Rogers Starts Billing For Overages in July - Three month grace period coming to an end...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Rogers Starts Billing For Overages in July
Three month grace period coming to an end...
(old news - 11:06AM Monday Jun 09 2008)
tags: business · bandwidth · cable · world · caps · Rogers Hi-Speed
If you're looking to see the impact low caps and per-byte billing has on a customer base, look no further than our neighbors to the North. Back in March I noted that Canadian cable provider Rogers was implementing a cap and overage fee billing system, where users face a 60GB monthly cap and fees up to $5 per gigabyte should they consume more than that amount. The caps Rogers is using, for those interested: • Ultra Lite – 512kbps, 2 GB monthly cap, $5.00 per additional GB • Lite – 1Mbps, 25GB monthly cap, $2.50 per additional GB • Express – 7Mbps, 60 GB cap, $2.00 per additional GB • Extreme - 10Mbps, 95 GB cap, $1.50 per additional GB • Extreme Plus – 18Mbps, 95 GB cap, $1.25 per additional GB The company began tracking user consumption in March, and using a new banner page injection technology to alert customers to their usage. Starting in July, they'll actually start billing users for consumption, so keep an eye on our Rogers forum if you're interested in user reaction to these new charges. Will the meter work? Will bills be accurate? Will consumers have any recourse to contest incorrect metering? Stay tuned.
Related:- Rogers Caps Getting Worse?
- Rogers Shows American Cable Users The Future
- Rogers To Degrade HD Signal Quality
- Tuesday Evening Links
- Virgin Launches 50Mbps Service
- Cogeco Unveils 50Mbps Tier
- Cox Raises Their Usage Caps
- Comcast Still Fighting FCC Throttling Sanction
|
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
jvanbrecht @ 9th Jun 10:58AM:
Aside from the other issues involved...
The actual numbers are not way out there... I am a heavy user (FIOS though), but even I have a hard time hitting 20 to 30 gig a month... although I do not download music/movies (mostly ISO's for various BSD distros)
reply
chronoss2008 @ 9th Jun 10:59AM:
haha
Welcome to the high expenses
ENJOY that next bill
im going to laugh my butt off as the guy downstairs gets a bill for internet and goes AHHHHHHHH!!
20-30GB?
are you serious do you get tv from bittorrent as i do, its easy for me to do 130-150GB a month JUST for me watching tv
now tell me with the above pricing what I would pay and why Rogers just started doing it self out of business
90 extra GB = 180 $ for a 7 megabit account
WTF
they just made bittorrent or the net UNFEASABLE to get movies or buy anything
SMART MOVE ROGERS
over price the per GB by a factor of 3
Why is it i can buy a business server with 3 terabytes of data for only 80-90USD/month ( 80-90 Canadian )
reply
TigerLord @ 9th Jun 11:03AM:
Deja Vu
Extreme 95GB
Extreme Plus 95GB
Ya, almost twice the speed, same cap. Thank you for the 25¢ discount on Extreme Plus!
Vidéotron started doing this a year ago.
reply
Nightfall @ 9th Jun 11:07AM:
Re: haha
said by chronoss2008 :
Welcome to the high expenses
ENJOY that next bill
im going to laugh my butt off as the guy downstairs gets a bill for internet and goes AHHHHHHHH!!
20-30GB?
are you serious do you get tv from bittorrent as i do, its easy for me to do 130-150GB a month JUST for me watching tv
now tell me with the above pricing what I would pay and why Rogers just started doing it self out of business
90 extra GB = 180 $ for a 7 megabit account
WTF
they just made bittorrent or the net UNFEASABLE to get movies or buy anything
SMART MOVE ROGERS
over price the per GB by a factor of 3
Why is it i can buy a business server with 3 terabytes of data for only 80-90USD/month ( 80-90 Canadian )
Sounds like you should invest in cable TV and a DVR. ;)
reply
Nightfall @ 9th Jun 11:11AM:
Responses are the same
Just like every other announcement when a broadband ISP says they are going to start capping and charging for over the cap usage. Various users chiming in on how they are/aren't affected. The ones that aren't affected just shrug this off. The ones that are affected bitch and complain.
The end result is the same. You either pay up and keep your line, or drop them and move to another provider if you have that option. If you do pay up and keep it, you find ways to limit your usage below the cap.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net
reply
EPS @ 9th Jun 11:15AM:
Re: haha
Cable TV... from Rogers, of course!
reply
TigerLord @ 9th Jun 11:18AM:
Re: haha
I highly doubt Rogers wants to encourage you in your illegal activities!
reply
zod5000 @ 9th Jun 11:25AM:
Re: Aside from the other issues involved...
20-30 gigs isn't heavy usage.. lol!
reply
adisor19 @ 9th Jun 11:25AM:
Re: haha
said by TigerLord :
I highly doubt Rogers wants to encourage you in your illegal activities!
WRONG!
Downloading TV shows in Canada is perfectly LEGAL.
Adi
reply
adisor19 @ 9th Jun 11:26AM:
Re: Deja Vu
said by TigerLord :
Extreme 95GB
Extreme Plus 95GB
Ya, almost twice the speed, same cap. Thank you for the 25¢ discount on Extreme Plus!
Vidéotron started doing this a year ago.
Indeed, Videotron started raping its customers by breaching their contracts ! Very classy.
Anyone know if Robbers is doing the same thing to their users ? Or are they at least waiting until the end of their contract ?
Adi
reply
zod5000 @ 9th Jun 11:27AM:
Overage price's seem a bit high?
1.25/gig, we know wholesale bandwidth doesn't cost much more than 10 cents/gig?
I guess though, this is aimed at curbing usage, and getting people to use less, rather then find ways for the customers to get access to more bandwidth. That way they can lower the load on infrastructure that already is in bad need of upgrading.
reply
koitsu @ 9th Jun 11:30AM:
Re: Overage price's seem a bit high?
said by zod5000 :
1.25/gig, we know wholesale bandwidth doesn't cost much more than 10 cents/gig?
I agree. These limits are absolutely outrageous; not even co-location providers charge that kind of over-usage, nor have that kind of 95th-percentile cap.
I mean, the most expensive tier has a 95GByte/month cap?! Completely unreasonable. Rogers should multiply the cap amounts by 4, or at bare minimum, 2.
reply
TigerLord @ 9th Jun 11:36AM:
Re: haha
He said movies.
reply
Enlightener @ 9th Jun 11:46AM:
Wow
I'm a little lazy with my math right now, but I've got an AT&T U-Verse MAXX that can sustain around 900K/sec. That's about 2200GB of traffic it could push if running full out for 30 days. Based on a 95GB cap, that looks like they are expecting customers to be 96% idle.
Put another way, they don't want your average bandwidth to exceed 256kbps.
reply
stunod2002 @ 9th Jun 11:47AM:
Screwed!
I guess this will kill the new Netflix service!!!
2 or more PC's downloading a service pack.. Your screwed..
I'm thinking Rogers is going to be loosing a few customers from this one...
reply
openbox9 @ 9th Jun 11:47AM:
Re: Overage price's seem a bit high?
said by koitsu :
not even co-location providers charge that kind of over-usage, nor have that kind of 95th-percentile cap.
Considering ISPs providing last-mile service have additional infrastructure expansion/maintenance costs and larger support tails than co-lo facilities, the overage premiums are justifiable IMO.
reply
openbox9 @ 9th Jun 11:50AM:
Re: Wow
said by Enlightener :
Based on a 95GB cap, that looks like they are expecting customers to be 96% idle.
I'm sure they don't expecting customers to be 100% active ;)
reply
SilverSurfer @ 9th Jun 11:59AM:
Re: Responses are the same
said by Nightfall :
If you do pay up and keep it, you find ways to limit your usage below the cap.
Which is fine if you only check email and the weather. The rest of us who actually use the connection we thought we were paying for get the shaft.
reply
ggultra2764 @ 9th Jun 12:04PM:
Overage the same for all tiers.
Why not just make the overage fees at the same set price per tier? Would seem more reasonable than punishing those with less bandwidth speed with a higher overage fee. :huh:
reply
greendragon @ 9th Jun 12:06PM:
Re: haha
quote:
He said movies.
uh huh... Really? Is that all he said?
quote:
do you get tv from bittorrent as i do, its easy for me to do 130-150GB a month JUST for me watching tv
Oh and:
quote:
I highly doubt Rogers wants to encourage you in your illegal activities!
I download movies all the time from Cinemanow.com that I BOUGHT!
Stop being an ass.
reply
NOCMan @ 9th Jun 12:08PM:
Countdown to class action lawsuit stars now
Users getting billed for ping sweeps and other malicious traffic, they better not bill people for ad injections using phorum or some crap like that.
Also website operators should be charging Rogers since they're trying to profit off their services. If those websites were not there nobody would be using a lot of bandwidth so it only makes sense. It's just like a TV channel, cable has to pay them and if they're going to bill for usage I believe that website operators should share in the profits they generate for Rogers.
--
Mac Chatter
»www.macchatter.net
reply
Siko @ 9th Jun 12:19PM:
Wow!
quote:
•Ultra Lite – 512kbps, 2 GB monthly cap, $5.00 per additional GB
Wow I have 768k verizon dsl and within a week I would've downloaded over 10 Gigs of stuff...
reply
mrchris @ 9th Jun 12:20PM:
Re: Wow!
