page: 1 · 2  |
 
jplove71
IBEW 113
Premium
join:2001-03-16
Colorado Springs, CO
| New Comcast user I'm a new Comcast subscriber and if I ever receive one of these letters, I'm dropping them like a hot potato and going with another high speed internet provider.
Comcast needs to stop f***ing around and make public what that 'glass ceiling' is.
--
Browsing with Mozilla Firebird 0.6.1 | |
|  | 
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
| Re: New Comcast user said by jplove71  :
if I ever receive one of these letters, I'm dropping them like a hot potato and going with another high speed internet provider.
They're hoping you do! | |
| | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: New Comcast user said by ronpin :
said by jplove71 :
if I ever receive one of these letters, I'm dropping them like a hot potato and going with another high speed internet provider.
They're hoping you do!
I was thinking pretty much the same thing:
"What? That All-You-Can-Eat Buffet warned me about eating more than 12 plates of food in a sitting?! I'll show them, and never come back. They're never getting another $3.95 from me!"
[text was edited by author 2003-10-13 11:02:06] | |
| | | | | | | | 
shstrang
join:2003-01-10
West Monroe, LA
| quote:
What? That All-You-Can-Eat Buffet warned me about eating more than 12 plates of food in a sitting?! I'll show them, and never come back. They're never getting another $3.95 from me!
How do you know he's abusing his "all you can eat" internet service capacity? He may end up using less bandwidth than you ever would.
While no reasonable person expects to be able to go to an "All you can eat" buffet and be able to load up more than once or twice using data services aren't always as cut and dried.
If one wants to listen to live internet radio, surf websites with high graphic content (no I don't mean porn. Believe it or not there are other high graphics content sites on the net.) and download some new programs suggested by cnet, how will one know if they're over their "all you can eat" limit? If Comcast wants to enforce maximum allowed usage in GB chunks they need to make some kind of outline of that policy available to it's customers.
Now it appears that Comcast uses some arbitrary usuage amount to determine whether you're over the alloted amount.
Whether they actually do this or not matters not. Perception is reality. | |
| | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: New Comcast user said by shstrang :
How do you know he's abusing his "all you can eat" internet service capacity? He may end up using less bandwidth than you ever would.
While no reasonable person expects to be able to go to an "All you can eat" buffet and be able to load up more than once or twice using data services aren't always as cut and dried.
You miss the point of my post. I wasn't arguing the ethics of either side, merely pointing out that leaving wouldn't bug Comcast too much, or else they would not have sent the letter in the first place. | |
| | | | | |
jplove71
IBEW 113
Premium
join:2001-03-16
Colorado Springs, CO
| Re: New Comcast user said by joebear29 :
I wasn't arguing the ethics of either side, merely pointing out that leaving wouldn't bug Comcast too much, or else they would not have sent the letter in the first place.
I think it would matter when I'm also using Comcast for my phone and TV service as well.
Me - "Hello? Comcast? Yea, um, I want to cancel all of my services that I have with you."
Them - "Why do you want to do that?"
Me - "I received one of your 'high usage' letters and since there is no set limit in the TOS or AUP, I feel that you really don't want my business so I'm going to take it elsewhere."
Them - "Your account shows that you have phone, TV, and internet with us. Are you sure there's nothing we can do to keep you from leaving?"
Me - "There is one thing."
Them - "And what is that?"
Me - "Add this so-called 'download limit' to the TOS and/or AUP so that subscribers to your internet service know what it is."
Them - "I'm sorry, but we aren't going to do that."
Me - "Then disconnect all of my services immediately"
--
Browsing with Mozilla Firebird 0.6.1 | |
| | | | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: New Comcast user said by jplove71 :
I think it would matter when I'm also using Comcast for my phone and TV service as well.
Well, it would depend on how much Comcast made off your other services versus how much they lost to excess bandwidth charges. Since I don't know the answer to either, I can't say for sure if they would regret losing you or not.
But it seems to me to be pretty stupid to send out the letter if you didn't want the customer to either cut usage or leave, so I assume that is the intent of the letters. | |
| | | | | | | | 
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI | Re: New Comcast user It would be extremely interesting to see Comcast try to quantify excess bandwidth charges for an individual user.
In my specific case, Comcast was much more concerned about losing my CATV business than they were losing my HSI business. | |
| | | | | | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: New Comcast user said by J D McDorce :
It would be extremely interesting to see Comcast try to quantify excess bandwidth charges for an individual user.
In my specific case, Comcast was much more concerned about losing my CATV business than they were losing my HSI business.
That I agree with. It could be they simply ignore the CATV/phone side of the equation when deciding who's profitable, at which point you could properly punish them by leaving. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
jplove71
IBEW 113
Premium
join:2001-03-16
Colorado Springs, CO
| Re: New Comcast user said by joebear29 :
That I agree with. It could be they simply ignore the CATV/phone side of the equation when deciding who's profitable, at which point you could properly punish them by leaving.
Which is exactly my point that I mentioned earlier. Punish me for 'excessive' bandwidth usage when there is no pre-determined cap defined in the TOS/AUP and I'll go give a different company my money.
--
Browsing with Mozilla Firebird 0.6.1 | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
Rambo76098
join:2003-02-21
Pataskala, OH
| Re: New Comcast user comcast: you have exceeded the amount of bandwidth allowed in our tos even though we have no set number and just send this letter at will. someone at comcast needs to get their act together... keep this up and real users will start dropping like rocks. I've heard that optium online has been doing this as well. (this is why to get dsl if available at a fixed speed with no usage limits(or implied usage limits for that matter) | |
| | | | 
HotRodFoto
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Denver, CO
| Comcast outta knock the crap off. It sounds to me like one side is sayin yes u can go faster and the other side is sayin caps! Double standard. It will happen to where they do get a lawsuit sooner or later, as they will issue a letter to someone who runs a business and bam! Lost income and all that. Unlimited means UNLIMITED.....it means being able to surf when u want to with your connection and never worrying about it. Downloading how much u want when u want (legally that is...not illegal stuff) and never worrying about a cap. They are false advertising plain and simple.
