New Buzz Phrase: 'Protocol Agnostic'Network neutrality fight creates sales opportunity for some... ( old news - 03:46PM Monday May 05 2008) tags: business · hardware · bandwidth · cable · networking · net-neutralityAfter being raked over the coals for using forged TCP packets to throttle upstream BitTorrent traffic specifically, Comcast has promised to embrace a "protocol agnostic" network management solution by the end of this year. In an effort to either get Comcast's business (or as a hint that they already have it), gear maker Camient is pitching their "protocol agnostic" bandwidth management system to Cable Digital News. With the exception of the "protocol agnostic" terminology, it sounds like the same system cable's been lusting over for a few years: The idea: Operators insert monthly consumption caps or quotas into the cable modem service agreements that are completely transparent to the customer. If customers exceed their bandwidth quota, the operator then has the right to enforce policies, but must be explicit about what those policies are. Enforcement can be as simple as a warning, an upcharge for additional consumption, or, in the extreme case, booting the customer from the system. Using PCMM, operators can enforce such policies temporarily or without requiring a cable modem reboot, according to Fuller. The system is in trials "with several MSOs" and the vendor is in discussion with several others. While the FCC has been harping on Comcast for degrading P2P traffic, FCC boss Kevin Martin seems more annoyed with the fact that Comcast isn't upfront about it. Comcast also boots high consumption users if they cross the company's very high (in some cases 500+GB) monthly usage caps, and have never been clear about what those caps were. Comcast's PR mess could be nudging us into a new direction. Clear caps with overages were just deployed in Canada for the first time in North America. Time Warner Cable has also explored the idea of having both caps and overage fees. Cable companies are clearly exploring network management practices that are both transparent enough for the FCC, and can net them additional revenue from "bandwidth hogs".
Related:- The EFF 'Test Your ISP' Project
- Virgin Takes Aim At BitTorrent
- Verizon Laughs Off DOCSIS 3.0
- Cable Cooking Up New Network Management System
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- Cox Scraps App-Specific Throttling Trials
- Metrocast Offers Fiber To The Home
- Comcast Still Fighting FCC Throttling Sanction
|
 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | FAP For cable.
the death knell if they do that | |
|  | 
DrModem
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA | Re: FAP Indeed, especially in FiOS territory. | |
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: FAP maybe until VZ starts doing the same. Everyone has claimed that it would make cable rates and Internet cheaper but we have yet to see that. a contract for internet, basically one for TV and don't forget their yearly rate hikes as well. I don't see FiOS any better than cable in terms of doing something that they do. They just wait until the cable companies can get away with it. Hell look at VZ they block work orders and try to get the gov't to allow them to cancel your previous video and internet providers. Not any better. | |
| | | | Warez_Zealot
Rural land of the rising sun
join:2006-04-19
japan
| Re: FAP said by hottboiinnc  :maybe until VZ starts doing the same. Everyone has claimed that it would make cable rates and Internet cheaper but we have yet to see that. a contract for internet, basically one for TV and don't forget their yearly rate hikes as well. I don't see FiOS any better than cable in terms of doing something that they do. They just wait until the cable companies can get away with it. Hell look at VZ they block work orders and try to get the gov't to allow them to cancel your previous video and internet providers. Not any better. They only say it will make it cheaper to fool the stupid and gullible people.. You would be surprised.
Anyone with the minute business sense can see that all they are doing it shaping traffic on their network so that they can avoid upgrading and maximise every last dollar out of what they have now. | |
| | wbertram
join:2005-08-19
Allentown, PA
| said by dvd536 :For cable. the death knell if they do that Perhaps for the few percent of those that abuse the service. For the vast majority of users, no problem! Their service gets better!
Bye! | |
| | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: FAP said by wbertram :said by dvd536 :For cable. the death knell if they do that Perhaps for the few percent of those that abuse the service. For the vast majority of users, no problem! Their service gets better! Bye! Yep so what if the top 1% of users get booted? That leaves vastly more bandwidth for the rest of us. 500 GB is nearly 17 GB a DAY. WTF is anyone doing that they use that much bandwidth EVERYDAY?
