250GB isnt bad for now. In 5 years when HD online movie rentals are hitting mainstream not so much. At 10-15GB a movie one can hit that cap pretty quick.
fatpat268
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2006
- 5,853
- 0
- 71
Exactly.
This cap doesn't affect me much ( I don't have comcast, nor do I use that much bandwidth), but it's the principle of the matter. Who's to say that ISPs won't consistently lower their caps every year? Down to 200gb, 150gb, ect.
Another problem, is the rising increase of bandwidth used. More and more things are using internet connections. Five years ago, the norm may have been less than 2 gb a month. Today, I'm betting the average user (excluding email checking grandmas) will use about 10-15 gb a month. Who's to say in a few more years that the avg won't be 50-100 a month. That's just on the low end. Your power users will increase at the same rate. While a "power user" may only use ~100gb a month now, they may use 500gb a month in two years.
With so many media options available on the internet nowadays, it's ridiculous to assume that everyone who uses that much bandwidth is a pirate. You have iTunes movies, Movies on the 360 and PS3, Netflix (which probably will be even more prevalent when it's available on the 360), and Steam.
Your average HD movie can be 7gb per movie. Netflix's movies typically are around 2gb (or less, depends on your connection), and Steam of course allows you to purchase games that are8gb plus. If you use other services like slingbox, that can add up. The list just goes on and on.
Instead of offering more, like companies done in the past, they offer less. Like I said, it doesn't effect me now at all, it's more of the principle of the matter.
Anubis
No Lifer
actually verizon is spending a large fortune of money rolling out FIOS, a HUGE FUCK TON of money
comcrap and any other ISP coudl be doing it as well but is a gamble on the payoff
They are paying a fuck ton to roll out 20/20. To roll out something roughly a 5th of that should cost, well, a 5th of a fuck ton. This should be more than manageable considering the arm and leg cost of the current package. Haha....Comcast...smaller package....I made myself laugh 
Actually the answer really is simple.
Verizon is greenfield. greenfield is ALWAYS cheaper. greenfield being "New Network" instead of trying to upgrade capital assets that are already on the books. Replacing not fully depreciated assets is murder for any company, it's the same as Target building a new Target in the same spot within 10 years.
Verizon is taking a huge capital gamble and it looks like it is going to pay off - get the fiber to the home and worry about the costs later. Cable was like that and with DOCSIS 3.0 they (cable MSOs) are able to compete.
To put it simply, you come to me and say "upgrade my PC so I can run the latest and greatest games, but I still have 2 years left to pay for my PC"
"Well, your best bet is to replace that PC"
"I can't do that, because my PC is a capital asset and the depreciation is built in to my business."
Analysis is performed and it's determined it's better to keep and upgrade PC from a financial perspective. It isn't pretty, the accounting involved. THAT's why greenfield is so easy - no capital assets to replace, it's all new.
Then why not only cap in the areas that are feeling the biggest crunch?
Take my college town for example. I could hardly see the infrastructure here in Morgantown being crunched. Why cap someone here if it isn't hurting the network as a whole.
Also, why not make the caps a transient deal. Say for example, NYC. Comcast says there will be a cap for 1 year at 250 GB for NYC Comcast customers. That gives Comcast 12 months to play catch up and actually have their systems up to par. If Denver isn't feeling the heat, why cap them? This way they can focus their capitol to make the improvements where they are most needed. The users who will be capped also get the added benefit of having a more capable network waiting for them after the cap is no longer needed.
Maybe I'm just making too much sense here.
Take my college town for example. I could hardly see the infrastructure here in Morgantown being crunched. Why cap someone here if it isn't hurting the network as a whole.
Also, why not make the caps a transient deal. Say for example, NYC. Comcast says there will be a cap for 1 year at 250 GB for NYC Comcast customers. That gives Comcast 12 months to play catch up and actually have their systems up to par. If Denver isn't feeling the heat, why cap them? This way they can focus their capitol to make the improvements where they are most needed. The users who will be capped also get the added benefit of having a more capable network waiting for them after the cap is no longer needed.
Maybe I'm just making too much sense here.
novasatori
Diamond Member
- Feb 27, 2003
- 3,851
- 1
- 0
if it improves my net that's cool, i dl a ton of stuff especially of msdn & msdnaa and I dont get near 250gb/month, least its not like 5gb/week-30gb/mo like some services i've seen.
I do think there is a problem with advertising as unlimited high speed tho - they need to state the caps otherwise its just BS imo.
I do think there is a problem with advertising as unlimited high speed tho - they need to state the caps otherwise its just BS imo.
Because the pipes and equipment connecting all of those service areas are part of Comcast's transport network with certain exchange points along the way to get that network in that area on The Internet. Given that Comcast is a multi system operator the transport and exchange and overall operations of those networks have a cost. Those are costs to the company as a whole and are spread out for economies of scale.
Every service area is feeling the heat and it's the long haul transport services that cost so damn much. Bandwidth isn't free, and distance HURTS.
SoulAssassin
Diamond Member
- Feb 1, 2001
- 6,135
- 2
- 0
Everyone get ready for the call from their mother/grandmom/distant relative that they got hit by spyware which sat there churning out spam as fast as possible and scanning for vulnerable machines attempting to spread and now they have a bill for $500 because of the bandwidth used by the spyware.
Little secret - those layer7 patterns are known and don't count. Why do you think deep packet inspection/monitoring is all the rage?
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Good for Comcast, I say. 250GB cap is very reasonable IMO, and should hopefully weed out the serious abusers.
elmer92413
Senior member
- Oct 23, 2004
- 659
- 0
- 0
That's a horrible attitude to have.
You might as well ask why you should do anything good that will affect anybody else.
Thanks the gods that be that the abolitionist didn't have that attitude or those who fought for human rights or those who give to charity or those who volunteer or those who....!
That aside, is this cap in software gigabytes or hardware gigabytes? That's not really going to matter a whole lot but for that matter are we sure it's bytes and not bits like the rest of their speed measurements:evil:? I wouldn't put it past them.
I have a crystal ball I would like to sell you. Me personally I can only look about 3-5 years into the future of network communications. You may want to look into depreciation schedules of network gear. Hell, any capital depreciation schedule.
I skimmed the thread & didn't see an answer to this. Does anyone know I can use DD-WRT or Tomato to monitor our monthly usage? I do a fair amount of Usenet downloading and I share the connection with two other people, so I'd like to get a feel for our total monthly usage. Thanks.
(currently running DD-WRT on my WRT-54G v4 if it matters)
(currently running DD-WRT on my WRT-54G v4 if it matters)
Yes, DD-WRT has a daily bandwidth bar graph and also a real-time bandwidth graph.
Goto Status->WAN to see the bar graphs, and Status->Bandwidth to see the real-time graphs.
novasatori
Diamond Member
- Feb 27, 2003
- 3,851
- 1
- 0
i dont like the idea of the cap but if it has to be done why not do it like cell phones and have non-peak hours allow more downloading than on peak hours
Straw man. They don't have to supply EVERYONE.
Apparently 1% of *million users can destroy profits for a company and also ruin the internet experience for people who check e-mail and go to eBay once a week. BULL. SHIT.
Complete bullshit.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter