dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
35

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

1 recommendation

djrobx to DaSneaky1D

Premium Member

to DaSneaky1D

Re: Caps are completely unnecessary!

I would rather there not be a cap at all, but I find it less objectionable because the overages appear to be limited to $30:

$10 for each additional 50GB, with a maximum monthly overage charge of $30

+$30 doesn't seem like it's particularly obscene of an adjustment for people who are extremely heavy users. The increments seem strange though with a 1TB allotment. Seems like they ought to increase the bucket size a bit with this scale. It looks like this now:

1TB = $120
1.05TB = $130
1.10TB = $140
1.15TB+ = $150

Kasoah
join:2013-08-20
Merced, CA

3 recommendations

Kasoah

Member

Overcharge fees on fiber, wahahahaha
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Lisco, one of the first fiber providers in the country to deploy 100/100 had a 20GB cap. I don't know if it is still in effect but it is still listed on their website.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA to djrobx

Premium Member

to djrobx
That's actually not that bad for extreme users. It's still a pure money grab though, since there's no congestion issue with any of AT&T's technologies, and even on cable, caps don't seem to address congestion in any meaningful way.
en103
join:2011-05-02

en103 to djrobx

Member

to djrobx
I'd be happy if they throttled instead of caps.

v6movement
@206.51.28.x

v6movement to silbaco

Anon

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

Lisco, one of the first fiber providers in the country to deploy 100/100 had a 20GB cap. I don't know if it is still in effect but it is still listed on their website.

That is sooo dumb. Build a modern network and then cap it the point of literally being useless. That is nothing but a blatant money grab.
v6movement

v6movement to BiggA

Anon

to BiggA
said by BiggA:

That's actually not that bad for extreme users. It's still a pure money grab though, since there's no congestion issue with any of AT&T's technologies, and even on cable, caps don't seem to address congestion in any meaningful way.

Except that isn't anywhere near extreme and it still isn't reasonable.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory

Member

It's extremely annoying.
ITGeeks
join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH

ITGeeks to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
There are several that are still like that- SherTel in Sherwood Ohio. full FTTH but has caps.

catchingup
@206.51.28.x

catchingup

Anon

said by ITGeeks:

There are several that are still like that- SherTel in Sherwood Ohio. full FTTH but has caps.

I don't have an issue with caps per se, but they should be within a reasonable percentage of the connections potential. Caps that are less than 1% are not even close to being reasonable. 20GB is a complete and utter farce. I consider reasonable to be a bare minimum of 10%, but more like somewhere around 15% - 20%.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

No one is utilizing their connection with those sorts of percentages. That's utterly ridiculous. Even as a somewhat extreme user, where I've used 1.5TB some months, and 3TB one month, I'm still using less than 5% of my connection during the most extreme months. Most users are way below 1%. I'd still be in the top 1% of bandwidth users at under 0.5% utilization on a gig line. These aren't business networks, they aren't designed to run flat out 24/7. They don't work that way.

And if I had a 1TB cap, I wouldn't use as much as I do. Although I'm not sure how that benefits AT&T, since their network is capable of handling the additional traffic at no additional cost, and I doubt that many users will use more than 1TB, especially if they are going to get charged more.

v6movement
@206.51.28.x

v6movement

Anon

said by BiggA:

No one is utilizing their connection with those sorts of percentages. That's utterly ridiculous. Even as a somewhat extreme user, where I've used 1.5TB some months, and 3TB one month, I'm still using less than 5% of my connection during the most extreme months. Most users are way below 1%. I'd still be in the top 1% of bandwidth users at under 0.5% utilization on a gig line. These aren't business networks, they aren't designed to run flat out 24/7. They don't work that way.

And if I had a 1TB cap, I wouldn't use as much as I do. Although I'm not sure how that benefits AT&T, since their network is capable of handling the additional traffic at no additional cost, and I doubt that many users will use more than 1TB, especially if they are going to get charged more.