Also if you live in an area where cable is you're only option for broadband how is that a death knell? What are you going to do go back oto dial-up? | |
| | | | | | | | | 
pfak
Premium
join:2002-12-29
Canada
·Shaw
 ·Novus Entertainmen..
1 edit | Re: FAP said by wifi4milez :said by BF69 :Yep so what if the top 1% of users get booted? That leaves vastly more bandwidth for the rest of us. 500 GB is nearly 17 GB a DAY. WTF is anyone doing that they use that much bandwidth EVERYDAY? Its called stealing, and the people on this website seem to think its ok to do. They even disguise it by calling it "copyright infringement", as if that makes it any better. Why do you assume just because someone can use 17GB a day that they are breaking the law? I do 10GB a day worth of traffic and I'm certainly not breaking the law.
[root@crash ~]# ./bw.sh -g
1524.67GB in 152 days (10.03GB per day) | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | lordofwhee
join:2007-10-21
Everett, WA
| Re: FAP said by espaeth :said by pfak :Why do you assume just because someone can use 17GB a day that they are breaking the law? I do 10GB a day worth of traffic and I'm certainly not breaking the law. Are you suggesting that your traffic is representative of the overwhelming majority of high bandwidth users? Amazingly, some people simply use a lot of bandwidth. They pay for their connection, why should they have to pay more simply because they actually want to USE it?
If you only use your 6 MB/s connection to check your email and browse ebay, then whatever, but some people, like me, use it for other things, like downloading (and no, not downloading stuff the NAZIAA will sue over). | |
| | | | | | | | | 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Re: FAP I download what I download and I have no problem sleeping at night. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | 
N10Cities
SILENCE I Keel You
Premium
join:2002-05-07
Roland, OK
clubs:
3 edits | Re: FAP nm | |
| | | | | | | 
factchecker
@cox.net
1 edit | Let's see... A possible Guilt by Association fallacy... Definitely a nice straw man fallacy. | |
| | | | | JDCMAN
join:2006-02-23
Somers, NY
·Optimum Online
| Are you serious? There are plenty of legitimate uses for that sort of bandwidth:
-Downloading patches (Service Packs for Windows can be 300MB+)
-Backing up offsite (are you going to chance the loss of everything if you have a home invasion/fire)
-Large scale file transfers between work and home (maybe you do CAD? Video Design?)
I don't think a cable company should give me the boot for utilizing a service I paid for, or assume that what I'm using my connection for is illegal without clear proof (assuming I violated copyright law, if I downloaded something and the holder complaint letter with verifiable, timestamped information of specific infringement).
Also, these companies advertise "download movies, music and MORE!" all of the time. Why should I get the boot for using the service as advertised? | |
| | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: FAP Regardless of all that you dont DL 17GB a day.
And no they should not give you the boot for utilizing the service you paid for. They should give you the boot for abusing the system they allow you to rent from them.
I personally do not favor them booting you. I think they should use throttling tiers and slowly take you back to 256k for the remainder of the month. However, it is in their best interest and the best interest of the remainder of their user's to just terminate people like you. If they lose that 1% causing problems, it is no big deal to them profit wise. | |
| | | | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by JDCMAN :Are you serious? There are plenty of legitimate uses for that sort of bandwidth: -Downloading patches (Service Packs for Windows can be 300MB+) -Backing up offsite (are you going to chance the loss of everything if you have a home invasion/fire) How often is ther a service pack? You could download a SP everyday and only use 9 GB in a month.
offsite back-up? Are you going to back up your entire drive every month? or are you going to back up just the new stuff that you haven't backed up yet? You're not going to have that much stuff to back up every month.
-Large scale file transfers between work and home (maybe you do CAD? Video Design?) That sounds like you should be using a BUSINESS account.
