Long Awaited Japanese Caps Arrive: 930GB Per Month - 30GB upstream cap per day, unlimited downloads, no overages....

Long Awaited Japanese Caps Arrive: 930GB Per Month - 30GB upstream cap per day, unlimited downloads, no overages....
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·

Long Awaited Japanese Caps Arrive: 930GB Per Month
30GB upstream cap per day, unlimited downloads, no overages....
05:25PM Wednesday Jun 25 2008 by Karl Bode
tags: competition · bandwidth · cable · world · networking · caps · Comcast · Verizon FIOS · RoadRunner Cable

After I broke the news that both Time Warner Cable and Comcast were considering monthly caps and overage fees, I noticed that a refraining industry talking point justifying the move usually went something like this: "Well, despite being hailed as a FTTH utopia, Japan is implementing caps too." The argument being that low caps and overage fees were inevitable even in the face of serious capacity upgrades and the latest throttling technologies.

Well, fiber carrier NTT Communications, which offers users symmetrical 100Mbps connections and VoIP for about $42 per month, today unveiled those long ballyhooed cap plans: a daily upload limit of 30 GB per day (930 GB per month), and unlimited downloads. No overage fees. Of course NTT's statement justifying the move sounds familiar:

A small number of individual users have been monopolizing substantial network resources by uploading massive amounts of data, which can slow the speed of the network and lower communication quality for other users

Damn those pesky users who consume more than 930GB worth of upstream bandwidth per month! Compare that to Time Warner Cable's proposed caps of between 5 and 40GB per month, and overage fees at a markup over cost of between 1000 and 1,500%. Apparently actually investing in capacity does make a difference after all. Did I mention FiOS, so far, has no caps? Did I mention French FTTH carriers don't either?

As an aside, while perusing the Intertubes, I came across this post on the cable industry's new blog that lets you know that Japanese broadband "isn't the beacon of broadband they were held out to be." I was fairly amused to find anyone in the American broadband industry attacking Japanese FTTH providers for offering 100Mbps speeds that fall below the advertised rate.

20% of Comcast Users To See DOCSIS 3.0 in 2008

NY Attorney General Investigating Comcast

Show Us Your 50Mbps!

Comcast Gets Investigated While Cox Gets Free Pass

Comcast Installs DOCSIS 3.0 In Two New Markets

Time Warner Cable Pretends Cable Is Fiber

Time Warner Cable To Start Per-Gigabyte Fee Trial On Thursday

Time Warner Cable Says They're Ready For FiOS Rumble

Links: New Topic
Forums »

en102 @ 25th Jun 05:29PM:
These are the kind of caps...

I'd expect on a normal U.S. / Canadian carrier.
930GB upstream cap is wild... that would be the equivalent of 3Mbps 24x7.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply

MrMoody @ 25th Jun 05:32PM:
Outrageous

It's outrageous, I tell you! Why I'd only be able to upload 200 DVDs before being done for the month!
--
The public is a poor business manager.
reply

Smith6612 @ 25th Jun 05:33PM:
It's only uploads...

Uploads aren't much of a big deal unless you're doing loads of HD video OR you're running torrents. Download, unlimited.
reply

Dnepr @ 25th Jun 05:37PM:
Looks good to me

I wouldn't mind those kinds of caps.

Japanese solution actually seems reasonable!
reply

swhitney2003 @ 25th Jun 05:47PM:
no overage fees?

So what happens if someone uploads over that cap? Apparently there are no fees. Do they just lose their connection for the day?
reply

anon @ 25th Jun 05:48PM:
$42?

For $42 per month!!!! Where do I sign?

When will NTT come to the US? :)
reply

kcblack @ 25th Jun 05:49PM:
Re: no overage fees?

In the true Japanese way they are officially yelled at in front of other customers and apologize profusely for letting it happen...

Kevin
reply

anon @ 25th Jun 05:51PM:
Reasonable caps..if you call caps reasonable

Well those are about as generous as caps can get and I'm sure we'll never see caps this reasonable in the US.

