dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
24

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to mhoke6381

MVM

to mhoke6381

Re: [Qwest] CL Data Caps are REAL.

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.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

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
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

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.
GetMoney
join:2010-06-11

GetMoney

Member

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

firedrakes

Member

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
GetMoney
join:2010-06-11

GetMoney

Member

That's interesting. Just shows again how LAZY CTL is. Implement data caps and rarely enforce them and provide no way of tracking data consumption. Bunch of lazy no good goons!!!
TheMayor
join:2002-05-09

1 edit

TheMayor

Member

In regards of rarely enforce them, it might be because not too many people have hit the unknown trigger cap (i.e. publically we say 250 GB, but won't contact you unless you hit 500 GB).

By the way, are these the numbers? I have no idea, I'm just using them as an example
GetMoney
join:2010-06-11

GetMoney

Member

Who knows... all I know is their motto of "only 1% of our customers use more than 250gb" is a wad of baloney. They came up with the basis of that cap 2 years ago, I wonder what it would be in real world aka 2013 terms. Cause you know damn well they took about 3-4 years to figure out how to cap data. They're just highly inefficient. That's all.