|
Qwest Territory Only?Do the caps apply to previous Qwest territory only? The link provided to the EUP is a Qwest subdomain, and so far, the only folks reporting notifications are in Qwest territory. | |
|
| |
Re: Qwest Territory Only?I'll try and confirm that with them. | |
|
| |
wherescomp to Hazy Arc
Anon
2013-Mar-15 11:44 am
to Hazy Arc
Well, here are the days of the over regulated, under delivered internet. I wish there was some kind of competition...but it seems like the major corps have made that impossible, and have won the battle. | |
|
| SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT ·StarLink
1 edit |
to Hazy Arc
said by Hazy Arc:Do the caps apply to previous Qwest territory only? That would suck for us up here. Especially for us that have quite a few games on Steam (I have ~280GB of games). ..and Charter is going to pull the same crap once they officially take over. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to Hazy Arc
So I confirmed with them that this is for all CenturyLink territories. | |
|
TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY |
Cap's and Sh*tty speeds oh JoyPay for speeds I don't even see, and caps fabulous. How does a VPN stream deal into this? Can anyone suggest a good useage meter? | |
|
| |
Re: Cap's and Sh*tty speeds oh JoyTherein lies my gripe with caps. I'm not entirely opposed to caps, provided they are fair. But I'll be damned if you're going to charge me and/or disconnect my service because of "excessive use" but not provide an accurate way for me to determine what my use even is. | |
|
| | |
Re: Cap's and Sh*tty speeds oh Joysaid by Hazy Arc:Therein lies my gripe with caps. I'm not entirely opposed to caps, provided they are fair. But I'll be damned if you're going to charge me and/or disconnect my service because of "excessive use" but not provide an accurate way for me to determine what my use even is. Welcome to what we ATT customers have been B!tch!ng about for a over a year now. You have no data counter we have one that does not work same screwed up system. How I know ATTs does not work? I track my data usage with my Netgear router and I can say ATT has never shown the same amount as ( or even close to ) my routers monthly log. Be glad at least you get 250 GB for anything over 1.5! with a 3.0 or 6.0 mbps line on ATT to reach 250 GB Id already be paying them an additional $20 in overage as ATT caps ALL there DSL packages to 150GB ( exception to Uverse). | |
|
| | |
to Hazy Arc
When I first started using torrents and began downloading far more than I had usually per month, Qwest didn't warn me at all. They just began dialing back my available bandwidth until my service was so slow it would take a month to download a movie.
My usage fell back to normal but my broadband connection speed has never returned to what it was originally. | |
|
| | | silbaco Premium Member join:2009-08-03 USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2013-Mar-15 9:22 pm
Re: Cap's and Sh*tty speeds oh JoyIt is probably congestion and not related to torrent use. | |
|
| NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to Transmaster
said by Transmaster:Pay for speeds I don't even see, and caps fabulous. How does a VPN stream deal into this? Can anyone suggest a good useage meter? I have been evaluating NetWorx. Daily usage report.
There are others; some free and some paid. I believe another highly regarded monitor is DU Meter, but it appears to be a paid monitor. | |
|
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Reasonable AccomodationI wonder if the user could get reasonable accomodation to their policies due to the fact he is blind, especially if the screen reader software is causing the excessive bandwidth or receive the bandwidth warnings via a phone call.
I myself am disabled (Autism and a mild case of Cerebral Palsy) so I know accessibility barriers very well. | |
|
| me1212 join:2008-11-20 Lees Summit, MO |
me1212
Member
2013-Mar-15 9:44 am
Re: Reasonable AccomodationI doubt it, that would require them to A: care, and B: not be too lazy to implement/code that. | |
|
| PeteC2Got Mouse? MVM join:2002-01-20 Bristol, CT
1 recommendation |
to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:I wonder if the user could get reasonable accomodation to their policies due to the fact he is blind, especially if the screen reader software is causing the excessive bandwidth or receive the bandwidth warnings via a phone call.
