| |
off topic: at&t imposing caps on all dsl and cable customers» Will All ISPs Follow AT&T's Cap & Overage Lead? [111] commentsso by my recollection comcast, charter, and now at&t all have bandwidth caps. It's only a matter of time before verizon follows suit imo i do it find it funny to see people panicking about having 200GB monthly caps, as if they got it so rough. Try having 200mb daily cap like some of us HN users have to deal with Edit: i also forgot to mention frontier has a 5gb monthly cap on all it's dsl users. |
|
Jim_in_VA (banned)
join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA |
Jim_in_VA (banned)
Member
2011-Mar-14 5:38 pm
5gb cap on DSL? wow |
|
| |
to chances14
5gB? Who would pay for that? Dial-up is good for about 10 gB/month. I get about 50 gB/month on HN, and it should be good for 100 if you really pushed it! The only problem is that 80% of it is when I'm sleeping. |
|
| |
i think frontier's cap is a soft cap but it is listed in their term of service that there is a 5gb cap. whether they enforce it or not, i am not sure. just remember though that most of frontier's customers are in rural areas where there are no other options for internet |
|
| |
to chances14
said by chances14:»Will All ISPs Follow AT&T's Cap & Overage Lead? [111] comments
so by my recollection comcast, charter, and now at&t all have bandwidth caps. It's only a matter of time before verizon follows suit imo
i do it find it funny to see people panicking about having 200GB monthly caps, as if they got it so rough. Try having 200mb daily cap like some of us HN users have to deal with
Edit: i also forgot to mention frontier has a 5gb monthly cap on all it's dsl users.
200 GB would be a dream for us with HN. 200 mbs a day is managable but it sometimes it can limit you in what need to do online. I do wish I could news watch videos, stream Netflix at least twice a week, and be able to update my iPod Touch apps whenever I wanted to during daytime and evening hours. I can understand the needs for usage caps. I know several people who download large torrents(which are illegal) multiple times a day and this is in addition to video streaming, heavy flash sites, heavy photo sites, etc. If I had Internet service with Qwest or another service whose usage caps aren't as strict I would just be downloading songs from iTunes during the day and evening, I would watch a couple of videos each day and I would visit photos sites as often as I could. |
|
| |
torntfreedom
Anon
2011-Mar-15 1:53 pm
said by writergirl:I know several people who download large torrents(which are illegal) multiple times a day....
Not "all" torrents are illegal. People use torrents to get the latest Linux ISO's(800MB's), as well as other large softwares. If you only have a 1.5Mbps speed(or less), downloading(or uploading) a 1GB or 2GB program would max out their connection making it useless to try and do other things, so torrenting spreads the high usage out over many hours or even days. There are even "fair use" torrents to get music. The Band sends them out, so that other can sample the music and make a donation if they like it. |
|
| |
to chances14
Usage caps should be totally unnecessary for fiber based services. I don't see high bandwidth users impacting fiber networks in any significant manner that would cripple the network. Fiber optics is also a newer tech than copper based cable and dsl which is why I doubt Verizon will impose usage caps on Fios subscribers anytime soon. From what I remember Verizon stated they have no plans to impose a usage cap or throttle subscribers.
Certain web based content such as legitimate streaming and download services require a lot of bandwidth, as time goes on simple websites and other services today will require even more bandwidth. Imposing caps is silly for this reason, especially if those caps are so low you risk running by over streaming a movie or two, some songs, and/or downloading a game or two off of Steam.
As for satellite it really doesn't matter as it will always be second best to real broadband and a faster alternative to dial up. If satellite tech is as limited as some people here say, then the caps make sense. Real brodband such as cable and fiber optic networks are better equipped to handle the high bandwidth, I would say 250 GB -500 GB and only for DSL/Cable subscribers would be far more reasonable than the caps they currently have imposed. |
|
| |
to chances14
said by chances14:»Will All ISPs Follow AT&T's Cap & Overage Lead? [111] comments
so by my recollection comcast, charter, and now at&t all have bandwidth caps. It's only a matter of time before verizon follows suit imo
i do it find it funny to see people panicking about having 200GB monthly caps, as if they got it so rough. Try having 200mb daily cap like some of us HN users have to deal with
Edit: i also forgot to mention frontier has a 5gb monthly cap on all it's dsl users.
