dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8608
share rss forum feed

devnuller

join:2006-06-10
Cambridge, MA

Unlimited Bandwidth Entitlement - Who pays?

As we have seen with bandwidth statistics and forum posts, there are a small minority of users who feel entitled to unlimited bandwidth 7x24 at the line rate of the connection they purchased. This was also the case with businesses back in the mid 90’s before all ISPs migrated to 95%ile billing.

I don't want to revisit a "that is what they sold me" discussion but do want to ask unlimited advocates a few related questions:

•If a condo includes water in the rent and you rig up an air conditioning system using circulated water from the tap, should you be able to run water 24 hours a day?

•If the cost to provide this AC system exceeded your rent, should the landlord pass this cost on to all the neighbors? If no, do you think you should pay / gallon?

•If the cost of installing this metering system is higher or other neighbors did not want to do this and would move, would it be ok to meter only the condo's that are in the top 5%?

Next (albeit common) analogy

•If a buffet is all-you-can-eat, should you be able to stay there all day or come back each day (the sign did not say “today”)?

•If you owned this restaurant and 1 or 2 people cost you far more to feed than they paid, should you be allowed to refuse service to them?

Closer to home

•Should you be allowed to purposely open your 802.11g router for your friends and neighbors to use your broadband connection?

•Do you see any similarities with opening your HD share of digital media to others? Is this a violation of any ToS/AUPs?

Other analogies?



dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18

A motorcycle with 145HP+...
Does that mean you can run it WFO all day long?

Or, that you can get on the freeway with a flick of the wrist?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera



Agent 86

@comcast.net
reply to devnuller

The issue is simply one of transparency. People should be able to understand the terms of service and be able to easily comparison shop. Otherwise, people get (rightly) irritated.


hadirtyJlo

join:2004-03-31
Elk Grove, CA
reply to devnuller

If the lease you signed said "Water included with rent" and did not specify any kind of limit, then yes, you should be able to run the water 24/7 with no reprecussions.

If the landlord was willing to sit down and talk with me about the costs, I feel we could come to a fair agreement based on an estimated average that was based on tests performed in the house on the tap for actual water usage/hour. In that case, yes, I would be willing to pay per cubic foot.

The metering system shouldn't even be considered unless things got so bad that others weren't even getting any water. After that, if the landlord decided to put in a metering system, the people living in the condo would either help pay for it, as it *might* benefit the entire condo, or move. Metering the top 5% is not fair, as someone could keep their usage down to a minimum for a few months, then surge upwards after being considered "safe."

No, every single all you can eat buffet I've ever been to has stated on the menu that it is "All-you-can-eat in one sitting," thereby implying per day. If you feel you can sit there for 12 hours and eat, then it is considered one sitting. Coming back the next day is considered a second sitting.

If I owned this restaraunt and had a few people eating 100x the norm, I wouldn't say anything to them. Everyone's eating habits are different, and you can not refuse service to someone based on their eating habits.

I feel that if you can be assured of your friends and neighbors to not be idiots and spam up the world with emails and virii off of your network, then there's no problem opening up your router. No where have I read that your home connection can't be used by 1000 people as long as they're within the confines of the property.

This last one is a bit of a sticker, as by opening up you could just mean allowing to stream, which isn't illegal as long as you don't charge for the service. If you mean allowing others to download, keep and walk away, then no, you shouldn't be allowed to. However, how do you know that they're not just testing it out? Maybe they just want to see the movie to see what it is like before buying it? You don't really know, and you can't be truly sure that they aren't lying to you. Like I said, a sticker, as it takes more details to actually understand what you meant by your original question.

For the motorcycle, as long as you're wearing the proper protection and hitting up a track, feel free to keep it wide open 24/7. On the road is another matter, as there are clearly posted speed limits.

I'm not necessarily a proponent of full unlimited use. I've experienced my share of slowdowns, whether from others clogging my node or just crappy service. I am a proponent of getting what you paid for though, and using it for essentially whatever I want as long as it's not illegal. I won't deny downloading movies, everyone does it. However, I did a few tests over the last 4 months I've had Comcast. Months that I didn't download ripped DVD's and a few software titles, I topped out around 220GB total usage. This from streaming very high quality game videos, hitting up my normal video sites, doing my online gaming, downloading legal movies, music, and TV shows, and running a streaming video service that I work with that requires me to stream a 555Kbps a/v stream about 14 hours a day when I'm working, and up to 20 hours a day when I'm not working for quality issues. The months I did download movies and other dubious items I hit 300GB. However, I do limit myself as to both my upload and my download on my torrents, especially during peak times between about 5pm and midnight. I guess you could say I'm a courteous hog.

