Reports On 90GB Comcast Caps Incorrect - Actual cap varies by market, based on local congestion...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Reports On 90GB Comcast Caps Incorrect Actual cap varies by market, based on local congestion... (old news - 01:57PM Tuesday Sep 18 2007) tags: business · bandwidth · cable · Oddities · Comcast Tipped by Mankind121
Slashdot, Kotaku, Wired, ComputerWorld and others all claim that they've figured out that Comcast's invisible monthly usage limit is 90GB per month. Unfortunately, they're wrong: the 90GB mark seems to be some fuzzy math based on general numbers thrown out by Comcast representative Charlie Douglas, who has been tasked with damage control by the company. Douglas tried to get specific without being specific, suggesting the Comcast caps were equal to the consumption of 30,000 songs, 250,000 pictures or 13 million emails in a month. However, we've seen customers warned for consumption as high as 400-500GB per month, and it has been clear for years that this limit varies by market and area congestion. The irony, of course, is that the neolithic story about Comcast's limits (we've been talking about it for going on half a decade) continues to get traction not because Comcast imposes caps, but because of the way Comcast handles talking about and enforcing the caps (read: inconsistently, vaguely and mysteriously). Daily Tech asked three customer service reps about the caps and had two out of three tell them there was no limits: But how do customers know they are exceeding or will exceed limits if they don't know what these limits are? Both Edgar and Jason stated Comcast would warn users it felt were abusing the broadband internet service before terminating any connections, however, there are many reports outstanding that Comcast provided no such warnings before service termination. Of course, Comcast can't offer precise numbers because it varies by region, and won't offer that information for fear heavy users would consume just enough bandwidth to avoid setting off alarms. Although, if Comcast were to impose a clear monthly cap (say above 400GB), you'd probably see interest in this topic die off almost immediately. Related:- Is Comcast Cooking Up a 22Mbps/5Mbps Tier?
- We've Got Exclusive Details On New Comcast Speeds, Prices
- Which Comcast Markets Will See DOCSIS 3.0 Upgrades?
- Comcast Launches DOCSIS 3.0 In New England
- Comcast: The New Broadband King
- Comcast Ends the Philadelphia Curse?
- Comcast's Faster Speeds Have Many Users....Downgrading?
- Martin, Comcast, Continue Lover's Feud
|
Links: New Topic
Forums »
KrK @ 18th Sep 01:46PM:
I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
This argument of "If we declare the Cap, then average users will increase usage to reach just below the Cap."
That's based on what--- Nothing. Personally, people use the internet the way they use it. I don't see anyone suddenly increasing usage just because they found out what their cap limit is. What I do see happening is the people who have been exceeding the limits CUTTING BACK their usage to just below the cap... but isn't that the point?
However, I think what Comcast really fears is the advertising damage--- they have to inform the public that NO, it isn't unlimited, and they are worried that the competition (DSL) may advertise their true, no capped limits....
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
reply
Guspaz @ 18th Sep 01:46PM:
Bullshit
"Of course Comcast can't offer precise numbers because it varies by region"
Then make it NOT vary by region. Large Canadian ISPs (Bell Canada, Videotron, etc) and small Canadian ISPs alike have no problems giving exact and specific caps, overage charges, and limitations on overage charges.
reply
TK Junk Mail @ 18th Sep 01:50PM:
What is better for MOST customers - hidden or published caps
Of course Comcast can't offer precise numbers because it varies by region, and won't offer that information for fear heavy users would consume just enough bandwidth to avoid setting off alarms. Although if Comcast were to impose a flat 350GB monthly cap, you'd probably see interest in this topic die off almost immediately.
So should Comcast care more about maintaining a good experience for the vast majority of their users or some industry pundits that only care about the mileage they can get by harping on hidden caps. I think we know Comcast's answer. And most users would agree that hidden caps are better than some PR-driven decision to set hard caps that would be much lower than the hidden and variable ones.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
reply
DMS1 @ 18th Sep 01:54PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by KrK :
Personally, people use the internet the way they use it. I don't see anyone suddenly increasing usage just because they found out what their cap limit is. What I do see happening is the people who have been exceeding the limits CUTTING BACK their usage to just below the cap... but isn't that the point?
I disagree. The vast majority of users probably never exceed a tenth of what the current soft cap is. However, it the small band of heavy downloaders that have the potential to affect the performance of individual nodes because their usage can be many times the average. These are exactly the people who would take great pride in running to within a few megabytes of the limit. If these people found out that the limit was 400GB per month when they were only currently doing 350GB, they would up their usage. This is why any published cap is going to be way lower than the current soft caps.
reply
DMS1 @ 18th Sep 01:56PM:
Re: Bullshit
said by Guspaz :
"Of course Comcast can't offer precise numbers because it varies by region"
Then make it NOT vary by region. Large Canadian ISPs (Bell Canada, Videotron, etc) and small Canadian ISPs alike have no problems giving exact and specific caps, overage charges, and limitations on overage charges.
The issue is that the caps are set to prevent performance degradation. This means that the caps on some nodes will be way lower than on others. Do you really want a single uniform cap that by definition would have to equate to the lowest current soft cap?
reply
KrK @ 18th Sep 01:58PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
Uh, those are the people who are exceeding the caps now.
reply
wispagod @ 18th Sep 02:03PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
Well, it seems like fals advertising to me if they say unlimited usage, then try to enforce a cap, or complain when you use it to much, that's not right either
reply
kaila @ 18th Sep 02:04PM:
It's been said before......
and I don't know why that rep would say it. Caps vary be market. The network quality of Comcast's HSI markets range from overprovisioned, underprovisioned, and everything in between. They absolutely depend on the cap flexibility to manage things.
As it stands, the best piece of information subscribers could have is whether they are in an 'underprovisioned', or 'actively managed' market.
reply
Rick @ 18th Sep 02:07PM:
Please..give me a BREAK
BBR let off on this topic? NEVER!
"Although, if Comcast were to impose a clear monthly cap (say above 400GB), you'd probably see interest in this topic die off almost immediately."
It is ALREADY common knowledge to just about anyone and everyone who frequents the comcast forum that the magic number is ABOUT 300 Gigs.