That's probably for the older people who just want to do some browsing and check email once a week.
reply
mr_hexen @ 9th Jun 12:21PM:
wow.
wow, talk about screwing customers over.
Ultra lite, full speed will use the 2GB in 8.68hrs, ouch.
at this teir the average user will use their entire monthly cap just doing regular software updates (Windows, antivirus, game updates.
reply
Richard B @ 9th Jun 12:24PM:
Re: haha
Or be like me I buy the dvd set if I really like it I may keep it but most likely I resell it on eBay and get about %50 or more of the purchase price back. I advertise the fact this not a chines bootleg version this gives me a hug advantage. Use the money to buy another set new. I never buy DVD on eBay.
reply
TigerLord @ 9th Jun 12:30PM:
Re: haha
How am I being an ass? For weeks, if not months, stories have been popping up about tier packages, enforcing caps, both in the US and Canada.
He said he did 150GB of bittorenting TV shows. All standard encodes are 350MB, 720p ones, which I get, are 1.5GB. Even if did get only 720p HD encodes of legal tv shows recording, that's a 100 hows, or 25 per week. That's hardly believable.
Last week, on another story, someone said he was disgusted at Comcast wanting to enforce caps and it was not sufficient for him as he did 400GB+ per month, or people whining about the throttling.
Look at it from a business' point of view and you might understand the logistics and costs. Hop on the Tekksavvy forums, where almost all canadian heavy users now are, and R0cky explained how it worked. A user doing 500GB per month, be it legal or not, is not solvable for a company.
Why are you surprised? Rogers is simply jumping on the bandwagon and it won't stop there for other ISP. Let us not by hypocritical asses and pretend that "we can easily do 200GB in Linux distros downloading and what else". Anyone who did not see it coming was shortsighted.
We have to adapt. There is Tekksavvy for those who refuse to lower their downloading habbits. If like you you want to download your movies (legal or not) instead of buying them, you'll have to buy less per month or find an alternative.
That's the way it is, sorry to disappoint.
Am I going to judge people's downloading habits? No. Not so long ago I also downloaded 200GB per month. But the money we all save from P2P, setting the legal debate aside, I find it very ironic people DARE to whine at companies trying to enforce caps, which is extremely logic.
As long as they do not breach contracts or try to kill their competitors like Bell is doing, it's all fair game.
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 12:32PM:
Re: haha
said by chronoss2008 :
Welcome to the high expenses
ENJOY that next bill
im going to laugh my butt off as the guy downstairs gets a bill for internet and goes AHHHHHHHH!!
20-30GB?
are you serious do you get tv from bittorrent as i do, its easy for me to do 130-150GB a month JUST for me watching tv
now tell me with the above pricing what I would pay and why Rogers just started doing it self out of business
If you're geting tv from bittorrent that you getting your TV illegally. I'm not sure why I should feel sorry for people that are doing illegal things.
90 extra GB = 180 $ for a 7 megabit account
WTF
Pay for the 10 mbps tier and get an extra 35 GB, then each extra GB is $1.50 not $2. That would be $82.50 plus the cost differential between the 7 and 10 Mbps tiers. I don't know the cost difference.
they just made bittorrent or the net UNFEASABLE to get movies or buy anything
SMART MOVE ROGERS
Actually it is because they do NOT want you using bittorrent. If you were actually getting your movies and tv shows from LEGAL sources such as Amazon or Apple or XBL I'd might have more sympathy. On the other hand oif you can afford to pay for $180 GB worth of content you can afford the overgae fees too.
All that aside I feel those caps are too low. WTF is the point of the ultra light tier? 2 GB then $5 overage?
Why is it i can buy a business server with 3 terabytes of data for only 80-90USD/month ( 80-90 Canadian )
because it's BUSINESS account. You can get one of those if you like.
reply
SilverSurfer @ 9th Jun 12:38PM:
Not a Rogers subscriber, but...
All I know is that if I start getting billed "overages" by the cable co., then both my phone service as well as BB will go bye bye since I'd have to get phone service from the local telco in order to get DSL service.
Effectively, the cable co. will be shooting itself in the foot if it pulls this overage nonsense. I suspect others like myself will also drop their nice "bundles" of service from the cable co. if overages are assessed and get DSL insead.
reply
insomx @ 9th Jun 12:40PM:
Re: Overage price's seem a bit high?
Considering Rogers has been given grants by the govenment to expand their infrastructure, these overage prices are NOT justifiable.
reply
espaeth @ 9th Jun 12:43PM:
Re: Overage price's seem a bit high?
said by zod5000 :
1.25/gig, we know wholesale bandwidth doesn't cost much more than 10 cents/gig?
You can't buy bandwidth per GB from carriers, just like you can't build a highway per car. Network capacity is measured in bits per second, just as highways are sized by number of lanes.
Cost per GB is a contrived number based on one month of perfect utilization. The base unit for most network bandwidth purchases today is 1mbps, and typical costs vary from $10-$35/mbps depending on market and carrier. So 1mbps / (8bits/byte) = 125kilobytes/sec. 125KB * 60sec/min * 60min/hr * 24hr/day * 30days/mo = 324GB Take an average price of $15/mbps and divide that out by 324GB, and you get a cost of about $0.05/GB. But what if you need to move 325GB? Then you're buying another mbps of traffic, and it's $30/325GB $0.09/GB
The problem is -- utilization isn't perfect and bandwidth needs to be purchased (by rate) to meet peak demand. If you need 6gbps to meet peak demand, you have to buy 6gbps worth of capacity. Just like with roads, you're paying for that infrastructure whether you're using it or not, which is why the wholesale per-GB pricing numbers thrown out on these forums are useless.
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 12:45PM:
Re: haha
said by greendragon :
I download movies all the time from Cinemanow.com that I BOUGHT!
Stop being an ass.
I didn't know cinemanow.com make you use bittorent to download it's movies.
reply
funchords @ 9th Jun 12:45PM:
Re: haha
said by TigerLord :
I highly doubt Rogers wants to encourage you in your illegal activities!
That's quite an assumption.
I guess someone has to drink the Kool-Aid.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
reply
tertech @ 9th Jun 12:47PM:
Re: Wow!
said by mrchris :
That's probably for the older people who just want to do some browsing and check email once a week.
Sure, nobody over 50 even knows how to use a computer! I'm sure glad we got you young'uns to show us.
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 12:50PM:
Re: Responses are the same
said by SilverSurfer :said by Nightfall :
If you do pay up and keep it, you find ways to limit your usage below the cap.
Which is fine if you only check email and the weather. The rest of us who actually use the connection we thought we were paying for get the shaft.
I would like to know what is it you THINK you do that puts you over a 95 GB cap. While I think the cap should be higher than that you'd still have to do a lot to go over 95 GB.
I think most people have no clue as to how much they use. They bring up stuff like ads and Voip and crap. Ads maybe take up 2 GB a month and you REALLY REALLY have to try hard to do that. VoiP uses less than 5 GB even if you're on 4 hours a day.
reply
funchords @ 9th Jun 12:51PM:
Re: haha
said by BF69 :
]If you're geting tv from bittorrent that you getting your TV illegally. I'm not sure why I should feel sorry for people that are doing illegal things.
Hardly! There is plenty of free TV to be had legally on BitTorrent. It depends on the IP rights ownership and licensing.
Because of the cost of bandwidth, if it's free and legal, it's most likely going to be on BitTorrent (or some other P2P). Only the ad-supported stuff or subscription content is going to be found on commercial servers.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
reply
greendragon @ 9th Jun 12:59PM:
Re: haha
He wasn't refering to using a torrent when he made that remark. He was talking about the amount you could download per month.
I don't think it is a bittorrent from cinemanow, but I could be wrong.
--
Folding for our future!!
reply
wifi4milez @ 9th Jun 01:00PM:
Re: Overage price's seem a bit high?
said by zod5000 :
we know wholesale bandwidth doesn't cost much more than 10 cents/gig?
10 cents a gig?? I can assure you that IP access is not 10 cents a gig from any carrier in the US (or the world). However, you can get it for $10 a gig if you are buying (generally) 10G and above.
--
Have YOU thanked a soldier today? If not, think about doing it as you speak ENGLISH this memorial day. God Bless America, and God Bless our troops.
reply
Nightfall @ 9th Jun 01:07PM:
Re: haha
said by funchords :said by TigerLord :
I highly doubt Rogers wants to encourage you in your illegal activities!
That's quite an assumption.
I guess someone has to drink the Kool-Aid.
Anyone downloading 130gb-150gb a month (via bittorrent) has to be downloading some illegal material.
reply
greendragon @ 9th Jun 01:10PM:
Re: haha
This is why:
quote:
I highly doubt Rogers wants to encourage you in your illegal activities!
I have a problem with statements like that.
Did you get a warning for flaming after posting your comment?
I understand the reasons behind the caps, but it does worry me. I don't have cable and instead have embraced "internet TV". I don't have to pretend to download linux distros while I'm dowloading/streaming content.
Good sites to look at:
Hulu.com
Netflix.com
revision3.com
dl.tv
cinemanow.com
joost.com (not my favorite)
abc.com, cwtv.com, nbc.com, etc.
Now, consider you have muliple people in one house hold doing the same thing I do. Useage will be huge without stealing.
--
Folding for our future!!
reply
ARGONAUT @ 9th Jun 01:13PM:
:-(
This is only the start.