No one? Seriously? You're that out of it? This post is completely and utterly ridiculous. Your idea of an extreme user isn't extreme at all and that's part of what's wrong with the whole situation. Just because "most" use less doesn't mean everyone does. The world isn't black and white as your thought patterns clearly are. No one has said anything about running flat out 24/7 as the asinine posts always want to claim. It is easy enough to hit these caps on much much slower connections with connections mostly idle. A connection running full tilt 24/7 could hit usage levels way way higher. A 1Gb connection running full tilt can utilize 312TB. 1TB is a complete joke of cap.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

And it's utterly ridiculous to assume that a network can handle 100% utilization by the connected customers. That's simply not how networks are scoped, designed, or built. If you want to transfer 312 TB per month, then you need to pay for that privilege and that's likely not $49/mth or whatever your monthly recurring cost is.

v6movement
@206.51.28.x

v6movement

Anon

said by openbox9:

And it's utterly ridiculous to assume that a network can handle 100% utilization by the connected customers. That's simply not how networks are scoped, designed, or built. If you want to transfer 312 TB per month, then you need to pay for that privilege and that's likely not $49/mth or whatever your monthly recurring cost is.

Who said anything about 100% utilization by their connected customers? Is your brain really that fried? You really have such issues reading and understanding English? Your post makes you sound seriously screwed in the head.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

And your inflammatory ramblings aren't going to help your argument. Care to explain your position in English?

v6movement
@206.51.28.x

v6movement

Anon

said by openbox9:

And your inflammatory ramblings aren't going to help your argument. Care to explain your position in English?

I did. You clearly can't read and comprehend English.
v6movement

v6movement to openbox9

Anon

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

And it's utterly ridiculous to assume that a network can handle 100% utilization by the connected customers. That's simply not how networks are scoped, designed, or built. If you want to transfer 312 TB per month, then you need to pay for that privilege and that's likely not $49/mth or whatever your monthly recurring cost is.

My post clearly says "No one has said anything about running flat out 24/7 as the asinine posts always want to claim." making fun of the ridiculous posts that people make and you make a post exactly as I was commenting about. Are you kidding me? Everything always being the most insanely extreme shit. As if a connection can only be essentially idle or it has to be 100% utilization 24/7 and its not possible to have anything in between.
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz to en103

Member

to en103
If the network is designed right that shouldn't be necessary either. I have Google Fiber in one of the densest areas of KC and they can still deliver near a Gbit at prime time, and they allow 8 recordings at once. But Google designed it for no less than 800Mb under worst conditions with a WDM-PON/GPON hybrid, ATT is sharing a neighborhood on a 2.5Gb GPON.

ATT has caps because maybe they are not designing it well.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to v6movement

Premium Member

to v6movement
Enjoy yourself.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow to existenz

Premium Member

to existenz
Think cheap as the answer to all your questions. This is not Ma Bell it is SBC.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA to v6movement

Premium Member

to v6movement
I didn't mean literally no one. There is always that one guy who managed to pull 27TB off of Usenet in one month.

I am way into the top 1% of users on months where I am over 1TB. Looking at percentage utilization of a connection is patently absurd if you have more than a couple of mbps of bandwidth, as they are incredibly fast, and not meant to be used constantly.

Business Metro-E lines are made to be run at high utilizations, consumer connections aren't.

v6movement
@206.51.28.x

v6movement

Anon

said by BiggA:

I didn't mean literally no one. There is always that one guy who managed to pull 27TB off of Usenet in one month.

I am way into the top 1% of users on months where I am over 1TB. Looking at percentage utilization of a connection is patently absurd if you have more than a couple of mbps of bandwidth, as they are incredibly fast, and not meant to be used constantly.

Business Metro-E lines are made to be run at high utilizations, consumer connections aren't.