You do realize people go with DSL and cable for more than just better latency right? Gamers can easily use up 2-5GB per day. Limiting the internet is an attack against humanity for today's society. This will have major protests. |
|
| |
to chances14
You show me a gamer that uses "up to 2GB-5GB per day" only gaming, and I'll show you someone who's apparently been doing it wrong for years. ;P
So, I looked into Charter's limitations... Apparently, there's a 100/250/500 GB limit per month, depending on your service plan. Comcast's is apparently 250 GB/month period, as is AT&T's new limit. Divvying that up into days, you have 8.3~/ GB to work with over the course of 30 days. 8.3 GB.
... do I really even need to say anything? Alright, I think I will. If you use 8.3 GB a day, you have some serious problems. Unless you're downloading and installing a vast number of games, downloading 3 feature-length movies in HD from Netflix, or doing a whole lotta uploading, this shouldn't even be an issue. I'd barely call it a "cap" at all, really. The monthly cap for Frontier, on the other hand... Ouch, man. Ouch. That's worse than WildBlue's monthly bandwidth caps. |
|
| |
We've all read about time warner and other who tried caps in the past and we're overwhelmed from customer reaction. I see getting a cap, any size, is the hardest step for companies. But once a threshold is in place, then its only a matter of time before the price of a package increases and the cap sizes shrinks.
So i agree that a 250/500gb cap is more than enough. Its really only put in place to curb those who leave bit torrent running 24/7. But once thats done, I could see netflix being their scapegoat they use for price/cap adjustments.
Silly is silly. |
|
| |
to Doc Lithius
said by Doc Lithius:You show me a gamer that uses "up to 2GB-5GB per day" only gaming, and I'll show you someone who's apparently been doing it wrong for years. ;P
That would be most everyone not on a satellite internet connection. And I'm not just saying that its true otherwise they wouldn't be placing these caps in. |
|
| septcasey |
to Doc Lithius
said by Doc Lithius:You show me a gamer that uses "up to 2GB-5GB per day" only gaming, and I'll show you someone who's apparently been doing it wrong for years. ;P
So, I looked into Charter's limitations... Apparently, there's a 100/250/500 GB limit per month, depending on your service plan. Comcast's is apparently 250 GB/month period, as is AT&T's new limit. Divvying that up into days, you have 8.3~/ GB to work with over the course of 30 days. 8.3 GB.
... do I really even need to say anything? Alright, I think I will. If you use 8.3 GB a day, you have some serious problems. Unless you're downloading and installing a vast number of games, downloading 3 feature-length movies in HD from Netflix, or doing a whole lotta uploading, this shouldn't even be an issue. I'd barely call it a "cap" at all, really. The monthly cap for Frontier, on the other hand... Ouch, man. Ouch. That's worse than WildBlue's monthly bandwidth caps.
Its not about how large the caps are. Its about the freedom of the people and the freedom to use the internet as much as we want because nobody "owns" the internet and so it should not be limited. The government and large businesses are attaching chains onto everything people do in life. |
|
tobicat
Premium Member
join:2005-04-18
Tombstone, AZ |
tobicat
Premium Member
2011-Mar-20 3:31 pm
said by septcasey:
Its not about how large the caps are. Its about the freedom of the people and the freedom to use the internet as much as we want because nobody "owns" the internet and so it should not be limited. The government and large businesses are attaching chains onto everything people do in life.
How absurd. You think no one owns that satellite you are using. You think that DSL and WISP operators do not own and did not pay for the equipment that they use to provide service. You think the backbone servers that those ISP connect to came from divine intervention. Guess again someone paid for all of that with real money and they expect to make a profit in return. There ain't notin free about the internet. It cost a lot of money. And sooner or later it will charged just like water, electricity and other public utilities. It is just going to take a while to sort out how much you get for a dollar. |
|
| |
said by tobicat:said by septcasey:
Its not about how large the caps are. Its about the freedom of the people and the freedom to use the internet as much as we want because nobody "owns" the internet and so it should not be limited. The government and large businesses are attaching chains onto everything people do in life.