DJ



CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12

said by hadirtyJlo:

The metering system shouldn't even be considered unless things got so bad that others weren't even getting any water. After that, if the landlord decided to put in a metering system, the people living in the condo would either help pay for it, as it *might* benefit the entire condo, or move. Metering the top 5% is not fair, as someone could keep their usage down to a minimum for a few months, then surge upwards after being considered "safe."
DJ
Metering the water ( and these off topic/on topic analogies get silly because they we argue analogies rather then the actual issue )only if your usage stopped other people from getting water is silly. ( although with Bnadwidth this is what is done and why its done )

I lived in an apartment growing up my whole life. The landlord would raise the rent every year based on the "water" included.
"Do you have a leak? The water has been rising lately, Ill have to raise the rent to offset the cost"
Obviously we never used excessive water but its the excuse he used.
Stating he could "Meter it" only if your use affected others is not a good arguement. Since he is essentially paying for it he can meter it whenever the hell he feels he is no longer coming out ahead or breaking even.

All your counter points are valid unless YOU YOURSELF are the one providing the service based on an average. Once that average is contested over a long period of time things need to change to stay in business.

What a lot of people tend to forget is your bandwidth or any service isnt being provided by a kindly uncle. Its provided by a company who needs to generate revenue, keep a healthy running system and keep as many customers happy and running as possible. Threaten any of those and measures will be taken.
Paint it any way you want. If I knock on your neighbors door and say "Pssst, Im kicking unit 103 off our service because his abusive use is affecting you and your neighbors" they would shake my hand and probably offer to buy me lunch.
Unit 103 will run to the internet and post a YOUTUBE video about it making crazy claims about unlimited use and how he told them to SCREW OFF and kept his bandwidth usage as high as ever until they kicked him off.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL_IrjQoLK0

--
CableFAQ.org/Technicians Unplugged

hadirtyJlo

join:2004-03-31
Elk Grove, CA

Oh trust me, I know that bandwidth isn't provided by a kindly uncle, (which I never had ), but at the same time, the bandwidth providers have the knowledge and the financial ability to not oversell the node, and to allow a lot of leeway when it comes to bandwidth usage. I'm not trying to defend the 600GB users, even for me that's excessive, what I am trying to defend are people that get nicked for only using half that in 90% legal ways. I also try to defend people that use a lot of bandwidth legitimately and get blasted by everyone and their mother because, "no one could use over 100GB a month unless they're downloading porn or warezomgzors!" I just get tired of hearing everyone scream about it over and over again.

In all honesty, I've had fewer problems with Comcast than I did with Cox, and the sliding caps are higher with Comcast than with Cox. My main problem right now is that my file server isn't up and running, so I don't have a lot of space to put things. That and I've got most of what I wanted. Even so, I burn through 200GB of bandwidth a month, legally, and I don't need some pundit thinking he's god's gift to these forums crapping on me for it. (not referring to you cabletool)

Even if I was the one providing the service, I feel that everyone should get as good of a deal as possible. Maybe not the best way to run a business, but I was brought up to believe that happy customers = steady customers. Happy customers also usually understand if you have to raise rates for one thing or another, as long as there is a clear reason for it. If the person in Unit 103 didn't read his ToS/AUP, or was just a complete jackass, then yes, it's justified. If he just happened to get caught in the crossfire of something bigger than him, or something that might not have been 100% fair, then a step back needs to be taken and things need to be looked at closer. I haven't actually watched that video yet, but I've seen it posted 4 times today, must be good. Off to work I go, I'll check this when I get home in 11 hours.

DJ


pharma7

join:2004-02-06
Princeton Junction, NJ

said by hadirtyJlo:

Even so, I burn through 200GB of bandwidth a month, legally, and I don't need some pundit thinking he's god's gift to these forums crapping on me for it.
Thanks for your comments and honesty! Just want you to know you're not the only one tired of the "crapping" that goes on at these forums!!


dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
reply to hadirtyJlo

Ok, you burn through 200GB legally. Cool!

What say you about the ones we get here that chew through 500GB+

Are they doing it legally as well?
Are they justified in complaining when they are asked to cut back and get irate with the Service Rep?

While there is no hard limits, you doing 200GB *shouldn't* garner that "Call".
What do you think is a reasonable limit a provider shoud set/warn it's customers when they are degrading service for others?

When do you think a person should consider a comercial account for their usage needs?