But yet..this topic gets more BBR airplay than the sleeping tech did.
Think about it. 300 gigs. This company isn't "capping" people.
They're trying to save their damn network for christs sake from those who would take it down for others!
Frankly, it's time we all moved along from this topic.
I'm sure the VAST majority of comcast customers support their policing this service to that extent..to keep it working properly for the rest of us.
If someone wants to dl that much data..great.
They should then be prepared to pay for a business solution..or split their usage among multiple ISP's. or something.
Comcast.nor any ISP..doesn't owe someone that much for 43 bucks a month.
reply
NGOwner @ 18th Sep 02:11PM:
Re: What is better for MOST customers - hidden or published caps
Of course Comcast can't offer precise numbers because it varies by region, and won't offer that information for fear heavy users would consume just enough bandwidth to avoid setting off alarms. Although if Comcast were to impose a flat 350GB monthly cap, you'd probably see interest in this topic die off almost immediately.
Wrong.
My interest in this topic is already dead.
A Dead Horse ... meet Beating.
Don ... meet Quixote.
At Windmills ... meet Tilting.
Much Ado About .. meet Nothing.
Dog Won't ... meet Hunt.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots.
reply
hopeflicker @ 18th Sep 02:11PM:
Re: Please..give me a BREAK
said by Rick :
BBR let off on this topic? NEVER!
"Although, if Comcast were to impose a clear monthly cap (say above 400GB), you'd probably see interest in this topic die off almost immediately."
It is ALREADY common knowledge to just about anyone and everyone who frequents the comcast forum that the magic number is ABOUT 300 Gigs.
But yet..this topic gets more BBR airplay than the sleeping tech did.
Think about it. 300 gigs. This company isn't "capping" people.
They're trying to save their damn network for christs sake from those who would take it down for others!
Frankly, it's time we all moved along from this topic.
I'm sure the VAST majority of comcast customers support their policing this service to that extent..to keep it working properly for the rest of us.
If someone wants to dl that much data..great.
They should then be prepared to pay for a business solution..or split their usage among multiple ISP's. or something.
Comcast.nor any ISP..doesn't owe someone that much for 43 bucks a month.
Aren't business users usually on the same node as residential? When i worked for Charter, we hooked them up right along side of residential customers.
How can they manage their bandwidth if they do this? oh, that's right, they dont. They just over sell like all over cable outfits.
--
People pray to God because they're told to.
reply
rradina @ 18th Sep 02:12PM:
Re: Bullshit
said by DMS1 :
The issue is that the caps are set to prevent performance degradation.
If this is truly the reason, why set caps at all? Cable modems are very configurable and they already know how much you use. Why not discriminate against "heavy" users and reduce their speed when the network is saturated? As the peak usage passes, return them to normal speed. This certainly fits the "up to 5Mbps or up to 10Mbps" fuzzy definition of consumer broadband, doesn't it?
IMO -- I don't think performance is the only underlying reason. Don't they have to worry about total usage through their Internet backbone connection? I would guess the gigabits of bandwidth they need in a large market would make it hard to justify a fixed-speed, unlimited usage relationship with a backbone provider. Don't they pay a flat "infrastructure" fee for multiple, big pipes and a usage fee based on total bytes? If true, the more customers use, the less profit they make.
reply
KrK @ 18th Sep 02:13PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
I'd tend to agree. These days they have shied away from using the word "Unlimited" to avoid the legal consequences but have done nothing to disperse the public misconception that it is unlimited, and since they don't tell you it's capped, in fact, they deny it if asked, people DO assume it's unlimited.
Thus the bad press every time a heavy user gets stomped on.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
reply
BarneyBadAss @ 18th Sep 02:13PM:
Re: Please..give me a BREAK
perhaps the new thread should be that Comcast should pay folks to use the service! :D
--
---Barney
reply
Noah Vail @ 18th Sep 02:14PM:
It's so much FUN though.
Who doesn't enjoy dragging a mediocre company through the mud every now and then, over a stupid business decision?
This is recreation. Relax and enjoy.
NV
--
The More Alike 2 Religions are, the Stronger the Hate between them.
reply
rradina @ 18th Sep 02:15PM:
Re: Please..give me a BREAK
I have no idea if this is true but they could ensure the business users consume bandwidth on dedicated channels. Although they share the same node, they would have dedicated bandwidth that is unaffected by consumer saturation.
reply
dadkins @ 18th Sep 02:18PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
It will happen like this...
xxxGB cap, "ONOES!!!1 I'm not getting all of what I'm paying for, must download for the sake of downloading because I am paying for it!"
Usage spikes! Your Comcast line chokes because all your neighbors take the above attitude and open it up!
You and I may not do this, but you know damn well some people will do it!
Screw that noise! :huh:
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
Corona @ 18th Sep 02:21PM:
Re: Please..give me a BREAK
said by Rick :
...Frankly, it's time we all moved along from this topic...
Let's get this straight, Rick is telling people we should move off a topic? Can anyone else smell the irony here?
reply
dadkins @ 18th Sep 02:24PM:
Re: Bullshit
said by Guspaz :
"Of course Comcast can't offer precise numbers because it varies by region"
Then make it NOT vary by region. Large Canadian ISPs (Bell Canada, Videotron, etc) and small Canadian ISPs alike have no problems giving exact and specific caps, overage charges, and limitations on overage charges.
Ok, your way... 50GB max for ALL Comcast HSI customers, period!
Fuck that!
You know Comcast(or any business) will lowball everyone in that scenario. No thanks! :(
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
Rob @ 18th Sep 02:25PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by wispagod :
Well, it seems like fals advertising to me if they say unlimited usage, then try to enforce a cap, or complain when you use it to much, that's not right either
Comcast isn't advertising their service as unlimited, therefore, they aren't guilty of false advertising.
reply
Rob @ 18th Sep 02:30PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by KrK :
I'd tend to agree. These days they have shied away from using the word "Unlimited" to avoid the legal consequences but have done nothing to disperse the public misconception that it is unlimited, and since they don't tell you it's capped, in fact, they deny it if asked, people DO assume it's unlimited.
