dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9234
share rss forum feed


bctrainers

join:2004-08-03
Olathe, KS
reply to luckmann

Re: [Qwest] CL Data Caps are REAL.

quote:
Supposedly I have violated the cap every month since august on some months using as much as 30 terabytes.
...30 TB a month? That would have to be continuous data transfer on download and upload day in and out for that to be true, and even then - 30TB?? In a year, I can consume upwards of 3TB total. This is data pulled from my pfSense box RRD graphs. I actually broke just past 3TB (3.02TB to be exact!) this past year - which is averaging about 250-260GB a month.

As of this year thus far, I appear to be on track of exceeding the previous year (2012) due to family using netflix/hulu/video HD streaming much more often. So far for 2013 alone, I've already exceeded my monthly data cap in Jan 2013. 264GB downloaded, 17.5GB uploaded, which in total is 282GB, just for Jan 2013. For Feb thus far, already at 130GB.

Unfortunately, these low caps are just a method for a company to net in more money; It's pathetic really. However greed consumes all, I guess. Rather upgrade their network and continuously feed in new innovative ideas, the "high-ups" decide to hoard the profits and keep old legacy hardware and upgrade when things go into a disaster situation, e.g.; flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes, pretty much any natural disaster that can potentially total equipment and/or transmission lines.

either way, I am having a hard time understanding how one could use up 30 Tera bytes in a month. :|

luckmann

join:2004-06-27
Albuquerque, NM

The only thing I can figure is that they are reading every bit of data that goes through the router... I do a lot of data transfer between computers on my local network (10.10.xxx.xxx) and I am wondering if that is counting against my cap.


njt462

join:2006-11-28
Troy, MO

Do anyone know if the cap applies to Centurylink Fiber customers?

I am one of the lucky customers that has FTTH I think that is right meaning it comes to my house the fiber is ran to the green box in the side yard two house down the fiber was ran to each house to the little box on the side of the homes.

So I was wondering do I need to monitor my usage on a Fiber connection?

Right now I get around 80Mbps Down and 40Mbps Up.



clones

join:2005-04-18
Ankeny, IA

It is enforced on the FTTH product in Iowa.
--
Admin Tips »www.serverninjas.com



name

@embarqhsd.net
reply to demot

1. I have a Netgear DGN2200 modem/router and it has a traffic meter. It has quite a few options too like letting you know if your close to your cap.

2. What does it matter if there is a data cap since CenturyLink is down half the time anyway ? (I kid, but not really)


luckmann

join:2004-06-27
Albuquerque, NM
Reviews:
·Comcast

2 edits

That's the funny part, I have been a Qwest / Centurylink customer for seven years and have lost interent service once. I will say I have been through thirteen of thier leased modems and they are crap... I have added a Netgear N600v2 and have had better wireless performance and am happy with it... I have decided to give centurylink the boot since they choose not to have me as a customer and switch to comcast as they no longer have caps. Admitidly I loose 10mb of speed... I go from 40mb/5mb to 30mb/5mb but the total cost with unlimited phone is about 1/2 of what I was paying with centurylink so we will see how it goes.


firedrakes

join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

only the cisco modem/router has lasted for me


luckmann

join:2004-06-27
Albuquerque, NM
Reviews:
·Comcast

I started out with a Westell. When that crapped out they sent me Q1000 modems and those worked ok but they usually crapped out about every three or four months over the years I have gone through about 13 of them. Then just recently I picked up a C1000a and it has worked ok for about the last two months and it crapped out... I went back to a spare Q1000 that was in the closet I will use it until they cut me off on the 27th of this month.... Then when the cable comes on I will bridge thier modem and use my own Netgear N600 router.



Boss302_1970

join:2009-12-11
reply to groebke

CL modems do suck i had actiontecs and went thru them about every month. since i'm on a slow plan i picked up 2 old cisco 678s from ebay and man what a difference they never drop.


joe_h

join:2010-05-26
Las Cruces, NM
reply to luckmann

Does Comcast still have unlimited data? I thought they were 350Gb everywhere now.


comapro

join:2009-12-14
Burnsville, MN
reply to groebke

I just got a pop-up today for the first time saying I exceeded the 250GB limit for the past 3 months, including Feb 2013. No calls or emails, or they called but haven't left any voicemails. The numbers did seem a bit high, over 600GB for Feb. They should really offer a way to monitor this through their site.

edit: BTW, this is in a former Qwest area.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
reply to luckmann

said by luckmann:

I have decided to give centurylink the boot since they choose not to have me as a customer and switch to comcast as they no longer have caps.