I myself am disabled (Autism and a mild case of Cerebral Palsy) so I know accessibility barriers very well. Yeah, I read that too...and don't buy it. C'mon now, after all the guy calls himself "Datanabber"...does that give you at least pause to ponder?... He claims that they are inaccurate in his data usage, but then of course he claims to have no idea either...okaaay. My sister in law is blind, and I am the guy who set up and maintains her computer with JAWS, one of the other major screen reader programs for the blind. Any warning that might be sent by an ISP would be just as accessible to her through JAWS, as it would be to me visually. Also, screen reader software puts literally no "hit" on copnsumed bandwidth, so that dog won't hunt. | |
|
| | |
Re: Reasonable AccomodationThere are other screen readers than JAWS. I use a combination of Window Eyes and Zoom Text and never noticed the popups. And the inaccuracy is in the sheer magnitude. On a 40mb connection it would be virtually impossible to download 1tb a day, and when I was notified on the 27th of Feb. I went and purchased my own router with a meter. It says I have used 76gb since then and I have not changed my usage at all. As to my username datanabber it was conferred on me in high school about 25 years ago and isn't relevant other than I use it occasionally as it is easy to remember and unique. I happen to be very good at finding data and facts so it was given to me by someone that called me the datanabber. At the time it had nothing to do with computers. I have since switched providers and find that my usages appears to be well below the cap that centurylink set in place. My major problem is the claim that I downloaded 3072000mb in one month. | |
|
| | | |
lazy2login
Anon
2013-Mar-15 2:46 pm
Re: Reasonable AccomodationSomething doesn't add right.
3,072,000Mb(small b) isn't 30Tera Bytes as the article suggests. Data nabber, are those typos? If not it is more like 307.2GB, with the 8 bit/byte conv. Assuming a typo in the b/B, the number looks 10x short without another zero? | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Reasonable AccomodationIt was a typo... Just got the notation wrong... | |
|
|
DumbYeah what happens if all you have available is a 1.5 line at your location? Suppose they make you buy into more data? | |
|
IanR join:2001-03-22 Fort Mill, SC |
IanR
Member
2013-Mar-15 10:20 am
what extra charges?What are the charges for overages and what is the cost (probably a frightening amount) for business? | |
|
|
patt2k
Member
2013-Mar-15 10:41 am
RouterDD-WRT is a good data tracker | |
|
| TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY 1 edit |
Re: Routersaid by patt2k:DD-WRT is a good data tracker Thanks pattr2K, I have a D-Link 655 router I have not looked to see is there if a useage meter lurking in there some place. I know I don't come close to the 250 gig limit but I do want to keep tabs on it. | |
|
| | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
Re: Routersaid by Transmaster:said by patt2k:DD-WRT is a good data tracker Thanks pattr2K, I have a D-Link 655 router I have not looked to see is there if a useage meter lurking in there some place. I know I don't come close to the 250 gig limit but I do want to keep tabs on it. I have a D-Link 655 on another site. I don't recall that it tracks data by the byte; I believe it tracks by packet. It is hardware Rev. A2, FW 1.35NA; other Firmware versions exist, and other hardware versions, as well, so YMMV. | |
|
| SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT |
to patt2k
I agree, too. It also makes your router a bit more stable with several devices. | |
|
|
Next time be careful of what you wish for...Everyone was upset that the large ISPs wanted to charge companies like Netflix for increasing the loads on their networks. So the went and found a way to keep them from charging for the increased use of their networks via net nuetrality.
The content providers won the net nuetrality fight but the consumer lost the war because the ISPs came up with a way to charge money for the increased usage. | |
|
| |
Wilsdom
Member
2013-Mar-15 11:59 am
Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...Caps have nothing to do with the ISP's costs, it's just a way to increase profits | |
|
| | SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
1 recommendation |
Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...said by Wilsdom:Caps have nothing to do with the ISP's costs, it's just a way to increase profits How do you increase profits by imposing a limit that 99.9% of customers don't reach, and generates a loss of revenue (disconnection) when hit? | |
|
| | | |
Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...said by SpaethCo:How do you increase profits by imposing a limit that 99.9% of customers don't reach, and generates a loss of revenue (disconnection) when hit? If 99% of customers don't reach them, then why do they need them. Are you suggesting that if you have 1% of heavy users it will tank their network? That is absolutely pathetic. | |
|
| |
to battleop
That is why the consumer should have the government intervene and breakup those monopolies and punish collusion agreements. | |
|
| KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to battleop
caps have always been about profits.
It is why the telcos are killing off their DSL and trying to push fixed LTE. As so far the fixed LTE solutions have horribly low caps that would be passed merely by downloading a game on Steam. | |
|
| | |
Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...Absolutely. When you force them into upgrading their networks on their dime that breaks their current business model their bean counters are going to find a way to bring things back into their model. Since Net Neutrality pretty much prohibits them from charging people like Netflix then they will find a way to charge someone. It looks like they found a way for someone to pay for it. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...I don't see how net neutrality hurts the ISPs. Netflix pays an ISP for its connections to the internet. There must be some ISP charging Netflix for the use of an OC-3072/STM-1024 connection or its equivalent. Users of Netflix pay an ISP for the use of an ADSL level of service or its equivalent. So the ISPs were getting paid. All kinds of video content could be stored on all kinds of servers that are accessible through the internet. Why would there need to be a special extra charge for Netflix users? What if universities and public schools had repositories of video courses that could be accessed? Would that require a special additional charge? Would that be charged to for profit universities and for profit K-12 schools?
The USA's telephone companies promised to build a 45Mbps symmetrical nationwide network in exchange for special rate hikes, tax deductions, accelerated depreciation, deregulation, tax credits, government backed loans, and taxpayer grants. They said it would handle two way video. What did they do with all that money? Where is the network we paid for?
I understand about the cable companies struggling with P2P. That prompted the simultaneous reset packet scandal. With the use of existing and new traffic management systems there is no more need for that crude behavior. So the congestion issue,P2P, has been significantly reduced. But the same traffic management that targets congestion in general catches Netflix users. If a lot of people are using Netflix and other World Wide Web video content through a hybrid fiber-coax node, the network is slow for all video users. The slowness is neutral. It effects everyone. It is similar to the way network congestion effected everyone when only text files were transmitted on the World Wide Web.
I do not think monthly, or daily caps are a bad idea in general. I absolutely understand the need for mobile/cellular caps and overage charges due to the extremely limited capabilities of the shared resource of wireless bandwidth. Explicit caps with third party verified usage meters for mobile and wired connections are a great tool to help subscribers understand their internet usage patterns. Previously you could be shut off from internet service for a vague issue of excessive usage. No one would tell you how much you had gone over. It is like getting a ticket at a truck weigh station for being overweight, but no indication of how much load you would need to remove to avoid getting a similar ticket next time. Explicit caps and overage fees or slow downs are just as necessary as explicit load limits for trucks with explicit fines or overweight usage fees. Both need third party verified measuring tools. | |
|
| | | | ••••••••
|
| NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to battleop
said by battleop:The content providers won the net nuetrality fight but the consumer lost the war because the ISPs came up with a way to charge money for the increased usage. The way AT&T and CenturyLink have implemented caps suggests that they are trying to steer users to more expensive services, not to mitigate "costs" of "increased usage". In my case, all that AT&T accomplished was to steer me to a lower cost, higher speed competitive service; with no caps. | |
|
| | |
Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...Neither company has Not for Profit status so their world profit is part of the calculation. | |
|
| | | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...said by battleop:Neither company has Not for Profit status so their world profit is part of the calculation. If legacy ADSL (AT&T) and 1.5 M Internet are not profitable, either raise the price to a profitable level, or pull the damned plug on the services. | |
|
| |
to battleop
Content owners have NOT one net neutrality. Recent news shows content companies such as Google, actually PAY ISPs to avoid being throttled. It's happened in two countries, two different ISPs/providers. Just by having the FCC pass some lame rules, does not protect them as they don't govern the Internet. | |
|
| | |
Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...Sources? What countries? | |
|
ozar Premium Member join:2008-04-13 USA |
ozar
Premium Member
2013-Mar-15 11:09 am
horrible serviceMy own 10 Mbps connection with CenturyLink has been so lousy for the last few years that it would be surprising to find that it's even capable of downloading a full 250 GB in one month. What a total piece of crap that just keeps on getting worse... wonder what they'll come up with next? | |
|
beck MVM join:2002-01-29 On The Road |
beck
MVM
2013-Mar-15 11:44 am
friend just calledyesterday to ask about dsl. 12Mbps and unlimited. asked again about caps and there aren't any. at least that's what she was told. I guess in a month or 2 she will find out. | |
|
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2013-Mar-15 12:10 pm
30 Terabytes?Really?
With a username of "datanabber", I wonder if this is just another one of those folks who download for the purposes of maxing out their use, 24x7, and then act surprised and outraged when their ISP takes notice.