Then again, we don't exactly have 100/100 FTTH connections available yet and we'll be lucky to even see that with FiOS anytime soon. Atleast Verizon doesn't cap FiOS for now, let's hope things stay that way and if we're lucky we'll see that 20 symmetrical make its way up to 100 symmetrical.
reply

BF69 @ 25th Jun 05:54PM:
Even if ISPs in the US

had a 930 GB cap DL/UL combined there would still be those here that would complain that that is excessive and is violating thier "rights".
reply

Kearnstd @ 25th Jun 05:58PM:
Re: Even if ISPs in the US

i love to run torrents every few months, even when i try i cant imagine moving almost a Terabyte upstream.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply

en102 @ 25th Jun 06:13PM:
Re: Even if ISPs in the US

a 930GB UL cap = 3Mbps upload 24x7.
3008kbps = 376kB/second = 0.3761875MB/second

60seconds/minute X 60 minutes/hour X 24 hours/day = 86400 seconds/day

86400 seconds/day X 0.3761875MB/second =
31725MB/day or 30.98GB/day

How many have 3Mbps or better upload capacity?
How many run it at the max 24x7 ?
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply

Rob @ 25th Jun 06:17PM:
Re: $42?

said by Hehe :

For $42 per month!!!! Where do I sign?

When will NTT come to the US? :)

Never. Because existing companies in the U.S. will lobby your employer to not allow them in the U.S.
reply

fireflier @ 25th Jun 06:22PM:
Re: Even if ISPs in the US

TWC apparently feels that an upload of about 1/10 that 3Mbps is more than sufficient for the typical user.

Any activity that would find 384K insufficient couldn't possibly be legal. :uhh:

I'd wager TWC execs would sh!t their pants at the mere suggestion of a cap at nearly 1 TB (upload only) :o
--
Wishes: When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor. --despair.com
reply

ARGONAUT @ 25th Jun 06:30PM:
Re: Looks good to me

Same here.
reply

knightmb @ 25th Jun 06:33PM:
Re: Even if ISPs in the US

said by en102 :

a 930GB UL cap = 3Mbps upload 24x7.
3008kbps = 376kB/second = 0.3761875MB/second

60seconds/minute X 60 minutes/hour X 24 hours/day = 86400 seconds/day

86400 seconds/day X 0.3761875MB/second =
31725MB/day or 30.98GB/day

How many have 3Mbps or better upload capacity?
How many run it at the max 24x7 ?

I do, but good point, it doesn't run at max capacity 24/7 It's maybe 30% capacity at peak times.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data
reply

insomniac84 @ 25th Jun 06:34PM:
Isn't bandwidth cheaper in the US?

We made the internet, we have a huge infrastructure here. Lots of worldwide traffic crosses our country. How can a US company cry that they need a 30gb a month cap to make money, while in japan they can offer 100mbit symmetrical lines and only need to set a 930gb per month upload cap? Our government is such a failure to allow this mass ripping off of Americans to continue.
reply

EPS @ 25th Jun 06:43PM:
Re: Isn't bandwidth cheaper in the US?

From what I hear, the thing about all these high speed Japanese internet services is that the speed falls down hugely if you try to go to a website based outside of Japan, thanks to very limited bandwidth capacity on the undersea cables.
reply

EPS @ 25th Jun 06:46PM:
Re: $42?

Hm, wasn't the modern NTT basically born out of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company's activities in Japan? (Much like NEC, Nippon Electric, was the Japanese arm of Western Electric) Maybe if we had "the old" AT&T back...

Though I've heard that these prices don't actually include internet and you have to pay an ISP separately, but that was from the US cable industry's website (linked elsewhere here).
reply

Smith6612 @ 25th Jun 07:08PM:
Re: Even if ISPs in the US

There are loads of possible reasons. In my case, I'm uploading lots of 1080p HD videos I've recorded of my video games in FRAPs. These files are totaling around 700MB big, one almost reached a gigabyte and I'm stuck uploading these at 128kbps. 386k would be nice to have on slower Verizon DSL, BUT it'll still take a long time to pull off all of those megabytes.

And yes, I upload frequently.
reply

Pizz @ 25th Jun 07:28PM:
Re: Isn't bandwidth cheaper in the US?

you're right on that. If you stay within Japan and parts of Asia, you will see very high speeds. But as soon as you try and get into certain parts of europe and middle east, to USA - the speed starts going more and more downhill.
reply

ltjordan @ 25th Jun 07:29PM:
Re: Japanese caps.

Those poor, oppressed bastards. Only 930gb per month upload. How do they survive? I'll be sure to light a candle for them.
reply

en102 @ 25th Jun 07:29PM:
Re: Even if ISPs in the US

Right... I could accept the 1/3 (i.e. 8/24 hours/day at 100% use to be reasonable. )
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply

nitzan @ 25th Jun 07:43PM:
Re: Isn't bandwidth cheaper in the US?

Exactly. I don't know the exact percentage, but probably something like 99% of Japanese traffic is actually in-country. Most Japanese browse sites written in Japanese almost all the time (for example Google Japan, Yahoo Japan, Hotmail Japan, MySpace Japan, YouTube Japan etc. - I imagine all of these actually have physical servers IN Japan so the traffic never leaves the country).

I think a similar thing is going on in Europe- we have a server in Denmark that has an awesome (100mbit) connection to most destinations in Europe - but as soon as you try to do something that involves the US for example, the speed drops to a few megabit at best. Why? because Europe has multiple super-exchanges which carry local traffic around, but as soon as you try and go outside Europe the pipe gets a whole lot smaller...

But anyway, back to topic - while I understand the need to use caps in general as they introduce higher speeds, a 30GB a month or whatever caps they hope to introduce in the US is ridiculous. I'm with the Japanese on this one - HIGH caps are acceptable - low caps are not. I typically a few GB a month on average at best - but I can totally see myself going far above 30 GB for some months. As more and more things like Video over IP and video in general get introduced, 30 GB is going to seem more and more pathetic.

Who knows- maybe this is a preemptive strike on their side to try and limit competition before it even happens? if you can't run high bandwidth applications like streaming HDTV bought from a third-party on your connection - you'd have to buy it from them. VoIP they can't win with, but IP TV and such they probably will be able to get away with blocking for a few years if they can get away with this crap...
reply

BF69 @ 25th Jun 08:03PM:
Re: Even if ISPs in the US

said by Smith6612 :

There are loads of possible reasons. In my case, I'm uploading lots of 1080p HD videos I've recorded of my video games in FRAPs. These files are totaling around 700MB big, one almost reached a gigabyte and I'm stuck uploading these at 128kbps. 386k would be nice to have on slower Verizon DSL, BUT it'll still take a long time to pull off all of those megabytes.

And yes, I upload frequently.

Now why would you need 1080P videos of video games? You don't. And where are you uploading these videos too? it aint youtube because they won't take 1080p videos
reply

JamesPC @ 25th Jun 08:36PM:
Re: no overage fees?

Now thats funny, I have seen it. LOL
reply

chronoss2008 @ 25th Jun 09:00PM:
haha on bell you suck

whats the bell user get 60GB for 50$ more cost , haha
reply

nekkidtruth @ 25th Jun 09:12PM:
Re: Even if ISPs in the US

said by BF69 :

Now why would you need 1080P videos of video games? You don't. And where are you uploading these videos too? it aint youtube because they won't take 1080p videos

Who cares why he needs them? Who are you to decide what is acceptable and what is not acceptable use of high definition videos or even the Internet for that matter?

What business is it of yours where he is uploading the videos to?

I'm sorry, I must have missed the day we voted you the "King of all things Internet".
--
Weeeeeee
reply

RARPSL @ 25th Jun 09:24PM:
Re: Isn't bandwidth cheaper in the US?

said by nitzan :

Exactly. I don't know the exact percentage, but probably something like 99% of Japanese traffic is actually in-country. Most Japanese browse sites written in Japanese almost all the time (for example Google Japan, Yahoo Japan, Hotmail Japan, MySpace Japan, YouTube Japan etc. - I imagine all of these actually have physical servers IN Japan so the traffic never leaves the country).

Do not forget that those Web Pages are being sent as UTF-8 codes which means that each character is (I think) 4 or 5 bytes (not the 1 byte of English) so you have to allow for that when you compute speed (IOW: If you are sending a 4000 Character English Page, that will [ignoring the HTML Tags] only allow 800-1000 Japanese UTF-8 Characters in the same amount of time/file-size).
reply

dvd536 @ 25th Jun 09:41PM:
Re: It's only uploads...

said by Smith6612 :

Uploads aren't much of a big deal unless you're doing loads of HD video OR you're running torrents. Download, unlimited.