More like Comcast does not, currently, enforce caps. From the Comcast forum:

»Re: Thinking of dumping AT&T for Comcast (broadband only)
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

luckmann

join:2004-06-27
Albuquerque, NM
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to joe_h

According to thier website and the tech I spoke with they have removed caps and have no intention of bringing them back... I assume this is to lure customers such as myself where legacy DSL has caps. The caps were removed in november... I will go with them as long as there are no caps... If they bring them back I will make other arrangments... The removal probably has to do with the customers they lost when the started capping. They are also under FCC pressure sinceh they fully acquired NBC/Universal.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

Comcast caps used to be 250 GB on residential accounts. They suspended caps while evaluating where to set them; supposedly projecting an increase to 350 GB.

Comcast does not have caps on the pricier business plans. Many Comcast users upgraded to business class accounts for that reason. I should think that would be an incentive to restore enfocement; one of the Four Secrets of Life: More Money!

My DSL provider does not have caps.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


groebke

join:2013-02-03
reply to groebke

30 TB? At 40MB, full out, that would take 69 days to download, without factoring in TCP overhead. If they told you that, you have them, as their data about your usage cannot possibly be correct.

Since data is unregulated, the PUC cannot do anything to regulate this. My only other choice is Comcast, and they are worse, at higher cost, for slower speeds. No thanks.

To put this in perspective, if one streams HD Netflix, 250GB per month would be exceeded if one watches 4.5 days worth of streaming per month, or about 3.6 hours per day. It goes quickly.


mhoke638

join:2011-05-12
reply to groebke

Yes, Data Caps are real. 250 GB is a lot of data to use per month. A fraction of a percent of customers (about 0.012%) actually reach the cap. I have an unlimited data plan with my verizon smartphone. I average about 8 GB per month and that is using it for streaming netflix and I have my phone rooted and I use the wifi tether for my laptop and tablet. Even if you have multiple people in the house gaming online, streaming video, downloading music, etc, it would still be hard to reach that 250 GB. They don't charge extra, they just put you in a "walled" state until they contact you and explain what is happening.
The "official" position is that anything more than 250 GB is considered business use and you need to be switched to a business account. However, the real reason they put the caps on is actually a benefit to you. If you remember back after 9/11, Qwest was the only company that did not comply with homeland security's demand for wiretapping their phone network under the PATRIOT Act. Qwest lost a couple very large government contracts because of this. Considering the bandwidth needed to reach this cap is so big, really the only way to reach it is to have material streaming 24/7. (e.g. large bit torrent files) Usually this is in the form of copyrighted material. While this activity CAN be used legal, such as if you were sharing distributions of GNU/Linux, most people that share material like that are pirating and sharing copyrighted material.
Up until a couple years ago Centurylink used to partner with Microsoft to provide the ISP on their DSL and had no data caps. MSN would be the ISP and Qwest would be the physical layer to the connection. They severed this relationship and now Centurylink is both the transport and ISP. Why did they do this? Well, Microsoft would monitor Internet traffic. After arguments between Qwest and Microsoft about this, Qwest waited until the contract ran up and just decided to be the ISP as well. There are several different state and local laws regarding piracy of copyrighted material for the different areas Centurylink services. Many of these laws require ISPs to monitor traffic. The part of Centurylink that was formerly Qwest refuses to do this. Instead, they put on the bandwidth caps to the point where it is likely that copyrighted material is being shared if that cap is reached. They put these caps in for your privacy and not because they want more money by switching to a business account. They refuse to monitor your traffic, althought they still will if they happened to intercept criminal traffic (child pornography, terrorist threats, etc), but they don't go looking for it. Seriously, this is the real reason those caps are in place. If you notice, those caps were put in place when Centurylink got rid of MSN from ALL customers who previously had it. Up until a few months ago, there were still some people that still had MSN as their ISP. The question is, would you rather have an "unlimited" provider that monitors your traffic, or a cap that is very hard to reach provided by a company that keeps your traffic private?


TheMayor

join:2002-05-09

2 edits

Ok first of all it was hard to follow what you were saying since there was no paragraph breaks.

MS was never the ISP, but instead a "content" provider. If they were the isp, how come..