I don't think a cable company should give me the boot for utilizing a service I paid for, You are paying for internet access. That's all. And if they put in their TOS you can only use 500 GB or whatever of bandwidth then there is nothing you can do about it. There isn't any law requiring them to give you unlimited bandwidth.
No one said you were going to get booted. Either you will be charged extra for overage or your speeds will be reduced.
Also, these companies advertise "download movies, music and MORE!" all of the time. Why should I get the boot for using the service as advertised? Even HD movie downloads are only 6 GB in size. So even if you download 1 a day that's 180 GB a month. Music? Please I guess if you plan on downloading 100,000 songs every month you might have issues. | |
| | | | | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: FAP said by BF69 :said by JDCMAN :-Large scale file transfers between work and home (maybe you do CAD? Video Design?) That sounds like you should be using a BUSINESS account. If I am being charged for a BUSINESS account I expect to be given Business Account type features not just charged more money for the same account as a "residential" account.
This means more than just them upping/eliminating my monthly cap. I want an IPN that is separate from the residential IPN blocks (so I do not get blacklisted if I run an SMTP Server), the right to have my IPN rDNS to my Domain Name not the generic IPN based name, a Static IPN (or at least have the DNS get updated if my DHCP assigned IPN changes), etc. A SLA is NOT something that I would include as required. | |
| | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: FAP Sounds like you need to lease a DS-x circuit. Pick the capacity and the business account "extras" that you want...of course you need to be willing to pay for them. | |
| | | | | | | | |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: FAP said by openbox9 :Sounds like you need to lease a DS-x circuit. Pick the capacity and the business account "extras" that you want...of course you need to be willing to pay for them. No I do not. What I am stating is that if the only difference between a "Residential" Account and a so-called "Business" Account is the cost then it is not a TRUE Business Class Account but just a way of charging extra money for no benefit to the user except as protection money to fend off the ISP Goons. What is the extra money supposed to be being charged for and what is the difference in the two accounts? | |
| | | | | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: FAP None, now bend over. | |
| | | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | There are differences between every business and residential account that I've looked at. Are you assuming that there isn't? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | TheMG
join:2007-09-04
Edmonton, AB
 ·TELUS
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Shaw cable has had a 100GB cap on their "extreme" (10mbps) service for a long time.
And somehow, I never heard anyone complain about it... funny how that works huh?
Capped service is nowhere near as bad as a lot of people are saying, when the caps are reasonable.
Australians on the other hand have plenty of reason to complain, their caps are downright ridiculous. | |
| | | | | | | |
badFAP
@wildblue.net
| Re: FAP The problem, as I see it, is that once the company starts, things only get worse. Satellite internet FAPs are in the range 7.5 to 15 GB/mo or 200 MB/day (download, uploads are typically 1/3 of the download limits) depending on which service you use. The only difference between accounts is the price and the download limit. Cell phones use similar limits simply to make more money; my family has to pay the extra $20/mo because we typically use 750 minutes between our three phones but the cutoff is 700. In summary, I predict that if the cable companies implement FAPs, they will not be 500 GB, they will be 20 GB for the first tier, 50 GB for an extra $20/mo 100 GB for an extra $50/mo; and we will have no choice but to either stop using YouTube etc or pay through our noses. | |
| | | | | | | | kelso
join:2007-04-06
Ashburn, VA
| said by BF69 :Also if you live in an area where cable is you're only option for broadband how is that a death knell? What are you going to do go back oto dial-up? With logic like that, Comcast could just increase the rates, or set a cap that would pick up some bucks from unaware customers. Rinse and repeat every 6 months.
How many people even know what how much they down/up load per month ? Not many !
Yes, the essence of the situation, they currently don't need to know. But, as soon as they get hit with an overage charge, they will get pissed.
Well I guess it's better to get pissed off than pissed on.