This will start to look like a cell phone service before long. :huh:
reply
Nightfall @ 9th Jun 01:14PM:
Re: Responses are the same
said by SilverSurfer :said by Nightfall :
If you do pay up and keep it, you find ways to limit your usage below the cap.
Which is fine if you only check email and the weather. The rest of us who actually use the connection we thought we were paying for get the shaft.
Checking email and the weather don't eat up hardly any bandwidth. Those people have nothing to worry about. That is not an apples to apples comparison to the person downloading gigs of bittorrent data.
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 01:17PM:
Re: wow.
said by mr_hexen :
wow, talk about screwing customers over.
Ultra lite, full speed will use the 2GB in 8.68hrs, ouch.
Assuming you will download for 8.68 hours straight.
at this teir the average user will use their entire monthly cap just doing regular software updates (Windows, antivirus, game updates.
I doubt the type of person that only gets the ultra light tier does online gaming and updates their software on a regular basis.
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 01:19PM:
Re: haha
said by greendragon :
He wasn't refering to using a torrent when he made that remark. He was talking about the amount you could download per month.
I don't think it is a bittorrent from cinemanow, but I could be wrong.
The point is if you LEGALLY ( meaning you PAY for them )download enough tv shows and movies to equal 130-150 GB a month you obviously make enough to pay for any overages.
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 01:24PM:
Re: haha
said by funchords :said by BF69 :
]If you're geting tv from bittorrent that you getting your TV illegally. I'm not sure why I should feel sorry for people that are doing illegal things.
Hardly! There is plenty of free TV to be had legally on BitTorrent. It depends on the IP rights ownership and licensing.
Because of the cost of bandwidth, if it's free and legal, it's most likely going to be on BitTorrent (or some other P2P). Only the ad-supported stuff or subscription content is going to be found on commercial servers.
Yeah right. Please provide examples.
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 01:26PM:
Re: Not a Rogers subscriber, but...
said by SilverSurfer :
All I know is that if I start getting billed "overages" by the cable co., then both my phone service as well as BB will go bye bye since I'd have to get phone service from the local telco in order to get DSL service.
Effectively, the cable co. will be shooting itself in the foot if it pulls this overage nonsense. I suspect others like myself will also drop their nice "bundles" of service from the cable co. if overages are assessed and get DSL insead.
And then they'll either raise the caps or dump them all together and lower the overage fees. Money talks and if enough of you speak with your wallets that'll be 100X more effective then people who just come here to whine.
reply
DataDoc @ 9th Jun 01:27PM:
Re: :-(
said by ARGONAUT :
This is only the start.
This will start to look like a cell phone service before long. :huh:
You mean they'll rollover the unused Gigs?
reply
stunod2002 @ 9th Jun 01:30PM:
Re: wow.
Why would you say that?? I don't do much gaming but I do do a lot of software updates (4 PC's) and large email's (Pic's, etc.) and I only have a 768/512 DSL line..
I just don;t need to do it fast so why pay the extra $$??
reply
TigerLord @ 9th Jun 01:30PM:
Re: haha
You are right that TV shows downloading is legal, at least here in Canada, and I even do it to get the HD episodes I do not get here in Canada! I average 50GB a month, with 7-8 shows a week, with 720p HD encodes. I'm not denying that.
But even then 150GB is a far stretch and the quality of episodes on sites like ABC, CTV, NBC, etc, the quality is around 500kbit/sec at those resolutions, you'd need even more than 200 viewings of shows like this to approach the 150GB mark.
I have to say though, I find encouraging those kind of DRM-media distribution sites is a worse offense on the moral code than downloading tv shows, even movies.
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 01:36PM:
Re: wow.
said by stunod2002 :
Why would you say that?? I don't do much gaming but I do do a lot of software updates (4 PC's) and large email's (Pic's, etc.) and I only have a 768/512 DSL line..
I just don;t need to do it fast so why pay the extra $$??
Um....we're talking about the AVERAGE ultra light customer of which you would NOT be one. The AVERAGE customer would not have 4 PCs. Basically anyone that comes to this site on a regular basis would not be an AVERAGE internet user.
reply
greendragon @ 9th Jun 01:46PM:
Re: haha
I think that is an unfair remark. There are plenty of free streaming sites. Just because you can afford one thing doesn't mean you can afford another.
--
Folding for our future!!
reply
HEDP @ 9th Jun 01:50PM:
Question.
What are the total monthly costs of these packages?
reply
GroovyPhoenx @ 9th Jun 02:01PM:
Re: haha
The OP forgot to mention that most of those overages are CAPPED at 25$ maximum unless you have 2 price tiers that are grandfathered at 60gb for ultra light (no cap for price) etc... Full details would have helped this.
I do some downloading, online gaming and my kids download music.
We rarely hit over 30-40gb, but its also one reason why they are doing it, etra revenue, and extra funds and hopefully to discourage some (not calling you one) banwidth hogs.
reply
SilverSurfer @ 9th Jun 02:06PM:
Re: Not a Rogers subscriber, but...
said by BF69 :
And then they'll either raise the caps or dump them all together and lower the overage fees. Money talks and if enough of you speak with your wallets that'll be 100X more effective then people who just come here to whine.
So dropping 2 services from the current provider in favor of DSL service is considered whining? You're getting me coming & going here...damned if I do/damned if I don't. First you state DSL will just cap, and then you state that "enough" cable users should migrate to DSL instead of coming here to whine. Make up your mind, dude.
reply
jgkolt @ 9th Jun 02:06PM:
Re: haha
Joost is p2p tv fyi. VEOH is another online tv. All use a lot of bandwidth and are fully compliant. What needs to be watched is the emails and forced data usage from the provider. All email, and traffic from the isp needs to not be charged otherwise i see a lawsuit coming on here.
--
Learning how to invest? Sign up to get 3 free trades for you and for me each. PM me
reply
greendragon @ 9th Jun 02:17PM:
Re: haha
I see what you are saying as far as 150GB being a stretch for most people. However, you should consider the internet TV migration in its infancy. In another 1-2 these caps will seem smothering to a lot more people.
--
Folding for our future!!
reply
TigerLord @ 9th Jun 02:19PM:
Re: haha
That I completely agree with.
Those caps aren't realistic for 15mbit connections.
The future lies in broadband media distribution. Hopefully soon we will be able to download DRM-free Bluray movies.
Things will need to change a lot before that happens!
reply
Millenniumle @ 9th Jun 02:20PM:
...
Impact on customer base? I bet very little. Or more accurately, people will have to change how they do things.
When it hits my area I'll probably have to drop Vonage. Are you reading Vonage? My brief interest in VoD is all gone. Are you reading VoD suppliers? I've been looking at ad blockers again. Are you reading advertisers? Casual browsing will be limited. Are you reading everyone with a web site. I'll have to worry if the link I'm clicking will lead to a 100 KB page or 2 MB multimedia bonanza.
Hey Flash, your gone! Microsoft update, Silverlight, trial software, YouTube, Myspace, on and on - bye bye!
On the plus side, I'll be looking for a router that will throttle and cap my connection. I have children to keep under control. Vendors, are you reading? My modem will be off when not in use so I guess I'll save a little in electric. I'll also be looking for a real-time white-list browser add-on. With the click of every link a window pops up showing every url being requested, as it's requested, so that I can decide if they go through or not. We'll want to remove the crap before it gets downloaded and added to our bill.
So while many things are sure to die, there will be new opportunity out there.
reply
confq @ 9th Jun 02:21PM:
bandwith
hi
you know there is legal game downloads you can download from xbox 360 that average 1 gig and up. and guess what? ya that is using up bandwidth from the cap. It is very easy to go over 60 GB doing legal activities. 60 GB is good for people who are not multimedia heavy. I would be happy with 120 limit, that is decent. 60 is just too damn small for todays content. I use to download HD version of all the shows I watch at revision 3 etc but, not now. I have to get lower quality so I don't hit my cap :(
reply
jvanbrecht @ 9th Jun 02:29PM:
Re: Aside from the other issues involved...
Sorry, I should have explained that a little better... legitimate usage...... and that includes using Amazon unbox on my Tivo.. which admittedly is not HD yet, I am sure my content usage would go up at that point...
reply
backness @ 9th Jun 02:42PM:
Re: haha
care to put your money where your mouth is?
reply
NetAdmin @ 9th Jun 02:43PM:
Re: Overage price's seem a bit high?
said by openbox9 :
Considering ISPs providing last-mile service have additional infrastructure expansion/maintenance costs and larger support tails than co-lo facilities, the overage premiums are justifiable IMO.
To the tune of at most $1.00/GB, but numbers like $2.50+ per GB are totally out of line with the realities of providing that much transfer.
$2.50/GB of overage translates to about $810/Mbps of bandwidth used... $5.00/GB is over $1600/Mbps. Those numbers are way out of line with the realities of providing access.
reply
Millenniumle @ 9th Jun 02:43PM:
Re: ...
In a nutshell, we'll have to treat web use like long distance, and I don't think any of us sat around killing time calling long distance.
reply
Mashiki @ 9th Jun 02:59PM:
Re: Responses are the same
Sadly there is no other provider in cable land, and dsl sucks here.
reply
jjaromin @ 9th Jun 03:11PM:
Re: haha
Extremely unfair. I have DirecTV which is using your broadband connection for VOD programming. I download several free HD movies a month using this service, as well as alot more SD programming. I have 3 DVRs that are utilized by different people throughout the house with their own content and tastes. This is all legal content that could easily surpass most proposed limits that cable companies are talking about.
reply
NetAdmin @ 9th Jun 03:12PM:
Re: Overage price's seem a bit high?
said by wifi4milez :said by zod5000 :
we know wholesale bandwidth doesn't cost much more than 10 cents/gig?
10 cents a gig?? I can assure you that IP access is not 10 cents a gig from any carrier in the US (or the world). However, you can get it for $10 a gig if you are buying (generally) 10G and above.
The poster meant 10cents/GB, not 10cents/gigabit, which is in line with transit costs.
reply
robertfl @ 9th Jun 03:40PM:
Re: Aside from the other issues involved...
and what is this proving? the RIAA are the real pirates stealing from the artists.
this is about CONTROL and to remove a residential customer and only offer a business class and greed.
-Rob
--
»www.cband.info - unique radio you won't find elsewhere. join the chat and join our growing family.
reply
Nightfall @ 9th Jun 03:41PM:
Re: haha
said by backness :
care to put your money where your mouth is?
What money? Where did I mention money or a bet? Oh, thats right, I didn't.
reply
espaeth @ 9th Jun 03:54PM:
Re: Overage price's seem a bit high?
said by NetAdmin :
The poster meant 10cents/GB, not 10cents/gigabit, which is in line with transit costs.
That's in-line with transit costs if you are assuming that every megabit you purchase is 100% utilized over the month and you ignore all of the last mile costs.
reply
pfak @ 9th Jun 04:08PM:
Re: haha
How is TV show downloading legal in Canada? There is no exemption for format or time shifting in the Canadian Copyright Act, nor is there a levy that pays production companies.
Our exemptions only apply to Music at best.
Please provide me a link or some kind of reference to prove otherwise.
reply
espaeth @ 9th Jun 04:14PM:
Re: Screwed!
said by stunod2002 :
I guess this will kill the new Netflix service!!!
Watch Instantly is a free add-on to an existing NetFlix account. So you have a choice -- do you wait a day or two to get the DVD in the mail, or do you watch instantly at the possible cost of extra fees from your ISP.
reply
TigerLord @ 9th Jun 04:15PM:
Re: haha
You are allowed to digitally record something on a PVR.
You are allowed to digitally record something on a DVD using DVD Recorder for TV.
You are allowed to pass on that DVD to friends or acquaintances for their viewing pleasure, as long as you do not charge them for it.
So how is sharing it online any different from the above?
reply
Smith6612 @ 9th Jun 04:24PM:
Re: Aside from the other issues involved...
I don't think the RIAA has anything to do with Roger's capping, if I'm not mistaken.
reply
anon @ 9th Jun 04:26PM:
The way I see it
Without having read all the comments, if this was already mentioned, meh. The overages are only to a maximum of $25 a month, or so I'm told by level one tech support. We all know how reliable they are. So for an extra $25 a month, I get unlimited download, it sucks, but it's better than a $600 bill that I wasn't expecting.
Also look at it this way. I'm paying Rogers to provide me with TV, movies via TMN, and internet. What difference does it make if I get my TV at the prescribed time, via DVR, or via internet? Same for movies. If I watch a movie at 9PM, or DVR it and watch it later, what's the difference if I download the same movie and watch it later? I'm paying Rogers to provide me content, not dictate how or when I consume the content.
There is the argument that by not watching the commercials I'm stealing the content, but they're commercials, and I don't care. If I see one that's interesting I'll watch it. 98% of the rest that aren't interesting I'll fast forward, or flip channels, or leave the room to pee, or get a drink. Product placement is already a reality so I get plenty of commercialism during the actual broadcast. Not to mention the commercials I can't skip when I do go to a theatre to watch a movie.
reply
Millenniumle @ 9th Jun 04:26PM:
Re: wow.
AKA, about 15 minutes per day. Brings it into perspective.
I am glad to see that they capped the overages to $25, though. At least catastrophe is averted. I hope all ISP's at least follow this routine.
reply
anon @ 9th Jun 04:29PM:
This is good and bad
This going to happen is users are just not going to surf as much anymore.
They will have time limits to view a site,favorites list will become the in thing to use, flash player must be removed so the user doesn't have to pay for it constant use of useless ads,no more downloading music cheaper to buy in store original copy,no downloading of movies or streaming of movies,no e-mail alert from every know website you go to no on line gaming,no watching news videos cheaper to watch tv,no downloading of software cheaper to buy it in the store no more searching for endless shopping deals on google, no auto updating because some run every hour,. Well it seems like the internet may become a dead zone sooner than we all think.
Watch how it drops off and causes massive closing of websites and internet based corporation.
And those prices for the extra are just to out of this world for most users.
So enjoy the internet now because it's going to be a very lonely place and it's new name will be pay for surf
with a pricey outlook. IMO This is what i would do if my isp does the following change to the internet.
reply
pfak @ 9th Jun 04:34PM:
Re: haha
said by TigerLord :
You are allowed to digitally record something on a PVR.
You are allowed to digitally record something on a DVD using DVD Recorder for TV.
Really, where? There are no fair use provisions in our current copyright act.
reply
TigerLord @ 9th Jun 04:39PM:
Re: haha
So because it is no covered in the act it's illegal?
It's a gray area if anything.
reply
pfak @ 9th Jun 04:41PM:
Re: haha
said by TigerLord :
So because it is no covered in the act it's illegal?
It's a gray area if anything.
No, it's really not a gray area. It's called copyright infringement. Just because nobody has been prosecuted doesn't make it legal.
reply
TigerLord @ 9th Jun 04:42PM:
Re: haha
So why do they allow the sale of PVR and DVD Recording machines in Canada then?
So all the people who taped shows to a VHS all those years were infringing on the copyrights of the shows?
reply
ARGONAUT @ 9th Jun 04:42PM:
Re: :-(
said by DataDoc :said by ARGONAUT :
This is only the start.
This will start to look like a cell phone service before long. :huh:
You mean they'll rollover the unused Gigs?
Good question!
Customers could bring that up with Rogers.
"If you don't use it, why pay for it?".
--
PentiumD 930 DC 3.0GHz - 4GB PC2-4200 - 300GB SATA - BFG Nvidia 7950GT OC 512MB
- Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-1600(1101MCE) - Vista Ultimate SP1 32bit
reply
SilverSurfer @ 9th Jun 04:47PM:
Re: Responses are the same
said by Nightfall :
Checking email and the weather don't eat up hardly any bandwidth. Those people have nothing to worry about. That is not an apples to apples comparison to the person downloading gigs of bittorrent data.
So essentially what you are ASSuming and saying is that people who download over what you personally use, are automatically, and, by default downloading "illegal" content. I guess you forgot to include streaming audio and other multimedia like Netflix, et al. Nice attempts at justifying getting ass raped by these cable cos. in search of ever more money for ever decreasing product, but I remain unconvinced and your argument(s) remain uncompelling. In fact, you're starting to remind of the resident shills on this board.
reply
NetAdmin @ 9th Jun 05:04PM:
Re: Overage price's seem a bit high?
said by espaeth :said by NetAdmin :
The poster meant 10cents/GB, not 10cents/gigabit, which is in line with transit costs.
That's in-line with transit costs if you are assuming that every megabit you purchase is 100% utilized over the month and you ignore all of the last mile costs.
Try reading what I typed again... The post deals purely with transit costs. The OP and the poster that was replied were both speaking in terms of transit costs alone.
Before jumping in and trying to correct people, it is best to have some idea of what is being talked about.
reply
espaeth @ 9th Jun 05:26PM:
Re: Overage price's seem a bit high?
said by NetAdmin :
Try reading what I typed again... The post deals purely with transit costs.
The OP is trying to relate ISP per-GB charges to transit costs, when they aren't directly related.
I understand you were speaking specifically to the transit costs, but you're also trying to embrace the absolutely meaningless per-GB cost in transit costs. If I have a 100mbps transit connection billed @ $15/mbps, and I move 30GB total for the month my per-GB cost is $50/GB. It's only if I max the entire connection out at 100mbps for the entire month that I can get the cost down to the per-GB pricing you're talking about. ($1500/32,400GB = $0.05/GB)
reply
en102 @ 9th Jun 05:51PM:
Re: Aside from the other issues involved...
Did you know..
The lightest package, you can use your consumption in 1/2 day ?
Kbps KB/sec KB/day MB/day GB/day Allowance
512 64 5529600 5400 5.27 2.5 GB
1024 128 11059200 10800 10.55 25GB
7168 896 77414400 75600 73.83 60GB
10240 1280 110592000 108000 105.47 95GB
18432 2304 199065600 194400 189.84 95GB
It'll take you 1 day to download that Fedora Core ISO, and you will have used 2x your consumption .. sheesh. :uhh:
Lite with 25GB cap is somewhat more reasonable
10800MB/day, would at least give 2.5 days of continous download
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
MicaTurbo @ 9th Jun 06:01PM:
Re: haha
said by Nightfall :said by backness :
care to put your money where your mouth is?
What money? Where did I mention money or a bet? Oh, thats right, I didn't.
Umm..he never said you mentioned money. He implied that you are spewing bs out of your mouth (or i guess ur fingers :P), and asking you if you'd like to back up your statement with cash..as in a bet..
reply
backness @ 9th Jun 06:01PM:
Re: haha
then shut up.
