dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5641
share rss forum feed

morisato

join:2008-03-16
Oshawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX
reply to DSL_Ricer

Re: Do we really need unlimited monthly usage?

said by DSL_Ricer:

said by TypeS:

Netflix currently caps out at 5.8Mbps, people don't seem to have issues there with quality.

For most of everything it's good enough. There's still some occasional points where it's noticeable but not distracting... and then there's some points where it godawful (like in Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure when there's the blue pixie dust explosion the whole screen has blocks for several seconds).

I hope you have Kids the example you cited Requires it P:)
--
Every time Someone leaves Sympatico an Angel gets its wings.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to DSL_Ricer

said by DSL_Ricer:

For most of everything it's good enough. There's still some occasional points where it's noticeable but not distracting... and then there's some points where it godawful (like in Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure when there's the blue pixie dust explosion the whole screen has blocks for several seconds).

That sounds more like a VBR failure than an overall bitrate failure. Netflix videos are encoded off-line and can take advantage of decently high VBR bitrates for bursts since they can buffer ahead (unlike a live stream). Perhaps that scene required even more than they could afford to burst above the average bitrate, in which case, perhaps h.265 will help
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

shepd

join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
reply to sbrook

said by sbrook:

No thank you ... my machine, my data, my operating system, etc. etc. etc. I don't use any form of cloud computing now, and apart from some very special circumstances, never will in what's left of my lifetime. I don't want my system unusable solely because I don't have internet connectivity. My apps, my data on my machine.

Fortunately many companies are now realizing the frailty of cloud computing, so we'll knock that one on the head fairly soon!

I'm thinking more that you'll centralize your own information on your own remotely located servers. Didn't even think about the cloud aspect, but hey... there are people who think that's great (I'm not one of them). It's tiring to realize I left whatever stuff I was working on on my home PC and then having to figure out how I'll get that data to wherever I am. I would love if my computer (well, my data as in the entire OS and everything on it) literally followed me wherever I went. Unix and Windows Server does an OK job with that concept but still would require the computing power be remote. I'm sure there's other attempts at it, but it will only be more likely when you have the bandwidth to support it.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

That's what my thumb drive is for I am very reluctant to use remote servers. e.g. I refuse to use IMAP for email ... and would never use Exchange Server/Outlook configs. email stays on my remote host as short a time as possible, even though I have a lot more control over that than anything like a dropbox.



TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to Nitra

said by Nitra:

Just look at what happened when TPIA started, all of a sudden, more providers popped up, the big providers got scared and started lobbying. There's no difference here, there's no change.
There is no reasonable argument at this day in age to limit any connection. Cost of delivery is $1-$4, they charge us $30-$90, or more, there's no reason for this, but for the money, think of Kevin O'Leary running the big providers in his voice saying "it's all about the money", because in reality, that's all it's about.

I hate that man, and just how many are like him out there that only care about how much they can squeeze from your wallet just because money hoarding is the end all be all.
--
----|- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted Zero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca

TampaVoIP

join:2002-05-10
Tampa, FL
reply to tom_tom

In a word, yes.

I'm approaching this more as a business internet customer rather than consumer. With my Level3 contracts, we basically pay for an internet connection at a set speed. End of story.

Same goes for our voice services for both the office & mobile phones.

Why are all the US mobile carriers going to unlimited voice calls and billing data? Simple, profitability. When SMS (texting) first came out, they were free. Then some carrier realised they could charge for it.

I also don't care for how the cable co's measure data transfer. I've never seen them give a clear answer and DSLreports is full of reports of metering discrepancies. Should I get billed for all of the script kiddies and bots trying to break into my network that the cable co doesn't bother to prevent? It then becomes much like SMS spam when SMS were metered. The mobile carriers had a strong financial incentive NOT to help fix the problem as they were making money off every single spam SMS delivered.



d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to tom_tom

You're approaching it wrong...Their costs have nothing to do with usage per say, but capacity. Simple example, if I download a 100GB file on TSI @ 2am, let say it costs them $5.

The same file downloaded @ 8pm on a weekday costs them double....Think of it like financial leveraging at a bank...What if everyone wanted to withdraw their money all on the same day? Not a 100% matched example but I hope you're getting the concept of capacity...

--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting


Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2

said by d4m1r:

You're approaching it wrong...Their costs have nothing to do with usage per say, but capacity. Simple example, if I download a 100GB file on TSI @ 2am, let say it costs them $5.

Any bandwidth used off peak costs the provider nothing. I see where you're example is headed, just wanted to make sure you understood where the costs are. Peak capacity, that's it.


d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by Samgee:

said by d4m1r:

You're approaching it wrong...Their costs have nothing to do with usage per say, but capacity. Simple example, if I download a 100GB file on TSI @ 2am, let say it costs them $5.

Any bandwidth used off peak costs the provider nothing. I see where you're example is headed, just wanted to make sure you understood where the costs are. Peak capacity, that's it.

No, it doesn't cost them nothing....They still have to pay, just a lot less (ex: transit costs). But yes, it is not 2:1...
--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to tom_tom

With transit costs for quality transit to the other side of the planet under a buck a meg, and cable CBB costs at roughly twenty bucks a meg, off-peak is almost free. Not quite, but almost.

EDIT: Actually, transit costs would also be subject to peak/off-peak, so I guess it actually would be free.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to d4m1r

said by d4m1r:

said by Samgee:

said by d4m1r:

You're approaching it wrong...Their costs have nothing to do with usage per say, but capacity. Simple example, if I download a 100GB file on TSI @ 2am, let say it costs them $5.

Any bandwidth used off peak costs the provider nothing. I see where you're example is headed, just wanted to make sure you understood where the costs are. Peak capacity, that's it.

No, it doesn't cost them nothing....They still have to pay, just a lot less (ex: transit costs). But yes, it is not 2:1...

No, it really does cost them nothing. All the costs you're thinking of are built into the per user fees and peak capacity costs. Every single bit of data transferred off peak is free, bought and paid for in the other costs. If there is no usage off peak, it costs the exact same as if peak usage happened 24/7.

*edit* If they have their own costs that are based on usage that they haven't told us about, then I will be wrong in the above. From everything that's been presented to us, the costs are contained in the peak numbers and per user fees.


d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by Samgee:

No, it really does cost them nothing. All the costs you're thinking of are built into the per user fees and peak capacity costs. Every single bit of data transferred off peak is free, bought and paid for in the other costs. If there is no usage off peak, it costs the exact same as if peak usage happened 24/7.

*edit* If they have their own costs that are based on usage that they haven't told us about, then I will be wrong in the above. From everything that's been presented to us, the costs are contained in the peak numbers and per user fees.

Ok, so you are agreeing with me I guess lol? By saying it's completely free implies that TSI never has/never does pay for off peak traffic. I said they do, but not as much. And like you said, maybe they don't have to pay on a per usage basis (like how transit costs are usually billed), but they include the costs they incur from off peak usage with other things. That still means they are paying for it, although maybe not 100% directly....
--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

Both CBB and transit are billed at peak usage, so anything less than peak incurs no additional costs. So long as off-peak times don't surpass peak bandwidth, it costs TekSavvy $0 extra to allow unlimited off-peak (apart from what they paid for the development time to modify their usage tracker to support it).
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2

2 edits
reply to d4m1r

said by d4m1r:

By saying it's completely free implies that TSI never has/never does pay for off peak traffic.

They pay for traffic to happen, not how much happens. That's the most important distinction. The only time costs would increase would be if that off peak traffic ever passed the peak traffic thus becoming the new peak. Provided off peak traffic remains below the peak bandwidth threshold the costs are $0 on top of existing costs.

Now, caps are still being used as a way to control peak time usage since people will be less likely to cap out their service at peak if they know they have to be careful how much they use each month, but it's an artificial constraint since that doesn't guarantee the customer won't have as much impact on costs as a user who downloads non-stop. That is the only time usage would come into costs, when it results in peak time usage going up increasing the bandwidth needs.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to tom_tom

Basic explanation: if you pay for 500 Mbps of throughput, your cost is the same if the actual throughput is 200 Mbps or 400 Mbps.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


graniterock

join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to tom_tom

I got some cloud backup software. Seeding the cloud combined with my normal monthly usage would put me well over the 300 GB we get. So basically I had to switch to unlimited and when the backup is over switch back. It seemed kinda silly to have to phone in. But I would save a little bit on overages because the overage cap on the 300 GB plan is more money than the unlimited plan. It seemed kinda silly but a few bucks saved is a few bucks saved.