 swintecPremium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:4
 ·RapidVPS
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
 ·VoicePulse
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to evilghost
Re: Completely reasonable. said by evilghost:Now lets hear from the pirates... 90-135 MB's uploaded (depending on package) in a 12 hour period is an acceptable cap limit to you? That is very restrictive. Heck a couple of kids killing off an afternoon playing an online game would eat through that. As I said, my VoIP phones would kill that as well if someone talked for awhile. What about trying to get some digital photos onto Snapfish? These caps seem to me, to be within reach of many "normal" users.
--
BlockNews.Net- Quality Usenet Block And Unlimited Accounts |
|
|
|
 evilghostPremium
join:2003-11-22
Springville, AL
1 edit | said by swintec:said by evilghost:Now lets hear from the pirates... 90-135 MB's uploaded (depending on package) in a 12 hour period is an acceptable cap limit to you? That is very restrictive. Heck a couple of kids killing off an afternoon playing an online game would eat through that. As I said, my VoIP phones would kill that as well if someone talked for awhile. What about trying to get some digital photos onto Snapfish? These caps seem to me, to be within reach of many "normal" users. If you're doing that type of activity it's doubtful you'll be on the 1.5Mbit/200Kbps package, one would likely be 'Residential Plus' or greater and would be subjected to a more appropriate bandwidth restriction. If you're dumping 90M of images it would be a good idea to pre-process them prior to upload.
The Internet's a community of attached networks/nodes, not a cesspool for leeches.
I'd actually be inclined to do business with a company that enforced reasonable limits because it would be highly likely that I'd get the speeds and services I paid for instead of being subjected to congestion like morning traffic. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to swintec
This seems more restrictive than it actually is. That's 90-135 MB before you trigger the rate limiting.
I did a chart to illustrate.
Basically, they're saying that -- during prime time -- sustained heavy downloading and uploading is going to pulled back to 50% of your maximum speed.
Most P2P users don't upload faster than 80% of their capacity at most, and they download at a rate of about 25% or less of their download capacity.
And, if you are on Cable, then you are on a shared service with your neighbors. If you do P2P on Cable, then you should already be backing off of your speeds during prime-time.
I'm wondering if the 8.3% threshholds will turn out to be so low that it impacts more users than necessary. But the actual impacts of hitting the threshhold, and what it would do to my Internet usage patterns, are actually quite mild.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
 pfakPremium
join:2002-12-29
Vancouver, BC | reply to evilghost
said by evilghost:If you're doing that type of activity it's doubtful you'll be on the 1.5Mbit/200Kbps package, one would likely be 'Residential Plus' or greater and would be subjected to a more appropriate bandwidth restriction. If you're dumping 90M of images it would be a good idea to pre-process them prior to upload. Give me a break, 90MB worth of images is *nothing*. Photos I take on my camera are easily 4-5MB a piece, that's only 18 photos at 90MB! If I want to upload a bunch of photos that I have taken at a family gathering .. that's at least 30 or 40 photos of various loved ones, this isn't even heavy usage. I want to upload these photos to Flickr and I want people to be able to print high quality versions of them, that's at least 200MB uploaded. With 200Kbit upstream, uploading that many images is still quite reasonable.
--
Xenophase - Vancouver's premier online gaming community. |
|
| reply to evilghost
said by evilghost:said by swintec:said by evilghost:Now lets hear from the pirates... 90-135 MB's uploaded (depending on package) in a 12 hour period is an acceptable cap limit to you? That is very restrictive. If you're doing that type of activity it's doubtful you'll be on the 1.5Mbit/200Kbps package, one would likely be 'Residential Plus' or greater and would be subjected to a more appropriate bandwidth restriction. If you're dumping 90M of images it would be a good idea to pre-process them prior to upload. The Internet's a community of attached networks/nodes, not a cesspool for leeches. When I built my last system (Media Center PC using MCE2005), the first round of patches was 120MB. The second round was 90MB. In total, I think I did over 350MB in patches alone. This was their second rollout version. How am I a pirate?  |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
·VOIPo
·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to pfak
The limits do seem pretty low. That said, these aren't "caps", just points at which your speed halves. So, if you're on the 5000/512 plan you move to 2500/256. Still quite funcitonal and you can still move a lot of data. I see it as more of a backwards, ghettofied powerboost (5mbps for a short shot) than a hard cap.
It's not like DirecWay's FAP where speeds go to sub-dialup speeds once that point is reached. |
|
pfakPremium
join:2002-12-29
Vancouver, BC | said by djrobx:The limits do seem pretty low. That said, these aren't "caps", just points at which your speed halves. So, if you're on the 5000/512 plan you move to 2500/256. Still quite funcitonal and you can still move a lot of data. I see it as more of a backwards, ghettofied powerboost (5mbps for a short shot) than a hard cap. It's not like DirecWay's FAP where speeds go to sub-dialup speeds once that point is reached. 512Kbit upstream is slow in the first place, cutting it to 256Kbit is just horrible..
--
Xenophase - Vancouver's premier online gaming community. |
|