You're still posting complete nonsense.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

I'm posting the factual reality. I acknowledge that I am an extreme user, and that due to the shared nature of DOCSIS 3, my consumption being possible is due entirely to the fact that most of my neighbors use far smaller amounts of data, otherwise the whole system would just clog up and almost grind to a halt.

v6movement
@206.51.28.x

v6movement

Anon

said by BiggA:

I'm posting the factual reality. I acknowledge that I am an extreme user, and that due to the shared nature of DOCSIS 3, my consumption being possible is due entirely to the fact that most of my neighbors use far smaller amounts of data, otherwise the whole system would just clog up and almost grind to a halt.

No, actually you are not. If you believe that then you're deluding yourself.

heavier user != extreme user. They have two different meanings. 1.5TB is not even close to being extreme with anything modern for a broadband connection. It would be if you were on a 5 - 6 Mbps DSL connection but that's about it.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

1.5TB is extreme. I'm not in any way delusional to think that my usage is matched or exceeded by any more than a small fractional percentage of users.

Heavier users are using a couple hundred GB. I don't think the providers should be capping usage, and they have the language in the TOS to cut off a user if some nut is going through 20TB/mo, but at the same time I acknowledge that 1TB+ of usage is the usage of a select few extreme users.

v6movement
@206.51.28.x

v6movement

Anon

said by BiggA:

1.5TB is extreme. I'm not in any way delusional to think that my usage is matched or exceeded by any more than a small fractional percentage of users.

Heavier users are using a couple hundred GB. I don't think the providers should be capping usage, and they have the language in the TOS to cut off a user if some nut is going through 20TB/mo, but at the same time I acknowledge that 1TB+ of usage is the usage of a select few extreme users.

No, it isn't.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

It absolutely is. The 1 TB+ users (like I sometimes am) are a fraction percentage of the users, driving a fractional percentage of the revenue, but using up double-digit percentages of capacity. That being said, for wireline networks that can support a LOT of traffic, especially FTTH systems, I think Verizon's 10TB soft cap is the way to do it, so that even the heaviest users who are using their connections for residential purposes can use them as much as they want, and no have to worry about limits. Wireless networks, OTOH, have to be tightly capped, since they have rather limited capacity.

v6movement
@206.51.28.x

v6movement

Anon

said by BiggA:

It absolutely is. The 1 TB+ users (like I sometimes am) are a fraction percentage of the users, driving a fractional percentage of the revenue, but using up double-digit percentages of capacity. That being said, for wireline networks that can support a LOT of traffic, especially FTTH systems, I think Verizon's 10TB soft cap is the way to do it, so that even the heaviest users who are using their connections for residential purposes can use them as much as they want, and no have to worry about limits. Wireless networks, OTOH, have to be tightly capped, since they have rather limited capacity.

It absolutely is not. The percentage of users is irrelevant. If ISPs can't service a speed tier then don't sell it and yet that is exactly what they're doing. Remember people buy a connection at a particular speed tier as in say 30 Mbps. People expect that the ISP makes a reasonable effort to provide that service level. You're vilifying people for actually using their connections they have been sold. Selling services they can't service is fraudulent. You're rationalizing ISPs selling services fraudulently.
existenz
join:2014-02-12

existenz

Member

Google Fiber is unlimited data and designed to provide at least 800M under most extreme loads in a fiberhood. They are able to do this because they designed the network well. If ISPs are not offering unlimited or not able to provide near top tier speeds to all users under heavy neighborhood loads, it could be considered offering more than what they can really provide - AKA designed a network intending to be oversubscribed - AKA, poor ISP.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA to v6movement

Premium Member

to v6movement
You have to have shared mediums to have broadband. Even FIOS is a shared medium (although it's barely oversubscribed, if at all). And if everyone was so worried about oversubscription, most of the US would have 6mbps DSL or slower, not 50-300mbps cable. Oversubscription is fine, as long as it's done carefully with good network engineering.

Residential connections are NOT sold to move 10TB of data around. Heck, they aren't sold to move 1TB of data around. It averages out. I use a LOT of data, but most of my neighbors don't. I'll admit, if everyone used half the data that I do, the whole network would melt down.