1) Never had to install the MSN software for my connection to work, nor did I ever sign up with a Hotmail / Live email address when I recieved my "Welcome" Kit

2) My IP address was considered Qwest
3) When I did a Tracert to Google, Microsoft was never listed as one of the hops

In regards of the 250 Gig being a lot, in between watching a bunch of YT videos & watching a bunch on Netflix, it's easy to hit that number. Based on the two examples I used, I would say that I use about 15 to 20 Gigs per day just on that.

In regards of the 250 Gig cap & CTL refusing to monitor, this would make sense, but other ISP's such as Comcast, At&T & Comcast also have/had a 250 GB cap. I say had, because Comcast temporary suspended it



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
reply to mhoke638

said by mhoke638:

Yes, Data Caps are real. 250 GB is a lot of data to use per month.

Not really. I hit 95 GB the last full month of service with AT&T; and that is just one light downloader. Imagine a family with four teens (my sister, at one time past).

There are no state/Federal laws requiring ISPs to monitor traffic, or even to maintain logs. AT&T has allowed the NSA to monitor all traffic passing over their Tier 1 transit network since before SBC bought them; if your CenturyLink traffic crosses AT&T transit, it is monitored.

My current ISP neither monitors directly, nor has data caps. What sets it apart from ISPs with caps is that they don't provide television service, as do AT&T (U-verse IPTV), Comcast, Charter (and other cable providers) ... and CentutyLink (Prism IPTV). Caps are about protecting the TV revenue stream.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

firedrakes

join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

i notice that with the prism iptv and my normal bw i use i hit over 250gb for the last 2 months . but not gotten any notice


joe_h

join:2010-05-26
Las Cruces, NM
reply to groebke

Exactly. It's quite easy now to hit a 250Gb threshold without downloading anything illegally. That argument is old and tired. I also find it comical that you're comparing the 8Gb you download on your Verizon phone to a normal DSL line. You don't really think that the Netflix feed you're getting on your smartphone has the same quality as a HD stream to your desktop, do you?

What happens when 4k streaming becomes available?

Data caps need to be abolished altogether.


luckmann

join:2004-06-27
Albuquerque, NM
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

After getting notified about my cancelation due to bandwidth use via letter I called and told CL that I no longer wanted service. At that time I was told that there was no way the disconect for exceeding bandwidth could be reversed with the exception of upgrading to a business account. I explained that I had already contracted another provider and didnt want thier service and since they were disconecting me anyway to go ahead and get rid of the phone and all service. I was told at that time that even though I got a letter that they dont disconnect based on bandwidth and that I wouldnt loose service. Sure enough the 27th of Feb. came and went and they didnt disconnect. In fact they didnt disconnect until yesterday even though the number was ported on the 27th. As to the gentelman that had such great insight into how impossible it would be to go over the 250gb cap without doing something illegal. I have downloaded several large data files from my university that have to do with demographics (census data for the last 70 years) as well as my normal streaming and downloading and since i put a new router in on the 27th when I changed service I have downloaded somewhere around 36gb and that is with streaming hd video (dont know how many hours but several shows), so there is no way I was going over the cap let alone downloading between 10 and 30tb as CL claimed. I am glad I have left the company and gone somewhere else. I am much more satisfied with comcast and since at this time they have no data caps I am happy. But if they do institute data caps in the future I will be happy to upgrade to business especially since even as a residential customer i now have native (not RD as CL has) IPv6 and much better ping times.


luckmann

join:2004-06-27
Albuquerque, NM
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to billaustin

said by billaustin:

There is an online support team that may be able to help you. Send a detailed message with your DSL phone number to: talktous@centurylink.com

I sent a message to them as recomended and never heard anything from them.


mhoke6381

@midco.net
reply to groebke

I just find it funny that you all want to believe so bad that the bandwidth caps are so bad that you are willing to come up with any excuse to refute them. As far as the prism service, I would seriously doubt that bandwidth is tallied into account.

MSN was the ISP. When I ordered Qwest several years ago, they gave me the option for MSN, Qwest ISP, or Alternate ISP. MSN was a content provider, but they only provided that content because they were the ISP. This is why that content went away when Qwest stopped using MSN ISP services. As far as the Netflix with my phone, I also use it to connect my Roku XS which does provide HQ content.

They don't terminate service for going over the cap. They put you in a walled state meaning you cannot access the internet save for a message telling you to call. The same thing happens if they detect a virus is spreading to their own network and determined it came from your computer.