But, What are they going to do, go back to dial-up ? | |
| | | | | 
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: FAP said by kelso :said by BF69 :Also if you live in an area where cable is you're only option for broadband how is that a death knell? What are you going to do go back oto dial-up? With logic like that, Comcast could just increase the rates, or set a cap that would pick up some bucks from unaware customers. Rinse and repeat every 6 months. How many people even know what how much they down/up load per month ? Not many ! Yes, the essence of the situation, they currently don't need to know. But, as soon as they get hit with an overage charge, they will get pissed. Well I guess it's better to get pissed off than pissed on. But, What are they going to do, go back to dial-up ? I can tell you as a small ISP myself that the "causal" users still use 2 or 3 GB daily. The power users burn up every bit of bandwidth they pay for and we don't worry about it because as an ISP we are more concerned with keeping everything up to date and keeping service running smoothly.
It's amazing how much traffic shaping can ease congestion problems even if your link is maxed out 24/7.
5 to 10 ms difference in access times doesn't make a lot of difference to any of our customers since they want fast Internet for cheap. I know of a customer who does more than 17GB daily because they have kids that watch a ton of online content from you tube, myspace, and other free kid sites that have games, etc.
Comcast and the others aren't stupid, they are a business, and the business is about making money. I run a business, we have the same goal to make money, about the only difference is we aren't concerned about chipping away at everyone's wallet who isn't paying attention in the name of better service. | |
| | | | 
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
3 edits | -Reply to Bf69
Yes, and then, the NEXT top 1% get booted... repeat as needed until you have only people on social security using the service and getting shutdown because they can't afford the bills. Convenient, innit, for cablecos? People like you are going to be next in line, you don't seem to understand, do you?
BTW, ever streamed high-quality video by any chance? Downloaded Fedora Core 8? I bet not, but those are only a few of future uses on teh interwebs... new times, new needs. Cablecos are about to learn the hard way that treating customers like $hit just doesn't cut it. When you piss off a few geeks, the effect goes much farther than that. They in turn will badmouth the company when asked for their opinions, and trust me, many people DO turn to the geeks when it comes to THEIR internet choices.
BTW, you know perfectly well that it's not BitTorrent they hate, it's IPTV-style streaming of competing video products. It's clearly a direct threat to their business. Why should Comcast spend money to enhance the delivery pipe of a competing service? Instead, they choose to start putting caps and throttling on their service, conveniently enough blaming it on "illegal" file sharing aka BitTorrent. Amazing, and the most ironic part is that people like BF69 actually support them and stick up for 'em.
-Shakes head- | |
| | | | | 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: FAP said by a333 :Yes, and then, the NEXT top 1% get booted... repeat as needed until you have only people on social security using the service and getting shutdown because they can't afford the bills. Convenient, innit, for cablecos? People like you are going to be next in line, you don't seem to understand, do you? It doesn't quite work that way. People die every day and yet the world population continues to increase. Comcast adds more new subs every year than they cut off due to abuse. Right now it works out that the top 0.1% of folks that Comcast is contacting are using more than 100 times more than the average user. When that stops being the case I'm sure they'll adjust the strategy.
said by a333 :BTW, you know perfectly well that it's not BitTorrent they hate, it's IPTV-style streaming of competing video products. It's clearly a direct threat to their business. IPTV isn't a significant threat to the broadcast/cable/satellite TV business. The limitations of the technology will prevent any Internet-based IPTV solution from scaling large enough to make a significant dent in TV content delivery. | |
| | | | | |
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: FAP IPTV is just one of cable/satellite's problems. Do you HONESTLY think that IP-based content delivery will always remain at bay? You might as well have said iTunes would never work back in 2003 when it first was introduced.
As to the 1% idea, I don't think you understand my point. Once Comcast shaves off the "top 1%" aka "abusers", they'll repeat the cycle with the next "top 1%". This has nothing to do with the ratio of subs they add, as it doesn't change the fact that, a few years into the future, you no longer will have to be a BBR user to download gigagobs of data. Why do you think Comcast touts speed as its advantage? Why do you think most cablecos and Verizon FiOS offer 30 Mbit speeds, with FiOS even offering SYMMETRIC 20 Mbit speeds TODAY? (besides a 50/20 Mbit package)
They ALL know that IP-based content is the future. You can't go against the tide, but rather have to adjust to your customers' changing needs. The days of the occasional file download are gone. Streaming media's the rage now, so poke your head out the portfolio and smell the coffee beans, buddy. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by wbertram :said by dvd536 :For cable. the death knell if they do that Perhaps for the few percent of those that abuse the service. For the vast majority of users, no problem! Their service gets better! Bye! Yes, caps are coming and only the worst abusers will get hit, as they should.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | MrSpock29
join:2008-02-09
Hammonton, NJ
| said by wbertram :said by dvd536 :For cable. the death knell if they do that Perhaps for the few percent of those that abuse the service. For the vast majority of users, no problem! Their service gets better! Bye! What is considered abuse? Comcast doesn't know, unless they go by that 1% rule, which changes every month. So if the hidden cap is 100 gigs one month, and you use 90, you're not an abuser, but if the next month it is 80 gigs, and you still use 90, you have become an abuser?
Shouldn't they disclose terms clearly? And give subscribers a way of tracking it? | |
| | | |
See 12 replies to this post | |
| |
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by wbertram :For the vast majority of users, no problem! Their service gets better! Wow, gotta love how people who argue for byte caps make unsubstantiated statements such as this... | |
| | 
antdude
A Ninja Ant
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-25 | Fap? I am thinking of the other definition (sewer/dirty) that young people are thinking. | |
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| A little better From what was reported before, it sounds like they want to apply protocol-breaking network mismanagement in a protocol agnostic way. That's an improvement, because protocol agnostic + content agnostic = network neutral. But, anything that violates the protocol causes more problems than it's worth.
Hopefully, they test these things really well, and discover that breaking protocol is bad. Then, they can focus on things like dropping packets according to the spec. Or some other method of fair bandwidth rationing.
Meanwhile, I think Verizon will eat their lunch because they don't need to limit their service. Then they will finally have to make some big investments in improving their technology. Of course, the places they have a monopoly at are screwed. | |
|
Hehe
@ssa.gov | Caps and throttling are good Caps and throttling are good, however, I need to know the rules! I want a warning email if I get close to the limit. I want a daily usage report so I can "see" my usage. | |
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Competition If the competition between Verizon and Comcast is as fierce as they like to claim, Verizon should jump on this immediately- How many people really know how to check on how much bandwidth their using? Even without Verizon, the local tabloid news outlets would have a hell of a story if even one person gets hit with huge charges. "IS YOUR INTERNET NEXT? FIND OUT AT 10:00 HERE ON 7NEWS HOW THIS COMCAST USER IS BOOTED- JUST FOR USING THE INTERNET!" | |
| 
mmainprize
join:2001-12-06
Houghton Lake, MI
1 edit | You may not like what you get You guys better be careful what you ask for. As with all things it starts off small then turns into something you never though you would ever see.
If i look to the furture this is what i see. First they set caps and over charges for the hogs. Then more people want there cuts. So then it is by the byte, you pay for what you use. But wait there is more. The Music and movie and pron companys want there cut as most everyone is downloading music and movies and pron. So they need there cut and it starts to cost more this way then ever before, you pay every time you watch or listen to anything. You only rent it and never own it even though you buy it, over and over again.
But wait there is more, the company that distributes the movie wants a cut also, and where will the middle men stop.
Now that it cost more to do what everyone wants to do these days (download movies and music) over the internet, instead of buying it from a store, everyone wonders why i need this highspeed connection. I switch back to dialup and check my e-mail. Web site start to see the shift and offer lower bandwidth pages because dial-up is nolonger working good for the bloated web pages most site now have.
We start to move backwards and distroy all the progress we have seen this far.
Like everything else, if you have to pay more then it is worth to get something then you no longer need it. If you thing that the cap will be 500gigs then you are a fool. If you think the cap will be 2 gigs a month then you are closer to reality and you will find that 2gigs is not much.
Right now i am reading and typeing, and have an internet radio stream of 192Kbps going and the will radio will eat up the cap each month no problem.
Radio is great , get it here
ICY Radio »icy-radio.en.softonic.com/ | |
| | Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: You may not like what you get I'm not sure I get your argument: you're already paying for access to content on the internet. Either that, or you have to look at some ads. Most music sites let you download tracks for 99 cents. Heck, even this site charges you an up-front fee for "premium" access. There is some truly free content out there, but they still need to pay the hosting bills through donations or whatever.
Or are you talking about copyright infringement? If that's the case, I have no sympathy for you.
A 2 GB cap in a competitive market (even a duopoly) would be suicide. 100 GB would be pushing the bounds. I'd expect to see these caps appearing in the 200-500 GB range. Remember the idea here is keep the internet "unlimited" for most customers and just punish the ones in the top 1%.
Incidentally, your 192 kbps stream, if you left it running 24/7 for 31 straight days would consume 61.3 GB of bandwidth. Significant, yes, but I'd be willing to wager it will come nowhere near whatever the limit ends up being.
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! | |
| | |
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | RE: It's not just BitTorrent BitTorrent is just ashiny coating designed as an excuse/scapegoat for MSO's REAL problem: Competing content providers. And caps and throttling sure ain't the answer.
Throw in about 5-6 hrs of YouTube, Netflix, Xbox Live, a few WoW patches, Windows Update, the latest few Linux ISO's, Apple TV, iTunes..... need I say more? The list goes on and on. Throw in a network of 3 computers each doing the above activities at least twice a week each, along with IPTV/other forms of direct set-top box downloads, and you immediately go well over that 100 GB cap/month. And that doesn't even count that people expect hi-def 1080p streaming, given the monster speeds Comcast advertises.
The above uses might not be significant today, but hey, ten years ago, your internet was nothing more than text and a few ftp sites, and the occasional JPEG floating around. No one had iTunes-style access to MP3's in their wildest daydreams. Once people start getting set-top, IP-based systems like Apple TV or Xbox, they'll discover the benefits of having that merged with OTA ATSC broadcasts. With those two, and a little more user-friendliness and fewer restrictions, cable and satellite will have to stay WAY ahead of the game to keep up.
And btw, 500 GB will only be to sweeten the blow a bit. As demand for multimedia increases, cableco's will begin becoming harsher on many more, and step by step, they'll get to work eliminating the next "top 1%" of users. It'll turn into a demented wash-and-rinse cycle. Like it? | |
| | |
mmainprize
join:2001-12-06
Houghton Lake, MI
| Re: You may not like what you get said by Corydon :I'm not sure I get your argument: you're already paying for access to content on the internet. The point is that we are moving to TV by internet, but the ISP and all other are moving to charge you by the byte, so the HD DVD quality movie i want to watch is say 10gig in size if i want it, i have to have the highspeed connection $60, pay by the byte say $1 a gig, that is $10, pay for the rent on watching the movie say $8.99, pay for the middle men that distribute it say $5. Why would i even want it any more, if i don't want it any mor then why do i need the highspeed connection.
Unless the ISP, and content provides get a clue on what is happen and where we are going it will all end and it wount take long. | |
| | | Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Endicott, NY
| said by Corydon :Incidentally, your 192 kbps stream, if you left it running 24/7 for 31 straight days would consume 61.3 GB of bandwidth. Significant, yes, but I'd be willing to wager it will come nowhere near whatever the limit ends up being. Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that the highest tier that Roadrunner was offering in their "test" was 40GB. | |
| | 
MisawaGQ
Divi Filius
Premium
join:2002-12-19
Mississauga
·Bell Sympatico
| . ISPs in Canada can legitimately provide 200-300 gigs/month for what they charge, yet they typically give their users anywhere from 60-95 gigabytes (depending on the ISP). Here's hoping users in the US get what they pay for if the big ISPs start widespread bandwidth caps with overage charges.
--
"Let them hate, so long as they fear" -- Lucius Accius | |
| | | |
|
|
·
