TheFake007
join:2002-06-18 | reply to Mazda_6
Re: Comcast Bandwidth Suspension
Do you have a number as to how much bandwidth you used? |
|
ComcastJoe
join:2004-02-09
| said by TheFake007  :Do you have a number as to how much bandwidth you used? Who cares what the number is? Comcrap advertises "unlimited" use. Until they publish -PROMINENTLY- a cap number then it is unacceptable for them to cancel anyone because they actually used their connection. |
|
china crisis
join:2003-05-28
1 edit | said by ComcastJoe : said by TheFake007 :Do you have a number as to how much bandwidth you used? Who cares what the number is? Comcrap advertises "unlimited" use. Until they publish - PROMINENTLY- a cap number then it is unacceptable for them to cancel anyone because they actually used their connection. Comcast stopped using the term "unlimited" in their advertising months ago. |
|
TheFake007
join:2002-06-18
| reply to ComcastJoe
said by ComcastJoe : said by TheFake007 :Do you have a number as to how much bandwidth you used? Who cares what the number is? Comcrap advertises "unlimited" use. Until they publish - PROMINENTLY- a cap number then it is unacceptable for them to cancel anyone because they actually used their connection. look, I hate the idea of invisible caps as much as the next guy, but comcast is the only provider in my area. I would rather go with broadband than without, so ascertaining where the cap is is quite advantageous. |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL
clubs: 
| said by TheFake007 : look, I hate the idea of invisible caps as much as the next guy, but comcast is the only provider in my area. I would rather go with broadband than without, so ascertaining where the cap is is quite advantageous. The problem is Comcast really has no incentive to publish any hard cap number. It would give their competitors an immediate advantage, plus in the past at least, the actual cap varied between locales and served as a kind of network maintenance tool in problem areas. Having the flexibility by not making a cap known is in their best interest.
I really don't think it's about bandwidth costs anyway, it's provisioning and what effect opening the throttle will have on their existing infrastructure and customers habits. |
|
b1gdr3
I Blame Your Mother
join:2001-07-28
Pittsburgh, PA
2 edits | reply to ComcastJoe
Re: Comcast Bandwidth Suspension
said by ComcastJoe it is unacceptable for them to cancel anyone because they actually used their connection. |
|
lookdaditsme
join:2005-01-18
Saint Paul, MN
1 edit | Yepper, I will give up online astronomy research (a hobby) and return my Akimbo. Then I can use my broadband connection to check my email - hooray! |
|
ComcastJoe
join:2004-02-09
| reply to b1gdr3
said by b1gdr3 :said by ComcastJoe it is unacceptable for them to cancel anyone because they actually used their connection. They are not canceling anyone because they USED their connection. They are canceling because people are ABUSING their connection. "Abuse" being defined by actually using their connection to "download 6,000 times faster than dialup!"
No one would notice a difference in speeds when surfing the Web if their 3MB or 4MB connection speed was reduced to 512K. The slowness that sometimes occurs when Web surfing is due to javascripts, flash movies, cookies, and spyware loading or attempting to load and your antivirus programs scanning the content.