The fact remains only a very small percentage of customers reach that cap. Earlier posts here were complaining that they imposed caps, but no way to monitor how much data is being used. Then, when I posted that few reach the cap, all of a sudden people were posting how much data they use per month. I found that a bit odd. I could state facts all day here, but many of you already convinced yourselves that this is a conspiracy against customers.

They constantly produce ads promoting home networking and the advantages of higher speeds with multiple users in the house. It wouldn't make any sense for them to impose caps in order to increase money. How would they profit from this? A business account for a residential customer has a lot of red tape involved with it. The cap increased from 1.5 to a higher speed, but everything a 3 mbit and higher has the same cap. You may have the profit point if the cap increased with higher speed tiers. They also don't charge you anything more for going over the cap. They don't even disconnect the service. There is no benefit to the company for imposing caps and when you go over, they don't even do anything with rate increases unless you consistently go over the cap then they recommend a business class of service.

You could argue that the caps contribute to network congestion. Network congestion is rarely an issue. It comes up at times when people are on the old ATM DSLAMs. Since those are either DS1 or DS3 fed, too many customers on them can cause congestion, but even that is rare with ATM loops. Since the adsl2+, vdsl2, and the prism service doesn't have the bottlenecks that ATM has, network congestion is much more rare. It still happens, but if it does, there is a problem with the network, not the users. Cable providers are susceptible to network congestion, although that is becoming less of an issue with DOCSIS 3. It is still an issue at times, such as in a large apartment building contracted to only provide cable tv/internet/phone to customers. Comcast is/was (not sure if it is still going on) in a lawsuit for packet shaping in circumstances where there were many users in an area.

Take a step back. It really doesn't benefit Qwest in any way to impose those caps. It really is to skirt around the issue of monitoring data traffic. Yes, there are regulations that require ISPs to prevent people from sharing copyrighted material. They aren't written statutes. They are orders set forth by governing bodies such as the FCC, SEC, PUC, etc. In legal terms, these groups have the power to set forth rules and regulations. The commerce clause in the US Constitution allows this. The commerce clause allows congress to regulate interstate commerce. The first supreme court landmark case was Gibbons v Ogden if you would like further reading about the commerce clause. With the creation of groups such as the FCC, SEC, PUC, those groups were granted regulatory powers by congress. They can set forth rules and regulations on the subjects that they govern without having a law voted on and passed. This is completely in line with the constitution. Groups such as these have set for rules that ISPs must do certain things in their power to prevent copyrighted material from being shred. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act further grants the FCC, state PUCs, etc to dictate what ISPs must do.

All I see here is that most of you overreacted to bandwidth caps. But again, nothing anyone could say would convince you otherwise. They could come out tomorrow, proclaim there are no more caps, and you would then complain how terrible of a company they are because network congestion is then going to be off the charts. (again, even though that is almost never a problem even before the caps)

Most of what I see here are people butthurt about something that isn't an issue.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

said by mhoke6381 :

I could state facts all day here, but many of you already convinced yourselves that this is a conspiracy against customers.

Caps are intended to protect the TV revenues by discouraging the use of Internet video streaming services. I find it telling that caps are implemented by ISPs that also provide pay TV services, be they IPTV (Prism, U-verse), or cable.

Network congestion is rarely an issue. It comes up at times when people are on the old ATM DSLAMs. Since those are either DS1 or DS3 fed, too many customers on them can cause congestion, but even that is rare with ATM loops.

ATM has nothing to do with congestion, or DSL version. I saw ATM with a CentutyLink VDSL Internet connection; measured throughput at 85% of sync is a pretty solid clue.

... there are regulations that require ISPs to prevent people from sharing copyrighted material. They aren't written statutes.

Copyright is very much statutory, and set forth in the U.S. legal code. Presented to the U.S. President by the U.S. Congress, signed into law, and enforceable by the U.S. DoJ. Or civil sanctions can be sought in the courts by the injured parties.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act further grants the FCC, state PUCs, etc to dictate what ISPs must do.

DMCA grants no such powers of enforcement. It provides "safe harbor" status to ISPs, so long as ISPs respond to DMCA takedown notices by removing infringing content.