Thus the bad press every time a heavy user gets stomped on.
Bad press by who? By DSLReports? By the Washington Post? Other than DSLReports, most news outlets that report the bad press have no clue what they are talking about. They only see 1 side of the story.
Every time a user comes here complaining they got cut off from Comcast because they downloaded 500GB .. or even worse, 1 TB in a month.. I smile, pat my cable modem, and enjoy watching them whine how they called and threatened to leave and go to DSL.
reply
S_engineer @ 18th Sep 02:42PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
How do you know that since Comcrap doesen't give you a number in black and white. Remember, these numbers also vary from market to market.
Personally, I think a number in black and white would be too low, therefore making Comcrap state a actual cap would be a bad idea.
--
Burn a tire, but make sure you buy that carbon offset!
reply
fatmanskinny @ 18th Sep 02:43PM:
Easiest way to get Comcast to start singin' about caps...
Drop their services and indicate that until they be straight with their customers, you won't be utilizing their services.
Of course, that is easier said than done for most but hitting them in the pocket will be speaking their language.
*** Back to downloading on my 6MB / 384 Comcast connection :)
--
The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary.
reply
Nightfall @ 18th Sep 02:49PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by wispagod :
Well, it seems like fals advertising to me if they say unlimited usage, then try to enforce a cap, or complain when you use it to much, that's not right either
Where have they advertised unlimited usage? I keep hearing this from various people here, and in the last 3-4 years there hasn't been a single print or TV ad that has been released that says "unlimited usage". Please provide some kind of proof.
reply
ender7074 @ 18th Sep 02:50PM:
Varies by location... yah right...
Translation:
We here at corporate have no f'ing clue whats going on. We say that the cap varies by location due to the fact we have jackass managers in that area that select whatever number they want. We really are clueless. I'm just here to collect a check, do my job ineptly, and collect a massive severence check when I get fired so don't ask me the tough questions.
Thanks!
Comcast Executives
reply
lesopp @ 18th Sep 02:51PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
They also aren't advertising it as "limited".
This is from the fine print on the "Select a Package" web page:
Comcast High-Speed Internet: Equipment fees not included in monthly service charge. Prices do not include applicable taxes, installation or franchise fees. Pricing, content, and features may change and may vary by area. Call your local Comcast office for restrictions and complete details about service, prices, and equipment in your area. Pricing and service offerings displayed on this site are for residential Comcast customers only. Commercial and business pricing and service offerings differ. Prices are subject to change. Speed comparisons are for downloads only and are compared to 768Kbps DSL and 56Kbps dial-up. Maximum download speed of 4Mbps (or 6 Mbps) and upload speeds of 384Kbps (or 768Kbps) depending on the product that is selected. Increased speeds not yet available in all areas. Actual speeds may vary and are not guaranteed. Many factors affect download speed.
Based on what is on their website, a subscriber should be able to learn about limitations from their local office. Them not providing a definition for that local limitation is all the more reason to embrace competition.
reply
chanur @ 18th Sep 02:53PM:
Re: Bullshit
said by Karl Bode :
... Although, if Comcast were to impose a clear monthly cap (say above 400GB), you'd probably see interest in this topic die off almost immediately.
Thanks for the laugh of the day.
I "like" how Comcast does this, from both a business and personal perspective. I'm a big believe in dynamic limits where appropriate, and Comcasts usage is a perfect way to implement such a scheme.
Why limit usage when there is no impact?
Yes, I want to go 90mph on that perfectly flat, straight stretch of highway in the middle of nowhere, with no other cars around (or more!). But if its crowded, slow me down.
I'm a big believer in information... If I would do anything different, it would be to offer violators more detailed information about there usage in contrast to other in there local area; i.e. highlight how they stood out for selection.
But in today's litigious society, any such information sharing unfortunately leads to more problems than is prevents. So, we have what we have.
reply
DaSneaky1D @ 18th Sep 02:57PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
Most people with HSI don't even know how to use the Internet that much, where to go to download that much, or have an idea what a GigaByte even is. I seriouly doubt there will be an upward trend by any majority if they stated their limits.
And honestly, anyone that can find a way to consume 300, 400, ect GB of data is quite likely wasting it. Are people routinely storing that much data a month? Are people watching 10 hours of IPTV everyday each month? Even a combination of activities is excessive, and the majority of HSI users are not that type of consumer for any residential ISP, let alone Comcast.
--
:: my trivial ramblings ::
reply
anon @ 18th Sep 03:01PM:
Just state the cap
Then selectively enforce it by market.
Cox seems to be able to do it, with relatively low 40GB/mo caps and still gets plenty of customers.
reply
Cabal @ 18th Sep 03:06PM:
Re: Easiest way to get Comcast to start singin' about caps...
said by fatmanskinny :
Drop their services and indicate that until they be straight with their customers, you won't be utilizing their services.
Of course, that is easier said than done for most but hitting them in the pocket will be speaking their language.
*** Back to downloading on my 6MB / 384 Comcast connection :)
I agree. Bandwidth hogs: please leave Comcast's network. Thanks! *wave*
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
reply
tmc8080 @ 18th Sep 03:11PM:
trade secrets..
it's commonly known that network capacity issues are trade secrets and would undermine the carrier's ability to buy backbone services at a competitive price if it were commonly known the month to month bandwidth costs the carrier based upon consumption rates. let's just say comcast is probably one of the more STINGIER of the cable carriers despite the MASSIVE customer base across many states...
a customer base telcos would be happy to poach the most profitable customers.
reply
morbo @ 18th Sep 03:16PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
if you signed up under the "unlimited" banner 4+ years ago, they are on questionable legal ground if they try limiting it now.
reply
dadkins @ 18th Sep 03:16PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
As it stands, there are the FU** IT types of HSI customers and they get kicked eventually - good!
There are peoplr like myself that use the connection "normally" and will never have to worry about a cap or "The Letter/The Call"
Then there are the Power users that are aware that they are pushing the unknown "limits" with their monthly totals.
These are the ones that will likely see a stated cap and run right up to that limit EVERY month - "Because I pay for it".
There's the problem.
Forget that Comcast will likely set the hard cap at some silly low number so everyone will be on a level playing field.. like 50GB per month? Lower?
What do you think the average usage per customer is?
Aint 100GB. Sure as hell isn't 200GB
Screw that!
A 50GB cap would not CURRENTLY affect me, but what about the thousands of others out there that hit 100GB per month?
Sure going to piss off a few, eh?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
funchords @ 18th Sep 03:17PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by Nightfall :said by wispagod :
Well, it seems like fals advertising to me if they say unlimited usage, then try to enforce a cap, or complain when you use it to much, that's not right either
Where have they advertised unlimited usage? I keep hearing this from various people here, and in the last 3-4 years there hasn't been a single print or TV ad that has been released that says "unlimited usage". Please provide some kind of proof.
They have implied unlimited use by not advertising limited use. Remember, they are head-to-head in competition with DSL and FIOS. Comcast's tiers are set to make the customer believe that Comcast HSI is superior (to DSL) or equal (to FIOS).
This issue is illustrating, in bright lights, that Comcast HSI is not what it seems.
See my post here: »Re: Comcast Bandwidth Abuse/Limits - Discuss here only
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report.
reply
djrobx @ 18th Sep 03:20PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
A couple years ago I would have agreed that its difficult to actually consume so much data. But, with HD movies at around 9GB a pop (even more if not reencoded to DVD9 size), it's pretty easy to actually utilize a lot of gigs now.
Couple that with 8+mbps speeds even those huge data files don't really take that long to download. You can blow through that stated "90GB cap" in a day.
reply
fatmanskinny @ 18th Sep 03:22PM:
Re: Please..give me a BREAK
Kids, one more time! The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. The wheels on the bus go round and round, everytime we mention Comcast's caps.
--
The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary.
reply
Kearnstd @ 18th Sep 03:24PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
but still limits without saying what they are because its regional and then not being open in those regions is like a 200mi freeway, the first half is 65mph and not posted and the second half is 55mph again not posted, yet the cops know and issue tickets.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply
funchords @ 18th Sep 03:26PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
Then there are the Power users that are aware that they are pushing the unknown "limits" with their monthly totals.
These are the ones that will likely see a stated cap and run right up to that limit EVERY month - "Because I pay for it".
Does anyone here have a cell phone that comes with a certain amount of "free minutes" every month?
Do you use them?
It's the same thing. Nobody talks for the sake of talking, but some certainly talk more than others. Exposing the limit is not going to drive people to use it more. But it will tell the ones that are ALREADY using it heavily that they have to use it less.
Ah, but then again, there's that competition problem again.
As soon as Comcast is "limited," then DSL/FIOS have a field day. Just like Satellite had a field day with Comcast CATV over "Digital Cable."
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report.
reply
espaeth @ 18th Sep 03:31PM:
Re: Varies by location... yah right...
Comcast's prices are fixed, their pricing for bandwidth in each market is not. For the quantity of transport broadband providers are purchasing they need to tap major network hubs to get that capacity. Obviously it's going to be a lot cheaper if that point is down the street vs a couple states away. Here in Minneapolis, for instance, all traffic needs to be backhauled through Chicago or St Louis. Those in the San Francisco market only have to backhaul to .. San Francisco.
reply
Ebolla @ 18th Sep 03:54PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
at that time it was more likely saying unlimited access with fine print indicating 24hour connection unlike many dial-up services.
reply
jmn1207 @ 18th Sep 04:11PM:
Here is How I Would Do It
Like anyone cares....still, here goes.
For areas experiencing degradation in performance, take the average traffic usage for all the folks on a given node. If anyone is significantly higher than the average, with their usage bringing the node to the breaking point, send them a letter warning them to cool down a bit.
If somebodies usage is a bit higher, but if projected to be reduced to the average would not fix the performance problems, the infrastructure needs some serious attention.
It wouldn't surprise me if Comcast uses a similar formula, which is why it is impossible for them to set visible caps. For legal reasons, a set cap would have to be ridiculously low. While not very likely, it would be theoretically possible to cause network problems with relatively minimal usage, provided everyone amped up their usage a bit. If the cap limit were set at a point that the network could not handle if all users were maxed out, that could get Comcast in big trouble, contractually speaking. If Comcast just split the caps evenly among all users, it would be way too much for many users and way too little for just as many, I would think.
What if 5 of 10 people each used 5% of the available resources (25%), 3 of 10 used 15% each (45%/total 70%), one used 30% and the other used 50%. Oops, that is 150%, way over what the network can handle. Now, Comcast could just divide the available resources evenly and say that 10% is the max for everyone, but that is not good business practice as that would displease half of their current customers. Another option would be to cancel the 50% person or send a warning letter to both the 50% and 30% users. Both of these connections are using over twice the average (15% avg.), even with their own usage included. At worse they piss off two people, but 8 other users go about their business, 3 of which are using over the 10% equal divisor distribution, and next month their overall performance seems to increase as a result of the warning letters or deactivation of the heavy usage users.
These numbers are not set in stone, and what might be a percentage of disruptive usage for one area, at any given time period, could be vastly different for another region. I just don't see how Comcast can do anything different unless they simply had an overkill of available resources to divvy out. (maybe they will once FiOS grows and lots of folks switch over?) Some areas are unfortunately oversold a bit, and as an interim solution to keep most of their customers happy, they have opted to weed out and isolate the heaviest congestion culprits whenever a scenario presents itself as a feasible solution. And this can change significantly from one area to the next, from one month to the other.
reply
Chiyo @ 18th Sep 04:12PM:
Can't find anything to tell me how much I've used!
before you recommend Bandwidth monitor or DU Meter I know they exist :)
I want something that doesn't tell me about my LAN traffic too! I have a file server I upload to it so that skews all my numbers.
Find me a program that will work with my SNMP switch or even just a program that doesn't tell me internally my #'s and than I won't care.
Until I get a real count of how much traffic is flowing from my modem per month I won't be happy with any caps.
--
My Blog:
»jaab1.blogspot.com/
reply
DaSneaky1D @ 18th Sep 04:14PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
OK...Download, burn, delete.