Unlimited
\Un*lim"it*ed\, a. 1. Not limited; having no bounds; boundless; as, an unlimited expanse of ocean.
2. Undefined; indefinite; not bounded by proper exceptions; as, unlimited terms. ``Nothing doth more prevail than unlimited generalities.'' --Hooker.
3. Unconfined; not restrained; unrestricted. | |
| | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: New Comcast user said by HotRodFoto :
Comcast outta knock the crap off. It sounds to me like one side is sayin yes u can go faster and the other side is sayin caps! Double standard. It will happen to where they do get a lawsuit sooner or later, as they will issue a letter to someone who runs a business and bam! Lost income and all that. Unlimited means UNLIMITED.....it means being able to surf when u want to with your connection and never worrying about it. Downloading how much u want when u want (legally that is...not illegal stuff) and never worrying about a cap. They are false advertising plain and simple.
Unlimited
\Un*lim"it*ed\, a. 1. Not limited; having no bounds; boundless; as, an unlimited expanse of ocean.
2. Undefined; indefinite; not bounded by proper exceptions; as, unlimited terms. ``Nothing doth more prevail than unlimited generalities.'' --Hooker.
3. Unconfined; not restrained; unrestricted.
Even if I accept your entire post as true and correct, I don't see how it relates to my point of how COmcast wanted him to leave or they would not have sent the letter. | |
| | | | 
blackjeep
join:2001-07-12
Atlanta, GA
| The reasoning here, as at an all U can eat restaurant, should be that they are going to make their money up on the folks who come in, pay $3.95 to visit the bar, and then end up eating a bowl of soup and a roll. They more than make up for/outnumber the occasional overindulger(unless you're from the southeast and going to the western sizzlin' all u can eat breakfast buffet with Bubba and his 8 starving kids. | |
| | | | | hobbesk
join:2002-03-24
Seattle, WA
| Just use as much as you want and if you get this letter, sue their @$$ off. A few litigations like this and they will be forced to either Define a Clear Limit or Stop sending those letters.
If Comcast had anyone in power who was able to look forward they wouldn't be doing this. In order to woo people onto broadband, broadband has to be able to offer a substantial improvement in the "Online Experience". As of technology right now, the "Substantial Improvement" can ONLY come with high bandwidth, i.e. online media content.
So Comcast should be encouraging their users to experience all the online media content they can and go out and tell their friends about it. But with this cap, I feel like I'm at Disney Land waiting 3 hours in line for 3 minutes of thrill ride on some roller coaster.
The analogy of buffet is WAY OFF THE MARK, since our appetite for online content is way higher then what the buffet is allowing us to eat.
A true buffet analogy would go something like a buffet advertising all you can eat and not allowing us to eat more then a half a plate full.
That is a true analogy of what's going on right now.
But since there are no other prominent Online-Buffet that is allowing us to eat our fill, Commicast can get away with it. | |
| | 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| This forum in the past has turned me on to a band width
meter. I have lost the URL to where that was. I listen to a lot of streaming radio and It would be very interested
to see how much I clock up.
--
I love Irish Terriers, Low Brass, and the electric blue glow of an 866 mercury vapor rectifier tube at night. | |
| | | | | | | | 
goldy
join:2000-11-14
Augusta, GA
·AT&T DSL Service
| Doesn't anyone remember when AOL got in trouble for having too few phonelines for all their customers?
Could be that comcast has overstated its own bandwidth and is trying to correct this by getting rid of some of their lower paying customers (non-business).
Possibly some of their big Business customers are suffering and complaining about slowdowns. | |
| B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | Invisible Data Cap? Is that anything like a tinfoil hat? Mine gets too hot in the summer, and I'm looking for alternatives...
Apologies for this guaranteed-content-free post.
-- B | |
| | | 
Archivis
Your Daddy
Premium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Why can't they just go public? Why should they have to? It would be bad PR if they DID announce this. Instead, just send these to the people who they're losing money off of. Who cares how you treat them.
--
The Internet Hitman | TIHM chat | Aftershock | |
| | | 
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
·FrontierNet Intern..
| Re: Why can't they just go public? You don't seem to get the issue here, they aren't setting a limit.
Set a limit and then you can complain, don't set one and your cheating anyone who buys the service.
How can you tell if your over the limit if there is no limit?
Come to think about it what do you think would happen if credit cards ran this way?
Mr Credit card.
CARD Co.. : You have unlimited use of our credit card.
Customer : Really?
CARD Co.. : Yes you can use it as much as you want..
You buy tuns of stuff.
Card Co calls back.
Customer : Hello?
CARD Co.. : You've used over your cap. We are suspending your account and suing you for misuse of our service!
Customer : What yada yada, you said unlimited..
CARD Co.. : Read the TOS, and deal with it.
--
Trouble with spelling.. This browser extension changed my internet life. www.iespell.com (it's really nice!) -Sarick | |
| | | |
Archivis
Your Daddy
Premium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Why can't they just go public? Well, if you've got a problem with it, then take your money elsewhere.
We're talking about internet service. I think this place is making a big stink about nothing. How many letters have we seen that have been sent out? A few?
Send them out en masse towards our everyday high users and I'll sing a different tune.
Wanna tell a guy who's got 4 radio streams capturing every single second of every single day to knock it off? Go for it.
--
The Internet Hitman | TIHM chat | Aftershock | |
| | | | |
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
·FrontierNet Intern..
| Re: Why can't they just go public? QOS.
It's the networks design flaw.
If they have a set limit all they need to do is TELL them that limit..
by them not stating a limit and keeping the caps hidden they are using a bait tactic. how so? Well they are expecting people to buy into a service under the impression that its unlimited while secretly maintaining a limit. When someone pays for the service and decides to use it as it is advertised (broadband internet) they get shafted?
It looks like a slithering snake oil salesman.
They aren't setting a real limit yet saying it's unlimited no matter how you put it its falsely promoting a service as something its not meant to be.
Cable Co's Are KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY cheating people by selling a service they can't support. It's simple if they can't support the streams then they should state it before any money transactions are made.
Thats what people want!
Since the provider can't balance the loads then it's their fault for the poor backbone design. Isn't that what stream caps are? If they want to limit his streams then all they need to do is cut back on the connection.
--
Trouble with spelling.. This browser extension changed my internet life. www.iespell.com (it's really nice!) -Sarick | |
| | | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: Why can't they just go public? said by Sarick :
QOS.
It's the networks design flaw.
If they have a set limit all they need to do is TELL them that limit..
Apparently there is no set limit, it varies from location to location and node to node.
quote:
by them not stating a limit and keeping the caps hidden they are using a bait tactic. how so? Well they are expecting people to buy into a service under the impression that its unlimited while secretly maintaining a limit. When someone pays for the service and decides to use it as it is advertised (broadband internet) they get shafted?
It looks like a slithering snake oil salesman.
They aren't setting a real limit yet saying it's unlimited no matter how you put it its falsely promoting a service as something its not meant to be.
You can't run a server off the service either. That is a non-publicized (yet in the TOS/AUP) limit as well, yet few are complaining about that.
And who is getting shafted? You pay your $40, download 400 gigs, get a letter. Repeat next month. Third month, they shut off your service at the end. You paid for three months unlimited, you got three months unlimited. Where were you "shafted" by being charged for something you did not get?
quote:
Cable Co's Are KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY cheating people by selling a service they can't support. It's simple if they can't support the streams then they should state it before any money transactions are made.
Thats what people want!
Again, how is anyone being cheated? For as long as they pay for the service, they get unlimited access.
quote:
Since the provider can't balance the loads then it's their fault for the poor backbone design. Isn't that what stream caps are? If they want to limit his streams then all they need to do is cut back on the connection.
So, if they want to limit his usage to lets say 100 gigs a month, they should throttle his connection to a 323 kilobits down? i would be angrier at paying $40 bucks for 323 down than I would simply having the service cancelled and not being charged anymore. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 
Athlon III
join:2000-08-27
Corvallis, OR
| said by Sarick :
Come to think about it what do you think would happen if credit cards ran this way?
American Express has no spending limit on their card but if you spend more than you normally spend, they'll probably but a lock on it.
I just think Comcast is trying to control heavy users on individual nodes. If you're part of the group (top 2%?) that's causing the slow down you might get a letter. Every node would be different. 100GB downloaders might be a problem on one node and 250GB might be a problem on another.
---
Athlon III | |
| | | | |
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA | Re: Why can't they just go public? I didn't say spending limit.
I said unlimited use. 
You see why people are so confused? | |
| | | bandw1dth
join:2003-02-07
Hoboken, NJ
| said by Archivis :
Why should they have to? It would be bad PR if they DID announce this. Instead, just send these to the people who they're losing money off of. Who cares how you treat them.
Your last sentence is the major problem with business's today. | |
| | | |
Archivis
Your Daddy
Premium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Why can't they just go public? If I was in business and someone was abusing my unlimited (a man eating 14 plates at a buffet) business, I'd cut them loose as well.
I'll even refund the money for their last visit/month. You're just not allowed to be my customer anymore.
--
The Internet Hitman | TIHM chat | Aftershock | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Archivis
Your Daddy
Premium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Why can't they just go public? You're right JT, but what would be the business's alternative?
They set the price, based upon what the average consumer will consume. If I were running the business, I wouldn't be kicking people out for eating 3, 4 or 5 plates.
But I don't know a single person who could eat 10+ plates (full) of food. The only means a person could go to do that would be if they stayed in the restaurant for hours at a time, digesting their food and eating when they could.
That would be abuse. I would kick them out, even though I advertised an unlimited buffet sitting.
How does this translate over to this situation? Well, there's some people who eat up a lot of bandwidth, even an excessive amount. Then there's a guy who keeps his bandwidth full throttle every second of the month. That's excessive. That's a man who stays in the buffet all day for breakfast lunch and dinner.
If these ISP's were sending out these letters en masse to "high downloaders" then I would be singing a COMPLETELY different tune. That's like kicking a guy out because he has a high capacity for food and can eat it all in one sitting (I know a pastor who weighs around 140 and consumes 4-5 plates at a chinese restaurant). That would be absurd, and clearly a misuse of the unlimited term.
I think the common sense rule comes into place here. I don't think it could be something that could be easily defined. And if it were, as a courtesy, I would refund the user for their last month's of service (or their fee for the buffet) and request that the customer never comes back.
As a business owner, I wouldn't see anything wrong with that.
--
The Internet Hitman | TIHM chat | Aftershock | |
| | | | | | | | |
Rambo76098
join:2003-02-21
Pataskala, OH
| said by Sarick :
Worse off why won't the cable companies just set it straight?
Because that might be well..... logical! | |
| |
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
·FrontierNet Intern..
| It all comes down to false advertisement.
Don't call it unlimited if its limited it doesn't matter how much they use if you told them it was "all you can eat."
If I'm still hungry after 16 plates thats not your busyness even if your losing money, when you put up that advertisement without the small print and I payed for that service it becomes my busyness how much I eat. It becomes your problem if you lose money.
Try this on for size.
You make an investment in gold with a gold broker and golds value starts dropping dramatical. You can't tell the companies you invested gold in at a higher price. "Hay the gold was a higher price when I invested in it. I've changed my mind. I would like you to give me a full refund I'm losing money because I made a bad investment."
You know what they would say, tough luck.
Unlike buying a service that is advertised as unlimited.
Being the busyness and selling the serviced as advertised is a commitment busyness risk. By offering that service as unlimited and not complying to your investment your ethics are warped. Just because your losing profits on a contract doesn't give you the right to pull out at any time unless your contract has opt out terms specifically imposed in the introduction of the contract. Wildly broad based exceptions are hard to comply with in a court of law to to their broad nature.
--
Trouble with spelling.. This browser extension changed my internet life. »www.iespell.com (it's really nice!) -Sarick | |
| | |
Archivis
Your Daddy
Premium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Why can't they just go public? Well I suppose we can agree to disagree on that one.