Thanks!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera



CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12

1 recommendation

reply to hadirtyJlo

said by hadirtyJlo:

I don't need some pundit thinking he's god's gift to these forums crapping on me for it. (not referring to you cabletool)

Theres a SECOND Gods gift to this forum@@@!???!!DSfsdafasd

WTF!
--
CableFAQ.org/Technicians Unplugged

DMS1

join:2005-04-06
Plano, TX
reply to devnuller

said by devnuller:

Next (albeit common) analogy

•If a buffet is all-you-can-eat, should you be able to stay there all day or come back each day (the sign did not say “today”)?

•If you owned this restaurant and 1 or 2 people cost you far more to feed than they paid, should you be allowed to refuse service to them?
Since it appears that Comcast's main concern is heavy users who disrupt the network for others on the same node, a better analogy might be to compare:

1. Someone who spends all day in the all you can eat restaurant refilling their plate as soon as it is empty.

with,

2. Someone who consistently goes up to the buffet and grabs every last bit of food as soon as it is put out.

Both customers are obviously bending the generally accepted rules somewhat, but the evidence seems to be that Comcast are only really interested in the second type of customer.


b1gdr3
I Blame Your Mother

join:2001-07-28
York, PA
reply to devnuller

the bottom line is that Comcast is right in this...don't like it? go back to dialup then
--
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.


jagged

join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to devnuller

Of course they are, we should all be reading only text sites and check emails but pay $55 just to get said text and emails faster. That's what it's all about



MadMANN3
Premium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to CableTool

said by CableTool:

Theres a SECOND Gods gift to this forum@@@!???!!DSfsdafasd

WTF!
Ummm, hello!!?


Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

1 edit
reply to hadirtyJlo

said by hadirtyJlo:

If the lease you signed said "Water included with rent" and did not specify any kind of limit, then yes, you should be able to run the water 24/7 with no reprecussions.

pharma7

join:2004-02-06
Princeton Junction, NJ
reply to devnuller

Here's another analogy for the record ...

I have a monthly Amtrak rail pass from Washington to New York. I can use that pass as frequently as I want - 5, 10, 40 trips a day and can get off at any point between & continue again w/o reprecussions. I believe the same is true for the NYC MTA monthly transit passes.

Sure you're gonna have abusers who ride 100 or 200 times a day - but that's their right unless otherwise stated. And after a while it may become commonplace to ride 200 times a day and the abusers will become those who ride in excess of 500 times a day, and so on.

If anything it seems the abuse ceiling is a moving target -- one reason I believe Comcast can't come out and state what it is. As average daily internet usage increases, so does the abuse ceiling.



CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12

1 recommendation

Try and fall asleep on that train and basically set up residence. Suddenly "unlimited" has a limit.
Hell, get a pass for your whole family and live on the train! Oh wait, thats abuse. And it would affect the other riders and the quality of their ride.
--
CableFAQ.org/Technicians Unplugged



Morty7
Premium
join:2004-09-18

1 recommendation

reply to CableTool

said by CableTool:

said by hadirtyJlo:

I don't need some pundit thinking he's god's gift to these forums crapping on me for it. (not referring to you cabletool)

Theres a SECOND Gods gift to this forum@@@!???!!DSfsdafasd

WTF!
But I didn't even post!

hadirtyJlo

join:2004-03-31
Elk Grove, CA
reply to devnuller

First, I'm slightly disappointed in this thread, it has *slightly* delivered, but only slightly. I was hoping that more discussion would take place in the time I was gone, oh well.

As for the ones that burn through 500GB+ a month, even I, one who runs an inhouse file server with 1.5TB of storage, would have problems doing that, unless I start doing anime downloads, which are legal as long as they're not licensed. I honestly can't speak for them, as even trying my hardest, I haven't been able to break 350GB in a month. They are justified in complaining, but not as much as they might, and definitely not getting irate with the service rep who is only doing the job they're ordered to.

A reasonable limit? I actually like Comcast's sliding caps, *however* I do feel they should publish the way that the caps are determined per region. Not necessarily the caps themselves, but a tool that we can use to estimate the caps. I would also absolutely LOVE something online that shows our total usage out of the modem. As of right now, I don't have the capability to monitor how much I use during gaming on my Xbox/Xbox360 as none of the cool firmware hacks work on my Linksys WRT54GS (v.5 gg).

A commercial account should really only be needed for commercial use, i.e. running a server, or something you need true SLA uptime of 99%+. Bandwidth usage shouldn't be an issue when deciding whether or not to get a commercial or residential account.

You all seem confused. The god's gift to these forums I was referring to was myself. Come on people, just look at my post prose and rhythm, it's glorious!

In all seriousness though, Comcast might crap on a few here or there, but they probably have decent reasoning behind it. However, I also feel that it's Comcast's duty to upgrade bandwidth and associated caps for the future as as things like NetFlix download service and the XBLA download service take off. I'm not saying do it and do it now, but letting the public know of your upgrade plans would go a long way towards tempering a lot of the random crap we see in here.