If we are not allowed to grab lots of very large files then having such a fast connection is like shooting rabbits with an elephant gun. |
|
rkrocha
join:2000-09-23
Garland, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to ComcastJoe
unlimited is a very generic term. According to all HSI providers when they boasted the term 'unlimited', it has always referred to how much time (hours for example) you have to use the internet with them vs the old ways of dial up being measured in hours, AOL -1000hrs free for instance. Inadvertantly the HSI providers failed to realize what unlimited means to folks who actually have HSI, that is, how much I can download regardless of how long they are accessing the net through that provider. Now even saying 'always on' is not accurate because it isnt always on if your download usage is capped...sadly a case of having to read the fineprint, although it may be debateable whether the fine print spells this out clearly. |
|
Morty
Premium
join:2004-09-18
| reply to ComcastJoe
said by ComcastJoe : said by b1gdr3 :No one would notice a difference in speeds when surfing the Web if their 3MB or 4MB connection speed was reduced to 512K. The slowness that sometimes occurs when Web surfing is due to javascripts, flash movies, cookies, and spyware loading or attempting to load and your antivirus programs scanning the content. If we are not allowed to grab lots of very large files then having such a fast connection is like shooting rabbits with an elephant gun. Very good, the whole speed issue has nothing to do with webpages most people already know this. If you download a file, let's say an ISO of Win xp 64 bit edition it will download in 20 minutes (for example) instead of 3 hours (once again for example no actual math done obviously.) This way the user or subscriber doesn't have to wait as long. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE SUBSCRIBER CAN DOWNLOAD MORE CDs ONLY FASTER. And yes, the download will finish faster it does not give you the right to download more. No one says you cannot download very large files with the added connection speed, you just can't download a 300+ Gig file (or 300, 1 gig files). |
|
XtremepH
join:2003-10-19
Fort Lauderdale, FL
·Comcast
| This situation is like having your state not post speed limits on the highway but yet when you start driving at your our speed you get pulled over for going too fast over a speed limit that is non existent in our eyes because we aren't told what it is. Very unfair by pratice being used by Comcast. |
|
Morty
Premium
join:2004-09-18
| said by XtremepH :This situation is like having your state not post speed limits on the highway but yet when you start driving at your our speed you get pulled over for going too fast over a speed limit that is non existent in our eyes because we aren't told what it is. Very unfair by pratice being used by Comcast. Incorrect if you are referring to speed caps. If you are just making an example to bandwidth use you are somewhat wrong as well. It would be like your state not posting speed limits, then you going as fast as you want. (so far so good) you wouldn't be pulled over for breaking the speed limit you would be pulled over for dangerous driver and endangering the lives of others by driving in a fashion that is offensive and degrading to other users of the state's highways and roads. |
|
XtremepH
join:2003-10-19
Fort Lauderdale, FL | good point as well |
|
ginsu101
join:2004-03-12
Downingtown, PA
1 edit | reply to Morty
Incorrect if you are referring to speed caps. If you are just making an example to bandwidth use you are somewhat wrong as well. It would be like your state not posting speed limits, then you going as fast as you want. (so far so good) you wouldn't be pulled over for breaking the speed limit you would be pulled over for dangerous driver and endangering the lives of others by driving in a fashion that is offensive and degrading to other users of the state's highways and roads.
But I am driving safely. I am in my lane and not swerving or tailgating. However, if the fact that anything over a certain speed is considered "dangerous", then that speed should be posted. Consider the fact that Comcast could contact me as being in the top 1%. How would I know if the 600MBs was really in violation without them posting a limit. |
|
rottnpup
join:2000-08-04
Minneapolis, MN | Well with no written cap and using the top 1 or 2 percent rule. Over time everyone should get this notice sooner or later you will be in the top 1 or 2 percent!!
Or will they back off before everyone is evicted?? |
|
ComcastJoe
join:2004-02-09
1 edit | reply to Morty
said by Morty : Very good, the whole speed issue has nothing to do with webpages most people already know this. "Most people know this".
Show me a reputable academic (non-ISP funded) poll/study which shows this and I'll retire from this board.
I would bet that 90% of Internet users do not understand that a 512K connection is just as fast to surf the web as a 4MB down. Most people on this board (all of whom are way above average in terms of knowledge) do not even have a good grasp of the importance of upload speed or understand Usenet. |
|
Eye4got
join:2004-06-02
Lancaster, PA
| reply to b1gdr3
said by b1gdr3 :They are not canceling anyone because they USED their connection. They are canceling because people are ABUSING their connection.
How can someone know they're an abuser, if they can't get a definition of abuse? If they simply download a lot, and latency has only increased very slightly for them while they are downloading, they are likely to presume that they are not causing undue problems for their node, and by default all else would be well if latency is still very low. I understand that it wouldn't be in the best interest of a company to reveal the criteria for the amount of data transfer it takes to trip the wire, but that leaves the subscriber with no way to guarantee that they can comply. Bandwidth shaping seems to me like it could be a win-win solution to this problem. I can throttle my own bandwidth so that even my own latency increases are microscopic, but this wouldn't necessarily keep me from being an abuser. I guess I believe that it should be easier to comply, that's all. |
|
b1gdr3
I Blame Your Mother
join:2001-07-28
Pittsburgh, PA
| said by Eye4got :How can someone know they're an abuser downloading 10 gigs a day is one way
--
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers. |
|
WiFiSpy
Rtfm
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Everett, WA
| said by b1gdr3 : said by Eye4got :How can someone know they're an abuser downloading 10 gigs a day is one way or 13 
--
www.WiFi-Spy.org |
|