You run your fake biz your way and i'll run my fake biz my way
And if I catch your fat ass eating more plates of food in my restaurant then you can count on your fingers, you can have your $6.95 and you can waddle out the door.
--
The Internet Hitman | TIHM chat | Aftershock | |
| |
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
·FrontierNet Intern..
| Busyness is a risk, false advertisement and taking unethical approaches toward busyness will only do one thing.
Insure your busyness gets sued and the investment risk becomes an investment failure.
--
Trouble with spelling.. This browser extension changed my internet life. »www.iespell.com (it's really nice!) -Sarick | |
| | sago
join:2001-12-19
| Here's the thing... how many people are using cable internet because they have no other option? What's driving people in the door of the restaurant is that it's the only place in town that has any food! In a situation like this, doesn't it make some kind of sense to have some kind of control over one person hogging all the food and leaving the rest of the population hungry? So you have people that eat a lot, and some that eat less. But in any case, you still have some people that haven't come down to grab a bite yet. Why give away all of your food one particular individual? Other people need to eat too!
P.S. - by the way, where did this unlimited means unlimited data transfer theory come from? The ads say "there's no need to dial up, you're always connected" or something along those lines. I don't see anywhere that it says "unlimited data transfer". Unlimited can mean lots of things. Lots of things can be unlimited. In this case, unlimited means that you can stay connected 24/7/365 with no need to dial up. Nowhere does it say "unlimited data transfer". Nowhere.
It's the difference between having a back-up generator with a fuel delivery contract to keep the freezers and refrigerators running at the restaurant during a power outage when all the other food in town is spoiled, and someone coming in demanding all of the fresh food available for miles around because it's "all you can eat".
[text was edited by author 2003-10-14 18:44:59] | |
| | | | | | | sago
join:2001-12-19
| show me a place where is says "unlimited data transfer".
access is access -- it's a key. Cable modem is on all the time, the "door to the internet" is open 24/7.
I've never seen them say "unlimited data transfer", have you?
It's a pointless argument, I think. It's not what I thought you said, it's what you meant to say that's important. The TOS is the legal document. Even if there are no bandwidth "limits", per se, there are still limitations on how much impact you can place on the network resources as an individual subscriber. For instance, you can't uncap your modem, the modem has a cap, why don't we argue that it's false advertising to say unlimited and then put a cap on your modem at 3mbps? Same argument, really... | |
| | |
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
·FrontierNet Intern..
| Re: Why can't they just go public? When someone says unlimited use the common conception is use as much as you want.
To treat it as otherwise is is misleading. Why because the general public if that was told they had an unlimited of anything would think. the last time I checked unlimited meant.
NO limits..
when it comes to internet and I see unlimited it dent state what's unlimited it just says unlimited. Then you use a service that has "transactions and or is based on a timescale" any representation that the service is unlimited without clearly stating what the unlimited refers to and how the term is used is in fact misleading.
You wanted links where comcast promoted unlimited I gave you a few, one of them was from comcast.
Now your getting down to the gritty point of whats unlimited and whats not. It's clearly been proven that comcast used the term at one point and in some instances comcast is still using it.
The reasoning is obvious they know the average consumer would see that term and think WOW unlimited. My DSL is also unlimited but the cables transfer rates are much faster. I'm going to get this faster unlimited broadband.
You can't possibly deny me of this evidence.
If this wasn't a selling point then they wouldn't have put it up as one. Their intention wasn't that unlimited connection meant always on. It was used as a selling point to outsell DSL subcribers that had real unlimited connections. Based on a few of the samples I've shown the always on is included as another selling point. Comcast wouldn't put the same feature twice now would they?
They where separate selling points, if they clearly didn't want the consumer to assume unlimited meant always on then they wouldn't have stated always on in another section.
--
Trouble with spelling.. This browser extension changed my internet life. »www.iespell.com (it's really nice!) -Sarick | |
| | | | | sago
join:2001-12-19
| Right. I understand what you are saying, and I am not trying to argue about what many people understand unlimited to mean.
It doesn't specifically say "unlimited data transfer", not as far as I have seen, and nowhere in any of the links that various people have posted to advertising materials does it say "unlimited data transfer" either. Furthermore, it specifically says in the TOS that there are issues concerning excessive use of bandwidth.
Comcast has never advertised the service as "unlimited data transfer", although they have advertised the service as "unlimited".
Unlimited does mean "download or upload as much as you want" to many, many, many people. Absolutely. It's undeniable.
But it doesn't say "unlimited data transfer". If it said "unlimited data transfer", there is no way that Comcast could weasel their way out of a false advertising claim.
The word "unlimited" combined with access or usage is not the same thing as the three words "unlimited data transfer". Because if you had those three words stated somewhere, it would be completely cut and dried case of false advertising without a doubt.
| |
| |
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
·FrontierNet Intern..
| It was deceptive.
A lot of companies are doing this now days, it's a practice to gain customers while hiding behind a broad term.
I reintegrate my last message. People where deceived rather by intent or unintentionally. These same people shouldn't have been canceled.
Comcast should have done what the original post is about.
Why can't they just go public?
the nightmare exist and they don't want to deal with it. They can hide by the glass ceiling not much longer. Sooner or later someone is going to take a bite at them.
--
Trouble with spelling.. This browser extension changed my internet life. »www.iespell.com (it's really nice!) -Sarick | |
| | |
Archivis
Your Daddy
Premium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Why can't they just go public? As far as I know, this site is the only one bringing up media attention.
Far from being a major news source. I doubt comcast is gonna crack under the pressure of this site.
--
The Internet Hitman | TIHM chat | Aftershock | |
| | | | 
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Why can't they just go public? Hmmm.... just here?
Putting a lid on broadband use
By John Borland, CNET News.com, Sept. 22, 2003
Cable ISP kneecaps heavy users
By Andrew Orlowski, The Register (London) 23/09/2003 at 13:24 GMT
Unlimited Internet Use Not Always Unlimited
By Tracy Davidson, NBC 10 Consumer Reporter (not dated)
But I agree, this likely doesn't represent enough public outcry for Comcast to react in a meaningful way. However, that doesn't make it fair. By not specifying limits, even if heavy consumers wish to comply, it's impossible. This treatment is particularly distasteful because it's in such sharp contrast to advertisements, which are designed to attract heavy users, in order to justify the higher-than-DSL prices.
If these caps are based on average consumption, why not at least post regional average consumption, as well as member personal consumption, on the portal? Making that information available (in conjunction with toning down the ads) might be all that's needed, rather than using an iron fist. | |
| | | | |
Archivis
Your Daddy
Premium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Why can't they just go public? I don't check various news site other than this one regarding broadband issues. If a lot of people are getting these notices, then Comcast may be in fact putting in a glass ceiling. Restricting the occasional customer for abusing their bandwidth is one thing, but notifying heavy downloaders is another.
I'd just like to know how many people are receiving these things.
--
The Internet Hitman | TIHM chat | Aftershock | |
| | | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: Why can't they just go public? Well, I've heard anywhere from 0.01 percent to 1 percent, or anywhere from 2,400 to 240,000 customers. i really don't know what is true or not anymore.
Somehow, though, I suspect the 240,000 number does not jive, given the relatively little notice it has gotten, so I'd suspect the number of letters sent out was considerably less than 1 percent of customers. That's just a guess though. | |
|
Athlon III
join:2000-08-27
Corvallis, OR
| Just the top 5% or so?
I think the reason they're having trouble putting the same cap on everyone is because every part of the country is different. If a node is overloaded and gets slow some times during the day, they're going to go after the few that are causing it. I have almost no one on my node (my speed never slows down) so I could probably get away with downloading more than, say, someone in Caleeeforneea or New Yawk that's on an highly oversold node.
---
Athlon III | |
| 
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| Hmm, maybe.... The credit card analogy made me think...
Comcast's comments seem to be that the "cap" of what constitutes abuse varies from area to area, and perhaps month to month. So maybe Comcast should do what American Express does and say:
"No pre-set usage limit"
K.
--
TheGlobalMind.com
"On a clear disk you can seek forever" | |
| 
2kmaro
Think
Premium,ExMod 1 BC
join:2000-07-11
ColossalCave
clubs: 
| Head Up and Locked? Comcast needs to look around at what other providers are doing. I have in mind specifically Cox HSI. We went through this same shenanighans - getting letters, not finding anything in writing, vague hints at what the guidelines were, some people downloading 10 Linux distros and such seemingly every day without a warning while others (according to them  ) exchanged 2 emails a day and got hit with a similar letter.
In the end, the outcry was actually heard by Cox HSI and they have published the numbers (which, by the way, didn't make some users very happy as it looks pretty restrictive although I've never gotten a letter). At least with Cox, they did come clean and put something in black and white that could be referenced.
But you have to use a little caution when thinking about these bandwidth use caps, and they should be somewhat liberal. Yeah, I know, any customer would say that. But if they actually put out numbers, be sure to find out if they considered the following uncontrollables in the equation:
traffic generated by viruses attempting to connect to your system,
traffic generated by the tons of spam email, much with heavy html and graphic content (especially the xxx ones)
extra traffic generated when the system is beset with packet loss and you have to double or triple the amount of data transmitted to get your download accomplished or request a web page.
Lots of things for them to consider. But it cannot hurt them much more to publish some numbers than to continue hiding the numbers from their users and keeping their own heads stuck in the sand.
--
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Supreme Court Justice Brandeis (Olmstead vs US, 1928) | |
| sago
join:2001-12-19
| It's not a cap It's not a cap. No one at Comcast knows anything about a cap.
Even when @home was in charge, there was a clause in the TOS about not using so much bandwidth that it has the potential to affect the operation of the network.
This does not mean that anyone in your neighborhood is complaining, it does not mean that your node is overloaded. It just means that the rate at which you are using the bandwidth has a theoretical potential to affect the network.
On the other hand, it may very well be that the excessive usage is affecting the other people on the network. Whether or not that is happening is not as important as the fact that the bandwidth consumption is at a level where that could start happening, especially if more than one person were using the service in that way.
It's not a certain cap, it's how much you use the network, and is that too much. The people here in these forums seem to be giving Comcast two choices.
1. Don't send out any more letters
2. Set a cap for everyone
However, there are many of us who would prefer to not have caps. Don't you realize that if they set caps it's going to be something like 30 gigs per month? So it's not really about caps, what people REALLY want is for Comcast to stop sending the letters. A cap, so you can download right up to it, is merely a consolation prize.
So the unofficial rumor is 150 gigs per month. Try it. Download less than 150 gigs a month and see if you get a letter. You probably won't. But if you keep downloading 149.999999 gigs per month (which is what a lot of people want to do with the limit) - then you may have someone contact you about the network load you are creating.
Also, the letters don't coincide with the TOS. The letters make it sound like a bandwidth cap, but the angle the enforcement appears to be coming from is about "causing an excessive burden on the network", or something like that. Not surprising for a large company like Comcast. They probably should have written the letters in a way to reflect that there is not a cap, but that people are using too much network resources. But hey, you know, there is this fad in the US where everyone tries to scare the **** out of each other in the interest of self-betterment.
So just keep it under 100 gigs/month and you will probably be fine. And watch the upload. If you find yourself constantly uploading because of the low upload cap, that seems to have been a problem for some people as well. If you are away from your computer, and you are uploading some immense files to somewhere and it takes hours and hours to upload these files, and you do this all the time, you may be impacting the network in a negative way. There is a reason the upstream cap is so low - there is less shared upload than there is download.
In any case, even if you have gotten a letter.... remember... you are way better off not having a cap. Even if you received a letter, you can probably still get away with 75 of 80 gigs per month; if you insist on caps it will be 30 gigs per month or even less. Up to you. I guess some people want to have limits placed on everyone, so that they don't have to feel like a sore thumb. Hey... EVERYONE is going to be better off without the limits, including those who have been notified. I don't understand why people want to limit themselves like that!