Don't comment on others download habbits, it's not polite.
reply
NetAdmin @ 9th Jun 06:28PM:
Re: Overage price's seem a bit high?
said by espaeth :
I understand you were speaking specifically to the transit costs, but you're also trying to embrace the absolutely meaningless per-GB cost in transit costs.
Actually, it isn't meaningless to try to derive a cost per GB in terms of transit to create a baseline number for what cost per GB should be at the access portion of the network.
To claim that any terrestrial provider in the US or Canada has infrastructure costs to justify a 10+ fold increase in price per GB requires some serious justification, justification that has yet to be produced.
If I have a 100mbps transit connection billed @ $15/mbps, and I move 30GB total for the month my per-GB cost is $50/GB.
That is assuming you are paying for a 100Mbps transit connection at a CIR of 100Mbps and aren't billed with 95th percentile. Most transit providers are selling 95th percentile billed, in most cases, to the nearest Mbps, so your cost is $.50/GB. If the provider were to use billing to the nearest .5 Mbps, your cost would be $.25/GB.
Of course, when you factor in peering arrangments, cost per GB, as derived from the costs providers pay out, come down even more.
reply
netgear @ 9th Jun 06:43PM:
More than fair...
Those are very reasonable caps and overages. Were TWRR to follow suit, I think reasonable people would be hard pressed to whine.
Good job, Rogers.
reply
anon @ 9th Jun 06:50PM:
could you add that its caped at $25
You mention all other stats of the new charges accurately but you left out that its capped at $25
reply
anon @ 9th Jun 07:16PM:
Legally over the cap?
The following are legal downloads:
»newvoyages.us:1701/index.html?sort=1
"Star Trek - New voyages Ep:In Harm's Way" Size:1.34 Gigs
"Star Trek - New Voyages Ep:To Serve all my Days" Size:2.63 Gigs
"Star Trek - New Voyages Ep:Come What May" Size:3.87 gigs
There are more there to download...
A few other cap eaters:
Unreal Tournament III patch 1.1 Size:234.08 Megs
Unreal tournament III demo 741 Megs
Sins Of a Solar Empire: Size:549.1MB
Then there is streaming audio...
Downloadable tv shows For example Jericho, Seasons 1 and 2 downloadable from »www.cbs.com/primetime/jericho/video/
By the way, I have an 8 megapixel camera. My friend has a 12megapixel. Bigger ones are on the way... I can easily take over 4 gigs of photos in a month. Now, do I send my pics to one relative and ask them to forward them because my ISP caps me, or do I send my pics to all my relatives at once...
100 pics x 8 megs x 20 relatives = 1.600 gigs
And don't tell me to reduce them to a smaller size, that's not why I got an 8 megapixel camera.
Anybody who believes caps are good, is very mistaken. Do you also enjoy the $6.95 "System Access Fee" on your cellphone bill too?
reply
anon @ 9th Jun 07:47PM:
Re: haha
Four-person family, all with different tastes. That sound like a more reasonable reason to consume that much bandwidth?
That's what we've got here.
reply
mordin @ 9th Jun 07:36PM:
Re: haha
said by pfak :
How is TV show downloading legal in Canada? There is no exemption for format or time shifting in the Canadian Copyright Act, nor is there a levy that pays production companies.
We pay a levy on ALL recordable media, blank CDs, DVDs, tapes etc. The music industry in Canada went to court to try and get judgements like in the states. The court ruled that since they got the government to impose the levy they were being compensated for music downloads and couldn't go after downloaders. The ruling covers downloading music. Movies & TV shows became a gray area that got lumped in as 'sort of' included. As of yet, no one has tried to test it in a Canadian court to get it overturned. As it stands about the only ones the police will go after is major bootleggers mass producing & selling their copies.
--
Intel P4 2.8 800 fsb, Asus P4P800 w/1GB PC3200 DDR RAM, 512 MB GeForce 7600GT, SB Audigy Gamer, DVD-Rom/CD-R Burner & LG Duel layer DVD Burner, 320 & 120 GB Internal & 2x 250 & 3x 500 GB External hard drives & Samsung 226BW 22" LCD Monitor
reply
espaeth @ 9th Jun 07:50PM:
Re: Overage price's seem a bit high?
said by NetAdmin :
Actually, it isn't meaningless to try to derive a cost per GB in terms of transit to create a baseline number for what cost per GB should be at the access portion of the network.
You're trying to treat bandwidth like a physical good, which it's not. The standard economic forces of supply and demand determine pricing. If I have a demand of 5mbps against a 10,000mpbs head end circuit, my demand:supply ratio is significantly greater than, say, a DOCSIS downstream channel where it's 5mbps out of 38.
To say it costs the same to move 5mbps at both the head-end and the last mile doesn't line up with reality.
said by NetAdmin :
To claim that any terrestrial provider in the US or Canada has infrastructure costs to justify a 10+ fold increase in price per GB requires some serious justification, justification that has yet to be produced.
If capacity at the edge was equal to capacity at the head-end maybe equality would be an argument, but it's not.
said by NetAdmin :
That is assuming you are paying for a 100Mbps transit connection at a CIR of 100Mbps and aren't billed with 95th percentile. Most transit providers are selling 95th percentile billed, in most cases, to the nearest Mbps, so your cost is $.50/GB. If the provider were to use billing to the nearest .5 Mbps, your cost would be $.25/GB.
It doesn't work that way. Even under 95th percentile billing you still have to commit to a level of bandwidth purchase and then get hit with a significantly higher overage charge. Your commit level influences how much infrastructure your upstream will build out; anything above your commit level has absolutely no guarantee of availability, and budget carriers like Cogent run into drops above commit all the time because of how hot they provision their network.
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 07:55PM:
Re: haha
said by greendragon :
I think that is an unfair remark. There are plenty of free streaming sites. Just because you can afford one thing doesn't mean you can afford another.
He said he DOWNLOADED 130-150 GB a month he didn't say he STREAMED 130-150 GB worth of content. If people are going to talk about stuff they really to use the correct terminology. Streams from FREE site typically aren't over 1.5 Mbps so he'd have to stream 7 hours a day. Man he has a a lot of free time. Also if I was streaming TV 7 hours a day why even bother having cable?
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 07:58PM:
Re: haha
said by jjaromin :
Extremely unfair. I have DirecTV which is using your broadband connection for VOD programming. I download several free HD movies a month using this service, as well as alot more SD programming. I have 3 DVRs that are utilized by different people throughout the house with their own content and tastes. This is all legal content that could easily surpass most proposed limits that cable companies are talking about.
Well DirectTv better find another way to handle VOD or strike a deal with ISPs. It's a simple as that. Oh here's a solution, it's called TWO WAY satelite.
reply
NetAdmin @ 9th Jun 08:04PM:
Re: Overage price's seem a bit high?
said by espaeth :
To say it costs the same to move 5mbps at both the head-end and the last mile doesn't line up with reality.
Which is why pricing per GB is higher to the end user than it is to the provider at the network border... However, you use you cost of transit bandwidth to determine your cost of access bandwidth.
If capacity at the edge was equal to capacity at the head-end maybe equality would be an argument, but it's not.
There is no assumption that access bandwidth is equal to distribution or transit bandwidths... The assumption is that transit bandwidth is cheaper because there is more of it available when compared to access bandwidth. However, the cost differential is not 10 fold.
Even under 95th percentile billing you still have to commit to a level of bandwidth purchase and then get hit with a significantly higher overage charge.
Yes, and no one with a 100Mbps CIR is going to be transferring only 30GB in a month. Your example is unrealistic. Additionally, you didn't say that you had a 100Mbps CIR in your example, so I assumed you had a 100Mbps burstable link.
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 08:05PM:
Re: Responses are the same
said by SilverSurfer :said by Nightfall :
Checking email and the weather don't eat up hardly any bandwidth. Those people have nothing to worry about. That is not an apples to apples comparison to the person downloading gigs of bittorrent data.
So essentially what you are ASSuming and saying is that people who download over what you personally use, are automatically, and, by default downloading "illegal" content. I guess you forgot to include streaming audio and other multimedia like Netflix, et al. Nice attempts at justifying getting ass raped by these cable cos. in search of ever more money for ever decreasing product, but I remain unconvinced and your argument(s) remain uncompelling. In fact, you're starting to remind of the resident shills on this board.
first of all as soon as some mention words like bittorent or limwire and such I KNOW they are downloading illegally. I have yet to hear ONE person complain they they might go over a cap by downloading music from Itunes. Oh wait because Itunes are $1 each and to download 40 GB of music would mean you spent $8000 on music.
As far as streaming music, streaming 6 hours a day would be 10 GB a month. WELL UNDER any cap.
Netflix? Netflix downloading is all SD content. Movies typically don't reach more than 1.5 GB. 20 movies month would be 30 GB. How much is it to rent 30 movies from netflix? quite a lot. Enough to assume you can afford any overage fees.
reply
openbox9 @ 9th Jun 08:12PM:
Re: Overage price's seem a bit high?
I'm sure the prices were chosen to incentivize upselling to more lucrative tiers. Additionally, customers destined for "entry" level tiers may very well consume a larger proportion of support than the "experts" that roam forums such as DSLR. This could easily justify more expensive usage costs for entry level tiers.
reply
greendragon @ 9th Jun 08:16PM:
Re: haha
Streaming or downloading is the same, at least as it pertains to this discussion. You are using bandwidth either way.
