited capacity, be ready for the truely unlimited bills it brings with it.



bradyr
Columbia College IT
Premium
join:2008-10-27
Sonora, CA

in my opinion, your typical non-throttling data cap does nothing to prevent node/plant congestion or to cure it where it already exists.

I mean, so okay, say i have a 300GB/month data cap. where does it say that I can or cannot burn all 300GB of my data during peak hours?

Lets say, Maybe i'm one of your "typical" households that only uses 50GB a month (for fear of maybe going over my quota).. I'm probably going to be burning through the majority of that 50GB during prime-time hours..

I just think that when the data caps are "just a number" and you can pay more money to increase that number, or get fined. But you're not being punished in other ways (throttled speeds, etc), anyone who thinks that is not strictly about making profit is sadly mistaken.



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by bradyr:

in my opinion, your typical non-throttling data cap does nothing to prevent node/plant congestion or to cure it where it already exists.

I mean, so okay, say i have a 300GB/month data cap. where does it say that I can or cannot burn all 300GB of my data during peak hours?

Lets say, Maybe i'm one of your "typical" households that only uses 50GB a month (for fear of maybe going over my quota).. I'm probably going to be burning through the majority of that 50GB during prime-time hours..

I just think that when the data caps are "just a number" and you can pay more money to increase that number, or get fined. But you're not being punished in other ways (throttled speeds, etc), anyone who thinks that is not strictly about making profit is sadly mistaken.

You certainly can choose to use it during prime time, in some places that MAY cause congestion...until you use up your quota, HOWEVER ComCast also has a throttling/prioritizing system to handle Continous use during congested times, and is attempting to add extra capacity in those areas to cover those hours of peak useage.
That's is part of the network growth built in to existing rate structures, but there is not funding for continous UNLIMTED growth. What some dis as 'PURE PROFIT/GREED' overage payments will in fact pay for (in aggregate) faster than expected growth due to higher than cap usage.
While some people suggest they should be allowed unlimited off-peak (since there maybe unused capacity idled at some times) the end user can't really tell/does a poor job of controlling total traffic and congestion.
ComCast's proposed cap spreads the extra cost to the heavest users and the usage sensitive priority throttling reduces domination of the shared path by a few users.
A reasonable solution.


EG
The wings of love
Premium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9
reply to tshirt

said by tshirt:

And when you "fill up" those 8 channels, then there is the expense of once again expanding the plant capacity, a step more expensive then all the backbone bandwidth you'll ever use.
The network is fine right now, because they are able to limit growth of demand below that of the ability to upgrade capacity.
If you want truely unlimited capacity, be ready for the truely unlimited bills it brings with it.

Yep. Maintaining the capacity capabilities of the "last mile" infrastructure is more costly than is the farther upstream transit capacity.
Expand your moderator at work


28619103
Premium
join:2009-03-01
21435
reply to JigglyWiggly

Re: News: Internet Data Caps

said by JigglyWiggly:

You mean the few cents for cost of data transmit?
They'r backbone isn't clogged. Comcast's network is doing fine w/o any caps right now. They don't need to reimplement them.

It's just nice knowing that I can use my Internet as much as I want w/o worrying about going over my limit, especially when I have xtreme105 which should have no caps at all.

Your comment is a bit of rhetoric or ill-informed. The reality is ISP networks are constantly upgrading ($$$) to prevent being "clogged" and this is not a "put in caps to avoid" future spending. The money IS being spent every day to keep up and allow you to continue to say there is "no problem" without fully understanding (or admitting to why) and at who's cost.

The trajectory of how traffic is growing IS changing and increasing. That said, it is not everyone that is driving this change so not everyone should be accountable for it. If you use more, get a new tier. If you don't (most everyone), stay on your current (yearly speed increasing) tier. It's that simple and VERY low impact to 99% of broadband. People can still surf, download music, watch tons of Netflix, game all day long, etc, etc. The tiers/caps have stayed well ahead of demand keeping this 99% number pretty solid as show from very recent data

Don't you feel that the 99% within the above URLs curve should not be paying for the 1%'s usage? Why is it such a problem for an extreme few to pay a fair share (some % of usage) vs spreading the 1%'s costs across their neighbors?

Imagine if you had a common neighborhood electric or water bill with a flat rate. How happy would you be with the guy that leaves his Christmas lights on all year 7x24? Or the guy that puts faucets out on the curb for people outside the neighborhood to fill their pools.

To become a terabit user is not easy. While there are corner cases, terabit users I expect are usually "That Guy" and neighbors should not be held accountable for his cost.


JigglyWiggly

join:2009-07-12
Pleasanton, CA

yes because using your internet is totally comparable to using 500 watt light bulbs 24/7

please

This is the only site in existence that defends data caps. Probably because you guys work at ISPs and want to protect even more revenue.



28619103
Premium
join:2009-03-01
21435

4 edits

There are no perfect analogies for the Internet. But there are good analogies for inefficiencies, waste and fair allocation of costs

You should really check the facts versus using rhetorical dismissive statements. Again I ask why should the 99% pay relatively FAR more of their contribution to overall capacity growth than the 1%.