Now... if people who download 40 gigs per month start getting letters - then we have a problem. That has not happened, and it does not look like it will. I can say with a significant amount of certainty from what I have seen on these forums and on the Comcast forum and on Usenet, that every one of the people who has received a letter has used over 100 gigabytes per month, and the many of these people are over 200 gigabytes per month.
So it's not a problem. Seriously. It's not a problem. Keep this up and we will have caps... 30 gigs a month. No cable company in their right minds is going to set a three digit cap, but this is where the cap is effectively right now. Not happy with a triple-digit cap? Keep complaining, and you will get a 30 gig per month cap.
But I guess it's fun to complain, isn't it? Even if the complaining has the effect of moving the entire Comcast HSI subscriber base backwards in time as far as technology is concerned.
Remember, any official cap is going to be like 30 gigs a month. Remember that, and stop asking for one. Please, people. We don't want any caps. Hey Comcast... here's one vote for no caps. | |
| |
See 14 replies to this post | |
ghfowler
join:2003-10-13
Indianapolis, IN
| My experience with Comcast Greetings! I'm new to this forum and just read this thread. I got the August letter form Comcast. Upon calling the number listed there for recipients of the letter, I was also told that the letter explicitly that the letter was sent to people who had used 150 GB cumulatively in July. I daresay I am guilty; I do a lot of usenet downloading of binaries (I purchase unlimited service from usenetserver.com). Note however that the letter was dated Aug. 16. Suppose I wanted to conform to the unwritten guidelines, and suppose I cut my downloading in half upon receipt (around Aug. 19). We were almost 3 weeks into August at that point. In my case, I had my service suspended in mid-September for the predictable reason that I again exceeded the unwritten limit in August. The timing of this, in addition to the lack of information, made it essentially impossible to comply.
In my case, I have multiple computers in the house, use them simultaneously for personal and small business purposes, and so I upgraded to small business Comcast Workplace class ($155/month in my area, Indianapolis). I got strong assurances from the business sales people that this level of service is not presently subject to any caps (although the possibility is mentioned in the TOS document, which is however NOT posted on line, though you can get it faxed to you upon request -- it's over 10 printed pages long). Additionally, I am permitted 25 workstations connected to this service; it seems to me that we could easily go over this limit if there really were 25, without any dubious use at all. I do NOT run a server, I do not use P2P, either as sharer or downloader. I do a lot of streaming video and a lot of downloading from usenet, in the background, while working.
Finally, HOW does one monitor one's cumulative bandwidth? Suppose Comcast said that 100 GB/month is okay. How would I know?? Note that I am a Mac OS X user, and the 5 computers in the house are all Macs, so Windows software won't help me. Really, monitoring of cumulative bandwidth ought to be provided by Comcast; there ought to be a web page you could connect to and get your statistics. They obviously have this information (how else could they identify the heavy users), so they should make it public in addition to publicizing some sort of soft limit.
George Fowler
gfowler AT indiana DOT edu | |
| | Bill Clo
join:2002-01-15
Lewisberry, PA
| Re: My experience with Comcast I don't have a problem with the ISP trying to reduce consumption of network resources, up to a point. I'm not a heavy user - don't DL alot of stuff, don't stream video, but you know, frankly, I don't know HOW many GBs I use a month. How can one possibly hope to comply with one of these letters if you don't know where the limit is? Theoretical example: I DL 75GB a month (but don't KNOW that), get a letter saying I'm being a network hog. Ok, fine, but unless I stop nearly all activites (no d/l'ing game demos, ) but casual surfing, how am I to know what level of activity is "OK" and isn't going to get me another nasty gram or even kicked off.
It seems to me that by the time you get a warning letter, you're already basically gone, because they have made it effectively impossible to comply with some mysterious GB limit, since it isn't published.
Even a webpage at the ISP's website, that you log into, that shows how much bandwidth you've used this month, and maybe a color bar that shows how much of your mystery allocation you've used would be a real help. Even if they don't publish hard numbers, it would be a use to me to know that I've used say, 60% of my allocation for this month, and since it's only the 12th, I need to slow down some. Something to let us know how to comply would be a big help in getting compliance from us.
Somehow, I don't think they want compliance, they want us gone. Sorry, but if Adelphia pulls this crap with me, I'm gone. I have no viable broadband options - too far out of town for DSL, and satellite just sucks. I'll have to go back to dialup, and crappy dialup at that. | |
| | | JonIrenicas
join:2002-06-22 | Re: My experience with Comcast You can monitor your bandwidth usage by installing a bandwidth meter such as the one from www.dumeter.com | |
| |
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| said by ghfowler :
In my case, I have multiple computers in the house, use them simultaneously for personal and small business purposes, and so I upgraded to small business Comcast Workplace class ($155/month in my area, Indianapolis). I got strong assurances from the business sales people that this level of service is not presently subject to any caps (although the possibility is mentioned in the TOS document, which is however NOT posted on line, though you can get it faxed to you upon request -- it's over 10 printed pages long). ...snip...
From the residential Acceptable Use Policy, applicable to CHSI (aka "silver" or "standard") and pro:
quote:
Network, Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other Limitations
You must comply with all current bandwidth, data storage, and other limitations on the Service established by Comcast and its suppliers. In addition, you may only access and use the Service with a dynamic Internet Protocol ("IP") address that adheres to the dynamic host configuration protocol ("DHCP"). You may not access or use the Service with a static IP address or using any protocol other than DHCP unless you are subject to a Service plan that expressly permits otherwise.
You must ensure that your activity (including, but not limited to, use made by you or others of any Personal Web Features) does not improperly restrict, inhibit, or degrade any other user's use of the Service, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an unusually large burden on the network. In addition, you must ensure that your activities do not improperly restrict, inhibit, disrupt, degrade or impede Comcast's ability to deliver the Service and monitor the Service, backbone, network nodes, and/or other network Services.