All I see here is that most of you overreacted to bandwidth caps. But again, nothing anyone could say would convince you otherwise. They could come out tomorrow, proclaim there are no more caps, and you would then complain how terrible of a company they are because network congestion is then going to be off the charts. (again, even though that is almost never a problem even before the caps)

Most of what I see here are people butthurt about something that isn't an issue.

The 250 GB data cap of CenturyLink is certainly less of an issue for DSL subscribers than the 150 GB cap imposed by AT&T on their legacy ADSL (non-U-verse) users. But I am a single user averaging 75 GB to 95 GB per month. With a household of users, such as my sister had with a work-from-home husband, and four teenagers, that average would approach 450 GB in no time; Sis went to a Comcast business account because of the Comcast data caps. I fired AT&T and hired Sonic.net, LLC because of the AT&T data caps.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


Boss302_1970

join:2009-12-11
reply to groebke

well put!


TheMayor

join:2002-05-09
reply to mhoke6381

I personally don't find caps bad, however I would like to see a more realistic number based on the tier someone subscribes to.
I also don't mind paying extra if I do use more, but please be realistic for residential customers & also allow for it. For example, Q used to offer (or maybe they still do) unlimited LD for $20 per month. Maybe have something like pay an extra $20 & we will increase your bandwidth to X GB per month or if you don't pay the extra $20, we will bill you $10 for every 50 GB you go over.

The only reason I posted my usage number was because I wanted to show that with normal usage, it's very easy to hit the cap.

You had mentioned the main (or one of the) reasons of the 250GB cap, was so that CTL doesn't have to monitor usage. Since Business service doesn't have any caps, does that mean that CTL is not monitoring residential service, but is monitoring business accounts?

You also mentioned there was an unwritten law/regulation about monitoring & that the 250 GB cap was the magic number. My question is since Comcast was using that #, I assume they weren't monitoring any downloads, but since they removed the cap, now they are?

On a side note, I have noticed that a lot of the people that say they have received notices, don't mention how much they have used. In a way, I would think it would be helpful in determining if people are receiving notices if there usage is (lets say) 270 - 300 GB or if they are not actually receiving notices until their usage is more like 500 + GB


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to NormanS

said by NormanS:

said by mhoke6381 :

I could state facts all day here, but many of you already convinced yourselves that this is a conspiracy against customers.

Caps are intended to protect the TV revenues by discouraging the use of Internet video streaming services. I find it telling that caps are implemented by ISPs that also provide pay TV services, be they IPTV (Prism, U-verse), or cable.

That is no more the reason for caps than any other reason. Fact is there are dozens of ISPs, even ones with fiber, that do not have a TV service. Yet they have caps. And there are ISPs with TV services that don't have caps. There are some ISPs started implementing caps before Netflix and Hulu even existed. There are numerous reasons caps exist. But fact is caps have existed in one form or another for a long time. Dial-up used to be capped. In hours instead of data, but capped none the less. Was that to protect TV revenues? I don't think so.

BTW, your ISP does offer a TV service. It's called Fusion DirecTV and can bundled just like it can through CenturyLink. A lot of places can't get Prism, yet they still have caps.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

said by silbaco:

BTW, your ISP does offer a TV service. It's called Fusion DirecTV and can bundled just like it can through CenturyLink. A lot of places can't get Prism, yet they still have caps.

I do not consider a lousy $5 per month discount on DirecTV to amount to a TV service. The bill would still come from DirecTV, not from Sonic.net, LLC. I checked it out, and aborted once the actual cost and billing source became clear.

For the ten years I had service from AT&T, they never needed caps; I seriously doubt they do now. Just another way for Randall Stephenson to pay for his yachts, and children's orthodontal work.

Neither AT&T (U-verse) nor Comcast are currently enforcing caps. AT&T apparently can't reliably distinguish between IPTV packets and IP Internet packets (and don't want to bill their IPTV customers for the TV packets). Comcast is apparently trying to calibrate their caps to just nick that "0.1%", who can clearly afford a fleecing.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

GetMoney

join:2010-06-11
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

I'd love to hear about CTL customers who have Prism and whether they get flagged or not. CTL can't even provide DSL customers with a meter to monitor their usage. Do we really think they can actually determine the difference between IP and IPTV packets? I'm thinking NOT. They only thing they're good about doing is sending out monthly bills.


firedrakes

join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

get money. i have went over the 250gb last month or month before. and had no issue what so ever. i stream alot of hd tv and do alot of windows patch(factor fresh) and also dl linux distro and nothing has happen yet