dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
921
share rss forum feed

adamg

join:2013-03-01
Paterson, NJ

Lets take a different look at this cap argument.

The cap discussions here seem to get nowhere, because it seems to be a black or white issue. On one end, you have people that think there should be no caps at all, and on the other end, you have people who think that anyone who exceeds the caps must be some sort of botnetting torrent freak who maxes his connection 24/7.

My issue is not with the idea of a data cap. I used to work for SL a while back, and I understand perfectly well that there's no way to realistically support the ability for everyone to use their full connection speed at one time, or anything close to it for that matter. However, the issue that I DO have, is with the size of the caps. And not even all of the caps really. 250 gigs on a 10 meg connection doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

Do you want to know what does seem unreasonable to me though? 350 gig caps on a 107 meg connection.

I've made what I feel are some good arguments and examples in the other thread for why it's easy to approach or pass a 350 gig connection if you're someone who likes to take full advantage of what the internet has to offer, and the responses I've gotten from ScooterTejas etc, are that I should be paying for a full commercial connection, or that I must be doing stuff that's illegal and I'm a "piggie" because Scooter and his cookie cutter tech-savvy family only use 40 gigs a month on things that wouldn't even require a PC to be in the house.

I know that I'm a heavy internet user, but I provided a perfectly legitimate example of what makes me one. I could maybe understand if I was trying to download several games from Steam and multiple Ultraviolet blu-ray copies per month, and streaming 1080p netflix frequently on a 15 meg connection, and complaining about it, but I'm not. I bought the most expensive residential service that Suddenlink provides, specifically so that I could do these things.

I'm not talking about wanting to use terabytes of data every month, I'm talking about raising the cap to a level that would actually realistically support the type of legitimate usage that someone like me bought it for. 350 is right at that point where I have to watch it like a hawk if I want to do the things I want to do. 600 gigs though? I could probably deal with that.

To put these caps into perspective:

250 gigs on a 10 meg connection? You could fully max-out your connection for over 2 days per month, or about 2 hours per day, and stay under the cap.

350 gigs on a 107 meg connection? I can max my connection out for 7 hours per month. That's about 15 minutes per day.

Does anyone see the disparity here?

There's quite a large difference between maxing your connection out 24/7, and maxing it out 30 minutes per day, wouldn't you say? Why am I being lumped in with the former?



moldypickle

join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

You made me think, what is the difference between maxing out your connection non stop on a 10 meg connection vs streaming a steady 10 megs on a 50 or 100 meg connection

Same data, but on a 10 meg connection you would term it wrong.

Strictly on topic, they would never want to give you a cap that you could forget about. What would be the point in having them if they were so high the "99%" wouldn't come close, if you consider the entire reason the cap IS there is to increase profits.
--
30/2 Suddenlink : Current
5/1 CMA : Old
15/2 TWC : Old



gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
reply to adamg

Let me see if I can offer my take on the whole thing...

First, I think the caps are designed to change the mentality of the users. If you don't have a set limit, you tend to use more, and not think about what you use it for. When there are caps, no matter what they are, you instantly start to think about, and even worry how you are using your connection, and for what.

I don't think the caps are designed to increase revenues from the actual cost of overages, they are designed to make you use the services offered by the ISP instead of other services from other companies.
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com



dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
reply to moldypickle

said by moldypickle:

if you consider the entire reason the cap IS there is to increase profits.

profits not so much, its more about protecting legacy VIDEO revenues.
--
Despises any post with strings.


moldypickle

join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
kudos:2

Which would increase profits vs projections without, correct? OBVIOUSLY the idea was never to use the $10 overage fee as the motivation, lol.



Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Reviews:
·Suddenlink
reply to dvd536

said by dvd536:

said by moldypickle:

if you consider the entire reason the cap IS there is to increase profits.

profits not so much, its more about protecting legacy VIDEO revenues.

Imagine if it was neither!?
--
If you can't open it, you don't own it.

adamg

join:2013-03-01
Paterson, NJ

How could possibly explain the lack of data usage on their own streaming video, if caps have absolutely nothing to do with making it harder for Netflix, etc to compete? You can't. Put down the koolaid.



moldypickle

join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
kudos:2

What?


adamg

join:2013-03-01
Paterson, NJ

Using Suddenlink2go doesn't count towards your cap. So clearly the whole "protectin' the network" claim isn't as truthful as they want us to think.

It's a conflict of interest If I've ever seen one. Yet I'm supposed to fully believe that Suddenlink has the purest of intentions.



Andy52

@suddenlink.net

and i imagine if they want to charge overages for a measured amount of bandwidth they would likely end up getting themselves regulated or at least looked at seriously its a conflict of interest in that they control the measuring devise not just the fact they are trying to strongman netflix out of money.


adamg

join:2013-03-01
Paterson, NJ

said by Andy52 :

and i imagine if they want to charge overages for a measured amount of bandwidth they would likely end up getting themselves regulated or at least looked at seriously its a conflict of interest in that they control the measuring devise not just the fact they are trying to strongman netflix out of money.

Not if the FCC is run by a cable lobbyist.

»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013···ustries/