TigerLord
Resident Pentaxian
Premium,Mod
join:2002-06-09
Montreal
 ·Videotron
Host:
International Broa..
Videotron
| While more affordable...
Videotron's CSR and techs still admit on our Vidéotron forum that these services labeled TGV (for Tres Grande Vitesse, trying to make a clever parallel with the fast European trains...) are nothing more than a PR stunt, and the (ridiculous) caps imposed are meant to discourage people from signing up, since their network could not handle a large volume of clients.
Considering their 10mbit tier is unlimited for 99.98$ per month if you subscribe to the business tier (the same residential tier has a 100GB cap for 66.98$, 1.50$ per additional GB) it is probably a better bang for your buck! |
|
perki
join:2008-12-01
Santa Maria, CA | Haha
Take note fellow comcast subscribers, if you think you have it bad it can always be worse. |
|
sibisties
join:2002-10-19
Montreal, QC | reply to TigerLord
Re: While more affordable...
You forgot to mention the incredible upload speed for these tiers... It's an incredible 1Mbps ! |
|
adisor19
join:2004-10-11 | reply to TigerLord
Also, you can get unlimited transfers on their 7Mbs tier on the business side for 70$CAD. This is pretty much the only good unlimited transfer option in QC but the price is too expensive.. It's good to share with a neibhour I guess...
Adi |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to sibisties
said by sibisties  :You forgot to mention the incredible upload speed for these tiers... It's an incredible 1Mbps ! That upload speed is a farce. With the 50Mbs (and possibly the 30Mbs) tier, I do not think that you can get the full download speed with only a 1Mbs Uplink speed (you need to send too many ACKs and will saturate the uplink). There is also the problem that even if the uplink can handle the volume, the speed will bog down due to not sending the needed "Send More" ACKs fast enough. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to TigerLord
said by TigerLord :the (ridiculous) caps The old caps were proportional to the Speed Tier in that you get the same full download speeds for the same period of time in both tiers (IOW: It takes the same time to reach the cap in both tiers if you assume full speed). The new caps give the 30Mbs tier more download capability than the 50Mbs tier (if you use the 50Mbs tier as the base) or short the 50Mbs tier if you use the 30Mbs tier as the base. The 30Mbs tier had its cap raised to 2 1.3 of the old cap (30->70) while thw 50Mbs was only doubled (50->100). If the new caps were proportional to the old ones, the 50Mbs should be 117GBm. |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | reply to RARPSL
Also I could not get the web site to accept my street address to even look at the pricing or package plans.
I can't help but wonder who is running this company? |
|
otty
join:2008-10-24
Toronto, ON | It's run by Quebecor. The makers of your favorite tabloids and flyers/junkmail. They are purveyors of trash |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | reply to RARPSL
uTP...erm...UDP FTW! |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by iansltx :uTP...erm...UDP FTW! Which of my two comments (The 1MBs Uplink or the Caps) is this in reference to? In either case, I am not able to determine what your reply means. |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
| reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL :said by sibisties :You forgot to mention the incredible upload speed for these tiers... It's an incredible 1Mbps ! That upload speed is a farce. With the 50Mbs (and possibly the 30Mbs) tier, I do not think that you can get the full download speed with only a 1Mbs Uplink speed (you need to send too many ACKs and will saturate the uplink). There is also the problem that even if the uplink can handle the volume, the speed will bog down due to not sending the needed "Send More" ACKs fast enough. You are correct. For optimum results, the assymetry between download and upload speeds should not exceed 10:1.
With these it will be 30:1 and 50:1. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | reply to RARPSL
Neither. UDP doesn't reuqire ACKs so less overhead so you can actually get 50 Mbps of downstream speed on your cable connection  Until you hit the cap that is... |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to qworster
said by qworster :said by RARPSL :said by sibisties :You forgot to mention the incredible upload speed for these tiers... It's an incredible 1Mbps ! That upload speed is a farce. With the 50Mbs (and possibly the 30Mbs) tier, I do not think that you can get the full download speed with only a 1Mbs Uplink speed (you need to send too many ACKs and will saturate the uplink). There is also the problem that even if the uplink can handle the volume, the speed will bog down due to not sending the needed "Send More" ACKs fast enough. You are correct. For optimum results, the assymetry between download and upload speeds should not exceed 10:1. With these it will be 30:1 and 50:1. Of course the Sliding Window and especially SACK (Selective ACT) helps reduce the size of the Upload Stream but nothing overcomes a slow upload speed since you have to deliver the "I got all the packets up to this packet number - Keep Sending Packets" Handshake Responses and if the do not arrive and get processed before the buffer empties you will not get the full download speed. I do not know the bits-and-bytes internals but as you agreed I do not feel that a 1Mbs uplink can support a full blown 50Mbs (or probably 30Mbs) downlink. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to iansltx
said by iansltx :Neither. UDP doesn't reuqire ACKs so less overhead so you can actually get 50 Mbps of downstream speed on your cable connection Until you hit the cap that is... True BUT a download needs TCP not UDP flow since you have to do arrival handshakes to insure you get all the packets. UDP is only useful for streaming type downloads (ViOP/Video) as opposed to the file copy/transfer type operations that I was talking about. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | ...though uTorrent is using uTP for file transfers now, and it's going over UDP... |
|
