dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
291
share rss forum feed

TMage

join:2002-06-05
Toronto, ON

Rogers High-Speed Download Caps

With all this talk about download caps, I've done some searching and I can't find any current information on if they're going to go through with enforcing a transfer cap.

Does anyone have any new information? I don't download a lot, however, in the evenings, I like to enjoy one or two RTS games, and occationally some streamed video...I rarely (read once every few months) use any file-sharing stuff, but I'm pretty sure I could hit the 5Gb/month cap relatively easy. I'd like to know how this possible cap will affect my usage...

Thanks.
[text was edited by author 2002-06-05 20:51:09]


Bob Carrick
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2000-04-24
New York, NY
In all their articles all they say is by the end of the summer. It's pretty much easy to guess they will match Sympatico's caps as they have and Bell has also match what the other does. Other then that there is no new information.
--
Bob --»www.carricksolutions.com - The largest PPPoE Help Website, including EnterNet, WinPoet, MacPoet, Access Manager, RASPPPoE, & Networking

TMage

join:2002-06-05
Toronto, ON
reply to TMage
Don't know how true this is (it is a rumour after all), but a friend of mine saw the Global segment and called Rogers. The representative said they were considering alternatives to a D/U cap, but hadn't made any firm decisions. Hopefully, it means if they do place a cap, it'll be at least something reasonable...

Personally, if I have to live with a cap, something like 7.5/5 would be fine. Let people who like to use rich media use it...

The other consideration I'd like to see them consider is if they find you bandwidth hogging (I'm guessing mostly people who run file sharing full time), first you're given a notice, then a bandwidth or transfer cap. The reason I say this (and I'm pretty sure those of you who do use a lot of bandwidth won't like it said) is that if the numbers they present are true (that 1% of the users are taking up 16% of the network capacity or something like that), why are the rest of the users being limited? I feel like I'm being punished because of someone else's actions. While I MAY use up to 5Gb in transfers (this is an approximation), I don't want to have to feel like I have to count the amounts...it's counter-productive and irritating.

I'd rant some more, but I think you get the idea...


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
All of us feel the same way, excluding those who work for their ISP's (hehe). I think all ISPs will eventually have caps, but they do need to think of a more down to earth approach that wont classify an internet enthusiast thats gotten used to their high speed high bandwidth service, as a bandwidth hog. Because thats what's happening now.
--
Thanks Leafs for a great season & playoffs.


Robert
Premium
join:2002-03-11
St John'S, NL
reply to TMage
I am just impressed how civil and well laid out your rant was, and I agree 100%!!!

Cheers

TMage

join:2002-06-05
Toronto, ON
said by rojohi:
I am just impressed how civil and well laid out your rant was, and I agree 100%!!!

Cheers

(LONG MESSAGE)

Thanks. I just feel frustrated that all these companies are encouraging rich media (For example, Sympatico's and Rogers' start pages), but then imposing transfer caps. They haven't really gone to ask their members for input or suggestions. They just arbitrarily impose a limitation that goes contrary to what they're trying to promote...and will probably not stop the abusers anyway. Very un-customer-oriented (another thing they need to learn). They're obviously able to identify who is overtaxing the service...why not do something to contain them...or think of a way to make more money off of them (which is why they provide the service).

Let me use Rogers as an example since I'm most familiar with them...Ensure that bandwidth hogs are subscribed the the VIP program or a digital bundle. Rogers has both these wonderful things that could encourage more users, yet they're not really promoting either (I haven't seen any ads for it . I only found out about them because I went to Roger's main site to check out pricing on cell phones. An e-mail would go a long way to notifying people...

Another option is educating the users. Now, you might say huh? wuzzat?... The average person who uses file sharing doesn't know that much about what they're doing. They just want files (primarily MP3 and MPEG videos), but they don't know how to configure their software properly, and leave themselves open to abuse. Teach them what they're getting themselves into (especially parents who have teen kids but aren't tech savey themselves). Another source of problems are people who have viruses and trojans....

All of these are ways to lower the bandwidth issues that I don't think have been considered. As for the smaller percentage who aren't covered by the above, I'm sure I could think of some way to cut their bandwidth usage (while not inconveniencing them too much)...

Anon Tech2

join:2002-02-02
London, ON

reply to TMage
As long as it's flatrate, i'm not really to concerned with what the price is.

They've set the inital boundary with the Rogers lite service at around $25. From there, they have lots of room to tier the price and speeds up. As long as the upstream is kept moderatly low, the downstream should never be excessively saturated.

Granted, however, I have a bit of a skewed view on what could be considered excessive downloads :P Typically I use about 75gigs down in a month.

What does this transfer rate mean? Well, 75gigs would take ~3 hours to transfer on a 55mbit connection. Assuming that speed of connection was $20,000/month, my bandwidth cost comes in at around $80

For what i'm currently getting, i'd pay ~$100 without blinking, up to $200 i'd flinch but pay it... More then that and i'd change my habits.

A $150/month bill with $80 in transfer costs would leave ~$70/month to maintain infrastructure and profits, and would hopefully put both Rogers&Myself in a win-win proposition.

[text was edited by author 2002-06-07 02:51:41]


waxmuseum

join:2002-05-29
Toronto, ON
reply to TMage
well i have decided that if for some reason my new isp decides to start with the cap crap. im going to go back to 56k dial up.
cause i wont beable to do what i got hi speed for anyway,
and what bell and rogers made me feel like i needed it for.

why dont they find out who is running ftp sites and slow them right the hell down.

or why not just have a slow down cap?
once you hit 5 gig it gets a 1/4 slower and when you hit 7 it gets even slower and so on till its next to nothing?

anyone else think thats fair?


waxmuseum

join:2002-05-29
Toronto, ON
reply to TMage
bye the way we can all thank anon tech for the caps he is an obviouse abuser and is going to cost us alot of money

TMage

join:2002-06-05
Toronto, ON
reply to waxmuseum
said by waxmuseum:
why dont they find out who is running ftp sites and slow them right the hell down.

anyone else think thats fair?
(Long Message)

I don't see FTP as the problem. Like I said, I suspect the problem is file sharing and (one I forgot about) newsgroups. Both which unfortunately consume large amounts of bandwidth. What I don't understand is why Rogers (and by extension, Bell and any other broadband ISP) doesn't actually enforce their EUA. For example...

7k of their agreement says you won't run any servers (I'd quote the entire thing, but I don't think it's necessary). They can give some flexibility for the people who are just testing software on their computer, or don't cause a load. Something I'd like to point out to the people at Rogers and everyone else...(And forgive me if I'm a little rude about it)..."GUESS WHAT PEOPLE? FILE SHARING SOFTWARE IS FORM OF SERVER SOFTWARE!" And if you're causing a serious load on the network, you're also breaking conditions 7h and 7i where you won't disrupt or interfere with the network. People who run Kazaa or Morpheus or Limewire or whatever for the hour or two a day (get in, get what you want and get out) won't necessarily be seen as a heavy load (and if they've been configured intelligently, then they can lessen the load even more). But those who run 24/7 can be cut off at the discretion of the ISP.

Newsgroups are a different issue, but can be addressed (partly) by locking out certain newsgroups (namely some ALT.BINARIES.* ... once filtered through, it takes about five minutes a day for any new newsgroups to be authorized...it also makes for some good laughs when people try to request certain newsgroups). Now, this might cause the people to access other companies' news servers, But it is a start.

The other issue is getting software to throttle people down like that. Something like that would cost quite a bit, and slowing them down won't necessarily stop them.

I've said it before, and I'll probably be quoting this when I'm old and grey....there are other methods to deal with bandwidth hogs without having to punish everyone else with a heavy hand. Unfortunately, many ISPs (and many companies I know) forget about customer service, and customer input and just make decisions arbitrarily.


waxmuseum

join:2002-05-29
Toronto, ON
reply to waxmuseum
well ftp sites can be a problem when one of yourt friends is uploading/downloading 20 gig a day

combine all the ftp losers and you have a problem

TMage

join:2002-06-05
Toronto, ON
said by waxmuseum:
well ftp sites can be a problem when one of yourt friends is uploading/downloading 20 gig a day

combine all the ftp losers and you have a problem
True, but the number of people doing that are much fewer.

As well, that server clause could be used to deal with these people too. Besides, transferring 20gigs per day...I guess they're not doing much else with their connection.


waxmuseum

join:2002-05-29
Toronto, ON
reply to waxmuseum
no they arent doing much else with there connection

i would much rather a small increase in what im paying for my dsl than to have to worry about going over my 5 gig.

if my current supplier decides to impose a cap i will be out of a job.

currently where i live i can only get dsl or cable so im pretty screwed. Guess its back to school for me, or moving