I don't think the OP mentioned if he had cable or not, but I for one do not. while I do not stream 7 hours a day, I can certainly see reaching the cap with multiple people using 1 connection the same as I do.
--
Folding for our future!!
reply
davidbrown @ 9th Jun 08:25PM:
Re: haha
said by pfak :said by TigerLord :
So because it is no covered in the act it's illegal?
It's a gray area if anything.
No, it's really not a gray area. It's called copyright infringement. Just because nobody has been prosecuted doesn't make it legal.
LOL.
Your not grasping the concept here are you.
If there is no law against something its not illegal and only becomes illegal if a law against it is made.
Its the reason no one has been prosecuted.
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 08:49PM:
Re: Legally over the cap?
said by Fantasm :The following are legal downloads:
»
newvoyages.us:1701/index.html?sort=1"Star Trek - New voyages Ep:In Harm's Way" Size:1.34 Gigs
"Star Trek - New Voyages Ep:To Serve all my Days" Size:2.63 Gigs
"Star Trek - New Voyages Ep:Come What May" Size:3.87 gigs
I doubt the legality of those.
A few other cap eaters:
Unreal Tournament III patch 1.1 Size:234.08 Megs
Unreal tournament III demo 741 Megs
Sins Of a Solar Empire: Size:549.1MB
Total 1.6 GB who cares. Only 93.4 GB left.
Then there is streaming audio...
most is 128 kbps. 6 hours day = 10 GB a month
Ok let's get out terms right. Those are STREAMING episodes not downloadable episodes. Cbs and companies like that don't stream over 1.5 Mbps if that. I hour of streaming Tv a day would be 20 GB a month at best.
By the way, I have an 8 megapixel camera. My friend has a 12megapixel. Bigger ones are on the way... I can easily take over 4 gigs of photos in a month. Now, do I send my pics to one relative and ask them to forward them because my ISP caps me, or do I send my pics to all my relatives at once...
100 pics x 8 megs x 20 relatives = 1.600 gigs
And don't tell me to reduce them to a smaller size, that's not why I got an 8 megapixel camera.
there is ZERO reason to send a 8 MP picture over the internet unless it's for business. I guess you're one of those suckers that thinks the more MP a camera has got the better pictures it takes. You realize even a 30" monitor at 2560X1600 is only 4 MP. And you only need a 6-7 MP camera to take really good 11X14 shots. 11X14 at 200 DPI is 6 MP. So why would you be sending 8 MP shots? Even at 8 MP is you're sending in jpeg format that wouldn't even be 4 MB. That comes to 8 GB if that.
I call bullshit on you.
Anybody who believes caps are good, is very mistaken.
just shows how ignorant you are.
You know in fantasyland we'd all have 100 Mbps connection with unlimited bandwidth and hell the service would be 100% free, cable would be free, phone would be free, electricity would be free, gas would be free, housing would be free, food would be free etc etc. Um..but we live in a place called the REAL WORLD.
reply
Nightfall @ 9th Jun 08:50PM:
Re: Responses are the same
said by SilverSurfer :said by Nightfall :
Checking email and the weather don't eat up hardly any bandwidth. Those people have nothing to worry about. That is not an apples to apples comparison to the person downloading gigs of bittorrent data.
So essentially what you are ASSuming and saying is that people who download over what you personally use, are automatically, and, by default downloading "illegal" content. I guess you forgot to include streaming audio and other multimedia like Netflix, et al. Nice attempts at justifying getting ass raped by these cable cos. in search of ever more money for ever decreasing product, but I remain unconvinced and your argument(s) remain uncompelling. In fact, you're starting to remind of the resident shills on this board.
First, did I mention a number or are you stuffing words in my mouth? Secondly, I asked for an apples to apples comparison. Someone who downloads illegal movies, games, music and applications from bittorrent and someone who downloads heavily from itunes, netflix, and other legit places.
Why not just remove my quote and type in what you wanted me to say and then rebut it.
reply
SLD @ 9th Jun 09:34PM:
Re: Legally over the cap?
Yes, umm "we" do.
reply
Woody79_00 @ 9th Jun 09:41PM:
ahh another way to sqeeze every dime they can out of someone
Anyone who supports a bandwidth cap garbage is nothing more than a coporate nazi!
look lets take comcast for example....at lets say 60 million subscribers...at 42 bucks per subscriber
that comes out to be:252,000000
now lets subtract 31% for taxes state and local
comes out to be 7,812,000,00 we will round it off and say 8 million even
now we will say paying their employess comprises 37%
that comes out to be 9, 324,000,000 we will just say an even 9 mill for sake of this argument
it cost them 16% for electic, bills for keeping up buildings, equipment, etc
comes out to be 4,320,00,00 we will just say 4 million for simplicity
they pay out around 21 million a month in average expendetures and taxes
they gross in a months time 231 million!
per month...and they claim they need a bandwidth cap!? are you crazy
i was very "generous" on the number of subscribers comcast has and the price plan they have..i said 42 bucks, its more like 53 or more
im sorry but im not even counting the ad revenue they make from such vendor
if you cna even justify a bandwidth cap and usage..then we might as well call this corporate bullying
the federal givenment gives them "millions and millions" of OUR hard earned tax dollars a year...and you would deal with a cap
we are being robbed in every way imaginable and people put up with it
American needs to wake up, if they starts this crap, customers should bail in drives..get 30 or 40 million people to drop their service, they will come around....and see things our way
reply
TZi @ 9th Jun 10:26PM:
Re: Aside from the other issues involved...
said by Smith6612 :
I don't think the RIAA has anything to do with Roger's capping, if I'm not mistaken.
yup especially considering Rogers is Canadian, and the Recording Industry Association of America might have little pull in Canada but I could me mistaking since any Canadian artist of notoriety inevitably signs to an American label.... is there an RIAC????
--
128kbps too much, 100GBps never enough!
reply
strange_69 @ 9th Jun 10:26PM:
Who decides what's reasonable?
These caps are just as stupid as the baseline in your electric bill. If 1% of the users out there are using 20% of the bandwidth, why not use that as a way to tier your rates? Like if you are in the top 1% of the bandwidth users for that month you get charged and extra 50$ or something like that. Like it or not, with voip, internet TV and Movie services starting up on the internet people are going to reach those caps very quickly even using legitimate services. So let's see now, ISPs never deliver on their advertised speeds, they sell our private data without giving us a choice via the TOS, instead of keeping their infrastructure up to date they call us bandwidth hogs, they do everything in their power to get rid of competition so you have to except their POS TOS. I know that this is all just good business but come on. If this keeps up more and more people are going to call for them to get regulated. Their greed is going to mess up their good thing.
--
Vonage user since Mar 2004.
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 11:00PM:
Re: ahh another way to sqeeze every dime they can out of someone
You realize this article is about a CANADIAN company. Secondly which ISP has 60 million customers? at&t is #1 last time I checked and that have under 20 million.
also you math is WAY off. Stop trying.
Also you should be banned for calling people Nazis. I could be jewish and maybe I had family killed by REAL Nazis. And maybe I am offended by being lumped in with those people.
I don't think Comcast's proposed cap of 250 GB is worth bitching about. That's more than generous.n even this candian cap at 95 is a little smaller than I'd think would be best ther overages are capped at $25 so it's not like you're going to have a $300 internet bill.
So yes TW cap is stupidly small. Yes overage fees of $1 or more per GB are outrageous. Lowering SPEED would solve bandwidth issue for going over a cap would do better than charging extra. If I'm a millionaire do I care if I'm paying $1 per GB over? Hell no.
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 11:02PM:
Re: Who decides what's reasonable?
said by strange_69 :
These caps are just as stupid as the baseline in your electric bill. If 1% of the users out there are using 20% of the bandwidth, why not use that as a way to tier your rates?
TW is doing that supposedly. They claim only 1% of their users use more than 40 GB.
reply
BF69 @ 9th Jun 11:14PM:
Re: haha
said by greendragon :
Streaming or downloading is the same, at least as it pertains to this discussion. You are using bandwidth either way.
Sure, but if you download an episode of a show say from Amazon unbox that will use nearly twice the bandwidth as watching streamed version on cbs.com or wherever so it kind of matters.
Also I can see why someone who already paid for a show at Amazon then having to pay even more because of the bandwith would be mad. If you're watching shit for free from a website, well it's free.
I don't think the OP mentioned if he had cable or not, but I for one do not. while I do not stream 7 hours a day, I can certainly see reaching the cap with multiple people using 1 connection the same as I do.
I'm just saying if I'm watching that much TV online I'd save $60 a month and dump cable. That $60 could help pay for overage fees.
With multiple users it may be that you'd have to have multiple accounts. If my ISPs starting capping and in 3 years when my son is old enough to work if he just has to use so much we'd go over a cap he's just going to have to pay for his own connection.
reply
anon @ 10th Jun 02:41AM:
Re: More than fair...
I wouldn't whine. I would call TW and say they can either get $150/month that I'm paying now for rr/HDcable/phone and waive all overage fees...or get $0 from me and I take my business elsewhere. $150 or $0. Seems pretty simple for them to make a decision. If they think my switching costs are high enough to prevent me from leaving they are stuck in 1999.
reply
anon @ 9th Jun 11:37PM:
Re: Aside from the other issues involved...