This will impact my favorite pwn3d XDCC bots :o
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee
reply

ShadezeRO @ 25th Jun 09:43PM:
umm

Inb4 "Japan has is more densely populated"

930gb upload caps sounds nice.
reply

dvd536 @ 25th Jun 09:48PM:
Re: Isn't bandwidth cheaper in the US?

said by EPS :

From what I hear, the thing about all these high speed Japanese internet services is that the speed falls down hugely if you try to go to a website based outside of Japan, thanks to very limited bandwidth capacity on the undersea cables.

i experience the same with bbb.se ftps.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee
reply

BF69 @ 25th Jun 10:10PM:
Re: Even if ISPs in the US

said by nekkidtruth :

said by BF69 :

Now why would you need 1080P videos of video games? You don't. And where are you uploading these videos too? it aint youtube because they won't take 1080p videos

A) I'm not asking YOU.

B) I'm asking for a SPECIFIC reason. If he would tell me then I could respond

C) get of your self-righteous kick.

D) doesn't matter is it's my busines it's certianly the ISPs business and so his answer would be important.

Fact if if he's just doing it for kicks and his ISP installs caps oh well he'll have to pay up or deal with measely 720P or 480P too fricken bad. If he's doing if for some business purpose well then he needs to be using a BUSINESS account. I don't know because he hasn't answered. and know I'm having to waste time repsonding to your "I'm the speaker for all on this board, obey me!" attitude.
reply

bojean @ 25th Jun 10:46PM:
d'oh delete please

damn, i posted instead of replying...

can a mod delete please?
reply

bojean @ 25th Jun 10:49PM:
Re: These are the kind of caps...

i saw people account with 4000gb of download per month and ~90gb of upload in quebec, canada

With a 10mbps connection that's 24/7 doing the 10mbps cap, in download...

Not until you see something like this that you understand WHY they want to put CAPS.

Those guy were paying 65$/months for the usage of around 60 other subscription and saturatuing heavily the network!
reply

MacLeech @ 25th Jun 10:50PM:
NTT customers are being robbed of 97% of uplink capacity.

If the connection is 100mbit symmetric, why is the cap for only 3% of the total bandwidth that could possibly be moved with that connection in a month?

100 mbps x 60 sec/min x 60 min/hr x 24 hr/day x 30 day/mth / 8 bits/byte= 32,400,000 MB/month or or 32,400 GB/month or 32.4 TB/month.

.930 TB / 32.4 TB x 100% = 2.87% of possible upload capacity is allowed usage.

Why are they limiting it to only 3% of total capacity?

People on this SITE are usually PISSED if they are presented with a plan that only allows use of "their" connection at 3% of capacity.

Imagine how much uproar there would be if a U.S. provider capped their users at 9 GB/month on their 1 Mbps upload (3% of 324 GB/month) or 180 GB on their 20Mbps upload connection (3% of 6480 GB/month).
reply

lvlorpheus @ 25th Jun 11:08PM:
Well this is just ridiculous

We should start a petition here for the poor treatment of the Japanese people as regards to modern technology. Maybe we can get congress and the senate to send them a few hundred billion to build up Japans networks. Maybe something like that would open the eye of the government in this country. Maybe then they would look at things like Verizon charging Americans a small house payment for 1 GB of data over 5 GB. How they have gotten away with saying 1 GB of data is worth a home, rent or car payment is beyond me. I for one can only hope with their trying to buy Alltel it will cause the FCC and the federal government to wake up to Verizon and others practices and do away with caps or raise them significantly.
reply

nekkidtruth @ 25th Jun 11:13PM:
Re: Even if ISPs in the US

said by BF69 :

A) I'm not asking YOU.

B) I'm asking for a SPECIFIC reason. If he would tell me then I could respond

C) get of your self-righteous kick.

D) doesn't matter is it's my busines it's certianly the ISPs business and so his answer would be important.

