averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to starstuff
Re: An online meter?
This gets back to the old argument charge for "quantity" downloaded, or charge for "bandwidth".
My personal opinion is to charge for bandwidth. Then to "choke" or "throttle" down the "flow" if a user abuses. Example, if a person downloads in excess of of 1.5 gig a day, slow there connection down to something like 128. That still is a fair download speed, but at least they are not "terminated" |
|
starstuff
Fly By Wire
Premium
join:2001-12-05
Mcallen, TX
| said by averagedude  :
This gets back to the old argument charge for "quantity" downloaded, or charge for "bandwidth".
.
.
.
MThat still is a fair download speed, but at least they are not "terminated"
Interesting approach, it could work. I'm sure comcast have discussed that option before but that doesn't eliminate the problem... the "bandwidth hog". Using this approach the bandwidth hog lives another day just to come back tomorrow.
Looks like comcast don't want power users and want their accounts terminated leaving them in search of another isp. Unfortunately for some of them comcast is the only option.
I used to pay 179/mo for my DSL. SBC reduced the price to 159/mo without me asking for it. I have no caps, no limits, 5 static ips, 4800+ down and 520 Kbps up. Why can't comcast do the same? Charge power users 50 or 100 or 150/mo I'm sure some users will gladly pay for an enhanced service. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to averagedude
said by averagedude :
This gets back to the old argument charge for "quantity" downloaded, or charge for "bandwidth".
My personal opinion is to charge for bandwidth. Then to "choke" or "throttle" down the "flow" if a user abuses. Example, if a person downloads in excess of of 1.5 gig a day, slow there connection down to something like 128. That still is a fair download speed, but at least they are not "terminated"
They should take lessons from cablevision. they are very GOOD at throttling people not for downloading but uploading and their threshold is nowhere near 100gb.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| reply to averagedude
Maybe I just don't understand cable's reasoning but, users have their bandwidth hard capped at the modem to a set speed, lets say 3000/256.
Cable is shared in the neighborhood, sharing the connection. DSL has dedicated ATM circuits to the end users capping at the CO. We have sufficient bandwidth to the CO to handle the traffic our users generate... let's do some basics..
Figuring many companies use DS3s and OC3s we'll say cable is using a DS3/T3, that is 45 mbps. Ok, figuring at the max speed, 3 mbps, is would only take 15 simultaneous users to max out this connection. As much as they try, they will not download more than 3 mbps, legally.
Now DSL is shared at the CO and beyond so bandwidth still has to be balanced. So if we're offering the standard 1.5 mbps and using a DS3 it would take about 30 people to max us out at the CO. Considering many DSL users are going to 6 mbps it would only take about 7 people at 6 mbps. If we have more users than bandwidth your first hop pings start suffering because the CO is bottlenecking.
So why does cable have this problem and DSL doesn't? The only I can figure is, as I have said, we use multiple OC3s (~155 mbps usually about 3 OC3s or 465 mbps) where as most cable companies use 1 to 2 DS3s...in my area with adelphia, we're currently being powered by multiple T1s!
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? |
|