Huh? You can do more than 20 to 30 gigabytes in one day just watching a few high definition trailers. Heck you can do even more than that with your computer turned off for the whole month.
reply
anon @ 9th Jun 11:38PM:
Fair Exchange of Value
If Rogers is to bill for overages, should they not be held legally responsible for providing all the advertised/contracted basics of the service package/tier for which a customer has paid (bandwidth, speed, uptime,etc.)? Or thus this only work if Rogers delivers less than contracted yet charges more by fraudulent actions?
reply
pfak @ 10th Jun 12:38AM:
Re: haha
said by davidbrown :
If there is no law against something its not illegal and only becomes illegal if a law against it is made.
Its the reason no one has been prosecuted.
The thing is, there is a law against it. You are not permitted to redistribute copyrighted works without written permission of the copyright holder.
There is an exemption for Music, there is no exemption for TV shows or Movies.
reply
DJMASACRE @ 10th Jun 12:59AM:
pathetic.
hah.
what a joke.
This is my typical usage for the last 2 months. as I pay for a 6MB service and expect to use it to its full potential.
April
Upload Download Hours Online Total 86.19 GB 560.64 GB 607 646.83 GB
May
Upload Download Hours Online Total Gig
27.43GB 108.84 GB 203 136.27 GB
Now this is why i couldnt even bother with rogers or bell.
Im not part of the lame facebook generation, and i will not pay for a cheap worthless ringtone on my phone i dont need.
reply
davidbrown @ 10th Jun 02:04AM:
Re: haha
said by pfak :said by davidbrown :
If there is no law against something its not illegal and only becomes illegal if a law against it is made.
Its the reason no one has been prosecuted.
The thing is, there is a law against it. You are not permitted to redistribute copyrighted works without written permission of the copyright holder.
There is an exemption for Music, there is no exemption for TV shows or Movies.
Ohh you mean the one were the broadcasting rights belong to owners in the states?
Bell actually owns none of the programing rights and the same goes for rogers.
Its actually their own fault in how they worded it and none of our present copyright laws cover the present state of things.
Its the same basic problem that happened with small amounts of weed sometime back, thanks to the goverments foolishness we ended up with no law that covered things.
Not to say local broadcasts aren't covered but for the most part they tend to be free anyway.
reply
HotRodFoto @ 10th Jun 07:21AM:
18 Meg and 95 GIG...
I am getting sick of these damn companies today stickin' it to the consumer., How's it feel to be going into reverse everyone! The more companies that do this, the more consumers are getting bent over. This stuff does nothing but stifle innovation and make these companies a lotta extra cash. As if we aren't hurting enuff these days as it is.....95 Gig cap on a 18 Mbit line is not only sad...it's almost comical. Why have such high speeds if you are going to just cap it so low?? Oh ya, money once again....
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com
reply
HotRodFoto @ 10th Jun 07:24AM:
Re: Legally over the cap?
said by Fantasm :
By the way, I have an 8 megapixel camera. My friend has a 12megapixel. Bigger ones are on the way... I can easily take over 4 gigs of photos in a month. Now, do I send my pics to one relative and ask them to forward them because my ISP caps me, or do I send my pics to all my relatives at once...
100 pics x 8 megs x 20 relatives = 1.600 gigs
And don't tell me to reduce them to a smaller size, that's not why I got an 8 megapixel camera.
4 Gigs? I shoot almost twice that on every shoot I go on ! lol
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com
reply
HotRodFoto @ 10th Jun 07:30AM:
Re: Legally over the cap?
said by BF69 :said by Fantasm :The following are legal downloads:
»
newvoyages.us:1701/index.html?sort=1"Star Trek - New voyages Ep:In Harm's Way" Size:1.34 Gigs
"Star Trek - New Voyages Ep:To Serve all my Days" Size:2.63 Gigs
"Star Trek - New Voyages Ep:Come What May" Size:3.87 gigs
I doubt the legality of those.
A few other cap eaters:
Unreal Tournament III patch 1.1 Size:234.08 Megs
Unreal tournament III demo 741 Megs
Sins Of a Solar Empire: Size:549.1MB
Total 1.6 GB who cares. Only 93.4 GB left.
Then there is streaming audio...
most is 128 kbps. 6 hours day = 10 GB a month
Ok let's get out terms right. Those are STREAMING episodes not downloadable episodes. Cbs and companies like that don't stream over 1.5 Mbps if that. I hour of streaming Tv a day would be 20 GB a month at best.
By the way, I have an 8 megapixel camera. My friend has a 12megapixel. Bigger ones are on the way... I can easily take over 4 gigs of photos in a month. Now, do I send my pics to one relative and ask them to forward them because my ISP caps me, or do I send my pics to all my relatives at once...
100 pics x 8 megs x 20 relatives = 1.600 gigs
And don't tell me to reduce them to a smaller size, that's not why I got an 8 megapixel camera.
there is ZERO reason to send a 8 MP picture over the internet unless it's for business. I guess you're one of those suckers that thinks the more MP a camera has got the better pictures it takes. You realize even a 30" monitor at 2560X1600 is only 4 MP. And you only need a 6-7 MP camera to take really good 11X14 shots. 11X14 at 200 DPI is 6 MP. So why would you be sending 8 MP shots? Even at 8 MP is you're sending in jpeg format that wouldn't even be 4 MB. That comes to 8 GB if that.
I call bullshit on you.
Anybody who believes caps are good, is very mistaken.
just shows how ignorant you are.
You know in fantasyland we'd all have 100 Mbps connection with unlimited bandwidth and hell the service would be 100% free, cable would be free, phone would be free, electricity would be free, gas would be free, housing would be free, food would be free etc etc. Um..but we live in a place called the REAL WORLD.
0 reason to send a 8MP image over the net? I call bullshit on you! How about wallpapers? I send 8mp images over the net every day, it's called "You need high quality images to have high quality prints through your online photo developer". The bigger the image, the better. Period. Caps are NOT god by any means, and you apparently are NOT thinking outside the box at all. Think of all the money invested by other companies besides ISP's in video. ABC, Youtube, on and on, and I won't even start on social networking sites. You can watch movies via Netflic now online. These ISP's aren't only stifling technology for the consumer, but also other companies as well and I HOPE these companies come together and take the ISP's right to court! This is NOTHING short of a money grab and bending over the consumer, period! Ironic isn't it that we all the sudden get faster speeds, DOCIS 3 is coming, and now this crap. Don't ya think there's something a tad wrong and fishy there?
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com
reply
HotRodFoto @ 10th Jun 07:37AM:
Re: ahh another way to sqeeze every dime they can out of someone
said by BF69 :
You realize this article is about a CANADIAN company. Secondly which ISP has 60 million customers? at&t is #1 last time I checked and that have under 20 million.
also you math is WAY off. Stop trying.
Also you should be banned for calling people Nazis. I could be jewish and maybe I had family killed by REAL Nazis. And maybe I am offended by being lumped in with those people.
I don't think Comcast's proposed cap of 250 GB is worth bitching about. That's more than generous.n even this candian cap at 95 is a little smaller than I'd think would be best ther overages are capped at $25 so it's not like you're going to have a $300 internet bill.
So yes TW cap is stupidly small. Yes overage fees of $1 or more per GB are outrageous. Lowering SPEED would solve bandwidth issue for going over a cap would do better than charging extra. If I'm a millionaire do I care if I'm paying $1 per GB over? Hell no.
OT but isn't banning someone for calling someone a Nazi in itself a nazi like action? Sorry, had to lol
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com
reply
BF69 @ 10th Jun 12:07PM:
Re: Legally over the cap?
said by HotRodFoto :
0 reason to send a 8MP image over the net? I call bullshit on you! How about wallpapers? I send 8mp images over the net every day, it's called "You need high quality images to have high quality prints through your online photo developer". The bigger the image, the better.
wallpapers? Unless you've got a 30 inch monitor you don't need a 8 MP wallpapper. Even then I doubt you do. You can not tell a differnce on a 24 inch or smaller monitor between a wallpapper that is 8 MP or 2 MP.
Also let just go ahead an assume you have a "need" to consistantly send 8 MP over the internet completely uncompressed that has nothing do with business ...cough.... cough.( I mean if you were using them for business that might require you to get a business account with you ISP ) well that would be, what, 24 MB. So if you were on Rogers 95 GB cap plan and used half your cap to used for sending uncompressed 8 MP images you could send 2000 pics a month. Of course if you sent them in the highest quality jpeg format you could send 12,000. So what is your issue again?
Also I'm not sure what Rogers highest upload speed is, but assuming it's 2 Mbps then you'd spend 53 hours a month sending 2000 uncompressed 8 MP pictures. That's quite a "hobby"
reply
BF69 @ 10th Jun 12:11PM:
Re: pathetic.
said by DJMASACRE :
hah.
what a joke.
This is my typical usage for the last 2 months. as I pay for a 6MB service and expect to use it to its full potential.
April
Upload Download Hours Online Total 86.19 GB 560.64 GB 607 646.83 GB
May
Upload Download Hours Online Total Gig
27.43GB 108.84 GB 203 136.27 GB
Now this is why i couldnt even bother with rogers or bell.
Im not part of the lame facebook generation, and i will not pay for a cheap worthless ringtone on my phone i dont need.
What were you doing LEGALY that also doesn't require a business account that you used over 600 GB in a month. I'm curious.
reply
itguy05 @ 10th Jun 02:30PM:
Re: Legally over the cap?
quote:
wallpapers? Unless you've got a 30 inch monitor you don't need a 8 MP wallpapper. Even then I doubt you do. You can not tell a differnce on a 24 inch or smaller monitor between a wallpapper that is 8 MP or 2 MP.