Fact if if he's just doing it for kicks and his ISP installs caps oh well he'll have to pay up or deal with measely 720P or 480P too fricken bad. If he's doing if for some business purpose well then he needs to be using a BUSINESS account. I don't know because he hasn't answered. and know I'm having to waste time repsonding to your "I'm the speaker for all on this board, obey me!" attitude.

Who's the self-righteous one? You're the one who said he doesn't need 1080p videos of video games. You are the one who is acting like the Internet police demanding he explain his actions. He doesn't have to explain anything, especially not to you.

Nor does it really matter if he's doing it for business or pleasure. His Internet experience doesn't have to be like yours. So far in your post you haven't once given him the benefit of the doubt, you immediately told him what he was doing was wrong and or in this second holier than thou post of yours, claim he may be on the wrong tier of service (ie. use a business account.).

Who are you to decide that? Even if he is using his connection for business, who are you to tell him he should move to a commercial account?

The self-righteous one certainly isn't me. As for your comment about how I have an attitude, you're right, I do. My attitude stems from idiots like you who run around telling everyone what they can and cannot do on the Internet. Get over yourself.
--
Weeeeeee
reply

TigerLord @ 26th Jun 12:19AM:
Re: These are the kind of caps...

4Tb of data?
reply

Pizz @ 26th Jun 12:23AM:
Re: NTT customers are being robbed of 97% of uplink capacity.

People are pissed due to low caps, that are already on a lower tier of service.
reply

jester121 @ 26th Jun 12:42AM:
Re: Isn't bandwidth cheaper in the US?

Sorry, logical arguments such as yours aren't permitted here, we BBR members all know there is unlimited bandwidth that can instantly and cheaply be doubled or tripled for almost free overnight, and it's just the greedy telecoms that are keeping us down. :D
reply

en102 @ 26th Jun 12:43AM:
Re: NTT customers are being robbed of 97% of uplink capacity.

Personally, I don't know of too many 'residential' uses yet that would consume 32.4TB/month or even 1TB/month.

In the case of caps, 1TB download is more than any cap listed in the U.S.... and those caps are typically on the download side.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply

Iknowenuff @ 26th Jun 12:55AM:
Hmmm....

I would love to see just half that speed and half that cap. I would be HAPPY with those numbers. And as far as the speeds being in house, I live in America so 90% of the websites I visit are in the U.S. So if I lived in Japan, I wouldn't care if the speed dropped if I browsed out of the country. And I think the speed drop has more to do with the servers over here rather than the band-with of the overseas lines.
reply

KrK @ 26th Jun 12:58AM:
Re: $42?

In Japan, local loop unbundling and competition over the ILEC infrastructure was embraced, not stymied.

You see the result.
reply

MacLeech @ 26th Jun 01:26AM:
Re: NTT customers are being robbed of 97% of uplink capacity.

said by en102 :

Personally, I don't know of too many 'residential' uses yet that would consume 32.4TB/month or even 1TB/month.

Then again we don't live in Japan where 100 mbps connections are often portrayed as being "common" by people here in the US.

For people in Japan with such connections, what is typical bandwidth usage? There must be some demand for those sorts of connections to offer that sort of speed. What would those who demand such connections say about being limited to that max speed 3% of the time?

Are we biased to think 930 GB is alot because the connections we use in the US are so much slower than 100 mbps that the thought of reaching such a limit is almost impossible for us?

Is using only 3% of your upload capacity high or low? Is being able to max out your upload speed for only 22 hours in a month "fair"?

As others have pointed out in other threads discussing caps:
"What's the point of such speed when it means you'll reach you caps that much faster?"
"Why are the selling such high speeds if they cap you within a day's use?"

What is the REAL reason behind the caps? What part of the NTT infrastructure is straining under such a load?
reply

jubangy @ 26th Jun 02:55AM:
Re: Isn't bandwidth cheaper in the US?

said by jester121 :

Sorry, logical arguments such as yours aren't permitted here, we BBR members all know there is unlimited bandwidth that can instantly and cheaply be doubled or tripled for almost free overnight, and it's just the greedy telecoms that are keeping us down. :D

Logical huh. Where is the logic in businesses such as twc acting like they are going broke when they ahve to dump money into their business. While I personally do not agree with people being hogs and just downloading/uploading things needlessly just because they can, I also do not agree with twc's low caps, or the new business approach of charging one price for service, then when they have to put money into maintenance or upgrades screaming poor. Back in the day businesses set the price accordingly so it covered operating and upgrade/maintenance costs. If needed the price would increase to allow for inflation. Now all of a sudden that is not the case. So they keep the cost the same and put these low caps on it with nutty overage fees. That is nothing more then greed/competition killer. Everyone pays their fair share to be on the net, be it online businesses or residential customers, but in order to lure customers they advertise low prices and then they whack you on the backend with this crap.
And as far as people who think that 5-40 gig a month is just fine just cause that is all they use, so what. Just because you do not find a need for more, doesn't necessarily mean everyone is the same. More and more services are popping up online these days and as well they should. If it wasn't for some of these people who "hog" bandwidth or the companies who are offering competing services such as phone or other video options online, you wouldn't be enjoying the faster speeds, and some of the cheaper prices on shit like phone and some video as we do now. Without any kind of alternative what motivation do the big guys have to make things better? Instead of always complaining maybe once in a while a simple thanks would be in order.
reply

anon @ 26th Jun 06:14AM:
Re: Even if ISPs in the US

said by BF69 :

Now why would you need 1080P videos of video games? You don't. And where are you uploading these videos too? it aint youtube because they won't take 1080p videos

You are obviously ignorant. I have recorded at 720p in a lot of games as well. Reasons? Analyze it again, send it to a teammate, etc. Can be many reasons. I do not know his.

Why should he not be allowed to use 1080p. You are not the one to decide whether he should or should not use that. If he likes it then who are you to say that res is not necessary. Nothing is really necessary besides food and water. So why do you own a phone?
reply

massysett @ 26th Jun 07:32AM:
Look at the series

from the cable industry's lobbying arm. It makes some interesting points. See for instance this one:

»www.cabletechtalk.com/tech-discu···t-equal/

It says OECD stats are flawed because they count broadband connections per 100 residents, which does not account for different household sizes.

For years I have been suspicious of people who say the US is way behind in broadband. Because there is no widespread dissatisfaction with US broadband (Broadband Reports readers are not representative) I have wondered if other countries and their higher saturation and speeds are either a) a result of bad statistics, or b) a result of misallocation of resources (e.g. governments pumping money into networks resulting in speeds higher than anyone needs.) Looks like it might be both.
reply

Cabal @ 26th Jun 07:39AM:
BBR Users Fail Math

These caps are equal to 3% of a user's upload 24/7. In Comcast's area, that would be 324 MB a day for 6/1 service, or 9.7 GB a month.

These caps are much, much worse for the service offered than Comcast's rumored 250 GB cap or the actual 400+ GB cap they currently use to remove excessive users from their network today.
--
Would you trust a brain surgeon with two years' experience?
reply

marigolds @ 26th Jun 08:13AM:
Re: $42?

said by Hehe :

For $42 per month!!!! Where do I sign?

When will NTT come to the US? :)

That's just the phone part. The whole package is $166/month based on the rate card.
(Mansion type is for 8 or more subscribers in one building, i.e. landlord bulk. I'm not sure what hyper family/new family is.)
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher
reply

WALL_E @ 26th Jun 08:42AM:
Re: These are the kind of caps...

said by bojean :

i saw people account with 4000gb of download per month and ~90gb of upload in quebec, canada

A 10Mb connection downloading at its advertised speed would fall about 750GB short of 4TB in a one-month period...

said by bojean :

Not until you see something like this that you understand WHY they want to put CAPS.

I would understand this argument if ISPs were putting caps on users who were actually abusing the service. Downloading 100GB in a month on a 10Mb connection is not abuse. It's a way for lazy ISPs to pull in more money without having to expand the capacity of their network.

Not to mention the fact that ISPs have a tendency to hide what their caps truly are. This information should be readily available to users when choosing a service provider.
reply

WALL_E @ 26th Jun 08:51AM:
Re: BBR Users Fail Math

said by Cabal :

These caps are equal to 3% of a user's upload 24/7. In Comcast's area, that would be 324 MB a day for 6/1 service, or 9.7 GB a month.

That's one way of thinking about it. Another is to say that, in this example, the provider allows its customers to download about 29GB of data more than Comcast.

I don't think percentages tell the whole story in this example.
reply

Frank @ 26th Jun 10:19AM:
Re: Even if ISPs in the US

said by BF69 :

Now why would you need 1080P videos of video games? You don't. And where are you uploading these videos too? it aint youtube because they won't take 1080p videos

you're not thinking ahead. that line of thought would be equivalent with someone from 1996 saying why would you need anything else than dialup since the web right now is only text and compressed images?

Of course with the progression of broadband usage came new technologies such as enhanced streaming video where you can view a program at a semi decent resoultion at full screen.

The comparison I'm trying to get at is that as technologies evolve, looking at the streaming video of today in the future would be the equivalent of looking at the way we look at those old 56k realplayer streaming videos of the late nineties.
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida ;)
reply

jester121 @ 26th Jun 10:53AM:
Re: Isn't bandwidth cheaper in the US?

said by jubangy :

Back in the day businesses set the price accordingly so it covered operating and upgrade/maintenance costs. If needed the price would increase to allow for inflation. Now all of a sudden that is not the case.

What day was that? I'm pretty sure profit motives have been around since the first caveman traded a shiny rock for two pieces of mammoth meat (when one would have fed him easily).
reply

en102 @ 26th Jun 11:03AM:
Re: NTT customers are being robbed of 97% of uplink capacity.

I agree.. many may have built in applications (HD video conferencing, utility monitoring) and things that won't exist here for some time... is any of that traffic BT ?
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply

en102 @ 26th Jun 11:10AM:
Re: BBR Users Fail Math

The main difference is that these caps are on upload only.
Since there is no download cap, this may actually be fine better for most users. Uploading Youtube/pictures/video clips, it would take some time to hit 9.7GB on a 1Mbps connection.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply

houghe9 @ 26th Jun 11:22AM:
wow

"A) I'm not asking YOU."

You didnt ask me either so im just going to tell you!

"B) I'm asking for a SPECIFIC reason. If he would tell me then I could respond"

Reason for that particular application was stated already so i wont beat it to death. Some people are into gaming and share videos.

"C) get of your self-righteous kick."

again this is just further proof that your ignorant!

"D) doesn't matter is it's my busines it's certianly the ISPs business and so his answer would be important.

Fact if if he's just doing it for kicks and his ISP installs caps oh well he'll have to pay up or deal with measely 720P or 480P too fricken bad. If he's doing if for some business purpose well then he needs to be using a BUSINESS account. I don't know because he hasn't answered. and know I'm having to waste time repsonding to your "I'm the speaker for all on this board, obey me!" attitude."

I am glad you split your ignarance up into four categories. It makes it easier to respond. I will try to put this simply so you can understand.
Some people like myself pay for servers to host files. WE PAY ANOTHER COMPANY TO HOST FILES. Using this as an example someone would edit and make a video at thier home, using thier completely FREE open source software. When they complete it they upload it to a paid server that will then have a URL that will allow others to download so that they are not abusing thier local ISP.

It just so happens that my videos are of service men and women leaving for deployments. I make hd videos so that thier families can experience the deployments and homecomings in HD of thier sons and daughters, husbands, wives, and children. You do know? some of them dont come back. They have a place to go that is free to dload legal free HD videos of thier family members.

I am doing it just for kicks! Im not running a business. DOES MY USE OF MY INTERNET CONNECTION, TIME, AND RESOURCES FIT WITHIN YOUR DEFINITION OF ACCEPTABLE?
reply

Pizz @ 26th Jun 11:24AM:
Re: NTT customers are being robbed of 97% of uplink capacity.

It's not straining under load, its to put a stop-wrench into the BitTorrent and P2P uploaders/hosters. 30gb a day just for upload is a very generous. Its the first step in a right direction of curtailing the abusive illegal sharing going on.
reply

Pizz @ 26th Jun 11:40AM:
Re: Look at the series

The US is way behind when it comes residential broadband. On the business side, we're almost tops. But you'll expect that.

That site is spin-mill central, and whiner central. But sometimes it's fun to read Cable CEOs and Verizon's Policy Chieftans duke it out.
reply

Kiwi @ 26th Jun 01:30PM:
Well that was quick!

Never about the network killers, is it!

»Why is broadband going back to age of dialup with

Faster than anticipated, guess who will be close on those heals, USA anyone. All for the minority how refuse to understand, even when expalined.

Extra kudo to David!
reply

quintin3265 @ 26th Jun 02:16PM:
Re: BBR Users Fail Math

"The actual 400GB+ cap?"

I'm curious as to where you got this information. Is this just speculation, or is there a source? I don't see how it could be anything but rumor, because there are a number of conflicting reports about the exact numbers everywhere.
reply

quintin3265 @ 26th Jun 02:19PM:
Re: Reasonable caps..if you call caps reasonable

I don't care what the caps are. If Comcast sets its caps at 20GB, it would be much better than now, because we would know what the caps are!
reply

MisterMarcus @ 26th Jun 05:14PM:
Re: NTT customers are being robbed of 97% of uplink capacity.

Hmm. I download HD movies on occasion, and I don't what compression method they're using, but they've not exceed 200MB per. That means 5 movies and they're up to a GB.

If someone is uploading a terabyte of information because they're using fully uncompressed HD, sounds like that person needs to start considering compression. I don't think there's a logical, realistic need to do otherwise. If you want files that big and pristine quality, burn a DVD and send it via mail.
reply

MacLeech @ 26th Jun 06:11PM:
Re: NTT customers are being robbed of 97% of uplink capacity.

said by Pizz :

30gb a day just for upload is a very generous.

30 GB a day is generous for us mortals with upload connections limited to under 5 mbps. At 5 mbps it would take over 17 days at max upload speed to hit the 930 GB/month) cap... for those with 100 mbps upload speeds their users can hit the cap in 22 hours at full speed.

Since most of us don't even have 5 mbps upload, we're more like 768 kbps average, that 930 GB limit is impossible to reach, we could only get 250 GB out of a 768 kbps upload. So would that make us a good judge of "generous" limits?

The closest comparison most of mortals could make is how 6 GB upload caps look using a dialup connection. It would take over 17 days to reach that. Yet if we had 768 kbps upload we'd hit it in under 22 hours.

So if US broadband users with an upload of 768 kbps think 6 GB upload caps are absurd and overly restrictive, shouldn't 930 GB caps be considered absurd and overly restrictive for those with 100 mbps connections?

930 GB is about 3% of the max possible with 100 mbps. 6 GB is a little less 3% of the max possible with 768 kbps.

Get it? Those caps aren't nearly as generous as you think.

Capacity chart

Sean @ 26th Jun 06:14PM:
Re: Even if ISPs in the US

said by BF69 :

said by nekkidtruth :

said by BF69 :

Now why would you need 1080P videos of video games? You don't. And where are you uploading these videos too? it aint youtube because they won't take 1080p videos

Above Simpleton makes me lul.
reply

anon @ 26th Jun 08:45PM:
Re: NTT customers are being robbed of 97% of uplink capacity.

said by MisterMarcus :

Hmm. I download HD movies on occasion, and I don't what compression method they're using, but they've not exceed 200MB per. That means 5 movies and they're up to a GB.

200MB??? That will get you about 6-7 minutes of 720p video using x264. A SD DVD rip is 700MB, an average 720p movies is 4.3GB, and a 1080p movie is 8+GB.
reply

Warez_Zealot @ 28th Jun 05:29AM:
Re: These are the kind of caps...

said by bojean :

i saw people account with 4000gb of download per month and ~90gb of upload in quebec, canada

With a 10mbps connection that's 24/7 doing the 10mbps cap, in download...

Not until you see something like this that you understand WHY they want to put CAPS.

Those guy were paying 65$/months for the usage of around 60 other subscription and saturatuing heavily the network!

Even I think 4TB in 1 month is just a joke.. Those people need to get a life outside of their PC... I only download what I want, and I don't hoard digital content like some fucked up pack rat nerd who has to download everything that is available on the Pirates Bay. It's because of people like that who ruin everything.
reply

kieranmullen @ 29th Jun 10:12PM:
Re: $42?

NTT bought out Verio in 2000
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verio

Already here.

said by Rob :

said by Hehe :

For $42 per month!!!! Where do I sign?

When will NTT come to the US? :)

Never. Because existing companies in the U.S. will lobby your employer to not allow them in the U.S.