Alright, I can see that. Even still, I think that the amount of people that would do that are still small enough to not impact a network if Comcast did state a hard line of acceptable usage.
reply
tshirt @ 18th Sep 04:24PM:
Re: Just state the cap
said by WTF :
Then selectively enforce it by market.
Cox seems to be able to do it, with relatively low 40GB/mo caps and still gets plenty of customers.
So every customer, in every market, should be limited by the lowest available bandwidth, in the most oversold neighborhood in comcast's rapidly growing network?
How often would CC need to update the exact cap
reply
RARPSL @ 18th Sep 04:32PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by DMS1 :said by KrK :
Personally, people use the internet the way they use it. I don't see anyone suddenly increasing usage just because they found out what their cap limit is. What I do see happening is the people who have been exceeding the limits CUTTING BACK their usage to just below the cap... but isn't that the point?
I disagree. The vast majority of users probably never exceed a tenth of what the current soft cap is. However, it the small band of heavy downloaders that have the potential to affect the performance of individual nodes because their usage can be many times the average.
Unless everyone uses the same amount of bandwidth some HAVE TO "Use More Than The Average" since anytime you have different amounts of anything some are going to be under the average and some above it since the definition of average is the total of the measurements divided by the number of measurements. The problem is that the cap is set too low to support the users on the node. You should provision for the heavy users and let low usage users get their bandwidth as part of the equation. The idea is that you look at the actual measurements to see what they look like.
There are 3 different measures that can be called "The Average". The normal usage of Total/Count is the Arithmetic mean. The other 2 look at what value occurs the most often [Mode] and what value occurs at the middle when you list them in order of magnitude [Median] (ie: If you have 1001 measures, which one occurs at position 501 and thus has 500 below it and 500 above it).
One of these alternate "averages" is a better measure in this case since the vast majority of the measures are, as stated, below the cap (IOW: Mode and Median are probably near each other and way below the inappropriate Arithmetic Mean). An Arithmetic mean is only a valid measure when it is near the Mode and/or Median values (as it is NOT in this case).
reply
Richard B @ 18th Sep 04:57PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
The problem is you do not have a right to redefine unlimited. If Unlimited access the Comcasts is being true to the word compared to the bad old days of Mom and Pop ISP where one could be bumped offline for inactivity or being connect too long.
I do not recall Comcast offer unlimited bandwidth.
reply
eco @ 18th Sep 05:00PM:
...
Back when I had Comcast, I averaged about 170GB a month and never heard a peep. And this was in a fairly large college town, and as most people probably know, we college students tend to consume a lot of bandwidth, so unless our systems here are great, I would think there must be more to in then congestion.
reply
en102 @ 18th Sep 05:09PM:
Re: Varies by location... yah right...
I suspect that its more like...
City / Node is being overloaded.
1. Node has 1 user chewing 90% of the bandwidth, killing traffic on that node - all the time - no other issues in the area. CAP the user (cheaper than adding a node for a user).
2. Area backhaul is maxed... caused by a handful of users. It will cost $$$ to upgrade. CAP the users until a project funds expansion/upgrade of backhaul.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
Slabby @ 18th Sep 05:13PM:
Re: Can't find anything to tell me how much I've used!
Chiyo, you're on the right track. As you've suggested, a program like DU Meter measures the total bandwidth across a PC's Ethernet interface and can't distinguish WAN from LAN traffic. What you want is a program that measures the traffic across the WAN interface of your *router*.
If your router is SNMP capable, a program like WallWatcher can measure and plot the traffic you're both receiving and sending from/to the Internet. (It ignores the traffic that is confined to your LAN.)
»sonic.net/wallwatcher/
reply
anon @ 18th Sep 05:21PM:
Re: Just state the cap
What part of selectively enforce did I not make clear.
Yes, just like Cox everyone would be under the same TOS and like like Cox, Comcast could enforce it whenever they felt like it. Just because a cap is stated doesn't mean they have to 100% enforce it.
Again, Cox does it and at least here in Socal Cox rarely if at all enforces it. But should the time come Cox can point to specific caps instead of leaving offenders to guess what Comcast's top secret definition of abuse is.
It is simply stupid to accuse subs of "abuse" while refusing to define it.
reply
Nightfall @ 18th Sep 05:33PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by funchords :said by Nightfall :said by wispagod :
Well, it seems like fals advertising to me if they say unlimited usage, then try to enforce a cap, or complain when you use it to much, that's not right either
Where have they advertised unlimited usage? I keep hearing this from various people here, and in the last 3-4 years there hasn't been a single print or TV ad that has been released that says "unlimited usage". Please provide some kind of proof.
They have advertised unlimited use by not advertising limited use. Remember, they are head-to-head in competition with DSL and FIOS. Comcast's tiers are set to make the customer believe that Comcast HSI is superior (to DSL) or equal (to FIOS).
This issue is illustrating, in bright lights, that Comcast HSI is not what it seems.
See my post here: »
Re: Comcast Bandwidth Abuse/Limits - Discuss here only They advertise it by not advertising it? Sorry man, but that really is reaching. They could be comparing speeds, uptime, services such as antivirus, or spam filtering. To say that they don't advertise it, but since they are comparing services, they are saying its unlimited is a load of crap statement.
Now, I will say that Comcast should come out with some kind of set limit in the news. For that matter, all companies like Charter and other providers should do the same thing. Either publish your limits or don't complain if someone uses their connection full bore. At the same time though, there is a very big difference between saying "unlimited use" and not saying it.
As I said before, provide some proof. It seems that a bunch of people here believe that Comcast advertises unlimited access. I would like to see that for myself. So far, no one has come forward with that proof.
reply
funchords @ 18th Sep 05:58PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
I fixed my earlier post to say that they imply it by not advertising it. But you were too fast! ;)
said by Nightfall :
It seems that a bunch of people here believe that Comcast advertises unlimited access. I would like to see that for myself. So far, no one has come forward with that proof.
I haven't seen it, either.
But it does stand to reason that if my tier is 6 Mbps, that I'm allowed to use up to 6 Mbps (Megabits per second) ... or 360 Megabits per minute ... 21,600 Megabits per hour ... 518,400 Megabits per day ... and so on.
And if that's not the deal -- then what is the deal? What am I forking my hard-earned money for?
The only reason that I can fathom that Comcast has an invisible cap is because of the shared nature of Cable Internet service. There are plenty of other shared Internet services that have solved this problem -- EDVO, WISPs, Satellite ISPs.
Comcast DOES NOT WANT to be known as a shared service. They're in competition with FIOS and DSL which doesn't have to impose such restrictions.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report.
reply
dvd536 @ 18th Sep 06:08PM:
Re: Bullshit
said by dadkins :said by Guspaz :
"Of course Comcast can't offer precise numbers because it varies by region"
Then make it NOT vary by region. Large Canadian ISPs (Bell Canada, Videotron, etc) and small Canadian ISPs alike have no problems giving exact and specific caps, overage charges, and limitations on overage charges.
Ok, your way... 50GB max for ALL Comcast HSI customers, period!
Fuck that!
You know Comcast(or any business) will lowball everyone in that scenario. No thanks! :(
Comcast is a lot more liberal than cox is.
We only get 60 gigs and thats for the top tier!
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth
reply
dadkins @ 18th Sep 07:18PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
Joe Comcast user... scared of hitting cap and getting "The Letter", so he is staying just under 75GB per month.
Comcast imposes a 150GB cap.
Joe user ramps up usage because he is "Paying for it and wants to get all of what he is paying for".
Me, caps or not, I have yet to hit 32GB in a month.
Cap it at anything 32GB or higher and *I* won't really care - unless I get the urge to download 50 movies some month.
Those "I pay for it, I'll max it!" types are out there.
Comcast(YOU KNOW!) will lowball it and we all will see a thousand *more* "Comcast is teh suck" posts here alone... :huh:
Best to leave it in the Inviso Cap realm.
You may be in a 200GB market, I may be in a 75GB market.
To be fair(LOL!) Comcast will say your area is now 75GB just like mine.
Awesome, huh?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
Guspaz @ 18th Sep 07:20PM:
Re: Bullshit
I'd rather have a slightly lower hard cap than an unknown softcap.
To be honest, though, it looks like the internet market down there in the US is pretty shitty, so it doesn't look like you guys have much choice or leverage. There isn't any competition, which is odd for such a hyper-capitalist state. Canada is a much more socialist country, and yet has far more competition in the internet space (primarily because the government forces phone companies to provide equal access to other ISPs).
reply
dadkins @ 18th Sep 07:23PM:
Re: Bullshit
Ok, 75GB... :huh:
No one wants to hear it, but you know Comcast will use the average and set it to a REALLY low number. Regardless of market capabilities.
They will inturn, oversell these nodes right upto that limit(and thensome) and we all get crappier connections.
Something about "If it aint broke, don't fix it" comes to mind.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
KrK @ 18th Sep 08:10PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
See, that's the fear, but I think it is unfounded.
I know quite a few people who have broadband. Of those, only one of them is what most people would call heavy user. The rest are gamers, and regular users.
They could announce the true Cap on their bill tommorrow. These guys aren't going to rush to download more or crank up an FTP server or anything. They'll keep playing their games, their surfing, and regular downloading. Why?
None of em give a damn about the cap now. None worry that they are over, so there's no "fear" holding them back. They do what they want, when they feel like it. So if tommorrow the cable Co told them what their Cap actually is, what would effect? Nothing. They wouldn't care.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
reply
KrK @ 18th Sep 08:14PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by dadkins :
Then there are the Power users that are aware that they are pushing the unknown "limits" with their monthly totals.
These are the ones that will likely see a stated cap and run right up to that limit EVERY month - "Because I pay for it".
Here's the deal. Sometimes we forget that while quite a lot of us surf this website regularly, 99.9% of the people with broadband DO NOT.
Most of these so called heavy users are clueless about the existance of a Cap. Therefore there is NO FEAR HOLDING THEM BACK.
It's only when they get threatened with disconnection that the consternation starts.
So my point being these people are already maxxing out their connections a lot. Telling them their CAP might actually improve the situation by creating the fear you mentioned.
reply
KrK @ 18th Sep 08:20PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by dadkins :
Joe Comcast user... scared of hitting cap and getting "The Letter", so he is staying just under 75GB per month.
Joe Comcast user is clueless the cap exists, and therefore isn't cutting back anything from fear that they do not have. 99.9% Of Joe Comcast users don't surf BroadbandReports (or at least not regularly) and are blissfully oblivious... and therefore even if someone came and told them straight out "You Cap is 200GB a month" it wouldn't mean squat to them because they aren't hitting it.
Maybe in the future as more and more services start to piggyback on Broadband this might become an issue, but then when Joe Comcast starts hitting caps instead of just "Heavy downloaders" well Comcast is going to be taking flak anyway.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
reply
KrK @ 18th Sep 08:23PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by dadkins :
You may be in a 200GB market, I may be in a 75GB market.
To be fair(LOL!) Comcast will say your area is now 75GB just like mine.
IMHO this is the best (and only real) reason to fear a policy of declaring Caps.
That the CableCo may decide it's easier to declare "One size fits all" and then look at their most oversold nodes and make the Cap down to that level.
This, I agree, is a possibility. However the solution would be for the users to push back and Comcast to start losing customers over the low caps. End result: Comcast has to upgrade capacity to raise caps and retain customers. That's the solution.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
reply
pferrie3 @ 18th Sep 09:09PM:
bandwith caps
someone said a while back cap the heavy users
if they start to degrade the network then slow them down till they are not a burden ... how to figure that out and manage it is beyond me.. i say if the bandwith is available then there is no reason it shouldnt be used .. if comcast pays by the gig then boohoo on them get a better rate or upgrade there connection so things even out.. people say how could you dl 500 gb of stuff a month ... well with all the mp3s, movies, streaming videos, gaming, illegal warez, and porn on the net ... how can you not, everything is connected to the net nowadays. soon enough ill be able to log in to my oven and watch my turkey cook... you know what i mean?!? so these retarded bandwith cap complaints boils down to 2 things .... upgrade the network to handle the amount of customers that you have or fix the current network that it makes people glad that they chose comcast as there isp
reply
wtansill @ 19th Sep 12:02AM:
Re: Bullshit
said by DMS1 :said by Guspaz :
"Of course Comcast can't offer precise numbers because it varies by region"
Then make it NOT vary by region. Large Canadian ISPs (Bell Canada, Videotron, etc) and small Canadian ISPs alike have no problems giving exact and specific caps, overage charges, and limitations on overage charges.
The issue is that the caps are set to prevent performance degradation. This means that the caps on some nodes will be way lower than on others. Do you really want a single uniform cap that by definition would have to equate to the lowest current soft cap?
No -- I want them to either upgrade their network so that they can give out consistent numbers regardless of the region or (gasp!) quit overselling so that they can achieve consistent numbers. Oh wait...
--
"In every generation, there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be master."
--Daniel Webster
reply
Jigsaw @ 19th Sep 01:14AM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
Cox has had there Caps in black and white for some time now.
»www.cox.com/policy/limitations.asp
I don't think they have much of trouble with abuse but i have not seen anyone complain about it.
--
»www.auralmoon.com/ Stimulating ears for 7 years
reply
benc @ 19th Sep 03:04AM:
Re: Please..give me a BREAK
said by hopeflicker :
Aren't business users usually on the same node as residential? When i worked for Charter, we hooked them up right along side of residential customers.
How can they manage their bandwidth if they do this? oh, that's right, they dont. They just over sell like all over cable outfits.
Well, I've never used Comcast, but because of the caps I'm not going to subscribe to them ever now.
Anyway, I recently moved to a place, and I didn't know that Charter was the only choice for broadband that cost less than $100/mo. Needless to say, I was quite chagrined, due to experiences with cable Internet in the past.
So...I order Charter Business HSI, thinking it *might* be better. Nope. It still cuts off whenever, and there's no pattern to it. Now I'm locked into a ^*&$ contract. Thankfully, the contract ceases when the apartment lease ceases.
At least I have dial-up as a backup connection.
But anyway...even if it weren't cable, I'm not about to subscribe to Comcast or Cox HSI, due to the caps. The only cap I can accept is a hard cap, through technical limitations. What I mean by a hard cap is the total data transfer if you use the connection to the max 24/7 for the whole month. I did some math not too long ago, and I seem to remember for a T1 (1.5Mbps) it's 487GB.
reply
dobeonguard @ 19th Sep 04:48AM:
Re: bandwith caps
Same goes for your conventional telephone. Everyone pays the same price, but if everyone in a neighborhood were to pick up and attempt a call at the same time there will be quite a few that realize THERE is limited capacity. We just do not realize it on a daily basis, only in the time of need. On 9/11 calls across the country were extremely difficult due to overloaded circuits. If companies are upping the available bandwidth, they have a duty to not let everyone run rampant. They are feeding into a larger network. A publicly stated cap of 100GB, but enforcement would vary by market. They are just letting you know, hey, if you exceed 100GB in each and every month you risk facing termination. That is just a number I threw out.
Hey, Germany has the Autobahn which is mostly limitless speed. That doesn't mean you simply jump on and put your foot to the metal, where there is need for restrictions there are and one must drive with due regard of everyone else!!
reply
notwrth10 @ 19th Sep 05:48AM:
aww cry me a river punk
What can bash at&t in their news articles but when it comes to beloved comcastic news you can't take the heat? Hey guys I think we found comcastic rick's weakness.
Why don't you go tell your employer this
"Sir I think they really would want a level cap for areas."
I am only guessing how far that's going to take you.
reply
Nightfall @ 19th Sep 08:07AM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by funchords :I fixed my earlier post to say that they imply it by not advertising it. But you were too fast! ;)
said by Nightfall :
It seems that a bunch of people here believe that Comcast advertises unlimited access. I would like to see that for myself. So far, no one has come forward with that proof.
I haven't seen it, either.
But it does stand to reason that if my tier is 6 Mbps, that I'm allowed to use up to 6 Mbps (Megabits per second) ... or 360 Megabits per minute ... 21,600 Megabits per hour ... 518,400 Megabits per day ... and so on.
And if that's not the deal -- then what is the deal? What am I forking my hard-earned money for?
The only reason that I can fathom that Comcast has an invisible cap is because of the shared nature of Cable Internet service. There are plenty of other shared Internet services that have solved this problem -- EDVO, WISPs, Satellite ISPs.
Comcast DOES NOT WANT to be known as a shared service. They're in competition with FIOS and DSL which doesn't have to impose such restrictions.
I do see your point and I do have to agree with it in some sense. The problem is that there is oversubscribing done on every ISP. If everyone was given permission to use their line full bore all the time and everyone did, can you imagine the bandwidth issues?
At least now I know why Comcast isn't complaining about usage to everyone and there is no set cap in some areas. I suspect that its all about usage on a specific node and if people are complaining.
And if you don't think that any of those other services are not shared, then you are sadly mistaken. It isn't like you are sitting right on the backbone with ANY residential based ISP. Heck, even business based ones for that matter don't sit right on the internet backbone. So I really don't subscribe to the "shared service" arguement since all ISPs have shared service. You wouldn't believe the amount of people here who say that DSL isn't a shared service and think its a dedicated circuit when that just isn't the case. Its just a different kind of sharing.
reply
moonpuppy @ 19th Sep 08:11AM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by Rob :
Bad press by who? By DSLReports? By the Washington Post? Other than DSLReports, most news outlets that report the bad press have no clue what they are talking about. They only see 1 side of the story.
It's not about the facts but perception. My local TV channel did a story about Comcast cutting off people. There were some facts but I'll bet money that people only heard "Comcast cut off someone's internet."
Here is the story:
»www.wbaltv.com/money/14067825/detail.html
reply
anon @ 19th Sep 08:32AM:
I don't like it one bit.
I do not like this practice of not telling you. This makes it impossible to stay in good standing and allows the company to enforce rules to their liking or sale your a different product. I don't think its unfair to have usage limites, I don't like it but its fair. What is not fair (and I would like it to be illegal) is that its not stated. If I rent a car, I'm told how much mileage will be if I go over a preset ammount, I don't expect to return the car to find out I owe extra money because I drove more than they expected.