Let me just say as a photographer: YOU ARE WRONG. There, I said it.
1) I'd almost guarantee I could tell the difference on my 20" display between a 2 and an 8MP image as a wallpaper. Especially if there's any cropping done to fit the aspect ratio.
2) For printing, you want 300-360 DPI (depending on the printer). Some want more. So for uploading to Shutterfly, Mpix, Costco, etc. you want to send the whole huge file. Not to mention on many prints there is some sort of cropping needed. So you want all the pixels.
4) It is generally accepted that for best quality at every level you record in the highest resolution and crop as the next to last step (last is sharpening). It's why the images from my 12MP camera blow away the 3.3MP camera on screen.
So, yes there are valid reasons.
quote:
Also I'm not sure what Rogers highest upload speed is, but assuming it's 2 Mbps then you'd spend 53 hours a month sending 2000 uncompressed 8 MP pictures. That's quite a "hobby"
Apparently you have no friends, family, etc that live far away. Very easy to throw my pics up on a website, and let them download the ones that they want to print, all in their 12MP glory.
reply
Guspaz @ 10th Jun 04:25PM:
Re: Aside from the other issues involved...
"a few"? Assuming 5mbit/s video, 30GB would take 819 minutes (about 14 hours). If we assume trailers are 90 seconds each, you could watch 546 trailers on 30GB.
reply
HotRodFoto @ 10th Jun 04:28PM:
Re: Legally over the cap?
I send images that are continually over 18 megs straight to Mpix, and ya many others do as well. And yes u CAN tell the difference on a 24 screen from a 2mp to a 8mp :rolls eyes: If that was the case then there would be no need for high res images for web use on stock agency sites.
Now let's go in and add in online backup from say.....Mozy.com , streaming radio from shoutcast or Sirius, and you can see where this is going. A 95 Gig cap is to small and if you THINK that is heavy users then maybe you need to take a look at Comcast who is 250.
It's a money grab, plain and simple. It isn't hard to see it either.
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com
reply
Guspaz @ 10th Jun 04:29PM:
Re: More than fair...
They don't seem reasonable to me.
My ISP provides, with my $30/mth DSL service (5mbit), 200GB transfer, overage charges of $0.25 per GB. I can also extend my cap by 100GB for $10/mth, or $0.10 per GB.
My ISP also measures your bandwidth usage as the average over the last two months to help users avoid getting charged for spikes in usage; they know that the usage spikes of individual users averages out over their multi-gigabit network, so it doesn't really hurt them to measure like that.
Now, my ISP is already charging me up to 10x cost (a 1000% markup) for that overage. I don't mind, though, because my ISP's prices and policies are reasonable. They deserve to make a bit of money.
Rogers, on the other hand, has got a ~16000% markup. To me, that is completely insane.
EDIT: I'll note that many major ISPs in Canada have had caps and overage charges for years now (5+ for some like Bell, though that was on and off), so it's not as big a deal up here.
reply
netgear @ 10th Jun 04:43PM:
Re: More than fair...
Bottom-line: I'm all for paying more, if I get more. It's to their advantage to improve their infrastructure when revenues increase. Improved infrastructure means improved services.
So, I'm all for paying more. I'm also for socking every lousy, thieving, bandwidth hog out there, who isn't willing to pay more, thereby improving the overall high-speed experience.
:D
reply
Guspaz @ 10th Jun 05:10PM:
Re: More than fair...
Some people might call me a bandwidth hog for using 180GB in a month. Except... That's still under my cap, and doesn't even incur overage charges :P
reply
DJMASACRE @ 10th Jun 09:46PM:
Re: pathetic.
said by BF69 :said by DJMASACRE :
hah.
what a joke.
This is my typical usage for the last 2 months. as I pay for a 6MB service and expect to use it to its full potential.
April
Upload Download Hours Online Total 86.19 GB 560.64 GB 607 646.83 GB
May
Upload Download Hours Online Total Gig
27.43GB 108.84 GB 203 136.27 GB
Now this is why i couldnt even bother with rogers or bell.
Im not part of the lame facebook generation, and i will not pay for a cheap worthless ringtone on my phone i dont need.
What were you doing LEGALY that also doesn't require a business account that you used over 600 GB in a month. I'm curious.
See, this is when people start to cut into the fact that, we pay for bandwidth, so it should not matter what its used for either way .. maybe i like to download ubuntu iso's 24/7 just for fun ... perfectly legal ... pointless ? maybe ..
so it makes no difference.
maybe i share a house with 6 people connected wireless... we all accumulate to 600gb a month .
either way this has no meaning to why i cant download as a i please to my full bandwidth 24/7, as my package i sign up for describes.
period =)
reply
BF69 @ 10th Jun 10:58PM:
Re: pathetic.
said by DJMASACRE :said by BF69 :said by DJMASACRE :
hah.
what a joke.
This is my typical usage for the last 2 months. as I pay for a 6MB service and expect to use it to its full potential.
April
Upload Download Hours Online Total 86.19 GB 560.64 GB 607 646.83 GB
May
Upload Download Hours Online Total Gig
27.43GB 108.84 GB 203 136.27 GB
Now this is why i couldnt even bother with rogers or bell.
Im not part of the lame facebook generation, and i will not pay for a cheap worthless ringtone on my phone i dont need.
What were you doing LEGALY that also doesn't require a business account that you used over 600 GB in a month. I'm curious.
See, this is when people start to cut into the fact that, we pay for bandwidth, so it should not matter what its used for either way .. maybe i like to download ubuntu iso's 24/7 just for fun ... perfectly legal ... pointless ? maybe ..
so it makes no difference.
maybe i share a house with 6 people connected wireless... we all accumulate to 600gb a month .
either way this has no meaning to why i cant download as a i please to my full bandwidth 24/7, as my package i sign up for describes.
period =)
Then get 6 accounts
reply
Ulmo @ 10th Jun 11:16PM:
At least $1.25/GB is not too horrible, but that will change.
At least $1.25/GB is not too horrible, but that will change. The price per data transfer amount will have to go down, not up. Also, the content providers will have to charge less for their content, i.e., this will force us to find content that charges less per amount of quality and quantity, and legitimize that even more.
reply
karotech @ 11th Jun 12:49PM:
Re: At least $1.25/GB is not too horrible, but that will change.
The bottom line here is that the Cable companies are horrified that people is going to start watching TV on the internet, and they will loose the TV subscription money. Capping bandwidth is their way to prevent people from doing that...
The way I see it, this is fine in areas where there isn't a monopoly by one company. If they all do it then we're pretty much screwed.
reply
NetAdmin @ 11th Jun 07:50PM:
Re: Legally over the cap?
said by BF69 :said by Fantasm :The following are legal downloads:
»
newvoyages.us:1701/index.html?sort=1"Star Trek - New voyages Ep:In Harm's Way" Size:1.34 Gigs
"Star Trek - New Voyages Ep:To Serve all my Days" Size:2.63 Gigs
"Star Trek - New Voyages Ep:Come What May" Size:3.87 gigs
I doubt the legality of those.
»www.startreknewvoyages.com/episodes.html
100% legal apparently...
reply
anon @ 12th Jun 01:11AM:
Re: wow.
Huh??!! Look again, there is no ceiling limit you could be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars a month.
reply
anon @ 12th Jun 01:14AM:
Re: The way I see it
I don't know where you get your information but if you go to rogers' website you'll find there's no ceiling limit meaning you could be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars each and every month.
reply
anon @ 12th Jun 01:17AM:
Re: could you add that its caped at $25
Bollocks!! There is no limit only how much money they can take from your bank account. Where did you dream up 25 dollars from?
reply
anon @ 12th Jun 01:11PM:
I have already ordered my new ISP package
I gave my notice to Robbers already. I am moving my phone and internet and cell service.
reply
ltjordan @ 13th Jun 08:57PM:
Re: Tiers.
The Ultra Lite tier is an ultra joke. I hope they're not charging more than $10.00/month.
reply
jonnyz @ 14th Jun 03:43PM:
Re: haha
said by pfak :said by davidbrown :
If there is no law against something its not illegal and only becomes illegal if a law against it is made.
Its the reason no one has been prosecuted.
The thing is, there is a law against it. You are not permitted to redistribute copyrighted works without written permission of the copyright holder.
There is an exemption for Music, there is no exemption for TV shows or Movies.
You missed a part - you need written consent if it involves public viewing, multiple copies/mass distribution, or any monetary gain. If it is only for personal use, you're fine. As for sharing it, you must have never lent anything to anybody in your life, because there's nothing wrong with that in my eyes.
--
Join the RC5 team.
reply
BarterFrost @ 15th Jun 08:40AM:
Re: haha
said by BF69 :
Yeah right. Please provide examples.
I get almost all of my shows from revision3.org.
reply
strange_69 @ 19th Jun 06:18PM:
Re: Who decides what's reasonable?
Wow, you mean the other 99% are lamers that only check their E-mail. You can do that with dial up. It's time for ISPs to wake up and realize that people are actually going to use the internet. For $65/month I expect to have speeds close to advertised speeds and to be able to use my voip carrier and be able to watch movies on netflix. Also, there are a whole bunch of neat things out there that are going to need more bandwidth in the future. It would hurt the economy to penalize bandwidth use.
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC
