| reply to Anon
Re: @Home needs to raise upload cap!! @home can split the nodes, add nodes whatever it takes to give us a higher upload but no they want to save the money and screw the customers if OOL can do it @home could. No excuses please. at least give us 384kps,better at OOL's upload cap. |
|
Anon | I agree with cubby, and I also agree with those concerned about running too many servers. But 128 kbps it RIDICULOUS, I upload files to friends and family and it almost brings back distant memories of 56k. If other companies can get by with 384 kbps limit, ATT should raise it to atleast that. I know road runner is one provider that has a 384 kbps limit and I haven't heard of any problems from them. 128 kbps is slow slow slow and if they don't raise it I'm gonna switch to DSL. If you are fed up with the slow upload cap please email ATT here: »help.broadband.att.com/emailform···duct.jsp |
|
 HomunculusPipsquackPremium
join:2000-12-14
Dar al-Harb | deekman and cubby, you guys forget that @home has a much MUCH larger user base than OOL does... when OOL gets more subscribers like @home, they will be forced to lower their UL caps as well.
--
iTunes or noTunes! |
|
 Mrq5The Fab Four
join:1999-08-21
Warren, MI
| Gengar:)
Why do you keep saying this? Do you really believe that the reason @Home stays at 128UL is because they have toooo many customers? That comes close to being the most absurd thing I ever heard:)
Maybe the reason OOL or other Cable ISP's allow better UL is because they manage each individual nodes capacity far better. Managing nodes consist of splitting up as needed or NOT over selling indivual nodes! This seems more plausable to me. Your assertion is based as if all Cable users are on 1 node. Im willing to bet some OOL nodes have far more users than @Home nodes. After all OOL does support highly populated areas around NYC.
[text was edited by author 2001-08-06 22:25:26] |
|
HomunculusPipsquackPremium
join:2000-12-14
Dar al-Harb | Ahhh but OOL isnt national like @home is... the farther away from "home" OOL goes, the less control they will have. But no, thats not the only reason I think @home keeps their UL so low. They are trying to squeeze as many people onto a node that they can... there is far more downstream available than upstream. Therefore the low cap. There is much more downstream bandwidth to spread around.
OOLs system is much smaller than @home, so of course, its much easier to maintain it and keep it in tip top shape.
Im not necessarily justifying @homes practices (low UL cap, overselling nodes), but I cant say I can complain either, because I knew well before I signed on about the UL cap. 
--
iTunes or noTunes! |
|
Anon | At the time I signed up I knew far less about speeds than I know now and I was anxious to get rid of my 56k. I love the download speeds but I am very disappointed in the low UL cap. It's absurd that they try to oversell nodes. I email them about it and sometimes they don't respond or other times they send me an email telling me how to optimize my speed when I've already done all of that. If they don't raise the UL cap soon I'm going to switch over to DSL. |
|
| I Know @Home will have different plans, and soon you guys will be able to buy more bandwidth, But who knows how long that could take. |
|
|
|