From the commercial Acceptable Use Policy, applicable to CCIS (Comcast Commercial Internet Service), Workplace and Broadband Commuter:
quote:
Network, Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other Limitations
You must comply with all current bandwidth, data storage, and other limitations on the Service established by Comcast and its suppliers.
You must ensure that your activity (including, but not limited to, use made by you or others of Web Site Hosting) does not improperly restrict, inhibit, or degrade any other user's use of the Service, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an unusually large burden on the network. In addition, you must ensure that your activities do not improperly restrict, inhibit, disrupt, degrade or impede Comcast's ability to deliver the Service and monitor the Service, backbone, network nodes, and/or other network Services.
Comcast representatives will tell you anything you want to hear.
»Comcast Support Rep Claims Service is Unlimited
Good luck. | |
| GoblinToe
join:2003-09-14
Pioneer, CA
| Caps = Gone to DSL
I'd also like to state that if I ever receive a bandwidth abuse letter from Comcast, I am GONE. That day. Earthlink DSL will be my new broadband provider.
The caps on our cable modem are already in place with our 1.5 mbit download speed CAP.
Need I remind everyone that most, if not all of us that are cable modem users had speeds in excess of 3 mbit originally. I did with TCI, then AT&T bought TCI and installed the 1.5 mbit downstream caps. I was pissed, sure, but really, it turned out to be ok, because let's face it 1.5 mbit is pretty darn fast.
So they've already taken away service from us, AND raised the rate three times now! Hello?! With TCI I was paying $39 / month for 3mbit downstream speeds. Now I'm paying $54 / month with Comcast with a lowered downstream speed, AND they're now threatening to initiate byte caps!
Anyone see something wrong here?
I do. It's called getting ripped of. So go ahead Comcast, put your byte caps into place, and you lose this customer in a heartbeat.
I'm not the only one you'll lose. | |
| 
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA | Think about it Are you guys really going to be that much happier when Comcast finally breaks down to all of this complaining and sets everyone's limit to to 15GB/month or so? Somehow I doubt it.
Be careful what you wish for.
-- Rob | |
| |
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
·FrontierNet Intern..
| Re: Think about it said by djrobx :
Are you guys really going to be that much happier when Comcast finally breaks down to all of this complaining and sets everyone's limit to to 15GB/month or so? Somehow I doubt it.
Be careful what you wish for.
-- Rob
They are doing it already, they are just not telling you a set limit so you can assume that your getting a good unlimited death.
--
Trouble with spelling.. This browser extension changed my internet life. »www.iespell.com (it's really nice!) -Sarick | |
| | | JonIrenicas
join:2002-06-22
| Re: Think about it said by Sarick :
They are doing it already, they are just not telling you a set limit so you can assume that your getting a good unlimited death.
Right now the limit is extremely high. We know it's probably above 150 gb. | |
| 
Cougar311
join:2002-07-18
USA
| I don't understand.. how people can download that much anyway? Jezz, what kind of Hard drives do you have 500 GB X10 or something? If you can download that much and store everything on Phat Hard Drives then you must have more money than I do, and you could afford a T1 line and not have to worry about caps. Right? Right.
also where do you people find connections that can max out your cable modem 24/7 anyhow?
Just wondering..
also Comcast is a monopoly here in my area so I have no other choice besides Dial-up and I live to far from a CO to get DSL. So I am SOL when it comes to other options.. I either have to do what they say or go back to Dial up. It blows!!!
[text was edited by author 2003-10-13 14:37:41] | |
| | 
Winerin
Premium
join:2002-03-30
Woodland Hills, CA | Re: I don't understand.. Don't need a large hard drive to store anything, CD's are very cheap. And for a company to state "unlimited" with a hidden cap is plain wrong. | |
| | |
Cougar311
join:2002-07-18
USA
| Re: I don't understand.. Who has time to burn CD's all day? Do you people ever go outside?
yes, it's wrong for Comcast, but what can you do? I can go back to dial up.....cause Comcast is all I can get.. | |
| | | |
Winerin
Premium
join:2002-03-30
Woodland Hills, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: I don't understand.. No, we sit in our dark rooms all day and night eating junk and gain weight 
Burning a CD doesn't take long. If you have a little sense in what you are doing much of this is very manageable.
In all honesty, I will be on dialup if Comcast was all I can get. I don't NEED broadband. I have fun with it, and do enjoy the larger file downloads. But as in "need", no. That company can blow me. | |
| | | | | 
Sharky5656
@rasserver.net
| Re: I don't understand.. Hen,They blew me royal! I started out with mediaone,
but when comcast took over the first thing they did was
take the newsserver away. Then they stuck it all the
way in when I refused to buy catv. So it was $60/mo for
internet PLUS $20 for the newsservice......They sent me a
bandwith warning! AHHH I was paying $80 bucks and Comcast
didn't want me to use the service...So I cancelled!
I think what they're doing is offering enhanced services
for people who don't use them.
Dial-Up aint so bad! I download using the oc3 at work! | |
| |
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
·FrontierNet Intern..
| I sit on the computer for a few hours a day. I'm DSL but nothing like what these people are pouting about.
I've had my connection up for 7 hours. Surfing viewing BBreports, IMing etc.
Uploaded 3,484,338
about 4 megs
Downloaded 22,457,595
About 23 megs..
Based these on my month amount using 24/7
I'll guess
25 megs upload a day..
100 megs download a day..
Multiply it by 30..
about 1 gig upload per month.
about 4 gigs Download per month.
LOL, and I'm way over guesstimating.
People who are Complaints about 30 gigs are really heavy users.
--
Trouble with spelling.. This browser extension changed my internet life. »www.iespell.com (it's really nice!) -Sarick | |
|
Winerin
Premium
join:2002-03-30
Woodland Hills, CA | Comcast! After hearing about this so much I just know one thing about this company: it sucks | |
| Sarge_0321
join:2002-06-27
San Diego, CA | CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT Just sue their asses for FALSE ADVERTISING!! | |
|
anomus
@mindspring.com
| Still DLing, ISP #2 :) I have been DLing "large files" over cable for 8 months now. There was lots of waste before but things are comming in pretty efficient now. I have kept 1.8 Terra bytes of stuff so far and its still comming in with no end in sight. Right now I have to ponder how many more hard drives I am going to buy, but I know it is cheaper than buying and burning all those cd's. TWC kicked me after the 6 month contract term for BW hogging, so now im useing earthlink cable. I have not heard a complaint yet. | |
| 
DigitalJeff
I See Squished People
Premium
join:2003-10-07
Denver, CO
| Broadband tumult The telecom companies made a huge mistake offering broadband connections for cheap. They thought that the "no commercial use" clause in the TOS would limit bandwidth usage to checking email and visiting favorite sites. And a few years back, maybe it was a money making proposition.
Now cablemodem customers (myself included) expect to pay less than $50 per month for 1.54 mbps of unlimited bandwidth. (A business would pay upwards of $1000 per month for a T1 of equivalent speed.) The average Joe is into filesharing, the Internet is being tailored to high-bandwidth users, and rate hikes and increasingly strict TOS's make customers upset.
The providers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They've created a virtual Frankenstein, nutured by the Internet's culture of leaching.
So...
Providers: Quit changing your minds, changing your TOS, and changing your rates. Find a plan and stand behind it.
Consumers: Quit whining: you enjoy plenty of EXTREMELY CHEAP bandwidth. He who downloads the most movies/mp3s/games, cries hardest when his hard drive crashes. Shut down your computer and go play Scrabble with your family. | |
| |
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
·FrontierNet Intern..
| Re: Broadband tumult A few years back a 1990 you could get a
Gateway 2000
386DX33
4 megs of ram
Dos 5.0
Windows 3.0
80 megabyte Hd
Diamond Speedster 1Mb VGA
No modem..
For $2400 (sweet)
a good price
You know what? today you couldn't find the same system for $50. It's not worth that much. In fact that computers best use would be a doorstop.
Now days you can by a system gameboy that has more CPU power for less than the cost of the old gateway.
So did they make a mistake, or did technological advances make the higher bandwidths more mainstream?
Your Talking about outdated pricing for yeastier year it's 3 years past 2000. Not 1980 technology has advanced by leaps and bonds T1 speeds aren't for premadonas with bottomless pockets anymore.
It's just as expensive to make a DSL modem as it is to make a 56k analog modem. One has a higher tag currently do to demand.
--
Trouble with spelling.. This browser extension changed my internet life. »www.iespell.com (it's really nice!) -Sarick | |
|
ircd-pumpkin
@comcast.net
| Sunshine through my glass ceiling While I do feel for the people who have gotten notifications from Comcast, I have been pulling down 120-170 GB per month and I'm still on the $19.95 promotional plan.
It's working out great for me | |
|
Agent 86
| Dishonest marketing I have absolutely NO problem with caps...but it is dishonest bait & switch marketing to advertise "no caps" but secretly enforce a cap.
Anyway, it's up to the competition (telcos) to expose this practice. They have something to gain. | |
| ATTGUY2
join:2002-06-02
Fremont, CA
| As I've Been Saying All Along There is no defined limit because these service providers as they ramp up download speeds are experimenting with the network right now.
These guys are smart. Increase download speeds for a time to evaluate the amount of usage and then at some later date when all the data is gathered, impose a limit. Faster download speeds mean limits are reached much more quickly by the user. Then they can start charging more from users who use up their bandwith allotment.
Remember you heard it hear first. | |
| |
Matrix_Zero
@attbi.com
| Re: As I've Been Saying All Along I gotta give it to the att guy. Its all capitalistic tactics.
Looks like economic's class payed off for att
Its all simple formula's.
There's a need for this type of service, they have a substantial grasp of the market, they can control how the market moves, at least in regards to their consumer base.
Everyone's happy when they hear "were pushing it to 3mpbs" then they forget, there's always a but, in this case the but will be "if we think your abusing what we would consider abusing our service, we can warn you, then shut your service off."
Hook...Line...and sinker. Checkmate.
Personally, i'm just waiting for ftth h or something better/ more reliable then comcast to come in. Getting sick of paying the 60 bucks a month for viewing a few flash pages on newgrounds, and gaming on jedi knight 3. In our current economy, its just not worth 60 when you can get it somewhere else for a cheaper price. Of course i won't move to sbc due to their 12 month contract garbage. Just another way to lock their consumer base. | |
| | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: As I've Been Saying All Along said by Matrix_Zero:
Personally, i'm just waiting for ftth h or something better/ more reliable then comcast to come in
Chances are you'll be dead long before FTT* comes to your area if you're waiting for it. you're better off finding an area with ftt* that is LIT and moving there. (plan on spending lots of money too as most ftt* deployments are in affluent areas)
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| 
pleekmo
Triptoe Through The Tulips
Premium
join:2001-09-14
Manchester, CT
clubs:
| Panem et Circenses [Said by editor:]"But are faster speeds, used primarily to download ever-larger files, really important if you'll wind up hitting an invisible data cap?"
Gee, isn't this what I've been ranting about lately? I see that someone has finally figured it out.
--
Only in America if it takes too long for a killer to die, you can't execute him that way and if it took less than 30 seconds for the victim to die then you can't use capital punishment against the killer. What a country... | |
| 
DivineDark
join:2001-08-30
Oklahoma City, OK
clubs:
| another catchy title Back in the old days unlimited meant no hourly fees. I remember getting a pretty big bill from aol for going over my 20 hour a month max. Times change and so do the definition of words like "unlimited". Not one single isp uses a per hour usage billing anymore so there is no way in hell anyone can convince me unlimited means no hourly pricing. If I went around the streets of downtown yelling "fag" i promise nobody would believe me when I said "I meant cigarette". Unlimited applies to all aspects of internet usage by its own definition(ie bandwidth). Not just hourly usage.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-14 20:27:38] | |
| | | |
|
|
The Glass Ceiling
·
Why can't they just go public?
Re: Why can't they just go public?