How absurd. You think no one owns that satellite you are using. You think that DSL and WISP operators do not own and did not pay for the equipment that they use to provide service. You think the backbone servers that those ISP connect to came from divine intervention. Guess again someone paid for all of that with real money and they expect to make a profit in return. There ain't notin free about the internet. It cost a lot of money. And sooner or later it will charged just like water, electricity and other public utilities. It is just going to take a while to sort out how much you get for a dollar. The INTERNET is totally different than the equipment that brings you the internet. Your response was swift without thought. Nobody owns the internet. Do the ISPs make the internet? No... they just provide you a WAY to access it. Every ISP tells you this you know. |
|
| |
said by septcasey:said by tobicat:said by septcasey:
Its not about how large the caps are. Its about the freedom of the people and the freedom to use the internet as much as we want because nobody "owns" the internet and so it should not be limited. The government and large businesses are attaching chains onto everything people do in life.
How absurd. You think no one owns that satellite you are using. You think that DSL and WISP operators do not own and did not pay for the equipment that they use to provide service. You think the backbone servers that those ISP connect to came from divine intervention. Guess again someone paid for all of that with real money and they expect to make a profit in return. There ain't notin free about the internet. It cost a lot of money. And sooner or later it will charged just like water, electricity and other public utilities. It is just going to take a while to sort out how much you get for a dollar. The INTERNET is totally different than the equipment that brings you the internet. Your response was swift without thought. Nobody owns the internet. Do the ISPs make the internet? No... they just provide you a WAY to access it. Every ISP tells you this you know. so based on your theory, electricity and water shouldn't be billed based on usage because nobody technically owns the electricity that flows through the power lines or the water that flows through the pipes. they just provide a way for you to access these things |
|
tobicat
Premium Member
join:2005-04-18
Tombstone, AZ |
tobicat
Premium Member
2011-Mar-20 5:55 pm
hey I like that. That means that gas stations don't own the gas they sell just the pumps that dispense it Heck pump rental can't be much the gas should be free. |
|
| |
to chances14
said by chances14:so based on your theory, electricity and water shouldn't be billed based on usage because nobody technically owns the electricity that flows through the power lines or the water that flows through the pipes. they just provide a way for you to access these things
Nope. You're just fighting back with words on a totally different level of understanding than what I said. Since you could not accept the fact that what I said was right, without flaw and without a shadow of a doubt true and unarguable you had to come up with something to put here. Can't let the truth speakers win now can we? There is a difference between internet access and whats on it. Correct me if I am wrong but if I build a website from scratch isn't that my property? But if I decide to publish it online then I am wanting to share my work with the world but you shouldn't have to be charged extra if you just so happen to go over your ISP's usage cap to see my work. I have not once said make internet ACCESS free. I am saying putting caps on how much of the content on the internet you can actually visit is an attack against freedom in my opinion. The content of the internet is what WE THE PEOPLE put out there for public access. Without that, there would be no internet.People with your mentality make me wonder if the government somehow put a "cap" on how much air you could breathe everyday if you would actually be in favor of that. |
|
| |
Random999222
Anon
2011-Mar-20 8:18 pm
septcasey,
No, you are not right. By reading your post, it seems like you think it's a direct connection between you and the website. That's not the case AT ALL.
Go to command prompt and type "tracert dslreports.com" (without the quotes), see all of those lines of IP addresses, domains, etc.? Those are SERVERS. Servers OWNED BY SOMEONE. If someone else maxes out one of those servers, guess what happens to your connection? It either slows down or STOPS COMPLETELY when trying to access any sites that run through it. This is EXACTLY the reason of peak slowdowns on EVERY provider. Your connection to any website is only as fast as the "slowest" link in the path. Having said that, it's normally not a problem until you hit 25-30+mb/s connections.
You are even wrong about how you put a website online. Do you have any idea how much datacenter connections cost? How servers are run? etc. etc.