DJ



djdanska
Rudie32
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
San Diego, CA
kudos:4
reply to devnuller

Am i the only one who hates analogy's?


pharma7

join:2004-02-06
Princeton Junction, NJ

1 edit
reply to CableTool

said by CableTool:

Try and fall asleep on that train and basically set up residence. Suddenly "unlimited" has a limit.
Hell, get a pass for your whole family and live on the train! Oh wait, thats abuse. And it would affect the other riders and the quality of their ride.
Actually I hadn't thought about falling asleep but it sounds like a good idea! Unfortunately as my stop approaches the conductor announces it over the PA system. The family pass idea is excellent and would allow us to take in Broadway shows or visit museums with the kids anytime we want.

You ever drive over the speed limit, or talk on your cell phone in public? That's abuse! It's all relative and how we interpret "abuse" is definitely fluid and always changing. Hence your interpretation of "abuse" doesn't necessarily make it so.



CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12

1 recommendation

said by pharma7:

You ever drive over the speed limit, or talk on your cell phone in public? That's abuse! It's all relative and how we interpret "abuse" is definitely fluid and always changing. Hence your interpretation of "abuse" doesn't necessarily make it so.

If I drive over the speed limit its actually ILLEGAL everywhere I can think of. And punishable. And MY interpitation of ABUSE is the only one that counts if Im the one providing whatever service is being abused in my eyes.

Which is why these threads never deliver.
--
CableFAQ.org/Technicians Unplugged


Rob
In Deo speramus.
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3
reply to devnuller

I think Comcast is being pretty good about this entire situation. While the service is 'capped', it's managed in a way that it only really affects the top 1% of high bandwidth consumption users. Comcast could lower the invisible cap and give everyone a hard time.



Homebrew1994
Betzwood Basement Brewery

join:2001-11-15
King Of Prussia, PA
reply to devnuller

More bad analogies

I had thought of the water analogy too.
In times of drought, you can get fined for watering your lawn or washing your car. Even though you are paying for wach gallon of water you use. It is not unlimited.

Another one is electricity. You pay for every electron you use. But it is not unlimited use.
Think back to the last heat wave, or the California electricity crisis.

If a power company cannot generate enough power to satisfy demand, or if the demand exceeds the infrastructure (i.e. transformers, substations etc), the power company starts instituting rolling blackouts. Typically these hit heavy users, like factories, industrial furnaces hard, because they use a lot of juice.

For examples of rolling backouts:
»news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=rol···N&tab=wn
--
My other cyber-pasttime, Where's George
Miserable Failure



jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR
reply to devnuller

Re: Unlimited Bandwidth Entitlement - Who pays?

Perhaps this recent news article might offer some counter claims to those who argue either way.

»Maybe You Should Pay Your ISP 'Up To' The Amount Owed

We always argue whether it's right or wrong to "fully" utilize your bandwidth but what if the sub is not getting even close to their "Up To" speeds? Should the sub pay less?


devnuller

join:2006-06-10
Cambridge, MA
reply to devnuller

What about if i have "water included in rent" and the car wash next door says neighbors can get free/reduced rate washes if they can run a hose off our taps.



MadMANN3
Premium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2

said by devnuller:

What about if i have "water included in rent" and the car wash next door says neighbors can get free/reduced rate washes if they can run a hose off our taps.
More than likely, your water use will be confined to your apartment use as per your lease. So if you share it with a car wash, you run the risk of getting evicted.

devnuller

join:2006-06-10
Cambridge, MA
reply to devnuller

What if I shared my bandwidth to companies to provide services for content delivery to the general Internet?



anonny

@charter.com
reply to MadMANN3

said by MadMANN

What More than likely, your water use will be confined to your apartment use as per your lease. So if you share it with a car wash, you run the risk of getting evicted

Lease Agreement

Tenant Prohibited:

[....]

Section 14. run [businesses], [or utilities] from the Premises that provide [water] or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises, also commonly referred to as public [utilities]. Examples of prohibited services and servers include, but are not limited to, [washing laundry as a business], [water] sharing, and [offering water via external faucets];


b1gdr3
I Blame Your Mother

join:2001-07-28
York, PA
reply to devnuller

the guy from CableTool's youtube post is an idiot...now he's blocking anyone that disagrees with his narrowminded opinion...what a retard
--
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.



MadMANN3
Premium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2

1 recommendation

said by b1gdr3:

the guy from CableTool's youtube post is an idiot...now he's blocking anyone that disagrees with his narrowminded opinion...what a retard
It's a lot easier to have a one-sided discussion that way.