While I wouldn't claim that 250GB caps are absolutely necessary on wired service, they certainly can be a legitimate, means to thwart abuse and allow for lower price offerings. | |
|
| •••• |
tobyTroy Mcclure join:2001-11-13 Seattle, WA |
toby
Member
2013-Mar-15 12:12 pm
Impossible to get that high on their linesUsers like myself that have the advertised 1.5 Mbps DSL lines, can not get that speed, the max achievable is about 1.21 Mbps.
That speed is only achievable in the middle of the night, during day light hours we'd be lucky to get 0.2 Mbps.
Takes a long time to reach 150 GB of downloading. | |
|
|
WiseOldBearLaissez les bons temps rouler! Premium Member join:2001-11-25 Litchfield Park, AZ Motorola MB8600 Synology RT2600ac
|
Nationalize All Communication CompaniesSince none of the telecommunication companies or cable companies are involved with innovation, infrastructure improvement or "real" customer service ny more, the time for them to remain as for profit organizations is ended. Let the US government take them all over, create one national operation and provide service for all for free! | |
|
| ••••• |
tstolze Premium Member join:2003-08-08 O Fallon, MO |
tstolze
Premium Member
2013-Mar-15 4:50 pm
Why I leftI have a choice of Centurylink or Charter...I use 90-130 gigs/month....When Centurlink announced they were going to a capped system about 16 months back, I went back to Charter...Caps either way but a faster connection 10/768 or 30/4....I know enforcement is hit and miss, but with everything else being equal, I'll enjoy my faster uploads/downloads.... | |
|
BigVe join:2005-07-15 Gulliver, MI |
BigVe
Member
2013-Mar-15 4:57 pm
Don't matter to me...Even if cap is 50GB it is very highly unlikely i even come close.I think ~40GB traffic is the most i have ever had in any given month | |
|
| NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
Re: Don't matter to me...said by BigVe:Even if cap is 50GB it is very highly unlikely i even come close.I think ~40GB traffic is the most i have ever had in any given month What don't you do? My last days with AT&T.
April was a short month because I switched to Sonic.net in the first week and a half.
| |
|
|
motivationsyou have to question the motivations of these caps and network changes of six strikes to see the bigger picture here-- making more money and offering very little in return. this will drive consumers away from ALL service providers simultaneously.
then they can take their pitiful network and shove it! | |
|
| BigVe join:2005-07-15 Gulliver, MI |
BigVe
Member
2013-Mar-15 5:20 pm
Re: motivationsUnfortunately their 'pitiful' network is the Only Broadband i have | |
|
|
asdf
Anon
2013-Mar-16 11:47 am
Old capsQwest used to have 500GB caps on a 7meg DSL line, when you get 4 people going to college at the same time for something technical this goes really fast. (Note that is about a quater of what the line can provide in the 7mbps down) | |
|
kilrathi Premium Member join:2005-04-22 Rockaway Park, NY |
kilrathi
Premium Member
2013-Mar-18 1:30 am
what a joke250 GB cap on anything faster? LOL what a joke, industry advanced enough that on fastest packages u need like 350 gb cap no less. kthx. | |
|
|
Better than what I had beforeWell I spent a fortune on satellite internet for 10 years before Centurylink ran fiber for our new DSL service. The most they expected on this rural country service was maybe 50 people so I'm happy they spent the money on us. I'm at 8Mbs service with a cap of 250GBs a month. Hughesnet, the only other option other then dial up was 450 MB daily at a much higher cost.
I spoke with a rep this afternoon and he has no access to tell me what I've consumed and told me there were no caps. I advised him otherwise. The Zytel modem has no data usage meter that I can see and my bill shows no usage amount. I would think the FCC would challenge any charge of over usage unless there was proper metering, accessible by the customer as well, before any action could be taken. At least that's how it should be. Of course I also had Direct TV tell me I agreed to an extension of my contract when I know full well I didn't. They didn't have to prove anything.
As is, I'm concerned that I can't track my network full usage, 4 desktops, one laptop, two connected Blue Ray players, and a Sony TV. I did go into my Netflix account and set the video qualities lower than HD but then again, maybe I didn't have to if I knew what I was actually consuming. Although I have NetWorx set up to track the entire network, I don't see the BR players or TV. Try to do the right thing and can't seem to find a way to.
Not knocking Centurylink as it's the best thing I have available and a far better bargain than satellite ever was, faster, more bandwidth, way faster latency and better service. Guess it really depends on what you have to choose from and what you do with your service. I do realize that caps are necessary due to the few that will and do hog as much as they can. | |
|
|
|