This is very much like being ticked for speeding when the limit isn't posted and the general speed limit for such an area is ungoverned or higher than what you did.
reply
funchords @ 19th Sep 09:52AM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by Nightfall :
I do see your point and I do have to agree with it in some sense. The problem is that there is oversubscribing done on every ISP. If everyone was given permission to use their line full bore all the time and everyone did, can you imagine the bandwidth issues?
Everyone won't. C'mon!
said by Nightfall :
At least now I know why Comcast isn't complaining about usage to everyone and there is no set cap in some areas. I suspect that its all about usage on a specific node and if people are complaining.
Agree.
said by Nightfall :
And if you don't think that any of those other services are not shared, then you are sadly mistaken. It isn't like you are sitting right on the backbone with ANY residential based ISP.
Yes, they're all shared. But they are starkly different.
DSL/FIOS generally have a much bigger pool of bandwidth and a much bigger pool of customers that divide it. The actions of a few will not affect so many with DSL/FIOS, because the larger group can absorb it.
With Cable (DOCSIS), the pool of bandwidth is limited by the technology, and the ability to divide it is also constrained by the way that the neighborhood was wired. At some point with cable, you reach the maximum amount of bandwidth you can deliver and you have already divided the neighborhood into the smallest groups possible.
Unlike DSL/FIOS, CATV providers reach a point where they cannot add bandwidth and they cannot divide the neighborhood any further (without rewiring it).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report.
reply
KrK @ 19th Sep 03:01PM:
Re: Please..give me a BREAK
said by Rick :
BBR let off on this topic? NEVER!
I say keep the pressure on them until they get off the fence and go one way or the other. Public pressure is about all the influence we have these days. They fear losing customers.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
reply
DMS1 @ 19th Sep 05:28PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by Jigsaw :Cox has had there Caps in black and white for some time now.
»
www.cox.com/policy/limitations.aspI don't think they have much of trouble with abuse but i have not seen anyone complain about it.
But look how low those Cox caps are (60GB per month on top tier). Do you really want Comcast to do this?
reply
funchords @ 19th Sep 05:49PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
Search for these words: bandwidth suspended (or whatever words make sense to you)
In the following forums:
•»Cox HSI
•»Comcast HSI
I come away concluding that they've listed some limits, but they've seldom or never enforced them.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report.
reply
theelviscerator @ 19th Sep 06:50PM:
caps
They really need to set a firm cap per region I would think. Keep it secret but a firm number. Then enforce it.
reply
backfeed @ 19th Sep 10:48PM:
Re: Can't find anything to tell me how much I've used!
I loaded "Tomato" firmware in my router...this has some pretty decent bandwidth logging tools built in. I am able to monitor the total WAN up and down traffic.
Very handy for keeping track of what is being moved...
Hope this helps.. www.polarcloud.com
--
"There are 10 types of people, those who can read binary and those who cannot"
reply
Jigsaw @ 20th Sep 12:33AM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by DMS1 :said by Jigsaw :Cox has had there Caps in black and white for some time now.
»
www.cox.com/policy/limitations.aspI don't think they have much of trouble with abuse but i have not seen anyone complain about it.
But look how low those Cox caps are (60GB per month on top tier). Do you really want Comcast to do this?
I think the highest i ever got was something like 78gigs(went nuts with giganews).Normally Im in the 20 to 30 gig range if that but that's just me.
--
»www.auralmoon.com/ Stimulating ears for 7 years
reply
scoopy03 @ 20th Sep 12:53AM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
wow 60gb i would go over that not even trying and i dont even have 10mb service atm
--
What's up with Verizon's FIOS Network
reply
Nightfall @ 20th Sep 08:46AM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
said by funchords :
DSL/FIOS generally have a much bigger pool of bandwidth and a much bigger pool of customers that divide it. The actions of a few will not affect so many with DSL/FIOS, because the larger group can absorb it.
With Cable (DOCSIS), the pool of bandwidth is limited by the technology, and the ability to divide it is also constrained by the way that the neighborhood was wired. At some point with cable, you reach the maximum amount of bandwidth you can deliver and you have already divided the neighborhood into the smallest groups possible.
Unlike DSL/FIOS, CATV providers reach a point where they cannot add bandwidth and they cannot divide the neighborhood any further (without rewiring it).
As you said, they are starkly different technologies when it comes to sharing. Lets be honest here though, one technology is not starkly better than the other. I have seen some DSL providers oversubscribe on their central point and I have seen the same from Cable providers. You are right that it is probably easier to oversubscribe on a cable segment, but at the same time, there is much less of a distance or speed limitation when compared to DSL. IMHO, its a wash as to which technology is "better". Which is why both you and I probably agree that having multiple choices for broadband is key.
The unfortunate part is that most of us only have 1. :(
reply
Chiyo @ 20th Sep 12:19PM:
Re: Can't find anything to tell me how much I've used!
Thanks everyone,
I run a 3com superstack II 3300 switch from a linksys router.
Basically looks like this
INTERNET
|
MODEM
|
Linksys Router (V8 WRT54G non hackable)
|
3com switch
|
PCs, xbox etc
Thanks again :)
--
My Blog:
»jaab1.blogspot.com/
reply
funchords @ 20th Sep 08:38PM:
Re: I still don't agree that knowledge = Greater use
Me, too.
FIOS is literally 2 blocks away. They painted up my neighborhood, then we had a few weeks of rain, and when the sun shone again, the FIOS contractors had moved on.
That was 18 months ago. We've pretty-much have been forgotton.
reply
Guspaz @ 25th Sep 01:28AM:
Re: Bullshit
Every ISP oversells, and has to, unless you want them to charge you three hundred dollars per month for a cable internet connection. The problem is not with overselling, which is fine and normal, the problem is with overselling too MUCH, where you don't have enough bandwidth to deal with the peak average usage.
If you'd like to pay several hundred dollars per month for a non-oversold connection, you can. It's called a T1, and it easily costs ten times more than cable internet because of that.
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2008 silver matrix LLC