Even paying $100 for 2mb/s download is a GREAT PRICE. If you were to get a dedicated line, it would be $400+ a month. This is why providers need to cap the usage. Would you rather be capped at $100/month or have no cap at $400+ a month? That's what I thought. |
|
| |
said by Random999222 :septcasey,
No, you are not right. By reading your post, it seems like you think it's a direct connection between you and the website. That's not the case AT ALL.
Go to command prompt and type "tracert dslreports.com" (without the quotes), see all of those lines of IP addresses, domains, etc.? Those are SERVERS. Servers OWNED BY SOMEONE. If someone else maxes out one of those servers, guess what happens to your connection? It either slows down or STOPS COMPLETELY when trying to access any sites that run through it. This is EXACTLY the reason of peak slowdowns on EVERY provider. Your connection to any website is only as fast as the "slowest" link in the path. Having said that, it's normally not a problem until you hit 25-30+mb/s connections.
You are even wrong about how you put a website online. Do you have any idea how much datacenter connections cost? How servers are run? etc. etc.
Even paying $100 for 2mb/s download is a GREAT PRICE. If you were to get a dedicated line, it would be $400+ a month. This is why providers need to cap the usage. Would you rather be capped at $100/month or have no cap at $400+ a month? That's what I thought.
Then they should make better servers to accommodate the growing internet community instead of going all controlling and selfish and putting in caps. But hey, to do that it costs money and nobody wants to spend money for the right thing but only for the cheapest thing. The websites themselves are still provided by the PEOPLE. Without people there are no websites and thus no internet or rather no content for the internet. ugh... why do I keep coming back to this forum... |
|
| |
to chances14
Re: septcasey*deep breath* Okay. This has been a long time coming, so bear with me everyone.
septcasey? Why do you keep coming back to this forum, especially when everyone here is "wrong" and you "know exactly what's going on with everything"? Do you come back to babble ignorant nonsense about things you clearly fail to comprehend? Or maybe to huff and moan about things we can't change, such as the connection speed and quality of your satellite connection? Maybe you just like to be contrary and tell people how wrong they are about everything? Yes, septcasey... why do you keep coming back here if we're not giving you want you not only want, but think you're entitled to -- a pat on the back, a hug, and a miracle answer to your satellite internet problems? And I guess a refund of both your money and your time?
Also, hey, guess what? The internet is, never has been, and never will be a completely free property. It's a privilege, not a right, despite what the bureaucrats will tell you. Are you wrong in thinking it should be free? Kind of. As people have said, server costs and hardware maintenance isn't free.
Also, and I can't stress this enough... Your personal gaming experience is not an all-encompassing blanket experience for all gamers! You use 2-5 GB per day just for gaming? Fine. I didn't back when I was using Cox Communications before I moved. Even playing Team Fortress 2, using Ventrilo while listening to streaming audio shouldn't use that much bandwidth. And didn't. My torrents, on the other hand, may have between uploads and downloads. But that's not gaming, now is it?
Lastly... And this is the most polite thing I'm going to say in this post... Please learn how to use the edit post function and avoid double-posting, or in some cases, triple-posting. It's extremely bad forum etiquette. |
|
| |
Radnom999222 to chances14
Anon
2011-Mar-21 5:07 am
to chances14
Re: off topic: at&t imposing caps on all dsl and cable customers---
Then they should make better servers to accommodate the growing internet community instead of going all controlling and selfish and putting in caps. But hey, to do that it costs money and nobody wants to spend money for the right thing but only for the cheapest thing. The websites themselves are still provided by the PEOPLE. Without people there are no websites and thus no internet or rather no content for the internet.
---
So let me get this right. You're complaining because you can't spend 1/4th the cost on something and get everything you want? Since you stated they should "upgrade the servers", how about YOU upgrade to a dedicated line? Even then $400-500 only gets you SO MUCH a month. Now add extreme overages (depending on contracts, providers, SLAs, etc.), enjoy paying $20,000-30,000 a month for your own "private" "unlimited" internet connection.
You claim people are being selfish when YOU are being selfish. You want high-speed at less then $100 a month with no caps, no overloading, etc. You do realize that if providers offered unlimited and users downloading 24/7 one of two things would happen:
A) You would come and complain about them being too slow and that they need to upgrade their network
B) They'd go bankrupt because just one-two users paying $50 a month can EASILY max out a $2,000-5,000 connection if left with "unlimited" bandwidth. |
|
|
| |
Random999222 to chances14
Anon
2011-Mar-21 5:10 am
to chances14
You keep throwing up:
---
The websites themselves are still provided by the PEOPLE. Without people there are no websites and thus no internet or rather no content for the internet.
---
Which really makes me believe you have no idea what's going on with websites. First of all, it costs MONEY. Around a minimum of $100/year for a basic websites, sites like DSLR or larger are probably in the range of $500-700 a MONTH.
Do you really believe you go "Oh I want a website to share XXXXXXXX, I'll make one really quick." and that's all it is to it? |
|
 cork1958Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26 |
to chances14
I couldn't use HN if I wanted to. There's no way in the world 500mb is manageble and still be able to do ANYTHING on the net. Heck, Here's my most recent usage and this was done mostly on accident!! I haven't been on the computer the last few days NEARLY as much as usual. Then there's the price of HN!! Holy crap. Nothing like being raped!! I'd do dial up before I'd use HN.  |
|
| |
zeddlar
Member
2011-Mar-21 11:48 am
Annddd it would be your loss and our gain. I admit the price is steep, heck I pay $120 a month so yes it is high and the customer service is horrid. But like I said elsewhere I can download easily 75 GB per month with my connection if I wanted to and do many things you either can't do with your dial up or would have to wait hours to get done so you go ahead and take your dial up, lol.
I have 3 computers running with 2 running 24/7 so they can do automatic updates and such but they are not actually used from about midnight to 8 am most of the time unless I just happen to need a game update or something and the other computer is off during those time and used during the day and I get everything I want done done and almost never exceed FAP. I think I have used 6 tokens in the almost 1 year I have had the 9000 modem and 4 of those were updates for games I either didn't realise was happening till it was to late or I couldn't stop. the others were YouTube on karaoke nights, lol. Personally, I wouldn't go back to dial up if they paid me. |
|
| |
to Random999222
said by Random999222 :You keep throwing up:
---
The websites themselves are still provided by the PEOPLE. Without people there are no websites and thus no internet or rather no content for the internet.
---
Which really makes me believe you have no idea what's going on with websites. First of all, it costs MONEY. Around a minimum of $100/year for a basic websites, sites like DSLR or larger are probably in the range of $500-700 a MONTH.
Do you really believe you go "Oh I want a website to share XXXXXXXX, I'll make one really quick." and that's all it is to it?
Do you REALLY believe when all of these customers find out they are going to have caps and extra fees if they go over those caps that they are going to be happy or accepting about it? No they are not. Like I said, instead of upgrading the technology to better accommodate the growing number of internet users they would rather implement caps that will ONLY get more strict as time passes. I'm sorry but disciplining the customers because of the actions of some is not the right way to go about this. Thats my opinion and you can type here until your fingers bleed to the bone but I will never change my mind on that access to the internet should be affordable and unlimited for all. You can keep dragging your corporate chains around but I'm all about the freedom buddy. cya |
|
| |
to chances14
200GB a month is alot.. I don't see a reason to complain...Except people who owns a business....Its impossible for a youtube user/online gamer to go over that limit... |
|
| |
Random999222 to chances14
Anon
2011-Mar-22 12:47 am
to chances14
I lol @ your every reply. You really believe everyone else is wrong? septcasey, you are the one that's WRONG.
You obviously have NO IDEA about ANYTHING that's going on. You seriously expect to have the internet basically "given" to you? YOU ARE BARELY PAYING ENOUGH TO COVER THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT DEPARTMENT. Even with Hughes, which sucks. You are NOT even paying much for the actual connection. That is why companies must SHARE it with users. You'd be the exact person that would come and complain when someone is downloading 24/7 with Torrents (legal or illegal, that doesn't matter) and claim that they should "upgrade the networks" for you. Seriously? The world, and the internet does not revolve around what YOU want it to be or think it is.
Can they do better then caps of say 5GB on mobile broadband? Yes. Better then 50gb? Yes. Probably even better then the 500gb caps without much concern, but it HAS to be capped. They CAN NOT AFFORD to provide everyone with "unlimited". You may think you're paying alot with $100/month, but YOU'RE NOT. These providers are paying 4-5x the amount for your 2mb/s. How do they make up for this? Simple: They oversell. What does overselling mean? It doesn't effect any customer unless even one customer believes it is their RIGHT to have a "unlimited" internet connection. They get on and download/upload, run servers, P2P, or do whatever 24/7 and thus it slows EVERYONE DOWN. Solution? Get rid of those customers. How? PUT CAPS ON THE AMOUNT THEY CAN USE. |
|
| |
said by Random999222 :I lol @ your every reply. You really believe everyone else is wrong? septcasey, you are the one that's WRONG.
You obviously have NO IDEA about ANYTHING that's going on. You seriously expect to have the internet basically "given" to you? YOU ARE BARELY PAYING ENOUGH TO COVER THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT DEPARTMENT. Even with Hughes, which sucks. You are NOT even paying much for the actual connection. That is why companies must SHARE it with users. You'd be the exact person that would come and complain when someone is downloading 24/7 with Torrents (legal or illegal, that doesn't matter) and claim that they should "upgrade the networks" for you. Seriously? The world, and the internet does not revolve around what YOU want it to be or think it is.
Can they do better then caps of say 5GB on mobile broadband? Yes. Better then 50gb? Yes. Probably even better then the 500gb caps without much concern, but it HAS to be capped. They CAN NOT AFFORD to provide everyone with "unlimited". You may think you're paying alot with $100/month, but YOU'RE NOT. These providers are paying 4-5x the amount for your 2mb/s. How do they make up for this? Simple: They oversell. What does overselling mean? It doesn't effect any customer unless even one customer believes it is their RIGHT to have a "unlimited" internet connection. They get on and download/upload, run servers, P2P, or do whatever 24/7 and thus it slows EVERYONE DOWN. Solution? Get rid of those customers. How? PUT CAPS ON THE AMOUNT THEY CAN USE.
There is very little point in trying to inform Casey or to convince him of anything. As pointed out by Doc Lithius, during the one year + that Casey has been posting here, he has rejected and/or ignored virtually everything that he has been told by virtually everyone, and he continues to to maintain absurd views, in spite of massive amounts of logic to the contrary, of what he feels that the world owes him. I figure that one of three things must be the case. Either he doesn't want to accept reality or he can't accept reality or else he is merely a troll who gets pleasure from frustrating those who have patiently tried to help him understand what actually is reality. Thus, the only purpose in commenting on any of his posts has to be help others who come here for information to understand that reality and also to understand that Casey has a long history of spouting absurd and ill-formed opinions. With regard to the caps being imposed by major terrestrially-based internet service providers, there really is little need to be concerned about those caps affecting the way that legitimate residential customers are using the internet. Any caps in the range of 250 gigabytes per month are not going limit those who browse, those who download software, those who download music or video, those who extensively game, etc. The purpose of those caps is merely to deter those who would be inclined to buy a $40 or $50 per month residential connection and use it to set up a large commercial server. |
|
| |
If this were medieval times I would have been stoned to death by now for speaking out against injustice.
I am not a troll. I am looking at things from the eyes of a customer and as a paying customer to the services I have I don't want to be or feel I should be capped. As a customer it is not my place nor concern for the money problems of these businesses. If they want more business, offer better service so I can tell my friends and family about it. If money is the reason they can't do that, then have a bake sale. |
|
| |
There is NO justice involved in business/customer relationships. Therefore you can't speak out against a non-existent injustice.
There is very, very little keeping anyone with deep pockets from opening up a competing solution. When you fail to see anyone doing that you can conclude that those with the deep pockets see that they will lose money trying, so they don't try.
Now, you are perfectly welcome to lobby your congresspeople to offer a subsidy contingent on improved performance. There is a long history of the US government doing that. Unfortunately you live in an era, starting roughly with Reagan, where the opposite is the norm - removal of existing regulation and subsidies.
Do NOT, though, expect any business to rollover and lose money just because you think they are being unjust. Won't happen, even if everybody were to agree that they would like it to happen. |
|
